Where does John Banks stand on SkyCity dirty deal?

Here’s how the votes look likely to stack up on John Key’s dirty deal under which SkyCity would get a relaxation of casino gambling laws and an increase in their pokie machine numbers in return for building a new convention centre in Auckland.

For: National + United Future = 60

Against: Greens + Labour + Maori + Mana + NZ First = 60

That leaves just one vote to decide whether the dirty deal goes ahead or is dead in the water. That vote belongs to my old sparring partner from our days on the Auckland City Council, John Banks, who is now the ACT Party’s sole MP.

Banks was a National Party MP back in 1999, and here’s what he had to say in Parliament then on legislation about the extension of casino gambling:

I say to the member who spoke previously that I do not care what some rich wide-boy who might meet our ambassador next week thinks about what he can spend his money on. If he wants to invest in the misery of the lives of the people of New Zealand, then our ambassador should tell that wide boy to stay on his ranch somewhere out West in the United States of America, because we do not want his money.

But the casinos want the money of the most vulnerable people. It appals me that the Tainui tribe want to invest in a casino to perpetrate the misery of their people. I salute Tuku Morgan and his courageous stand. Is it not significant that every Maori member of Parliament in this House has similar views to myself on this issue because he or she knows the habits that these dens of gambling – euphemistically called “casino entertainment centres” – wreak on the vulnerable?

Go and watch the Polynesian-Maori office cleaners at 2 o’clock in the morning in the Auckland gambling den, to see what point I am making. Witness what they are doing with the livelihood of their families.

That’s pretty strong stuff from Banksie.  I just hope the political pressure he will undoubtedly come under from his confidence and supply partners, not to mention the $15,000 donation he received from SkyCity for his failed 2010 Mayoral campaign, doesn’t persuade him to resile from the principled stand on casino gambling he took back in 1999.

About Denise Roche 161 Articles

Green Party MP

12 Comments Posted

  1. And now the revelation that John Key himself suggested the idea to SkyCity of trading off our gambling laws for a convention centre.

    It doesn’t seem to occur to him that many New Zealanders would view that as corrupt. I guess that’s the way things work in the world of finance Key comes from.

  2. @Jackal 7:09 PM

    I fear you may be correct.

    But we can still try to pressure Banks into making the right decision, as his 1999 speech would suggest, for fear of him being further exposed as a racist and a hypocrite.

  3. toad @ 6:57PM

    Banks is a complex character.

    Not really. I think you categorized Banks correctly in the first paragraph. The reason his speech was so vehement on that occasion was because the proposal was being made by Tainui. The people who will benefit from the relaxation of gambling laws this time are white, and so Banks will likely support National’s corruption.

  4. @Genie 5:35 PM

    Not so sure about that. Banks is someone who used to have principles. Most of them I disagreed with, because they were based on his bigoted homophobic and racist world view.

    But on the issue of gambling, and for that matter on animal welfare, Banks has taken a consistently progressive line of supporting the vulnerable and castigating those who seek to harm them.

    Banks is a complex character. But let’s hope he holds his resolve and refuses to vote for the SkyShitty dirty deal, as his previous statements from him on gambling would indicate he should.

  5. Haha you jest ! Banks is firmly in National’s pocket. Possibly easier to shift Dunne away from the dark side on this one. Dosn’t United Future spring from strong presbyterian roots ?

  6. If only the pro-casino lobbyists had offered to build a new convention centre for the good people of Auckland in 1999!

  7. Surely Banks can’t support it after making a speech as vehemently anti casino gambling as that one. To do so would show him up as either a hypocrite, or corrupt, or both.

Comments are closed.