This week has probably been a real tough week for John Banks after TVNZ and Mark Crysell spent three weeks of muck raking work at the behest of Len Brown’s Labour flunkies. Bernard Orsman’s article isn’t much better and does himself a dis-service shopping tawdry tales Labour has been trying to get in the media for 3 weeks. He should ask himself why he is studiously ignoring both Brown and Williams using council resources and the spamming of council staff on the beg for money. John Banks had to face something that no parent wants to face and he dealt with it admirably.

Non-political people have commented to me how well Banksie handled himself in the face of an obvious hit. They say that you just know that Alex Banks got a boot in the arse, one he deserved. Now political people are weighing in and that is why I say that Len Brown’s campaign is over.

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.

That people is an endorsement. Not only is it an endorsement it is an endorsement from Brian Edwards. That was the end paragraph. Now read this from the middle of the post.

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.’

When the illuminati of the left feel so compelled to write posts such as this then you realise very quickly that Len Brown’s campaign is over. When Brian Edwards puts a spike in that hard you KNOW Len Brown’s campaign is over.

Related Posts:

• Politician of the Week – Nick Smith
• Randominity
• The blame Banksie for Len’s idea game
• Andrew Williams and his four deputies
• Can Len Brown cope with pressure?

Share/Bookmark

There is nothing more annoying than when you travel on the motorway and discover some halfwit is going at 70, or on state highway one and there is moron travelling at 80, with a huge tail back being caused by one driver’s selfish decision to drive below the speed limit.

Slow drivers on open roads cause crashes. They force people that just want to travel at the speed limit to take tough decisions about passing, and some of these cause accidents.

So the Whaleoil transport policy is that there will be minimum speed limits on motorways and main roads. If you drive more than 10 km under limit when there is no good reason too (being old, dopey or useless is not a good reason) you should be fined for holding up traffic and creating anger among fellow tax payers who expect you to drive at the speed limit.

Given that the ratepayers of Albany Ward overwhelming favour using their cars for transport this is a sensible policy for them to support.

Responsibilities come with along with rights. If you want the right to drive on the main road, you have the responsibility to ensure you travel at a speed that allows traffic to flow.

Under Whaleoil’s transport policy people whinging about a minimum speed limit are classed as other people, and will be forced to become mandatory users of public transport.

And the impact of slow drivers on productivity is huge, so we need to stop slow drivers from wrecking the driving experience for the rest of us, as well as costing the economy.

Related Posts:

• Whaleoil Policy on Motorway Bus Lanes
• My Public Transport policy
• Herald on Albany
• Andrew Williams starts his campaign with a lie
• First it was Len and Now it is The Clown

Share/Bookmark

Len Brown used council emails to solicit support and funds and now Andrew Williams is using his council resources as a bully pulpit to assail political opponents.

He has just sent out an email and press release that breaks almost every rule as set out by the Auditor-General.He has tried to be clever by disguising his attack as a press release but make no mistake it is electioneering and worse it is electioneering using resources not available to his opponents.

Andrew Williams will be in no position to hold anyone to account after I dispatch him in Albany Ward come election day.

His angry, bully pulpit tactics have no place in the super city. Vote Slater to rid yourselves of the idiot Williams.

Related Posts:

• Herald on Albany
• Andrew Williams starts his campaign with a lie
• Minimum Main Road Speeds
• Need a reason to Vote Slater? I’ll give you 12 million reasons
• Whaleoil Policy on Motorway Bus Lanes

Share/Bookmark

I’ve been reading the discussion document for the proposed changes to the child support regime.   It took me forever to find the thing – god knows I spend far too much time on the IRD website as it is, so I honestly thought I knew my way around the site.   Apparently not.  Anyhow, I found it eventually, and so can you:  http://www.supportingchildren.ird.govt.nz/

The first thing I noticed is how much more complicated the proposed new formula is for calculating child support liability.  Currently, you take the paying parent’s income, deduct a living allowance, and then multiply it by a percentage (dependent on how many kids you’re paying for), and hey presto, there’s your child support bill.  Under the new formula, you take both parents incomes, deduct a living allowance for each of them, and use a progressive system to calculate an amount which apparently represents the cost of looking after the children.  Then, you multiply this figure by the paying parents income (after the living allowance), and divide by the sum of both parents net incomes, to find the total liability.  Very complicated indeed.  One wonders if the additional money allocated to the IRD to investigate tax fraud cases will end up being used to employ more staff in the Child Support Department instead.… but more likely, you’ll just have to wait on hold longer when you try to call them.

Now, before I go on any further, I want to clarify a couple of things.  Firstly, I agree that the child support regime needs an overhaul.  The current system doesn’t reflect the additional costs that a non-primary caregiver incurs in caring for their child – after all, it costs Daddy just as much to  provide an extra bedroom for Little Johnny as it does for Mummy.  It’s also not fair that some parents pay an absolute fortune in child support, and then the custodial parent does everything they can to prevent access.   I absolutely believe that fathers should, in all but the most extreme cases, be allowed  - nay, encouraged — to have a relationship with their children.  It is, after all, in the best interests of the child to have a loving relationship with both parents.

But, I’m sorry, I’ve got a few problems with the proposed changes.  Firstly – the new formula, being based on both parent’s incomes, doesn’t seem to allow for the scenario where a parent is paying child support to several ex-partners.  I’ve searched the entire document to find a clause specifying how such a situation should be treated – to no avail.  If another reader can point me to such a clause, I’d be most appreciative.  But on the face of it, the proposed formula simply doesn’t allow for such a scenario – and it should.  If some casanova sires children by multiple mothers, he should take responsibility for all those children.

Secondly, under the proposed formula, if the custodial parent’s income increases, the child support liability decreases.  Thus, if the custodial parent works harder to get a payrise, their ex – not themselves, not the child, but their ex – benefits.  This just doesn’t seem right.  It would reduce the incentive for custodial parents to be productive — after all, why strive for a payrise if you won’t benefit from it?

Finally  - under the proposed changes, child support will decrease for EVERY SINGLE parent with full custody.  I haven’t done the calculations yet for shared-custody arrangements, so I can’t comment on those – I will endeavour to do these over the next few days.  I’m sure a great many paying parents will be quite happy with this, but bear in mind that many custodial parents count on the child support payments in order to meet the costs of running a household and looking after their kids.  Substantial decreases in child support payments will cause extreme stress to those who will now have to find other ways to meet their financial obligations.  It’s not difficult to imagine how the kids could end up missing out.

Please refer to the following table, to see the effect of the proposed new formula on child support payments.  Please note that all payments are based on a non-custodial parent who has no dependents living with them, and no shared care:

Gotta say – the deadbeat dads are gonna love Peter Dunne for this one.   And one can’t help but wonder why he’s so insistent on making life harder for single parents?

Related Posts:

• Distortions that might work
• The poor are eating rubbish food because healthy food is too expensive?
• Why Peter Dunne’s Income Splitting Bill should be dumped
• No Name Suppression for this guy
• Why Labour’s welfarism won’t work

Share/Bookmark

I see one of the Interesting Names is in the paper again.

A doctor has been suspended from practising for nine months after pleading guilty to possessing images of child sex abuse.

The doctor, whose name is suppressed, was sentenced to four months’ home detention after admitting 25 charges of possessing objectionable material and one charge of distributing an objectionable publication.

The material was found on the doctor’s computer and an external hard drive which contained over 400,000 files, 290,000 of which related to images of young girls in explicit sexual poses.

In a decision released by the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal today, the doctor had his registration suspended for nine months from the date of the hearing — July 26, 2010.

The tribunal also imposed several conditions for three years after the suspension ended, including that he comply with ongoing counselling, ongoing oversight by the health committee of the Medical Council, and that he undergo a psychiatric assessment confirming fitness to practise before he was re-registered. He was also ordered to pay $6000 costs.

In its findings, the tribunal said the doctor had a psychiatric diagnosis of paraphilia, which involved compulsive masturbation and the use of images when masturbating. This was apparently under control as a result of medication he was now taking.

I’m not sure the people of what ever town this paraphile is likely to inhabit are going to be too keen on having him look at their children for medical attention. But that is no matter, because we all can’t know who he is because Judge Grant Fraser thinks:

“In this case there is no offending against any individuals within the New Zealand community.”

Like how could he possibly know that? Did the judge personally sight every single one of the 400,000 images, including the more than 290,000 images of children and positively identify each one as from overseas? Does that matter that his victims were from overseas?

Isn’t it amazing that the truth is leaking out…when first reported it was “many images” to more than 10,000 and now a staggering 290,000 images of children. But the Judge saw this at e light end of the scale. Judge Grant Fraser is clearly pedo-friendly and gets the Pedobear seal of approval.

All I can say is don’t get sick/burn yourself in the Manawatu.

This case remains an outrage, luckily for the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal they can rely on Judge grant Fraser’s pedo-friendly ruling to allow the Dirty Doctor to remain hidden behind the mask of the Burqa of our Justice System.

Related Posts:

• The Difference between Australia and New Zealand
• I wonder if they will drop the charges on me now
• Name the little sh*ts
• No Name Suppression for this guy
• When cowards attack

Share/Bookmark

If Farrar can cut/paste so can I.

Bernard Hickey (dude eat something) has sent a please explain to Alan Hubbard. It should be nailed on the door of South Canterbury Finance and at teh gate of Hubbard’s house and stuck to his windscreen of that shitty little Volkswagon.

Dear Allan Hubbard:

Please say sorry and thanks.

Please say sorry to the taxpayers of New Zealand and investors in South Canterbury Finance who now have to bear the burden of cleaning up your mess.

Please say thanks to the Finance Minister Bill English, Prime Minister John Key and the millions of taxpayers who are now having to pay for your mistakes.

Please say sorry to the South Canterbury Finance preference share holders who have lost all of the NZ$120 million they invested with you on the strength of your reputation.

Please take responsibility for the mess created by the boom and now bust of the South Island’s largest financial institution.

Please appear in public yourself to answer questions about what happened at South Canterbury Finance.

Please don’t leave it up to your wife Jean, your PR advisors and your supporters to defend you in public. Please understand the scale of the damage done or your role in it.

Please be the humble man who does not shirk responsibility and cares deeply about your community that you are reputed to be.

Please don’t publicly attack the government, the Statutory Manager, your fellow directors and anyone else who criticises you and then refuse to answer questions in public.

Please show some humility and some concern for the wider community. Please don’t be more worried about your reputation than the impact on the business community or the public accounts of the nation. …

Please explain why you chose to repeatedly lend to related parties of other companies and interests that you either personally owned or controlled.

Please explain why you represented an equity injection in 2009 as a real injection of fresh money when it was nothing more than a merry-go-round of assets for shares.

Please explain why you refused to be interviewed or engage with the financial press in any meaningful way for years.

Please explain why you thought making interest free loans to young farmers to buy overpriced land was a prudent way to run a business.

Please explain why you chose to run so many businesses yourself without any outside scrutiny. A search of Companies Office records show you were or are a director and/or shareholder in 552 companies. The attached spreadsheet shows there are 1,690 companies registered from your offices at 39 George St, Timaru.

Please say sorry for saying repeatedly that South Canterbury Finance was a ‘heartland’ financier of rural businesses when it actually lent more than NZ$100 million to a luxury Auckland hotel redevelopment, the building of townhouses on Paritai Drive in Auckland, as well as to bars in the Viaduct. Please explain why you thought lending money to property developers in Queenstown who were unable to find funding was a good idea.

Please explain why there was so much related party lending between your companies and South Canterbury Finance and why you thought this was OK.

Please explain why you allocated NZ$13 million in shares to investors in Hubbard Management Funds that Grant Thornton has found in its second report did not exist.

Please explain why you reported to investors in Hubbard Management Funds that you had NZ$6 million in cash on hand when Grant Thornton said you actually had NZ$350,000 in cash.

Please explain why in March this year you had to mortgage your own assets to ensure you had enough cash to pay the interest on investments in Aorangi Securities. Please explain why you thought this was a legitimate thing to do and why you thought you should have been allowed to continue to do it for the entire group without outside scrutiny. …

Please explain why you believe you could say this in June this year and believe it: “I don’t believe in the history of New Zealand that any person has acted more honourably than myself”

Most of all Mr Hubbard. Please acknowledge the pain you have caused your investors and the taxpayers of New Zealand.

Please say sorry and thank you.

Regards

Bernard Hickey

And while we await Alan Hubbard’s response would Bill English like to step forward and explain to all those who lost their shirts Blue Chip and Hanover and Strategic and all the other dodgy finance companies precisely why they have to bail out some rich pricks in the South Island.

Related Posts:

• Ungrateful Pricks
• Randominity
• Sell the South Island
• Let it fail
• What you get when you let a pinko run law and order policy

Share/Bookmark

Looks like this Global Warming thingy is real hard to pin down.

Related Posts:

• N.I.W.A. taken to court over data accuracy
• How’s that Global Warming feeling?
• A kick in the nuts for Warmists
• Climate Change Liars – Lying with graphs
• Rodney Hide stands up for National Party members

Share/Bookmark

So Peter Dunne wants to change the Child Support System because more than $2 billion remains unpaid by deadbeat parents. I know of one dead beat dad who doesn’t even so much as call his daughter let alone pay anything towards her upkeep. There are plenty of others out there. At the same time we have an issue with our welfare system providing the wrong incentives. This creates distortions in the environment leasing to outcomes that are ass-backwards.

I can save Peter Dunne a whole heap of consultants fees and fix the problem over night. Build a Deadbeat Parents Website and provide a searchable database outlining how much they owe. Create a top ten Dead-beat Parents list…kind of like a Most Wanted. That would see almost all that $2 billion recovered even before the website goes live.

Since we know that poorly draft systems incentive people int he wrong way for the taxpayer, like student loans, like the DPB, like Deporits Guarantee Schemes.….it is high time to look at the changing the focus of such systems so that the system works to account for human behaviour.

Essentially if there are risk free benefits then people fill their boots with as much free taxpayer loot as possible. Since Peter Dunne is looking at ways to improve welfare then let’s look at the system surrounding the Domestic Purposes Benefit.

Step 1: Cancel DPB — Of course when I say cancel, I mean phase out in order to be fair to existing users.

Step 2: Pay DPB equivalent to all females aged 12 to 25 provided they don’t get pregnant

Step 3: This could be funded from Corrections/Police budget because crime, particularly crimes against children, will plummet with only planned births

This post should be considered a discussion document, so please add your comments to help develop this policy further.

Related Posts:

• Proposed Changes to Child Support
• Why Peter Dunne’s Income Splitting Bill should be dumped
• Could Laws win Whanganui?
• Day 6 – Western Australia
• Snitch Named!!!!

Share/Bookmark

From the emails deluging my inbox and from talk in the street I think National have badly mis-judged the public sentiment in bailing out Mr Magoo’s Finance Company for rich farming types.

When you have to get Treasury to start explaining then you know they are losing the argument. the old adage that if you are explaining then you are losing applies.

Let’s hear from Mr Hubbard himself explaining just how SCF didn’t breach their DOG (Deed of Guarantee) by ensuring its business and operations (and the business and operations of its subsidiaries) are conducted in a proper, businesslike, efficient and prudent manner”.

With headlines like:

The rich blamed for SCF’s fall

I think National will take a big hit in the polls over the SCF debacle. We shall see. There are certainly a lot of angry voters out there, and they aren’t in South Canterbury they are in Auckland. Is this the tipping point Labour have hoped and prayed for?

Related Posts:

• Ungrateful Pricks
• Let it fail
• Please Explain Mr Hubbard, you too Bill English
• Sell the South Island
• Caption Contest

Share/Bookmark

Now this grates, it really does, but credit where credit is due. Nick Smith going to announce that he won’t get in the way of more roads and quicker delivery of the roads for Auckland, ultimately meaning they will be cheaper to the tax payer.

Environment Minister Nick Smith will announce tomorrow that he is putting Auckland’s $1.4 billion Waterview motorway project on a fast track for resource consent hearings.

He is expected to announce a board of inquiry, headed by a judge, to hold public hearings early next year on conditions to be attached to the Transport Agency’s construction of the final link in the western ring route.

The agency, which wants to start a five-year building programme next September for the 4.5km partly tunnelled link between the Southwestern and Northwestern Motorways, lodged applications on August 20 with the new Environmental Protection Authority.

Although the authority had 20 working days to recommend whether the applications met a “national significance” test, Dr Smith told Auckland Mayor John Banks yesterday that he intended making a major announcement about Waterview tomorrow.

Finally the road that Helen Clark wouldn’t build will get started.

Nick Smith is politician of the week.

Related Posts:

• I’d say that Brown’s campaign is over
• Minimum Main Road Speeds
• Randominity
• Whaleoil Policy on Motorway Bus Lanes
• The blame Banksie for Len’s idea game

Share/Bookmark