NZ POLITICS DAILY: Banks under pressure

John Key

The latest revelations about John Banks’ political finances will further erode New Zealand’s reputation as one of the least corrupt nations in the world.

In recent years there’s been a massive increase in allegations about the fundraising and expenditure of political parties and politicians in this country - with the usual outcome of politicians being able to thumb their noses at the court of public opinion. It seems our politicians are remarkably adept at finding ways to get around electoral law to fund their campaigns.

The John Banks saga will merely reinforce this notion to the public, and in general it will reduce confidence in parliamentary politics. 

The latest saga – brought about by the release of the Police files of their investigation into John Banks’ 2010 mayoral campaign finances – has provided even further ammunition for those who claim that Banks lied about receiving donations from Kim Dotcom and Sky City.
The material in the police report is incredibly damning – and David Fisher provides the must-read coverage of it in Police file: How Banks' team targeted rich-list. You can also read the actual police report. David Fisher reveals more in his story, Banks camp's stories differ, in which the politician’s press secretary is said to have stated at one point that Banks had indeed read his official donation disclosure form. It was this form that the police found to be in breach of the law, but did not prosecute, partly because Banks claimed to have only signed it and not known what was in, as a staffer had filled it out.
Banks’ version of events is now deeply discredited by much of the coverage, which is providing opposition parties with another chance to attack the National-led government. The problem for John Key is that he promised to fire Banks if it turned out that he had lied, and now the Labour Party is clearly alleging that Banks ‘lied’ – see Andrea Vance’s Pressure goes on Key to jettison Banks. John Key is of course playing down the issue, and saying that he doesn’t plan to read the police file. Ethics and standards can become very flexible when a whole government’s fate is on the line. National needs Act’s one vote to survive and so Key has little choice, but that 2011 cup of tea is looking very expensive and the ongoing cost will be to John Key’s credibility.
Not surprisingly, John Banks still refuses to elaborate on the issue. Furthermore, Banks has not allowed his statement to police on the issue to be released publicly. At the moment it seems that the only one willing to give some sort of defence of John Banks – and a critique of Kim Dotcom – is blogger Cathy Odgers – see: Once Upon A Mattress – The Dot Con Fairytale
The Government’s main response has been to announce that the donations rules for local body elections are to be tightened – see Andrea Vance’s Local body campaign donation rules tightened. Interestingly, Banks has been willing to comment on this issue, welcoming the changes and expressing unhappiness about being the victim of the current law: ‘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 RNZ’s Banks welcomes changes to 'unfair' donations law
Auckland Mayor Len Brown has also entered into the debate over the spending rules – see Claire Trevett’s Trim cap for contenders, says Brown. Brown’s plea could be seen as the classic ‘incumbency protection’ argument in which you limit the ability of challenger candidates to campaign.
Coming on top of numerous other apparent breaches of the law by politicians of virtually every political hue, it’s worth noting that having strict political finance laws that are not very vigorously policed – or that contain many loopholes – is hardly international best practice.
Instead, the lesson from overseas is that it’s best to have as few regulations around political finance as possible, keep them simple, but police them rigorously. New Zealand doesn’t seem to have learnt that lesson yet. 
Yesterday’s hui on Maori water claims – the other big political story of the moment – could turn out to be just as monumental as the Tuhoe settlement forged earlier in the week. It might end up being seen as a turning point for Maoridom – with some significant decisions made, an appearance of unity achieved, and some bold statements issued. The hui was most remarkable for its apparent decision that no iwi or hapu would negotiate with the government separately – see Tracy Watkins’ Maori speak as one on water rights. As Watkins says, this new united front amounts to ‘the biggest threat to the Government's asset sales programme so far’. Whether this agreement can be kept is a good question – there’s good reason to think that the unity on display yesterday could easily fall apart. But nonetheless, the establishment of a new Maori negotiating group could be vital in the forging of longer-term unity in Maori politics.
Tracy Watkins also has an excellent summary of the ‘who’s who’ within Maoridom as well as the shifting powers at play – see: Maori deliver crystal clear message on water. She says that the hui ‘was inspired genius by the Maori King, Tuheitia, or more likely, his close lieutenant Tukoroirangi Morgan’. For Morgan Godfery’s analysis, see: The Kingitanga hui and what it means for NZ. Godfrey says the show of unity has put Maori in a very strong negotiating position but they will have to be careful not to overplay their hand.
The hui and its outcomes show growing confidence within Maoridom – as indicated by Audrey Young’s report, We own the water - Maori King. But such bold claims could create a ‘huge backlash’ says David Farrar in his response: A view that I will never accept . In terms of Maori claims of water ownership, he says, ‘Sorry, no you do not. You get certain rights from having moved here 600 years or so before the rest of us, but you do not get to claim ownership of all the water in New Zealand. We do not live in a country where the first wave of immigrants get all the rights, and the second wave get no rights over essential resources such as water’. 
For an even more developed version of this line of thinking, see Karl du Fresne’s Intoxicated by a cocktail of power and entitlement. He says that a ‘massive challenge’ is looming that ‘relates to fundamental questions about who governs New Zealand, and for whose benefit.  The Maori Council’s challenge over water rights is symptomatic of a much wider grab-a-thon in which “Maori” interests are aggressively asserting rights to assets and resources with little regard for the common good’. du Fresne says this is all ‘based on the false premise that New Zealand consists of two races, “Maori” and the rest’. This is also a point taken up by Winston Peters – see TVNZ’s Maori need to meet a 'benchmark' – Peters
Other important or interesting political items today include:
Gordon Campbell has a must-read opinion piece, On Paula Bennett’s latest welfare plans and Labour’s exchange rate cynicism. The first part takes National to task for its welfare reforms, the second part is an incredibly stinging critique of Labour and the Greens’ advocacy of bringing the exchange rate down. 
Is the welfare reform debate simply empty posturing by both sides? That’s essentially the analysis of Mark Blackham’s Why politicians like the beneficiary debate. He says that for both National and Labour the debate is just symbolic electoral positioning – a cynical way of advertising themselves to ‘cement their identities’ and win votes.
Chris Trotter warns today about constitutional reform, suggesting the powers that be – or at least the Government’s Constitutional Advisory Panel – wish to ‘incorporate the Treaty of Waitangi in a new, bicultural, binding (and inevitably judicially defined) New Zealand constitution’ – see: Uni students' constitution disappointing.
ACC has been paying some medical specialists up to $500,000 a year, and some suspect that they’re being paid to get long-term clients off the books – see APNZ’s ACC specialist stats revealed by Greens
Brian Easton is busy writing a history of New Zealand from an economic perspective – entitled ‘Not in Narrow Seas’. He’s uploaded ‘Chapter 34’ to his blog – a particularly interesting account of Maori urban migration
Bryce Edwards
Today's content:
Banks Dotcom
David Fisher and Andrew Koubaridis (Herald):PM stands by John Banks
Andrea Vance (Stuff): PM refuses to sack John Banks
Felix Marwick (Newstalk ZB): Banks' future in John Key's hands – MPs
Mike Smith (Standard): Known unknowns
Martyn Bradbury (Tumeke): Anon* *not
No Right Turn: Banks' corrupt intent
Water rights hui and asset sales
Audrey Young (Herald): We own the water - Maori King
Tracy Watkins (Stuff): Maori speak as one on water rights
Yvonne Tahana (Herald): Ovation for veteran's plea
Mai Chen (Herald): Stopping the grievance cycle
Hone Harawira (Herald): Open letter to the Prime Minister
John Minto (Stuff): It's time to unite over water.
Yvonne Tahana and Audrey Young (Herald): Maoridom gathers for national water hui
Yvonne Tahana (Herald): Uniting iwi on water tough: Cullen
Will Pollard and online staff (TV3) Nothing 'opportunistic' about water claims
David Farrar (Kiwiblog): A view that I will never accept  
Welfare reform
Danyl Mclauchlan (Dim Post): What’s the plan?
Mark Blackham (Political Business): Why politicians like the beneficiary debate
David Farrar (Kiwiblog): $78 billion
Kurt Bayer and Kate Shuttleworth (Herald): Brownlee backs down from 'insulting' comments
Foreign affairs and trade
Fran O’Sullivan (Herald): Waiting game for Russian FTA
Terence O’Brien (Dom Post): NZ must hold its nerve on foreign policy
Jody O’Callaghan (Stuff): Bullying rife in public service – survey
Maria Slade (Stuff): Lax Kiwi systems 'open to bribery'
David Farrar (Kiwiblog): A PM’s question time
Mark Blackham (Political Business): Activism never ends
Nick Krause (Stuff): Port dispute unresolved a year on
Abby Gillies (ODT): 'Back Benches' to return to TV


5 · Got a question about this story? Leave it in Comments & Questions below.

This article is tagged with the following keywords. Find out more about MyNBR Tags

Post Comment

5 Comments & Questions

Commenter icon key: Subscriber Verified

John Banks - neither an honorable nor a trustworthy man.

But he is not as bad as John Key - John has absolutely no integrity whatsoever. Look at his eyes - he has the look of a shyster caught in the midst of a con.

  • 0
  • 0

Banks and Key, got to be a pun there somewhere...

  • 0
  • 0

Of all the players I rate "dotcom" as a shyster, a cry baby, a bully and a coward.
Also Uncle Sam knows more and has a little room, and its own mattress, just for him.
The sooner they kick his ass over to the US of A the better.

  • 0
  • 0

This beat up on John Banks, lead by a Labour Party that stole taxpayer money to fund its "pledge card", is based on the 'evidence " of a convicted fraudster, who turned nasty when he found that donating toTeam Banksie for the 2010 Auckland mayoral campaign couldn't buy favours from John Banks when he became a Minister of the Crown. In other words, Banks wasn't corrupt, unlike the Labour Party.

  • 0
  • 0

Eventually John Banks will crawl back to the refuge of political has-beens, talk-back radio.

  • 0
  • 0

Post New comment or question

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

NZ Market Snapshot


Sym Price Change
USD 0.7269 0.0000 0.00%
AUD 0.9101 0.0000 0.00%
EUR 0.5951 0.0000 0.00%
GBP 0.5249 0.0000 0.00%
HKD 5.6856 0.0000 0.00%
JPY 80.4820 0.0000 0.00%


Commodity Price Change Time
Gold Index 1331.0 4.850 2018-01-19T00:
Oil Brent 68.6 -0.710 2018-01-19T00:
Oil Nymex 63.4 -0.580 2018-01-19T00:
Silver Index 17.0 0.090 2018-01-19T00:


Symbol Open High Last %
NASDAQ 7312.0 7336.4 7296.1 0.55%
DJI 25987.3 26071.7 26017.8 0.21%