Transparency missing at present
Transparency, so they say, is the best disinfectant in politics. Hopefully, when the court proceedings against Act Party leader John Banks begin, some cleansing sunlight will finally dispel the murk that surrounds the donations to his 2010 mayoral campaign.
The Banks case is all about transparency, and the rules that have been designed to protect it. Point being, if wealthy donors can hide behind a cloak of public anonymity when their identity is privately known to the recipient, the public is unable to judge whether any subsequent political decisions could be a form of payback, for cheques rendered.
Transparency helps to keep the system honest.
That’s true whether the issue is mayoral donations, or the rulings in Parliament last week by Speaker David Carter concerning Banks – which eventually led to the Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei being expelled from the debating chamber for pursuing the reason why Carter had closed down her line of questioning.
The issue at stake could hardly have been more relevant to the Banks case, and to the business of the House.
Given that the potential for payback lies at the heart of the mayoral donations furore, it seems desirable to avoid similar risks in future.
That possibility arises because Parliament will shortly be voting on the legislation for the $400 million SkyCity Convention Centre in Auckland, a vote that may need to rely on Banks’ support to be passed.
SkyCity, of course, is also one of the ‘‘anonymous’’ donors involved in Banks’ criminal trial, and SkyCity’s testimony will be important in establishing Banks’ guilt or innocence.
To that extent, SkyCity needs Banks, and Banks needs SkyCity.
In a series of questions, Turei was seeking transparency from Economic Development Minister Steven Joyce as to whether Cabinet had discussed the obvious con- flict of interest, and whether the Government felt duty-bound to forgo reliance on Banks’ casting vote. No, Joyce replied to both points. All duly elected MPs get to debate and vote on legislation before the House, he explained, and the casino legislation would be no exception.
Finally, when Turei used the words ‘‘sleazy deal’’ in a further question, Carter intervened and shut down the debate, but without offering any basis in standing orders for doing so.
When Turei – and Winston Peters – inquired whether he was creating a precedent whereby ‘‘ sleazy’’ would henceforth be treated as unparliamentary language, Carter said he was not. What, then, was the basis for his ruling?
National’s deputy house leader, Anne Tolley, rose to help Carter by suggesting a standing order he might care to nominate.
Ultimately, Carter indicated that he could come back later with a clarification, adding it had been the ‘‘total content’’ of Turei’s question that had inspired him to act.
Not for the first time, the incident led observers to question whether Carter is up to the job. The Speaker’s authority (and neutrality) depend on his rulings being transparent and consistent. In the Turei incident, it looked as though he had simply run out of patience with a question line to a minister and had chosen to terminate it, forthwith.
John Banks, no doubt feels much the same sense of irritation. Democracy, and its constant demands for transparency can be just so annoying to those with a sense of entitlement.