John Nick
Contributor
Really.He hasn't been in here for a while, was he banned too?
Seems a bit harsh if he was banned for that!
Politics NZ Politics
- Thread starter wizard of Tauranga
- Start date
KOs Piritahi programme is demolishing 7,000 old HNZ homes and building 25,000 in their place.Replacing an old house with a new one doesn't mean any more accommodation is provided.... it's just rehousing the same number of people. That's why the waiting list for KO houses has gone from 5,844 when Labour started their last term in 2017 to over 23,000. Replacing old stock doesn't house these people.
This what happens when KO can't pay back it's debt, and you have a previous government "unconcerned" about it. And this is paying back current debt.... not new debt that will be needed for replacement stock or new stock.
Stuff
www.stuff.co.nz
Yes, but of those 25,000, most will be sold and only 11,000 kept as state houses. That's an increase in the public housing stock of 4,000 houses.
Which has also been happening for a number of years. Drive through the houses in Michael Jones Drive (and the surrounding streets in Flat Bush). The houses with double garages were sold to the public while the ones with single garages are state houses.
Rizzah
Contributor
Always unsure if you are outraged or pleased with the KO build program. Lol.
TBH, neither. Just like stating the facts.... others can decide what they think of them.
I've "benefitted" from both sides of it in terms of whether KO (or the old HNZ) develops the land themselves or sells it to private developers.
In the late 90's, I was involved with a development company which brought an old state house in St Heliers from the old HNZ. It was a long, narrow site with a steep slope on it. The old 2 bed, 1 bath house was across the top of the site (about in line with #36). My client's removed the house and donated to an Iwi up north. Three new houses were put on to the site.
Another time, another developer entered into a joint venture with HNZ. Three state houses were removed from a site in Mangere and 18 new provided. Eight were on sold to an emergency housing provider while the others remained Housing NZ houses.
Personally, I'm all for increasing the public housing stock provided it's not done through an "open cheque book" policy as we had pre-COVID while that pushed house values open when KO were paying will over market value for property. It also needs to be properly funded so KO can meet its financial obligations and not require a huge government bailout.
It's not one thing all another.... NZ needs both public and private rental properties. I think we'll see a greater number of build to rent developments where clients will be offered long term leases.... we just don't have the right safe guards in place at the moment to ensure these don't become "slums" like the Council towers in England in the '60s and '70s. For a start, each unit should legally be required to have it's own kitchens and not have communal kitchens. There's no control or requirement over communal laundries and what number of appliances should be provided for the number of units.
There's already rumours of a TV doco being made about some of the earliest of these as they're pretty much unregulated and while some of the providers are good, others are taking advantage of the lack of regulation. TBH, places like the Renters Union and the Greens would be far better to go after these than the single owner landlords.... not ignoring the small landlords who are rotten but putting pressure on to the government around these build to lease ones.
The problem is, both the current and previous government are embracing these build to lease developments as the answer to the "rental and housing crisis" while ignoring the new problems they're creating.... until it's too late.
Rizzah
Contributor
What does KO currently cost the Govt?
Noting, the Govt spends about $2.4Billion a year in accommodation supplementation.
You think it makes him more palatable but he's down on polls as preferred prime minister. Not that these polls mean anything.
I really want this government to do something and not keep blaming the past government. At some point they have to take responsibility. Rolling back policies is stupid.
I'm not totally against the ministry job losses if National can let us know what these jobs were for.
600 jobs at the ministry of education. What do they do, what does 180 working on the curriculum do?
One makes a decision while the other 179 stand around applauding (knowing they aren't responsible if it goes pear shaped)
Who gets the coffee?One makes a decision while the other 179 stand around applauding (knowing they aren't responsible if it goes pear shaped)
yeah dude agreed. i meant more palatable to people in general, not me. i hate all politicians.
Na
The current government is hell for leather on deregulation. Another leaky buildings type disaster costing 10s of billions, with tens of thousands of new zealanders fcked over with no recourse here we come. Again.
H&S means no one can have coffee anymore.
John Nick
Contributor
Soon there will be no one there to drink coffee.
And H & S will be down the shitter
Itâs actually going the way with new materials coming in from overseas. The systems either have to meet NZ standards or national standards from the country of origin more stricter than ours. Actually had a three hour meeting yesterday with an exterior cladding supplier who is hoping to bring in a product from America which should compete with timber weatherboards and Hardies products.
The lab testing done to achieve compliance in the states is much harsher than what they would have done in NZ. Basically, because you get it wrong over there and you suddenly find yourself in a case action lawsuit that kills your business.
Untrue - 8,000 were for the private sector and the remainder split between subsidised affrodable and state houses.
"But.....Labour did it too!!!!"
Not this level of authoritarian corruption and not a pandemic in sight. Stolen democracy and corporate greed.
www.thepress.co.nz
Ministers Simeon Brown, Chris Bishop, and Shane Jones would be given fast-track powers in their respective portfolios, if the bill passes
STUFF
EDITORIAL: If you wanted to submit on the Fast-track Approvals Bill, sorry you werenât fast enough. Public submissions on the highly controversial legislation closed at midnight on Friday. But you can be assured thousands of New Zealanders did submit.
Many of them will have done so because they see that the bill concentrates an unusual degree of power in the hands of just three government ministers who can quickly approve projects that may otherwise have stalled because of public opposition and slow-moving consultation.
There is a genuine problem that the bill seeks to address. Few would disagree that infrastructure and development have become too slow and expensive in New Zealand. The bill is intended to speed up the decision-making process for projects believed to have significant regional or national benefits. They could include the likes of dams, mines and roads.
It is no wonder that the mining industry is calling the bill a âdisrupterâ, which is meant in a positive way. Consents and âirrationalâ resource management rules have âground this country to a haltâ, according to one mining companyâs press release in support of the bill.
While it is hyperbole to say the country has ground to a halt, it does seem to have slowed. The Infrastructure Commission reported that around $1.3 billion is spent every year on consenting and the time taken to get a consent has doubled in five years, arguably turning off potential investors.
West Coast miners say they wait an average of 382 days to have permits processed. The Wind Energy Association says it can take from seven to 10 years to get a consent for a wind farm that takes only two and a half years to build.
Again, there is widespread argument that a problem exists. But the opposition to this bill is based on very real claims that it overcorrects and in doing so takes away environmental protections and weakens democracy.
It doesnât help that Regional Development Minister Shane Jones, who is one of the trio of ministers who will have the final say on major projects, has belittled the environmental values many New Zealanders hold dear. His rhetoric about âthe multicoloured skinkâ, the kiwi, blind frogs and other rare species that he says have been âweaponisedâ to deny regional communities a livelihood has become absurd and insulting.
The other two decision-making ministers, Nationalâs Chris Bishop and Simeon Brown, have been less tactless in their responses to real concerns, although Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson did accuse Bishop of âgaslightingâ the public about the bill.
It is more than a piece of legislation. It is an expression of this coalitionâs self-image, which is about aspiring to rapid delivery rather than consultation. Action is preferred to talk and economists matter more than ecologists. The language is corporate and business-focused, rather than feelgood and inclusive. They want to get people on the front line, rather than having bureaucrats sitting in offices.
For many New Zealanders, that is a very appealing narrative. It is exactly what they voted for.
More legislation has been passed under urgency by this Government than any other in the MMP era, while the public service that might offer advice or input is being steadily reduced.
Such an approach does not just endanger the threatened environments that house the blind frogs and multicoloured skinks Jones enjoys making fun of, but something that is just as fragile and treasured, which is democracy itself.
One submission from a respected New Zealand political scientist warns of the potential for cronyism, âclientelismâ and patronage if this bill becomes law. There will be âan incentive for private interests, organisations and investors to develop strong relationships with the government of the dayâ.
There will be much less transparency and a greater chance of conflicts of interest. Such a system will also favour those who can afford lobbyists and other means of accessing political power.
In short, it will make New Zealand less democratic. It is a use of emergency powers for a time without an emergency.
We saw a similar concentration of executive power during the Covid-19 pandemic, although those responses were temporary and less far-reaching. It will be intriguing to observe whether the critics who so loudly accused the previous government of âauthoritarianismâ and even tyranny over its Covid policies will see the Fast-track Approvals Bill in the same way.
Not this level of authoritarian corruption and not a pandemic in sight. Stolen democracy and corporate greed.
The Press
www.thepress.co.nz
The fast and the furious
April 20, 2024
Ministers Simeon Brown, Chris Bishop, and Shane Jones would be given fast-track powers in their respective portfolios, if the bill passes
STUFF
EDITORIAL: If you wanted to submit on the Fast-track Approvals Bill, sorry you werenât fast enough. Public submissions on the highly controversial legislation closed at midnight on Friday. But you can be assured thousands of New Zealanders did submit.
Many of them will have done so because they see that the bill concentrates an unusual degree of power in the hands of just three government ministers who can quickly approve projects that may otherwise have stalled because of public opposition and slow-moving consultation.
There is a genuine problem that the bill seeks to address. Few would disagree that infrastructure and development have become too slow and expensive in New Zealand. The bill is intended to speed up the decision-making process for projects believed to have significant regional or national benefits. They could include the likes of dams, mines and roads.
It is no wonder that the mining industry is calling the bill a âdisrupterâ, which is meant in a positive way. Consents and âirrationalâ resource management rules have âground this country to a haltâ, according to one mining companyâs press release in support of the bill.
While it is hyperbole to say the country has ground to a halt, it does seem to have slowed. The Infrastructure Commission reported that around $1.3 billion is spent every year on consenting and the time taken to get a consent has doubled in five years, arguably turning off potential investors.
West Coast miners say they wait an average of 382 days to have permits processed. The Wind Energy Association says it can take from seven to 10 years to get a consent for a wind farm that takes only two and a half years to build.
Again, there is widespread argument that a problem exists. But the opposition to this bill is based on very real claims that it overcorrects and in doing so takes away environmental protections and weakens democracy.
It doesnât help that Regional Development Minister Shane Jones, who is one of the trio of ministers who will have the final say on major projects, has belittled the environmental values many New Zealanders hold dear. His rhetoric about âthe multicoloured skinkâ, the kiwi, blind frogs and other rare species that he says have been âweaponisedâ to deny regional communities a livelihood has become absurd and insulting.
The other two decision-making ministers, Nationalâs Chris Bishop and Simeon Brown, have been less tactless in their responses to real concerns, although Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson did accuse Bishop of âgaslightingâ the public about the bill.
It is more than a piece of legislation. It is an expression of this coalitionâs self-image, which is about aspiring to rapid delivery rather than consultation. Action is preferred to talk and economists matter more than ecologists. The language is corporate and business-focused, rather than feelgood and inclusive. They want to get people on the front line, rather than having bureaucrats sitting in offices.
For many New Zealanders, that is a very appealing narrative. It is exactly what they voted for.
More legislation has been passed under urgency by this Government than any other in the MMP era, while the public service that might offer advice or input is being steadily reduced.
Such an approach does not just endanger the threatened environments that house the blind frogs and multicoloured skinks Jones enjoys making fun of, but something that is just as fragile and treasured, which is democracy itself.
One submission from a respected New Zealand political scientist warns of the potential for cronyism, âclientelismâ and patronage if this bill becomes law. There will be âan incentive for private interests, organisations and investors to develop strong relationships with the government of the dayâ.
There will be much less transparency and a greater chance of conflicts of interest. Such a system will also favour those who can afford lobbyists and other means of accessing political power.
In short, it will make New Zealand less democratic. It is a use of emergency powers for a time without an emergency.
We saw a similar concentration of executive power during the Covid-19 pandemic, although those responses were temporary and less far-reaching. It will be intriguing to observe whether the critics who so loudly accused the previous government of âauthoritarianismâ and even tyranny over its Covid policies will see the Fast-track Approvals Bill in the same way.
This truely is authoritarian and over-ridding the democratic process (and no deadly pandemic to blame it on)."But.....Labour did it too!!!!"
Not this level of authoritarian corruption and not a pandemic in sight. Stolen democracy and corporate greed.
The Press
The fast and the furious
April 20, 2024
Ministers Simeon Brown, Chris Bishop, and Shane Jones would be given fast-track powers in their respective portfolios, if the bill passes
STUFF
EDITORIAL: If you wanted to submit on the Fast-track Approvals Bill, sorry you werenât fast enough. Public submissions on the highly controversial legislation closed at midnight on Friday. But you can be assured thousands of New Zealanders did submit.
Many of them will have done so because they see that the bill concentrates an unusual degree of power in the hands of just three government ministers who can quickly approve projects that may otherwise have stalled because of public opposition and slow-moving consultation.
There is a genuine problem that the bill seeks to address. Few would disagree that infrastructure and development have become too slow and expensive in New Zealand. The bill is intended to speed up the decision-making process for projects believed to have significant regional or national benefits. They could include the likes of dams, mines and roads.
It is no wonder that the mining industry is calling the bill a âdisrupterâ, which is meant in a positive way. Consents and âirrationalâ resource management rules have âground this country to a haltâ, according to one mining companyâs press release in support of the bill.
While it is hyperbole to say the country has ground to a halt, it does seem to have slowed. The Infrastructure Commission reported that around $1.3 billion is spent every year on consenting and the time taken to get a consent has doubled in five years, arguably turning off potential investors.
West Coast miners say they wait an average of 382 days to have permits processed. The Wind Energy Association says it can take from seven to 10 years to get a consent for a wind farm that takes only two and a half years to build.
Again, there is widespread argument that a problem exists. But the opposition to this bill is based on very real claims that it overcorrects and in doing so takes away environmental protections and weakens democracy.
It doesnât help that Regional Development Minister Shane Jones, who is one of the trio of ministers who will have the final say on major projects, has belittled the environmental values many New Zealanders hold dear. His rhetoric about âthe multicoloured skinkâ, the kiwi, blind frogs and other rare species that he says have been âweaponisedâ to deny regional communities a livelihood has become absurd and insulting.
The other two decision-making ministers, Nationalâs Chris Bishop and Simeon Brown, have been less tactless in their responses to real concerns, although Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson did accuse Bishop of âgaslightingâ the public about the bill.
It is more than a piece of legislation. It is an expression of this coalitionâs self-image, which is about aspiring to rapid delivery rather than consultation. Action is preferred to talk and economists matter more than ecologists. The language is corporate and business-focused, rather than feelgood and inclusive. They want to get people on the front line, rather than having bureaucrats sitting in offices.
For many New Zealanders, that is a very appealing narrative. It is exactly what they voted for.
More legislation has been passed under urgency by this Government than any other in the MMP era, while the public service that might offer advice or input is being steadily reduced.
Such an approach does not just endanger the threatened environments that house the blind frogs and multicoloured skinks Jones enjoys making fun of, but something that is just as fragile and treasured, which is democracy itself.
One submission from a respected New Zealand political scientist warns of the potential for cronyism, âclientelismâ and patronage if this bill becomes law. There will be âan incentive for private interests, organisations and investors to develop strong relationships with the government of the dayâ.
There will be much less transparency and a greater chance of conflicts of interest. Such a system will also favour those who can afford lobbyists and other means of accessing political power.
In short, it will make New Zealand less democratic. It is a use of emergency powers for a time without an emergency.
We saw a similar concentration of executive power during the Covid-19 pandemic, although those responses were temporary and less far-reaching. It will be intriguing to observe whether the critics who so loudly accused the previous government of âauthoritarianismâ and even tyranny over its Covid policies will see the Fast-track Approvals Bill in the same way.
It's a war of the working man, the poor, the brown, the economy, the climate and the environment.
