The HoS reports:

Suresh Patel of P&P Dairy in Hoon Hay went to open the shop as aftershocks rippled through Christchurch.

Local woman Shirley Homer, who was caught without batteries for a torch during the power cut that followed the earthquake, said she went to the dairy expecting prices to be at a premium.

Instead she was impressed to find Patel was giving his stock away.

“He would only take $2 for these two big batteries, and he gave the people behind me two bottles of milk for free,” she said.

“He told them, ‘Take whatever you need’. He’s a gentleman, he will slip people a loaf of bread or give them some sweeties.”

Patel said it had been a busy day.

“We decided we can help the people,” he said.

Clap clap.

What a superb photo. I love the look on the dog’s face.

Hat Tip: No Minister

I’ve been so busy the last couple of months that I’ve not had time to update the demerits table. This is actually a quite slow process as I was recording the date of every infringement etc.

To make it a more manageable job, I’ve set up a demerits spreadsheet, and will just copy and paste this to the demerits page.

The good news for those with a history of demerits, is I have wiped all current demerits, as I have been failing to keep the table up to date.

At of today, everyone is at zero demerits. However those who have previously has suspensions, still have that history – ie if they get suspended again, it will be for more than one week.

The bad news for those who become abusive or disruptive, is that it is going to be easier for people to report such behaviour:

If you see a comment that you think is highly abusive, then feel free to report it by sending an e-mail to [email protected]. The e-mail should include a link to the specific comment (if you click on the date/time of the comment, this will bring it up in the address bar).

I do not have time to read every thread, let alone every comment. So your help in maintaining standards is appreciated. I also do not have time to respond to every complaint – they will all be considered, and you’ll see below whether or not I decide demerits are warranted. Generally I won’t respond individually.

I am going to be putting a few minutes aside every evening to review any complaints, and decide if any action is required. The dedicated e-mail address will ensure they don’t disappear in the black hole that is my main inbox.

Tom Scott has done an extended profile of the PM. Some of it has been covered in other profiles, but one part grabbed my attention:

George, John Key’s dad, was an idealistic young Englishman who, according to family lore, volunteered to fight in the Spanish Civil War for the Republican army against the forces of General Franco who were supported by Nazi Germany. …

When George Key made his decision to fight he was barely into his 20s.

He saw something horrendous coming. He could have stood on street corners distributing shrill pamphlets.

Instead, he left his first wife and a baby son, John Key’s elder half-brother, behind to take up arms in a foreign land. …

So where did George Key’s zeal come from? Most of the members of the International Brigade he joined were members of the Communist Party. John Key’s dad, who spoke fluent Russian, was almost certainly a Marxist.

I’m quite amused by the thought of the capitalist money trader and the centre-right Prime Minister being the son of a communist!

Maybe there is hope for the children of certain Green MPs 🙂

The full article is an interesting read – worth taking the time to wade through.

There is a growing consensus that the Dems will lose the House. US News reports:

Typically cautious Larry Sabato, head of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics, is rocking the political world with a new “Crystal Ball” prediction: The GOP will win the House, making Ohio’s John Boehner speaker, might get a 50-50 split in the Senate, and will pick up some eight new governors.

A recent Gallup poll had the Republicans 10% ahead on the generic ballot – their largest lead in over 70 years.

What maybe more exciting is the Senate. The Republicans have 41 seats. They need to win a massive 10 seats to gain control. There are 37 seats up for election, 19 held by Democrats and 18 by Republicans.

So the Republicans would have to win over half of the Democratic held seats, and not lose any of their own. Normally an impossible task.

But it is now only improbably, not impossible. 538 calculates that the Republicans will pick up seven seats with a greater than 50% probability – North Dakota, Arkansas, Indiana, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Colorado and Nevada.

There are four other seats where they are deemed to have a 30% or grater chance, and only trail by 3% or less. They are Illinois, Washington, California and Wisconsin. They only need three of those four to gain control.

You know things are bad for the Democrats when Illinois and California are marginal!

The Illinois seat, is Obama’s old one.

The elections are on 2 November 2010 – just over eight weeks away.

The signs are that Queensland MP Bob Katter will not support Labor. This may be a blessing in disguise for Julia Gillard, as Bob is rather eccentric.

Katter wants the mining tax and any ETS dropped. This makes it very unlikely that he will support a Labor-Green Government.

So it will all come down to Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott. If they stick together they will decide the Government. If they disagree with each other, then the House is tied 75-75 and another election will be needed.

What still tips it Labor’s way in my view is that they are more likely to last three years, as the Greens will control the Senate from July 2011.

However the Independents will be concerned that their electorates may not like the policies of a Labor/Green Government, and if they go for that option they may risk losing their seats next election.

Very watchable attack ad on Obama. The production quality is excellent.

Thoughts are with the mainlanders today after the 7.4 magnitude quake which hit at 4.35 am. Centred 30 km west of Christchurch and only 33 km under the surface.

Initial reports have buildings collapsed, widespread loss of power and a row of shops demolished. Hopefully there are no casualities but with that much damage it is sadly very possible.

Brian Edwards has just done a very interesting blog post on John Banks. Most will know Brian is a life long Labour activist. Further John Banks actually sent him a defamation suit in 1993, so it is fair to say they are not close. The post is titled “John Banks – a personal reassessment”.

You’ll understand that I was not a fan of the current Mayor of Auckland then and continued not to be a fan, until very recently. On numerous occasions I expressed my dislike of him publicly,  though rather more circumspectly. …

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.’ …

And then Brian deals with the rather tragic events around James Webster:

A week later Banks was on Close Up responding to claims that his son Alex was one of the boys who had egged on 17-year-old Kings College student James Webster to go on drinking vodka, advice which at least contributed to his death.  Banks was only one of two parents to front up about their sons’ involvement. Holding back tears, he told Close Up:

‘I say as a father, there but for the grace of God, go I.  I said to Alex, this is very sad for our families and you’re going to have to stay home and not go out at night until you’ve undertaken a comprehensive First Aid course, so that you understand the dangers of alcohol and you clearly understand that if it ever happens again you’ll be in a position to save a life.

‘It’s a big thing for me to have to live with, but it’s very, very hard for the Webster family. My son now knows from experience that what happened was disastrous and if he was in that circumstance ever again, he would know what to do. And on that fateful night most people didn’t know what to do. That little guy didn’t have to lose his life.

‘Life is about accepting responsibility for the actions of yourself and for the behaviour of your sons. And in this case, you know, we’re having this conversation because, hopefully, we will save one or two or a handful of James Websters.’

Banks, it seemed to me, had practised what he preached. He had fronted up, accepted responsibility as a parent for his son’s actions and set the limits that are part of a father’s duty to his children.

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.

I’m glad Brian has got to know the John Banks, that I and others know.

A couple of days ago it was reported that Lisa-Marie Thompson, who owned the number plate “ARYAN1”:

She said she had no idea what “Aryan” meant and the apparent nod to Adolf Hitler’s “master” race actually referred to her former boyfriend – Andrew Ryan.

I was a bit suspicious of this claim, and so was the Dominion Post who did some nice investigating:

A woman who claims that her personalised licence plate “ARYAN1” is the initial and surname of a former boyfriend has links to white supremacist groups and is backed by the National Front.

Upper Hutt mother Lisa Marie Thompson – who has references to neo-Nazi white-power organisation Blood & Honour on a personal webpage – has denied being racist.

The Facebook page of the body piercer, seamstress and mother of three includes “friends” posing before swastika flags and claiming allegiance to “white nationalist” skinhead groups such as Crew 38 and Hammerskin Nation.

And final proof:

An Upper Hutt woman said she had trespassed Ms Thompson from her home and a former workplace because of concerns about her behaviour.

“Once she was yelling out, `You’re a nigger – dirty abo.’

“She’s always hassling me, at work, at home. I’ve called the police on her multiple times.

“She knows exactly what `Aryan’ means. She’s the most racist person I know.”

A former boyfriend said Ms Thompson – who works part-time at an Upper Hutt tattoo parlour – was prejudiced against “everyone who’s not really her kind”.

Her kind being bigoted lowlife. I feel very sorry for her kids. Growing up with a mother who hates, can warp you. On the other hand, sometimes it will push them in the other direction – they’ll be determined not to end up like the mother.

Peter Dunne has released some options for change. A summary document is here. There seem to be two major changes proposed:

1. That child support payments should take account the income of the parent with majority custody, not just the parent who has to pay.
2. That there should be more recognition of the amount of time non custodial parents spend with the kids. AT present if it is under 40% you get no credit – they propose that if the kid/s spend more than 14% of the time with you, this should be reflected in how much child support you pay.

Some non custodial parents get a raw deal at the moment. They split with their partner. The partner gets custody against their wishes, so they lose their partner and their kids. They are earning say $35,000 a year. The partner is earning $100,000 a year, and getting child support payments from the non custodial partner on $35,000 a year. And even if the $35,000 a year partner looks after the kids every weekend, they get no credit for that.

Now many custodial parents also get a raw deal, where the other parent disappears overseas, and pays nothing. That is a harder problem to fix.

A new blogger at Gotcha, Blondie, has some issues with the proposed changes:

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?

I presume the abatement rate will be fairly low, so that any payrise for the custodial parent will mean they still receive benefit from it.

It will grate some that their payrise means their ex will benefit, but this is already what happens with the non custodial parent. They get a payrise and the ex gets more money. What this change will mean is that if either ex-partner gets a payrise, both they and the ex will benefit (but not to the same degree).

The Herald editorial is supportive:

Reform along some of the lines suggested in a Government discussion document is overdue. Eighteen years have passed since the system was last overhauled. Much has happened subsequently to warrant change.

The document, Supporting Children, has an array of options. One of the most eye-catching is that the income of both parents should be taken into account when childcare payments are set.

That seems a reasonable notion given more women are now in the workforce, especially in part-time jobs. Additionally, it is right in principle that parents should provide financial support according to their capacity to do so, whether or not they are living with their children.

Indeed, such a change would echo the situation if the parents were still together.

You can share your views direct with IRD at their dedicated website. The online survey is well done, as it makes it far easier to complete than sending in a formal submission.

Wellingtonians may wish to subscribe to WCC Watch. It provides detailed analysis of who is standing for Council, and related issues. Every local body should have a blog like this.

My only criticism is that the site is anonymous. I trust people – I don’t trust URLs. For all we know, one of the candidates runs it. It leans left, but seems pretty fair with their comments.

The International Policy Network has published a paper exposing some myths about “green jobs”. The seven myths are:

Myth 1: Everyone understands what a “green job” is.

Fact 1: No standard definition of a “green job” exists.

Myth 2: Creating green jobs will boost productive employment.

Fact 2: Green jobs estimates in these oft-quoted studies include huge numbers of clerical, bureaucratic, and administrative positions that do not produce goods and services for consumption.

Myth 3: Green jobs forecasts are reliable.

Fact 3: The green jobs studies make estimates using poor economic models based on dubious assumptions.

Myth 4: Green jobs promote employment growth.

Fact 4: By promoting more jobs instead of more productivity, the green jobs described in the literature actually encourage low paying jobs in less desirable conditions. Economic growth cannot be ordered by national governments or by the United Nations (UN). Government interference in the economy – such as restricting successful technologies in favor of speculative technologies favored by special interests – will generate
stagnation.

Myth 5: The world economy can be remade by reducing trade and relying on local production and reduced consumption without dramatically decreasing our standard of living.

Fact 5: History shows that individual nations cannot produce everything that citizens need or want. People and countries have talents that allow specialization in products and services that make them ever more efficient, lower-cost producers, thereby enriching all people.

Myth 6: Government mandates are a substitute for free markets.

Fact 6: Companies react more swiftly and efficiently to the demands of their customers/markets, than to cumbersome government mandates.

Myth 7: Wishing for technological progress is sufficient.

Fact 7: Some technologies preferred by the green jobs studies are not capable of efficiently reaching the scale necessary to meet today’s demands.

The study is not based specifically on the NZ “green jobs” policies, but I suspect much of it is relevant.

I’m off to Aussie tomorrow for the third time this year. The other two times were for work, but this one is a holiday – even better a free one.

I blogged in February that I had won the Drink Savvy party competition, run by Asia-Pacific Breweries – on the basis of the “drink savvy” party I blogged about on New Years Day.

The prize was $3,000 of travel vouchers, which have been shared with The Chef and the Ginga, as they hosted the party with me. We’re in Sydney from 4 to 8 September and Melbourne from 8 to 12 September. First time overseas for The Chef, so the trip has been much awaited. We will be taking full advantage of the duty free allowances at the airport, but in a “savvy” way 🙂

The trip will also be a double birthday celebration – one on the 4th and one on the 11th. Hope the duty free allowance lasts that long!

The Herald reports:

More than 470 of its 900 or so staff have had cards, and in the six months to January this year – a time of cost cutting – they spent $3.18 million. Almost 100 of the cards had a monthly cap of at least $10,000.

Mr Ellis racked up more than $140,000 on his own company plastic in two years – including $32,000 entertaining.

He and senior executives will be among those losing their cards, and soon there will be as few as 50 left at TVNZ.

Staff will now have to apply to get work-related expenses reimbursed, though some field staff will retain their cards.

Having half the staff with credit cards was excessive.  Most companies have very few credit cards issued, and other staff are on a reimbursement system.

I’ve never had a company credit card in my life, yet in certain roles have had tens of thousands of dollars of expenses – I just file expense claims.

But sadly it is Labor, not Labour that does. Just another example of how ideologically rigid and captured by the unions NZ Labour is.

In the excitement of the aussie campaign, I o overlooked this story:

JULIA Gillard yesterday promised parents and principals greater control over their schools as she turned to her policy strength of education.

In two major policy moves, as she attempts to regain political momentum, the Prime Minister yesterday outlined a $484 million plan over six years to give parents and principals greater autonomy from education bureaucracies and a $668m boost in family payments to 16 to 18-year-olds to keep them in school.

Under the schools plan, principals and school boards would be able to hire teachers and control their own school budget, directing resources to their students’ specific needs.

Superb. The NZ counterpart won’t even support better reporting of student achievement to parents, let alone bulk funding.

At the next election, National should campaign to implement Julia Gillard’s education reforms.

This may be Bernard’s best post ever. It should be pinned up on every South Island noticeboard. Some extracts:

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 responsibilty 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

I’ve said it before. Good intentions are not enough. Bernard has forcefully summarised the many unanswered questions, and how all we get in response is attacks on others.

Andrew Wilkie has declared he will back Labor. This is no surprise. I wonder how many of his massive 26 point policy wishlist did they agree to. While no surprise, it gives Gillard momentum coming on the back of Treasury disagreeing with the coalition on the costs of their plans.

On the vote count, the coalition now has a 11,000 vote lead on the TPP vote.

I expect Gillard will do a deal with the three Independents in the next few days.

The four speakers are Simon Power, Charles Chauvel, Caroline Morris and Philip Joseph. I missed some of the written constitution session as I had to go out and buy a new power cord for my laptop.

Power is speaking first. Basically just going over work to date – MMP referendum, new Electoral Commission, EFA repeal. Highlighting that the crucial thing with its replacement has been a transparent inclusive process.

Power has effectively said that any further changes to the finance law will require identification of some clear harm to be fixed, that is agreed across the political spectrum. This means that not everyone will be happy, but that there will be nothing that any group finds offensive.

Next up was Chauvel. Mainly focusing on why MMP is good.

Joseph argued that the Maori seats should not be entrenched and in favour of a longer and fixed parliamentary term. I agree with him on all points. He only favors a fixed term if it is longer.

However Joseph is pessimistic on the chances of reform.

Finally Morris is up. Focusing on conduct of MPs. Says discipline of MPs should not be left to party leaders.

I have advocated for some time that the requirement for the Attorney-General to advise the House if a bill breaches the Bill of Rights, should be expanded so that such opinions are not just given for first readings, but also at second and third readings.

Keith Locke has a bill, which will do effectively that and more. I hope it gets drawn and referred to a select committee. The PR says:

It will require all legislation to be checked for consistency with the Bill of Rights, and it will enable Courts to send a report to Parliament where legislation is inconsistent with the Act. The Government will be obliged to respond to such reports.

“The bill will help protect our rights, by making it harder for a government to ignore conflicts between its legislation and the Bill of Rights Act,” said Mr Locke, Green party human rights spokesperson.

“My bill requires vetting of legislation for consistency with the Bill of Rights at all stages of the parliamentary process.

There is one aspect I am not sure about:

The bill also entrenches the Bill of Rights Act, by requiring a 75% majority of the House to change it.

It should only be entrenched if 75% of Parliament vote for it to be so. A basic majority should not be able to require a super-majority to over-turn it.

Some readers may recall a 1987 documentary on “big dealers” which featured a youthful John Key. NZ on Screen has made the programme available on the web for anyone to view. It is here – http://www.nzonscreen.com/title/close-up-big-dealers-john-key-1987.

NZ on Screen does a superb job of keeping alive shows and programmes that really make up part of our cultural past.