Its been a couple of weeks since we have had the chance to test what standard of Ministerial behaviour is acceptable to John Key. I had another opportunity today in the House, armed with some new information.
It pays to remember that one of the things John Key campaigned on in 2008 was to instill high standards of ethical behaviour for Ministers. That’s one of the reasons that we have pursued the John Banks debacle because by any measure his behaviour has not reached the standards that I think New Zealanders would expect of their Ministers.
When the Police file on John Banks was released in September Mr Banks was the only one of the major players who’s witness statement was missing. And even in the summary report the three paragraphs referencing it were withheld. At the time Mr Banks claimed it was the Police who had made that decision.
Mr Banks said it was the police who decided keep his statement under wraps. Press secretary Shelley Mackey said: “Mr Banks is not responsible for what the police have released.”
We asked for all the correspondence between Mr Banks and the Police on the release of the report, and lo and behold we found a letter from Mr Banks’ lawyer that said
Accordingly, disclosure of any material relating to Mr Banks, or indeed any part of the investigation file, is opposed.
More lies, half-truths and obfuscations from John Banks. He has gone to great lengths to ensure that New Zealanders can not read what he told the Police about the donations to his Mayoral campaign. This from the man who said he had ‘nothing to fear and nothing to hide’. And all the while John Key clings on to Mr Banks to uphold his Parliamentary majority. At the expense of not only increased Ministerial standards, but almost any Ministerial standards at all.
Some might ask is this really damaging John Key. I think it is. The beginning of New Zealanders sense of disappointment in John Key can be traced to the “cup of tea” with John Banks, and his wilful ignorance of breaches of Ministerial standards just adds to the growing sense that he has failed to live up to his own hype.
We will see if you hold the same standards for your own MPs shortly. Only 3 more weeks.
Who would have thought it.
Banks not telling the truth!!!
Not that I ever really liked John Key, but I went from not liking to thinking he was a low life – It was over the incident with Paul Henry. I’m sorry he was the P.M and he could of stopped Henry in his tracks and ended the issue. Instead he sat their like a stunned mullet while a T.V presenter insulted the Governor-General – It was at that point I realized John Key was a racist and we now have a government who does not represent the people, it is a government of only select interest and groupings. And these seem whiter by the day and select by the hour.
Grant, since you know about how these decisions are made, who has the ultimate decision about whether the information is released? Is it the police, or can Banks’ lawyer just veto it?
Nice straw man BS, it must be Halloween. It almost distracts from the fact that Banks fought tooth and nail to keep this information from the public while he was telling them (out of the other side of his mouth) that he had “nothing to fear, nothing to hide”.
Oh, wait a second…
John Key was headhunted out of the US by the National Party and the BRT to finish of the Privatisation Startegy here in New Zealand whereby the Public Wealth is transferred into the hands of a chosen few individuals and families which control the economic fabric of New Zealand.
The guy is a puppet with the puppet masters pulling the strings. The Tax Cuts to the wealthy and the GST increases which further slammed the less well off was a typical example of the Smiling Assasins take on New Zealand society.
The man’s ego is too big to care about the average man on the street, he is into Hollywood, flying around with military escorts and secret squirrell stuff with the GCSB.
I have come to the conclusion the guy is playing out some childhood fantasy, hopefully he will retire to the Hawaiian Islands in the USA sooner rather than later and we can begin to tidy up the mess the Tories have left for us again.
Good health, housing and education of the NZ population should be a Government’s key objective.
Blarney Stone asks: “…who has the ultimate decision about whether the information is released? Is it the police, or can Banks’ lawyer just veto it?”
Seeing as the OIA request is to the Police, then it is the Police’s “ultimate decision” as to what is/is not released. However, the reason for them not releasing the information when asked was to protect John Banks’ privacy. And the reason why they think there is a privacy interest involved here is that Banks (we now know) told them so and asked for no release. So, the real cause of there being no release is Banks’ request to the Police that none occur.
Now, it is true the Police still could have said “even though Banks doesn’t want this information released, we think the public importance in releasing it overrides any privacy issues involved.’ In fact, I think that is exactly what the Police ought to have done here (rather than give Banks (and others that they interviewed) a de facto veto over the issue). But that doesn’t alter the essential truth – if Banks REALLY wanted this information in the public domain, he could simply have told the Police “I’m happy for its release to go ahead” and it would have (as there would then be no reason for the Police to withold the information).
In fact, he STILL could cause this to happen by requesting a copy of his interview with the Police (in the unlikely event he doesn’t have it on file) and just releasing it himself. If he has nothing to hide, that is.
Thank you for clarifying this Andrew, so you’ve confirmed that John Banks didn’t actually block the release of the information and had no legal means to block it, it was the Police who did so. You’ve also confirmed that John Banks was telling the truth when he said that it was the Police who made the decision not to release the information.
@Blarney Stone,
No. Your interpretation is entirely mistaken and displays bad faith on your part.
The ONLY REASON the Police did not release John Banks’ statement is because he (through his lawyer) asked them not to. John Banks is ultimately responsible for the information not being public, in flat contradiction to his claim that he has “nothing to hide” and that he has sought to be open with the public about this matter.
No Andrew, you’re letting your political bias get in the way of the truth. You agreed that it was the Police decision not to release the information, and you further believe that the police decision was wrong and that the Police should have gone the other way on it. Banks could not force the Police to withhold the information.
@Blarney Stone, if Banks had not requested that the statements be withheld, would the police have withhleld them ? (in your politically unbiased opinion of course?)
Probably not Freek Power, but what Banks said was that it was the Police’s decision to withhold the statements. That is truthful. If Banks had said “I wanted the Police to release them but they decided otherwise”, then that would be untruthful. But he didn’t say that. The Police didn’t need Banks’ permission to release it. I also agree with Andrew Geddis that the Police decision to withhold it under the OIA for privacy reasons appears wrong. There’s actually no evidence that Banks even requested that privacy grounds be used as a reason to withhold it. The reasons Banks’ lawyer cited was that it would be used by his ”political adversaries” and for ”irresponsible commentary.”. Those aren’t privacy reasons.
It should be further noted that Banks’ lawyer requested that the whole file not be released. The Police decided otherwise in that respect. So it really is nonsense to say that Banks had veto over one element of the file, but not the whole file. It was a Police decision from start to finish.
@ Blarney Stone
Is it really in your interests to promote such an enormously convoluted way of [non] thinking nonsense?
Or is that another thing you haven’t thought through properly?
@Blarney Stone,
That’s as ambitious an attempt at reframing an issue as I’ve seen in a long time. I see the light now – Banks has been nothing but upfront and honest, and we really need to examine the Police. Don’t look here – look over there!
Back on planet earth, anyone wanting to review John Banks’ various statements in regards his relationship with Dotcom and the donations that he received from him, so that they can judge whether or not Banks has been open and honest with the public, can do so here: http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/politics/7716964/Banks-donation-queries-continue-to-swirl
For anyone interested in the Police’s refusal to release Banks’ statement (entirely based on John Banks’ request that they do so), Steven Price has more on it: http://www.medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=577
Nah SJW, I don’t care if Banks statement gets released. I’m just calling BS on Grant and Andrew saying that Banksie vetoed the release of his statement. It was a Police decision not to release it. Sure Banksie didn’t want it released, but the Police could have over-ruled that, but that was their decision. I also agree with Andrew that the Police decision to withhold it seems to be wrong, specifically because that decision wasn’t made on privacy grounds, but on political ones. If Grant was smart he would have gone to the Ombudsman and appealed the OIA release and got the document. But instead he’s said something that is untrue, that Banksie blocked its release.
This has descended into a silly battle of semantics. Blarney Stone thinks Grant has “said something that is untrue” by alleging Banks’ “blocked” the release of the statement when he “only” provided the sole reason for the Police’s decision not to release it. Meanwhile, Banks has not lied, because he was not “responsible” for the Police’s decision not to do exactly what it was he asked them not to do … even though Blarney Stone agrees that what Banks asked for was wrong (as a matter of law), and so the Police not doing what he asked them not to do was wrong (as a matter of law).
Meanwhile, a somewhat large elephant crashes around in the living room – is Banks’ behaviour in this entire episonde appropriate for a Minister of the Crown? Perhaps this would be a more profitable point of discussion than parsing what the meaning of “is” is.
Andrew, Grant’s complaint should be with the Police and their decision to withhold the information. As you’ve agreed, it was a Police decision. As I’ve said, the decision doesn’t even appear to have been made on privacy grounds. As you know, there is an avenue for Grant to pursue that, through the Ombudsman. He has chosen not to.
It is difficult to take your perspective as a legal authority seriously when you continue to obfuscate and quibble on the legal issues (that it was a Police decision, and not Banks’ decision), and instead insist on ranging into political issues, which suggests to me that your main motive is political rather than of legal clarification.
It is also hard to take you seriously, when you are confronted on the legal issues, you describe them as “semantics”. What kind of legal authority are you to dismiss an interpretation as “semantics”?
On the substantive political issue, since you insist on going there, the issue here is whether he lied about the Police making the decision with regards to release his information. The answer to that is absolutely not. He wasn’t asked if he had opposed the release. That Grant and others didn’t ask him that was a failure of digging deep enough when he made the original statement.
Hey, everyone … don’t look at the elephant! There’s a mouse over here!! A MOUSE!!!
@ Blarney Stone
Mr Robertson and Mr Geddis are kindly and astutely pointing out to the public the discrepancy in Mr Banks words and actions. You can argue a “technical” point on the matter however in doing so you omit to acknowledge that Mr Banks actions had any effect on the matter or ensuing police decision. This is patently untrue.
How could we have been assured that Banks isn’t saying one thing “I have nothing to hide” , nor “wasn’t responsible for the police decision” and doing another: requesting the information be withheld?
By NOT requesting that the police withhold the information.
Perfectly clear and simple.
All the rest of the points being discussed is merely the squeaking obfuscation of mice who don’t wish to see the elephant crashing in the room. Those in such blinding denial won’t stop experiencing the damage of this elephant, no matter how tightly they close their eyes and squeak.
So please, keep up the good work Mr Robertson. Some of us do like to be made aware of the reality of the situation.
For God’s sake move on – there are far more important matters of potential policy to get into the arena, albeit that the MSM are only interested in the daily handouts from the Greens (our potential partners in 2014 -whether we like it or not).
The Parliamentary party must start to take the media lead.
“No. Your interpretation is entirely mistaken and displays bad faith on your part.”
Ouch!
Politest stfu and gtfo I’ve ever read.
Aren’t you guys flogging a dead horse here? Honestly, is this REALLY the only way you think you can get at John Key?
How about, I dont know, tackling National on real, and current, issues that affect New Zealand – you know – Labour party policy – Jobs, QE, CGT, ETS, tell NZ what you are going to do in 2014, …, anything?
Or, dont you think your policies are that good, so that you have to play the man instead and try and discredit the opposition so you win by default? I hope I never have to play rugby against you.
I was hoping that Mr Shearer’s influence was going to fix this character flaw in the Labour party. It appears not. So disappointing.
OneTrack,
The point you (and the National Party spin that you recite) miss, is that there can be no real or effective debate on any other point until this Government gets called to account for the dishonesty and obfuscation that they persist in adhering to.
Parties can’t discuss serious issues effectively when one side of the debate is being consistently and completely fudged out of existence.
Nothing can be discussed effectively until this matter is addressed and dealt with.
You’re a lost cause, BS. Despite the enormous patience Andrew has displayed to you.
Why don’t you assess the accuracy of Grant saying that John Banks blocked the police release using some basic logic, instead of the absurd semantic game that you are so embarrassingly engaging in above.
BUT FOR John Banks objecting to the release of this information, would its release have been delayed? Nope.
THEREFORE, John Banks’ objection to the release had the effect of blocking the police release.
Now as the al1en said, stfu and gtfo.
The problem is John Banks struggles with the truth, or he has advanced Alzheimers.
The major issue at present is our current administration are unable to hold it together due to their inability to be honest with us as society.
This is most evident with Key, and probably always has been. Therefore all scruitiny should be focused on them and it is vital the opposition parties keep the media honest in this as what the governing parties do affects us all.
Therefore can the classic troll of “what is your solution” is null and void till there is time for a real choice.