Archive
The unmitigated audacity of John Key and John Banks
.
This is how a politician owns up to a mistake,
.
Acknowledgement: Radio NZ
.
Then there are politicians who continually blames others or claim to “forget”, when it’s obvious they are lying.
John Key’s talent for blaming others for his own stuff-ups is fast becoming becoming legendary,
.
.
Key’s habitual finger-pointing currently extends to blaming Solid Energy’s debt crisis on it’s Board; management; coal prices; global financial crisis, and uncle Tom Cobbly. He takes no responsibility for his own Ministers demanding higher debt gearing levels and dividend payouts which helped plunge Solid Energy into a financial hole,
He’s [John Key] blaming the previous Labour Government, including former state owned enterprises minister Trevor Mallard who encouraged the company to expand in 2007, and citing a Cabinet paper supporting that stance.
“They can’t wash their hands of the fact that from 2003 on, they were intimately involved with the plans that that company had,” Mr Key said.
Acknowledgement: TV3
It was put to the PM that Solid Energy seemed to have been working with a “pretty high-risk” strategy. He responded by saying that all of these things were operational matters — he added that “if National’s to blame, then so’s Labour”. He said that the management and the board are responsible for the balance-sheet.
Acknowledgement: Scoop.co.nz
Board at fault for Solid Energy debt, not Govt – Key
Mr Key denied the Government was responsible for the company’s woes, despite encouraging the board to take on debt in 2009 and expecting it to pay a dividend.
They made some investments in core assets and those didn’t work out either, and the coal price collapsed.
Acknowledgement: MSN News
So everyone was to blame for Solid Energy’s collapse – except National which has been in power for four years and bled the company dry with demands for high dividends.
Then there are times in politics that politicians make utterances that are breath-taking in unmitigated audacity,
.
Acknowledgement: Radio NZ
.
This is one such instance – John Banks, whose memory was so “bad” that he forgot his close relationship with a rather large German multi-millionaire; a helicopter flight to one of the biggest mansions in New Zealand; and who forgot $50,000 cheques for donations for his electoral campaign.
.
John Banks says he never lied about internet billionaire Kim Dotcom’s $50,000 donation to his 2010 mayoral campaign but says he erred in not answering questions about the affair more openly.
But Mr Banks denied misleading the public about the donations and events around them, including a helicopter ride to Dotcom’s mansion which he has said he cannot remember.
“I didn’t lie. There’s no reason to believe that I lied. I simply couldn’t recall.”
Acknowledgement: NZ Herald
.
For someone with “nothing to hide” ACT leader and former Auckland mayor John Banks is doing an awfully good job of creating the impression there are some things he would rather keep to himself.
He has refused to confirm he solicited a donation from internet billionaire Kim Dotcom for his 2010 mayoral campaign and refused to confirm he asked that the $50,000 donation be split into two $25,000 payments.
He has also said he does not remember who donated money to his mayoral campaign, does not remember discussing money with Dotcom and his staff and, till yesterday, could not remember flying to Dotcom’s Coatesville mansion in Dotcom’s helicopter.
Either Mr Banks is suffering from the early onset of Alzheimer’s or he thinks honest answers to the questions raised by the revelation that Dotcom was an undisclosed donor to his campaign will reflect poorly on him.
Acknowledgement: Dominion Post – Editorial: Bad memory or poor judgment?
John Key and John Banks are now attempting to compare David Shearer’s omission for declaring his New York-based bank account.
Key said,
“People make mistakes. I make mistakes and when I do, I try and tell people I’ve made them. It’s just that you don’t get cut any slack from the Labour Party when you say you’ve made a mistake, but when they make one they don’t want anyone to have a look at it.”
Acknowledgement: NZ Herald – Key weighs in on Shearer’s $50,000 ‘oversight’
And John “I-can’t-recall” Banks added his own 2 cents worth,
“Shearer is on record as saying those who suffer from a memory lapse aren’t fit to hold office. Shearer’s hypocrisy is staggering.”
Acknowledgement: IBID
Except for one thing – and here’s the rub:
David Shearer himself disclosed and admitted his own mistake,
“Frankly I was horrified that I’d overlooked it and I moved straight away to correct it. When I myself found that (bank account) error I made the move to correct it, I didn’t wait for anybody else to find it.”
Acknowledgement: IBID
It is one thing to stuff up; come clean; apologise; and not try to blame others.
It is entirely another matter when one continually blames others for his mistakes or has such problems recalling events that they become a laughing stock.
Perhaps Mr Key and Mr Banks should take a lesson from David Shearer’s book; own your mistakes; don’t blame others; and don’t make facile excuses.
It’s not politicians who make mistakes, that the public loathes. It’s when they try to avoid responsibility for their errors.
Especially when Key and Banks demand responsibility from the rest of us,
.
Acknowledgement: NZ Herald – Food parcel families made poor choices, says Key
.
.
.
= fs =
Did National knowingly commit economic sabotage post-2008?
.
.
By now, it has become fairly well known that National’s tax cuts in 2009 and 2010 were unaffordable and impacted disastrously on government revenue (and subsequent spending) in following years.
In 2008, National tempted voters with promises of “self funding” tax-cuts. (Though “self funding” was never very clearly explained.)
National’s rebalancing of the tax system is self-funding and requires no cuts to public services or additional borrowing.
[...]
This makes it absolutely clear that to fund National’s tax package there is no requirement for additional borrowing and there is no requirement to cut public services.
Source: Economy – Tax Policy 2008
The pledge of “no requirement to cut public services ” was also one that was made (and subsequently broken in dramatic fashion).
In May 2008, Key was making bold statements of “meaningful“ tax cuts, “north of $50“,
John Key… said National would be looking at economic figures and what other promises Dr Cullen made in the budget on Thursday… But he was “very confident” National could deliver an ongoing programme of tax cuts, like that promised in 2005”.
See: National’s 2005 tax cut plans still credible – Key
Despite the growing black clouds of a global downturn, Key was still optimistic. When questioned by Sue Eden of the NZ Herald whether National’s tax cuts programme of 2005 were still credible given uncertain economic circumstances, Dear Leader replied,
“Well, I think it is.”
See: IBID
By early August 2008, as United States mortgage-institutions Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were sinking into a credit crisis, Key remained defiant in the face of looming recessionary forces,
National will fast track a second round of tax cuts and is likely to increase borrowing to pay for some of its spending promises, the party’s leader John Key says.
But Mr Key said the borrowing would be for new infrastructure projects rather than National’s quicker and larger tax cuts which would be “hermetically sealed” from the debt programme.
The admission on borrowing comes as National faces growing calls to explain how it will pay for its promises, which include the larger faster tax cuts, a $1.5 billion broadband plan and a new prison in its first term.
It has also promised to keep many of Labour’s big spending policies including Working for Families and interest free student loans.
Mr Key today said there would be “modest changes” to KiwiSaver.
See: Nats to borrow for other spending – but not tax cuts
How does one ” “hermetically seal” tax cuts from the debt programme ” ?!
The ‘crunch’ came on 6 October 2008, when Treasury released a document known as the “PREFU” (Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Update). This Treasury report analyses and discloses the fiscal and economic state of the nation, with short and medium-term outlooks, based on international and local trends.
The 2008 PREFU started with this dire warning,
The economic and fiscal outlook has deteriorated since the Budget Update
In the five months since the Budget Update was finalised, we have witnessed a number of significant domestic and international developments: in particular, the deepening of the international financial crisis, the slowing housing market, and growing pressure on households and businesses. These developments are key factors in our updated view of the economy and the government’s finances set out in this Pre-election Update.
We are now expecting weaker economic growth over the next few years, resulting in slower growth in tax revenue and higher government expenditure. Combined with increases in the costs of some existing policies, these factors lead to sustained operating balance deficits and higher debt-to-GDP ratios.
The economic outlook is weaker …
Imbalances have built up during nearly a decade of sustained growth, including inflation pressures, an overvalued housing market, high household debt and a large current account deficit, with implications for interest rates and the exchange rate. With the economy slowing, these imbalances are starting to unwind – as are imbalances in the global economy – but there is a long way to go.
See: PREFU 2008 – Executive Summary
The opening statement went on to state with unequivocal frankness,
The international financial crisis has deepened and is having an adverse impact on global economic growth. New Zealand is expected to feel the effects of the financial crisis principally through the tighter availability and increased costs of credit, but also through a fall in business and consumer confidence, falling asset values and lower demand and prices for our exports.
[...]
The weaker economic growth that we are forecasting is reflected in reductions in our tax revenue forecasts. Compared with the Budget Update, we expect tax revenue to be on average around $900 million lower for each of the next three years.
- The weak outlook for the household sector will have a direct impact through GST, which is forecast to grow by around 4% per annum over the next five years, compared with 7.5% over the six years to 2007.
- With firms’ margins under pressure and profitability low, underlying corporate income tax is forecast to decline by 3% in the 2009 June year, and growth is expected to be negligible in 2010 as accumulated tax losses offset profits.
- A relatively robust forecast for wages over the next few years helps to keep underlying growth in PAYE up at around 5% per annum.
The largest single change in government spending in the Pre-election Update is an increase in the expected costs of benefits. Compared with the Budget Update, benefit expenses are around $500 million per annum higher, reflecting both an increase in numbers of beneficiaries as a result of the slowing economy, and the impact of higher inflation on the costs of indexing benefits.
[...]
As a result of the various factors set out above, the government’s debt outlook deteriorates. This leads to higher debt servicing costs, which are forecast to be around $500 million per annum higher
See: IBID
Treasury continued – in considerable detail – to outline the gloomy prospects for New Zealand’s fiscal and economic short-term and medium-term outlooks (see: Fiscal Outlook),
In Risks and Scenarios, Treasury wrote,
Since the Budget Update, global developments have been more in line with the alternative scenario than the Budget forecast and global financial and economic conditions have worsened significantly. On the domestic front, finance companies have continued to face reduced debenture funding and more finance companies went into receivership or moratorium in the past three months. The speed and magnitude of the slowing in domestic demand has been more abrupt and greater than forecast in the Budget Update.
Reflecting these recent international and domestic developments, we have made significant downward revisions to our growth forecasts in this Update. However, the financial turmoil has intensified since the finalisation of our economic forecasts. As a result, we have seen the downside risks to our growth forecasts increase markedly, particularly in the years to March 2010 and 2011.
See: 2008 PREFU – Risks and Scenarios
Unlike his “lack of knowledge” over the GCSB monitoring of Kim Dotcom, or the Police report on John Banks, John Key cannot feign ignorance over the 2008 PREFU report,
“John Key has defended his party’s planned program of tax cuts, after Treasury numbers released today showed the economic outlook has deteriorated badly since the May budget. The numbers have seen Treasury reducing its revenue forecasts and increasing its predictions of costs such as benefits. Cash deficits – the bottom line after all infrastructure funding and payments to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund are made – is predicted to blow out from around $3 billion a year to around $6 billion a year.”
See: Key – $30b deficit won’t stop Nats tax cuts
Especially when Bill English admitted his knowledge of the PREFU,
“The figures outlined in the Prefu are a bit worse than we expected, and we are currently digesting them. However, National is not content to run a decade of deficits.”
See: IBID
In an example of black-humoured irony, English went on to say,
“New Zealand can no longer afford Michael Cullen and Labour’s big-spending low-growth policies.”
See: IBID
But evidently New Zealand could afford National’s “ big-tax-cutting low-growth policies“?
On 6 October 2008, Key reacted to the PREFU (proving he had full knowledge of it’s contents, and made this astounding comment when questioned about National’s planned tax cuts, at 0:40,
“REPORTER: What is your growth programme, does it include tax cuts?.”
“JOHN KEY: It certainly does include tax cuts. We have a programme of tax cuts.”
.
See: Key reacts to [2008] PREFU figures
.
Key’s comments following 0:40 seem equally bizarre, and at 2:28 admits that “… we can’t deliver anything other than, ‘yknow, a legacy of deficits for New Zealand…” – and still continues to warble on about cutting taxes, including trying to justify “debt for future growth“.
The consequences were a $2 billion hole in government tax revenue (see: Outlook slashes tax-take by $8b; Govt’s 2010 tax cuts ‘costing $2 billion and counting’); budget deficits (see: Budget deficit $1.3b worse); increased borrowings (see: Govt borrowing $380m a week); cuts to the State sector in terms of services and jobs (see: Early childhood education subsidies cut; 10 August: Unhealthy Health Cuts, 2500 jobs cut, but only $20m saved); and surreptitious increases in government charges and taxation elsewhere (see: Petrol price rises to balance books; Student loan repayments hiked, allowances restricted; Prescription charges on the rise); and asset sales (see: Govt says asset sales will cut debt).
The point of this blogpost is simple.
It’s not to look back, at the past…
… it is to look forward to the future.
When National makes Big Promises, be wary of the nature of said promises, and the underlying , invisible “hooks” contained within them.
Quite simply when the Nats offer you a “tax cut”, the first question that should pop into your head is not, “Oh goody, I wonder how much I’ll get!”
The first thought should instead be, “Uh oh, I wonder how much that’s going to cost me!”.
Because as sure as evolution made little green apples and the sun will rise tomorrow, the Nats care very little about your pay packet.
They care only about “rewarding hard work” [translation: more income for the rich] and “making the veconomy more competitive” [translation: implementing their neo-liberal agenda for their ideological crusade to turn this country into a Market-driven economy, away from an egalitarian society].
In the process, if they have to turn our country into a slow-rolling, economic train-wreck, then so be it.
They can always blame someone else,
.
See video: Key blames Labour for his Govt’s wage gap failings
.
Key even blames Labour for the global recession !? (see @ 0:48)
In the meantime, did National recklessly damage the New Zealand economy with unaffordable tax cuts, despite Key & Co being given ample warning by Treasury – simply to get elected in 2008?
Draw your own conclusions.
The evidence speaks for itself.
.
.
*
.
Additional reading
The Atlantic: Tax Cuts Don’t Lead to Economic Growth, a New 65-Year Study Finds (16 Sept 2012)
References
National Party: Economy – Tax Policy 2008
NZ Herald: National’s 2005 tax cut plans still credible – Key (20 May 2008)
NZ Herald: Nats to borrow for other spending – but not tax cuts (2 Aug 2008)
The Treasury: Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update 2008 (6 Oct 2008)
NZ Herald: $30b deficit won’t stop Nats tax cuts (6 Oct 2008)
BBC News: Bank shares fall despite bail-out (13 Oct 2008)
Bay of Plenty Times: John Key: We cannot afford KiwiSaver (11 May 2011)
.
.
= fs =
John Banks, ACT, and miscellaneous laws
.
.
ACT is very, very BIG on law and order.
In fact, they often refer themselves as the “law and order” Party.
Their website is unequivocal about ACT’s hard-line, no-compromise, approach to Law and Order,
.
.
ACT even refers to the “broken windows” concept; attacking crime at the beginning when “criminal activity is significantly less likely to escalate when caught and punished early “.
ACT even has a “One Law for All” policy,
.
.
Their “One Law for All” refers to Maori – but one assumes that ACT intends this policy to apply equally, to all people living in this country.
Right?
Well… maybe not,
.
.
One law for all, huh? That apparently demands a Tui.
However, Banks’ lawyer, QC David Jones stated that,
‘‘Mr Banks will comply with any lawful direction of the court to attend the court as required.’’
Well, that’s jolly big of him.
This case will be a test; are our elected representatives – especially those in positions of ministerial power – bound by the same laws that the rest of us mere mortals are?
After all, “criminal activity is significantly less likely to escalate when caught and punished early “.
Let’s wait, watch, and find out…
.
.
= fs =
Citizen A – 20 October 2012 – Online now!
.
Citizen A
.
- 20 October 2012 -
.
- Chris Trotter & Selwyn Manning -
.
.
Issue 1: Is a WINZ kiosk less leaky than a GCSB staff meeting? What to make of the security lapse at the Ministry of Social Development?
Issue 2: Where does the Kim Dotcom case end?
and Issue 3: Government tells Maoridom to get lost over the sale of Mighty River Power – what now for the Maori Party and asset sales?
.
Acknowledgement (republished with kind permission)
.
.
= fs =
First they came for Maori “radicals”…
.
.
First they came for the “Maori radicals”, and I didn’t speak out, because I wasn’t maori or a “radical”…
.
.
Then they came for the alleged cyber-pirate from Germany, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a cyber-pirate or German,
.
.
Then they came for the botanists, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a botanist,
.
.
Then they came for me, and no one else spoke out, because they didn’t give a shit either…
[Acknowledgement to Martin Niemöller ,1892–1984]
The raids on the Ureweras (and elsewhere in NZ on the same day); Kim Dotcom’s Coatesville mansion; and Graeme Platt’s homes all had one thing in common; a gross mis-use of para-military power in a country that has not seen such events since the Land Wars in the 1800s.
.
.
If middle-class New Zealanders believed that the Urewera terror raids (the terror being caused by black-garbed “ninja police” on a sleepy little backwater village) was a one-off exercise, then that belief was greatly misplaced.
The State attempted to depict Tame Iti and his colleagues as homegrown “terrorists”, planning some mysterious, spectacularly catastrophic, event involving catapulting a bus on to US President Bush. (I kid you not. See: Protest highlights terror raid case)
But no terrorism charges were ever laid under the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002, and the 18 defendents were eventually ‘whittled down’ to just four (one died awaiting trial). Those four were convicted on more mundane firearms charges.
Hardly the stuff of Al Queda operations planning mass-destruction.
Since then, we have witnessed no less extraordinary events in January this year, when more para-military “ninja-police” in vehicles and helicopters, armed with high-powered automatic weapons, raided a mansion in Coatsville.
There has never been a satisfactory explanation given as to why such a high degree of force was necessary.
Recently, on 11 October, the home of botanist Graeme Platt (71) was raided by six carloads of police and Ministry of Primary Industry officials. Evidently the police and officials were searching for a tree ?! (Terrorist trees?)
It is rapidly becoming evident that something mad and sinister is happening to our once easy-going, laid-back society.
Gone are the days of “she’ll be right, mate“. When is the last time you heard that phrase?
Now it’s more like a growing intrusion of State power.
Once upon a time, the growth of police power was justified by our politicians as the fight against drugs and organised crime.
Since the early 2000s, that justification has been redefined as the fight against “terrorism”.
This is not just about the covert monitoring of New Zealand citizens and residents. We are now witnessing the open use of raw, naked, State power, in the form of the Armed Offenders Squad and the Special Tactics Group ( formerly known as the Anti-Terrorist Squad) bursting into people’s homes.
These paramilitary forces – once used solely against drug rings or homocidal nutters with small armouries – are now being employed more and more in situations which seem hard to justify or understand.
It has been said that the raids on the Ureweras (and elsewhere in NZ, on that day) and Kim Dotcom, was carried out to impress our American cuzzies in the United States. Evidently, the boys in blue at Police National HQ wanted to show the FBI, Hollywood, White House, and anyone else who happened to be watching that we were ‘serious players’ when it came to dealing with terrorists and other assorted evil-doers.
In their eagerness to impress the Yanks, it became readily apparent that our politicians, police, and miscellaneous bureacrats have moved New Zealand to become a mini-America clone; gun-happy and willing to use over-the-top force with or without justification.
The dawn raid on a botanist’s home, by six carloads of government officials and police, in search of a damned tree, should be a clear wake-up call for all New Zealanders. The choice we face is fairly simple and clear-cut;
- We keep going the way we are; with excessive State power being used and mis-used; more surveillance in our daily lives; armed police raids on the flimsiest excuses; until none of us are safe and we end up living in a country that is unrecognisable and alien to our parents.
- We take stock of where we are with our laws and culture of State power, and declare that enough is enough.
The use of force shown in the last few years, I submit to the reader, should be sufficient to turn the stomach of all but the most ardent supporter of the fascist state. Unless New Zealanders are looking forward to living in a police State, it is my contention that, as stated in Option #2 above, enough is enough.
It should be the priority of an incoming government in 2014 (or earlier) that a full review of legislation such as the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002, Surveillance Act 2012, and any similar laws, should be undertaken.
It is my contention that these two laws should be repealed forthwith, as they are abhorrent in any society that professes to respect freedom. It is further my contention that such laws serve no useful purpose except to create a mindset and culture in our Government that there is no limit to the exercise of state power through the use of force against citizens who may come to the attention of police and bureacrats.
To those people who might be fearful in ridding ourselves of these laws, it should be remembered that no one has ever been charged under terrorism legislation and that the used of armed police in dawn raids has yet to be justified.
We are simply giving the State – and it’s myriad of officials, bureacrats, police, spies, etc – the power to act with little restraint, as if they are authorities beyond public control.
Such a state of affairs, my fellow New Zealanders, is what it looks like; the germination of a police state.
In case the reader believes I am over-reacting, consider that the raid on Graeme Platt’s home was not looking for bombs, guns, subversive literature, Al Qaeda operatives, etc.
They were looking for a tree.
.
*
.
Sources
NZ Herald: ‘Plant Nazis’ hunt for outlawed trees
Parliament: Terrorism Suppression Act 2002
Parliament: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill
Parliament: Search and Surveillance Act 2012
Other blogs
Tumeke: NZ Police reassure country that they are the only gang trying to infiltrate the force
.
.
= fs =
Citizen A – 4 October 2012 – Online now!
.
Citizen A
.
- 4 October2012 -
.
- David Slack & Selwyn Manning -
.
.
Issue 1: two inquires, one Police investigation , spies meeting in Wellington, Key visiting Hollywood and an official apology – how much more weird can the Kim Dotcom scandal get?
Issue 2: Does the Education Ministry’s handling of school closures in Christchurch make the GCSB illegal spying look competent?
Issue 3: If crime is down, why are we building a new billion dollar private prison?
.
Acknowledgement (republished with kind permission)
.
.
= fs =
Dear Leader, GCSB, and Kiwis in Wonderland (Part Rua)
.
.
From previous related blogpost,
.
NZ First Leader, Winston Peters, managed to extract this gem from Dear Leader during Question Time in Parliament,
Government Communications Security Bureau—Briefings Since November 2008
3. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: How many times has he been formally briefed by the Government Communications Security Bureau, by year, since November 2008?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) : My diary indicates that I have been formally briefed by the Government Communications Security Bureau the following number of times, by year, since 2008: twice in 2008, 15 times in 2009, 11 times in 2010, 10 times in 2011, and 15 times in 2012.
Source: Parliamentary Hansards, 25 September 2012
Key’s response is extraordinary for two reasons,
- He gave a serious answer and not the flippant, juvenile wise-cracks he normally indulges in (which, we, the taxpayer, have to pay for as he wastes Parliamentary time)
- The answer he gave revealed that Key had met with the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) fifteen times this year alone – and the subject of GCSB surveillance on Kim Dotcom – possibly one of the most colourful, controversial, and contentious people in the country – was never raised once?!?!
John Key. Met. With. The. GCSB. Fifteen. times.
See: Dear Leader, GCSB, and Kiwis in Wonderland (1 October)
.
Key was definitely in the country – in part - whilst the GCSB was spying on Dotcom. (See: Prime Minister John Key’s Address in Reply Debate – 21st December, 2011)
At some point between 21 December and 27 January, Key holidayed in Hawaii. (See: John Key Video Journal No.50)
On 27 January 2012, Key attended the annual Australia-New Zealand Leaders’ Meeting and joint meeting of senior Cabinet Ministers. (See: PM to visit Australia with Ministers)
Second question: Was surveillance of Dotcom discussed at any meeting around that time period by the Officials Committee for Domestic and External Security Coordination (ODESC)? If not, why not? Considering that ODESC is responsible for “oversight and policy guidance of the Bureau“, if the Dotcom cases and cross-organisational liaison did not merit discussion – what then, is ODESC overseeing?
See: Spy VS Politician
.
And now today; 3 October,
.
.
As this blogger wrote two days ago (1 Oct),
“The answer he gave revealed that Key had met with the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) fifteen times this year alone – and the subject of GCSB surveillance on Kim Dotcom – possibly one of the most colourful, controversial, and contentious people in the country – was never raised once?!?!”
It now appears that my disbelief was well-warranted.
The issue of Kim Dotcom did arise at a GCSB meeting on 29 February, this year.
That 29 Feb meeting with GCSB took place only forty days after the raid on Kim Dotcom’s mansion in Coastville (Jan 20).
And Key still maintains he can’t recall being briefed?
It appears that this is not the first time Key’s memory of events has ‘failed’ him,
.
.
.
.
.
The Prime Minister has not been upfront with the people of New Zealand. This blogger believes there is more to come out, and furthermore that we will see some damning revelations disclosed to the public.
In fact, if it is proven that John Key knew more about the GCSB-Dotcom Affair than has been revealed thus far, and if links to overseas interests are shown to be correct – then this government will fall.
National has been on borrowed time since the John Banks-Teapot Tape Affair, and this issue will be the final straw.
Addendum 1
This blogger endorses full citizenship to Kim Dotcom; his family; and his mates. Anyone that can show up a government to be as corrupt/inept as National deserves full citizenship.
Addendum 2
It appears that the public already had an inkling in November last year as to “who was more likely to bend the truth”. See: John Key: Safe hands, forked tongue?
.
.
.
= fs =
Citizen A: Kim Dotcom/GCSB special with Chris Trotter & Phoebe Fletcher
.
- Citizen A – Kim Dotcom/GCSB special -
.
- 27 September 2012 -
.
- Chris Trotter & Phoebe Fletcher -
.
.
Issue 1: How does the GCSB miss a $500 000 firework display by the person they are supposedly spying on? How incompetent can the case against Kim Dotcom get?
Issue 2: Why do so many NZers blame the parents for child poverty?
and Issue 3: 600 job losses in a week equals 600 families without an income – when does unemployment start impacting politically?
Acknowledgement (republished with kind permission)
.
.
= fs =
Spy VS Politician
.
.
“You have reached the office of Planet Key. All our agents are busy undermining your rights and selling your assets. Goodbye.” – Kim Dotcom on Twitter, 24 September 2012
.
1. Firstly, some relevant background;
A. Office of Financial Crime Agency New Zealand (OFCANZ)
What is OFCANZ?OFCANZ is the Organised and Financial Crime Agency New Zealand. It was established on 1 July 2008 to combat serious organised crime.Is OFCANZ part of New Zealand Police?OFCANZ is a discrete agency that is hosted within New Zealand Police. It takes a whole-of-government approach, working with information and resources from a range of agencies.Is the Serious Fraud Office part of OFCANZ?No. The Serious Fraud Office investigates serious and complex fraud, especially commercial fraud. OFCANZ will concentrate on fraud that relates to organised crime. The two agencies will continue to collaborate where appropriate as sometimes these two types of financial crime can overlap.Who will do OFCANZ work?Staff for operational activities will be drawn from OFCANZ, Police and other agencies through secondments and taskforces.How will OFCANZ work be prioritised and assigned?OFCANZ activity is ultimately the responsibility of the Commissioner of Police; the Commissioner will seek advice on OFCANZ focus areas (priorities) from the Officials’ Committee for Domestic and External Security Co-ordination (ODESC).Once the Commissioner tasks OFCANZ to work on the focus areas, the intelligence process will identify targets within those focus areas. Taskforces will operate against the targets, and use a variety of methods to investigate and disrupt the targets’ activities.
Source: OFCANZ
B. Officials’ Committee for Domestic and External Security Co-ordination (ODESC)
When the GCSB was established in 1977, oversight in the sense of both operational supervision and policy guidance, in addition to a general overview of the Bureau’s management was provided by a Committee of Controlling Officials (CCO) chaired by the Head of the Prime Minister’s Department. In December 1983 the existence of this Committee was published in the Directory of Official Information. In 1989 the CCO was disestablished and the responsibility for oversight and policy guidance of the Bureau was assumed by the new Officials Committee for Domestic and External Security Coordination (ODESC).
Source: GCSB – Oversight
Points A and B explain the connection between the Officials Committee for Domestic and External Security Coordination (ODESC) and the Office of Financial Crime Agency New Zealand (OFCANZ).
OFCANZ was in charge of the Dotcom case and subsequent raid on the Coatsville Mansion.
‘Oversight and policy guidance‘ of the GCSB is the responsibility of ODESC,
“The Police Commissioner will seek advice on OFCANZ focus areas (priorities) from the Officials’ Committee for Domestic and External Security Co-ordination (ODESC).”
ODESC is chaired by the Head of the Prime Minister’s Department.
C. Key’s letter To Judge Paul Neazor
Prime Minister
17 September 2012
Hon Paul Neazor CNZM, QC
Inspector-General of Intelligence and SecurityDear Inspector-General,
KIM DOTCOM AND ORS V ATTORNEY-GENERAL – RESIDENCY STATUS ISSUE
As I have been briefed today by the Director of GCSB, and as I understand you have now been made aware, the GCSB has discovered that it acted unlawfully in intercepting the communications of certain individuals connected with the above case, apparently acting in the erroneous belief that they were foreign persons when in fact they held New Zealand residency status.
I would be grateful if you would undertake without delay an inquiry into the circumstances of this matter and provide me with a report which identifies:
The facts of the case;
An assessment ofthe circumstances including any errors by the Bureau and its officers; and
Any measures which you consider necessary in order to prevent a recurrence.
I look forward to receiving your report as soon as possible.
Yoursrs sincerely
Rt Hon John Key
Prime Minister
D. To which Judge Neazor replied with this report, ten days later,
INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY
THE HON D.P. NEAZOR CNZM27 September 2012
The Rt Hon John Key
Prime Minister
Parliament Building
WELLINGTONDear Prime Minister
KIM DOTCOM AND OTHERS v ATTORNEY-GENERAL – RESIDENCY STATUS
This report relates to your request on 17 September that I should enquire into action by the GCSB affecting Kim Dotcom and others including making an assessment of errors. The Bureau has reported to you that there appears to have been a breach of statutory restrictions applicable to the collection work of the GCSB.
Background:
Kim Dotcom is in dispute with United States authorities about the accumulation of sums of money, the gathering of which may have given rise to allegations of criminal activity in the United States which the authorities there wish to pursue. That pursuit may well involve an attempt by Court proceedings to extradite Kim Dotcom and others to the United States, involving questions of discovery of documents and arrest of persons, Kim Dotcom and others.
New Zealand Police involvement in the event:
A specialist group of New Zealand Police Officers has been involved in assisting the United States authorities and investigating a couple of related New Zealand matters. As part of the New Zealand Police assistance, communications passed between the Police group and GCSB. Those communications were related to a proposal to arrest Kim Dotcom and associated persons. lt was believed by Police Officers that these persons could present potential danger to officers and others involved if the attempted arrest was made. With that belief it was important for the Police to know what action Dotcom and associated people might plan to take and where; i.e. they sought intelligence about possible events. The documents show that information was collected about Dotcom and his associates by the Bureau (largely about their movements or possible movements at relevant times) and passed on to the Police. In my view, considered on its own, the passing on as such could have been lawful but the collection in the circumstances was not. The documents I have seen which record the events do not disclose any interest or inquiry by GCSB about the facts or events of Dotcom’s disputed activity; just where he might be and who might be with him.
Involvement of the GCSB Mechanism:
Like other countries, New Zealand has Government agencies whose task is, covertly if necessary, to collect and report on information which is relevant to security. information is obtained by various appropriate techniques which it is unnecessary to set out. The relevant New Zealand agencies are the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service and the Government Communications Security Bureau. Only the latter is involved in this event. The mandate of each agency is set out in an Act of Parliament which is designed to control the range of the agency’s enquiry and how it works, Each agency’s work is not at large; it is limited by its controlling Act.
GCSB Gathering and Retaining Information and Dealing with Crime: For present purposes GCSB has the specific functions of gathering foreign intelligence, in accordance with the foreign intelligence requirements of the Government of New Zealand:
(i) by intercepting communications under the authority of the GCSB Act 2003;
(ii) by collecting information in any other lawful manner.
Another of the Bureau’s functions is to provide advice and assistance to any public authority in New Zealand on any matter that is relevant to the functions of the public authority or other entity and to a purpose specified in the Act e.g. to pursue the GCSB’s objective of the provision of foreign intelligence that the Government in New Zealand requires, to protect the safety of any person, and in support of the prevention or detection of serious crime. The Bureau has other specified functions, but these are what is presently relevant.
The Bureau is specifically empowered to retain any intercepted communication if its content relates to the Bureaus’ objective or functions.
lt may for the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime in New Zealand or in any other country, retain information that comes into its possession and may communicate that information to members of the New Zealand Police. Hence my view that passing information to the Police could be lawful.
Foreign Element:
This is the significant factor in the present case.
The Bureau is intended to collect foreign intelligence only. That theme runs through the whole Act. All of the provisions authorising collection of intelligence and communications are related to what is “foreign” – “foreign inte//igence” (s.7 (i) (a) and (b)), (s.8 (i) (a)) “foreign communications” (s.8) and prohibition against targeting domestic communications (ss. 13, 14, 16 and 19).
A descriptive process is used in the GCSB Act. Examples are-
“foreign communications means communications that contain, or may reasonably be expected to contain, foreign intelligence”.
“foreign intelligence means information about the capabilities, intentions, or activities of a foreign organisation or a foreign person “.
”foreign person means an individual who is neither a New Zealand Citizen nor a permanent resident…”.
“permanent resident means a person who is, or who is deemed to be, the holder of a residence class visa under the Immigration Act 2009. “
The first inquiry as to whether a person is to be regarded as “foreign” under this Act is related to citizenship or permanent residence. lf the person concerned does not have one of those statuses, he or she is foreign for the purpose of the GCSB Act and his or her communications are not protected. If the person is a citizen of New Zealand or a permanent resident his or her communications are protected. People in the permanent residence category were originally described in the GCSB Act as the holder of a residence permit but are now described by a concept called a “residence class visa”.
The Immigration material I have seen in respect of Dotcom shows that he was granted a residence visa offshore under the Immigration Act 1987, Investor Plus category, in November 2010. At that point in time he did not meet the deinition of ‘permanent residence’ under the GCSB Act as it then was.
However, before he arrived in New Zealand the new Immigration Act 2009 came into force on 29 November 2010 and deemed him to hold a residence class visa from that point in time. He met the definition of ‘permanent resident’ for the purposes of the GCSB Act accordingly.
Although Dotcom’s status is subject to monetary and residential conditions for a period of three years short of actually being deported l\/lr Dotcom retains his immigration residence status and remains a permanent resident for the purposes of the GCSB Act.
It was on my understanding not recognised that Dotcom as the holder of a resident visa under a particular category provided for by the Immigration Act was therefore a ‘permanent resident’ (and thus a protected person) under the GCSB Act.
Potential for confusion:
Dotcom is not on my understanding a New Zealand citizen – he is Finnish or German. He is however one of a category of people who is treated in New Zealand as if he ought to have protection against collection of his information. This result has come about by reference to and application of the Immigration Act. That he (and others) has protection of their communications under the GCSB Act is simply an effect of what has happened under the Immigration Act, so long as the relevant words apply to him.
As this matter went along what was discovered in the case of Dotcom and associated people was that resident status had been obtained on their behalf under the Immigration Act 1987 and carried forward under the later 2009 Act. It was understood incorrectly by the GCSB that a further step in the immigration process would have to be taken before Dotcom and associates had protection against interception of communications.
Leaving aside possible confusion arising from the effect of the permit to be in New Zealand Dotcom and party had, the application made by the Police to GCSB was a proper one: the request was made on the basis that the information sought was foreign intelligence contributing to the function of the New Zealand Police and supporting the prevention or detection of crime. The GCSB acting on it was proper.
Enquiry was made during the activity in an attempt to ensure that the Bureau acted within its legal mandate as to what it can collect. The illegality arose because of changes in the Immigration Act wording and some confusion about which category Dotcom was in thereafter.
Complete avoidance of a recurrence will only come about if the system is such that those requesting assistance from the Bureau about non citizens check with Immigration the immigration status of people who may become targets to be sure of what their immigration status in fact is (not may be) in terms of the GCSB Act definitions and tell the Bureau what they have ascertained. It is important to realise that what the GCSB may do is governed finally by the GCSB Act, not the Immigration Act. Because the law allows the covert collection of information about only some people in New Zealand, the events demonstrate that it is important to be sure at all times of the proposed target’s legal status in the country.
Summary:
- In my view the only issue of illegality arises in this matter from confusion in this instance between the case of a person transferring funds and the general category of residents .
- The GCSB is controlled by its governing Act in what it may do. That Act makes it clear that the Bureau is intended to collect foreign intelligence only, but that includes the function of assisting the Police by gathering foreign intelligence for the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime.
- A foreign person for the purpose of the GCSB Act is someone who is neither a New Zealand citizen nor (now) the holder of a residence class visa under the Immigration Act.
- People who hold a residence class visa under the Immigration Act have protection against the collection of information under the GCSB Act even if they are not classified as a citizen.
- In this case it was recognised that Dotcom was not a New Zealand citizen. He was classed as the holder of a residence class visa in a particular category but it was not apparent to the Police or GCSB that he thereby fell into a protected category. Because he should have been regarded as in such a category, collection was not allowed under the GCSB Act and in that way illegal.
- Collection had in fact stopped before it was recognised that he did fall within a protected category..
- The information sought to be collected did not relate to the details or merits of his dispute in the US. It was about where he was or might be expected to be in New Zealand at a particular time.
Recommendation to prevent recurrence:
16. Since occasions for the Police to seek assistance from GCSB in matters of safety or security will assuredly arise again under the GCSB Act as it stands, what is needed is assurance available to GCSB that the subject of the information sought is not protected by the terms of the GCSB Act, i.e.
that the person concerned is not a New Zealand citizen, that he or she is not a permanent resident and is not the holder of a residence class visa under the Immigration Act. There will need to be alertness that:
(i) the wording of the provisions of the GCSB Act are controlling;
(ii) since the relevant wording of either Act may change it would be useful for the applicant for assistance to advise what factors as to status they rely on, and what words in the GCSB Act they rely on for their application.
Yours sincerely
D P Nealzor
Inspector-General
(Source: Scoop.co.nz)
2. Three Subsequent Questions;
A. Evidence given under oath by Detective Inspector Grant Wormald, head of the Office of Financial Crime Agency New Zealand
It has been established that,
” Dotcom’s lawyer Paul Davison told the High Court at Auckland yesterday that Mr Wormald had said in evidence on August 9 there was no surveillance of Dotcom undertaken by anyone other than New Zealand police to his knowledge.
However, the GCSB were engaged by police to monitor Dotcom for at least a month before his arrest in January and attended a meeting with police and Crown Law before the raids. “
See: Dotcom’s lawyers question police statements
.
.
During the exchange between QC Paul Davison and Detective Inspector Wormald, in the video clip above, the latter stated,
“DAVISON: was there any other surveillance being undertaken here in New Zealand, to your knowledge?
WORMALD: No there wasn’t.”
Detective Inspector Wormald, head of the Office of Financial Crime Agency New Zealand (OFCANZ), and planner and over-seer of the Coatsville mansion raid, would have been privy to all matters relating to the Dotcom Case, and would most certainly have known the source of ‘intelligence’ – the GCSB.
See: Raid planner continues Dotcom evidence
GCSB agents even attended a December meeting about the raid.
(See: Dotcom saga rebounds on Key Government)
It is inconceivable that Detective Inspector Wormald had no idea where information was coming from. (Because quite simply, if he didn’t know – wouldn’t he have asked, to ensure the information was valid?)
As outlined above, Detective Inspector Wormald is head of OFCANZ, which is linked to ODESC, which has oversight and policy guidance of the GCSB.
Kim Dotcom’s lawyer, Paul Davison said,
“There are very grave and significant implications arising from this recent discovery. We had evidence from an officer on oath and we have some other material which makes it look to be inconsistent with that.”
No wonder Mr Davison was concerned.
Which means that Detective Inspector Wormald perjured himself whilst in the Witness Stand.
Which raises the first question: How much of the Dotcom case is similarly ‘tainted’, and have police officers perjured or hidden any other evidence?
B. Oversight of GCSB
The Prime Minister has stated that he was overseas at the time GCSB requested a Ministerial Certificate from Bill English to block information about the Bureau’s involvement in the Dotcom case (to cover up their actions from Court and media scrutiny).
The certificate was signed by Deputy PM Bill English, acting Prime Minister, whilst John Key was overseas. The certificate was requested by the GCSB after Mr Dotcom’s lawyer requested from Crown Law all information relating to the case that was intercepted by the GCSB and provided to police.
However, the GCSB monitoring of Dotcom took place from 16 December 2011 to 20 Jan 2012.
See: Memorandum for Directions Hearing (para 12)
Key was definitely in the country – in part - whilst the GCSB was spying on Dotcom. (See: Prime Minister John Key’s Address in Reply Debate – 21st December, 2011)
At some point between 21 December and 27 January, Key holidayed in Hawaii. (See: John Key Video Journal No.50)
On 27 January 2012, Key attended the annual Australia-New Zealand Leaders’ Meeting and joint meeting of senior Cabinet Ministers. (See: PM to visit Australia with Ministers)
Second question: Was surveillance of Dotcom discussed at any meeting around that time period by the Officials Committee for Domestic and External Security Coordination (ODESC)? If not, why not? Considering that ODESC is responsible for “oversight and policy guidance of the Bureau“, if the Dotcom cases and cross-organisational liaison did not merit discussion – what then, is ODESC overseeing?
C. Reason for GCSB involvement
The last question, and perhaps one that has only briefly been touched upon: why did the Office of Financial Crime Agency New Zealand (OFCANZ) feel the need to request assistance from the GCSB in the first place?
According to documents, the rationale given was that the GCSB monitored Kim Dotcom’s communications for the purposes of establishing his location for the impending raid,
“The information sought to be collected did not relate to the details or merits of his dispute in the US. It was about where he was or might be expected to be in New Zealand at a particular time.”
See: Neazor Report on GCSB and Kim Dotcom
It seems incredible that NZ Police are unable to keep track of suspects they are surveilling without requesting assistance from a spy organisation such as the GCSB (or SIS?). It beggars belief that Police required surveillance assistance when,
- Dotcom and his entourage lived in one of the biggest mansions in Auckland
- Dotcom drove bright, flashy, very expensive cars
- Dotcom was quite a big bloke himself and would’ve stuck out like an Afro-American at a White Supremacists tea-party
- Dotcom made no effort to evade authorities
- The raid was executed at 6.47am in the morning – more than likely that the occupants of the Coatsville mansion were still indoors – if not still in bed.
There appears to be no rational reason for a spy agency to have been involved – at least not for the stated purpose of “where he was or might be expected to be in New Zealand at a particular time“.
It was pretty bloody obvious where Kim Dotcom; his wife; his employees; and probably the family pets were, on that early morning on 20 January 2012,
.
.
If the NZ Police are unable to locate and keep track of a businessman who makes no effort to conceal himself; where no efforts are being made to evade anyone (indeed, he probably wasn’t even aware of being under surveillance); then that raises serious concerns at the ability of the New Zealand police force.
Third question: Why was the GCSB involved?
None of these questions are answered – nor even raised – in Judge Neazor’s report on this matter. In fact, reading his four page report offers very little insights as to how and why this incident came about. Neazor confirms that,
” Enquiry was made during the activity in an attempt to ensure that the Bureau acted within its legal mandate as to what it can collect. The illegality arose because of changes in the Immigration Act wording and some confusion about which category Dotcom was in thereafter.”
See: Neazor Report on GCSB and Kim Dotcom
So there we have it: “confusion“.
Neazor’s “report” is so poor in facts and explanations that a further wider ranging investigation is warranted. In fact, his “report” cries out for further inquiries to be made.
What the public have been given is superficial, meaningless, pap.
Key’s apology is pointless if questions remain unanswered and suspicions abound that Neazor’s report is essentially a “white wash”. As Key himself said,
” I’ve asked the Bureau [GCSB] about why they failed at that point to identify the problem. I’m not entirely sure I’ve had a completely satisfactory answer…”
See: PM apologises to Kim Dotcom
Indeed, Prime Minister.
The public is also “ not entirely sure we’ve had a completely satisfactory answer “.
.
*
.
Other Blogs
The Standard: What does Key have to gain by lying?
Tumeke: Was our new Governor-General involved in authorizing illegal spying of Kim Dotcom?
Tumeke: 4 Kim Dotcom questions: How could the GCSB miss a half million dollar fireworks display?
Tumeke: Citizen A: Kim Dotcom/GCSB special with Chris Trotter & Phoebe Fletcher
Tumeke: No one believes you John Key – The GCSB knew spying on Dotcom was illegal
Gordon Campbell: On the failures of the Neazor report
Past Prime-Ministerial-I-Don’t-Knows
NZ Herald: Key admits mistake over shares (23 Sept 2008)
Fairfax Media: PM signed papers relating to BMWs (22 February 2011)
NZ Herald: Key changes tack over meeting with broadcaster (9 April 2011)
TV3: PM’s credit downgrade claim under fire (10 October 2011)
TV3: Who knew what about Kim Dotcom (2 May 2012)
Fairfax Media: Master of Keyvasive action (18 September 2012)
TV3: Who kept GCSB’s Dotcom spying secret from Key? (25 Sept 2012)
Additional
Time: WATCH: The Hollywood-Style Police Raid on Kim Dotcom’s Mansion (9 August 2012)
NZ Herald: Key on illegal spying on Dotcom (24 Sept 2012)
TV3: Who kept GCSB’s Dotcom spying secret from Key? (25 Sept 2012)
Fairfax Media: Kim Dotcom hints at suing Govt (25 Sept 2012)
Fairfax Media: Dotcom case makes world headlines (25 Sept 2012)
Radio NZ: Minister stonewalls over police Dotcom evidence (26 Sept 2012)
Parliamentary Hansards: Questions for Oral Answer (26 Sept 2012)
NZ Herald: Key on the back foot as Opposition leaders twist knife (27 Sept 2012)
NZ Herald: PM apologises to Dotcom over ‘basic errors‘ (27 Sept 2012)
Scoop.co.nz: Neazor Report on GCSB and Kim Dotcom (27 Sept 2012)
NZ Herald: Greens ask police to investigate GCSB (28 Sept 2012)
TV3: No need for GCSB inquiry – Key (28 Sept 2012)
Fairfax Media: Police had queried if spying was illegal (29 Sept 2012)
Fairfax Media: Dotcom saga rebounds on Key Government (29 Sept 2012)
.
.
= fs =
Is this what National voters had in mind?
… when they voted for National last year?
.
.
Note, especially, Key’s response to Metirea Turei’s questions, and Key’s flippant response. Not exactly “Prime Ministerial”, one would think?
Wouldn’t it be cheaper to have this guy as our Prime Minister instead,
.
.
He’d be considerably cheaper than the $411,510 currently paid to Dear Leader Key.
And considerably less threatening to Christchurch schools; the unemployed; our conservation lands; workers’ rights and conditions; and other issues currently facing our country.
Who knows? Mr Clown above (the one with the bright yellow flower – not the one in the suit) might actually have a few decent ideas how to create jobs for the 162,000+ unemployed in New Zealand.
He sure couldn’t do worse than the clown (the one in the suit, not the yellow flower) we already have.
.
*
.
Additional
Banks of loud rhubarb on Planet Key
.
.
= fs =
John Banks – escaping justice (Part Rua)
.
.
Continued from: John Banks – escaping justice
Following on from the police decision on 26 July not to prosecute John Banks for submitting an allegedly fraudulent Electoral Return, containing incorrect details of donors, this blogger emailed the Prime Minister on this issue,
.
From: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@yahoo.com>
To: John Key <john.key@parliament.govt.nz>
Cc: Jim Mora <afternoons@radionz.co.nz>,
Chris Hipkins <chris.hipkins@parliament.govt.nz>,
Chris Laidlaw RNZ <sunday@radionz.co.nz>,
Dominion Post <editor@dompost.co.nz>,
Daily News <editor@dailynews.co.nz>,
Daily Post <editor@dailypost.co.nz>,
David Shearer <david.shearer@parliament.govt.nz>,
Hutt News <editor@huttnews.co.nz>,
Kim Hill <saturday@radionz.co.nz>,
Listener <editor@listener.co.nz>,
Metiria Turei <metiria.turei@parliament.govt.nz>,
Morning Report <morningreport@radionz.co.nz>,
NZ Herald <editor@herald.co.nz>,
Nine To Noon RNZ <ninetonoon@radionz.co.nz>,
Otago Daily Times <odt.editor@alliedpress.co.nz>,
Q+A <Q+A@tvnz.co.nz>,
Russel Norman <Russel.Norman@parliament.govt.nz>,
Southland Times <editor@stl.co.nz>,
TVNZ News <news@tvnz.co.nz>,
The Press <letters@press.co.nz>,
The Wellingtonian <editor@thewellingtonian.co.nz>,
Waikato Times <editor@waikatotimes.co.nz>,
Wairarapa Times-Age <editor@age.co.nz>,
Winston Peters <winston.peters@parliament.govt.nz>
Subject: Corrupt practices under the Local Electoral Act (2001)
Date: Saturday, 28 July 2012 6:57 PMRt Hon. John Key
Prime Minister
Parliament House
Wellington28 July 2012
Sir,
With regards to matters raised by TV3′s John Campbell, Trevor Mallard, and others, surrounding John Banks; his 2010 Electoral Return; and subsequent Police investigation, I invite you to read and consider questions and comments made on my blogpost, “John Banks – escaping justice“.
You will note that I have raised several questions regarding this matter, and have written to Police Asst Commissioner, Malcolm Burgess, for clarification and answers to issues that I regard as important.
I have also contacted Transparency International, a global NGO that rates countries according to levels of corruption within their society. Last year, New Zealand ranked #1 on a Corruption Transparency Index 2011. Following the John Banks Donations Affair, I have invited Transparency Internation to review our top ranking, in terms of least corrupt nation on Earth.
Far from being a “closed matter”, I believe this issue is of vital importance – especially since it appears that many of Kim Dotcom’s allegations against John Banks have been substantiated.
The question that I am asking; will you remove John Banks from his Ministerial roles?
Regards,
-Frank Macskasy
Blogger,
“Frankly Speaking“
.
No reply (or even acknowledgement) received as yet, by14 September.
An acknowledgement was, however, received from Winston Peters’ office.
.
Update
.
Since the Police decision, the files on this case have been released to the public and the revelations are shocking to put it mildly.
What the police have uncovered is corrupt behaviour, lying, manipulation of the law, and a Crown Minister who has escaped prosecution on the flimsiest of technicalities.
What the Police files reveal:
- Banks received three additional “anonymous” $25,ooo donations for his mayoral campaigns. (See: Police file: How Banks’ team targeted rich-list ) Who were those donations from? Were they one $75,000 donation from one individual/organisation? Were receipts issued for those donations? Did the Police investigate the source of those donations?
- The Police state that although Banks had filed a false election return, “he hadn’t done so deliberately, because he had signed it without reading it“. Really?! Is that the new standard set in New Zealand where people can sign documents and escape liability by simply claiming “I didn’t read it”?! (Can I use that with my bank manager to stop paying my mortgage, because “I didn’t read my mortgage agreement with my bank?”. Won’t she be pleased!)
- Skycity received a receipt from Bank’s Campaign Treasurer for their $15,000 donation. That donation was later listed as ‘anonymous’. (By contrast, Len Brown – who also received a $15,000 donation from Skycity – openly and correctly recorded the source of that donation on his Electoral return.) How could Banks’ Treasurer then knowingly record that Skycity donation as “anonymous”?!
- Banks twice phoned Dotcom to thank him for the donation – the same donation he could not remember when first challenged by the media.
- John Banks incited Kim Dotcom to break the Electoral law on reporting donations by advising him to hide the $50,000 donation: “I want to help you Kim and I can help you more effectively if no-one knows about this donation.” (See: John Banks told lawyer of support by Dotcom )
- Banks is now trying to hide his statement to the Police, despite his oft-repeatred mantra, “Nothing to fear, nothing to hide”. Banks is most certainly doing his utmost to hide his statement he made to the police. See: “Banks camp’s stories differ“. What is Banks trying to hide from the Public? What more is there that would damn John Banks in the eyes of the public? What indeed.
Further playing the role of the scoundrel and rogue, Banks then has the temerity to blame others for his mendacity. Through a spokeswoman (because Banks hasn’t the intestinal fortitude to front directly to the media), he released this statement,
“A spokeswoman for the minister said he had always stated he signed the electoral return in good faith believing it to be true and correct. “He has always believed he acted within the law.”
She said the law – passed by Labour 11 years ago and tightened yesterday – was “unclear, unfair and unworkable”.
“Mr Banks believes that no candidate for public office should have to go through what he has been through.”
Unbelievable!!
Banks says “He has always believed he acted within the law” ?!?!
By advising a political donor to hide his donation by splitting it in two?
Banks then attempts to blame the Labour Party by suggesting that the law was “unclear, unfair and unworkable” ?!?!
The law is actually quite clear and specific:
“ 109 Return of electoral expenses
(1) Within 55 days after the day on which the successful candidates at any election are declared to be elected, every candidate at the election must transmit to the electoral officer a return setting out—
(a) the candidate’s electoral expenses; and
(b) the name and address of each person who made an electoral donation to the candidate and the amount of each electoral donation; and
(c) if an electoral donation of money or of the equivalent of money is made to the candidate anonymously and the amount of that donation exceeds $1,000,—
(i) the amount of that donation; and
(ii) the fact that it has been received anonymously.
(2) Every return under subsection (1) must be in the form prescribed in Schedule 2 or to similar effect.
(3) If the candidate is outside New Zealand on the day on which the successful candidates are declared to be elected, the return must be transmitted by the candidate to the electoral officer within 21 days after the date of the candidate’s return to New Zealand.
(4) It is the duty of every electoral officer to ensure that this section is complied with. “
Source: Local Electoral Act 2001
The law is actually quite clear and specific: donations and donors are to be truthfully recorded: “the name and address of each person who made an electoral donation to the candidate and the amount of each electoral donation; and…“
It was not the law at fault – it was the person who conspired to defeat that law who is at fault here. If a person like John Banks is not preprared to follow the law – both in letter and spirit – then no amount of “tightening” legislation will work. People like Banks will simply find new ways to circumvent the intent of legislation.
It is therefore a bit rich for Banks to say,
“As Charles Dickens said in 1838 the law is an ass – and it’s important that the Government cleans it up. No candidate for public office should go through what I had to go through.”
See: Banks welcomes changes to ‘unfair’ donations law
The law is not an “ass”. The real ass is a certain MP for Epsom who treats the law like a minor irrirant, to be brushed aside at will.
Banks would not have gone “through what [he] had to go through” had he simply followed the law. It wasn’t “rocket science”.
Banks is also blaming Police for not releasing the record of his three-hour interview with the Police, saying that it was their decision. This is another lie from the Member for Epsom.
As with all lies, they eventually collapse under their complexity, as happened when Banks’ press secretary let slip that he had indeed “gone over” his Electoral Return with his Campaign Treasurer, before signing it,
” Mr Banks is likely to face further questions after his press secretary removed his line of defence against the accusations.
Police said they could not prove that he knew the content of the form was false because it was filled out by the campaign treasurer, who assured Mr Banks it was “true and correct”. Mr Banks then signed it.
Ms Mackey yesterday challenged descriptions of this as saying Mr Banks signed the form without reading it. In an email, she said: “But John Banks did read the document.”
Police had already established Mr Banks knew who some anonymous donors were. Ms Mackey’s statement meant he would have known the donation form did not include donors of whom he was personally aware.
She then back-pedalled, saying the treasurer had “gone over” the form with Mr Banks. “
See: Banks camp’s stories differ
This is not the first time that the Banks/ACT camp has slipped up and issued a conflicting statement,
.
On the following day, another ACT member dropped an even bigger ‘clanger‘.
On 2 May, ACT Party President, Chris Simmons, was interviewed on Radio New Zealand’s “Checkpoint” programme by Mary Wilson. (Note: This blogger personally heard this interview.)
.
ACT Party President Chris Simmons
.
Simmons stated that the suggestion, by John Banks, to split the $50,000 donation was,
“…one of the suggestions made to Dotcom.
… He has given me an indication why he made that suggestion and that was that he initially was going to put in $25,000 of his own money and he figured that other people should be putting in the same sort of numbers.”
With that extraordinary slip-of-the-tongue, Simmons had publicly admitted what Kim Dotcom had been alleging, and what John Banks had been consistently andf strenuously denying.
Simons retracted within the hour, according to the “NZ Herald“.
.
So it appears that Simmons was right the first time; John Banks had indeed suggested to Dotcom to split the $50,000 donation. When Simmons retracted that statement less than an hour later, that is when he lied when he said,
” I can’t say that because I don’t know that and John hasn’t told me that. I haven’t asked John that. What John has told me is he spoke to a lot of people asking for donations. He has told me [he] spoke to Dotcom but I haven’t gone into the details of it. All I’m interested in [is] was that donation report above board. He’s been very clear he has nothing to fear and nothing to hide.”
See: Act Party president flip flops on money
How many people have been drawn into Banks’ web of lies? How many more will lie for him?
It should be abundantly clear to any but the most partisan National/ACT supporter that John Banks has the moral compass of a Nigerian scammer. It is therefore unacceptable that, when challenged, Dear Leader John Key reaffirms his support for Banks,
”Nothing has changed when it comes to (our earlier) position. I haven’t read the full (police) report, I’ve seen what’s in the media … Look, this is a politically motivated attack from Labour and really where they should have put their political energy is changing the law. It is very, very broad, unworkable law and that’s why the Government is changing it now.”
John Key was then asked if he still maintained confidence in Banks, and replied,
“Yes absolutely.”
Two points;
1. The law currently states that “ if an electoral donation of money or of the equivalent of money is made to the candidate anonymously and the amount of that donation exceeds $1,000… “
National is planning to change the Act by raising the limit to $1,500. How that would have prevented Banks from rorting the Electoral Act is unclear to this blogger.
2. When NZ First Leader, Winston Peters was embroiled in the Owen Glenn donations scandal, John Key was very adamant what he expected from then-Prime Minister, Helen Clark,
“ Peters unacceptable in a National-led Government
Wednesday, 27 August 2008, 4:24 pm
Press Release: New Zealand National PartyJohn Key MP
National Party Leader27 August 2008
Peters unacceptable in a National-led Government
National Party Leader John Key says Winston Peters would be unacceptable as a Minister in a government led by him unless Mr Peters can provide a credible explanation on the Owen Glenn saga.
“Labour Party donor Owen Glenn’s letter to the Privileges Committee completely contradicts Winston Peters’ version of events about the substantial $100,000 donation made by Mr Glenn to Mr Peters’ legal costs.
“Mr Glenn’s letter represents a direct challenge to Mr Peters’ credibility, from the only other person in the world in a position to know the facts.
“From Parliament’s point of view, the Privileges Committee provides an appropriate vehicle to resolve the points of conflict and to hold individuals to account. But from the Prime Minister’s and the Government’s point of view, that is not enough.
“Governments and Ministers must enjoy the confidence of the Parliament and, ultimately, the public. Faced with today’s revelations, it is no longer acceptable for Mr Peters to offer bluster and insults where simple, courteous, honest answers are required.
“It is no longer acceptable or credible for Helen Clark to assert a facade of confidence in her Foreign Affairs Minister and to fail to ask the plain questions of him that she has a duty to the public to ask.
“Faced with today’s revelations, Helen Clark must stand Mr Peters down as a Minister. That is what I would do if I were Prime Minister. Helen Clark has stood Ministers from Labour down for much less.
“Unless he can provide a credible explanation about this serious issue, he should be unacceptable to Helen Clark as a Minister in her Labour-led Government.
“Mr Peters will be unacceptable as a Minister in a government led by me unless he can provide a credible explanation”. “
Source: Scoop.co.nz – Peters unacceptable in a National-led Government
Indeed.
Your call, Mr Key.
Addendum
A link to this blogpost has been emailed to media, political parties, as well as John Key and John Banks. Why not? Nothing to fear, nothing to hide…
Continued at:
John Banks – escaping justice (Part Toru)
.
.
*
.
Related blogpost
Key on Banks; Staunch, stupid, or stuck?
Additional
Police statement: Outcome of Police investigation into electoral returns of Hon John Banks
Police Complaint File No: 120427/9334
Listen to Mary Wilson’s interview with Malcolm Burgess (26 July 2012)
Call to sack Banks after more donations details released (13 September 2012)
.
.
= fs =
What’s up with the Nats and ACT? (Part toru)
.
Continued from: What’s up with the Nats? (Part rua)
.
.
If there’s somethin’ strange in your neighborhood
Who ya gonna call?
Natbusters!
If it’s somethin’ weird an it won’t look good
Who ya gonna call?
Natbusters!
Intro
Ever since the National Party conference at the end of July, the National Party has been strutting the political stage like a bunch of patched gang-members, strutting about the main street of some small town in the back-blocks.
Key, Bennett, Joyce, Collins, Parata, Banks – even lowly backbenchers like Maggie Barry – have been obnoxiously aggressive in policy announcements and dealing with the media and critics.
The Nats have been unrelentingly in our faces ever since John Key uttered the threat,
.
.
This is not just about confidence.
This is something new. This is about a new, hyped-up, aggressive style of taking criticisms and failings, and turning it back on the critic.
Steven Joyce was on-style on TV3′s “The Nation” (19 August), when he belittled and badgered two journalists (John Hartevelt and Alex Tarrant) who asked him pointedly about National’s short-comings. Joyce’s response was typical Muldoon-style pugnacity.
This interview with Joyce is charachteristic of how National Ministers have been belligerent in their responses. It is singularly instructive,
.
.
Interestingly, Joyce has a “go” at Labour; then the Greens; and even Hone Harawira throughout the course of the interview. He even blames the global financial crisis and throws that in the face of Alex Tarrant, as he responds to a point.
Everyone gets a dose of blame – except the one party that is currently in power. So much for National’s creed that we should all take personal responsibility for our actions.
It appears that National’s back-room Party strategists have been analysing the first few months of this year and have realised that when things go horribly wrong, or the latest string of economic indicators reveal more bad news, the relevant Minister(s) responds with aggression and with defiance.
If the old say “explaining-is-losing” is a truism, then any explanation offered automatically puts a Minister on the back-foot.
The best way out of such a sticky moment; take a page out of Rob Muldoon’s book, ‘How To Win Friends/Enemies and Influence the Media‘.
And National’s Ministers (and coalition partners) have been playing this ‘new’ game perfectly…
.
John Banks
.
It would be fair to say that John Banks’ parliamentary career has been a disaster since before he even won the seat of Epsom. The Tea Pot fiasco was but a prologue to the man’s uncanny, magnetic ability to attract scandal, pratfalls, and sheer incompetance.
The donations scandal involving Sky City and Kim Dotcom was another insight into his ‘shifting sands of morality‘.
See previous blogpost: John Banks – escaping justice
See previous blogpost: “He will be a very good friend for you when he is in Parliament”
See previous blogpost: Money in the Banks (Part #Wha)
See previous blogpost: Key on Banks; Staunch, stupid, or stuck?
It seems that the police decision not to prosecute has emboldened Banks, and he is “fighting back – hard“,
.
.
First, Banks adopts a macho, Tough Man role,
“It’s called fight back. It’s called fight back – hard“.
Banks then takes on the wounded victim role,
“I found it deeply offensive, much of what was said, written and broadcast during that time because, for all my faults, anyone who knows me would never believe I would go out deliberately and falsify a return.
I told everyone who would listen on day one that I had nothing to fear or hide from the inquiry.”
He may’ve had “nothing to fear or hide from the inquiry ” – but he sure seemed to have a heckuva lot of amnesia?
See: Banks – I didn’t lie, I simply forgot
Then Banks launched into a spiteful attack on his 2010 mayoral rival, Len Brown,
“From where I come from it is hurtful when wild, reckless and untruthful allegations are made about you … There wasn’t a squeak about how Len Brown raised and [filtered] money through a trust. Not a squeak. Not a police investigation. No wild and reckless allegations.”
Banks is correct.
There was no police investigation into SkyCity’s donation to Len Brown’s mayoral campaign.
Do we know why?
Yes, we do: because Len Brown openly and honestly declared his donation,
” SkyCity gave $15,000 each to Len Brown, now mayor, and Mr Banks, his rival, during that campaign.
Although Mr Brown’s donation return listed SkyCity as a donor, Mr Banks’ listed an anonymous donation of $15,000. It did not mention SkyCity. “
See: Banks did not reveal SkyCity as big donor
No matter how often Banks tries to reinvent himself; re-write recent history; to shift blame on to others; and refuses to take responsibility for his actions (yet again), the Court of Public Opinion has passed judgement.
John Banks will never again be elected to any public office in this country.
Try not to forget that, Mr Banks.
.
Continued at: What’s up with the Nats? (Part wha)
.
.
= fs =
John Banks – escaping justice
.
John Banks
.
Once upon a time, the people of a tiny little nation at the bottom of the world believed that their country lived by laws that applied to everyone. The system was simple; irrespective of who you were and how wealthy or poor you were; regardless of whether you were powerful or powerless, the law applied to all equally.
How naive we were.
.
*
.
1. Background
.
(Blogger’s note: This section deal with bachground events leading up to the recent Police investigation and decision regarding John Bank’s donations scandal. For those who are aware of the facts, you may wish to “cut to the chase” and scroll down to Section 2, Police Decision. )
The donations saga began in April of this year, when revelations surfaced that John Banks, MP for Epsom, and a Minister in John Key’s National-led government, was accused of hiding the names of donors in his Electoral Donations return. Instead of listing each donor by name, they were referred to as “anonymous”.
The donations were made toward his unsuccessful bid for the 2010 Mayoral election.
In all, Banks recieved donations of,
- $15,000 from Skycity casino
- $50,000 from entrepreneur, Kim Dotcom
- $15,690 from an “anonymous” donor for radio advertising
All were listed as “anonymous”, despite John Banks being fully aware of the donor’s identity.
The saga began on 5 April with this revelation,
“ ACT MP John Banks failed to declare a $15,000 donation from SkyCity in his return for Auckland’s mayoral election, it has been claimed in Parliament.
Labour’s deputy leader, Grant Robertson, said SkyCity had publicly stated it gave $15,000 donations to Len Brown, who is now the city’s mayor, and Mr Banks, who was the main challenger.
“John Banks failed to declare a $15,000 donation from SkyCity in his electoral return,” Mr Robertson said, speaking under parliamentary privilege.
“SkyCity publicly stated they had given $15,000 to both the main candidates and that they have a policy of asking those who get donations to declare it.
“That donation does not appear in his return”. “
Whilst Banks did not declare the $15,000 donation from Skycity, his political rival, Len Brown did,
” SkyCity gave $15,000 each to Len Brown, now mayor, and Mr Banks, his rival, during that campaign.
Although Mr Brown’s donation return listed SkyCity as a donor, Mr Banks’ listed an anonymous donation of $15,000. It did not mention SkyCity. “
See: Banks did not reveal SkyCity as big donor
On 15 April, Kim Dotcom held a birthday party at his Coatsville mansion in Auckland. John Banks and his wife were invited to attend,
” … Mr Banks said he hardly knew the internet tycoon.
He said his contact with Dotcom was limited to a total of 20 minutes conversation and he had been to Dotcom’s mansion in Coatesville only once for dinner.
But film of the event – Dotcom’s birthday party – showed Mr Banks making a toast to the tycoon.
Footage showed Mr Banks raising a glass and saying, “I’m going to propose a toast to Kim Dotcom. Please fill your glasses and stand. Happy birthday and best wishes to Kim Dotcom, Mona and his family.”
Staff at the mansion said it was one of three visits. The pair also met at Princes Wharf on New Year’s Eve 2010 when Dotcom put on a $600,000 fireworks display.
The pair first met in April 2010 when Dotcom sent his helicopter to collect Mr Banks from Mechanics Bay in downtown Auckland.
Dotcom said the pair met in the mansion, sitting at a large square table, and chatted.
Bodyguard Wayne Tempero was present, as was one of Dotcom’s butlers. His company chief financial officer also attended briefly.
“He mentioned the elections were coming up [and] he was raising money for his campaign,” Dotcom said. “He said it was hard to raise money in New Zealand, the mayoral campaign was coming up and he’s trying to raise funds for that.
“I kind of liked the guy. I said, ‘I’m happy to help.’ I told Wayne to write a cheque for $50,000.
“His [Mr Banks'] eyes got a little bit bigger at that moment.”
Mr Tempero asked the chief financial officer to come into the room to write the cheque.
“John said, ‘Wait a minute’,” Dotcom recalled last night. “‘It would be good if you could split it up into two payments of 25 [thousand dollars], then I don’t declare publicly who made it’.”
Dotcom said one cheque was made out in his own name, or the name of his company Megastuff Ltd, and the other in Mr Tempero’s name.
“He [Mr Banks] called me a few days after the cheques entered his bank account and he thanked me personally.”
Last night, Mr Banks said there would be nothing wrong with his telling people how to give anonymously.
“If someone says to me, ‘How can I put money into your campaign?’ what would be wrong with telling them that – if that was that case?
“I could say, ‘Firstly, you should talk to people who are raising money for me. But if you want to put money into my campaign, you can put it in two ways. You can put it in anonymously or you can put it in and have it declared.’ It’s quite legitimate. “
See: Dotcom’s secret donation to Banks
Note that John Banks claimed “he hardly knew the internet tycoon“. As events progressed, it became abundantly clear that Banks had lied, and his relationship with Dorcom was more than ” limited to a total of 20 minutes conversation”.
Then on 27 April, TV3′s John Campbell discovered another donor to Banks’ election campaign who had been listed as “anonymous” in their electoral donations return; Kim Dotcom,
” Kim Dotcom is the latest person to have been found to have allegedly donated money anonymously to John Banks.
It is already known that in the race to be super city mayor, Sky City donated $15,000 each to the two front runners.
Len Brown listed Sky City as a donor but Mr Banks did not.
Campbell Live was interested in that because we had heard Kim Dotcom had made a donation three times that size to the John Banks mayoralty campaign.
Campbell Live has even been told Mr Banks was so grateful that he called Dotcom to thank him for it.
An investigation found that like the Sky City donation, the Dotcom donation appears to be listed as anonymous.
The question is why? “
When Campbell pressed Banks as to whether he had received donations from Dotcom or how well he knew the German entrepreneur, or having flown to his mansion in a helicopter, John Banks mental condition appears to have suddenly deteriorated with a sudden onset of Alzheimers,
” Kim Dotcom says the birthday party was not the only occasion Mr Banks visited, saying he once sent his helicopter into Auckland to collect Mr Banks from the central city landing strip at Mechanic’s Bay, and fly him out to the Dotcom Mansion.
But Mr Banks does not remember whether that happened or not.
“I don’t remember that,” Mr Banks says.
When pressed on whether or not he had ever taken a helicopter to the Dotcom mansion, Mr Banks remained vague.
“I can’t recall whether I did or not,” he says.
Dotcom says Mr Banks gratefully accepted his offer, but Dotcom also says Mr Banks asked for the donation to be split into two payments of $25,000 each.
Mr Banks says he does not remember who gave him money.
“Well, I don’t know. I mean I haven’t seen the forms now for a couple of years, so I don’t know who gave me money, I can’t remember now,” says Mr Banks.
He also says he could not remember discussing money with Dotcom and his team.
“Well I met with them, I know them, but I can’t recall discussing money with them”. “
Banks added his by-now famous line,
“I welcome this enquiry by the electoral officer, no problems, nothing to hide, nothing to fear.”
See: Banks knew about ‘anonymous’ Dotcom donation – reports
.
.
According to John Campbell, there were no donations from Kim Dotcom listed on Banks’ Electoral returns – but there were five anonmymous donations of $25,000.
See: Banks questioned over Dotcom donation
Why was Kim Dotcom’s $50,000 donation not listed on Banks’ Return? Here’s why,
” Act leader John Banks asked for a $50,000 political donation to be split into two parts so it could be made anonymously, says Kim Dotcom and one other witness.
Dotcom said the request was made on April 15, 2010, when Mr Banks was preparing to campaign for the Auckland mayoralty.
He said there were at times three other people in the room while the donation was discussed – and Mr Banks rang later to thank him for it. “
See: Dotcom’s secret donation to Banks
Because two $25,000 donations could be listed as “anonymous” under the Electoral Act?
On the same day, the matter of Skycity’s donation was reported to the police for investigation, via the Electoral Commission. The complaint was raised by Labour MP, Trevor Mallard,
” Electoral officer Bruce Thomas in responding to Mr Mallard today noted that under section 138 of the Local Electoral Act 2001, he was required to report to the police any written complaint alleging an offence had been committed.
“Accordingly, I advise that I am referring this matter onto the police for their attention”. “
See: Banks’ SkyCity donation complaint referred to police
.
.
On the 29th of April, Banks was interviewed on TVNZ’s Q+A current affairs programme.
” PAUL HOLMES
Mr Parker, I would ask you to sit there for a little while, because, Mr Banks, other matters have reared their head over the last couple of days, and David Shearer, the Labour leader, is demanding of the Prime Minister that he stand you down over the Kim Dotcom donation affair. Should he, or shouldn’t you stand yourself down?JOHN BANKS
This is the problem – it’s a sideshow; it’s mostly a media beat-up, and much of it is humbug.PAUL
No, dammit, it’s about the law, Mr Banks.JOHN
Yes, well, have a look at the 2001 act and you’ll see what a professor of law said this morning in the Sunday Herald. Yesterday the media had me going to jail. Today they’re saying I’m likely to be in the clear. That is the problem. Last week I was the sideshow. Next week Mr Shearer will be the sideshow because Mr Shearer’s going to be rolled in the next couple of weeks. That’s the problem.PAUL
Can I just have a look at some of what’s emerged? You were up at Kim Dotcom’s, and did you know he was giving you the money? Did you know he was writing out a cheque or getting his man to write a cheque?JOHN
Look, we’re here to talk about investment, growth and jobs…PAUL
Well, I’m sorry, Mr Banks, this has taken precedence.JOHN
Let me answer your question. All this has been narrated mainly on the front page of the local newspaper here and across the media…PAUL
Well, I’m giving you the chance to debate it with us here, so answer the question. Were you there when the cheques came out? Did you know he was giving you the money?JOHN
I don’t…PAUL
Did he mention $50,000?JOHN
Why don’t you…PAUL
Were you there when they started writing a cheque?JOHN
(LAUGHS)PAUL
Did you ask for it to be two cheques because you could make it anonymous? And if you were there and you declared that donation anonymous, you’re dead meat, aren’t you, because that was illegal.JOHN
I think you think I came up the river on a cabbage boat. I can tell you that when I signed my declaration for the mayoralty I signed it in good faith in the knowledge as a Justice of the Peace as true and correct. I have nothing to fear and nothing to hide and I welcome the inquiry and everything will come out in the wash, Mr Holmes. I’m more invested in the real issues of investment growth and jobs and providing working opportunities for 80,000 of our kids that are out of school and out of luck.PAUL
But are you saying – because it is illegal, you know, don’t you, that if you know where a donation came from, to claim it was anonymous. So is what Mr Dotcom is saying about – your eyes perked up, your eyes went big at the mention of 50 grand. And so the fella gets the chequebook out and you’re sitting there and he writes a cheque. I mean, are you saying that he’s lying? Because that’s what he’s saying.JOHN
I don’t know why you’re going on about this. I have nothing to hide.PAUL
Is he lying?JOHN
It’s a media beat-up. Yesterday I was going to jail. Today I’m going to be cleared. I mean, that’s what the media get up to, and you’re beating it up again. Look, we’ve got an inquiry…PAUL
Mr Banks.JOHN
I’m very happy to have the inquiry. (CHUCKLES)PAUL
Did you know Kim Dotcom had written you two cheques for 50 grand, and did you therefore put them in your return as two lots of 25, anonymous? Yes or no?JOHN
I signed my return honestly. I have nothing to hide and nothing to fear and it will all come…PAUL
Did you know Mr Dotcom was throwing 50 grand at you?JOHN
…out in the wash. And I want to talk this morning about our competition with Australia for investment and jobs and getting the government off our backs and out of our pockets and providing an economic environment where we can create wealth for our country. “
Paul Holmes’ closing comment in that interview,
“Thank you. We have to leave it there. And I can’t believe you can’t remember whether you went in a helicopter or not.”
See: Q+A: Transcript of David Parker and John Banks interview
.
.
On the same day (29th), Prime Minister John Key issued a public statement supporting John Banks,
” I’ve sought an assurance from Mr Banks that he complied with local government law. He’s given me that assurance. I accept him at his word. If people don’t believe that they are free to test that with the police. “
Whether or not Key’s statement is factually correct is open to interpretation, as the Prime Minister later acknowledged that he had not spoken directly with Banks.
Key rejected calls to stand Banks down, even whilst Police were investigating the Minister.
See: PM standing by under fire Banks
On the following day, 30 April, the media reported more information backing up Kim Dotcom’s claims,
” Internet tycoon Kim Dotcom’s records will show ACT MP John Banks made a phone call to say thanks for two $25,000 donations, it’s been reported…
… Mr Banks says he’s done nothing wrong, didn’t know Dotcom made the donations and didn’t phone him to thank him for them.
3News reports Mr Banks met Dotcom in June 2010 and a few days later two $25,000 cheques were banked in Queenstown into Mr Banks’ mayoral fund.
They were made out to Team Banks.
“Our source says Banks rang Dotcom two days later. The source says `Kim’s records will show this’,” 3News reports…
…Mr Banks won’t answer questions other than to say he didn’t call Dotcom about the donations. “
See: Dotcom says Banks thanked him for cheques
Labour MP Trevor Mallard stated he was prepared to lay a Police complaint John Banks’ failure to properly disclose Kim Dotcom’s donation, adding to his previous complaint regarding Skycity’s $15,000 donation to Banks, and which also had not been properly disclosed on his Electoral Donation Returns.
Dotcom gave further details how the $50,000 donation to Banks had been made,
” Dotcom has said one of the two cheques paid to Mr Banks was made out in his own name, or the name of his company, Megastuff. The other was in the name of his bodyguard, Wayne Tempero.
The Herald last night spoke to a former Dotcom employee, who said they had personally deposited the cheques into Mr Banks’ campaign account.
The former employee said, “They were deposited just through a normal bank process. It would have just come up as a $25,000 deposit.”
… Dotcom says Mr Banks rang him to thank him for the money after it was paid. “
See: Banks’ funds: Dotcom checks books
John Banks, in turn, denied that he had phoned Kim Dotcom to thank him for any donations,
” John Banks says he never called German billionaire Kim Dotcom to thank him for a $50,000 donation to his 2010 Auckland mayoralty campaign…
… Banks has previously said he did not recall whether he made the phone call, but now says he never did. However he did have contact with Dotcom about “other matters“. “
See: Banks denies calling Dotcom over donation
.
.
By 1 May, the pressure and mounting evidence had forced John Banks into a corner. Every allegation made by Kim Dotcom had been documented with evidence, witnesses, and even a video of his relationship with Banks.
Meanwhile, Banks had nothing but constant protests of “I can’t remember”.
“… Mr Banks denied misleading the public about the donations and events around them, including a helicopter ride to Dotcom’s mansion which he has said he cannot remember.
“I didn’t lie. There’s no reason to believe that I lied. I simply couldn’t recall“. “
See: Banks: I didn’t lie, I simply forgot
Who forgets a helicopter ride? Especially a flight to one of the largest mansions in Auckland?!
Which, of course, begs the question as to why a person with such “deteriorating memory” holds a Ministerial Warrant and position of authority in government. Most people with such a poor mental condition would be on extended sick leave. Or in a medical facility receiving appropriate care.
Banks finally admitted that he had not been upfront with the public,
“ He specifically referred to an interview which aired Monday on Campbell Live, in which he repeatedly said he “couldn’t remember” his communications with Kim Dotcom.
But Mr Banks says the answers he gave on the programme were wrong and admits he was not telling the truth.
“I could have quite easily answered all of those questions up front, contrary to the legal advice.
“I have never had any problem answering questions in a very straight manner…that is why the public will be surprised I took the legal advice literally, not to jeopardise any inquiry,” he says.
Mr Banks still backs his legal standing over the declaration of donations, repeating he has “nothing to fear and nothing to hide”.
“There could be a public perception that I have been obfuscating around some of these things. I shouldn’t have taken that legal advice and I should have answered questions much more straight”. “
See: Banks ‘regrets’ legal advice to stay silent
See: What the documents say about Dotcom’s donation (video)
Which is interesting, as one wonders how John Banks could have had the time to contact his lawyer prior to his interview with John Campbell, to seek legal advice?
And why would “his lawyer tell him to keep his lips sealed on the matter”?
Generally, lawyers only give such advice only if a person is being interviewed by Police or have been charged with an offence.
It seems bizarre to understand why a lawyer would offer such advice. After all, Banks was not a suspect in any criminal case. And any suggestion that a lawyer would give such advice so as ” not to jeopardise any inquiry ” seems unlikely. Remember that the Skycity issue had not been in the public domain until John Campbells first interviewed Banks for the TV3 story; Banks accused of failing to declare donation.
So Banks was forced to admit that he had been – in his own words – “obfuscating “. But then offered a weak excuse that he had “advised by his lawyer” not to answer questions.
Does this seem even vaguely plausible?
Even Wellington’s daily newspaper, ‘The Dominion Post‘ found Banks’ explanation unconvincing. On 2 May, their front page demanded answers to five, specific questions,
” 1. Have you actually read the Local Electoral Act?
2. Did you tell Kim Dotcom to split a $50,000 donation into two cheques?
3. What did Kim Dotcom want in return for his donation?
4. You admit advocating for him – when, to who, and on what subjects?
5. Did you give the prime minister the same untrue explanations you’ve given the media? “
The same article went on to state,
” Mr Key has insisted that he would sack Mr Banks if it turned out the MP had not told him the truth – but apparently that test applies only to questions the prime minister and his office put to Mr Banks directly, not the answers he gave to the media and the public.
And, as it turns out, Mr Key’s office has never actually asked Mr Banks the questions that might put the prime minister in the awkward position of knowing whether the former Auckland mayor broke the spirit, if not the letter, of the law over anonymous donations to his mayoral campaign fund in 2010 – questions such as do you know what “anonymous” means, did you tell Dotcom to divide a $50,000 donation into two cheques, what did Dotcom want from you in return, and why was it so important for you to have these donations treated anonymously, even when the donors clearly weren’t fussed? “
Two further revelations were made public;
Firstly, it transpired that John Key hadn’t spoken directly to Banks. Instead the ACT leader had given ”an absolute and categorical assurance to my office” (to Chief of Staff, Wayne Eagleson?) that he acted within the Local Electoral Act 2001.
It seems inexplicable that since the story first broke on 5 April, the Prime Minister had not pulled Banks into his office and spoken directly with him to gain a “categorical assurance“ that he had complied with the law.
Instead, the Prime Minister had left this extremely serious matter to a staffer.
Which, in itself, is incredible, as John Key’s Coalition rests on a precarious one-seat majority. If Banks were to mis-calculate and be forced to resign, Key’s government would fall and be forced to hold an early election.
The only conclusion one can draw from Key’s decision not to confront Banks directly is that he wanted to keep his Minister at “arms length” from himself. In the world of Political Theatre, this is known as “plausible deniability“.
Or, more realistically, Key lied and he had met, secretly, with Banks.
A second matter arose on this day, and Banks admitted that he had lobbied another Minister on behalf of Kim Dotcom,
” Land Information Minister Maurice Williamson this morning confirmed Banks had called him in mid 2011 on behalf of Dotcom, who was applying through the Overseas Investment Office to buy his Coatesville mansion.
Bank said this afternoon he spoke to Williamson about two times, largely about procedural matters because Dotcom’s application was taking a long time to process.
“I rang Maurice Williamson about it, I wasn’t the Mayor of Auckland, I wasn’t a Member of Parliament, I was a private citizen and I made the phone call and I’d do it again.”
“I said to Mr Dotcom I would give him advice on that and I did“.”
See: Five questions Banks must answer
Williamson’s involvement on this issue became murkier, as claims and denials began to swirl around those involved,
” Documents released under the Official Information Act show Dotcom wanted to buy the $30 million mansion he was renting in in Coatesville, its $5 million neighbouring “cottage” and a $10 million beach house at Doubtless Bay in Northland.
The application to buy the properties went to Mr Williamson, who gave formal approval on April 7 last year.
Dotcom’s bodyguard, Wayne Tempero, said he took a call from Mr Banks about the application. The call was to let Dotcom know the application was going ahead as expected and that Mr Williamson had signed it.
Dotcom said Mr Tempero briefed him on the conversation.
Last night, Mr Banks confirmed he had updated Dotcom’s staff about the application to buy the land.
A spokesman said: “Mr Banks communicated with Mr Tempero that the OIO application was continuing to progress through the approval process.”
But a spokeswoman for Mr Williamson said he had given no information to anyone outside his office over giving approval to allow Dotcom to buy the land. “
See: John Banks: I briefed Dotcom
At this point, Prime Minister John Key must have been dreading that another of his Ministers (Maurice Williamson) was being slowly dragged into this mess.
But Key did himself no favours when he attempted to justify John Banks’ constantly-changing story, by suggesting,
“Well, there’s quite a wide definition of ethics.”
When even the National Business Review - the most business-friendly; National-friendly; and ACT-friendly newspaper states,
“It was hardly the most ringing of endorsements. “
- then you know you’re in trouble.
See: Prime minister defends embattled John Banks
In the same article, Banks was reported to have stated,
“I was not aware that Mr Dotcom had made this donation to my campaign. I did not call him to thank him as the donation was made anonymously.
I can confirm that I had contact with Mr Dotcom on other matters, including thanking him for the generous $500,000 donation that he made to the ratepayers of Auckland for the 2010 New Year’s Eve fireworks display.
However, I never called and thanked him for any donation to my mayoral campaign.”
See: Prime minister defends embattled John Banks
Which is “an interesting proposition” (to borrow one of the Prime Minister’s phrases), considering the dates involved;
- Kim Dotcom states that Banks’ request for a donation was made on 15 April 2010, when Mr Banks was preparing to campaign for the Auckland mayoralty. (See: Banks sought split donation – Dotcom)
- The 2010 Local Body elections were held, via postal ballot from 17 September to Saturday 9 October 2010. (See: Frequently asked questions – 2010 local elections)
- Kim Dotcom wrote out two cheques, for $25,000 each, on 9 June 2010, and both were deposited into “Team Banksie’s” account. (See: What the documents say about Dotcom’s donation )
- Kim Dotcom says that John Banks phoned him two days later ( 11 June) to thank him for the donation(s). (See: Dotcom says Banks thanked him for cheques)
- John Banks states that he “ had contact with Mr Dotcom on other matters, including thanking him for the generous $500,000 donation that he made to the ratepayers of Auckland for the 2010 New Year’s Eve fireworks display “.
- So John Banks is saying that he phoned Kim Dotcom, on 11 June, to thank him for a fireworks display, that was six months away? What part of that sounds even remotely plausible? One would think that Banks had more on his mind – his mayoralty campaign for example – than a fireworks display that was half a year away.
John Banks’ assertion that he phoned Kim Dotcom to thank for for an event that was six months away is not credible and obviously Banks lied regarding his reason for phoning Dotcom.
On the following day, another ACT member dropped an even bigger ‘clanger‘.
On 2 May, ACT Party President, Chris Simmons, was interviewed on Radio New Zealand’as “Checkpoint” programme by Mary Wilson. (Note: This blogger personally heard this interview.)
.
Act Party president Chris Simmons
.
Simmons stated that the suggestion, by John Banks, to split the $50,000 donation was,
“…one of the suggestions made to Dotcom.
He has given me an indication why he made that suggestion and that was that he initially was going to put in $25,000 of his own money and he figured that other people should be putting in the same sort of numbers.”
With that extraordinary slip-of-the-tongue, Simmons had publicly admitted what Kim Dotcom had been alleging, and what John Banks had been consistently andf strenuously denying.
Simons retracted within the hour, according to the “NZ Herald“.
See: Act Party president flip flops on money
A day later, on 3 May, a third allegation of a supposedly “anonymous” donation surfaced,
“ Questions were raised yesterday about a $15,000 gift of “radio advertising” to his 2010 mayoralty campaign. Police are investigating other donations to his failed campaign.
Mr Banks admitted yesterday he got a discounted deal at internet mogul Kim Dotcom’s favourite Hong Kong hotel, after initially denying he got cheap rates for the Christmas holiday.
Prime Minister John Key continued to back Mr Banks, but still has not talked to his embattled minister outside Cabinet.
Labour MP Trevor Mallard said it would be “absolutely weird” that $15,690 worth of radio advertisements could be donated anonymously, especially as they must be approved by a candidate, or his or her nominee.
“If it pretends to be anonymous and it’s not, then that is a breach of a law”. “
See: Campaign advertising gift in spotlight
Not only was this allegation of yet another “anonymous donation” further indication that Banks was not complying with the Local Electoral Act – but Prime Minister John Key had still not spoken directly with his Minister.
One wonders what was preventing Key with meeting with Banks?
.
.
Or if he had met, why was it being kept secret?
On 16 May, further revelations appeared in the media, suggesting that there had been a greater degree of familiarity between John Banks and Kim Dotcom than Banks had previously admitted,
” ACT leader John Banks has admitted he received a $1000 gift basket from internet tycoon Kim Dotcom, which should have been declared under parliamentary rules.
Banks, the lone ACT MP in government, received the basket during a stay at the Grant Hyatt hotel in Hong Kong during 2011, according to a New Zealand Herald story today.
In reply, he sent Dotcom a note thanking him for his hospitality, saying he enjoyed his stay.
Cabinet rules require members of Parliament to disclose to the Registrar of Pecuniary Interests any gift accepted worth more than $500. This declaration includes hospitality and donations in cash or kind. “
See: Banks admits receiving gift from Kim Dotcom
Remember that on 15 April, Banks said “he hardly knew the internet tycoon”.
By 5 July, Police had completed their investigation,
See: Police investigation into Banks’ mayoral campaign completed
.
2. Police Decision
.
On 26 July, nearly four months after the story broke on ‘Campbell Live’ on 5 April, the police arrived at a decision: they would not be prosecuting,
” Police investigated complaints in respect to donations from Sky City and the internet millionaire Kim Dotcom and the donation of radio advertising from a donor who wishes to remain anonymous.
They say they have established that he solicited the donations that a campaign volunteer subsequently recorded in his electoral return as anonymous, but that he sought and received confirmation the returns were accurate before he signed them off.
In a letter to Mr Mallard, police say there is insufficient evidence on any of the three complaints to prosecute on the basis that the return was submitted knowing it was false.
Assistant Commissioner Malcolm Burgess told Checkpoint the volunteer who compiled the return followed an appropriate procedure. He says the volunteer told Mr Banks the return was recorded correctly, and Mr Banks acted within the law in signing it off. “
Listen to Mary Wilson’s interview with Police Asst Commissioner Malcolm Burgess
See: Labour says Banks should still be stood down
Prime Minister John Key was quick to leap to John Banks defence as Labour leader David Shearer and Greens co-Leader Metiria Turei called for Banks to be stood down. In an extraordinary attempt to trivialise the scandal, Key described the complaints laid against Banks as “politically motivated”, and said,
“The issue is whether the minister complied with the law. The police have effectively confirmed today that he has.”
See: Opposition calls for Key to dump Banks
.
.
Once again, John Key has mis-represented the actual Police decision to the point where it is now the Prime Minister who could be accused of not telling the truth.
In fact, far from confirming that John Banks “complied with the law“, the Police report was damning,
.
.
.
.
See: Police Complaint File No: 120427/9334
.
3. Questions & Conclusions & Questions
.
Note the following for each donor;
Skycity
Skycity handed a cheque ($15,000 in cash would be difficult to fit into an envelope) to John Banks. Any such cheque would have had “Skycity” or it’s holding company’s name stamped on it.
Why was it still recorded as “anonymous”?
Was the “Treasurer” for “Team Banksie” given instructions to list the Skycity donation as anonymous? Or did s/he make their own decision to do so?
When cheques are deposited in banks, relevant details are usually recorded on a Banking Supplementary Deposit form, which lists,
- name of cheque issuer
- issuing bank
- issuing Bank branch
- amount to be paid
A carbon-copy of this Banking Supplementary Deposit form is usually retained within the Deposit book.
Why were the details in the Banking Supplementary Deposit book not used to record who deposited which cheque?
Did the Police ask these relevant questions and did they sight “Team Banksies” Banking Supplementary Deposit book?
John Banks’ mayoral opponant, Len Brown, was able to correctly list “Skycity” as the donor of a similar $15,000 cheque to Brown’s campaign Team. Why was John Banks unable to follow suit?
Anonymous Radio Ads
$15,690 worth of radio advertising was recorded as “Anonymous” in the Electoral Return, by “Team Banksie’s” Treasurer.
How is it feasible that the Treasurer was unaware of who provided funding for radio advertisements?
Was the Treasurer not part of “Team Banksie’s” Campaign Committee?
Were publicity and advertising strategies not discussed at “Team Banksie’s” Campaign Committee meetings?
How could publicity and advertising strategies be discussed at “Team Banksie’s” Campaign Committee meetings – without setting a budget for advertising, and to which the Campaign’s Treasurer would have had in-put into relevant discussions?
Did the Police ask these questions from John Banks; his Campaign Manager; and the Treasurer?
Kim Dotcom
Police confirmed Kim Dotcom’s allegations,
- Banks solicited a donation from Kim Dotcom
- A $50,000 donation was made, split in two lots of $25,000 each
- The donation(s) were recorded as anonymous
The questions that Police do not address in their letter to Trevor Mallard are,
A. Why was the $50,000 donation split in two?
B. Did they not think this was odd?
C. Did “Team Banksie’s” Treasurer at any time enquire from John Banks where those three donations had originated from?
D. Did Police ask John Banks if he phoned Kim Dotcom to thank him for the donation(s)?
E. Did Police take sworn statements from Dotcom’s witnesses?
F. Did Police ask John Banks if he (Banks) enquired from “Team Banksie’s” Treasurer why Kim Dotcom’s donation was not listed on the Electoral Returns statement? (Considering that John Banks was expecting a donation from Kim Dotcom, surely he – Banks – would have noticed the absence of Dotcom’s name?)
G. Did Police ask John Banks if he advised Kim Dotcom to split the donation in two? If not, why not?
H. Why were some donations listed as “anonymous” whilst others provided identifying details of donors? What process was used to differentiate between “anonymous” and identified donors?
None of these questions appear to have been addressed in any manner whatsoever.
See also: Listen to Mary Wilson’s interview with Malcolm Burgess
If it is true that John Banks did advise Kim Dotcom to split the $50,000 donation in two parts so as to avoid naming the donor, then, it seems inescapable that he (Banks) has committed a prima facie offence under both parts of Section 134, namely that,
“Every candidate commits an offence who transmits a return of electoral expenses knowing that it is false in any material particular, and is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or to a fine not exceeding $10,000 and… “
Banks knew that Kim Dotcom had donated $50,000.
Banks knew that the amount was split in two lots of $25,000.
Banks knew it was done to enable the donation(s) to be listed as “anonymous”.
Banks signed the Electoral Return knowing that it was false in a material particular.
Lastly, all three donations were investigated by Police, and yet they concluded that,
“Any charges for offences persuant to Section 134(2) must be laid within six months of the electoral return being supplied. Police first received this complaint for investigation on 1 May 2012, approximately 10 months after the expiry of six month operiod. Police are therefore unable to consider charges persuant to this section.”
The relevant Act states,
134 False return
(1) Every candidate commits an offence who transmits a return of electoral expenses knowing that it is false in any material particular, and is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or to a fine not exceeding $10,000.
(2) Every candidate commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000 who transmits a return of electoral expenses that is false in any material particular unless the candidate proves—
(a) that he or she had no intention to mis-state or conceal the facts; and
(b) that he or she took all reasonable steps to ensure that the information was accurate.
See: Local Electoral Act 2001, 134, False Return
As an astute reader will notice, there is no reference to any “statute of limitations” in this section.
Therefore, this blogger can only surmise at the true reason why John Banks was not prosecuted for breaching section 134 of the Local Electoral Act 2001.
As for John Banks stating that he was “unaware” of the contents of his Electoral Act, which he signed, the Crimes Act states quite clearly,
25 Ignorance of law
The fact that an offender is ignorant of the law is not an excuse for any offence committed by him.
Compare: 1908 No 32 s 45
Other sections of the Crimes Act that might apply in this instance,
228 Dishonestly taking or using document
Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who, with intent to obtain any property, service, pecuniary advantage, or valuable consideration,—
- (a) dishonestly and without claim of right, takes or obtains any document; or
- (b) dishonestly and without claim of right, uses or attempts to use any document.
242 False statement by promoter, etc
(1) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years who, in respect of any body, whether incorporated or unincorporated and whether formed or intended to be formed, makes or concurs in making or publishes any false statement, whether in any prospectus, account, or otherwise, with intent—
- (a) to induce any person, whether ascertained or not, to subscribe to any security within the meaning of the Securities Act 1978; or
- (b) to deceive or cause loss to any person, whether ascertained or not; or
- (c) to induce any person, whether ascertained or not, to entrust or advance any property to any other person.
(2) In this section, false statement means any statement in respect of which the person making or publishing the statement—
- (a) knows the statement is false in a material particular; or
- (b) is reckless as to the whether the statement is false in a material particular.
The John Banks electoral donations saga illustrates the old maxim that “justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done“.
In this case, not only has justice not been done, but it has been seen that a politician has escaped prosecution on the flimsiest of technicalities. (A “technicality” which does not even appear to exist.)
Compare John Banks with that of ex-Labour Minister Taito Phillip Field, who was charged with 35 counts of bribery and corruption crimes.
See: Taito Phillip Field case: Timeline
Field was subsequently convicted on eleven bribery and corruption charges and fifteen counts of wilfully perverting the course of justice. He was sentenced to six years’ jail.
See: Ex-minister’s trial a spectacular fall from grace
John Banks has escaped justice and will not face his accusers in Court. However, the matter is far from “closed”.
.
4. What is Past is Prologue
.
This issue demands three responses;
1. This blogger has written to Police Asst Commissioner, Malcolm Burgess, seeking answers to several questions,
.
From: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@yahoo.com>
To: Malcolm Burgess <malcolm.burgess@police.govt.nz>
Date: Saturday, 28 July 2012 10:59 AM
Subject: File no: 120427/9334 (Complaint by Trevor Mallard, re, John Banks)Malcolm Burgess
Police Asst Commissioner
NZ Police28 July 2012
Sir,
With regards to the outcome of police investigation into Trevor Mallard’s complaint regarding John Bank’s Electoral Return for his 2010 mayoral candidacy, could you please provide some details on this issue.
Namely, I would appreciate your response and answers to the following questions;
A. Why was the $50,000 donation split in two?
B. Did Police not think this was odd?
C. Did “Team Banksie’s” Treasurer at any time enquire from John Banks where those three donations (Skycity, radio advertising, and Kim Dotcom) had originated from?
D. Did Police ask John Banks if he phoned Kim Dotcom to thank him for the donation(s)?
E. Did Police take sworn statements from Dotcom’s witnesses?
F. Did Police ask John Banks if he (Banks) enquired from “Team Banksie’s” Treasurer why Kim Dotcom’s donation was not listed on the Electoral Returns statement? (Considering that John Banks was expecting a donation from Kim Dotcom, surely he – Banks – would have noticed the absence of Dotcom’s name?)
G. Did Police ask John Banks if he advised Kim Dotcom to split the donation in two? If not, why not?
H. Why were some donations listed as “anonymous” whilst others provided identifying details of donors? What process was used to differentiate between “anonymous” and identified donors?
I. In a letter to Trevor Mallard dated 26 July 2012, and signed by Detective Superindent Peter Read, Mr Read states “Any charges for offences persuant to Section 134(2) must be laid within six months of the electoral return being supplied. Police first received this complaint for investigation on 1 May 2012, approximately 10 months after the expiry of six month operiod. Police are therefore unable to consider charges persuant to this section.”. Can you please refer me to the section of the Local Electoral Act 2001 that refers to a six month “statute of limitations?
For full disclosure and fairness to you, this information will be used as part of a blogpost I am currently working on, and which will be made public.
Thank you for your time, and any light you can shed on the matters I have raised.
Regards,
-Frank Macskasy
Blogger
“Frankly Speaking“
.
2. This blogger then contacted Transparency.Org, an international organisation that ranks countries according to the degree of corruption within a particular society.
Last year New Zealand ranked #1, from a list of 183 nations. North Korea and Somalia tied-equal at #182.
The question is; do we deserve to maintain our top spot? This blogger invited Transparency International to reconsider our #1 ranking, in the light of recent events surrounding John Banks,
.
From: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@yahoo.com>
To: Murray Petrie <executive@transparency.org.nz>
Date: Saturday, 28 July 2012 5:50 PM
Subject: John BanksMurray Petrie
NZ Chapter
Transparency International28 July 2012
Sir,
In your organisation’s Corruption Transparency Index 2011, New Zealand rates #1 from a list of 183 countries.
I wish to refer you to a recent matter surrounding John Banks, a Minister in New Zealand’s current government, who earlier this year was accused of filing a fraudulent Election Donations return to the NZ Electoral Commission.
The full details are covered here, in a report which I have published on my blog: http://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/2012/07/26/john-banks-escaping-justice/. I invite you to consider the contents of my report; to pass it further through your organisation; and to reconsider whether or not New Zealand still deserves it’s #1 ranking on your Corruption Transparency Index.
It is my contention that New Zealand has fallen well short of full transparency on this issue, and that the Police complaint laid against John Banks produced a result that is highly questionable and the decision not to prosecute the person in question lacks probity.
I look forward to your response, and willingly offer any further assistance you may require in this matter.
Regards,
-Frank Macskasy
Blogger,
“Frankly Speaking“
.
3. Lastly, this blogger contacted the Prime Minister, John Key, inviting his response to comments and questions raised in this blogpost,
.
From: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@yahoo.com>
To: John Key <john.key@parliament.govt.nz>
Cc: Jim Mora <afternoons@radionz.co.nz>,
Chris Hipkins <chris.hipkins@parliament.govt.nz>,
Chris Laidlaw RNZ <sunday@radionz.co.nz>,
Dominion Post <editor@dompost.co.nz>,
Daily News <editor@dailynews.co.nz>,
Daily Post <editor@dailypost.co.nz>,
David Shearer <david.shearer@parliament.govt.nz>,
Hutt News <editor@huttnews.co.nz>,
Kim Hill <saturday@radionz.co.nz>,
Listener <editor@listener.co.nz>,
Metiria Turei <metiria.turei@parliament.govt.nz>,
Morning Report <morningreport@radionz.co.nz>,
NZ Herald <editor@herald.co.nz>,
Nine To Noon RNZ <ninetonoon@radionz.co.nz>,
Otago Daily Times <odt.editor@alliedpress.co.nz>,
Q+A <Q+A@tvnz.co.nz>,
Russel Norman <Russel.Norman@parliament.govt.nz>,
Southland Times <editor@stl.co.nz>,
TVNZ News <news@tvnz.co.nz>,
The Press <letters@press.co.nz>,
The Wellingtonian <editor@thewellingtonian.co.nz>,
Waikato Times <editor@waikatotimes.co.nz>,
Wairarapa Times-Age <editor@age.co.nz>,
Winston Peters <winston.peters@parliament.govt.nz>
Subject: Corrupt practices under the Local Electoral Act (2001)
Date: Saturday, 28 July 2012 6:57 PMRt Hon. John Key
Prime Minister
Parliament House
Wellington28 July 2012
Sir,
With regards to matters raised by TV3′s John Campbell, Trevor Mallard, and others, surrounding John Banks; his 2010 Electoral Return; and subsequent Police investigation, I invite you to read and consider questions and comments made on my blogpost, “John Banks – escaping justice“.
You will note that I have raised several questions regarding this matter, and have written to Police Asst Commissioner, Malcolm Burgess, for clarification and answers to issues that I regard as important.
I have also contacted Transparency International, a global NGO that rates countries according to levels of corruption within their society. Last year, New Zealand ranked #1 on a Corruption Transparency Index 2011. Following the John Banks Donations Affair, I have invited Transparency Internation to review our top ranking, in terms of least corrupt nation on Earth.
Far from being a “closed matter”, I believe this issue is of vital importance – especially since it appears that many of Kim Dotcom’s allegations against John Banks have been substantiated.
The question that I am asking; will you remove John Banks from his Ministerial roles?
Regards,
-Frank Macskasy
Blogger,
“Frankly Speaking“
.
This issue is far from closed.
It is just the beginning.
.
.
*
.
Additional
Schedule 2 Return of electoral expenses and electoral donations (As at 2010)
Police statement: Outcome of Police investigation into electoral returns of Hon John Banks
Banks’ donations: No charges laid
Banks won’t be charged, police say
Transparency International Corruption Perception Index
NZ Herald: Parliament’s loose cannon
National: Peters unacceptable in a National-led Government (2008)
.
.
= fs =
“He will be a very good friend for you when he is in Parliament”
.
.
“He will be a very good friend for you when he is in Parliament” – according to Kim Dotcom’s bodyguard, Wayne Tempero, just after taking a call from John Banks, in July last year .
Banks had phoned on 30 July asking for another campaign donation – this time for his ACT candidacy for last year’s election.
Kim Dotcom replied in somewhat colourful terms, declining Bank’s request,
“I do recall raising the issue of donating to the Act Party with Mr Dotcom’s staff … I was subsequently advised by one of his staff that Mr Dotcom said ‘to go get f****d as your Government has caused me too much trouble’ or something along those lines.” – John Banks, NZ Herald
What followed next is disputed by Banks – though his recall is at least somewhat more certain than previous allegations. Wayne Tempero wrote in an email to Dotcom,
“I just had a call from John Banks about asking you for a small donation for the Act Party which he is standing for government this year… he will be a very good friend for you when he is in Parliament“. – Ibid
“…he will be a very good friend for you when he is in Parliament. “
Banks rejected Tempero’s claims,
“Mr Tempero’s recollection of events is different to mine. I will not be responding to any further allegations made by Mr Tempero.”
At least Bank’s memory seems to be improving.
Though one wonders how he can recall this event, but not others?
John Banks may deny wrongdoing, but thus far,
- Kim Dotcom’s story has held up to scrutiny
- John Bank’s account has been less than credible and has changed with time
- Kim Dotcom has provided witnesses and evidence to his claims
- John Banks has only a dodgy “memory”
It seems that money can buy you “friends”? Especially in high places?
If this is not an indication of a hint of corruption in politics – then what is? Is this how ‘business’ is done in ACT – and National?
It certainly seems like it. Especially when we recall this questionable event,
.
.
The upshot of the BMW story is that National received a $50,000 donation from BMW Team McMillan after National decided to go ahead and replace their ministerial limousine fleet.
It’s nice to have friends in high places.
.
Previous blogposts
Doing ‘the business’ with John Key – Here’s How (Part # Rua)
Money in the Banks (Part #Wha)
That was Then, this is Now #11
.
.
= fs =
From “Nanny” State to “Natzi” State?
.
.
National has been working overtime (do they pay their media advisors, strategists, and spin doctors overtime?) to deflect public attention away from their mis-management of the economy, and one scandal after another.
See Blogpost: The wheels are coming off, and there’s a funny ‘plink-plink’ sound
Whether it’s Nick Smith/Bronwyn Pullar/Judith Collins/ACC; John Banks and Kim Dotcom; John Banks and Sky City; John Key and Sky City; Murray McCully and wasted millions of taxpayer’s money over the aborted MFAT re-structuring - John Key has had one ministerial scandal after another. It has been an eye-opening, horrendous (for the Nats) litany of failure, stuff-ups, and dodgy dealings.
With a majority of just one seat, Dear Leader cannot afford even one resignation and by-election. It could cost him his second term in government.
On top of scandals, there are the non-stop bad news stories, on the economy and social problems,
* Unemployment continuing to rise – now at 6.7%
* Paula Bennet admitting there were were not enough jobs
* Youth unemployment up from 58,000 last year to 87,000 this year
* Current account deficit widens to $2.7 billion
* Jobs-driven migration to Oz at high of 53,000
* Wages continue to lag behind Australia
* $12 billion student debt a national liability
* Treasury’s Monthly Economic Indicators – Numbers reveal National disgrace
* Child poverty growing, and children scavenging for food scraps
And adding insult to injury, Australian businesses are coming to New Zealand to set up shop, to exploit our lower wages,
* Aussie firms sending business across ditch
It’s been one failure after another, and people are starting to take notice; National is falling in public opinion polls.
This blogger predicts that the bad news is not about to end any time soon. National’s reliance on the private sector to provide jobs and growth is based on blind adherence to neo-liberal dogma – not on any common sense ideas. Blind adherence to ideology, and wilfully dismissing indicators of continual failure, is a process that is ultimately futile and doomed.
Just ask the Russians. It only took them about seven decades to realise that their experiment in marxist-leninism was dragging the USSR backwards, not forwards. They abandoned it, and that was the end of that particular episode in human history.
Neo-liberalism – the reverse side of the coin of extremist socio-economic systems – is on the same path to doomed failure. There are those who understand this perfectly.
Rightwing governments, such as National, are political dinosaurs – watching the asteroid of change rushing towards us – but not understanding the implications of the revolutionary change that is impending and inevitable.
Instead, National’s party strategists, media advisors, and contracted publicity/campaign strategists have embarked on a time-honoured, proven course, of deflection; beneficiary bashing.
The strategy involved;
- Assessing public attitudes towards welfare, beneficiaries, and solo-mothers
- Identifying key issues regarding welfare, beneficiaries, and solo-mothers
- Putting together a plan, complete with media releases and policy “drafts”
- Priming friendly media, NGOs, and political allies
- Release, and stand back.
See Blogpost: The Dark Art of ‘Spin’ – How It’s Done (Part #Rua)
The result was a two-pronged “blitzkreig” on the public,
- “voluntary” contraception for solo-mothers
- making immunisation mandatory for welfare recipients, by linking it to recieving state benefits
This blogger should point out that National most likely does not, for one moment, believe it’s own propaganda. People like John Key, Paula Bennett, et al, understand the statistics and realise that prejudice surrounding welfare beneficiaries is based largely on misinformation; anecdotes; and a fair measure of misogyny (demonstrated by the fact that attacks on solo-parents are always focused on solo-mothers – never solo-dads).
They know, for example that the number of young solo-mothers aged 18 to 19 is 2.7% of the total number of welfare recipients – down from 3.1% in 2007,
.
.
It is also worthwhile noting the following fact,
Five year trend
The number of clients receiving a main benefit at the end of March decreased from 266,000 to 256,000 between 2007 and 2008, then rose to reach 332,000 in 2011 before decreasing to 323,000 in 2012.
Between March 2007 and March 2012, clients receiving a main benefit became slightly more likely to be aged 18–24 years and to be male.
Changes between 2007 and 2012 which have affected the number of clients receiving a main benefit include demographic changes (eg an ageing population, people having children later in life) and changes in economic conditions.
.
Note the relevant points:
1. The number of clients receiving a main benefit at the end of March decreased from 266,000 to 256,000 between 2007 and 2008, then rose to reach 332,000 in 2011 before decreasing to 323,000 in 2012.
2. Changes between 2007 and 2012 which have affected the number of clients receiving a main benefit include demographic changes (eg an ageing population, people having children later in life) and changes in economic conditions.
Point 1: the increase in welfare recipients directly correlates to “changes in economic conditions” – the global banking crisis in 2008, and the resulting recession.
Point 2: The number of people on the DPB can be affected by “an ageing population”, as this Benefit can be paid to individuals caring for an elderly person, as well as children.
The overall rise in welfare recipients also correlates to,
- a steadily growing rise in youth unemployment, from 58,000 last year to 83,000 this year,
- National’s policy which calls for job creation by the private sector, and not by central government,
- failed relationships, leaving the mother (generally) to care for children*, adding to those already on the DPB.
This is not rocket science. This is fairly basic economic facts which everyone understands fairly well.
Which then begs the question; what does contraception and immunisation have to do with an increase in welfare recipients that was caused, mostly, by “changes in economic conditions” ?!
The answer, of course, is nothing.
But then again, National’s proposals to “offer” contraception and “link” immunisation to welfare payments has been a red herring from Day One, as outlined above.
National cannot announce to the country that ” all beneficiaries are diseased, reckless breeders“. That would be… crass. Not very subtle at all.
The more subtle way to go about vilifying and demonising a group in our society is to do it by innuendo.
Do not call solo mothers (but never solo dads) “reckless breeders”.
Do “offer” them free contraception.
Result: No direct association has been made between solo-mums and “reckless breeding” – but the unspoken innuendo is there, hanging in the air.
Do not call beneficies “dirty and diseased”.
Do make immunisation compulsory for their children.
Result: No direct association has been made between beneficiaries and calling them “dirty and diseased” – but the unspoken innuendo is there, unsaid.
That is Phase One of National’s deflection strategy.
‘Phase One, I hear you say? There’s more?!’
Oh yes, this strategy is a two-fer-one deal. The unspoken labelling of beneficiaries as “dirty”, “diseased”, and “reckless breeders” is only the first part.
The second part is the predictable (and justified) outcry from opposition political parties; NGOs; prominent citizens; bloggers (hullo!); etc, etc. This draws further attention to National’s grand strategy, giving it media ‘oxygen’. In drawing attention to this vile policy, the public and media attention are drawn away from bad news stories about the economy and social problems.
As Business NZ CEO, Phil O’Reilly, stated on TV3 news tonight (13 May),
“… we have an economy that’s struggling.”
When is the last time we heard a news report on unemployment? The John Banks/Sky City/Dotcom/John Key/Sky City/ACC/BronwynPullar/Judith Collins scandal(s)? A stagnant economy? More New Zealanders fleeing the country to Australia? The worsening poverty crisis? The growing gap between income earners? Asset sales? Poverty-related diseases? Etc, etc, etc, et-bloody-cetera…
The bad-news media reports are there – but now displaced from page 1 of newspapers or lead-stories on TV/radio – and relegated as secondary or tertiary priority stories. Instead, those issues are now replaced with stories about beneficiaries, contraception, and immunisation.
National got it’s money’s-worth I’d say, on this propaganda exercise.
In case anyone still harbours doubts that National is really, truly, whole-heartedly not remotely interested in the health of beneficiaries, let me remind the reader of Labour’s attempt to remove fatty food-products from school tuck-shops, from June 2008,
.
.
National’s response to this and other health-related concerns?
This is how much they cared for the well-being our this nation’s children,
.
.
.
.
And true to it’s word, when National came to power in November 2008,
.
.
Which kind of proves how much concerns National has toward the health of the nation’s children.
Which is not very much.
In Germany in the 1920s and 1930s, the far right used gypsies and jews as scapegoats. We don’t have gypsies, and if the Nats tried demonising Jews, they’d find an Israeli crack-commando squad knocking on John Key’s door and asking, “can we have a quiet word with you, sunshine?”.
I guess beneficiaries are the next best thing.
.
* Note
This blogger’s partner’s cousin, “Shannon”, is now caring for her three young sons after her husband walked out on the family – youngest child was 18 months old at the time. He was having an affair and has moved in with a female co-worker from his office. “Shannon” is now a solo-mum, on the DPB.
She did not “breed” whilst on the DPB. “Shannon” was married when she had her three children, and the family was on a reasonable income. So what should she do now? According to some right wing nutjobs, should she euthanase her children so they do not become a “burden on the state”?
Whilst “Shannon” is now labelled a “DPB bludger” by National and it’s supporters, her husband is free to start another family with his new partner. If he walks out on her, and any children they have together, as he did with “Shannon”, he still avoids responsibility – and his new partner is labelled a “bene bludger”.
Are folks picking up a common theme here?”
*
.
Media
NZ Herald: Stuck for ideas, Govt preys on powerless
Previous Blogposts
Why did the fat kiwi cross the road?
You’ll have a free market – even if it KILLS you!
Christmas – would you like fries with that?
The wheels are coming off, and there’s a funny ‘plink-plink’ sound
Bennett confirms: there are not enough jobs!
No poverty and food scavenging here
And MORE beneficiary bashing!!!
Other Blogs
The Standard: Teenage dreams
Waitakere News: Pike River will be Key’s undoing
The Dim Post: Talkback bait
The Jackal: Myth-busting rightwing prejudices
.
.
= fs =
Money in the Banks (Part #Wha)
As previously reported (Money in the Banks Part #Toru), ACT President confirmed that John Banks had requested Kim Dotcom to split his $50,000 donation into two lots of $25,000, so they could be recorded as “anonymous”. He told Checkpoint’s Mary Wilson,
“He has given me an indication as to why he made that suggestion – and that was that he initially was going to put in $25,000 of his own money and he figured that other people should be putting in the same sort of numbers.”
However, in a bizarre twist, that original story has been removed from Radio NZ and has been replaced with this “correction”,
.
.
The story “ACT president confirms Banks suggested donation be split” no longer exists on the Radio NZ News page, and the hyper-link goes to the new story, “ACT president ‘mistaken’ over donation comment”.
Audio link: Listen to Radio New Zealand’s political editor on Checkpoint
George Orwell would be doubleplusgood happy at this example of re-written history – or “error correction”, as it was described in the novel of “1984″.
However, be that as it may, this blogger heard the original interview between Mary Wilson and Chris Simmons, and can confirm that Simmons did say,
“He has given me an indication as to why he made that suggestion – and that was that he initially was going to put in $25,000 of his own money and he figured that other people should be putting in the same sort of numbers.”
It occurs to this blogger that Simmons slipped up; inadvertantly stated a truth he did not intend to disclose; and has somehow pressured Radio NZ to remove all traces of that interview from the broadcaster’s website. (A screenshot of the above “correction story” has been kept, in case that story disappears as well. We are living in strange times.)
The issue was discussed on this evening’s “News and Late Edition”.
.
*
.
Acknowledgement
Mark H
Related Media
NZ Herald: Act Party president flip flops on money
Dominion Post: ACT chief retracts statement on Dotcom gift
Dominion Post: Five questions Banks must answer
NBR: NBR readers don’t believe Banks
Duncan Garner: If Banks called Dotcom – he’s gone
Related Blog Posts
Frankly Speaking: ACT woefully behind the times?
Tumeke: ACT Party President tells truth then retracts comments #dotcomgate
The Standard: Resignationwatch: Oopsie
The Dim Post: The source of the Prime Minister’s confusion
Waitakere News: Banks denies engaging in homosexual relationship with Kim Dotcom at SkyCity
Pundit: Why John Key’s doing the right thing, but is still in trouble
.
.
= fs =
Money in the Banks (Part #Toru)
.
ACT PRESIDENT CONFIRMS DOTCOM – BANKS
.
SUGGESTED $50K DONATION SPLIT IN TWO!
.
In an interview on Radio NZ’s ‘Checkpoint’, ACT President Chris Simmons confirmed that ACT MP John Banks did ask Kim Dotcom to split a $50,000 donation in two.
Chris Simmon, ACT Party President
He told Radio NZ’s Mary Wilson,
“He has given me an indication as to why he made that suggestion – and that was that he initially was going to put in $25,000 of his own money and he figured that other people should be putting in the same sort of numbers.”
See: ACT president confirms Banks suggested donation be split
This astounding admission contradicts John Banks’ earlier assertions that he had no knowledge of any donation from Dotcom,
“If someone says to me, ‘How can I put money into your campaign?’ what would be wrong with telling them that – if that was that case? “
See: Banks sought split donation: Dotcom
John Key must stand down Banks as a Minister, whilst the matter is investigated by Police. In fact, this blogger goes further; there is now sufficient evidence that John Banks has consistently lied on this issue; provided a false campaign donations return; and tried to cover up the donations from both Sky City and Kim Dotcom.
As John Key said to then-Prime Minister Helen Clark, over Winston Peters,
“It is no longer acceptable or credible for Helen Clark to assert a facade of confidence in her Foreign Affairs Minister and to fail to ask the plain questions of him that she has a duty to the public to ask. Helen Clark must stand Mr Peters down as a Minister. That is what I would do if I were Prime Minister. Helen Clark has stood Ministers from Labour down for much less.”
Key is now Prime Minister. He should know what to do next.
See: Banks denies calling Dotcom over donation
As this blogger wrote in a previous blogpiece ( Money in the Banks ,Part #Rua ); again, Dotcom’s claims are confirmed – whilst Banks’ story changes almost daily.
.
Previous Blog Posts
Key on Banks; Staunch, stupid, or stuck?
John Banks – Demented or Slippery as an eel?!
Money in the Banks (Part #Rua)
.
.
= fs =
Money in the Banks (Part #Rua)
.
.
John Banks has dug himself further into a hole by stating yesterday,
“If I had have quite specifically and quite easily answered all of those questions upfront, contrary to the legal advice, then I wouldn’t find myself in this situation where people think I’m obfuscating. I shouldn’t have taken that legal advice, I should have answered questions much more straightly.”
See: Banks’ Dotcom call: ‘I’d do it again‘ (1 May 2012)
Banks is using the excuse that he received “legal advice” which advised him not to say anything to the media (1 May),
“I could have quite easily answered all of those questions up front, contrary to the legal advice. I have never had any problem answering questions in a very straight manner…that is why the public will be surprised I took the legal advice literally, not to jeopardise any inquiry.”
See: Banks ‘regrets’ legal advice to stay silent (1 May 2012)
To understand why that excuse is about as flimsy as wet toilet paper in a sewarage pond, one has to look back at the timelime of this scandal.
TV3 broke the story of Banks failing to declare the source of Sky City’s donation on 5 April.
See: Banks accused of failing to declare donation (5 April 2012)
At that point there was no knowledge or mention of any other dodgy donations.
Twentytwo days later, TV3 again broke the story that Banks had received donations from web entrepreneur, Kim Dotcom, and had listed them as “anonymous”,
“Kim Dotcom is the latest person to have been found to have allegedly donated money anonymously to John Banks.
It is already known that in the race to be super city mayor, Sky City donated $15,000 each to the two front runners.
Len Brown listed Sky City as a donor but Mr Banks did not.
Campbell Live was interested in that because we had heard Kim Dotcom had made a donation three times that size to the John Banks mayoralty campaign.
Campbell Live has even been told Mr Banks was so grateful that he called Dotcom to thank him for it.
An investigation found that like the Sky City donation, the Dotcom donation appears to be listed as anonymous.
The question is why?”
See: Banks knew about ‘anonymous’ Dotcom donation – reports (27 April 2012)
That TV3 report is time-stamped on the TV3 news website at 7pm. In a phone call, the following exchange takes place,
Campbell: Did you ever helicopter out there?
Banks: I… don’t remember that. I mean, I had my own helicopter or course – I was flying, myself.
Campbell: Did you ever land it at his house or go out there in a helicopter?
Banks: I don’t recall…
Campbell: You’d remember that – you’d remember that surely if you helicoptered into the Coatsville mansion. You would surely remember that?
Banks: I can’t recall whether I did or not…
Campbell: What, you can’t recall if you flew a helicopter into the Coastville Mansion of Kim Dotcom?
Banks: No, no.
See: Ibid
Now the interesting thing here is that given that phone call, which was aired after 7pm on Friday 27 April – how could John Banks have had time to consult a lawyer for legal advice?
There was no mention of any police investigation until the following day, on Saturday 28 April, when told RadioLIVE,
“If and when the police want to come and see me and talk to me, I’m very happy to do so.”
And if, as he claims, he had somehow managed to consult a lawyer prior to John Campbell speaking to him on the phone on Friday 27 April, why did Banks continually state “he could not remember” instead of “the matter is currently under Police invesigation and I have been advised by legal counsel not to make any public statements at this point”. Or even a simple “no comment”?
Because the reference to so-called “legal advice not to talk publicly” doesn’t surface until Tuesday 1 May – some four days later. In those four days, Banks keeps insisting that “he can’t remember”, “he can’t recall”. He makes no reference to this mysterious “legal advice” until four days later.
It is the opinion of this blogger that Banks’ did not have any legal advice when John Campbell first phoned Banks on 27 April.
It is the opinion of this blogger that Banks’ continuing claim that he “could not remember” was a weak attempt at obfuscation and not based on any manner of “legal advice”.
Furthermore, one has to question that if John Banks is being truthful and Kim Dotcom is lying – what would be the point of requiring “legal advice”? Legal advice for what?
It should be noted that thus far, not one claim made by Kim Dotcom has been proven to be incorrect or lie.
On the other hand, despite Banks first claiming that he did not phone Dotcom to thank him for the $50,000 donation – he now admits to phoning the entrepreneur to thank him for sponsoring a fireworks display in 2010, estimated to cost about $500,000.
See: John Banks dined at mansion, gave advice on Dotcom residency
Interestingly, at first Banks couldn’t recall phoning Dotcom. Now he not only recalls that he did – but remembers the substance of that phone conversation?!
How does that work?
Banks himself admits to lying – on legal advice,
“If I had have quite specifically and quite easily answered all of those questions upfront, contrary to the legal advice, then I wouldn’t find myself in this situation where people think I’m obfuscating.”
See: Banks’ Dotcom call: ‘I’d do it again‘
This blogger has never heard of “legal advice” that advises a client to deliberately lie. Legal counsel usually advise a firm “no comment”, and say nothing further.
Furthermore, Banks at first said “his contact with Dotcom was limited to 20 minutes conversation and he had been to Dotcom’s mansion in Coatesville only once for dinner“.
See: Banks sought split donation: Dotcom
Since then, Banks has admitted several visits to Dotcom’s Coatsville mansion; possibly two phone calls; and advocating on behalf of the entrepreneur by phoning Minister Maurice Williamson,
“One, because he had been particularly generous to New Zealand; two, he was an entrepreneur who came to New Zealand to live in this home and do great things for New Zealand; three, he was a New Zealand resident; and four, I could see no reason a New Zealand resident … shouldn’t be able to buy property here.”
See: Banks: I didn’t lie, I simply forgot
Again, Dotcom’s claims are confirmed – whilst Banks’ story changes almost daily.
I leave the final comment, to the Prime Minister,
“If he’s complied with the law, some people might not like it but he’s complied with the law, and you wouldn’t sack a minister for complying with the law of New Zealand.”
See: previous Blogpost on Pansy Wong, Richard Worth, and Phil Heatley
.
*
.
References
Banks knew about ‘anonymous’ Dotcom donation – reports (27 April 2012)
Police expected to investigate Banks’ campaign donations (28 April 2012)
Banks regrets not being up-front over donations (1 May 2012)
Banks’ Dotcom call: ‘I’d do it again‘ (1 May 2012)
Banks ‘regrets’ legal advice to stay silent (1 May 2012)
John Banks: I briefed Dotcom (2 May 2012)
Banks: I didn’t lie, I simply forgot (2 May 2012)
Previous Blogposts
John Banks – Demented or Slippery as an eel?!
Key on Banks; Staunch, stupid, or stuck?
.Banks: I didn’t lie, I simply forgot
.
= fs =
Key on Banks; Staunch, stupid, or stuck?
.
.
One of the Golden Rules of politics is: learn to count. This refers to everything from passing legislation to votes of confidence. In short, it means if you don’t have the numbers in government, you might as well call it a day and hand power to the Opposition (or call a snap election).
Counting especially focuses the attention of parliamentary leaders such as Key and Gillard, who have (respectively) one and two seat majorities in their respective Parliaments.
It means, also, that if a government has a generous majority, it can afford the luxury of holding their own Ministers to account and make grand exhibitions of standing down those who have done something naughty.
Conversely, if a government has only the slimmest majority, that same government will hang on to, and defend to the bitter end, any errant Minister or MP.
Some recent history should illustrate how this works…
.
That Was Then…
.
2008 – 2011 National-led government majority: 16
.
Richard Worth
Richard Worth was Minister of Internal Affairs, Minister for Land Information, Minister Responsible for Archives New Zealand, Minister Responsible for the National Library, and Associate Minister of Justice, in the Fifth National Government.
In March 2009, reports emerged that Worth’s trips to India were a conflict of interest. It was alleged he spoke on behalf of the Government while engaging in private business deals.
On 3 June 2009, Prime Minister John Key announced Worth’s resignation from his Ministerial portfolios, after several allegations of inappropriate behaviour toward woman.
John Key said,
“Dr Worth tendered his resignation to me last night, and I have accepted it. He advised me of some private matters in respect of which he felt it appropriate that he should resign as a Minister. I accepted his resignation and have advised the Governor-General accordingly.”
See: PM’s Statement on Richard Worth’s resignation
On 12 June 2009, Worth announced his resignation from Parliament.
See: Embattled MP quits Parliament
In October 2010, Richard Worth was appointed to a diplomatic role, “to the surprise of the prime minister”, as Monaco’s honorary consul to New Zealand.
.
Pansy Wong
Former National Party politician. Ms Wong was New Zealand’s first Asian MP, serving as a member of parliament for the National Party from 1996 to 2011. She was also the first Asian Cabinet Minister, with portfolios; Minister for Ethnic Affairs, Minister of Women’s Affairs, Associate Minister for ACC, and Associate Minister of Energy and Resources in the 2008-11 National Government.
In November 2010, it was alleged that Ms Wong mis-used Parliamentary travel funds so that her husband could conduct private business in China.
See: Pansy Wong’s political future in jeopardy
On 12 November 2010, as allegations surrounding her and her husband’s mis-use of Parliamentary funding were investigated, Pansy Wong stepped down from her Ministerial portfolios.
John Key said,
“At the end of the day she has to take responsibility for the fact her spouse was using her travel discount by virtue of her tenure in parliament, and on that basis she failed to exercise her responsibilities properly. She offered her resignation to me and I though it was appropriate that I accepted that resignation.”
See: Key: Wong ‘paying a very heavy price’
On 3 December 2010, an investigation by Speaker of the House, Lockwood Smith, found “no evidence of systemic abuse” of the Parliamentary allowance,
“It found that one trip, a flight from Beijing to Lianyungang, China in December 2008, could have been in breach of the Speaker’s Directions,” Speaker Lockwood Smith said in a statement.
“While this trip was unplanned and inadvertent, it could be construed as having been for a private business purpose.”
The report recommended Mrs Wong and her husband repay the travel rebate for that trip of $237.06 each.”
See: ‘No evidence of systematic abuse’ of travel perk by Pansy Wong
Dissatisfied with the Speaker’s investigation, Labour MP, Pete Hodgson, called for the Auditor-General to carry out an inquiry into Mrs Wong and her husband’s use of the travel allowance.
Eleven days later, on 14 December, Ms Wong made her decision and resigned from Parliament.
.
Phil Heatley
On 25 February 2010, Phil Heatley resigned from his portfolios of Minister of Housing and Minister of Fisheries after announcing that he had wrongly charged two bottle of wine to his Ministerial credit card,
“I charged two bottles of wine already highlighted this week to my account as food and beverages. There was no food included in this purchase, and I accept this could be viewed as an inaccurate representation of the expense.”
See: Phil Heatley’s resignation statement
John Key said,
“I spent about an hour saying to him `look, I don’t think you should resign, I think you should stand aside. I don’t think he’s a dishonest individual, I think he made some mistakes and they were silly, stupid and misguided.”
See: Key says Heatley “a decent bloke”
However, Heatley did not resign from Parliament, and regained his Ministerial portfolios about a month later.
See: Phil Heatley to be reinstated as a Minister
.
This Is Now…
.
2011 – ? National-led government majority: 1
.
John Banks
Allegations of not disclosing the sources of campaign donations have been made against John Banks. These donations were made by Sky City and web entrepreneur, Kim Dotcom.
In the case of Sky City, Mayor Len Brown received a similar amount of $15,000 from the Casino, and Brown later formerly declared it.
John Banks listed his $15,000 donation as “anonymous”.
In the case of Kim Dotcom, Banks has repeatedly stated, that he,
- “could not remember” discussing donations with the businessman;
- “could not recall” flying in Dotcom’s helicopter;
- “could not recall” suggesting that Dotcom split the $50,000 donation into two separate amounts of $25,000 each
- “could not recall” phoning Dotcom to thank him for the donation
- “barely knew Dotcom” and had met him for only 20 minutes – despite video later emerging of Banks and his wife partying with Dotcom and his wife, at the Dotcom mansion
John Key said,
“At the end of the day, he either complied with the law or he didn’t – he said he did, I have absolutely no reason to doubt him. That’s not my responsibility. If somebody thinks that John Banks isn’t telling the truth, there’s a very simple remedy: they go to the police. That’s not my job to do a forensic investigation, my job is to assure myself I can retain confidence in a minister. If he tells me he followed the local government laws, then I accept him at his word.”
It appears that John Key’s previous standard of accepting Ministerial resignations, whilst investigations are carried out, no longer applies.
What’s changed?
A difference in majority of 15, I would guess.
.
Postscript:
PS 1; In yesterday’s NZ Herald, John Banks repeated his now well-known mantra,
“I have nothing to hide and nothing to fear...”
The Herald noted that Mr Banks has not been returning their calls.
So much for not hiding or being fearful.
See: ‘I’ve nothing to fear’ – John Banks
PS 2; Police have confirmed they have received two complaints over “anonymous” donations made to John Banks during the 2010 mayoralty campaign.
See: Police confirm Banks complaints received
.
Your call, Prime Minister.
.
*
.
Additional
Banks accused of failing to declare donation
Dotcom’s secret donation to Banks
Banks did not reveal SkyCity as big donor
Banks questioned over Dotcom donation
Calls for John Banks to be stood down as minister
‘I’ve nothing to fear’ – John Banks
PM standing by under fire Banks
PM ‘turning blind eye’ to Banks – Shearer
Radio NZ Interview: Politics with Matthew Hooton and Mike Williams
Previous Blog Posts
.
.
= fs =
Money in the Banks…
.
.
As if the “Tea Party” fiasco wasn’t sufficient, John Banks – leader of the “1 Percent Party” (aka ACT) – is now embroiled in another scandal: undeclared or wrongly-declared campaign donations,
.
.
.
If these allegations are proven, Banks’ career as a politician has screeched to a grinding stop. He will be lucky if any subsequent police investigation does not result in a prosecution, as happened with ex-Labour MP, Phillip Taito Fields.
Should Banks be forced to vacate his seat, that would force an automatic by-election. The chances are that the Right would probably win any such contest. Epsom is still a blue-ribbon electorate.
See: previous election results for Epsom.
In terms of Parliamentary numbers for the government, it doesn’t matter if a National or ACT candidate wins it. They maintain their one-seat majority.
What will matter is that if National wins and the ACT loses Epsom, then the Nats will no longer have an excuse to implement right wing policies such as Charter Schools. That was an ACT policy, not National.
National would be within it’s rights to dump it, should they regain Epsom.
If they don’t, it would be a fairly dramatic indication to the public that the Nats are moving to the Right, regardless of their coalition deal with ACT.
That should give pause for thought for many voters.
On a related thought, the Banks/donations scandal is yet more convincing proof (not that we really needed it) that this government is shonkey and has no hesitation in engaging in secret, back-room dealing. New Zealanders should be very cautious in continuing to support National.
Very rarely do we have an opportunity to glimpse the secret deals taking place behind closed doors. As this blogger wrote in the previous blogpieces, Doing ‘the business’ with John Key – Here’s How and Doing ‘the business’ with John Key – Here’s How (Part # Rua),
“Once upon a time, at the bottom of the world, there was a small country that prided itself on being a fair, open, and uncorrupted society.
I’m no longer sure about the last bit.
Last year, Transparency International ranked New Zealand as the #1 least corrupt nation on Earth. We ranked above Denmark (#2), Finland (#3), Sweden (#4), Singapore (#5), and Norway (#6).
I’m no longer certain we deserve that top ranking, either.
The further that the Sky City/Convention Centre and Crafar farm deals are scrutinised – the stronger the odour of something unpleasant fills our nostrils.”
As for who might be a suitable candidate to contest Epsom; considering it’s conservative, Tory nature, this could be a job for the former Member for Tauranga,
.
Winston Peters
.
The most suitable candidate would be the highest polling person from any given Opposition Party. In fact, this might be a suitable occassion to employ the US style of “Primaries“, where a candidate is selected from a group, to go up against the incumbent.
Should National or ACT lose Epsom (unlikely) this government will fall.
.
Related
TV3 John Campbell: Banks knew about ‘anonymous’ Dotcom donation – reports
.
.
= fs =
