John Banks

ᔥ NZ Herald

There is a reason that David Shearer won’t act on the Shane Jones corruption allegations. It is the Beaumont Effect.

If he acts and Shane jones exits parliament then the next person on the Labour list is Carol Beaumont. Shearer would lose a vital vote and David Cunliffe would gain one. Neither Shearer nor Labour really need another hard left unionist back in parliament.

Labour MP Shane Jones has spoken publicly for the first time on his granting citizenship to a Chinese businessman against official advice, saying he stands by his decision.

It comes as Prime Minister John Key accused Labour leader David Shearer of being “hypocritical” in demanding Act leader John Banks be sacked while accepting his own MP Shane Jones’ word he had acted properly in the case.

Mr Shearer yesterday said he accepted Mr Jones’ assurances that he followed proper processes when he approved a citizenship application by William Yan, also known as Bill Liu, in 2008.

At the time, there was concern about Yan’s multiple identities and a warrant for his arrest in China.

Yan has pleaded not guilty to charges of falsifying immigration documents and his trial in the High Court at Auckland ended yesterday.

The judge is expected to make a reserved decision on Thursday.

ᔥ NZ Herald

The NZ Herald has finally woken up to the fact that in the court in Auckland there is an apparent case of political corruption unfolding that doesn’t involve National, or ACT, or John Banks. But it took a Wellington based gallery journalist to right it because David Fisher is still fixated on fruit bowls.

David Shearer, who was quick to call for John banks to resign or be stood down doesn’t think there is anything untoward in the Bill Liu case that warrants Shane Jones or indeed David Cunliffe being stood down or even axed altogether.

Mr Shearer has been calling on Act leader John Banks to be relieved of his ministerial portfolios while police investigate whether he breached the Local Government Electoral Act by declaring donations to his 2010 Auckland mayoral campaign from German billionaire Kim Dotcom as anonymous.

But he said last night the questions around Mr Jones’ involvement in the Yan case were not as serious as those around Mr Banks donations from Dotcom.

The strength of the evidence against Mr Jones was “very arguable”.

David Shearer is wrong on this. He has played “gotcha” politics despite saying he wouldn’t and now it is one of his own under the cosh.

There is a massive difference between a private citizen lobbying for someone, who incidentally was refused that for which he wished and the case of Bill Liu where two ministers went against official’s advice. Bill Liu got exactly what he asked for and not only that was almost paraded by Labour MPs as they bestowed citizenship upon him in what is probably the fastest ever recorded application for citizenship.

It lloks very much like corruption,  and Shane Jones and David Cunliffe were ministers at the time, in government, not private citizens. Those are the facts as presented in a court, not the mad ramblings of a fat German git.

David Shearer needs to act with integrity, so far he hasn’t.

The continuation of David Garrett’s guest posts on the Rise and Fall of the Act Party.

Previous installments: Part one, Part two.

Decline and fall ? Part III

In April 2011 Rodney Hide told Don Brash  he would support Brash as leader of ACT, thus putting to an end what was in effect a hostile takeover, and the public washing of dirty laundry which was  by then occurring almost  daily.  Things came to a head rather quickly, which meant the “setup” the day after the leadership change  was odd, to say the least.

Brash was the leader of a party he had joined two days before, but had no seat in the House. Rodney and John Boscawen were both MP’s and  Ministers of the Crown.  Brash wanted Rodney gone – from parliament if not the earth – because Brash  viewed Hide as “toxic”, and the proximate cause of all of ACT’s problems. In his imagined perfect world, Hide would  simply disappear, and be replaced as MP for Epsom  by John Banks, a man who did not seem any kind of “fit” with many of ACT’s  principles.

However, Hide had the confidence of the Prime Minister, and was also committed to being the “best MP for Epsom”, a position he had won and then held at two successive  general elections. He saw no reason to resign from either position, and in my view he was quite justified in  seeing  things that way. Whether one agreed or disagreed with Hide’s strategic view, there had never been any question of his competence or work rate, either as a Minister or an MP.

ACT MP John Boscawen looks on at a press conference after the first ACT Party Caucus Meeting on May 3, 2011 in Wellington, New Zealand. (Image credit: Getty Images via @daylife)

The situation was ripe for the kind of shambles that is now ironically being played out a year or so later – an ongoing and unwelcome distraction for the government, and daily further ignominy for ACT. Thankfully for all concerned, fate had delivered   John Boscawen as Deputy Leader of the Party,  a man disliked by no-one important, and trusted by anyone who mattered  as an honest broker.

One could write another book – albeit an  unsaleable one  – on the machinations which occurred in an attempt  to resolve the apparent impasse. When the smoke cleared, Brash had agreed not to continue trying to rid himself of Hide “by lunch time”, Hide had agreed to step down at the 2014 election, Boscawen became the leader of the parliamentary caucus, and the bit players continued their roles.

While all this was happening,  back at party HQ Brash was selling the idea of his mate Banks succeeding Hide as candidate and then MP for Epsom.  Those with much longer track records in ACT than me remain puzzled how Brash convinced the Board to accept Banks as the vehicle for bringing Brash himself, and presumably one or two others into parliament at the 2014 election.

Everyone else has a theory, so here’s mine. Brash had promised the Board two things if he was leader of the Party. First,  that he would bring in large sums of money which would not be forthcoming if Hide remained. Second, he would increase the Party’s vote at the election later in the year to at least 15%. It is hugely ironic given the public perception of ACT as “the rich pricks party” that in the first quarter of 2011 it was as usual broke, and scrabbling to pay the bills.

We now know that the party managed to raise and spend almost $1.3 million at the 2011 election. Presumably,  some of that money had begun to flow in  as soon as Brash became leader. If so, it  seems credible  to assume that the Board were persuaded that Brash was indeed  the new messiah – after all he had pulled off a coup that had seemed laughable only weeks before, and his promises of being able to deliver money were coming to fruition. Surely a party vote of  15% – Brash apparently thought it would be more like  40% – was as deliverable as the money?  As long as  they followed the prescription of the good doctor.

So Banks was confirmed as MP in waiting in Epsom, and the train clattered on, its couplings increasingly strained, but still in one piece. For a while, it must have seemed that the storm clouds had cleared, and after November 2011, there would be a solid ACT caucus of Brash, Banks, John Boscawen and two or three others. Senior ACToids have apparently always been very optimistic.

Then, a new bombshell. John Boscawen announced he would not contest the election and would retire from politics “to spend more time with his family”, a well used political cliché normally employed to cover up something sinister. Since John is unmarried and has no children, it was assumed by the feverish media that the real reason for John’s decision must surely be something else. Wrong again. John meant exactly what he said, and knowing him as I do, I wouldn’t be surprised if someone had to explain to him  what the cliche normally meant.

For me, the next seemingly inexplicable decision was to abandon the Party’s law and order focus completely in favour of education and the usual “market forces and deregulation” economic policies. This despite the Party having achieved a major victory in the “three strikes” legislation, and  for that and other reasons, having the tacit support of the Sensible Sentencing Trust, probably New Zealand’s most effective lobby group.

The appointment of a 25 year old university student as Justice Spokesman, and the concurrent  release of some totally silly policies led quickly  to Garth McVicar publicly telling his supporters that ACT had lost its way, and urging them to consider which other party best articulated SST’s goals. This was a not-so-subtle steer in the direction of the fledging Conservatives. The result?  ACT got  a lower Party vote than the Mana Party, and the Conservatives – which none of the pundits  had  taken  seriously – got 2.8%,  six months after being formed. Coincidence? Who knows.

Then three months after the worst election result in its history, the Banks fiasco. A week is certainly a long time in politics, and who knows what the coming  sitting week will bring. Every political columnist has a theory or a prediction. The end of the week could see anything from Banks resigning from parliament – which in my view is unlikely – to the vultures in the mainstream media finding some new sideshow upon which to demonstrate how far the fourth estate has fallen since the likes of Ian Templeton or even Barry Soper began their careers as political journalists.

I understand that much of the debacle surrounding Banks stems from his refusal to take advice – which must surely have been to  STFU and keep his head down. As Rodney Hide noted last Sunday, Banks is a politician from another era. He was used to Ministers giving press conferences – from which they might exclude journos they didn’t like. He was used to  a time when journalists called Ministers “Mister” and wouldn’t dream of chasing  them through building lobbies thrusting microphones up their noses. He must think he has mysteriously found himself elected to  a foreign and not the New Zealand parliament. As they say, the past is another country.

Can ACT survive all this? Who knows.  Hide and others have pointed out that ACT has been written off many times, but Phoenix like, somehow always rises again. For what it is worth, I doubt it can survive the collective  blows inflicted on it which I have traversed in these three posts.  Even if it does manage to stay alive to  contest the next election, if the Conservative Party can avoid being branded “just another bunch of God botherers” and do significantly better than ACT in 2014,  I believe, with some sadness, that  would indeed be the final ACT, and the end of a remarkable story.

ᔥ NZ Herald

Today’s Herald has a go at my oldest friend in caucus, Coromandel MP Scott Simpson for allegedly being involved in John Banks’ fundraising.

So bloody what.

It may be news to the idealistic cub reporter, David Fisher, that political party operatives are involved in fundraising for campaigns. Money does not just appear, and Scott Simpson, a long term Friend of Whale, has been involved in fundraising for a huge number of campaigns over the years.

Why the Herald has named him in this campaign is perplexing, especially since most of Banks’ campaign team were National, just as most Len Brown’s campaign team were Labour.

The nature of political contests is…somewhat strangely…is that political people become involved.

David Garrett phoned me about his series of guest posts. We disagree on his end hypothesis, but since I am not one to only publish echo chamber views here is his guest post about what he believes is the demise of the ACT party. There are two more parts.

Decline and Fall – the final ACT? (Part I)

The ACT party was formed by two former Ministers from opposite sides of the political divide – Derek Quigley and Roger Douglas. Both men had demonstrated that they were willing to think outside the political square in order to find “a better way” to improve the lives of all New Zealanders than had hitherto been offered by the two main parties. Both had also shown  they were not prepared to always toe the party line regardless of how silly or pointless they personally saw that  line to be.

At its height, ACT had nine MP’s, the best of which were superb – like Richard Prebble – and others whose names are now  virtually unknown. While in opposition, ACT MP’s could do little to change things. Ironically, arguably their most effective action – Rodney’s “perk busting”, which led to the revelation that  Labour  Speaker Jonathon hunt spent more than $20,000 on taxis in a year – later came back to haunt Rodney and ACT, and arguably begin the possibly terminal decline of the Party. Whether the decline is  terminal presently remains to be seen.

After almost being wiped out in 2005, in 2008 ACT got its big chance – five MP’s, and becoming a crucial support party to a centre right government led by National. In Rodney Hide, they had a leader who was certainly one of the smartest political operators in a generation.  In the “three strikes” policy upon which ACT had campaigned strongly, they had a policy and  draft legislation  that could potentially be supported by  National  – although the smart money at the time was that it would die in Select Committee – but be recognized and promoted  clearly as ACT and not National policy.

Unfortunately, the 2008 ACT caucus also contained the already germinating seeds of its own destruction in the form of Sir Roger Douglas and Heather Roy, a woman of limited intellect and even less personality,  who had hitherto made no impact at all on  public consciousness. Sir Roger, who I came to regard as a friend,  had a dislike of Rodney, the depth of which I did not understand,  either  then or now.

Roger fundamentally disagreed with the direction we took, which could be summarized as “help keep the centre right in power, and take our wins and the credit for them when we can.” It was a view which I thought was the right one, and one in  which I supported Rodney from the first to the last. Because he disagreed with that course, Roger was determined to replace Rodney with Heather Roy  as leader – at least initially –  and then, when he had gained enough experience, with John Boscawen.

Roy was always too stupid to realize that she was just a pawn, and that Roger’s promotion of her was merely a move in a longer game. Roy was supported in her delusions of ability by one Simon Ewing-Jarvie, a former army officer who became Roy’s most trusted confidante and advisor. Ewing-Jarvie also quickly became a major cause of friction between Roy and Rodney when the latter unearthed – through his extensive network – information which indicated that Ewing-Jarvie was likely to cause serious trouble, both to  Roy  personally and to  the ACT Party.

From the first, Rodney made it crystal clear that we could not survive factionalism. I will never forget the first caucus meeting when he told us we were in the “death zone of New Zealand politics”, and that no small party had survived intact once it had joined in government with a larger party; the Alliance Party perhaps being the best example – until now – of self destruction.

The first chance Roy and Roger got to try and remove Rodney was following Hide’s disastrous decision to use one of the very “perks” he had campaigned so publicly against  to take his then girlfriend with him on a Ministerial trip to the USA and Europe. The trip was entirely within the rules, but that was not the point. If in fact he ever really did, it took Rodney a very long time to “get” that public perception was everything, and the fact that he had complied with the rules meant little or nothing  to the public. Ironically, it is the same  lesson John Banks is slowly learning now.

Roy could barely restrain her glee at the pressure Rodney faced over “the trip”. Roger remained a smiling enigma throughout; John Boscawen and I supported Rodney without reservation – at least in public. Once Rodney had  made his mea culpa  on television, there was never any doubt in John and my minds that he deserved our continuing support.  By the time the saga died down – once the left aligned media had milked every last drop from it  – the score was clearly   Camp Hide  1, Heather Roy and Roger 0.

The next major opportunity to remove Hide was of course following  my own downfall, which was engineered to occur when Hide   Hide Huidwas out the country. By that time, I had unequivocally aligned myself with him, and at a party meeting open to the public, verbally slapped down a party member who was pushing for Hide’s replacement by Roy. A week or so later, all hell broke loose.

Ironically, I am one of the few members of “team Rodney” who is by no means sure Roy was behind the leak which was to end my career, and  to  later become a major contributor  to  Hide’s downfall. I realized from the very first time Hide approached me to stand that  “the passport scam” was likely to emerge and cause serious trouble, both for me personally, and for ACT.

Hide took the view that the wrongdoing was so long ago – I had committed the offence in 1984 – that it would be of no consequence, and if it did emerge, they would “handle it.” At a later meeting at my then office in Albany, I was asked whether I had skeletons in my closet. I am on record as replying that I did,   “ a big f….rattling one”.

Those at that meeting were John Boscawen, Roger Douglas, an ACT board member, and Heather Roy. I explained what I had done and how, and repeated the truth: that I had no reason to do it, and at the time I simply saw it as a prank. To their  great credit, other than Roy, none of the others at that meeting have ever denied that I made a full disclosure of what I had done so  long before, and its sequel in a court case three years earlier,  in 2005.

Not long after that meeting in Albany I was offered list position number five after a former MP “spat the dummy” at being offered a list place much lower than he thought he was worth.  The timebomb began ticking from that point.

ᔥ Radio NZ

It must be coming up to the start of Duck Shooting season, Now John Banks is having a crack at the serial defamer:

ACT leader John Banks has challenged a Labour MP to repeat outside Parliament his claims about Kim Dotcom and an accommodation deal in Hong Kong.

In Parliament on Wednesday, Labour MP Trevor Mallard asked whether Mr Banks had raised with the Prime Minister’s office that the internet millionaire had got the minister a discount at the Hyatt Hotel.

Mr Banks says he has provided a copy of his wife’s credit card statement showing he paid for last year’s trip to Hong Kong in full.

He says Mr Mallard’s comments are outrageous and defamatory and challenges him to repeat them without the protection of Parliamentary privilege.

I think I will write a letter to The Speaker about the inconsistencies with David Shearer’s declarations in the Pecuniary Interests Register.

Trevor Mallard raised the spectre of the Pecuniary Interest Register in Parliament as part of his latest bid to smear John Banks and resurrect the Underpants strategy.

But it reminded me, about the inconsistencies in David Shearer’s own Pecuniary Interests register.

Bear with me.

Shearer made the following comments to the Northern Advocate:

For years, he and wife Anuschka have owned a bolt-hole on the coast north of Whangarei. They looked forward to their family’s summer holiday there, he said.

Quite rightly, in 2011 David Shearer, listed a jointly-owned section in Whananaki on his pecuniary interest register.

But that property wasn’t listed in either 2010 or in 2009.

So has he owned it for years, or is his Pecuniary Interest Register for 2009 and 2010 false?

ᔥ Stuff.co.nz 

Stuff is now repeating Matthew Hooton’s spin…that will be why he invoices his clients saying control of media and blogs – $xx,xxx.00

Here is the wording from Hooton’s press release today:

Act Leader and Epsom MP John Banks, and his colleague National MP Maurice Williamson, are both expected to be stood down as ministers by 15 May, with Mr Banks picked to be sacked or resign altogether before Budget Day on 24 May, according to the 6800 registered traders on www.iPredict.co.nz.

The New Zealand online predictions market is already offering 20 stocks on issues related to the growing scandal involving political donations from Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom, who is  facing extradition to the United States on racketeering, money laundering and copyright charges.  Other stocks will be added as events unfold.

Here is what Stuff repeated:

Online predictions market iPredict has ACT leader John Banks and National MP Maurice Williamson both being stood down as ministers by May 15, with Banks expected to be sacked or resign altogether by Budget day, May 24.

This is according to the 6800 registered traders on the site which buys and sells ”stocks” in future economic and political events.

IPredict is offering 20 stocks on issues relating to the growing scandal involving political donations from Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom, who is facing extradition to the United States.

A bit like leaving out undecideds when reporting on a poll iPredict leaves out volumes….one of their stocks, for a by-election in Epsom, has had zero trading today.

Someone in the MSM should stop just repeating iPredict’s and Matthew Hooton’s shameless shilling press releases and start asking what is the trading volume and does the trading volume impact the accuracy of the market?

More to the point they should ask how much Matthew Hooton benefits from shilling for iPredict.

ᔥ Kiwiblog

David Farrar explains the differences between Winston Peters lobbying and John Banks Lobbying:

Again personally, I didn’t like Winston Peters lobbying to get a honorary consul position for Owen Glenn, when he knew Glenn was a donor.

I also don’t like John Banks lobbying for Kim DotCom to get a ministerial decision in his favour, when at a minimum he has good grounds to suspect that DotCom had donated to his campaign (even if he legally did not know how much, and which donations).

While disliking both sets of actions, I point out that Peters was actually the Foreign Affairs Minister when he was lobbying on behalf of Glenn, and his lawyer received the money while he was Minister. Banks was a private individual at the time he lobbied. Labour’s position was that Peters did nothing wrong with lobbying for Glenn while not disclosing he had donated $100,000 to pay Winston’s legal fees – so their outrage over Banks is totally fake.

Of course Winston Peters also lied about his donation from Owen Glenn, was censured by the Privileges Committee and still owes the NZ Taxpayer $158,000.

ᔥ NZ Herald

The Herald is shrilly calling for John Banks to resign, and also spreading further muck around because he lobbied, unsuccessfully, on behalf of Kim Dotcom over his OIO application to buy the Coatesville mansion.

Why?

John Banks was a private individual (neither MP, Mayor, or candidate) when he lobbied Maurice Williamson. Dover Samuels was a sitting MP.

Is the NZ Herald and Labour now suggesting that private individuals aren’t allowed to be MP because at some point in the past they once lobbied someone? …Really? That means virtually no MP could ever become an MP.

Winston Peters lobbied on behalf of Owen Glenn to be the honorary consul from Monaco after a hundy dropped miraculously into his accounts…Winston Peters actually failed to disclose that donation, not only that he lied about even receiving it and yet he is sitting there as an MP today.

When will the NZ Herald and Labour call for Winston Peters to resign for lobbying on behalf of a donor?

It is laughable that Winston Peters is now calling for the SFO to investigate John Banks for actions when he was a private citizen and for donations legally solicited and received when he actually lied about his own donations.

We are talking here about a donation for local body elections, more than 2 years ago, and some lobbying by  a private citizen…the media are wilfully conflating all of this and trying to link it to John Banks and his current and completely unrelated role in government today.

When John Banks was calling Maurice Williamson the ACT coup and subsequent fall out wasn’t even a twinkle in Don Brash’s myopic eyes.

Meanwhile David Shearer is happily enjoying the food, wine and entertainment of one of New Zealand’s biggest corporate lobbyists….and not a word has been said.