Politics 🗳️ NZ Politics

[miket12]

'No mandate from public': Survey reveals Kiwis overwhelmingly support smokefree legislation Govt wants to scrap

Even more than half of National voters support the legislation.

www.newshub.co.nz

67% oppose the government scrapping the smoke free proposed legislation. Doesn’t a democracy support the majority?

You've got to wonder why Luxon doesn't sit Peters and Seymour down and tell them they scrapping it is going too far and they instead need to review the legislation. Some will say that's a sign of weakness but throwing the baby out with the bathwater is frankly quite dumb!!! Like I said before, some of the parts of the legislation probably do need to be repelled but others seem, at least IMO, seem really necessary.

And if Bishop doesn't like it, tell him to go and suck on his tobacco flavoured dummy in the corner!!!

 

[John Nick]

You've got to wonder why Luxon doesn't sit Peters and Seymour down and tell them they scrapping it is going too far and they instead need to review the legislation. Some will say that's a sign of weakness but throwing the baby out with the bathwater is frankly quite dumb!!! Like I said before, some of the parts of the legislation probably do need to be repelled but others seem, at least IMO, seem really necessary.

And if Bishop doesn't like it, tell him to go and suck on his tobacco flavoured dummy in the corner!!!

I think Chloe answered your question in the house today.
The guy has already had to suck the Sav on too many policies .Doesn't want to go there again

 

[Noitall]

Jones gone 'full Trump', declared 'war on nature' with latest comments, conservation group says

But he isn't backing down.

www.newshub.co.nz

Looks like minings on the table. Hope this guy doesn’t give himself tennis elbow alone in hotel rooms.

 

[MaybeTop8]

You've got to wonder why Luxon doesn't sit Peters and Seymour down and tell them they scrapping it is going too far and they instead need to review the legislation. Some will say that's a sign of weakness but throwing the baby out with the bathwater is frankly quite dumb!!! Like I said before, some of the parts of the legislation probably do need to be repelled but others seem, at least IMO, seem really necessary.

And if Bishop doesn't like it, tell him to go and suck on his tobacco flavoured dummy in the corner!!!

Because they don't care

 

[Rick O’Shay]

Jones gone 'full Trump', declared 'war on nature' with latest comments, conservation group says

But he isn't backing down.

www.newshub.co.nz

Looks like minings on the table. Hope this guy doesn’t give himself tennis elbow alone in hotel rooms.

I hope so. Might mean the mil plus tonnes of coal we have to import for power generation can be dug up here instead of relying on our friends in Jakarta

 

[MaybeTop8]

Just so people know how to read polls, Claire Trevett (big lefty) article:

Despite the noise and outrage outside Parliament in the last two weeks, one of the first polls since the election two months ago indicates there is little voter remorse over that election result.

Voters have not changed their minds since October 14.

The results of the latest Curia poll would have delivered the same grouping of parties into government: National, Act and NZ First.

Claire Trevett: To Winston the spoils as the battlefronts keep opening

Winston Peters enjoys the sun as protests keep rolling out at Parliament.

www.nzherald.co.nz

It's pretty clear you'll just carry on, regardless of the facts. Claire Trevett left??? Says it all really.

 

[MaybeTop8]

Whats stopping all those sole traders employing people? What stops them growing bigger?

Lack of investment because everyone's only pouring money into housing.

 

[Noitall]

I hope so. Might mean the mil plus tonnes of coal we have to import for power generation can be dug up here instead of relying on our friends in Jakarta

Aussie have been fairly thick skinned on the subject, I guess we’ll follow suit?

 

[MaybeTop8]

I hope so. Might mean the mil plus tonnes of coal we have to import for power generation can be dug up here instead of relying on our friends in Jakarta

Errrr. No. Time for nz to move away from these dinosaurs in power at the moment. Renewables.

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

Of the top of my head.... if a recognised laboratory has already certified a product, then allow it to be used here in NZ. After all, MedSafe checked the results for trials done overseas... we don't have a lab that reruns every trial for every medicine approved overseas. But, at the moment, despite the testing already done overseas for building products, they have to be redone here by the likes of BRANZ or a university. If a product is certified safe enough to withstand a hurricane in Florida, then why does it need to be retested here to see how it would cope in the lesser winds of our cyclones?

You've also got to remember that the main difference between compliance before the 2000's is that now the compliance is based on systems on not so much on the products. Provided a system can provide documentation proofing it's flashing meets the requirements of the Building Code, then it should be approved. You've got to remember, Colorsteel have never had to prove that their 130mm wide gable flashing will work in controlled laboratory conditions that an overseas supplier wanting to get into the NZ market would need to provide lab testing showing their 130mm wide gable flashing would work. The existing window manufacturers here never needed to provide lab test showing that their aluminium double-glazed systems comply with the thermal requirements of the Building Code but it you wanted to bring in a new system from overseas as a start-up company, you have to have your system tested here to show it complies to the minimum standards.

In my opinion we’ve got into a cycle where we’re continually upping the quality and excessively reducing risk which means houses must be at a premium price (and must be bigger) which means the insurance and financial devastation if things go wrong drive ever more compliance and risk removal. From a house being a basic need to requiring earthquake, fire, structural, weathertight zero risk bunkers.

What would happen if we went the other way and made houses cheaper basic boxes with lowers standards that could be mass produced while accepting we will lose a few to fire, earthquake, etc. Ie a house costs under $1000pm to build instead of $3000pm+ means we can afford to lose 2/3 and still be ahead. Dont care if they fall apart. The mindset to replace them every 10-20 years like a car.

We can lose some houses to fire, earthquakes, storms, leaks and still be ahead of houses are replaceable and disposable. Big exaggeration but you get the idea.

Our treatment of houses as needing to be premium products, last forever, totally safe, bespoke, etc has driven up cost which in turn drives up the need for a spiral of regulations, over engineering, over design, over product testing, etc because they are so expensive and irreplaceable.

We have to much of an emotional attachment to houses rather than treating them as a tool to house people.

 

[kos]

Errrr. No. Time for nz to move away from these dinosaurs in power at the moment. Renewables.

Find a cost effective way of using forestry slash - its renewable - the Euro s burn wood at their power plants and call it renewable

 

[kos]

Tahjay
Are you going to leave that have a good look at the post before clicking reply forever
It’s blocking my view
Can I get rid of it?

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

Lack of investment because everyone's only pouring money into housing.

But why? Housing makes 2.5% return and you hope for 6% capital gain. Shock market might make 8-10% return. A small business can make 30% return.

It’s so easy to make heaps MORE with your own business but people don’t step up. Why do we have squillions of small businesses where people don’t ramp them up?

Hint: it’s not for financial reasons…

 

[Worried2Death]

Whats stopping all those sole traders employing people? What stops them growing bigger?

Scale of our tiny population, size of Sydney. A lawn mowing small trader can only grow so big before he squeezes out the other guy and becomes a monopoly due to limited lawns.

 

[MaybeTop8]

In my opinion we’ve got into a cycle where we’re continually upping the quality and excessively reducing risk which means houses must be at a premium price (and must be bigger) which means the insurance and financial devastation if things go wrong drive ever more compliance and risk removal. From a house being a basic need to requiring earthquake, fire, structural, weathertight zero risk bunkers.

What would happen if we went the other way and made houses cheaper basic boxes with lowers standards that could be mass produced while accepting we will lose a few to fire, earthquake, etc. Ie a house costs under $1000pm to build instead of $3000pm+ means we can afford to lose 2/3 and still be ahead. Dont care if they fall apart. The mindset to replace them every 10-20 years like a car.

We can lose some houses to fire, earthquakes, storms, leaks and still be ahead of houses are replaceable and disposable. Big exaggeration but you get the idea.

Our treatment of houses as needing to be premium products, last forever, totally safe, bespoke, etc has driven up cost which in turn drives up the need for a spiral of regulations, over engineering, over design, over product testing, etc because they are so expensive and irreplaceable.

We have to much of an emotional attachment to houses rather than treating them as a tool to house people.

Have you actually heard of the leaky building problem that has cost us 50bn???? There's no incentive here for developers, who must extract the most possible, to build small, quality, cheap homes.

The market doesn't provide, which we all knew.

You live in a strange world wiz.

You do know that homes are a need right? Places of refuge and safety? You sound like you're describing rentals.

Really odd comment from you.

 

[kos]

But why? Housing makes 2.5% return and you hope for 6% capital gain. Shock market might make 8-10% return. A small business can make 30% return.

It’s so easy to make heaps MORE with your own business but people don’t step up. Why do we have squillions of small businesses where people don’t ramp them up?

Hint: it’s not for financial reasons…

Employee - little risk no financial outlay
Business- high risk and financial risk

Always been an employee
Although now at dinosaur age am a sole trader

 

[MaybeTop8]

But why? Housing makes 2.5% return and you hope for 6% capital gain. Shock market might make 8-10% return. A small business can make 30% return.

It’s so easy to make heaps MORE with your own business but people don’t step up. Why do we have squillions of small businesses where people don’t ramp them up?

Hint: it’s not for financial reasons…

No, it's for capital gains, which for some reason the rich don't want tax imposed on them

 

[John Nick]

No, it's for capital gains, which for some reason the rich don't want tax imposed on them

P.S.With doing sweet FA

 

[Noitall]

Scale of our tiny population, size of Sydney. A lawn mowing small trader can only grow so big before he squeezes out the other guy and becomes a monopoly due to limited lawns.

And in my personal situation, can’t be bothered with the hassle of staff. Work in tandem with other tradesmen.

 

[Noitall]

No, it's for capital gains, which for some reason the rich don't want tax imposed on them

David Cunliffe ran a campaign on it. This election was the first time I’ve seen him since.