Member log in

Dotcom treated like royalty, Banks beaten up – Sir Roger

Prime Minister John Key might be taking a minimalist approach to defending MP John Banks over the Kim Dotcom donations saga.

But ACT co-founder Sir Roger Douglas has come out swinging for the current party leader.

Sir Roger says he believes Mr Banks when he says he did not know anything about the donations from Mr Dotcom to his mayoral campaign.

When TVNZ's Q+A programme yesterday raised a poll that found 57% thought Mr Banks should be sacked, Sir Roger said he was surprised the ACT leader had done that well given the "media beat-up" of the past two weeks.

Mr Dotcom's roadtrip to Wellington last week was orchestrated by media, and "everything that Dotcom said was [treated as] if it came from the gospel, and he was treated like royalty. And the fact is that there was no attempt to put the other side of the coin."

Sir Roger thinks the situation Mr Banks is in is a “total making of the media”.

Mr Banks had done well as ACT leader and stuck to the party's principles, Sir Roger said.

Roadtrip image from Kim Dotcom's Instagram feed. Watch the full interview here.


RAW DATA: TRANSCRIPT

Q + A

SHANE TAURIMA INTERVIEWS SIR ROGER DOUGLAS

GREG            Plenty of pressure this week on the Prime Minister to dismiss ACT leader John Banks over the donations from Kim Dotcom, but John Key is sticking to his lines.  His words may be helping.  Check this out.  Today’s ONE News Colmar Brunton polls shows strong support for John Banks’ dismissal, but perhaps not as strong as many would have picked.  57% say sack him, but nearly a third of voters say he should stay, and a full 12%, well, they’re unsure.  The panel’s analysis shortly, but first what does ACT’s founder Sir Roger Douglas make of what’s happening to his party.  Sir Roger is with Shane Taurima.

SHANE          Good morning and welcome to the programme.

                      

Sir ROGER DOUGLAS – ACT Party Founder
            Good morning.

SHANE          Are you surprised?  57% say he should be sacked.


ROGER         No, I’m not surprised at all.  I think John’s done rather well.  When you look at the media beat-up that we’ve had over the last two weeks, I’m surprised that John’s done as well as he has.  The fact is – and it was in your trailer, just an example of that – it was the TV or the media’s inspired and organised trip to Wellington from Dotcom and the whole reporting of that.  Everything that Dotcom said was if it came from the gospel, and he was treated like royalty.  And the fact is that there was no attempt to put the other side of the coin—


SHANE          What is the other side to the coin?

ROGER         Well, okay.  Well, let me— Look, I had nothing to do with John Banks’ mayoral campaign, but I was involved in Dick Quax’s campaign to some extent.  No, because it’s the same thing.  The first thing you do is you appoint a treasurer who knows the law.  You find out—

          

SHANE          Let’s—


ROGER         No, wait a minute.  You find out—


SHANE          We don’t want to relitigate it, because as you say, you don’t know around Mr Banks’ campaign,…


ROGER         No, no, wait a minute.


SHANE          …do you?

ROGER         I know what happens, and I know that there is another side that you just can’t take Dotcom’s words as if they’re gospel as the media have.

          

SHANE          And I think you’ve made your point.  You’ve made that point, so does that—?


ROGER         I wanted to illustrate it.  I’ll illustrate it this way.  What you do is you find out what the rules are.  And when you see someone who’s a possible donor, you tell them what the rules are.  If you give 100,000, it must be declared, less than whatever it is – 20,000, let’s say – doesn’t need to.  It’s over to them, and you make sure that the candidate is not the one receiving.  The money goes through the treasurer, and the candidate never absolutely knows whether the money came in or not.  I suspect that—


SHANE          So do you believe Mr Banks?


ROGER         I believe Mr Banks, yes.  And I believe that Mr Banks may well have said what we’ve said to people who are possible donors.  We told them the law.  The law is that if the donation is more than X, it has to be declared; if it’s less than X, it doesn’t have to be declared.


SHANE          But with all truth, something stinks, though, doesn’t it?

ROGER         Look, the truth is if you as television looked at all the mayoral candidates round New Zealand, you would be able to write the same story.  What I’m concerned about—

          

SHANE          That something stinks.  Something stinks.


ROGER         No, what I’m concerned about is how John Banks has acted as an ACT MP – has he done well or not?


SHANE          And what’s the answer to that?


ROGER         Well, I think he has done well.  If I read the press releases that John Banks has put out over the last eight months, I would say that they have been consistently along ACT principles and I believe probably more consistent than we’ve had at any time.  And for that, I congratulate him.


SHANE          But Mr Banks is seen as more of a National MP rather than an ACT MP, isn’t he?

ROGER         Look, I think— People do say that.  I think—    

          

SHANE          Do you agree with that?


ROGER         No, I don’t agree with that.  I think in terms of financial policy and also policy in relation to education, health and welfare, John has no problems and would be absolutely in line with ACT principles.  I think it would be fair to say that on some of the social issues where people have a conscience vote, then maybe John is more conservative than the average ACT member, but certainly not in terms of our main principles.


SHANE          Do you think he should release his police statement so we can clear this up once and for all?  Because you’ve got to admit there is a bit of a sideshow here, isn’t there?


ROGER         Well, there is and it’s a total making of—


SHANE          So should he release this police statement?

ROGER         …total making of the media, and I think that John’s made his point— position clear.  I think he should examine the other side a little more in depth.

          

SHANE          So, going back to the police statement – do you think he should release it?


ROGER         Well, I think John has probably released it.  I’ve seen the—


SHANE          Well, he hasn’t.  He’s refusing to, isn’t he?


ROGER         Well, he’s been in front of a camera and answered questions.  How often do you go on doing that?  I think— Look, there are more important things in New Zealand than whether or not John said particular things to Dotcom or not.  The fact is you’ve been talking about one of them today – welfare.  Those are the things that I want to see John—


SHANE          Can I just ask you, because we have to wrap up, are you happy with the state of the party now currently?

ROGER         Yes.  Well, I’m not really involved.  I think there is an issue that ACT needs to deal with.  Credibility has to— the whole question of the brand being hurt, the question is how they do that.  And if we had another quarter of an hour, I could probably tell you.

          

SHANE          And unfortunately we don’t.  Thank you very much for joining us.


ROGER         Thank you.

Comments and questions
19

Once again Sir Roger hits it out of the park with the interview.

Sounds like Sir Roger has not read the Police report either. See:

http://www.nbr.co.nz/sites/default/files/images/John_Banks_Police_Report_Part1.pdf

Really Roger? Well quelle suprise.

Given that the candidate that Banks was running against set up an anonymous trust to allow even worse than Banks is accused of, the point that Sir D makes about the media circus is completely true.

If what Banks is being accused of is bad enough to stand down from a position completely unrelated to that of which he was running for, then the people calling for his head need to hold up Browns first.

Otherwise they are complete idiots or hypocrites (though a fair wager on both...)

The media should be beating up Banks..but also Kim Dotcon. We seem to have forgotten he has ripped billions off the movie and recording industries..i.e ..writers, musicians, actors and now he is pretending to Mr Nice guy..give us a break.

What you fail to realise is that Dotcom is selling the online equivalent of a storage garage.

Why don't you castigate the Swiss banks for holding millions of dollars worth of stolen goods from the Holocaust? That's a real crime. Try finding a real crime. Dotcom's actions are more above board than Key's on asset sales... whether you agree with their sale or not. Certainly Dotcom is not breaching the founding document of this land by encouraging Maori separatism. (Article One of the Treaty; both versions)

OH?? So why doesn't he want a free trip and holiday in the ol' US of A?
There are lots of peeps over there living very happily??

You clearly dont understand the technology involved, the service dotcom provided nor the dynamics and rort that is the royalty scheme the media moguls run. Dotcom is a pioneer in helping the music creators achieve a fairter return.

How is Dotcom helping music creators? His service allows people to fileshare and avoid paying royalties so not sure how that equates to helping someone creating music. I am sure he has a good idea about how he might go about helping people make money and we would all support that but megaupload was not it. You suggest royalty schemes are a rort. I assume you have a better way for artists to make money from their work. Or are you one of the sadly large group of people who think music and entertainment should be free?

To say the media is beating Banks up and not giving him a chance is a bit rich. Banks refuses to front and answer questions on this. His behavior if not illegal is certainly not ethical. Banks seems to be like a kid with his fingers in his ears yelling I'm not listening.

Sir Roger's political judgment has always been poor. Nothing has changed.

Douglas may be right.

Isn't it strange how, despite an international call to extradite Kim Dotcom for alleged internet crimes against humanity, the vast majority of people trust him implicitly, as compared against the likes of John Banks (and, now, even the guy at the other end of the leash, John Key).

Then again, is it really so surprising, given the state of politics today? I yearn for a time when politicians campaigned on having the best ideas to push NZ forward, away from the established cry to "...vote for me, 'cause the other guy's worse", which passes for democracy in this country.

Dotcom is a convicted insider trader and the only person he is helping is himself and when he doesn't get what he wants he puts the knife in... Should be apparent from his history...

As I see it Mr Dotcom gave his money to John Banks' election campaign expecting a 'return' on his'investment'. However when John Banks didn't help him in his time of need he hit bank at Banks with the help of a fawning NZ media.

Agreed. Banks mistake was not admitting it early. If he had admitted it it would have all blown over. If he hasn't the nous to work that out he definitely shouldn't be in parliament.

I will trust a guy who can produce solid evidence over a guy who can not remember a helicopter ride any day.

Good ol' Rodger and his predictable choir-book recital.
So out of touch from the congregation - still.

Who is 'Sir' Roger and what's the Act Party?

I would like to make another comment on kim.com's Megaupload service.
all of the above comments have left out an important fact. Megaupload allowed all media companies to remove any media hosted on his servers. They had "unfettered" access to remove any file whether it infringed copyright or not. A quick look through youtube, facebook and various other large internet companies and it becomes very easy to find a swath of copyright infringements that still go unchecked today. Kim.com may not be an angel, however the media do appear to ignore the length he went to to allow media companies to remove material from his servers, they ignore that there was significant lobbying pressure from media companies to the US government and a very uncanny timing to remove kim.coms ability to launch megabox which would have PAID artists more than the record companies currently do by an order of magnitude. It also would have paid artists to provide media to the public free of charge.
sounds like a fair amount of corruption all around.!