- Thread starter
- #20,881
Greens - let’s have the social investment like Norway.
Also Greens let’s ban the method Norway uses to pay for world leading social investment….
Politics 🗳️ NZ Politics
- Thread starter wizard of Tauranga
- Start date
Also Greens let’s ban the method Norway uses to pay for world leading social investment….
NZWarriors.com
- Thread starter
- #20,882
Agree. It needs to benefit NZ. While royalties is great, the Taranaki oil industries is evidence how the country can benefit from high paying jobs and flow on secondary industries.
Shane Jones is one of the politicians that decides which projects go into the fast track process but expert panels process and approve or decline the consents.
Maybe but I still don't trust anything he has anything to do with.
NZWarriors.com
Then change the royalty percentage, the Queensland government change it all the time to take a larger clip of the ticket.
Ask Port of Tauranga if it’s back door access? They’re all still going through a detailed & lengthy consent process. It’s not Shane Jones ticking off projects. Geez you try to spin some crap at times.
And it’s these same fuckwits that are the first to complain about the unemployment rate & the lack of GDP growth. Just a bunch of whinging, offended at everything, dickheads.
NZWarriors.com
Your self awareness in this comment is remarkable. Great observations about yourself
You are missing my point
There will be “lefties and righties” who would like mining banned completely.
In answer to your question directed to me - I’m of the view that if an economic case can be made for
then the effects on the environment need to be considered and only if the economic benefits out way by a significant margin the environmental damage should it be approved.Nor lefties or righties!
NZWarriors.com
- Thread starter
- #20,890
Uhhh… yes Lefties, the greens have announced a policy to overturn fast tracked consents.
Nah looks like we’re on the same page. I’d guess that most of the fast track projects easily meet that threshold although I’ve only looked at 2 in detail so perhaps it’s not the case.You are missing my point
There will be “lefties and righties” who would like mining banned completely.
In answer to your question directed to me - I’m of the view that if an economic case can be made for
Exactly my point .Jones was on TV this morning saying he will look at this issue after the election.Why after ? Donors?
I am all for anything to bring wealth to NZ but I dont have the trust in this man to do the best for us. He will always be looking out for himself.
Changing the law to sidestep handbrakes is a perfect example
NZWarriors.com
You would think that the election should be irrelevant aye, I could understand waiting till the projects are up & operating & then lifting the royalty. But then perhaps this just underlines the issue of 3 year election cycles. Key always said you only get 1 year to do stuff & the rest of the time is either planning for or reacting to elections.
I dont know anything about mining but round where I live there has been a bunch of new housing projects but not additional infrastructure so roads are gridlocked, sewerage has to be trucked away as no pipes in place, one area in a flood zone flooded (wow, what a surprise) so now they have to relocate 100+ houses (government pushed that subdivision through despite local and council pushback?
And now they look like approving another 5000 houses through the fast track process.
To be fair they had a road plan to fix the issues but that's stalled now, so they tried to do an upgrade but that's just been 2 years of interruption and the end result looks exactly like it did before with no additional capacity, some nice tree planting though.
It's either leave it to council who slow it all down or give it to government who are incompetent money wasters.
I think the solution has to be government led but I wouldn't trust any of them to get it even partially right.
I am concerned about some of the things that this government is pushing through without due diligence.
Recently there were discussions about wof etc being made easier and less often. While this all sounds great as usual the devil is in the detail.
Recently there was a survey of trucks and safety equipment.
Unbelievable that 25% of those surveyed had faulty brakes ffs.
And now they are looking at making the warranty period last longer.
Last edited:
NZWarriors.com
Pike river is a classic awful example of where all the right wing red tape rhetoric leads.
We've been here before.
Leaky homes costing ordinary new Zealanders billions.
Profit before people is the foundational driver.
Weaken the public media and you get less scrutiny.
This will always end up here.
Very sadly, we should all be angry about this.
We've been here before.
Leaky homes costing ordinary new Zealanders billions.
Profit before people is the foundational driver.
Weaken the public media and you get less scrutiny.
This will always end up here.
Very sadly, we should all be angry about this.
What I find interesting about this is that developers, including KO, can be asked to contribute to future infrastructure such as large interceptor pipes such as the two outlined in the article which are required for the subdivision. But, something like a pedestrian/cycle bridge would be the responsibility of either the local authority or NZTA/Waka Kotahi. So, if there was a saving to the developer because the interceptor drains were less expensive, the bill to them should be smaller and not instead used to pay for a bridge.
Doesn’t pass the pub test as far as I’m concerned.
NZWarriors.com
- Thread starter
- #20,899
- Thread starter
- #20,900
Queensland I think have no WOF’s?
I support way less wof’s but more random inspections like the truck one. Obviously the WOF system now isn’t working with trucks anyway…
Or an alternative, WOF based on kms instead of time.
