Open Forum Saturday

This post is open to anyone to comment on any topic that isn’t spam, illegal or offensive. All Your NZ posts are open but this one is for you to raise topics that interest you, or you think may interest others.. 

If providing opinions on or summaries of other information also provide a link to that information. Bloggers are welcome to summarise and link to their posts. Comments worth more exposure may be repeated as posts. Comments from other forums can be repeated here, cut and paste is fine.

Your NZ is a mostly political and social issues blog but not limited to that, and views from anywhere on the political spectrum are welcome. Some ground rules:

  • If possible support arguments, news, points or opinions with links to sources and facts.
  • Please don’t post anything illegal, potentially defamatory or abusive.

FIRST TIME COMMENTERS: Due to abuse by a few, first comments under any ID will park in moderation until released (as soon as possible but it can sometimes take a while).

Sometimes comments will go into moderation or spam automatically due to mistyped ID, too many links (>4), or trigger text or other at risk criteria. If they pass muster they will be released as soon as possible (it can sometimes take hours).

Leave a comment

45 Comments

  1. David

     /  26th September 2020

    Have often made the case here that what National did in Christchurch would and has given us what has been elusive elsewhere is an affordable house and rental market. Prices and rents have been low and flat in Canterbury for 6 odd years and given we lost 9000 houses that is quite an achievement.
    As someone heavily invested in property here its been great, you have to work hard and hustle to make a living, you need to provide a good quality rental, when you are renovating and flipping you have to provide a quality product. Better than sitting around waiting for the RMA to make you rich via uber wealthy land bankers.
    Its a longish read but some good background info and a way through that could be easily replicated for the benefit of all Kiwis who currently spend far too much of their income keeping a roof over their heads.
    https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/300115948/nz-can-build-enough-affordable-homes–christchurch-proves-it

    Reply
    • Blazer

       /  26th September 2020

      Don’t fret David…National want to repeal the 5 yr brightline test,and overturn the foreign buyers ban!

      Should we wonder …why?

      Reply
      • David

         /  26th September 2020

        Makes no difference here because prices have been largely flat, the point I was trying to make is if you want to earn a living in property in Christchurch you actually have to work at it not just borrow money and watch landbankers and recalcitrant councils do your job for you.

        Reply
    • Gerrit

       /  26th September 2020

      Problem with those affordable homes is that they are the undesired properties of the future. Same is happening in Auckland. High density housing where people will live cheek to jowl and no room to swing the proverbial cricket bat.

      Sure people use them to get onto the property ladder but as soon as they can they will want the free standing house on a 60square metre section. So the currently despised and expense housing will always be in demand.

      People want somewhere for their children to run around, grow a few vegetables, install some solar panels. Have room to look after elderly relatives, somewhere to park a car, have a bit of peace, run a bbq,

      Now all those are possible in properly thought out high density housing environement.

      However I dont think the people putting up the high density housing units (or the councils providing services for them) have really got to grips with what is required from a social cohesive standpoint.

      Having been bought up in a European very high density urban environment of tenement housing, the social aspect of high density housing must be improved in New Zealand.

      Just one example, if you are going to build apartments complexes without car parking than you better make sure there is a bus stop and a suitable bus route within walking distance to allows rapid and unhindered access to schools, playgrounds, shops, work places etc.

      I don’t think we have the social balance right for high density housing in New Zealand.

      Reply
      • Blazer

         /  26th September 2020

        There are alot of smaller blocks of under 20 apartments going up in Auckland.

        Hopefully they will help meet a seemingly insatiable demand.

        It looks like the ‘game’ has legs as long as interest rates are dialled…low.

        Absolute magic show .

        Reply
      • David

         /  26th September 2020

        Canterbury is too a huge degree single family dwellings on 450sqm sections, there is so much land available there is no need for high density housing.
        Lots of nice family dwellings in well designed subdivisions. High density European stuff just doesnt sell here in any great numbers, Kiwibuild is really the only buyer of such things.

        Reply
    • Fight4nz

       /  26th September 2020

      How much of the flat house cost in Chch is the low absolute population numbers, ie a much smaller scale of problem? Also did population dip before rising again – a lot of people left, freeing up existing stock?
      Several times it is stated that Government and council money paying for infrastructure underpins the developments. How much are developers contributing? Or is this another case of socialising costs and privatising profits?

      Reply
      • David

         /  26th September 2020

        Had population growth faster than most other regions that have had big spikes in property prices, been growing for 8 plus years here. We had massive amounts of houses destroyed so no freeing up of housing stock just write offs and red zones.
        Developers pay normal developments contributions but the government stepped up the road building, school building, transport links etc. the councils still had the same arrangements with local infrastructure.
        The point the article makes with the flat and affordable house prices is there was so much land freed up at one time to build on that developers had to get cracking or miss out, no room for gouging because of the supply side. No one got rich.

        Reply
        • Alan Foster

           /  26th September 2020

          Many people & companies left ChCh after the quake never to return. Another reason that Auckland is so short of houses & hence high prices

          Reply
          • David

             /  26th September 2020

            Population is now much larger than pre quake, Selwyn is the second fastest growing area in NZ. Vast majority of companies stayed post quake and we are seeing an influx now because the housing is so cheap.
            N Islanders are buying here sight unseen same with overseas returnees, been waiting for a while but Covid has opened peoples eyes to the attractiveness of Canterbury…we are cheaper than Dunedin for goodness sake.

            Reply
            • “we are cheaper than Dunedin for goodness sake.”

              There’s a simple reason for that – land supply. A lot of land was made available around Christchurch after the earthquakes, and as many houses as required could be built.

              Dunedin has ongoing land shortages. An attempt by DCC to free up land under the new district plan has been bogged down first by consultation and for nearly two years by appeals under the RMA. DCC just extended their intended notification of the 2GP by another six months. There was a two day hearing in the Environment Court to try to determine the scope of one appellant (which affects over a thousand properties).

    • Bernhard Hickey’s article is worth reading, but it contains something that could be misleading. Hickey states, “Normally, whenever a new suburb is planned, the council and the Government have to agree to share the infrastructure costs needed to pay for the suburb.” That’s not quite correct. I have been involved in the design of new developments in Auckland for 15 years. Councils require the developer to build new infrastructure within the development and the Council takes over these roads, watermains, sewers and drainage after they have been built and paid for by the developer. In many cases, the developer also has to make a development contribution towards the cost of other social infrastructure (parks, schools etc). These costs are then reflected in the price of the new properties for sale within the development. Hickey is correct that Councils and central government plan and fund upgrades to state highways, arterial routes and collector roads, but not correct that they also pay for neighbourhood infrastructure in new developments. He is correct that if central government paid for this local infrastructure, the price of land and houses would decrease because it would effective remove developers from the process in favour of land development that is centrally planned and controlled (and paid for by everyone’s taxes).

      Reply
      • Duker

         /  26th September 2020

        Yes you are right. However they are thinking of the infrastructure outside the boundaries of the greenfield development. The arterial roads and the trunk sewers and water mains.
        Within the urban area the developer will have to pay to connect to a suitable main line often some distance from the boundary. Many older parts of Auckland have very little in the way of underground infrastructure that could support even say town or terrace housing and the Council wont be paying for it.

        Reply
  2. Blazer

     /  26th September 2020

    Westpac -one of Australasias too big to fail banks was fined $1030,000,000 recently ,but no one is off to prison.(as usual).

    Their crime’….only ignoring money laundering rules 23,000,000 times!

    Thieves,charlatans…!!???…all done in the best possible…taste.

    https://www.smh.com.au/business/banking-and-finance/westpac-announces-record-breaking-1-3b-fine-20200924-p55yno.html

    Reply
    • Corky

       /  26th September 2020

      Can they give their clients a haircut like they could do in NZ? The RB told me that would only happen in ‘extraordinary circumstances.’ Hmmm, the next three years should be interesting.

      The thing is, Blazer, if we get a haircut, most on this blog will become skinheads.

      Reply
      • Blazer

         /  26th September 2020

        Australia has deposit insurance.

        NZ are 2nd class customers…the haircut is restricted to about 10% with a maximum …clip.

        APRA has just announced new loan rules that put all the onus on…borrowers.

        The banks do not have liability for ensuring people meet their obligations now..i.e due diligence on applicants is dependent on the information supplied by ..borrowers.

        Full recourse applies…naturellement.

        Reply
  3. Blazer

     /  26th September 2020

    Why does ACT love the gun lobby?

    Haven’t been seduced by NRA donations I hope.

    Pauline Hansens ‘please explain party’ in Oz was recently in the spotlight with their NRA interactions.

    Reply
    • Corky

       /  26th September 2020

      A pool of possibly 300,000 plus voters was an opportunity to good to miss. I doubt ACT love the gun lobby. But, true to their pseudo Libertarian ways, they believe the gun lobby has a right to exist, free from liberal odium. In fact, a major reason Winston MAY be retired after the election is because he disrespected this lobby. Big mistake.

      Reply
      • Duker

         /  26th September 2020

        Gun owners still exist… with their guns. Only a small number had semi automatics above .22 anyway ( you can still buy .22 semis). I think it was below 10,000. The state paid them for their troubles.
        The remainder were lever and bolt action type guns which had LARGE mazagines. Which owners could keep if they had them modified down to smaller magazines by the state.

        Hosking made his normal nonsense that the Gun buyback could cost around $500 mill or so. (Has there been a bigger blowhard who wouldnt know the butt from the barrel)
        I think the cost so far is $120 mill ?

        Reply
        • Corky

           /  26th September 2020

          Hoskings was well within one estimate. You must remember you can only talk about information available at the `time.

          I find it hard to watch the embedded clip in this link. Beautiful precision instruments purposefully ruined because of stinking liberals who had a knee jerk reaction to an incident that demanded cool heads. There are a solid core of folk who will never forgive Jacinda for what she did. The issue may be forgotten by Jacinda…but it isn’t forgotten by others.

          Quote:

          ”In KPMG’s firearms buyback pricing report, it was estimated that the cost of the buyback could be as high as $752 million. That was based on firearms handed in each getting $4331.

          The report noted, “One of the challenges in determining the overall cost of the buyback is a lack of data relating to the actual firearms that are in public ownership.”

          https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2019/08/how-the-more-than-200-million-gun-buyback-cost-was-estimated.html

          Reply
          • Duker

             /  26th September 2020

            he was way off any one else – except the Gun Lobby who made inflated costs too
            ( Hosking has been known fabricator of data)
            KPMG did an estimate for the government.
            ‘beautiful precision Instruments ” …WTF

            Semi automatics have been tried to be banned from the time that ‘stinking liberal’ John Banks was Police Minister after the Aramoana massacre. Banks has said so himself.
            History kept repeating , now it wont as Australia showed ( Bryant came here not because we had more muslims)

            Every gun obtained by the crims was once a shiny new legal gun sold by dealers to public.
            The most common method is buying them off dodgy owners , some have sold more than 50 guns into the black market in a short period

            Reply
            • Duker

               /  26th September 2020

              “In one briefing on the financial implications of the scheme, it was estimated the cost could be between $48 million and $149 million, but with accessories included, it doubled to between $79 million and $249 million.”
              which as it turned out was in the right ballpark
              https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2019/08/how-the-more-than-200-million-gun-buyback-cost-was-estimated.html

              Interesting that they estimate 380,000 shotguns , but only 2% would be banned …cost $8.5 mill
              of course semis were almost all banned , so you would expect all owners to hand them in. Estimated $12 mill cost plus ‘accesories’

              That $750 mill figure was absurd nonsense … each buyback gun owner getting $4300 …LOL

            • Corky

               /  26th September 2020

              ”Semi automatics have been tried to be banned from the time that ‘stinking liberal’ John Banks was Police Minister after the Aramoana massacre.”

              To be fair..he failed. He failed because liberals didn’t rule the roost…both politically and socially. They now do. That’s what stinks.

              ”KPMG did an estimate for the government.
              ‘beautiful precision Instruments ” …WTF .”

              My mistake..how could you ever undstand unless you had been standing in a pile of brass having the time of your life holding something that feel alive.

              ”Now it won’t as Australia showed ( Bryant came here not because we had more muslims)”

              I think you mean Tarrant?

              I’ll get back to you..I have visitors.

            • Corky

               /  26th September 2020

              ”Every gun obtained by the crims was once a shiny new legal gun sold by dealers to public.”

              Of course that’s bs. Guns are bought on the black market overseas and smuggled into the country via remote areas like Northland. Of course guns are also sourced from the NZ market

              ”That $750 mill figure was absurd nonsense … each buyback gun owner getting $4300 …LOL”

              You are trying to make out Hosking made up shite. But…

              https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2005/S00061/139m-gun-buyback-a-disaster-from-start-to-finish.htm

    • ACT and NRA ? Does Blazer not realise that the NRA is American ?

      It’s waste of time trying to tell some people that ACT are not gun-lovers, of course.

      Reply
      • Duker

         /  26th September 2020

        Not Gun lovers ? They want to abolish ALL existing firearems legislation
        ‘ACT’s priority is to repeal this year’s Arms Legislation Act, including the threat of a firearm register, then set about making the world’s best firearm laws that balance public safety, firearms control, and freedom. We would introduce another Bill that repeals the Arms Act 1983 – and all subsequent amendments – after the Royal Commission reports back.”

        And this is laughable
        “The new law will be delivered in the next parliamentary term and will be the envy of the world.”
        Dreams are free…. The envy of the NRA more like it.

        Reply
      • Blazer

         /  26th September 2020

        ACT are dangerous far right nut jobs.

        Reply
        • Duker

           /  26th September 2020

          I bet they never had a single mention of guns in policy previously…spent much much more time on dancing with the Stars.
          And suddenly they ‘arent even happy’ with existing firearms laws let alone the newest changes, craven lap dogs of the gun lobby , it’s retailers and the fund raising.

          All for nothing as even say 7.5% in opposition gives you a bigger share of nothing.History shows the gun lobby will cause them more problems as they are bigger ideologues than the rogernomes

          Reply
          • For someone who often brings up links from the past to try and prove points “I bet they never…” is rather informed.

            COLFO: 2017 ELECTION – PARTY FIREARMS POLICIES

            ACT Party

            > Opposes proposed changes to the firearm registration process as they are expensive and unenforceable
            > Against giving Police new powers to enter the property of firearm licence holders.
            > Against the plan to create blunt new categorisations of firearms

            Kiwi Gun Blog: The Act Party’s Firearm Policy

            The Kiwi Gun Blog has asked every political Party in New Zealand for their firearms policy. So that our readers can then make an informed decision on who to vote for come the next election.

            New Zealand’s Act Party has been very supportive of shooters in the past.

            …the Kiwi Gun Blog was heartened to read the following reply to one of our letters to the Members of Parliament:
            Good afternoon

            On behalf of David Seymour thanks you for the below email regarding Law and Order Select Committee.

            David recognises that the firearm proposals made by the Law and Order Select Committee go far beyond targeting illegal gun possession. These proposals would punish responsible firearm owners for the actions of a criminal minority.

            ACT was not represented on this committee but if a bill is put forward reflecting these ideas, ACT will oppose it.

            Kind regards

            That is good to hear. Thanks guys.

            So if you’re that wrong about ACT on the firearms policy history I guess we take everything else you say about them with a grain of salt.

            Reply
          • Corky

             /  27th September 2020

            Caught out again, Duker. And not worried or embarrassed in the slightest. That kind of narrows things down as to what you are.

            Reply
  4. Blazer

     /  26th September 2020

    Why does National hate Kiwi Bank,Kiwisaver and the Cullen Fund?

    Reply
    • David

       /  26th September 2020

      They kept them for 9 long years largely untouched not sure they hate them Blazer, might run them differently.

      Reply
      • Blazer

         /  26th September 2020

        ‘untouched’!!…way wrong.

        They tried to sideline them.

        Stopped payments to the Cullen Fund=dumb.

        Changed the structure of KB.

        Kiwisaver is a winner,a Labour winner=dislike.

        Not forgetting former National P.M is now Chairman of ANZ (NZ).

        Reply
        • David

           /  26th September 2020

          As a recipient of the Canterbury quakes I was rather pleased money came here to rebuild schools, hospitals, roads and peoples homes rather than being invested on Wall St to bump up the stock options of wealthy parasites.
          KB needed more capital to expand to take on those rapacious australian thieves and the capital that our excellent ACC and Cullen fund could be invested here for Kiwis, made sense.
          Kiwisaver is largely the same but thank you Nick Smith for ramping up the ability of 1st home buyers to access their money for a deposit.

          Reply
          • Blazer

             /  26th September 2020

            ‘invested on Wall St to bump up the stock options of wealthy parasites.’

            How are those Apple shares these days….?

            The sums have been done on halting payments to the Cullen Fund….billions of profits foregone ,compliments of inept financial management.

            Reply
            • David

               /  26th September 2020

              Bouncing back, up 3 something percent pleasingly. Worried about a Biden win and a plunge in the sharemarket.

          • Duker

             /  26th September 2020

            ” Canterbury quakes I was rather pleased money came here to rebuild schools, hospitals, roads and peoples homes rather than being invested on Wall St”

            Very little Government money old chap, some have calculated that the ‘governments contribution’ all over was around $10 bill including Red zone buyouts ,cost sharing with Council , DHB etc.

            Most money was EQCs ‘fund’- now empty and its reinsurance which paid for that., The Crown guarantee which only used in the last few years , not 2012 and its only $200 mill ( which EQC has to pay a yearly ‘premium’ since 1988.

            $30 bill plus came from insurance companies not the taxpayer ( 1st $100k homeowners was EQCs share and they had their fund for that).
            All the payouts included GST for the government

            Reply
            • David

               /  26th September 2020

              They did have to top up EQC, they had to bail out AMI etc which was welcolmed down here as was the generosity of the taxpayers to help us out.
              The selling of the power companies and the resulting sparkling new hospitals and schools was brilliant, Burwood hospital is amazing so are the new shiny schools.
              10 Billion is a ton of money for one city that went on stuff as opposed to a wage subsidy etc.

            • Duker

               /  26th September 2020

              Not at all . EQC only tapped into government funds since 2018

              Crown Guarantee
              EQC also pays $10 million to the Crown annually from the Natural Disaster Fund for the Crown Guarantee. This provides a guarantee to EQC that all of the claims made to EQC will be met by the government if the Fund is fully spent. In November 2018 EQC drew-down funds under the Crown Guarantee for the first time. To date, EQC has received around $200 million under the Crown Guarantee.

              https://www.eqc.govt.nz/about-eqc/our-role/ndf

              Contary to your belief the top has occured only in last 2 years ( probably for the Canterbury under cap botch ups under king gerry)

              “Since 1988, EQC has paid over $2 billion in reinsurance premiums and has received more than $4 billion from reinsurers to cover claim costs from the Canterbury Earthquake Sequence. “

  5. duperez

     /  26th September 2020

    Behind the news coverage there are probably stories and angles, explanations and opinions. This piece about Breonna Taylor gives an idea of the complexity of issues which are reduced to seconds of sound bites and grabs. Then again maybe the real issues are only touched on.

    Reply
  6. Alan Wilkinson

     /  26th September 2020

    A good article on climate change history and perspective. Amusing that many of the comments find it insufficiently hysterical.

    https://theconversation.com/climate-explained-humans-have-dealt-with-plenty-of-climate-variability-145043

    Reply
  7. lurcher1948

     /  27th September 2020

    The face of a dinosaur from the past, her time has past…but she is the face of the right…DINOSAURS…THE NATIONAL PARTY,NEVER LOOK BACK
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ei3Wn4qVgAAJ_gQ?format=png&name=small

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s