0 No by-election for Epsom

There will be no Epsom by-election to replace the departed John Banks; Stuff reports:

Labour has confirmed it will not force a by-election in the Epsom electorate brought about by John Banks' resignation.
That gives the Government the required 75 per cent of votes in Parliament to leave the seat vacant until the general election on September 20.
Leader David Cunliffe said today it was not in the public interest to hold a by-election in the seat, made vacant by ACT MP John Bank's resignation, which takes effect today.
"A by-election so close to the general election would also be a waste of taxpayers' money," he said.
"I have written to the prime minister to inform him that Labour will support any motion to ensure there is no by-election in the electorate." 

John Banks announced his intention to resign as at 5pm yesterday last Sunday. The Prime Minister immediately announced that National would seek Labour's support for there not to be an expensive and futile by-election.

What took David Cunliffe almost a week to decide to support the PM's request. Did he, like a child who pulls the wings off flies, want to twist the knife a little bit more on Mr Banks? Was he trying to show the Prime Minister that he is no push-over? Did he have to travel up and down the country asking Labour Party members for their opinions? Or is he simply incapable of making decisions.

That there should be no Epsom by-election was a no-brainer. There would barely be time to hold the by-election before Parliament rises for the Big Show. It would be a waste of taxpayer funds, and a waste of party resources; and from what we've been told, the Labour Party is already worried about its resources for fighting a General Election.

David Cunliffe ought to have been able to ring the PM immediately and agree to support his motion not to hold a by-election. If he can't make simple and obvious decisions such as this one on the hoof (although he can make up policy as he goes), how is Mr Cunliffe ever going to cope with the demands of being Prime Minister, and the decisions required there?

 

0 Comment of the Day - 9 June 2014

It's early in the day to be featuring a Comment of the Day. But when we saw this one at Kiwiblog last night, our day was almost done, so it was filed away for use this morning; here 'tis:

Nostradamus (2,842 comments) says: June 8th, 2014 at 8:36 pm

The man who describes himself as the Leader of the Opposition, David Cunliffe, has issued a media release:

John Banks’ resignation was inevitable but should have come a lot sooner, Labour Leader David Cunliffe says.
“The only reason Mr Banks has remained in Parliament for so long is because John Key and National needed his vote.
…
“This government’s mandate has rested on a man found guilty of a serious electoral offence; on Peter Dunne, stripped of his ministerial warrants after he lost the trust of the Prime Minister having allegedly leaked a classified GCSB report; and on a Maori Party cravenly propping up the government.
“The Banks saga has underlined how desperate National is to stay in power. New Zealanders are now asking serious questions about the integrity of this government,” David Cunliffe said.

That media release makes an interesting contrast from this one back in 2009:

Labour acknowledges the jury’s decision today on charges brought against Taito Phillip Field after a long and difficult trial, Labour Chief Whip Darren Hughes said.
“Mr Field was expelled from the Labour Party in 2007. Labour has acted in good faith throughout this process.
“The jury has decided that Mr Field acted illegally.
“The judge is yet to sentence Mr Field. Labour will make no further comment.”

As DPF blogged at the time, Labour could only bring themselves to “acknowledge” the decision. This, as we all know, followed Labour’s prolonged defence of Field between 12 September 2005 and 31 August 2006 – see DPF’s detailed timeline here. And, for good measure, Field was actually expelled from Labour for the cardinal sin of not ruling out standing for another party at the election – nothing to do with his other shady activities.
So, once again, Labour expose themselves as complete hypocrites.

Many commentators have drawn a parallel between Field's conviction and imprisonment and Banks' offending. Apart from the fact that they both involved MPs, the two cases have little in common.

Phillip Field used his position as an MP to offer favours to vulnerable potential immigrants, implying that he could offer them favours in return for free work. That was indeed blatantly corrupt. John Banks however was a private citizen when he filed his campaign return, having lost the Auckland mayoral election to Len Brown. He would not become an MP for another 12 months.

Labour's refusal to denounce Phillip Field, even after he had been found guilty by a jury is telling. As Nostradamus notes above, Field was not expelled from Labour because of the offences he was (at the time) alleged to have committed. He was expelled because he rained on Helen Clark's parade, refusing on the day she was giving her State of the Nation speech to Parliament to rule out that he might be setting up a new political party.

So David Cunliffe's statement about Banks needs to be seen for what it is; political opportunism. Where was his righteous indignation, when day after day Lockwood Smith was grilling Labour over Field's indiscretions and the shonky Ingram Report, which of course reached exactly the conclusion that its Terms of Reference had intended?

Mr Cunliffe is in no position to lecture John Key. If however he was to reveal who the anonymous donors to his Labour's Got Talent campaign were, and admit his hypocrisy in using a secret trust to hide those anonymous donations, he might, like John Banks, be taking the first steps towards redemption. 

0 John Banks does the honourable thing

We've just arrived home from our weekend in Christchurch. And we've arrived home to the news that John Banks' last act in public life is an honourable one; the Herald reports:

Act MP John Banks has announced his resignation from Parliament, effective from this Friday.
The Epsom MP made his decision after being found guilty last Thursday of filing a false donations declaration for the Auckland mayoral race in 2010.
"I have given my heart and soul over four decades to making a worthwhile contribution to this country," he said in a statement. "I have always endeavored to do the right thing. Consequently I am saddened at this turn of events."
Act Party leader Jamie Whyte is thought to have wanted his resignation but friends of Banks say he was likely to have resigned anyway to prevent further damage to Act and National.
The move means Banks will avoid being forced out of Parliament by a conviction.
The judge held off entering a conviction last Thursday until sentencing on August 1 because Banks' lawyer, David Jones QC, gave notice he wanted to apply for a discharge without conviction.

It is highly unlikely a by-election will be held in Epsom to fill his vacancy.
Because the vacancy falls within six months of a general election, a by-election can be avoided with the support of 75 per cent of the Parliament.

Once Act leader Jamie Whyte confirmed yesterday that he wanted Banks to resign the die was cast. Rather than being sacked from Parliament within days of the 50th Parliament dissolving for the General Election, Banks has removed himself from the scene. That is entirely the right course of action on his part.

John Banks has had a life of public service. He is many different things to many different people, but he has never been a quitter. His resignation as an MP is a sad end to his career, but we are sure that having taken a few days to reflect on Thursday's guilty verdict, he understood only too well that the writing was on the wall.

There is no triumph in Banks' decision to resign, and there will be plenty of MP's and local body election candidates saying "There by the grace of God go I". Having done the honourable thing, John Banks now has the chance to rebuild his life and his reputation away from the glare of publicity.

0 Tweet of the Day - 8 June 2014

There's speculation that John Banks may well resign as MP for Epsom in the next few days. Act has put pressure on Banks as it seeks to distance itself from the former party leader.

And in that vein, we just spotted this tweet:

We hope that John Banks will do the right thing for everyone, himself included.

0 O'Sullivan on Banks

Posts today will be relatively brief, and to the point. We're visiting a family member in Christchurch who is recuperating from a major operation, and our first focus isn't blogging.

We've just had a quick read of Fran O'Sullivan's Herald column this morning on John Banks' fall from grace. It's worth a read in its entirety, but we agree with her closing sentiment:

Banks is a smart man. He is intensely loyal. He needs to reflect on what has happened. Then do the decent thing and resign.

We concur. Even though John Banks escaped a conviction and automatic expulsion from Parliament on Thursday afternoon, he has still been found guilty of a criminal offence. Even though the offence is not related to his tenure as an MP and was committed a year before his return to Parliament his credibility has been seriously tarnished.

Acknowledging Justice Wylie's finding of guilt, even if he later plans to appeal the decision, and accepting the inevitable consequence by resigning from Parliament before he is legally obliged to would at the very least give Banks an opportunity to show contrition, and begin to rebuild his reputation.

0 Wally of the Week

This is a new post for us. It's something that we may do from time to time, or weekly; that's if there are enough wallies out there needing recognition!

Today's recipient has been calling for the head of a political foe; he's even put out a media release calling for John Banks' head:

David Cunliffe
Labour Leader
6 June 2014
John Banks must leave Parliament now
It is unacceptable for John Banks to remain in Parliament after he was found guilty of electoral fraud and the ACT MP must do the right thing and resign, Labour Leader David Cunliffe says.

In calling for Banks to resign, Mr Cunliffe seems to be a little forgetful; he's forgetting his own brush with the law just last year:

David Cunliffe; congratulations on winning the inaugural Keeping Stock Wally of the Week award!

0 Hoist by his own petard

The decision in R v John Archibald Banks is now available online. In between tasks at work, we are slowly reading through it.

But we've just come across this paragraph:

You can't escape the irony here. In his desire to be transparent, and to comply with the "spirit of the law", John Banks chose not to hide his donations behind a secret trust. On the other hand, Len Brown hid almost $500,000 worth of donations behind the secret and previously unknown New Auckland Council Trust.

Len Brown wasn't worried about the "spirit of the law", and hid his donations in a manner that no one will ever know who his backers were. John Banks has clearly erred in not declaring the Dotcom donation, and will pay a high price. His desire for transparency was commendable, even though some of his decisions were poor ones.

Mr Banks is hoist by his own petard.

0 An alternative view on Banks

The Veteran blogs at kindred blog No Minister. Without identifying him - that is his pergogative - The Veteran served New Zealand with distinction as an officer in the army. He now does a lot of voluntary work with ex-servicemen and women.

And he shares his opinion on the Banks verdict:

The verdict is in.     Putting the question of an Appeal to one side it is likely that the Speaker will, on receiving formal advice from the Court, declare the Epsom seat vacant.
I did not hear all the evidence so I will refrain from commenting on the merits of the case except to say that listening to Bank's budget speech a few days ago it sounded very much like his valedictory speech ... perhaps in his heart of hearts he knew the cards were stacked against him. 
It's a sad end to public life for John Banks.   Sure he was controversial but the flip side is that he is one of the most kind hearted and generous men that I know.    I have the privilege of chairing a Trust which provides financial assistance to the children and grandchildren of our Vietnam veterans.  To the best of my knowledge John has no great connection with our community yet he has been one of our most generous supporters both in cash and kind.    That's the John Banks I know.
I suspect many will want to put their boot in now he is down.   Not me.   Rather I will confine myself to saying that when you sup with the devil you do so at your peril .... as Cunliffe, Norman, Peters and Hone will find out to their cost.

The public face of John Banks is brash and controversial; often deliberately so. But we have heard from any number of people over the years that the real John Banks is a very different creature; the kind-hearted and generous man described by The Veteran.

The political Left has gloated since Justice Edwin Wylie tendered his verdict yesterday, in much the same way as the Right did when Phillip Field was convicted of corruption. We've gone back over our Field archives, and let's just say that it isn't our finest work.

There is no joy in any public fall from grace. We should however take comfort that even when current or former politicians such as Banks, Field, Sir Doug Graham and Bill Jefferies transgress, our legal system will hold them accountable.

0 Emmerson on Banks

Herald cartoonist Rod Emmerson is in fine form with this morning's effort:

There will be many words written about John Banks in coming days. But Rod Emmerson has trumped most of them with just one - splat!

0 Guilty

Epsom MP John Banks has been found guilty of knowing filing a false electoral return. Justice Edwin Wylie has just delivered the verdict, and is now outlining his reasons.

UPDATE: The Herald reports:

ACT MP John Banks has today been found guilty of filing a false electoral return.
In the High Court at Auckland, Justice Edwin Wylie has just delivered his verdict to a packed courtroom.
Justice Wylie said he was not persuaded beyond reasonable doubt that the return was false in relation to the SkyCity donation, but he was sure the return was false when it came to the Megastuff payments.

UPDATE #2: Stuff reports:

John Banks has been found guilty of knowingly transmitting a false electoral return.
Banks, the Member of Parliament for Epsom and the former leader of the ACT Party, appeared in a packed High Court at Auckland today where Justice Edwin Wylie delivered his verdict.
"Mr Banks, I find you guilty of the charge," the judge said.
The charge of "transmitting a return of electoral expenses knowing that it is false in a material particular" related to three entries in the electoral returns for Banks' failed 2010 Auckland mayoral campaign.
The donations were recorded as anonymous, but the Crown said Banks knew two donations of $25,000 each were from internet entrepreneur Kim Dotcom and one of $15,000 was from SkyCity.
Justice Wylie said he was not persuaded of the charge on the $15,000 Sky City donation but he was "sure" that the charge had been proved in relation to Dotcom's donations.
The judge said he was "satisfied beyond reasonable doubt" that Banks either had actual knowledge of the Dotcom donations or he deliberately did not check the electoral return so it could be transmitted as anonymous.
Banks' lawyer David Jones, QC, asked that a conviction not be entered as an application on that issue would be made at sentence.
Jones will probably apply for a discharge without conviction.
Banks was remanded at large for sentencing on August 1.
The judge ordered a pre-sentence report and a report on the suitability of home detention.

This will be a sad ending to John Banks' political career, but he has no one to blame but himself. This case is a lesson to every politician, and local or central government level; be honest, open and transparent.

We're sure that other politicians have done exactly what John Banks did in late 2010. Fortunately for them, they hadn't received donations from a rather large bloke who was about to have a significant run-in with the law!

Kim Dotcom is gloating about the verdict, unsurprisingly. We are not going to dignify his tweets by publishing any of them; he has his own day in court ahead in just over a month when the application to extradite him will be heard. But he may not be so chipper by mid-July.

Banks will be sentenced on 1 August, after the 50th Parliament has been dissolved ahead the election campaign. He has not had a conviction recorded against him yet, but we would not be surprised if he tenders his resignation from Parliament in any event; it would be the honourable thing to do, and could be a first step towards rebuilding his reputation.

This is a sad day for New Zealand politics in a number of ways.

0 Dotcom's mission to "destroy"

Here's a story that you might find if you dig around the news websites, but you won't see on TV; Stuff reports:

Kim Dotcom vowed to "destroy" John Banks and Prime Minister John Key, MP Mark Mitchell has told the High Court in Auckland.
Mitchell, the National MP for Rodney, today gave evidence for the defence at ACT MP Banks' trial for filing a false electoral return.
Mitchell said he had met Dotcom at a barbecue in his electorate where the internet entrepreneur was "agitated" about the case to extradite Dotcom to the US on criminal copyright charges.
He said Dotcom told him: "I'm going to destroy John Key, I'm going to take down John Banks, I'm going to take down the Government."
Mitchell's other evidence was suppressed. 

We blogged about a speech Mark Mitchell gave in Parliament recently. If you want the detail of what Mr Mitchell alleged, the full Hansard transcript of his speech is on that post.

Mark Mitchell's evidence yesterday certainly suggests that Kim Dotcom had an ulterior motive in the evidence he and his estranged wife gave against John Banks last week. Mr Banks' wife Amanda gave evidence yesterday which contradicted that of the Dotcoms.

Over at Homepaddock, Ele comments on this issue:

Dotcom ought to be very grateful he’s in New Zealand which shows a great deal more respect for the law and democracy than he appears to.
In many other countries that sort of tirade against a Prime Minister and MP would result in a charge of treason and in some they wouldn’t bother with such niceties as a fair trial before reaching a verdict.

We couldn't agree more. The sooner that Dotcom's extradition case is heard and a decision made, the better for New Zealand

0 Photo of the Day - 19 May 2014

John Banks got a muddy reception at the High Court in Auckland today from a bloke who obviously doesn't believe in the presumption of innocence; the Herald reports:

John Banks' trial on a charge of filing a false electoral return got off to a dirty start today when a man threw a bucket of mud at him as he walked into the High Court at Auckland.
Act's sole MP was walking towards the court's entrance when an elderly man stepped forward and threw a bucket load of mud at him, spattering his face and suit.

Of course, serial protester and Auckland rates defaulter Penny Bright just happened to be right on hand:

Penny Bright, who was protesting against Banks outside the court, witnessed the incident and said the man "just biffed it all over" Banks.

"He just looked like thunder," she said of Banks, who then composed himself and walked inside.
Ms Bright said the man, who was wearing a purple polar fleece top and grey track pants, was angry about something Banks had said on Radio Pacific in 1997.
Court security were dealing with the man.

Mr Banks' assailant, like Mr Banks himself, may find himself in court. If that is the case, he will be entitled to the same presumption of innocence that Mr Banks is, and that the protester tried to circumvent this morning. Isn't that ironic...

0 The Banks trial

John Banks goes on trial in the High Court in Auckland today. He is being prosecuted over allegations of knowingly filing a false return of donations after the 2010 local body elections; NBR reports:

John Banks' trial for allegedly filing a false electoral return kicks off in the High Court at Auckland today.
The judge-only trial centres on Crown allegations that Mr Banks knowingly filed a false return after the 2010 Auckland Mayoral election (in which the then Auckland Mayor stood unsuccessfully against Manukau Len Brown for the to head the newly amalgamated "super city"). Under the local government electoral law at the time, it was an offence to list a donour as anonymous if a candidate knew their identity.
The Crown says Mr Banks asked Kim Dotcom to split a $50,000 cheque into two $25,000 payments to skirt threshold on anonymous donations. It also alleges Mr Banks rang Mr Dotcom to thank him a few days later. Mr Banks denies the claim.
Mr Dotcom — who became angered after Mr Banks failed to answer a request for help after the accused pirate was jailed following the January 20, 2012 raid on his rented mansion — has backed the Crown's version of events.
The prosecution also alleges that Sky City CEO Nigel Morrison personally handed Mr Banks a campaign donation cheque for $15,000. The Sky City donation was also listed as anonymous.
Mr Banks has denied any wrongdoing. 

We will refrain from making any comment on the trial until the judge hands down a verdict. John Banks is entitled to be presumed innocent, and the Crown is required to prove its case against the MP. Listening to TV and radio coverage this morning though, you'd think that Banks had already been convicted, and was appearing for sentencing this morning!

Kim Dotcom will be a key witness in the Crown's case. We noted recently that the defence will seek to put Dotcom's credibility under scrutiny, given that his evidence is crucial to the Crown's case.

This will be a most interesting trial. If Banks is convicted he can, as a long-serving politician, expect little sympathy from us.


Footnote: This post will be closely moderated. Comments that prejudge Mr Banks or are in any way defamatory will not be published. His guilt or innocence is a matter for the High Court to decide.

0 A Green disappointment

Parliament was deprived of a rare opportunity yesterday. The Psychoactive Substances Amendment Bill passed through all its stages in Parliament by 107 votes to nil; almost unanimity. However the Green Party's 14 votes were recorded as abstentions.

The Greens have tried to rationalise their decision to abstain from making a decision because of their concern for creating a black market for synthetic cannabis. That, in our ever-humble opinion is an absolute cop-out. Kevin Hague suggested that the legislation should be evidence-based; where has he been for the last few months as the evidence of the harm that the new generation of "legal highs" has been doing has been there for all to see.

We elect a Parliament to lead us, not to opt out of decision-making as the Greens did yesterday. Even John Banks, the only MP to vote against "legal highs" last year because of his opposition to animal testing voted in favour of yesterday's legislation. Even Hone Harawira, who will daily see the harm that legal highs are doing in his electorate, voted with the Government.

If the Greens felt that strongly about the legislation that they could not support it, then they should have voted against it, and had their "no" vote recorded for time immemorial in Hansard. Instead they took the path of less resistance; neither for nor against, and not prepared to make a decision.

This is an issue we feel strongly about. The children of two friends are currently battling addiction to synthetic cannabis, and as well as the damage they drugs have done to the young people involved, the harm caused to the families has been profound. Previously well-behaved teenagers have turned into nightmares for their parents as they do whatever they can to get the coin for their next fix. We won't go into detail but some of the behaviour has even shocked senior police who have been involved.

Parliament could have been united in its desire to rid New Zealand of this insidious menace yesterday. Sadly, the Greens would not come to the party. Their decision to abstain yesterday was deeply disappointing.

0 A sensible strategy...

The Herald had a story over the weekend over the upcoming John Banks donations case; check this out:

John Banks' lawyer is seeking details of Kim Dotcom's convictions in Germany to establish the tycoon's "credibility" as a key witness against him in his trial over donations.
David Jones, QC, was instructed by the High Court to serve Immigration NZ with papers aimed at extracting information supplied as part of Dotcom's residency application. The order comes ahead of the May 17 High Court trial of Mr Banks' allegedly filing a false electoral return. Mr Jones told the High Court he wanted permission to seek from Immigration NZ "information pertaining to the criminal convictions of Mr Dotcom in any country other than New Zealand".
Justice Edwin Wylie said the information was "potentially relevant". "It is information which should have been disclosed in the course of an immigration application. It could also go to the credibility of Mr Dotcom and he is a key Crown witness."
Official Information Act material released by Immigration NZ in 2012 showed Mr Dotcom had declared two criminal convictions from Germany.

The information, released to media, showed the convictions were voluntarily declared because no formal record of them existed after being wiped by the Germany's "clean slate"-style legislation.
Documents show Mr Dotcom's immigration agency volunteered the details that he had convictions - which had expired - for computer hacking and insider trading.

It's hardly rocket science to suggest that part of John Banks' defence will be to investigate Herr Dotcom's credibility. A quick scan of his Twitter feed is likely to provide the Banks defence team with plenty of ammunition as well.

Kim Dotcom does indeed have a chequered history. As well as the offences committed in Germany, he was also prosecuted for dishonesty offences by the Hong Kong authorities after he had been granted New Zealand residence. He was convicted of eight charges with regard to trading activities on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange.

Dotcom's evidence will be a key part of the Crown case against John Banks. But under our justice system, the Crown has the obligation to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, and the credibility of Crown witnesses is a very relevant issue. Given some of the information that has emerged about Mr Dotcom in recent months, it will be very interesting to see how this plays out.