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 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.