Adam Bennett at the NZ Herald reports:

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”.

Mr Jones has declined to comment on the matter.

Shearer’s comments defy comprehension, and reinforce that this is just “gotcha” politics rather than anything serious.

Let’s look at what the two cases have in common. Dotcom was a request to buy a house. Yan was to gain NZ citizenship. Both donated to politicians campaigns, and had politicians advocate on their behalf.

But in the case of Banks, he was neither MP nor Mayor when he advocated – and most importantly he was not the decision maker.

But in the case of Jones, we was the actual Minister who made the decision to grant citizenship. He did it against the advice of officials. He knew of the allegations that Liu was a wanted criminal, with multiple identities. Yet he still gave citizenship, and had a special ceremony in the Labour Caucus Room for it, attended no doubt by some of the MPs Liu had financially supported.

While in the Dotcom case, officials made no recommendation, yet it was still turned down.

So for Shearer to claim the questions around Jones are “not as serious” as those around Banks is a position not grounded in reality.

Also at least Banks has fronted up and answered questions (albeit not that well) on his issue. However Jones has spent years refusing to answer the question of why he granted citizenship against the advice of officials – except the obvious one that it was to keep his colleagues happy, who had been receipients of largesse from Liu.

Shearer’s comments on the Liu case mean we can pretty much ignore him in future on issues of ethics.

UPDATE: The original stories on this back in 2008 said that the room in Parliament used for the special citizenship ceremony was the Labour Caucus Room. I am informed that Mr Samuels says it was in fact the Maori Affairs Select Committee Room (which needs an MP to book it). The ceremony was two days after the approval, in contrast to the normal process where it takes weeks.

I also understand that Jones says he granted citizenship because he was told Liu could be executed upon his return. This is crap though, as Liu had permanent residency anyway. Also if someone really fears for their life, they seek asylum. He was wanted in China on fraud charges, and simply didn’t want to face them. There isn’t a single shred of proof that he feared for his life because he was associated with the Falun Gong, as he now alleges. What there is proof of is that he lied on immigration documents, had multiple passports and multiple identities and was wanted by Interpol.

Tags: Bill Liu, David Shearer, John Banks, Kim Dotcom, Shane Jones, Yang Liu

Andrea Vance at Stuff reports:

ACT leader John Banks says he gave away a luxury gift basket from German millionaire Kim Dotcom, who is at the centre of a series of allegations surrounding donations to the former Auckland mayor.

Mr Banks confirmed yesterday that he had failed to declare the gift in the register of MPs’ pecuniary interests. MPs are supposed to declare all gifts worth more than $500.

The register is due to be published by the end of the month and MPs were supposed to complete their declarations by February. They are allowed to make adjustments, however.

Mr Dotcom has reportedly claimed that in December he left the hamper worth about $1000 for Mr Banks at the Hong Kong Grand Hyatt.

Mr Banks responded to the gesture with a thank-you note signed “warmest best”.

In a statement last night, Mr Banks confirmed he received the gift basket but said he did not accept it and gave it to hotel staff.

“I have learned through the media today that the gift was supposedly worth more than $500, an amount which requires disclosure under the Register of Pecuniary and Other Specified Interests.

“Subsequently my office sought clarification from the registrar on the appropriate course of action. As we are unable to confirm the actual value, their advice was to make an addition to my return … which I have now done.”

An MP could complain to the Privileges Committee, if thy think the return was deliberately inaccurate. However that would only be accepted if there was some evidence that Banks knew the value of the gift basket was over $500. I have to say that I would not generally assume a hotel gift basket was worth over $500, so even if a complaint is lodged with the Speaker (which Labour could well do as a publicity stunt), I’d be surprised if it is referred to the Privileges Committee.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister John Key confirmed yesterday that he had met Mr Dotcom’s bodyguard, Wayne Tempero.

The meeting was about a self defence programme for young women and happened before Mr Tempero went to work for Mr Dotcom.

Good God. How is this relevent.

It was claimed yesterday that Mr Banks had proposed a meeting between Mr Tempero and Mr Key over Mr Dotcom’s “future efforts for New Zealand”.

Mr Key has repeatedly said he had never heard of Mr Dotcom till his arrest on internet piracy charges.

A spokeswoman for Mr Key said he has met Mr Tempero once at his electorate office “many years ago”.

“Mr Tempero had returned to New Zealand and was looking for support for self-defence programme he was looking to run for young women,” she said.

I suspect this was before Key was even PM. The reality is that once you are PM, you spend less time in electorate clinics.

Tags: John Banks, Kim Dotcom, MPs Register of Pecuniary Interests

This revenge song by Kim Dotcom is pretty funny. But even funnier was that when I watched it, the Google Ad which came up was for Hong Kong hotels

Tags: John Banks, Kim Dotcom

The Herald reports:

Act leader John Banks last night released a hotel invoice to attack claims he got a discounted deal in Kim Dotcom’s favourite Hong Kong hotel – and showed a room rate about half of the current quoted cost.

As any regular traveller will know, very few people pay the rack rate at a hotel. Suggesting that one gets a discount as a special favour is naive or mischievous.

It followed claims in Parliament that Mr Banks was given a discount for the hotel stay, which Dotcom helped to arrange.

The invoice showed Mr and Mrs Banks stayed at the Grand Hyatt Hong Kong and were charged $678 a night.

But staff at the hotel’s reservations desk last night said the rate for the room the Banks stayed in was $1303, including a 10 per cent service charge.

But, did the Herald do what I did – and check what rates you can get through different websites?

Last night, Mr Banks’ staff insisted there was no discount attached to the hotel stay. A spokeswoman said she was present when Mr Banks sought and received an assurance there was no discount attached to his bill.

She said Mr Banks asked specifically if there was any discount applied to his bill and was told by the hotel manager there was not.

Mr Banks had earlier sought a copy of the bill from the hotel showing he and his wife were billed HK$4290 ($679) a night for four nights’ accommodation. “I was absolutely pedantic about paying for everything in Hong Kong myself and the management of  the Hyatt Hotel will attest to that. …

Staff on the hotel reservation desk identified the room the couple had stayed in – room 2317 – as one of the Grand Deluxe Harbour View rooms.

They said the room rate was currently HK$7500 plus a 10 per cent service charge. The total figure in New Zealand dollars was $1303 a night. …

The Hyatt website offers a discounted price of $805 for guests that pay for their stay on arrival. The invoice provided by Mr Banks showed the bill was settled on check out.

The main hotel website is often the most expensive. Let us see what rates for a grand deluxe harbour view room we can get via Trip Advisor.  Now John Banks paid NZ$2,716 for 4 nights.

• Booking.com – NZ$2,466
• Agoda – US$2,012 = NZ$2,493
• Expedia – NZ$2,728
• Venere – NZ$2,728

It is quite legitimate to criticise John Banks for downplaying the extend of his relationship with Kim Dotcom. Claiming to forget that he flew to his mansion in a helicopter is stretching credibility. But this story about a so called special hotel discount is a beat up, as far as I can tell.

Tags: John Banks, Kim Dotcom

The NZ Herald reports:

The donation scandal engulfing Act leader John Banks spread last night as it emerged he lobbied personal friend and Government minister Maurice Williamson over internet tycoon and donor Kim Dotcom.

Mr Williamson, the Minister of Land Information, last night admitted Mr Banks had lobbied him over a property purchase in Coatesville, just north of Auckland, Dotcom wanted to make. …

Mr Williamson said: “John Banks did call me to advocate on behalf of Kim Dotcom with regard to the OIO [Overseas Investment Office] application on the Coatesville property. Mr Banks and I have been good friends for years. It is a matter of record that the ministers considered the application, but declined it.”

Dotcom told the Herald Mr Banks referred to being “very close” to Williamson, whose approval was necessary before he could buy the $30 million Coatesville mansion he rents.

He said the comment was made by Mr Banks in reference to his application to buy the mansion.

“He said he knows lots of people from when he was a minister. He knows Williamson … They are very close.”

Dotcom said he believed Mr Banks spoke positively to Mr Williamson about his application.

Overseas Investment Office officials left the decision on the application to ministers, and Mr Williamson approved it in April last year.

But it was eventually declined after it was rejected by Associate Finance Minister Simon Power.

Three months after approving it, Mr Williamson changed his mind and joined Mr Power in rejecting it.

I’ll come back to this issue. Also of note is:

Mr Banks yesterday continued to refuse to be interviewed, but issued a statement in which he said he was unaware Dotcom had donated to his campaign and denied ringing the internet magnate to thank him.

“I could not have, as any such contribution was anonymous.”

But he said he had spoken to Dotcom on “other matters”.

In an interview in January, Mr Banks said those other matters included advice on Dotcom’s OIO application and residency.

He said the advice was “just the process”, and their conversation was “in total of 15 minutes, maybe 20 minutes”.

It is significant that Banks is now saying he did not thank him for the donation, because in my mind that is the issue that would most undermine a defence that the donation was anonymous. I suspect any Police investigation will focus on this issue.

Let’s look at a number of related issue.

Did Banks solicit a donation from Kim Dot Com?

Yes, there seems little dispute there. It is not denied that he suggested they make it two donations of $25,000 rather than one of $50,000. The bizarre thing however is that this has no impact on disclosure.

Can you solicit a donation and then claim it is anonymous?

At parliamentary level probably not, at local government level, basically yes you can. See this post by Andrew Geddis and this post by Graeme Edgeler.

Was Banks unusual in not declaring his donors?

No. As 3 News reported, Len Brown received $499,000 of anonymous donations (Banks had $638,512). Len Brown used the legal avenue of having most donors donate to a trust and then the trust making a donation to Len Brown. This means that Len Brown could legally know who had donated to the trust (and de facto know who had donated to him), but not have to legally disclose their identity. This is also what National used to do before the law changed for parliamentary elections with the Waitemata Trust.

So the issue is not about whether a Mayoral candidate knew who donated to them. The law allows them to know, if they structure it in the right way. The law is about the identifying donations, not donors. The key issue is whether Banks broke the law. If you think Banks is unfit to be an MP because he may have a very good idea of who his likely donors are, then one would have to argue that Len Brown is unfit to be Mayor if he has a very good idea of whom may have donated to the trust which donated to his campaign.

Should the law be changed?

Yes, absolutely. The provisions of the Electoral Act around donations should basically be put into the Local Electoral Act.

Did Banks break the law?

That is for the Police to form a view on, and a court to decide. The key issue will be whether Banks knew the that Kim DotCom was the source of the two $25,000 donations. It is very hard to prove that someone knew something. However the timing of any phone call from Banks to Dot Com will be a key issue. In the Peters and Owen Glenn case, phone records showed Peters phoned his lawyer a few seconds after talking to Owen Glenn, and his lawyer then e-mailed Glenn asking for money referring to the conversation you have had with my client. That was pretty much proof beyond reasonable doubt that Peters knew of the donation.

If Banks phoned Dot Com the same day as the donations were received, or even the next day, then it makes it look more likely that the call was to thank him for the donation as Dot Com alleges. If it was some time later, then the call being for other reasons is more plausible.

Is this just like the Winston Peters and Owen Glenn case?

Yes, and no. Both involved donations, where the MP denies they knew of the donation. Both involved very wealthy donors, who seemed to be seeking “influence” rather than ideological support of a party or policy position.

The donations to the Banks campaign was before Banks was an MP, or indeed a member of the ACT Party. It relates to his local government campaign, and the disclosure requirement is the Local Electoral Act. Breaches of that are a matter for the Police, who will investigate.

The donations from Owen Glenn was made when Peters was an MP, and was to his lawyer to effectively pay for Winston’s legal expenses. This doesn’t have to be disclosed under any law, but was required to be disclosed by Parliament’s Standing Orders around disclosure of interests. The Privileges Committee was the body responsible for investigating any breaches, and did so – finding Peters did know of the donation, and had filed a false return. Labour voted in favour of Peters both at the Privileges Committee itself, and against the finding of the Privileges Committee report. They did not accept that Peters knew of the donation, despite the massive weight of evidence from phone logs and e-mails.

Should Banks be stood down while this is investigated?

I find it hard to see how this is credible. A number of MPs are under investigation by the Police for breaches of electoral laws. None of them are standing down – despite the fact these relate to breaches of the parliamentary Electoral Act not the Local Electoral Act. Helen Clark did not stand down as PM despite the referral to the Police of Labour’s $400,000 overspend.

The other factor is that the Police can take a very long time to decide on electoral law issues. Often over a year.

The appropriate threshold for a stand down in this case would be if the Police laid charges.

This is not to say that we should regard the law as the minimum ethical standard for MPs and Ministers. It is not. That is why we also have the Cabinet Manual and Standing Orders. But this allegation is about actions by Banks before he was even an MP, is not related to his duties, and the evidence is contested.

So how about the lobbying on behalf of Kim DotCom on a property purchase?

It has some parallels to the Bill Liu case

What was the case?

He was a Chinese businessman who donated to several MPs who advocated on his behalf to become a citizen. Shane Jones approved his citizenship despite strong advice from officials not to do so, as they said he had criminal convictions, and many aliases. Dover Samuels presented the citizenship to Liu in the Labour Caucus Room.

How do the cases differ?

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

The officials took no position on the Dot Com application, they strongly oppossed the Liu application.

Shane Jones granted Liu citizenship despite knowing of the criminal concerns. Simon Power declined consent, and Maurice Williamson after initially supporting it, also then declined it.

Should Banks have disclosed Dot Com was a donor, when he lobbied Williamson on his behalf?

Personally I think if you ever advocate on behalf of someone, you should be very upfront and transparent over your relationship and connection to them. I believe it is better to “over declare” than “under declare”. That is one reason I disclose on this blog even very minor dealings.

On the legal side, Banks as a private individual had no obligation to disclose that Dot Com had been a donor to him, even if you accept he knew Dot Com was a donor.

It will be interesting to consider whether Holly Walker’s lobbyist bill would cover situations like this one.

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.

Tags: John Banks, Kim Dotcom, Winston First

The HoS reports:

University of Otago Faculty of Law professor Andrew Geddis said candidates were allowed to meet potential donors and advise them how to give anonymous donations.

“If the candidate subsequently learns a large ‘anonymous’ donation was made to her or his campaign in the days after the conversation, the candidate can claim not to know who it came from,” Geddis said.

I made this point yesterday also. You may know they were going to be a donor, but not which donation was their one. However if the donor was thanked by the candidate afterwards for the donation, that would weaken the claim not to know.

University of Otago lecturer Dr Bryce Edwards said allowing anonymous donations was a serious loophole.

“I think from this point on there will be an increasing call for the ability of anonymous donations to be scrapped.

“It’s almost inevitable we will see that loophole close,” Edwards said.

The sensible thing to do would be to apply the the donation provisions of the Electoral Act to the Local Electoral Act.

It is worth noting that Len Brown also had anonymous donations. His were legally funneled through a trust, so they donated to the trust, and the trust donated to his campaign.

Yesterday, Labour leader David Shearer called for Prime Minister John Key to stand Banks down from his ministerial portfolios.

A spokeswoman for the prime minister said Banks had assured him he had complied with local body electoral law.

Any call for a stand down is ridiculous. While I regard the allegations by DotCom as serious, they are just untested allegations, and they in no way relate to to any actions by Banks as a Minister or MP.

If the Police investigate (which is inevitable), and if they decides to lay charges, then there could be a question of “standing down”, but if MPs and Ministers were required to stand down over untested allegations of electoral breaches then a lot of Labour MPs would still be stood down pending resolution of the complaints the Electoral Commission referred to the Police last election.

Tags: anonymous donations, John Banks, Local Electoral Act

David Fisher reports:

Act leader John Banks asked for a $50,000 political donation to be split into two parts so it could be made anonymously, says Kim Dotcom and one other witness.

This is unusual, as splitting the donation has absolutely no impact on whether or not it can be anonymous. The level for disclosure is $1,000.

Dotcom said the request was made on April 15, 2010, when Mr Banks was preparing to campaign for the Auckland mayoralty.

He said there were at times three other people in the room while the donation was discussed – and Mr Banks rang later to thank him for it.

The allegation comes after police were asked to investigate Mr Banks’ listing of a $15,000 donation from SkyCity as “anonymous”.

I regard this allegation as far more serious than the Sky City one. As far as I know no one has suggested Banks knew personally of the Sky City donation, which allow him to declare it as anonymous.

If the allegations are correct and that Banks both solicited the donation, and was made aware of when it had been made, and then thanked the donor for it – well I find it hard to see how you can claim that “the candidate concerned does not know who made the donation”, which is the test in the Local Electoral Act.

The only wriggle room might be that if Banks did not know of the amount donated. He could claim he was aware of him being a donor but did not know how much, so hence for that specific donation did not know who made it. Personally I regard that as still being against the spirit of the law, but courts decide on the wording.

This again reinforces to me the need to have much tighter donation transparency requirements for local government elections.

Political candidates are required by law to declare donations if they know who made them. Failure to do so is punishable by up to two years’ imprisonment and up to a $10,000 fine.

A vacancy is automatically created if any MP is convicted of an offence punishable by two years or more, no matter what punishment they get.

In the case of Mr Banks, a conviction would place at risk his Epsom seat under the Electoral Act and force a byelection. The loss would leave the Government exposed, with its 59 votes in the 121-seat Parliament supplemented only by United Future’s one and the Maori Party’s three.

It is worth noting that a complaint has not yet been laid over the Dotcom donation, once it has it will then be referred to the Police, they will have to investigate and decide whether to lay charges, and if they do then it goes to a court to decide.

Based on their usual speed with electoral issues, this could take some time. If all this did happen and Banks was convicted, then I doubt the overall Government majority would be at risk, as National would win an Epsom by-election with ease.

Tags: John Banks, Kim Dotcom

The NZ Herald reports:

Labour MP Trevor Mallard has lodged an official complaint about Act leader John Banks failing to disclose a $15,000 donation was from SkyCity during his 2010 Auckland mayoralty campaign.

Mr Mallard lodged the complaint with the Auckland Council electoral officer this week. He also asked the electoral officer to scrutinise “anonymous” donations of radio advertising Mr Banks had included in his return.

SkyCity gave $15,000 each to Len Brown, now mayor, and Mr Banks, his rival, during that campaign.

Although Mr Brown’s donation return listed SkyCity as a donor, Mr Banks’ listed an anonymous donation of $15,000. It did not mention SkyCity.

The penalty for knowingly filing a false return is up to two years in prison or a fine of up to $10,000.

There is a lesser penalty of a $5000 fine if the candidate did not know it was false. MPs convicted of crimes with a penalty of two years or more can not remain in Parliament.

However, Mr Banks said he was not concerned about the complaint, dismissing it as Mr Mallard “up to his old timeless tricks”.

He said he had not known at the time that the donation was from SkyCity and his donations return was accurate as at the date he signed it.

“I signed the document at the said time to the best of my knowledge.” …

Asked how it was that Mayor Brown had known about the SkyCity donation yet he had not, the Act leader said his campaign accountants had dealt with the finances for his campaign and he had based his return on the information they gave him.

Asked if it was possible they had known the donation was from SkyCity, he said it was.

Auckland Council’s electoral officer, Bruce Thomas, said he would consider the complaint and decide whether to refer it to police.

It has been referred to the Police, but that in itself is not of significance. Local electoral officers are basically required to refer every complaint to the Police. The WCC referred to the Police a complaint from a Councillor that I had linked to his official profile without his permission! Yes, seriously.

Anyway let us look at what the Local Electoral Act 2001 says. You need to be aware that it is very different to the Electoral Act, which is much much tighter in terms of donation disclosure.

anonymous, in relation to an electoral donation (as defined in section 104), means a donation that is made in such a way that the candidate concerned does not know who made the donation

So the Act says it is only the candidate who needs to now know the identity. Again this is different from the Electoral Act.

electoral donation, in relation to a candidate at an election, means a donation (whether of money or the equivalent of money or of goods or services or of a combination of those things) of a sum or value of more than $1,000 (such amount being inclusive of any goods and services tax and of a series of donations made by or on behalf of any one person that aggregate more than $1,000) made to the candidate, or to any person on the candidate’s behalf, for use by or on behalf of the candidate in the campaign for his or her election

So a donation of $15,000 definitely qualified.

S109(1) states:

Within 55 days after the day on which the successful candidates at any election are declared to be elected, every candidate at the election must transmit to the electoral officer a return setting out—

• (a)the candidate’s electoral expenses; and

• (b)the name and address of each person who made an electoral donation to the candidate and the amount of each electoral donation; and

• (c)if an electoral donation of money or of the equivalent of money is made to the candidate anonymously and the amount of that donation exceeds $1,000,—

  • (i)the amount of that donation; and

  • (ii)the fact that it has been received anonymously.

So if the candidate knows who made the donation, then they must supply a name and address, while if they do not, just the amount and the fact it was anonymous.

So the test for the Police is simply did John Banks know Sky City donated $15,000 to his campaign. Unless there is proof that he did know (a meeting, e-mails etc), then I can’t see the complaint has any chance of succeeding.

Personally I think the Local Electoral Act should be updated to have similar transparency requirements to the Electoral Act. This would mean:

• Anonymous donations to a candidate could not exceed $1,500
• a donation is anonymous where a candidate “could not, in the circumstances, reasonably be expected to know the identity of the donor”

But that is not the current law for local government donations. So I see a very small possibility of the Police taking action.

Tags: anonymous donations, John Banks, Local Body Politics, Local Electoral Act

Rob Stock in the SST reports:

Labour MP Phil Twyford has tabled a petition calling for an investigation into the decision not to proceed with charges against John Banks and Don Brash as directors of the Huljich KiwiSaver scheme.

Twyford won’t comment on the petition, which is the work of former Auckland mayoral candidate Penny Bright who is incensed that Banks, the minister for regulatory reform, escaped having to defend himself in court for signing a prospectus that contained false and misleading statements.

The petition now must be considered by the Commerce Select Committee, made up of nine MPs of which five are from the National Party. 

People may not be aware that there is no significance to what has happened. An MP who tables a petition does not mean they agree with ts intent. Almost all MPs will accept a petition.

The Office of the Clerk allocate the petition to a select committee. There is no vote about accepting it. It is automatic. I could do a petition asking for the House to declare war on Australia and liberate Tasmania by armed force, and it would end up with the Foreign Affairs Select Committee.

The Commerce Select Committee does not need to respond to the petition, beyond reporting it to the House with no recommendations.

Now as to the substance:

The FMA said the Securities Commission “obtained the advice of respected counsel on this issue. That advice was then reviewed and confirmed by a Queen’s Counsel. The commission considered that advice and the results of its investigation carefully.

“It formed the view that there was insufficient evidence to show that either Dr Brash or Mr Banks would have known that the prospectus contained misleading information.”

What Bright is seeking to do is in my opinion a form of corruption in itself. She is asking for politicians to overturn the decision of an independent authority, and prosecute people because she does not like their politics. This is what you get in Zimbabwe, not New Zealand.

MPs should never be involved in deciding if charges should have been laid against anyone, let alone other politicians. The sole exception is of course the Attorney-General, but even then this is almost always delegated to the Solicitor-General.  And even then it is usually that the AG has to consent to a prosecution – not that the AG can determine that someone should be prosecuted, against the decision of the appropriate prosecuting authority.

So this petition will go nowhere, and that is a good thing.

Tags: Don Brash, John Banks, Penny Bright, petition

A copy of the teapot tape has been placed online, and the link e-mailed to a huge number of people from an anon e-mail address.

There are a very small number of people who have that file. Bradley Ambrose and the senior staff of the Herald on Sunday and TV3. Will any of them be brave enough to admit they did it? I will say I don’t think it is anyone from the Herald on Sunday. To be fair to them, they didn’t publish the tape originally, and it was TV3 that turned it into a daily circus.

I said before the election it was inevitable it would come out at some stage.

The recording is on You Tube (uploaded by 2Johns2Cups), plus two other locations. I’m not providing a direct link due to the questionable legality, but I do not believe saying where it has been published (as I have done) makes me a publisher, anymore than when newspapers reported Whale Oil had broken a suppression order (which sent everyone off to his site).

The irony is that the recording is quite benign, as the PM has said. The media beat this up into a nonsense, that just lowered their standing with most New Zealanders.

Hopefully this release will mean that we can all move on now, except of course we await the Police decision on the legality of making the recording.

Please do not post a direct link in the comments.

Tags: Bradley Ambrose, John Banks, John Key, secret recordings, You Tube

A hilarious column by Sean Plunket in Metro on the National-ACT negotiations after the election. Worth getting Metro just to read the whole thing. Some extracts:

Banks: Golly it was close, wasn’t it? Great to be back in Parliament as a National… oh, sorry… Act MP. No, no tea, thanks Prime Minister. Anyway boss, what am I here for?”

“So what is it you want Banksy?” queries Key.  “I know you are going to drive a bloody hard bargain, mate”

“Not really,” says Banks. Then adds quizzically, “What do I want?”

“You are one wily old fox, aren’t you, Banksy? Pulling the old I-don’t-know-what-I-want-trick, when I know and you know that you want charter schools.”

“Charter whats?” says Banks.

“Charter schools, Einstein. You know schools where we can blow away the national curriculum, give those pinko teachers the boot and say it’s all in the cause of improving outcomes for kids like you and me who climbed their way to the top despite a failing state education system.”

“Sounds good, Leader. We’ll take it”

One can’t be sure that isn’t how it went, which is what makes it so funny. Then he carries on:

Banks moves towards the door. “If there is nothing else, I’ve got an optician’s appointment to replace those silly glassses.”

“You’ve got me again Banksy!” says Key as he mimes being shot through the heart and falling dead. “The old that’s-all-I-want-and-I’m-on-my-way-trick! You weren’t really just going to walk out the door without even asking for a departmental spending freeze that would require any minister wanting a budget increase to have it approved by Parliament?”

“Yes I was, actually” Banks looks increasingly confused.

“Okay, you can stop twisting my arm now, Banksy. It’s yours.”

And the conclusion:

“I’m happy with that. Is there anything else I want?”

“Oh, there are a couple of other issues you’ll be wanting to hold my feet to the fire on, but why not just sign the agreement here and I’ll get Steven Joyce to fill in the details.”

“Righto, boss. I’ll see you in a couple of years, then.”

Plunket must have been in the room

Tags: John Banks, John Key, Metro, Sean Plunket

Based on the National/ACT confidence and supply agreement, John Banks is a more effective ACT Caucus than all the caucuses before him.

• A Regulatory Standards Bill to be enacted into law within 12 months, based on Option 5 in this paper.
• A spending limit law to be introduced within 24 months so that expenditure (excluding benefits, disasters, interest) can not increase by more than the annual rate of population growth and inflation. This is a huge win.
• RMA reform so there is only one unitary plan per district
• Trial charter schools in South Auckland so private and community groups (including Iwi) can establish schools that compete with existing schools, and receive funding on a per child basis

These are very significant policy wins for ACT. The spending limit and trialing of charter schools have the potential to have a major impact into the future – and for the better.

If these can be successfully implemented in the next three years, then I could see ACT gaining many of its former supporters back.

National’s second term is looking to have a lot of really positive and significant reform.

Tags: ACT, John Banks, National

Derek Cheng writes in the NZ Herald:

An Act candidate touted as a future leader has declared the party all but dead and represented by an “economically ignorant” John Banks who wants to “suck up” to National.

Stephen Whittington, 25, ran in Wellington Central and was seventh on the party list. Along with number five on the list, David Seymour, he was regarded as a future star.

On his Facebook page Mr Whittington called Mr Banks “economically ignorant and interventionist”, in response to the Epsom MP’s comments opening the door to Conservative Party leader Colin Craig. …

Mr Banks declined to comment, but party president Chris Simmons said Mr Whittington was wrong.

“The bottom line is that the party has a lot of work to do. In Parliament we’re represented by only one person, and John Banks signed up to represent Act and Act’s principles and he’s working really hard at exactly that.”

He believed the party would survive.

“Will it be a liberal party? Yes, it will be. Will it be the liberal party that Stephen Whittington thought it would be? I’m not really sure about that.”

Mr Whittington said Act needed a counterbalance to Mr Banks to maintain a consistent liberal message.

I think Steven’s comments are somewhat unfair to John Banks, even though I agree with his overall position that ACT as we know it is no more.

The problem is not that John Banks won Epsom. That is what stopped ACT being wiped out entirely. The problem is that ACT failed to win enough party vote to get a second MP in. A further 0.1% would have got Don Brash into Parliament. Brash inevitably would have made way before long for Catherine Isaac, and the combination of Isaac and Banks would have been a workable one for ACT.

I called the Brash coup a “cluster fuck” back in April. I think few would now disagree. If there had been some sort of deal where Don became co-leader with Rodney Hide, then it is quite possible ACT would have done well in the party vote. But the very nature of the coup where someone who is not even a party member demands he be made leader or else he will destroy the party was repulsive to even the most loyal supporter of ACT’s policies.

Having failed to get a second MP into Parliament, the brand of ACT will be the brand of Banks. That’s a perfectly good brand, but it is not the brand traditionally associated with ACT. I still think the best way forward is for ACT to rename itself and look at some sort of co-operation with the Conservative Party, and those who are economic and social liberals to form a new party without the baggage of the past.

Tags: ACT, John Banks, Stephen Whittington

The Herald reports:

While the most eagerly awaited conversation of the election was taking place, a mystery person may have been secretly listening.

A recording device was found on the Newmarket cafe table where National leader John Key showed his endorsement of Act’s Epsom candidate, John Banks, by sitting down to a cup of tea.

When their conversation at Urban Cafe finished, a man claiming to be a freelance reporter for the Herald collected the device, which was in a small, dark bag beside the pair.

The Herald had no freelancers at the meeting. …

It is illegal to record a private conversation without consent.

So all we know at this stage about the person who did it is they are a criminal, and a liar.

It brings back memories of what happened in 2008, with covert taping also. In that case the person responsible had ties to both Labour and Greens.

History has a way of repeating itself.

Tags: John Banks, John Key, secret recordings

Claire Trevett at the Herald writes:

Act’s Epsom candidate, John Banks, and party leader Don Brash are campaigning separately, but Mr Banks denies he is promoting himself at the expense of his party to try to win the Epsom seat.

Asked on Campbell Live what brand he was presenting to Epsom voters, Mr Banks said, “Brand Key”, and talked about the popularity of Prime Minister John Key and ensuring National remained in power.

It’s certainly true that John Banks is downplaying the ACT brand, as he needs National voters to tactically vote for him.

But Banks is not the only candidate debranding himself from his party. Whale sent me this photo.

He is the 6th highest ranked Labour MP, and he won’t even put the party logo on his advertisements.

Tags: Clayton Cosgrove, John Banks

Unless there is a major upset, John Banks will become the MP for Epsom after the election. Now I don’t think Banksie is coming back to Parliament so he can sit on the cross-benches. It is highly likely that John will want to be a Minister again, especially as he has significant experience as a Minister.

So the question is, what portfolio would John Key give Banksie if they win the election? He could take Police again, but do you want to go back to your exact old job? Plus Judith seems very attached to it.

Thinking about it, the perfect ministerial job for Banksie is to be given Judith Tizard’s old job, and made Minister for Auckland! Wouldn’t that just be delicious.

Could you imagine the cries of horror from Len Brown’s mayoral office when he finds out his new Minister is Banskie

Tags: John Banks

John Banks has been confirmed by ACT as their candidate in Epsom. On the latest public poll, ACT would have two MPs if John wins Epsom – hmself and Don Brash. However they have six months topick up further support.

The focus will be now go on whom National will select.

Tags: ACT, Epsom, John Banks

Derek Cheng reports in the NZ Herald:

The Act Party is expected to open nominations for the crucial seat of Epsom today and former Auckland Mayor John Banks is “quietly confident” he has the inside running.

Mr Banks made it clear last night that he wanted to follow a proper process.

“I’m not looking for any easy ride to the line. If a high-quality candidate steps up to the plate, someone of outstanding ability, then I’m happy to step aside and support that person.”

Mr Banks has already had a huge endorsement from the party’s new leader, Don Brash.

If ACT get to even one third of the 15% they claim they can now get, then Epsom doesn’t matter to them. However if they fail to get 5%, then it is crucial to their survival.  There are many interesting questions to be resolved.

1. Will Banks win the nomination uncontested?
2. Whom will National stand as their candidate. If it is local electorate chair Aaron Bhatnagar, then there could be a fascinating Bhatnagar v Banks contest.
3. Who will Labour stand in Epsom?
4. Will Labour supporters be urged to vote for their candidate or to vote strategically for Bhatnagar (or whomever is the National candidate)?
5. Will National aim to win the seat back, on the basis of ACT claiming it will get 15%?
6. Who will win if it is a full-on contest?
7. If ACT do not get 5%, but Banks wins Epsom, will that make Banks more powerful than the Leader?
8. If there is a National-led Government, one can only presume that Banks would be one of the ACT MPs made a Minister, considering his experience. So Boscawen and Roy might miss out.

Epsom is going to remain one of those must follow races.

Tags: Aaron Bhatnagar, ACT, Epsom, John Banks, National

Tracy Watkins in the Dom Post reports:

Former National leader Don Brash is making a bid for a political comeback as ACT party leader – if it will have him.

Dr Brash confirmed yesterday that if he was offered the ACT leadership he would take it, after previously rejecting behind-the-scenes efforts to woo him back to Parliament either as ACT leader Rodney Hide’s deputy or as co-leader.

Dr Brash said he would not contemplate returning to Parliament under either of those scenarios but would if offered the leadership.

I do hope for Don’s sake, that he is not offered it. I don’t think he’ll find it a pleasant experience, and I don’t think he’ll achieve what he wants to achieve. My thoughts are:

1. Don will not become a Minister, regardless of how ACT polls. John Key declined to offer Don a significant role straight after he replaced him as leader, so I can’t see that he will be of a different mind now. All Don will achieve is a different platform to complain spending is too high (which incidentially I agree with him on). But he won’t actually get to change that.
2. ACT’s internal politics are toxic at the best of times. If Don replaced Rodney as Leader, he’ll inherit all the infighting and bitching. If he thinks the party will unite behind him, he doesn’t realise ACT is very different to National where there is greater discipline and loyalty.
3. Don leading ACT will force John Key more to the centre. in fact Key will come under pressure to rule out more and more policies in advance, as the left will have greater ability to scare-monger on them.
4. Don will be seen as a temporary leader due to his age. No one will thinks he would be leading the party into the 2014 election as he would be 77 by the end of that term. 
5. Don is such a convenient target for the left, that his assuming the leadership will be a significant help to Labour. Problems of morale, activists, union support and even money will be partially solved if he offers himself up as their target. You’ll have Matt McCarten and Chris Trotter both praising Phil Goff as the only man who can save NZ from the spending cuts seen in Ireland and the UK.

The article also says:

There is also speculation that former Auckland mayor John Banks would be keen to stand in Epsom if approached by ACT, suggesting he could be on a Brash ticket. The two men have business ties and speak regularly. Polls have shown that Mr Banks would win Epsom if he stood.

First of all, polls have not shown any such thing.

Secondly I consider John Banks a friend, as I do Don Brash. I certainly think John could still make a contribution to national politics. However I am not sure his brand is that compatible with ACT.

ACT at its heart is a classical liberal party – economically and socially liberal. They have not always kept to that, but many of their key activists are classical liberals. I don’t think John would describe himself as a classical liberal.

There is in fact a nice spot in the political spectrum for a party, which John Banks would be a potential leader of. That is a traditional conservative party – like the Nationals in Australia. Think of it as a party for talkback callers. Now at present NZ first sort of occupies that spot on the spectrum but Winston is of course toxic. But once he is properly buried, then there could well be a role for a conservative party, as well as a classical liberal party.

If I was on the board of ACT, I would not be panicked into anything. They should focus on lifting the party vote and winning Epsom. If going into the election that are polling at 2% or more, then that should give Epsom voters enough of an incentive to vote tactically to ensure John Key remains Prime Minister.

UPDATE: John Banks has said he is definitely not standing.

Tags: ACT, Don Brash, John Banks

Brian Edwards has just done a very interesting blog post on John Banks. Most will know Brian is a life long Labour activist. Further John Banks actually sent him a defamation suit in 1993, so it is fair to say they are not close. The post is titled “John Banks – a personal reassessment”.

You’ll understand that I was not a fan of the current Mayor of Auckland then and continued not to be a fan, until very recently. On numerous occasions I expressed my dislike of him publicly,  though rather more circumspectly. …

Ten days ago I was one of five speakers at an Auckland Mayoral Fathers’ Breakfast at Sky City organised by Parents Inc., the organisation founded by Ian Grant. Each of us had seven minutes to give an inspirational address on fatherhood to the 750 men present. The Mayor of Auckland, formally hosting the event, spoke first.

I’ve heard a lot of speeches in my time and few have been memorable. I don’t think I’ll ever forget the seven minutes in which John Banks held that audience in the palm of his hand, enthralled. He did not, as his advisors have suggested, talk about his own traumatic childhood. He talked about the troubled kids he has met in the course of his job; kids on drugs, kids in trouble with the law, kids in borstals and prisons, lost boys and girls. A common theme, especially among the  boys, he observed, was the absence of a father in their lives. These were boys without role models, boys who didn’t know how to be men. Fathers mattered and fathers had a responsibility to teach their kids the difference between right and wrong.

Delivered entirely without notes, the short address was spellbinding, extremely moving, and entirely met the inspirational criteria laid down by the breakfast’s organisers. When he returned to the table, I said to him, ‘If you could talk like that during your campaign, you would certainly be the first Mayor of the Super City.’ …

And then Brian deals with the rather tragic events around James Webster:

A week later Banks was on Close Up responding to claims that his son Alex was one of the boys who had egged on 17-year-old Kings College student James Webster to go on drinking vodka, advice which at least contributed to his death.  Banks was only one of two parents to front up about their sons’ involvement. Holding back tears, he told Close Up:

‘I say as a father, there but for the grace of God, go I.  I said to Alex, this is very sad for our families and you’re going to have to stay home and not go out at night until you’ve undertaken a comprehensive First Aid course, so that you understand the dangers of alcohol and you clearly understand that if it ever happens again you’ll be in a position to save a life.

‘It’s a big thing for me to have to live with, but it’s very, very hard for the Webster family. My son now knows from experience that what happened was disastrous and if he was in that circumstance ever again, he would know what to do. And on that fateful night most people didn’t know what to do. That little guy didn’t have to lose his life.

‘Life is about accepting responsibility for the actions of yourself and for the behaviour of your sons. And in this case, you know, we’re having this conversation because, hopefully, we will save one or two or a handful of James Websters.’

Banks, it seemed to me, had practised what he preached. He had fronted up, accepted responsibility as a parent for his son’s actions and set the limits that are part of a father’s duty to his children.

John Banks is a polarising individual, admired by some, hated – not too strong a word – by others. For my part, I have not changed my view of the man I attacked on The Ralston Group, the talk-back host I deplored on Radio Pacific or the Mayor of Auckland in his previous incarnation. But either he has changed or I have. I suspect it’s the former. Certainly the person I have got to know in the past fortnight is a very fine man indeed. Or maybe there are two John Banks, two sides to the one man – the father and the politician perhaps. I’d be happy to have the father continue as Mayor.

I’m glad Brian has got to know the John Banks, that I and others know.

Tags: Brian Edwards, John Banks

The Herald reports:

Auckland City Mayor John Banks has admitted claiming $438.80 in entertainment costs after issuing a Super City mayoral campaign bulletin saying he had “never charged a sandwich, lunch or coffee to the ratepayers of Auckland”.

And he broke council rules when office staff sought reimbursement for the entertainment against a bill for private use of his cellphone instead of making an expenses claim.

Last night, Mr Banks said it was a genuine mistake to say he had never charged anything to ratepayers outside work in the Town Hall, and he would run a correction in his next online campaign bulletin.

“I completely forgot about any of that [entertaining]. I’m not making any excuses. I’m putting my hand up.

“On this one occasion, that amount of money, $438, was offset against the money I owed the council for private use of my cellphone.

“I had never seen the prescribed form that you have to claim on if you want any money back, until Friday. I have never made an application, and I have never made a claim.”

Under an agreement with the council, Mr Banks reimburses the city 15 per cent of his mobile phone costs to cover his private calls.

The $438.80 claim covers four occasions – entertaining the United States Ambassador at Euro Restaurant on the waterfront for $215.50, catching up with arts patron James Wallace at Frasers cafe in Mt Eden ($23.80), discussing the Peter Blake memorial with businessman John Street at the Stamford Plaza Hotel ($44) and having lunch with Britomart developer Peter Cooper at the Northern Club ($155.50).

The lesson for Banks is one should ask staff to check the facts before making a denial off memory.

While embarrassing to have to correct yourself, it is refreshing to see that the names of the people entertained  have been supplied. This allows ratepayers to conclude for themselves if the expenditure was appropriate and reasonable.

Tags: John Banks

The Herald reports:

Also earmarked for mining are several parts of the Coromandel Peninsula and part of the Paparoa National Park in Westland.

A total of 2500ha, or 1.5 per cent of the Coromandel, is affected, including land around Thames and the Otahu ecological and Parakawai geological area in the Coromandel Forest Park.

A mining discussion document issued yesterday said the whole peninsula had gold, silver and peat deposits worth up to $54 billion.

The Government said the total area mined in the 7058ha of land it wants to open to mining could be as little as 500ha.

It is also proposing adding 12,400ha of land and marine reserves to the “protected” list, resulting in more protected land overall.

The area the Government proposes taking out of Section 4 is 0.2% of the total section 4, and will be replaced by an even larger amount, which is sensible. Of course not all conservation land, or even schedule 4 land, is of equal value.

My view has always been that decisions should be taken on a case by case basis, weighing up the potential economic benefits vs the environmental impact in that area.

“In fact 500 hectares is smaller than what the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry describes as an average New Zealand sheep and beef farm (550 ha).

500 hectares is basically 2.2 kms by 2.2 kms.. That is not a lot of land nationwide.

There is a segment of the population (and associated lobby groups) that is opposed to all mining, everywhere. You could apply to mine in the middle of a gorse laden field, and they’ll be against it, regardless of how much mineral wealth may be there.

That is a legitimate view to hold, but there is a cost – NZ has less money for schools, less money for hospitals, and lower incomes overall.

Quoting Ministers:

“It’s also worth noting that in productivity terms, workers in the mining sector return an average of $360,000 of GDP per worker, nearly six times the national average.”

Mining creates jobs, investment, export income and tax revenue.

Ms Wilkinson said the Government is also proposing to create a dedicated Conservation Fund based on a portion of future royalties it receives from mining in public conservation areas.  The budget for the fund would be 50 per cent of royalty revenue from minerals (other than petroleum) from public conservation areas, with a minimum of $2 million per annum for the first four years and a maximum of $10 million per annum.

And more money for conservation!

As I say, my view is to consider mining on a case by case basis. So let’s look through the discussion document:

A non-contiguous part of Paparoa National Park is proposed to be removed – the area has been mined in the past and still has current mining permits for it. Land affected is 3,315 hectares out of 39,000 hectares.

Also 2,574 hectares out of 69,290 hectares of mainly Coromandel Forest Park Total Coromandel value is estimated to be $54 billion of mainly gold, silver and peat.

Great Barrier Island – 705 hectares out of 15,250. Gold and silver estimated at $4.3 billion.

The Barrier inclusion is the one attracting the most attention, with the Herald reporting:

The National MP for Auckland Central, Nikki Kaye, has criticised Government plans to open Great Barrier Island to mining.

Ms Kaye – whose electorate includes the island – said mining did not stack up “when environmental and economic factors are taken into account, and given the island’s status in the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park”. …

Adding to the potential embarrassment for the Government, former National Party Cabinet minister and Auckland City Mayor John Banks is also opposing the move.

Mining is banned on Great Barrier under the Auckland City district plan, and can go ahead only if a mining company convinces the local council, or the Environment Court on appeal, to change the rules.

Mr Banks said Te Ahumata plateau was in the direct sight of tourists flying to New Zealand from the United States.

“Can you imagine flying in to ’100 per cent pure’ New Zealand and witnessing below you the moonscape of international companies degrading the most beautiful island on Earth?” he said.

John Banks’s press release was unequivocal:

“I am the Mayor for Great Barrier Island and I am completely opposed to any mining on this island. It is the untouched jewel in the crown of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park.

Mayor Banks says mining would have a severe impact on the local tourism and fishing industries.

“This would be an ecological disaster, a serious blow for the established economy that depends on the Barrier’s untarnished image.

“Tens of thousands of people visit this magnificent destination every year to enjoy its beauty. This has to be one of the most beautiful places on earth at the doorstep of our Super City.”

“The infrastructure needed for mining would be devastating to the local environment. It could mean an enlarged airport, a large scale industrial port and wharf system that would be both expensive and destructive to the pristine environment.

Now Banks is not some foaming environmentalist, opposed to all mining. In his usual subtle way he points out Great Barrier has some unique qualities to it.

I’ve been to Barrier many times, and it is an  island with basically half a dozen roads and 800 residents. One can have a couple of extra mines in the Coromandel, and once they are going, most people won’t even realise they are operating. But even one mine on Barrier would change the island considerably, as Banks points out.

I’m somewhat torn on this one. If there really is $4 billion of gold and silver on the island, I’d want to mine it. Hell, I’d mine my own mother’s grave if there was $4 billion of gold underneath it (Note my mother is alive and well!). At this stage the $4 billion is of course a rough estimate of potential – it may be less than that.

But on an emotional level, I’d hate to see Great Barrier industrialised. One of the things i love about the Barrier is that there is no central power supply on the island – it is almost all solar powered, with generator backups.

And as Banks says, it is the jewel in the crown of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park. The island survives on tourism. I’ve yet to be convinced that mining there is a good idea. Possibly I’m a bit biased, as I stay there often, but if I had to list the last places in NZ I want mined, GBI would be high up on that list (Palmerston North however would be first up to be turned into a giant mine )

I don’t think it is just NIMBY syndrome. The Barrier is pretty unique with its lack of industrialisation.

To some degree the debate may be academic. The two main contenders for Mayor of Auckland have made it quite clear the District Plan, which bans mining, is not going to be amended – regardless of Section 4 status.

So I do wonder why you would change the law around Section 4, when mining will still be banned under the District Plan.

I think it is good that the Government has put up the consultation paper, and people should have their say. Hopefully it can be a debate that is more intelligent than just saying mining is bad. It is about getting a balance between economic opportunities and environmental protection, and should be on a case by case basis.

Fran O’Sullivan writes on the mining proposals, and says they are a timid toe in the water, not some sort of Naaru type exploration.

Tags: Great Barrier Island, John Banks, mining, Nikki Kaye

The Herald reports:

Auckland Mayor John Banks, a candidate for the mayoralty of the proposed Super City, has been uncharacteristically modest about his efforts to rescue a cat in a tree.

It is understood the kitten was part of a stray cat colony in Dove-Myer Robinson Park, Parnell, where Mr Banks is known to feed the animals.

He got a call late on Wednesday night from a constituent about the kitten’s plight and spent about two hours yesterday morning helping to rescue the animal.

But later, Mr Banks said he didn’t want to talk about it.

“I love cats. I am an animal rights activist. Thank you very much for the call. There is nothing more to say.

“I change light bulbs for elderly people, I unblock drains and I rescue cats.

“It is part of being the mayor of a super city. That is all I want to tell you. Have a great day.”

Heh, that is a funny story. John is a renowned pet lover, and I can just imagine him dropping everything to go help rescue the cat.

Mind you, I’ve never worked out how a cat needs rescuing from a tree. If they got up it, I’m pretty sure they can get down if they really want to.

Tags: John Banks

For those interested in the Super City debate, I found last night’s Close Up good viewing. They had profiles of John Banks and Len Brown, and their campaign teams, plus an interview with Rodney Hide, which was far less hysterical about CCOs than the Herald has been.

Not often I regard TV as covering an issue better, but thought it was a good segment.

Tags: Auckland Council, John Banks, Len Brown, Rodney Hide

Over at Curiablog, I have blogged the results of a poll done last week of 1,200 Aucklanders on the Auckland Mayoralty.

It is very rare to have a dead tie between two candidates, but that is what we got – of the 85% of respondents who had a preference between John Banks and Len Brown, they got 50.0% each.

Banks, who is the client who commissioned the poll, has a small 4.4% lead when we ask Aucklanders unprompted who their preference for Mayor is. He gets 42.5% to 38.1% for Brown. Bob Harvey is at 7.2% and Stephen Tindall at 4.8%.

But in the second question, when asked if it is a choice between John Banks and Len Brown, they are dead even. This is a change from the previous poll in September when Brown was almost 10% ahead of Banks.

It looks like it will be a very interesting contest!

Tags: Auckland Council, Curia, curiablog, John Banks, Len Brown, Polls