PM won't read John Banks police report

Email
Print

PM won't read John Banks police report

3News NZ

ACT Party leader John Banks (L) and Prime Minister John Key

ACT Party leader John Banks (L) and Prime Minister John Key

By Patrick Gower

The Prime Minister is refusing to sack John Banks as a minister, and he's also refusing to even read the police report into the investigation about the so-called anonymous donations. But the Opposition will make sure he knows about it.

John Banks refuses to make public his statements to police about his so-called "anonymous" donations, despite his claims he’s an open book.

“Nothing to hide, nothing to fear,” Mr Banks told media.

“It would seem he's got quite a lot to fear and certainly quite a lot to hide,” says Green Party co-leader Russel Norman, “because he fears that he will get the sack, he wants to hide that police statement.”

But Prime Minister John Key is clinging onto Mr Banks – a crucial vote that keeps him in power. In fact, Mr Key refuses to even read the 126-page police report on the investigation.

“Key should read the police report then he should ask John Banks, 'Did you lie to me?'” says Labour Party leader David Shearer.

Mr Banks has given Mr Key his word he didn't know about the donations. But Kim Dotcom, his bodyguard and a lawyer all gave sworn evidence he knew about Dotcom's donation.

And SkyCity chief executive Nigel Morrison says he handed Mr Banks its cheque in a SkyCity envelope.

“All the evidence points to him lying,” says Mr Shearer.

Of course there's a perfect template for a donations controversy involving a Government partner. Remember this quote?

“Helen Clark must stand [Winston] Peters down, as Prime Minister,” Mr Key said in 2008. “That is what I would do as Prime Minister.”

So Mr Key and Mr Banks just want this saga to go away, but that's wishful thinking. Parliament sits tomorrow, and Mr Key can expect a forensic examination from the Opposition, who believe Mr Key and Mr Banks have everything to fear and so much to hide.

3 News

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

18/09/2012 2:07:40 p.m.

jack wrote:

Mr Key is suppose to read that report. After all he is suppose to be acting in the best interest of New Zealanders, remember?? He doesn't bother reading the report like Banks didn't read the declaration of donations.. both are frauds and both should resign. IF we had a strong opposition, Key would fire Banks.

18/09/2012 11:25:42 a.m.

EDDIE v2.0 wrote:

Eddie, what do you know about JK histoy with New York FED and Merrill lynch? NOTHING!

18/09/2012 9:53:09 a.m.

eddie wrote:

ohhh you lefty one eyed moaners...you all keep quiet when Peters denies he was given $150K into a trust by Owen Glenn...when you all KNOW he did, but he kept the Labour Govt in power and Clark stuck by him, and this to some extent lost her many votes and possibly lost her the election, will this happen to Key also, perhaps..who knows..Banks was not an MP in Parliament at the time, You were all for Peters and his secret donations, but against Banks...why? Because Banks is right wing and Peters was keeping Labour in Govt...yup!

18/09/2012 8:05:49 a.m.

jan.. wrote:

The Banks cannot be trusted in our community with a memory lost, but calling to his superior that Banks didn't do anything wrong that he trusted his words of lies then the plublic words of wisdom.. Banks once stated that his memory loss dont recalled asking Dotcom for a donation, but calling to Dotcom the night of his Mansion house warming Party welcoming parade to New Zealand Banks asked him for a $50,000 donation and Banks also asked to separate the $50,000 split into two cheques of $25,000 and one stage where Banks actually said he think he remember the instants but he doesn't recalled it.. The night of the Dotcom welcoming party we watch the video where you can see clearly that Banks and his wife were following Dotcom at close range with friendly smiles were caught in the vedio tape.. We just don't understand why Banks refused Dotcom calling upon him for help, after seeing the smiles and the closeup attachment at the party that we thought they were the best of Pals, or was it a put on so he could asked for a donations which he recieved without hesitation.. You are a clever man of corruption and a theft Banks, your teapot tape of wild goose chassing is well hidden to this day or maybe you don't remember the instant.. Leave office and seek professional help before you loose it all Pal' or end up in the looney bin..

18/09/2012 5:13:07 a.m.

tin man wrote:

anyone else starting to get the feeling lately that whom ever is pulling Keys puppet strings is starting to cut him loose and replacing him with another stooge??

17/09/2012 10:16:43 p.m.

Paul Mason wrote:

Why did the police state that the case was out dated too pursue the matter???is this a cop out by them too save the face of the both Js,now it is going too show egg on their faces also.

17/09/2012 9:31:39 p.m.

FAY G. wrote:

Dawn your comments are correct,I studied law and what you have written,pertains what the law states,regardless of what the Prime minister say!s he should consult advice before going down the track he has chosen to take.Mr Banks knows that he is wrong,and will not face up to the fact that he has done wrong,and his denial will result in more disharmony for him in the future,also the PM.

17/09/2012 7:34:29 p.m.

DB wrote:

I think this will be the point which we will look back and note it down as the beginning of the end for the National govt and John Key's "hold" over the nz public. People will have no choice but to see the obvious cronyism and deception that is going on here. I just cant see how anyone can defend this sort of behavior. The fact that Key wont even read the report smacks of the fact that he already knows the truth - he just wants the "plausible deniability". Disgrace. Be interesting to see how parliament unfolds this week!

17/09/2012 7:22:48 p.m.

dawn b wrote:

Proceeds of crimes act 2009 decrees that a person will be stripped of illegal gains if, on the balance of probabilitys, regardless of criminal charges being laid or not, they gained from illegal activity. This is a clear cut case where this law should be applied.