'Obfuscation' is a word that is being widely used about John Banks at the moment. Political journalists, newspaper editorials and bloggers are roundly condemning the Act Party leader for his alleged deviousness in both his political fundraising and his response to the latest allegations about the Dotcom scandal.
The problem for the Government is that John Key has been forced to partake in the obfuscation as well. So much so, that Andrea Vance is calling the Prime Minister the Master of Keyvasive action. Vance sums up Key's orientation to the Banks saga: 'See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. And in John Key's case, read no evil'. And Key's inclination to obfuscate on the issue meant that the Prime Minister's press conference, according to Vance, 'was torturous and frustrating'. She also goes through the various measures that Key is currently employing in his attempt to keep Banks on as a minister. These include 'resolutely refusing to take a look at the 126-page dossier from the police investigation' so he can't comment on it, and he has left it to his staff to talk to Banks, so he can't comment on what Banks has told him. Vance also sees the Government's announcement of proposed law changes as a cynical attempt to deflect: 'This allows Mr Key to answer any uncomfortable questions about Mr Banks' behaviour by criticising the law'. But perhaps Vance's most cutting observation is that John Key seems only worried about whether Banks has misled him personally - and seemingly has no concerns about whether he has misled the public.
More obfuscation is coming from the Act Party, with the president also conveniently refusing to read the Police report into their leader - see Claire Trevett's Act sticks by Banks - for now. Apparently the president regards the issue as a mere 'political sideshow'. Trevett's article also draws parallels between Key's defence of Banks and Helen Clark's 2008 defence of Winston Peters during the so-called Glenngate political financing scandal. An inconsistency - or perhaps hypocrisy - is suggested because Key used that occasion to campaign hard against the then Prime Minister's obfuscation and protection of Peters, but now simply regards that as a different situation.
That the tide seems to have well and truly turned against John Banks is evidenced by criticial newspaper editorials. The Press editorial today is particularly strong, suggesting that Key and National will soon start to suffer from their protection of a politician that the public has overwhelmingly recongised as dodgy. There is a clear message to John Key: Cut him loose. The editorial also condemns the 'hair-splitting justification' going on. Similarly, a recent Dominion Post editorial concludes, 'Banks has now lost all credibility and Mr Key's will be steadily eroded the longer he stands by him' - see: Obfuscation makes Banks a liability.
The focus on Banks' Auckland mayoral campaign fundraising highlighted the bigger issue of the electoral system used in the supercity. Brian Rudman has written a very thoughtful column taking the incumbent to task for the suggestion that his challengers should have a reduced campaign spending limit - see: Mayoralty race a rich man's sport. Rudman also makes some very interesting arguments in favour of an Auckland Parliament instead of an elected mayor and council.
