A commenter on The Standard has pointed out the following quote from Hansard:

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) : It is a pleasure to take a call on the Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill and to recognise that it is probably one of the most important economic bills to come before this Parliament in some time. If this Parliament fails to exercise the due diligence and good judgment that is tasked of us on this matter, the effects will be felt for generations.

I am a former diplomat who has represented the New Zealand dairy industry overseas in many markets and on many occasions, and I was also a management consultant tasked with advising on the formation of Fonterra from Kiwi Cooperative Dairies and the New Zealand Dairy Group.

I wasn’t planning to blog on this issue again, but this quote from Hansard is a bit different from what we previously knew for two reasons. The first is that a claim in Hansard can be challenged via a Privileges Complaint. I’m not saying this is likely – just that you expect less padding of claims in Hansard than you might in a CV.

But the more relevant aspect is that the claim is much more specific than the CV claim. There is no doubt Cunliffe did work primarily in 1997 on dairy restructuring issues. The claim this was “helping with the formation of Fonterra” is debatable. I call it padding, which I think is a fair description.

But the claim in Hansard is more explicit. It is claiming he directly advised on the actual merger between Kiwi and NZ Dairy. Now that is much much harder to reconcile with the facts. The BCG client was NZ Dairy Board, not KCD or NZDG and the actual merger discussions were in 2000/2001 not 1997.

A general claim that your work in 1997 helped with the formation of Fonterra is plausible. An explcit claim that you advised on the actual formation between KCD and NZDG is far less plausible.

Put it like this. What would the average person take from a claim that you advised on the formation of Fonterra from KCD and NZDG? Would it be you did some research four years earlier for the NZ Dairy Board, or that you were an active player in the room helping make the merger happen? My assumption, before this all flared up, was someone actually pretty much in the room playing a pretty key role. That is the impression we were meant to get.

The Dom Post reports:

More than 4000 Wellington motorists a year have been receiving two parking tickets for what is effectively a single offence under double-dipping fines that have already been thrown out by a court.

Wellington City Council has been forced to investigate the legality of its fines after a District Court ruling found it was punishing people for two offences, despite the transgressions amounting to the same thing.

But the council maintains it is acting legally, and it is continuing to issue the double dose of fines.

When motorists’ pay-and-display tickets run out, they are fined for displaying an expired ticket. Then, if they are also beyond the maximum time limit for the car park, they are hit with a second fine. In the past financial year, 4100 tickets were issued in this way. The practice started many years ago.

As you can only get a ticket for up to two hours, ipso facto if you end up pared for longer you will have an expired ticket and be over the maximum time.

You should get a ticket, but only one ticket. The fines for an expired ticket already vary depending on time. So if you are 30 minutes over it is $12 and two to four hours over is $30.

In May, justices of the peace Ian Symonds and S J Roughton ruled against the practice, saying the first fine should be “subsumed into the second” because it was basically the same offence.

They’re right.

But council spokesman Richard MacLean defended the practice, and said the council was still issuing the extra tickets while it carried out a review. It accepted that two tickets could make motorists “become annoyed”, but it maintained two offences were being committed.

“We reject the revenue-gathering angle, because we are responding to a problem where people are parking free and taking away the ability for other people to park.”

Yeah, not revenue generating – right.

No one disputes there should be a fine – just not two fines.

The Waikato Times reports:

Dave Macpherson has announced his withdrawal from the Hamilton mayoral race, conceding he cannot
win.

Macpherson has asked his supporters to instead vote for Ewan Wilson.

Mr Macpherson, speaking at Frankton Markets this morning, told crowds that after seeing the latest poll results he believed Wilson had the best chance to unseat incumbent mayor Julie Hardaker and urged his supporters to give Wilson their votes.

That’s pretty outrageous to get all the advantage of being a candidate to take parts in forums, but to then effectively withdraw at the last moment. Of course ballot papers have already gone out.

Macpherson is a former Alliance candidate. Him and Wilson were both part of the old Council that saddled Hamilton ratepayers with huge debt over the failed V*s venture.

With one exception I think Julie Hardaker has been a very good Mayor for Hamilton. She isn’t overly political, but has brought good commercial and legal skills to the Mayoralty and has seen the Council become much more effective. She’s also been very approachable doing public forums and the like over her whole term. I think she deserves another term, and a return to the past would be a mistake for Hamilton.

My one reservation with Julie is her stance on fluoride – but now that has gone to a referendum, it is less of an issue.

Ewan Wilson looks like he is close behind her in the polls. He has two big black marks against him.

1. He was on the Council which it had the V8 disaster, saddling ratepayers with huge debt
2. He is a convicted criminal.

If Hamilton elect Wilson as Mayor, I can’t imagine they’re going to have a great relationship with the Government (National or Labour). No Minister is going to want to be meeting with someone who wasn’t just convicted of fraud, but also was banned by the Securities Commission from being a director for five years.

UPDATE: I am told Wilson was not a councillor when they voted to proceed with the V8s but he was a councillor when the proposal first came through in a workshop.

Stephen Franks blogs:

An unknown number of candidate profile electorate booklets  have been circulated with pages missing.

The mistakes seem likely to affect the result of the elections in affected areas, even if the number of booklets circulated is small, if the missing pages were concentrated in those areas;

Affected candidates could have a right to a new election;

Officials are downplaying the seriousness of the problem.

We’ve been instructed by a public spirited client to help shine a light on the problem. He’s instructed us to offer rewards for the necessary evidence. The announcement is set out below.

If it turns out that few deficient booklets were circulated, he will be relieved. He’ll feel this exercise will have been worth the expense, just for the reassurance that New Zealand is not as far toward casual corruption as he fears.  It will be worth it to know that a cover-up is not underway.

I agree missing pages in an electorate booklet is not a minor issue. The chances of getting elected if your profile is missing will be dramatically reduced.

Wellington specialist public law firm Franks & Ogilvie will pay rewards and prizes for whistle-blowers to establish the scale of the local election booklet botch-up.  A client who wishes to remain anonymous will fund the prizes and rewards.

“The client is appalled by what he fears is an official cover-up” said Stephen Franks, a principal of the public law specialist firm. “Candidates and people helping them face prison for breaching even trivial electoral rules without proof that the breach would change a single vote. Across the country hundreds of elected positions may be determined by a few votes.”

In Auckland alone, at the last election a number of local board positions were decided on margins of less than 10 votes, and the margin for election to Council was as low as 253 votes.” …

Delivery of booklets with relevant pages missing will earn $1500 for the person who delivers most before 5pm Monday 7 October, $600 for the next most, and $400 for the third most.  Please send to Franks & Ogilvie, PO Box 10388, Wellington.

The prizes will be paid only to collectors willing to give evidence if necessary, as to how they collected them.

Each booklet must be certified by the person who provides it to the collector, that it has not been mutilated or otherwise materially changed from the condition in which it was distributed, and that person must add their name and address where they received the booklet and contact email or phone number.

So if you have received a botched booklet, send them in and earn some money.

Villa Education Trust have announced:

The Villa Education Trust is delighted to announce the appointment of Bryce Anderson as the Community Liaison Manager for South Auckland Middle School being established to begin at the start of the 2014 school year.

For the past two years Mr Anderson has been the Team Manager for the Blues rugby team in the Super 15 competition.

In announcing the shift Auckland Rugby CEO Andy Dalton stated:

“It is a new and exciting role – based in South Auckland – and focuses on the development and welfare of the school and the kids in this low-socio economic area.

The role also requires the integration of the local community into the school – which includes Auckland Rugby and the local clubs.

This is an area Bryce was keen to move into so it’s all very exciting for him”

His role with South Auckland Middle School is to build relationships between the school and the families as well as developing links into the local community. Not only will he be ensuring the day to day welfare and family involvement of the children while at South Auckland Middle School but he will also track and support them through their Year 11 – 13 schools where they will be seeking their NCEA qualifications.

That’s a smart link up and a good example of innovative thinking.

South Auckland Middle School will begin in 2014 with a maximum role of 120. Class sizes will be limited to 15. The school will have an academic focus with core subjects being Maths, English, Science, Technology and Social Studies taught by highly qualified teachers. The students will also have independent study time each morning where they will complete cross curricular projects. In the afternoon there is a programme involving Music, Art and Sports.

The HoS editorial:

Work for the mentally disabled used to be provided in so called sheltered work- shops. These days, it depends on employers with a sense of social responsibility. They can give disabled people the dignity of a real job and semblance of personal independence.

One of those employers has been the fast-food chain, KFC New Zealand. Its staff included disabled people who could do basic tasks such as filling its side-order packs and cleaning. Last year it had a change of heart.

Its owner, Restaurant Brands, decided to review its costs and find ways to maximise the chain’s profitability. One way was to require all staff to be capable of doing any job in the store, from the counter to the kitchen. Soon, the disabled were getting notice.

I had no problem with KFC deciding that for future staff, they would have a policy that all staff be capable of doing any job in the store. There can be very sound reasons for such a policy.

But when they erred badly was applying the policy retrospectively to existing staff, and making redundant some long-term staff members (including disabled ones). It was insensitive at best and callous at worst.

The Herald on Sundayrevealed the systematic lay-offs of disabled workers at KFC. The anguish of these people and their families was heart-rending. One of them was a 48-year-old woman who had been packing potato and gravy at a KFC outlet for nearly 18 years. She loved putting on her uniform and going proudly to work, her sister said.

Loyalty is a two way ship, and if a staff member has been a diligent worker for 18 years, it is almost beyond belief that you would dismiss them just because they don’t quite fit in to your new ideal structure. A bit of flexibility is sensible. What the hell does it matter if in say a dozen of your stores you have one employee who can’t work as a server – but can work as a packer.

As I said above, no issues with KFC deciding for future staff appointments that they want people who can work in all positions. There can be very sound business reasons for doing so. But one could transition into such an arrangement by grandfathering in current staff.

The Guardian reports:

A US ban on the use of electronic devices in-flight below 10,000 feet could be lifted as soon as 2014, which would mean you could use your tablet, ereader or laptop throughout the entire flight.

A 28-person advisory committee is set to recommend the removal of the ban in a report that will be delivered to the FAA on Monday, industry officials familiar with the deliberations told the AP.

About time. It is silly that you can’t use an iPad or Kindle (in flight mode) during landing and takeoff. On a one hour flight between Wellington and Auckland it means you can’t read books on your electronic devices for almost half the flight.

The report is set to recommend that most electronic devices can be used, although some might still need to be switched to ‘airplane mode’ with their mobile network connectivity disabled.

That’s fine.

Modern planes are insulated against electromagnetic interference, which means the general consensus, before the full report is published, is that the use of low-powered devices is safe.

One of the primary reasons why the FAA’s expert advisers appear to have recommended the policy change is at least partly because so many passengers flout the rules currently, and seemingly without consequence.

I think on any flight probably 10% of the devices are actually on. I’ve discovered once or twice that I hadn’t turned a device off by accident.

I look forward to this change.

The Herald reports:

Breaking a third-of-a-century diplomatic freeze, President Barack Obama and new Iranian President Hassan Rouhani have spoken by telephone and agreed to work toward resolving their deep dispute over Tehran’s nuclear efforts.

Rouhani, who earlier in the day called the United States a “great” nation, reached out to arrange the 15-minute call. The last direct conversation between the leaders of the two countries was in 1979 before the Iranian Revolution toppled the pro-US shah and brought Islamic militants to power.

Obama said the long break “underscores the deep mistrust between our countries, but it also indicates the prospect of moving beyond that difficult history.”

“While there will surely be important obstacles to moving forward, and success is by no means guaranteed, I believe we can reach a comprehensive solution,” Obama told reporters at the White House. Iran’s nuclear program has been a major concern not only to the United States but to other Middle Eastern nations especially Israel and to the world at large.

Rouhani, at a news conference in New York, linked the US and Iran as “great nations,” a remarkable reversal from the anti-American rhetoric of his predecessors, and he expressed hope that at the very least the two governments could stop the escalation of tensions.

It’s only a phone call, but it is a very encouraging sign that Iran sees benefits in rejoining the mainstream.

What is remarkable is not just the phone call between the two Presidents, but the fact that news of it broke on Twitter – from the Iranian President. We do live in a very different world to 1979!

There has been quite a lot of discussion over how the BCG timesheets showed the client as Fonterra in 1997 and 1999 when the name wasn’t registered until 2001.

A very well placed source tells me that the working name for Fonterra was in fact Aorangi. Fonterra only emerged as a possible name late in the piece when they dropped Aorangi due to both intellectual property concerns but also possible issues with Ngai Tahu.

So the naming of the client as Fonterra could not possibly have happened in 1997 or 1999 when the work was done. If there was any name being used back then it would have been Aorangi. It must have been changed at a later date,

Fran O’Sullivan writes in NZ Herald:

Labour’s Phil Goff is back in business, adding his strong and rational voice to New Zealand’s advocacy for the completion of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP).

Goff wants to see a renewed focus on the upside for New Zealand from achieving greater access to some of the Asia-Pacific’s economic powerhouses through a deal which will link 12 nations.

To Goff trade is New Zealand’s lifeblood.

He reckons the Labour Party has to become focused on economic growth, jobs and tax revenue – “You can’t legislate for revenue.”

Or wages!

The challenge for Labour is to interpret trade policy around its own core values. “There are huge advantages from being involved with TPP and even bigger disadvantages of being locked out. But there are defensive issues where we need to fight tooth and nail to protect interests.”

Such as intellectual property laws

Goff has had the shadow trade portfolio only since Monday but already he is signalling that the bilateral consensus that has sustained New Zealand’s international reputation for nearly three decades will be continued.

Excellent.

The Herald reports:

A decade after he recommended New Zealand set up an independent commission to investigate claims of miscarriages of justice, Sir Thomas Thorp says the case is even stronger.

Thorp conducted a review in 2003-2004 comparing New Zealand’s system of dealing with claimed miscarriages of justice with those in Scotland and England and published his findings in 2006, recommending New Zealand followed suit. Based on the experience of those countries, he estimated there were likely to be at least 20 innocent people in jail here.

Thorp, who spent 31 years as a Crown prosecutor before serving for 17 years as a High Court judge, told the Herald that he had looked at the Scottish and New Zealand criminal justice systems again in 2010 and concluded that “the Scottish procedures have succeeded in identifying and correcting many times as many miscarriages as we do”. On average referrals by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission had resulted in four wrongful convictions being corrected each year, compared to New Zealand’s rate of one every two years under the Royal Prerogative of Mercy system. Differences between the two countries’ criminal justice systems largely cancelled each other out.

I think there is much merit in having an Independent Commission to investigate alleged miscarriages of justice.

NZ herald quiz here.

The IPCC’s AR5 summary is here, for those who want to actually read the details.

They look at four scenarios called RCP2.6, RCP4,5, RCP 6.0 and RCP 8.5. Basically the higher the number, the higher the level of greenhouse gas emissions over the next 85 years. The two middle scenarios are probably the most realistic as 2.6 assumes a very significant change in energy production and the like and 85 seems to assume no change at all. The scenarios are about more than just the level of emissions, so I am simplifying.

So what is the average temperature change projected under the two middle scenarios:

• RCP 4.5 – 1.4c by 2055 and 1.8c by 2090
• RCP 6.0 – 1.3c by 2055 and 2.2c by 2090

This is compared to 1986 – 2005.

And the sea level change:

• RCP 4.5 – 26cm by 2055 and 47 cm by 2090
• RCP 6.0 – 25cm by 2055 and 48 cm by 2090

The upper end of the worst case scenario (RCP 8.5) for sea level rise is 82 cm by 2090. That would post significant challenges for many countries – but is nothing like the nonsense some talk about of metres and metres of sea level rise.

Stuff reports:

Prime Minister John Key has used a speech to the United Nations to launch a scathing attack on the Security Council, warning that inaction over events like the humanitarian crisis in Syria had damaged its credibility.

In notes for a trenchant speech lasting nearly 20 minutes, Key said the UN was in urgent need of reform – a key pitch in New Zealand’s bid for a seat on the Security Council.

“Its key organs, particularly the Security Council, have become hostage to their own traditions and to the interests of the most powerful,” Key said.

“We now seem to have a practice whereby the permanent members can not only block council actions through the veto. They also appear to have privileged access to information and can stop the council from meeting if it does not suit their collective purposes.

“Such behaviour damages the reputation and credibility of the wider organisation and must be challenged.” …

Key has been in New York drumming up support for New Zealand’s Security Council seat bid.

He said New Zealand was not advocating revolution “but we are asserting the council can and must do better in the way it conducts its business.

“That is the approach New Zealand will bring to the Security Council if we are elected next October,” he said.

“From the 1950s to the 1990s we could blame the Cold War when the Security Council did not act.

That does not wash today.”

Key called this week for permanent Security Council members to be stripped of their right of veto over acts of genocide or war crimes.

I wonder if one potential reform is that you need two permanent members to veto something, not one. That would still hold some protection from the tyranny of the majority, but would mean Russia and China would no longer have s sole veto. Of course US, UK and France would also lose a sole veto but two of them together could still veto – as could Russia and China.

Of course there is little incentive for any holders of the veto to weaken its power.

News.com.au reports:

Last night over 800,000 Australians watched in shock as Channel 7 introduced us to Wesley Warren Jr.

The documentary The Man With The Biggest Testicles, followed the 49-year-old Las Vegas man as he battled to get an operation to fix his rare medical condition called extreme scrotal elephantiasis, a condition which resulted in his testicles weighing over 60 kgs.

Ouch, ouch, ouch.

Audrey Young at NZ Herald reports:

Justice Minister Judith Collins is putting judges on notice that painfully slow delivery of reserve judgments will no longer be acceptable. …

Rather than imposing her own plan on what is a reasonable time, she wants each judicial sector to come up with a plan: the Employment Court, the Environment Court; the Maori Land Court; the District Court, the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.

Cabinet has agreed to pass a law that will require the chief judges to set protocols for their courts about reserved decisions, including providing information on the progress of decisions and on the number of judgments outstanding beyond a reasonable time for delivery.

Judges would not necessarily be named and shamed, “not unless that is the protocol,” she said, “but I would say there is a lot of public appetite for knowing what is actually happening to people’s cases.”

Some courts are addressing the issue voluntarily, including the High Court, and the court that Ms Collins points to as the worst offender, the Employment Court.

But there will now be a statutory requirement for all courts to address it.

She was particularly concerned about delays in the Employment Court where the difference between hearings and judgments being issued can be up to two years.

Waiting two years for a decision is way beyond unacceptable. The approach proposed seems sensible – have each Court set their own protocols about the maximum expected time for a decision.

Ms Collins said some members of the bench might see her actions as interference with judicial independence.

“The concept of judicial independence is something I take very carefully. But my view is that judicial independence relates to what is in the judgment, not whether or not we have one.”

Bar Association president Stephen Mills QC said timeliness of judgments was “highly desirable”.

“The issue of whether that is best managed as it is now, internally by the heads of bench, or whether it is appropriate it be the subject of some kind of legislative direction is a matter the Bar Association will have a view [on] when it looks more closely at what the minister has in mind.”

Another useful change:

Another of Ms Collins’ measures will require a consistent approach by the courts to judicial conduct and what judges should and shouldn’t do in terms of appointments, activities outside work and when they should recuse themselves from cases.

Ms Collins acted as Attorney-General over the case of former Supreme Court judge Bill Wilson, who resigned while fighting allegations of misconduct for not recusing himself from a case involving a business associate.

The Judicature Modernisation and Other Matters Bill is expected to be introduced by the end of the year.

Sounds like a good piece of law reform.

Had a conversation this morning with someone who pointed out that if NZ had not taken part in this year’s America’s Cup, it would have been a debacle. And it looks clear under the rules set by the winner, we’re unlikely to be able to challenge successfully again.

So why not set up a new competition. Some rules that can’t be changed could include:

• Crew can only compete for the country they were born in
• A spending cap for teams
• No modifications once the cup has begun

I reckon that might get many more challengers than the America’s Cup gets!

Some thoughts on the candidates for the Greater Wellington Regional Council.

Porirua-Tawa

Jenny Brash and Barbara Donaldson are the only nominees for two positions so are re-elected unopposed

Kapiti Coast

Nigel Wilson is being challenged by Chris Turver, a former Regional Councillor.

Wilson is also standing for the DHB which puts me off. He also supports light rail despite every study done showing it would cost many times more than buses. Wilson appears to have been a decent Regional Counillor. However Turver was excellent when he was last on the Council, so I’d make him the preferred candidate.

Wellington

There are eight candidates for five positions, so in one sense it is work out the three you don’t want. However not so easy as there are two Labour, two Greens and one Mana candidate. So maybe you just vote for three! Anyway my thoughts:

Judith Aitken. Generally a very competent Councillor. I have reservations over her also being on the DHB and it seems being anti-fluoride. But worth supporting.

Paul Bruce (Greens). An incumbent. His achievements include a moratorium on fracking. Need more be said.

Mike Fleming. An engineer. Seems sensible. Will vote for him.

Sue Kedgley (Greens). No.

Chris Laidlaw. Incumbent standing as an Indpendent, but former Labour MP. Not personally someone I am enthusiastic about but preferable to some of the others. A reluctant yes.

Ariana Paretutanganyi-Tamati (Mana). Don’t be silly.Wants the Council to stop borrowing money from banks etc which is ironic as her policies would crippe the Council with debt.

Daran Ponter (Labour). Despite his party tag, is relatively sensible and a constructive Councillor. Worth voting for.

Fran Wilde. My number one choice. One of the most determined and effective people I know. Gets things done.

Lower Hutt

Five seeking three positions.

Sandra Greig. An incumbent. Policies seem to include increasing rates and petrol tax. No.

Ken Laban. Labour, but a good bloke. Personable and competent. Is looking to move from City to Regional Council.

Prue Lamason. Incumbent. Know little about her.

David Ogden. A former Hutt Mayor. Fiscally responsible. Worth supporting.

John Terris. Also a former Mayor. Porbably a choice between him and Lamason for the third place.

Upper Hutt

Incumbent Paul Swain the only candidate. A good Councillor.

Wairarapa

Gary McPhee being challenged by Andrew Stewart and John Dalziell. Don’t know enough about any of them to comment. Locals may want to comment below.

An advertorial from the BNZ:

The housing honeymoon is over

Mortgage rates are rising – but all is not lost for home buyers.

It’s often said that all good things must come to an end, and this certainly seems to be the case with the recent period of record low mortgage rates in New Zealand. With all four major Australian owned banks in NZ having raised their long term mortgage rates recently, prospective home buyers look set to suffer a setback in their spending power. At first glance, a third of a percentage point may not seem like a lot, but to many would be home owners, that tiny incremental difference over a period of a 30 year mortgage can make the difference between being able to afford the house of their dreams or not.

With recent mortgage rate comparisons indicating that the hike in mortgage rates looks to  be increasing over the next 5 years to between 6.3% and 7.1%, it is becoming imperative that new home buyers ask themselves just how much house they really can afford. When one takes into consideration the fact that a 1% increase in mortgage rates is equal to around a 10.75% drop in purchasing power, home buyers, including those who were pre-approved a few weeks ago, will now find that they are in fact eligible for a good deal less than their pre-approved amount.

A common error in evaluation those new to the housing market often make is to confuse a house’s ‘sticker’ price with its affordability. The true cost of home ownership lies in not only the ‘for sale’ price but also in the monthly carrying cost – of which tax, home insurance and of course the mortgage all comes into play.

Faced with the prospect of progressively rising mortgage rates (and therefore higher monthly home payments), existing home owners would be advised to hold off on refinancing their homes, and if they are on a floating home loan scheme to switch over to a fixed rate. Those in the market for a new home would be best off by securing a fixed home rate, as projections are all indicating that the mortgage rate only looks set to increase from here on out – thanks to raised international borrowing costs and the tightening of borrowing guidelines by lenders.

Of course, home owners and buyers alike need not suffer the inevitable rise of mortgage rates by simply reaching deeper into their pockets every month to shell out for higher monthly payments. Homebuyers can instead opt to raise their down payment amount in order to maintain an otherwise constant monthly payment in the face of rising rates. This may be difficult or even impossible for some first time home buyers and recent homeowners, but it is a smart move to make for those with the capability.

A second option is to lower their bid price on a home. Generally, higher mortgages lead to a declining demand from house buyers, so some home sellers may opt to accept the lower bid instead of sitting with a house to sell in a market where the mortgage rate looks set to increase for the next 3-5 years.

So, whilst the mortgage rates offered by all the major banks, including BNZ, look set to head north for the foreseeable future, home buyers are still left with some options to stay ahead of the inflationary curve. Provided they assess their home’s affordability accurately, maximize their equity and attempt to lower the bid price on the house, they should be able to afford the monthly repayments on their dream home. 

Stuff reports:

A Christchurch community board candidate has quit the race after a personal conversation on a social media application was leaked online.

Explicit photographs and written messages included in the conversation were posted on the Whale Oil blog this morning.

The People’s Choice candidate Paul Findlay withdrew from the Hagley-Ferrymead Community Board race today after the posts between him and what appeared to be a 15-year-old were revealed.

The blog post is here. People’s Choice is the name used by Labour and left candidates in Christchurch. In 2010 he stood for Labour for Christchurch 2021.

I don’t care that he sends dirty texts to people, or even includes photos of his private parts. To be sure it is rather silly to do when standing for office, but that does not affect his suitability as a candidate.

But the moment the person on the other end tells you they are 15, you stop. Simple as that. You don’t keep engaging with them on how you want to fuck them. I’m not sure whether this was entrapment by the 15 year old (he was leading Paul on) but again the moment they say they are not yet 16, you stop.

The Press reports:

Lianne Dalziel’s main mayoral rival has demanded she reveal who is helping fund her campaign as accusations of party politics fly between the pair.

The issue of whether political parties are helping fund the campaigns of Dalziel and Paul Lonsdale flared briefly at Monday’s Press mayoral debate but intensified yesterday when Lonsdale was forced to defend rumours key National Party figures were helping him.

During the debate, Lonsdale admitted National’s Canterbury regional chairman Roger Bridge had given money to his campaign but Dalziel said she did not know who was funding her bid.

Lonsdale yesterday dismissed talk he was a National Party candidate and ramped up the pressure on Dalziel, demanding she should reveal some of her major donors as he had done.

Dalziel denied she had received any funding from the Labour Party or any unions.

She said her campaign was still fundraising but once the election was over, she would, as legally required, declare her major donors.

Dalziel said she preferred not to know who was helping pay for her campaign until after the election.

“That’s also because I don’t want any connection between who may have made a donation and the direction I might take as mayor.”

I watched the video of the debate where Dalziel said she did not know who was funding her campaign. With respect she sounded like John Banks denying knowledge of who funded his mayoral campaign.

The suggestions she does not known because she doesn’t want it impacting her decisions as Mayor is hard to believe because she will have to file a declaration soon after the election.

My conclusion is Dalziel doesn’t know because she wants to be able to avoid answering the question of who is funding her campaign.

Lonsdale has revealed his two major donors (he is in fact mainly funding the campaign himself he said). Dalziel’s refusal to do the same makes you wonder why. She could find out in five minutes. Why does she not want the public to know? As a sign of good faith she should disclose now any donations that would have to be disclosed after the election.