New Zealand is number 1! *

127 comments on “New Zealand is number 1! * ”

• Comments are now closed

1. AsleepWhileWalking 1

   22 July 2017 at 7:34 am

   So you just reject anything that doesn’t support your conclusion.
   ARGH..I wish they would be voted out, but my spidey sense is saying National/NZF will rule.
   • mickysavage 1.1

     22 July 2017 at 8:50 am

     There is nothing wrong. Every thing is awesome. We have statistics to prove it. Go back to sleep sheeple.
2. tc 2

   22 July 2017 at 8:14 am

   Fronting it with 2 of the most unsympathetic neoliberal female sellouts in the Nat cabinet is a desperate attempt to appear concerned.

   This is the best they can with some hand wringing from Nat female ministers with as much empathy as a death squad and as transparent as glad wrap. You can see the lack of concern in the delivery of the weasel words.

   The opposition needs to go on the front foot as they’ve effectively admitted they’re clueless, arrogant and not interested in listening to a problem they’ve been told about for more than 2 terms.

   The numbers don’t lie unlike Amy and pullya. National don’t keep marks on the subjects they fail; housing affordability/availability, child poverty, mental health issues etc
3. Zeroque 3

   22 July 2017 at 10:19 am

   Yep, pretty bad alright. And then there was this article which caught my eye. It’s all a fairly predictable story, state of affairs and aspirations until you get to the political bit towards the end.

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11893726

   Surely this must translate to falling poll ratings for the tories at some point.
   • mickysavage 3.1

     22 July 2017 at 11:28 am

     Last two polls had them at 42-43%. It’s happening.
4. mary_a 4

   22 July 2017 at 11:05 am

   Why am I not surprised at this announcement? Much to this government’s shame, poverty combined with homelessness is NZ’s major growth industry!

   Get the Natz out in September and raise NZ’s social standards once again!
5. Wayne 5

   22 July 2017 at 12:43 pm

   mickysavage,

   The survey is bollocks and you know it.

   However, if you are stupid enough to run with it, so be it.
   • dv 5.1

     22 July 2017 at 1:08 pm

     The survey is under Yale University. Quite a prestigious university.
     It is YOU that NEED to carefully explain why it is bollocks Wayne
     • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1.1

       22 July 2017 at 1:40 pm

       Wayne says it can’t be true because reckons. On this evidence, he is unfit for the office he holds.
     • Wayne 5.1.2

       22 July 2017 at 1:40 pm

       I have fully explained why the survey is bollocks in yesterday’s item “Tax cut or fix this…”

       I don’t intend too repeat that all again, when Standarnistas choose to ignore the obvious deficiencies in the survey. The fact that is was done by some Yale researchers does not make it true.

       The survey is easily rebutted by just checking various articles on the web.

       The starting point being the obvious point that New Zealand does not have 5 times more homeless (per capita) than the US. It is simply not a credible statement. You don’t have to know much to know that is clearly not going to be factual.

       If Standardnistas actually believe that to be the case, and think it is a telling blow against National, then their political judgement is severely lacking.

       Completely overhyping something tends to discredit the maker of the assertion. I note that Labour’s official campaign machine has not picked it up. Way too risky for their credibility.
       • Andre 5.1.2.1

         22 July 2017 at 1:42 pm

         Wayne, are you proud of the current government’s record with respect to the homeless?
         • Norfolk Traveller 5.1.2.1.1

           22 July 2017 at 5:08 pm

           Homelessness has many causes, but rising house prices is unquestionably one. The government, NO government, is to blame for rising house prices, when the market is starved of supply by artificial barriers put in place by local councils. In Auckland, the Council has for years operated a rural urban limit that has starved the city of land supply. At the same time, plain Council greed and largesse has resulted in the cost of building skyrocketing. Yes, this and the previous could and should have forced council’s hand earlier, but the reality is the market could and would have resolved the current challenges if allowed.
           • Stuart Munro 5.1.2.1.1.1

             23 July 2017 at 12:35 am

             What unmitigated piffle.

             Housing speculation has been fostered by the lack of a capital gains tax, and failure to restrict foreign ownership to residential need.

             The government, this government, is absolutely to blame for failing to discourage property inflation, migration, building supply monopolies, and the failure of the construction sector to upskill new entrants, which further constrains our ability to build our way out of the crisis.

             Councils are imperfect, but they are not the festering sewers of rottenness that this government is.
             • Norfolk Traveller …

               23 July 2017 at 4:16 pm

               “Housing speculation has been fostered by the lack of a capital gains tax”
               …which has falied to halt house price inflation anywhere else it has been tried.
       • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1.2.2

         22 July 2017 at 2:49 pm

         New Zealand does not have 5 times more homeless (per capita) than the US. It is simply not a credible statement.

         The NZ figures are provided by the Department of Statistics.

         The definition maintains comparability with both the ETHOS and the Australian definitions of homelessness… [there is] a significant potential for undercoverage.

         Yale cites various sources of information from the US.

         It simply is not credible that Wayne’s reckons are some sort of substitute for a genuine comparison between the two countries. As it is, The only thing that isn’t credible is Wayne.
       • Reality 5.1.2.3

         22 July 2017 at 2:54 pm

         That NZ is even on the list, whether No 1 or wherever you would put it Wayne, is a disgrace.

         Can you explain why Bill English thought it was such a good idea to sell off state houses? Even a 10 year old could see by removing hundreds of houses and not replacing them would lead to a shortage. For so-called intelligent people to do this is irrational. But then these so-called intelligent people live by their right wing dogma that poorer people don’t deserve anything much. Bill English boasted a few years ago that it was good NZ had a low wage economy. As long as the low wage economy did not include the likes of himself and yourself of course.

         They think without any pang of conscience that they should toss money at Skycity, Saudi sheiks, yachties, a sumptuous Hawaiian consul residence, lavish MBie refurbishments, $83,000 inauguration parties in Washington DC etc. etc. etc.
       • Norfolk Traveller 5.1.2.4

         22 July 2017 at 4:57 pm

         You don’t need to explain further, the study is so obviously flawed based solely on it’s inability to detect different measurement methods country by country.

         This is the new hysteria of the left in this country, which will be as successful at turning heads as has been the hysterical claims about climate change impacts. If there really were 40,000 people living on the streets, we’d be tripping over them everywhere. It’s just so obviously complete and utter bs that no-one actually believes it.
         • Stuart Munro 5.1.2.4.1

           22 July 2017 at 5:05 pm

           Denial is the longest river in Africa.

           A real government would be able to show how many they had housed, and how short the queues were for social housing. Over two years wait in Dunedin – much worse elsewhere. That’s how this pathetic excuse for a government has generated this result.
           • Norfolk Traveller 5.1.2.4.1.1

             22 July 2017 at 5:12 pm

             Read my comment above. Local councils have screwed with the property market, which has fueled house prices. The issue is housing affordability. IN Queenstown, where Labour are promising to build 1,000 new homes costing up to $500,000 each (sniff), there are almost 10,000 empty sections because there is simply no demand.
             • Stuart Munro …

               22 July 2017 at 5:23 pm

               I read it – yet another waste of time as you try to foist your baseless assertions and distractors upon us.

               The governments has deliberately failed us – stealing social housing instead of looking after our people. It’s a little late to talk their way out of it.

               40 000 is conservative. NZ is on the skids, and this backward government is inescapably to blame. They ignored years of warnings and protests and now their goose is cooked.
               • Norfolk Traveller …

                 22 July 2017 at 5:28 pm

                 40,000 is a myth. And you can believe what you like, but your false narrative will simply see you fall further behind as the reality runs ahead.
                 • Stuart Munro …

                   22 July 2017 at 5:34 pm

                   40 000 is the minimum – two year waiting lists around the country produce that and more besides.

                   But your denial is interesting, because it has no facts behind it, it is mere intellectual vagrancy: loitering without means of support.
                   • Norfolk Traveller …

                     22 July 2017 at 5:40 pm

                     Not everyone on a waiting list is living on the streets, Stuart.
                   • Stuart Munro …

                     22 July 2017 at 5:45 pm

                     That’s not the criteria, Norfolk Traveller, as you would know if you had bothered to read the material.

                     Go and read the report and stop wasting our time with your uninformed nonsense.
                   • Norfolk Traveller …

                     22 July 2017 at 6:06 pm

                     “That’s not the criteria…”
                     I know the criteria. The post itself stated:
                     “It found about 40,000 people are either living on the street, in emergency housing, or shelter considered sub-standard.”
                     In 2008, the definition of homelessness was “homelessness is officially defined as having no options to acquire safe and secure housing” (https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/research-papers/document/00PLEcoRP14021/homelessness-in-new-zealand).
                     So I ask again, where are these 40,000 people?
                   • Stuart Munro …

                     22 July 2017 at 6:33 pm

                     A large proportion are in shared unowned accommodation – people like this: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/94768384/solo-motherofnine-struggles-to-find-new-home-for-her-family

                     There is no shortage of material on the homeless, from vehicle dwellers to displaced caravan park residents, and presumably some tiny house dwellers.

                     “So I ask again, where are these 40,000 people?”

                     How about you get off your chuff and find them yourself – I’m not your Benson.
                 • One Anonymous Bloke …

                   22 July 2017 at 5:36 pm

                   40,000 isn’t a myth: it’s a measure according to certain definitive criteria, which as the Dept of Stats says, is likely to result in under-reporting.

                   It suits your bad faith false narrative to heap scorn and doubt on the measure. Newsflash: your opinion means jack shit. If you have a better definition of homelessness than Stats NZ let’s hear it, and how many people meet the definition.

                   The National Party says it’s 20,000 not 40,000. If you’re stupid enough to believe what the government tells you I shouldn’t be at all surprised, after all, you’ve already identified yourself as a dupe of the Crackhead.
                   • Norfolk Traveller …

                     22 July 2017 at 5:40 pm

                     It’s a myth. Where are these 40,000 people? You do realise that’s around the population of Gisborne?
                   • One Anonymous Bloke …

                     22 July 2017 at 5:51 pm

                     The stats aren’t broken down into regions? That would help you find out where they all are. You are too lazy to find out for yourself, and in the unlikely event you aren’t, you’ll deny the facts anyway.
                   • Norfolk Traveller …

                     22 July 2017 at 6:00 pm

                     “…you’ll deny the facts anyway.”
                     Oh I won’t deny ‘facts’. Completely exaggerated claims I won’t believe, no. Only the truly gullible will.
                   • One Anonymous Bloke …

                     22 July 2017 at 10:26 pm

                     You’ve yet to find out what they are, lazy.
     • H S 5.1.3

       23 July 2017 at 1:02 am

       He’s right… sort of.

       The study wasn’t done by Yale. If you’d read anything at all, you’d see that. The Yale Global magazine isn’t a research division. It’s just reporting OECD figures. And those OECD figures are from a 2013 Otago Uni study. Less prestigious?

       Note: the 2011 Christchurch quakes will have had a major effect on those numbers, especially as 70% of those categorised as homeless were living with family or friends. 20% more were in boarding houses or on maraes.
   • Vaughn 5.2

     22 July 2017 at 1:19 pm

     And Wayne, if the same survey had revealed NZ as having among the lowest rates of homelessness, my guess is you and your National Party colleagues would have run with it all the way to the election, and you know it to be so. To now say this survey is ‘bollocks’ is typical of those devoid of empathy. You and your type make me dry reach.
     • Draco T Bastard 5.2.1

       22 July 2017 at 1:31 pm

       To now say this survey is ‘bollocks’ is typical of those devoid of empathy.

       It’s not just that but the fact that they’re trying to hide their failure to make NZ better for anyone but the rich.
       • james 5.2.1.1

         22 July 2017 at 2:17 pm

         “To now say this survey is ‘bollocks’ is typical of those devoid of empathy.”

         Or someone who simply understand that the numbers are indeed bollocks.

         You can be as empathetic as you like – but that dosnt change facts.
         • Draco T Bastard 5.2.1.1.1

           22 July 2017 at 2:25 pm

           Or someone who simply understand that the numbers are indeed bollocks.

           Unless they’ve got an equivalent study then they actually can’t know that and neither you nor Wayne have such a study which means that you’re talking out your arse as per normal for RWNJs.

           You can be as empathetic as you like – but that dosnt change facts.

           That’s just it – it’s only you RWNJs that are denying the facts.
           • James 5.2.1.1.1.1

             22 July 2017 at 2:44 pm

             What fact have I denied?
             • Draco T Bastard …

               22 July 2017 at 4:37 pm

               The ones presented in the report.
         • One Anonymous Bloke 5.2.1.1.2

           22 July 2017 at 3:02 pm

           The numbers aren’t “bollocks” James – read the actual study before nailing your flag to Wayne’s borer-infested mast.

           The main issue is that NZ and the USA use slightly different definitions. If you are relying on that to support your politically motivated predetermined position, get ready to be disappointed.
           • James 5.2.1.1.2.1

             22 July 2017 at 3:02 pm

             Where was this a study again ?
             • One Anonymous Bloke …

               22 July 2017 at 3:07 pm

               Yale University. See comment 5.4
               • James …

                 22 July 2017 at 3:29 pm

                 What I was saying it’s not a study as is being falsely stated here. It’s just an article.
                 • One Anonymous Bloke …

                   22 July 2017 at 3:33 pm

                   An article that cites various studies, with references.

                   In particular, the study you hate the most was published last year by the OECD. The article clearly states that.
                   • Johan …

                     22 July 2017 at 4:37 pm

                     Poor James is in the same camp as the person who names anything that doesn’t suit him as “Fake News”. This slogan is of course coined by that spoiled little man-child, Donald Trump.
                 • Incognito …

                   22 July 2017 at 6:55 pm

                   It is not “just an article”. Did you read the About YaleGlobal?

                   The source material is verifiable and you cannot simply write off this “article” but the absence or presence of a label of you own choosing. Nor can you write it off by zooming in (cherry picking) on one particular aspect or definition like Wayne does. It’s like declaring a house to be demolished because the tap of the hand basin in one of the toilets is leaking. Please don’t insult your and our intelligence.
     • Stunned Mullet 5.2.2

       22 July 2017 at 1:49 pm

       “You and your type make me dry reach.”

       Not much chance of that in this weather….disastrous conditions for sailing !
       • Barfly 5.2.2.1

         22 July 2017 at 2:20 pm

         lol reach retch + 1
       • halfcrown 5.2.2.2

         22 July 2017 at 3:06 pm

         Ha, nice one Mullet.
   • Muttonbird 5.3

     22 July 2017 at 1:29 pm

     Many social indicators have tanked under this government. Homelessness, rising inequality, housing un-affordability, suicide, transience of community, transport congestion, overwhelmed infrastructure, poor working conditions, etc.

     This survey is timely because it raises the discussion instead of burying it like the current government and their supporters seek to do. Also interesting is that NZ is in red showing no official strategy to combat what is the worst rate of homelessness in the developed world.

     It’s not enough to call these avoidable social problems ‘challenges’ and hope that tinkering will solve them. Time to govern, and if the current government won’t they need to move over for a government who will.
   • One Anonymous Bloke 5.4

     22 July 2017 at 1:57 pm

     So right there at the beginning of the “bollocks” study it says:

     Such statistics come with a caveat. Obtaining accurate numbers is difficult, mostly due to wild variations in definitions around the globe.

     If you’d read the “bollocks” study you’d know that.

     And to think you bring this level of intellectual rigour to the “work” you do at taxpayers’ expense. A goldfish could do a better job.
     • marty mars 5.4.1

       22 July 2017 at 2:20 pm

       Who you know trumps what you know.
   • Macro 5.5

     22 July 2017 at 2:18 pm

     Wayne your statistics are Bollocks. You take the numbers from the Economist – which are misinterpreted by them, in the first place, and out of date in the second place. Under Obama the US instituted a nation wide policy to combat homelessness, and it is working. Homelessness in the US decreased over the 8 years of the Obama administration. Trump has not got his dirty little hands on that initiative as yet – but give him time. The Yale figures are taken from OECD data to which I linked on another thread, but here it is again http://www.oecd.org/els/family/HC3-1-Homeless-population.pdf and in the case of both the US and NZ include those who are living rough (ie on the street, those living in emergency accommodation, and those living in accommodation for the homeless. You can see that for yourself on page 3 of the document. Your assessment of the numbers of people living rough in NZ at just 4000, is way off and you would understand that were you to actually do a little research rather than navel gazing. In my town alone (pop 7500) there are around 10 people every night sleeping out, (and this is in a rural town, where homelessness, as described in the Yale report, is less of a issue than it is in major cities). Our night shelter here is constantly full, our food bank is just coping, (and very special thanks to the generosity of the local supermarket and others for that) (Auckland’s has reached capacity) and there is but one house to rent.
     If the figures for NZ were they to be taken on today’s data rather than the 2006 data as supplied to the OECD in 2015 then NZ’s position would of course be far worse than what is reported in the Yale document.
     • Carolyn_nth 5.5.1

       22 July 2017 at 5:01 pm

       That document you linked to says that for NZ:

       Based on the most recent three Census rounds, in 2001 there were 28,649 homeless, 33,295 in 2006, and 41,705 in 2013 (University of Otago, 2016).
       • Macro 5.5.1.1

         22 July 2017 at 6:33 pm

         page 3 of the OECD document states in the table :
         “New Zealand 2006 41,705 0.94%”
         • Carolyn_nth 5.5.1.1.1

           22 July 2017 at 6:41 pm

           Oh. So they actually used the 2013 stat in the table?
           • Macro 5.5.1.1.1.1

             22 July 2017 at 7:11 pm

             It would appear so! In which case we are comparing 2013 NZ with 2015 US not 2006 NZ with 2015, as is suggested by the table. Even so the situation in NZ has deteriorated significantly since 2013 as anyone working at the coal face of homelessness will confirm.
6. Stephanie May 6

   22 July 2017 at 1:34 pm

   Our Prime MInister should hang his head in shame! How hungry and cold do people have to be before they will go out there and vote against this heartless government. Remember the trouble the National Party have brought us and vote them out of power on September23rd this year!
7. Stunned Mullet 7

   22 July 2017 at 1:48 pm

   The data appears to be derived from this study ex Otago

   http://www.otago.ac.nz/news/news/otago613529.html

   To extrapolate that to a statement that NZ is No1 in the developed world in homelessness is pretty standard for election year silliness.
   • One Anonymous Bloke 7.1

     22 July 2017 at 3:20 pm

     Yale University is in an election year?

     Otago, by the way, uses the same definition of homelessness as the Dept. of Statistics.

     Obviously the solution is to defund them both.
8. Keepcalmcarryon 8

   22 July 2017 at 1:52 pm

   Yes, Yale no less, ranked 15 in the world university rankings ( top kiwi uni auckland comes in at 82. )
   We can all be Waynes and split hairs about methodology or we can actually open our eyes and admit a very big problem and start fixing it.
   National government deliberate heads in the sand is how we got to this point. More of the same will not fix it
9. CLEANGREEN 9

   22 July 2017 at 2:15 pm

   Micky 100% mate.
   We are getting clear signals up and down the east coast of the north Island and everyone is waking up to this government being just a big con job so your views are bang on.

   Here below is our rod in our backs besides the housing crisis as we are all facing extreme hardships up and down the east coast also. see here our latest issue in the paper yesterday. It leaves the reader with a ‘though provoking experience’ that this government – or the next – must listen to finally.

   I HOPE Iprent allows me to offer this as another example of continued national’s bad planning.

   http://gisborneherald.co.nz/opinion/2900633-135/why-not-build-the-rail-north

   gisborneherald.co.nz

   Why not build the rail north now?
   by Ken Crispin, SecretaryCitizens Environmental Advocacy Centre Published: July 21, 2017 12:34PM

   COLUMN

   Re: IwiRail launched on public empathy and a wild dream, July 13 editorial.

   We have a large transport library and have done some considerable research since NZ First launched its rail transport policy, Railways Of National Importance. Now the Maori Party has also come up with a policy suggesting that completing regional rail lines will increase the viability of rail services, making them more accessible and used more often. We agree, as evidence supports this.

   History firstly showed that our prime minister and treasurer Sir Julius Vogel, as NZ’s premier politician, set out an ambitious rail plan for us in 1880.

   Julius Vogel was a leader for planning infrastructure during the 1800s and set about to bring rail to Gisborne in 1880, with survey maps from that date through to 1899 showing two rail lines north to Auckland passing through Gisborne.

   Originally the continuation of the railway line from Taneatua (near Whakatane) was to be extended to Opotiki on through the Waioeka Gorge to Gisborne linking to the Palmerston North -Gisborne line.

   Work did begin, however, due to two world wars, an economic depression and an influenza epidemic, this ambitious extension to the railway line was never completed.

   Since then several other route options have emerged, making the building of a rail line to Whakatane far more easily completed — not through the gorge, as the Waioeka gorge has proved quite unstable with several large slips in recent times. Another route option goes from Gisborne inland north to East Cape and around to Opotiki.

   So the question we ask now of the Government is: Why did they spend $13 billion on double-laning the road from Hamilton through Rotorua to Tauranga, but did not consider any continuation of the rail line from Gisborne to Auckland — as several opposition political parties suggest now — especially since road building costs have been increasing due to the unstable land the roads in this region sit on?

   Escalating road maintenance is just one issue. We all see the increased road surface damage, which makes travel more dangerous, as we drive on the roads we now share with increasing numbers of heavier trucks.

   Extra consideration must now be given as Gisborne is the most isolated North Island community of its size — especially since the founding prime minister planned for this in 1880. Now, almost 140 years later, we still haven’t completed the line north.
   Surely we can do better than this in his memory, and for our wealth, health, wellbeing and regional security.

   We have marvellous earth-moving systems and machinery nowadays, such as the tunnel-boring machine used on Auckland’s Waterview tunnel, that may make this an easier job than it was then.

   Our group has studied many negative environmental impacts to residential communities around New Zealand.

   Both Gisborne and Napier share the dangers of 24/7 freight truck traffic producing excessive noise, vibration, air and tyre dust pollution that have now been certified as a public health hazard.These pollutants get into our rivers, streams and aquifers from road runoff, and into our drinking water.

   We can all benefit when we use rail to move our freight around the country, saving both lives and the environment.

   Local trucks will always be needed for freight distribution, but when we move freight north by road without the benefit of rail to ports such as Tauranga and Auckland, it is considered unsustainable.

   Let us think wisely and plan for a future with environmentally-clean transport options.

   End.

   Citizens Environmental Advocacy Centre. (CEAC) Est’ 2001.
   PO Box 474. Napier.
   Protecting our environment & health.
   In association with other Community Groups and all Government Agencies since 2001.
   • alwyn 9.1

     22 July 2017 at 8:43 pm

     “History firstly showed that our prime minister and treasurer Sir Julius Vogel, as NZ’s premier politician, set out an ambitious rail plan for us in 1880.”.

     Of course he did.
     Railways were all the rage, and considered to be very modern in 1880.
     This is the 21st century now though. Why do you want to keep going with 19th century technology?

     It is like the Green Party proposals for “light rail”, also known as trams.
     They are an anachronism. By the time they were to build a “light rail” line to Auckland Airport, as some ridiculous cos,t we will have autonomous cars.

     Rail is dead, except for a few lines such as the Auckland/Hamilton/Tauranga loop, possibly the Auckland/Wellington main trunk and the Christchurch/West Coast link.
     Why on earth would we want to bring back the Napier/Gisborne link with a train every few days?
     • dv 9.1.1

       22 July 2017 at 8:50 pm

       This is the 21st century now though. Why do you want to keep going with 19th century technology?

       So you want to continue with roman pre christ technology alwyn!!!!
       • alwyn 9.1.1.1

         23 July 2017 at 9:12 am

         I completely fail to see the point of your comment.
         Although the various believers in Scientology may not agree I’ve never seen any evidence that the Romans had cars or aircraft, much less the autonomous road vehicles that will be coming into general use in New Zealand about the same time as the trams and hardly used railway tracks are brought back.

         What are you talking about?
         • dv 9.1.1.1.1

           23 July 2017 at 9:18 am

           You are complaining about continuing with 19th century technology – rail- while wanting to continue with pre 0 tech.
     • Incognito 9.1.2

       22 July 2017 at 9:51 pm

       You seem to ignore freight transport!?

       You might find this article illustrative: The Comparison of Basic Transportation Infrastructure and Freight Villages’ Locations between Germany and Turkey.

       This paragraph deserves a special highlight IMHO:

       A turnaround in the modal split trend has, however, been looming for a few years. The sharp increase in the price of diesel and the truck toll contributed to goods traffic growing much more slowly than rail in recent years. In recent years, rail freight volumes in Germany grew at an average of 8% per year. This was largely due to private rail companies, which increased their traffic by an average of 40% per year. This success of private rail operators in Germany shows that competition in the rail sector can positively impact the entire transport sector. At the same time, rails play a hugely important role in the seaport hinterland transport segment, which is increasingly developing into a bottleneck at many major German ports.
       • alwyn 9.1.2.1

         23 July 2017 at 2:34 pm

         I am not ignoring freight transport.

         That is an area where rail transport has a place, in special circumstances.
         Basically it is still useful where you have to transport a bulk good from one place to another. From a single point all the goods go to another single point. It is not sensible for carrying small quantities of good from dispersed sources to dispersed destinations.
         It is no longer, as it was seen in the 19th century the central point of our transport infrastructure.

         I listed the places where I think rail was sensible in New Zealand. That was the last paragraph in my comment and does NOT include the Napier/Gisborne line.
         I glanced at, but I confess did not read thoroughly, the article you linked to.
         Its discussion is not relevant to the Gisborne scenario. With the best will in the world it is difficult to see Gisborne, or Napier for that matter, as being the equivalent of a “major German port”.

         The perfect place for the use of rail traffic is epitomised in the north of Western Australia. There you have rail transport of enormous quantities of iron ore from the Pilbara mines to the port of Port Hedland.
         • Incognito 9.1.2.1.1

           23 July 2017 at 6:11 pm

           I was deliberately avoiding making a direct comparison but if I had done so it would have been with Turkey rather than with Germany.

           The highlighted paragraph served to show that a change of economic (and environmental!) parameters can change a course. In other words, what may not seem so sensible today may be much more sensible tomorrow.

           Here’s another paragraph that, without too much trouble, could be applied to the NZ situation, especially the bold part:

           Reasoning behind Germany’s logistics performance is to be the product of an extremely rational and strategic planning. Germany has been executed construction of basic infrastructure since the World War II years; at the same time, it is constantly renewing and trying to integrate to the environmentally friendly contemporary systems. All approaches and practices are planned for a more sustainable environment and economy. In Turkey, there are basic infrastructural deficiencies yet. One of the most key defects in Turkey is the absence of a logistics master plan which leads investments lack of aim and coordination.[my bold]
10. james 10

    22 July 2017 at 2:16 pm

    Does anyone on here really believe that NZ has 5 times the homelessness than the US?

    I agree that there is a problem for some that needs to be addressed and that the government could do more.

    But the numbers in this simply are not credible. (talking US / NZ comparison for example).
    • Stuart Munro 10.1

      22 July 2017 at 2:22 pm

      A responsible government prefers to overstate rather than understate important social ills, so that their response is at least sufficient to resolve them.

      From the response we can see that this government’s principal plan to address this critical failure is denial.

      What a shameless pack of self-serving sewer rats.
      • james 10.1.1

        22 July 2017 at 2:23 pm

        So do you think that NZ has 5 times the homelessness of the US?
        • Stuart Munro 10.1.1.1

          22 July 2017 at 2:30 pm

          Having read the criteria it is unquestionably a more reliable figure than your unsupported guesswork.

          Were the government not a vicious and unprincipled troupe of hebephrenic buffoons they would have data that triangulated the problem and would be able to make robust statements about it. But they have chosen not to collect this data since 2008 because they viewed it as “a problem of success” and were determined, like you, to control the narrative rather than fixing the problem.

          For shame James.
          • James 10.1.1.1.1

            22 July 2017 at 2:46 pm

            Can’t even answer a simple yes or no question because you know it goes against your argument.

            It would be laughable if it wasn’t so pathetic.
            • Stuart Munro 10.1.1.1.1.1

              22 July 2017 at 2:50 pm

              It’s not multichoice you disingenuous pillock – our people are dying because of this and your fail government is too ashamed to measure it.

              Means you don’t get to bleat when someone else does.
              • James …

                22 July 2017 at 2:53 pm

                Actually it’s a binary choice – do you believe that nz has 5 times the homelessness of the U.S. ?

                Come on – it’s a simple question for a man of such intellectual superiority.
                • Robert Guyton …

                  22 July 2017 at 3:06 pm

                  My question is: do supporters of the National Government feel ashamed that New Zealand is even in the running for this dishonour?
                  It’s all very well to quibble over whether we are the very worst, but for the love of God, HOW DID WE EVEN GET IN THE RACE???
                • Stuart Munro …

                  22 July 2017 at 3:08 pm

                  I realise that you’re too stupid to recognize a positive answer James, but I won’t spell it out for you just to lend credibility to your false rhetorical position.

                  It’s actually not a simple question because, as the study notes, leveling criteria between countries is not automatic. So, if you really gave a shit, you wouldn’t be looking to make that false comparison. Any number is too many.

                  This wretched worthless government has no numbers because they mean to lie to New Zealanders, and pretend that they’re something other than a third-world kleptocracy.

                  And you, you villain, are trying to support them.
            • Keepcalmcarryon 10.1.1.1.1.2

              22 July 2017 at 2:53 pm

              Per capita? Why not James . Overcrowding in limited accommodation being rife.
              I don’t see much to laugh about, just a lot of bad policy and denial from your lot.
              It disgusts me quite frankly.
        • JanM 10.1.1.2

          22 July 2017 at 3:13 pm

          You did read the bit about ‘per head of population’ didn’t you James – you know, like NZ losses in WW11 were second only to Russia per head of population?
          • James 10.1.1.2.1

            22 July 2017 at 3:31 pm

            Yes. And I still doubt that nz has 5 times the amount per head of population of the U.S.
            • Muttonbird 10.1.1.2.1.1

              22 July 2017 at 3:50 pm

              I fully believe it and the Yale report backs that up. Happy to skim any other facts you might have though.
            • Macro 10.1.1.2.1.2

              22 July 2017 at 3:52 pm

              James the figures that give NZ 5 times the homelessness per head of population and place us as the worst country in the developed world in caring for our people is based upon figures supplied to the OECD by both the govts of all OECD countries.
              You an see the figures for yourself here:
              http://www.oecd.org/els/family/HC3-1-Homeless-population.pdf
              In particular the table on page 3
              The Yale University report on Homelessness (upon which the Article that Mickey refers to is based) used those figures, and the Yale report is here:
              http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/cities-grow-worldwide-so-do-numbers-homeless
              Actually the situation for NZ is worse than what is reported, because the OECD figures for NZ are those for 2006. Note that this was a 2015 report by the OECD. The figures for the US are for 2015. Our Govt was too scared to give the up to date figures.
              Both the number for homelessness in the US and NZ include those who are living rough (ie on the street, those living in emergency accommodation, and those living in accommodation for the homeless.
              You can see that clearly reported on pg 3 of the OECD paper – the 5th column Yes/No.
              • Carolyn_nth …

                22 July 2017 at 5:03 pm

                Also, that paper says this about the NZ stats, p5:

                Based on the most recent three Census rounds, in 2001 there were 28,649 homeless, 33,295 in 2006, and 41,705 in 2013 (University of Otago, 2016).
            • AB 10.1.1.2.1.3

              22 July 2017 at 5:06 pm

              “And I still doubt that nz has 5 times the amount per head of population of the U.S.”
              Well I doubted it too – but the basis of my doubt was really just preconceived notions about the two countries. Namely – that NZ is an egalitarian social democracy with a functioning welfare system, whereas the US is an unreconstructed case of 19th century capitalism where the devil takes the hindmost.
              It could be that both those preconceived ideas are wrong (the first one is certainly completely out of date now). And this is exactly what is so shocking about these numbers – that they seem to put our preconceptions to the sword.
        • greg 10.1.1.3

          22 July 2017 at 6:35 pm

          i would like to see your figures James show me the numbers James to prove we are not worse than the us we need hard facts James not bullshit James Yale is not a tin pot university they deal in facts not alternative nact facts put up James
    • marty mars 10.2

      22 July 2017 at 2:24 pm

      James that is not what the study said. Try reading it again.
      • James 10.2.1

        22 July 2017 at 2:50 pm

        I read it again (quickly) – and I cannot see it being a study anywhere- it’s simply an article.
        • Robert Guyton 10.2.1.1

          22 July 2017 at 3:18 pm

          James is inflamed with a passion: a passion for denying the Government’s appalling record on homelessness.
          James’ pecker’s been up a bit lately; most recently he was tumescent over Metiria’s reveal.
          Once James feels his blood pressure rise, he becomes rampant with indignation!
        • One Anonymous Bloke 10.2.1.2

          22 July 2017 at 3:31 pm

          That’s because you aren’t looking closely enough at the article. For example, the country comparison study (as per the illustration) was published by the OECD.
        • rod 10.2.1.3

          22 July 2017 at 4:50 pm

          What’s the matter James, didn’t you get your donut today?
    • Robert Guyton 10.3

      22 July 2017 at 2:25 pm

      “there is a problem for some”
      “the government could do more”

      Understatements from someone who usually over-inflates.
      • JanM 10.3.1

        22 July 2017 at 3:28 pm

        I don’t think he understands what ‘per head of population’ means – whoever’s paying him to write this stuff is not getting their money’s worth!
    • Macro 10.4

      22 July 2017 at 2:31 pm

      The figures supplied to the OECD by both the US and NZ include:
      Those who are living rough (ie on the street), those living in emergency accommodation, and those living in accommodation for the homeless.
      You can read that for yourself here:
      http://www.oecd.org/els/family/HC3-1-Homeless-population.pdf
      see pg 3
      These are the figures upon which the Yale University report is based, and from which the the graph is derived.
      Note that the figures for NZ are 2006 figures whilst those for the US are 2015.
      • Tuppence Shrewsbury 10.4.1

        22 July 2017 at 2:51 pm

        So…. the survey is unreliable or homelessness in nz was 5 times worse 11 years ago than the states is now?

        Makes no sense either way
        • One Anonymous Bloke 10.4.1.1

          22 July 2017 at 3:15 pm

          It means the current position is worse. You believe it makes no sense because you reckon it very very hard, and that is the sole basis of your conclusion. You will deny this.

          Meanwhile, the study’s authors are completely open about its shortcomings.
        • Macro 10.4.1.2

          22 July 2017 at 3:38 pm

          Yep you got it in one! NZ in 2006 had a homelessness problem 5 times worse than what the situation was in the US in 2015. As our homelessness problem has deteriorated over the last decade (but the Government is scared to look) – just imaging how we compare now!
          • One Anonymous Bloke 10.4.1.2.1

            22 July 2017 at 3:43 pm

            Obama’s Opening Doors program having occurred in the interim probably means that the US was a lot worse in 2006 than it is now. For NZ the reverse is true.
            • Macro 10.4.1.2.1.1

              22 July 2017 at 4:02 pm

              Exactly! It was. The figures for homelessness in 2007 in the US was over 100,000 more than it is today.(around 672,000)
              I see in the Article, you refer to above, that the chump wants to get his dirty little hands on the monies now going to VA, so he can have more weapons, and more homeless vets, and make America Grate again.
              • One Anonymous Bloke …

                22 July 2017 at 4:27 pm

                Amy Adams says it’s a difficult problem to address. Someone should tell her there’s an easily accessible existing template that even she could grasp.
                • Macro …

                  22 July 2017 at 7:05 pm

                  Well yes it is a difficult problem – a now very prominent boil on the arse of NZ which has been allowed to fester since 1991. Because we have just applied bandaids, and not actually addressed the cause, it will take a great deal to heal this canker in our society. The raising of wages and benefits to a liveable standard, will be just the start. We now have a significant cohort of our society who know nothing else but poverty, this will take some addressing.
                  Obama’s initiative has certainly made some significant progress but even that is little more than applying bandaids to the boil. As the Yale report states.

                  In many countries the prices to buy or rent homes are relatively high and rising faster than wages. Urban “gentrification” leading to rising property values and rental rates push low-income households into precarious living arrangements including slums, squatter settlements and homelessness.

                  Even people with jobs sometimes cannot afford adequate housing on minimum wages. One recent study, for example, found that nowhere in the United States can someone who works 40 hours a week at the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour afford a one-bedroom apartment at fair market rent. To afford a one-bedroom apartment at the average fair market rate without paying more than 30 percent of one/s income, a person must earn at least $16.35 an hour.
    • One Anonymous Bloke 10.5

      22 July 2017 at 3:12 pm

      I struggle to believe it. My belief is neither here nor there.

      What is your belief based upon? Bear in mind that our own Dept. of Statistics, which developed the measure Yale’s NZ figures are based upon, says that it (the measure) has a “significant potential for undercoverage”.

      Also consider the reported success of Obama’s eight year plan to tackle homelessness.

      So once again, what is your belief based on?
    • Draco T Bastard 10.6

      22 July 2017 at 4:39 pm

      Does anyone on here really believe that NZ has 5 times the homelessness than the US?

      Why would anyone believe otherwise with the evidence presented?

      But the numbers in this simply are not credible.

      No, you and the other RWNJs are simply not credible as you deny reality yet again.
11. adam 11

    22 July 2017 at 2:53 pm

    Love how the resident trolls are attacking the source. Who cares if it is 100% accurate, or has faults with the data collection.

    The real issue is 40 years ago, homelessness was a small issue in this country. Yes it existed, but, and here the big one- the social service and support agencies could cope, and help these people.

    The last 40 years of liberalism unabated has created this situation. It is a big issue, a very real issue. Not only are a hell of a lot more people on the streets now than 40 years ago, coupled with a growing number of people in substandard accommodation -The support agencies – the churches in most cases, are not coping. They can’t help. It’s getting beyond them, and in too many cases, breaking the hearts, and will of people trying to help.

    So please have a little bit of Christian charity, and forget the methodology, or what ever other smoke screen you are trying to create. Arguing over the methods whilst people are dying, does make me wonder if you have any morals at all.
    • One Anonymous Bloke 11.1

      22 July 2017 at 3:26 pm

      The moral of this particular story depends very much upon the ethical viewpoint of the reader.
      • adam 11.1.1

        22 July 2017 at 5:54 pm

        Or if a person has a moral center or not.
      • Red 11.1.2

        22 July 2017 at 7:45 pm

        Playing the emotion card and only the left care bull shit does not forward your arguement or lack of, if it makes my lefty SJWs friends feel better about themselves well I guess some good but does not make up for dodgy facts and far left hate speech to solve a complex problem as nz grows and evolves, harking back to some golden period between 1950 to 1980, failed 20th century economic policies and 19th century class identify bollocks won’t solve fk all,

        As always your frienfly RWNJ 😀
        • Psycho Milt 11.1.2.1

          22 July 2017 at 9:52 pm

          Declaring a problem “complex” sometimes means that admitting the reasons for the problem would be inconvenient. Those “sometimes” are usually pretty easy to spot.
12. savenz 12

    22 July 2017 at 3:48 pm

    Yep, who knew selling off the state houses and leaving them empty would make NZ the highest homeless nation per capita in the OCDE???

    The National party and their enablers The Maori Party, Act and United Future are an absolute disgrace! Of course we should believe Amy Adams whose government does not even believe their is a housing crisis, let alone bother to monitor for one, not Yale university. (sarcasm).

    I’d like to see government manslaughter laws bought in, so that deliberate policy by government that leads to death is prosecutable. They do it for parents that neglect their children and don’t give them the necessities of life, they prosecute people who kill by accident, teachers can be prosecuted who somehow fail ‘health and safety’, it’s about time that legalisation was bought in to prosecute politicians for preventable deaths on their watch.

    And having empty state houses and WINZ turning people away who are entitled to accomodation should be considered a crime answerable by the law, when death or disability comes out of it.
    • JanM 12.1

      22 July 2017 at 4:25 pm

      That’s an extremely good point, savenz. Is there in fact a law where at least a government department could be charged if negligence, deliberate or not, could be shown to result in damage or death to a citizen?
      • Johan 12.1.1

        22 July 2017 at 4:55 pm

        With the importing of 70,000+ immigrants yearly, this National gov’t has built-up a false economy. Immigrants will buy more, cars, houses, groceries etc, however the cost of renewing facilities roads, housing, hospitals for urban New Zealand is unmanageable. Due to supply and demand, renting or buying a home in and around the Auckland area is pretty well impossible for a family bringing in two wages. Homelessness is the result of National Party’s policy of uncontrolled immigration.
        • JanM 12.1.1.1

          22 July 2017 at 5:07 pm

          So all care and no responsibility?
          • savenz 12.1.1.1.1

            22 July 2017 at 6:54 pm

            I think with the government it seems to be deliberate lack of care and no responsibility.

            We have seen it with Grenfell fires, there is a two tier system developing in the western worlds led by Tory governments who spend taxes not on people who need it and improving their lives, but instead devise schemes to siphon off money to intermediaries who take a cut of the money (often with a wholesome ‘charity’ front), or are just plain driven by profits hiding behind corporations.

            The result is less money, less results, but more reports and more ‘real estate driven’ schemes that somehow deliver less and less service for more and more money that the taxpayers keep paying out.

            Now they are selling the state houses and paying developers to develop less housing, at less affordable rates and make more profit from the scheme. It’s plain theft.

            Rate payers are paying more money for infrastructure, higher mortgages and higher house prices so they politicians can ‘develop’ our cities so that more low wage people can come in and ‘compete’ for lower and lower paid work. Hasn’t TMP even proposed getting migrants in and actually not even paying them wages (just board and lodging and ‘visa’ help) in return for work.

            Or John Keys 0% tax haven for non residents.

            No wonder people are homeless, how can you survive with more and more people with no income or not having a set hours of work for a steady income week to week, or an income totally out of sinc with the price of essential things like shelter, water, power and food?
            • greywarshark 12.1.1.1.1.1

              22 July 2017 at 8:09 pm

              That’s a good point savenz. Charities are a business ostensibly not for profit but they can be a nice little earner for a family. It seem that under neo lib any business is the same as any other, except marijuana becsuse of the strong lobbies of alcohol and perhaps pharma.

              Charities and providing help to poor vulnerable people is a growing sector.
              Why then would government help people to grow up healthy in mind and body, full of creative excitement to use their brain and acquire skills. If someone can make money out of them as sportspeople that encourages the enthusiasm that way. But it isn’t into thinking for themselves or being strong as an individual, it is competing against others for the right to be a well-regarded human.

              (In one of the social policy textbooks I have read, there was the story of a family who cold-shouldered one of their sons, previously a sports star, who had decided to give up the sport in favour of something he was interested in. There was no family fame, so no family friendship for him after that. They resented his presence, he had let them down as they had enjoyed the reflected glory of his attainments.)

              The role that neolibs have cast for the average NZ is shown in the way the government ignore their need for training, for small business encouragement to take them on for work experience, and then to transfer them to where they can hone their skills and reach true ‘skilled’
              level. Instead they have to fill in their time doing dead-end courses, and get into trouble. And they face stony, despising, or only short-term positive faces, and round it goes. Agencies trying to do a good job, stand by them, build their self concept will have their funding cut in say five years because its part of the mantra of neolib that people and agencies become hooked on welfare, and something called learned helplessness creeps in. It’s just part of a government following a cult that actually despises people, humans, and worships style and success and the outward materialistic veneer of inner shallow people.
      • Whispering Kate 12.1.2

        22 July 2017 at 9:05 pm

        JanM – I suggested a few days ago that beneficeries could group together in a class action and sue the government for not providing enough for the necessities of life. Deliberately underfunding the benefit and not keeping it up with inflation so as to force the vulnerable out to non-existent work. Work. that is if it can be found is barely the minimum wage and certainly not enough to pay rent and feed their kids – that is if they can get a bloody job.

        James, bless his heart said it was the most stupid thing he had ever read on this site. At least it struck a raw nerve with him, I felt quite good that he came back with that comment, in my life I have cut my teeth on ass holes like him – the guy is a fuckwit of the first order, some mother’s do have ’em. that’s for sure.
    • Macro 12.2

      22 July 2017 at 9:37 pm

      Actually the problem of homelessness in NZ has its roots in Ruth Richardson’s “Mother of all Budgets” in 1991. Richardson was advised by Treasury that the very least amount a person on a benefit could reasonably be expected to manage on was $x. (around $14,000 for a couple with 2 children in 1991). That cynical, callous, woman cut that figure by 20% to “incentivise” the most vulnerable people in our society to work whether they were able to or not (and in most cases they were not. Having a supply of desperate people desperate for work was great for employers, who because people were desperate to work for a little more than what they would get on the benefit, meant they could offer wages at a rate less than a living wage.
      A living wage or income means being able to provide oneself with accommodation as well as clothing and feeding oneself. If ones income is less – obviously something needs to go. One can survive without food for so long, clothing a little longer, but when the money runs out, and the cost of providing shelter becomes too great, the open road is the end result.
      Yes, the lack of adequate housing due to an increasing population, and a market driven solution to the provision of new homes, which merely addresses middle to upper income demands, and the selling off of state housing by National, has exacerbated the problem; but let’s be quite clear – homelessness has been with us in NZ for well over a decade. It is now at crisis point, and this “govt” has no answer.
13. greg 13

    22 July 2017 at 7:56 pm

    When we can no longer tell the truth because the truth will bring the whole rotten, fragile status quo down in a heap of broken promises and lies, we’ve reached the perfection of dysfunction
14. Psycho Milt 14

    22 July 2017 at 8:04 pm

    Funny that the right-wing response to this is “That can’t possibly be true.” Because, fuck, if it were true, the government might be expected to do something about it – we can’t have that…
    • dv 14.1

      22 July 2017 at 8:12 pm

      Good point PM
    • greg 14.2

      22 July 2017 at 8:30 pm

      The status quo–politically, socially and economically- depends on lies, half-truths, scapegoats and cover-ups for its very survival. Any truth that escapes the prison of lies endangers the entire rotten edifice.
      leaders” say what people want to hear. This wins the support of the masses, who would rather hear false reassurances that require no sacrifices, no difficult trade-offs, no hard choices, no discipline
      Lies are weakness, and they prohibit any real solutions. Truth is power, but we can no longer tolerate the truth because it frightens us. Our weakness is systemic and fatal
    • Incognito 14.3

      22 July 2017 at 8:30 pm

      Nobody likes to be embarrassed but folks with big fragile egos feel it more are as personal threat, which in some ways it is to them: an existentialist threat.
    • Sabine 14.4

      22 July 2017 at 10:07 pm

      the National Party and to an extend its support Parties Act, Peter Fuckin Done Party, and maybe even MP don’t want to govern.

      Firstly their belief system is that any government should not be paying for services or regulating business as much as it does.
      Taxes should be as low as possible and maybe fund defense, police and education.
      Oh, and them, government should fund the ruling party.

      They truly believe in a laissez-faire economy – a free market unencumbered by government interference of any kind ever.

      The market will fix it, and if it does not fix it for you then you must be ‘deserving’ it, either by being lazy, or otherwise unfit to compete. Ethics and social mindedness be damned.

      And if you need help, go beg, find a poor house, or a work house, or die. Silently.

      Welcome to the ownership society, you are on your own. Always.
      • WILD KATIPO 14.4.1

        22 July 2017 at 10:40 pm

        … ” And if you need help, go beg, find a poor house, or a work house, or die. Silently”…

        Yes , they told that to the French peasants once upon a time… aren’t they fortunate that they live in far more civilized times, … benefactors of a modern democracy… a privilege that shouldn’t be abused or taken lightly….

        Execution of Marie Antoinette, 16 October 1793 – YouTube
        you tube▶ 3:26
        
15. Tanz 15

    23 July 2017 at 3:29 pm

    So if all of us with a home took in at least one homeless person, into our homes, this problem would be helped. Let us not pass by on the other side. Instead of blaming National, we can do something about it, even down to buying someone a meal or helping to man a soup kitchen. Does everything have to be National’s fault? The govt is abstract, but people should help each other. There is a very good welfare system, and the churches do a lot too. Stop blaming National for all, it was the Free Trade Agreement with China that started the housing crisis off to start with – under a Labour govt.
    Better still, maybe walk around the streets and hand out food/money/tangible help of some kind, buy someone a meal, some fruit, etc.
    • rod 15.1

      23 July 2017 at 4:52 pm

      I think you forgot to put ( sarc ) at the end of your right wing rant.
      • Muttonbird 15.1.1

        23 July 2017 at 8:54 pm

        Lol. There’s was an edit.

        When I read it Tanz had finished up with, “Stop blaming National for all.” I was amazed that ‘it’s all Labour’s fault’ didn’t get a mention but then a after a bit of thought from Tanz, it did!

        RWNJs: so predictable.
16. Tanz 16

    23 July 2017 at 8:33 pm

    Typical nasty leftie reply. No wonder the right is winning.
    • rod 16.1

      24 July 2017 at 4:39 pm

      Did you mean winging?

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS