Former National government Police Minister, current ACT Party leader & Epsom MP The Honourable John Archibald Banks CNZM, QSO
No charges were laid against Mr Banks. Police found that although he had filed a false election return, he hadn’t done so deliberately, because he had signed it without reading it.
— ‘Police file: How Banks’ team targeted rich-list‘ NZ Herald 13 Sept 2012
What can one say about this that doesn’t read as gratuitously insulting to Mr Banks?
Read the police report released under the Official Information Act yesterday. (PDF 6.5MB)
Curiously, for all the Witness Statements and Formal Written Statements under the Summary Offences Act 1957 included, there’s NO statement from Mr Banks (that I could see).
Indeed, the ‘executive summary’ of the police report released distills the main points of John Banks’ THREE HOUR police interview (accompanied by his QC David Jones) into five paragraphs thus:
'Nothing to fear, nothing to hide,' John Banks said.
The police report demonstrates the police did investigate thoroughly (read it for yourself)*, but in the end were unable to resolve the issue of whether the clearly false return Mr Banks signed was done so ‘knowingly’. (As discussed. See ‘Laughing all the way to the Banks‘.)
Decide for yourself.
– P
* Some of the evidence is very interesting for the glimpses of how political campaigns work on the ‘inside’. And some of it downright funny, considering the ‘defence’ was along the lines of, ‘Oh, I leave all the details to others’ …
Nothing to explain here Peter, he has been effectively acquitted. You know like Bill Clinton.
For the record I can’t stand John Banks.
Right.
My personal experience is that there are a number of faces/facets to John Banks’ personality see: http://www.thepaepae.com/three-faces-of-eve-er-john-banks/21568/
For the record, at times I find him likeable and charming, but I have seen other behaviour that I despise.
It was interesting in the police report, reading comments from Mr BLANKED-OUT-BY-POLICE who acted for John Banks’ failed 2010 mayoral campaign in the role of BLANKED-OUT-BY-POLICE, that he’d agreed to help John Banks to run for mayor of Auckland “but we needed to address some of his weaknesses and for him to appear less abrasive.”
That seems correct.
Read Mr BLANKED-OUT-BY-POLICE’s statement (what there is that hasn’t been BLANKED-OUT-BY-POLICE) here:
http://www.thepaepae.com/wp-uploads/2012/09/Banks-inquiry-OIA-extracts.pdf
or the full report (with bits BLANKED-OUT-BY-POLICE) here:
http://www.thepaepae.com/wp-uploads/2012/09/Banks-inquiry-OIA-response-red.pdf
So what?? Police conclude he has nothing to answer for. This is the same stance you often take with other topics here. The Police/court/law have the final say and that is that.
You know like Bill Clinton the Treaty Disputes and other viewpoints you share.
Your right John Banks is dodgy hes about as trust worthy as a Car Salesman. One level above Peters. Also is it wrong for politicians to ask for Money? Peters has done it. Obama is doing constantly asking openly in public. Actually Peter just ignore those you’ll sleep better.
On a side note. My viewpoint on National vs Your Labour was emphasized on Q+A Labour constantly grandstanding on the most trivial things trying to blow up small issues attempting to derail the opposition (i know welcome to politics) but look at what they are focusing on the crappiest meaningless issues. Like your favourite topic Tea Tapes . or Banks being given donations.
Shearer was a bumbling mess. Labour for all their moaning have got no real solutions themselves every question he jumped on top of National then completely sidetracked answering follow ups I could tell he felt they don’t offer any better solutions themselves so tried to keep being the little sibling narking to Mum, what came from the brief interview was labours solution was doing what Labour does best NOTHING. Even the Labour supporter on the panel resigned to Labour offering nothing more in return.
Wow I just realised something, reading between the lack of lines I would put $2 on you not really liking Labour leader. Whats his name? Shearer. As I feel you take the approach of if it does not suit your arguments you don’t talk about it. You know the saying if you have nothing good to say, say nothing. and your lack of Shearer Posts screams to me hes done nothing to help you.
Hi Craig.
I think what you see depends on where you stand. (Me included.)
I watched the two Q&A interviews this morning too. If they’d been job interviews John Key would probably have got the job.
His performance was more polished and assured. He glided over the only moment of awkwardness:
“Is Banks a liar?” with a mealy-mouthed “There’s a range of different views there.”
http://tvnz.co.nz/q-and-a-news/prime-minister-john-key-video-5085585
Which was richly redolent of this exchange from last year’s leaders’ debate:
Mr Key, for now, is clinging to the ‘I haven’t read the police report’ device which even apologist Matthew Hooton admits is untenable. The John Banks issue won’t go away.
It seems clear Mr Banks DID know Kim Dotcom donated to his campaign, and yet he pleaded ignorance as Q&A demonstrated with the clip they played. Further, the ludicrous ‘He’s a married man’ interchange with Radio LIVE’s Frances Cook made his denials a laughing stock.
http://www.radiolive.co.nz/VIDEO-Hes-a-married-man—John-Banks/tabid/504/articleID/27689/Default.aspx
But for Key, holding on to John Banks, no matter what the stigma is real politik in action.
–
On the issues of Opposition parties offering alternative manifestos:
I think perhaps you forget how comprehensively National in opposition became ‘Labour lite’ … with a fresh-faced Helensville MP leading the Party after Don Brash and his crew had ‘inoculated’ contentious issues of difference like Nuclear ships visits etc.
It’s part of a drift to the centre and a blurring of distinctions … and the incrementalist ‘Don’t frighten the horses’ approach that the Key/Joyce government took in their first term.
I’m not in Labour’s camp, as noted, but it seems to me their key policy difference to the National government is No asset sales. That being the case, Shearer was entitled to hammer it on his Q&A interview. I don’t mind that. The education discussion seemed no big deal, despite efforts to hype it.
I remember enjoying this analysis from Colin James in 2010 about ‘rebranding’ political leaders which included this:
http://www.colinjames.co.nz/management/Management_column_10Sep.htm
It’s not for me to try to measure the corrosive effects on Mr Key’s ‘brand’ from his apparent lack of candour about these and other issues … but there must be a cost. Don’t you think?
As James says, Leaders pass. Even spectacularly popular political leaders reach their use-by date.
– P
Yes there is a cost while the likes of yourself debate over the Asset Sale issue and whether Banks fully new about the donations.
Bureaucratic behavior increases, Lawyers get richer Media attempt to justify their pay packets and Bloggers like yourself think they are focusing on ‘real issues’ As the country heads towards the toilet. By no fault of current administration attempting to make a difference.
By the way Dotcom was found to have done nothing personally wrong by the courts either.
So I ask is it wrong to ask and accept donations as a politician?
And asking someone if someone else is a Liar is gutter question, everyone lies in government. EVERYONE. So how do you answer that.
I agree Key playing I have not red the statement is weird for one I bet he has. 2nd why not read it.
But he is correct he doesn’t have to read it. Just like I don’t have to read it as I it’s pointless.
Banks knew he claimed he didn’t. I think because Dotcom’s perception at the time was of a criminal. Which he is not. So he denied it.
But I ask again is it against the rules to accept donations in local government? No its not.
The only people who read it voluntarily, are finding bits to grasp on to threads of half truths to fuel the speculation.
“But I ask again is it against the rules to accept donations in local government? No its not.”
I believe it is a legal requirement that a true and accurate return be filed of election expenses which includes a record of donations. The source of donations is to be identified unless the donor is genuinely unknown to the candidate (who signs the return declaring it to be true).
If you could bring yourself to read the police report, you’ll see there was a prima facie case made that John Banks DID know the identity of the donors Kim Dotcom, Sky City and NAME-BLANKED-OUT who paid for some radio advertising. These three were among donations declared as ‘anonymous‘, and Dotcom’s $50,000 was split and declared as two of $25,000 allegedly at Mr Banks’ request.
It seems obvious he’s been caught in a lie. Do you think that’s OK?
– P
PS People who say they want to focus on ‘the issues that matter’ are often trying to dodge something, in my observation.
I sometimes sit back and ask myself … what do we tell our kids from when they are old enough to understand … about telling the truth and doing the right things.
I would venture the simple suggestions …
Banks is a lying rich prick. Self made and pulling the ladder up after himself.
Key is a slippery “son of a bitch” who introduces merchant banking slithering to enhance the usual reptilian nature of party politics. Self made courtesy of the welfare state and pulling the ladder up after himself.
Shearer may well be the only relatively honest one left standing in the room.
Reminds me of a church i once attended several times. The pews occupied by intellectually disabled persons every Sunday deserved to be labelled … “the only non-assholes zone”
My opinion wont matter a jot of course .. i simply cannot summon the strength to present clever arguments and i am in awe of those of you who can do so. Assholes are assholes – good people are good people. Never ceases to amaze me.
You’re entitled to express your opinion, Ivan, but I ask you to moderate your language. The denigrating words you have spat at these two men demeans this website.
There’s no reason to abuse then in those terms, no matter how disillusioned as you are with the results of the general election.
Please knock it off.
(Also: There’s nothing wrong with being rich.)
On the larger question of demonstrating integrity in politics, yeah, I have to say Mr Key’s comment that “There’s a range of different views there” leaves me dissatisfied, and when I watched the interview he looked like he was ducking and diving.
It *seems* awful. I wish he would make a stand for ‘standards’ as he did in the Richard Worth case … instead of being so *evasive*.
I don’t find it inspiring, and I think it will inevitably damage ‘Brand Key’.
– P
I never suggested there was anything wrong with being rich … its that he is a “lying rich prick pulling the ladder up after himself..” and i quote (sorry about the language … but in the interests of accuracy).
So – “Key” words/descriptors are .. Lying / Prick / pulling the ladder up after himself – those are the qualifiers – the word rich is merely used as a statement of fact. Rich people are generally much more just … so they should know better and not be such complete assholes.
No disillusionment with the General Election result – just these two slippery little reptiles … Banks and Key.
Of course it will damage Brand Key … but by the time it does .. . it will be too late.
Everything of a direct confrontational nature is described as abuse these days Pete. Its the very PC brave new world we all have to live in.