Open Mike 23/08/2017

75 comments on “Open Mike 23/08/2017 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Ed 1

   23 August 2017 at 6:20 am

   Is Guyon Espiner biased?
   • tc 1.1

     23 August 2017 at 6:39 am

     Yes how else do you think he got the gig. National refocused RNZ years ago under Griffin and other dropped in manager types, TVNZ and mediawonks has its equivalents.
     • Ed 1.1.1

       23 August 2017 at 6:50 am

       His disgraceful treatment of Turei and Little still rankle.
       Truly it is National Radio between 6 and 9 am with him and the hapless Ferguson.
       Can one of them go on holiday so we get Kim Hill for the election period?
   • Ad 1.2

     23 August 2017 at 6:59 am

     Stop expecting anyone to be neutral. Especially journalists.

     They are just writers. Sometimes they add facts.
   • Gabby 1.3

     23 August 2017 at 8:32 pm

     It’s really hard it seems to stem Coleman’s baaarp baaarping. I suspect he has deafened himself with his croakery.
2. CLEANGREEN 2

   23 August 2017 at 6:36 am

   Guyon Espiner IS biased?

   VERY FEW MSM PUNDITS AREN’T.

   It is very sad that we no longer a media that represents us the 99%.
   • Ed 2.1

     23 August 2017 at 6:38 am

     He seems willfully determined to avoid ever discussing policies.
     Instead he chases the headline and the scalp.
     Pitiful.
     • tc 2.1.1

       23 August 2017 at 6:42 am

       Good, shouldn’t be an issue removing him then for something closer to a journalist with such performances.
       • Ed 2.1.1.1

         23 August 2017 at 6:51 am

         Most TV journalism now appears to be making the ‘journalist’ the actual story.
         Narcissism gone wild after 35 years of neo-liberalism and the cult of the self.
     • North 2.1.2

       23 August 2017 at 7:54 pm

       Guyon sort of reminds me of a long pants Scots College boy or something. Even if he wasn’t. Gets a bit too sassy sometimes and annoys. Give it to him though……(repeatedly) “Prime Minister is it OK ?”.
3. CLEANGREEN 3

   23 August 2017 at 6:40 am

   http://oecdinsights.org/2016/09/08/air-pollution-tyres-and-brakes/

   THIS IS A ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM THAT ROAD BUILDERS LIKE NATIONAL & THE GREEN PARTY DO NOT UNDERSTAND.

   RAIL DONT USE TYRES –

   SIMPLE THAT EH!!!

   DO WHAT NZ FIRST & LABOUR WANT TO DO.

   USE RAIL.

   Air pollution: Tyre and brake fatigue compound an exhausting problem
   8 SEPTEMBER 2016
   tags: air pollution, road transport, rubber
   by Guest author
   Danger ahead

   Shayne MacLachlan, OECD Environment Directorate

   Anyone else feeling exhausted by all this drum humming about air pollution? Indeed it appears the fumes won’t be dissipating any time soon as we consider the extent to which tyre and brake rubbish exacerbate the problem. The European Commission says exhaust and non-exhaust sources may contribute almost equally to total traffic-related PM10 emissions. A few months ago, I was proposing (on this very Insights blog) that electric cars are essential in fighting filthy air pollution in urban areas because humans are unwilling to relinquish the comfort of their vehicles. Since then, I find myself mulling hard after this “alarmingly obvious” realisation that electric cars use tyres and brakes too! Even if they emit less of the harmful fine particles than conventional vehicles, please do feel free to file that blog in the “seemed like a good idea at the time” folder. And to turn insult to injury, I see that my own colleagues at the OECD have just published new data on PM2.5 emissions which did little to ease my blushes.

   Fine particles vs coarse particles

   A lot of non-exhaust pollution from tyres and brakes winds up in rivers, streams and lakes. They produce particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) which is more harmful for humans than gas pollutants like ozone and NO2. Fine particulate matter penetrates deep into your lungs and cardiovascular system. New research has even discovered tiny particles of pollution inside samples of brain tissue. The OECD is amongst a few international organisations proudly leading the fight against ambient air pollution. And rightly so, with 80% of the world population exposed to PM2.5. Outdoor air pollution causes 3.7 million premature deaths a year and 1 in 8 people die from filthy air. OECD Environment Director, Simon Upton recently stated that air pollution is not just an economic issue, but also a moral one. He urges governments to stop fussing over the costs of efforts to limit pollution and start worrying more about the even larger costs they will incur if they continue to allow it to go unchecked.

   Airpollution 2016 deaths loss 7.9.16

   Dead “tyred” but rolling on

   Tyre rubbish is the 13th largest source of air pollution in Los Angeles, California, a city famous for its smog. A recent study showed links between PM2.5 particles and the daily death rate in 6 Californian counties. When the PM2.5 count was high, so was the death rate. Then there’s nanoparticles, ultrafine particles used in tyres. Manufacturers didn’t know it at the time but research now contends possible links to lung cancer from recycling some of the 1 billion dead tyres used in, for example, the surfaces of playgrounds. Some are calling it “the new asbestos”. The complexity of the problem is evident: there are over 1 billion cars on the road globally and on top of that just as many motorbikes and scooters. Add to that the pneumatic tyres used on trucks and public transport such as metro train systems and buses and we have a considerable source of road rubber. A road with 25,000 vehicles using it each day can produce up to nine kilograms of tyre dust per kilometre. That’s only ¼ of the 100,000 cars that use the Champs-Elysées each day so that makes at least 36 kilograms of tyre pollution a day on the world’s most famous street.

   air-pollution-pm2.5-2016

   Bliss ignorance until my tyre burst

   When I think back 10 years, sharing my time between the “not so clean” cities of London and Paris, I really had no idea that the air in these places was so bad. I recall often emptying my nostrils of its black contents after using underground transport, but now learning about the added impact of tyre and brake rubbish, I’m not really sure being better informed is better—at least from a personal health standpoint. I have friends in Paris that actively avoid Châtelet and other central metro stations for a number of reasons, one of those being the eye-watering pollution. The metro trains’ brakes and tyres are contributing to this “perfect pollution storm in a subterranean teacup”. Sometimes you can find between 70-120 micrograms of PM10 per m3 down there with peaks at 1,000 micrograms per m3 trapped in the station. In comparison, the average concentration of PM10 outside is around 25-30 micrograms per m3.

   So what can we do?

   In an ideal world, we would ditch cars completely, but I’m not sure we’re ready to take that step yet. However, several cities are working on implementing policies that will ban or severely reduce the amount of cars. Oslo announced a plan to ban all cars from its city centre in 2019; and Norway is in the process of preparing a bill that would issue a nation-wide ban of the sale of petrol-powered cars. In places such as Tuscany, cars are banned in city centres except for residents. Others park their car just outside and then take public transport. This is common in the UK too. This means that when there are more people in the centre during the day, there are fewer cars, meaning fewer people are exposed. Hopefully, other cities and nations will be inspired by such drastic changes in transportation methods and follow suit. There are certainly enough reasons to do so.

   Play the cards dealt and work towards a better hand

   It’s hard not to feel we’ve exhausted our current options. I’ve gone through several cycles of choosing my methods of transportation and have ended up cycling—literally and figuratively. Do bicycle tyres contain rubber (though they emit precious little)? Yes; and so do bus and some metro train tyres, as well as motorbikes and scooters. We are left with only imperfect options. They won’t solve the problem, but they can reduce it and that’s something to be optimistic about. As with many actions that influence health and the environment, human behaviour and choices matter massively. Choosing the least damaging option of getting around your town means the bicycle is still a great option. It might also be worth trying to avoid times in which the pollution levels are the highest: 9h, 12h and 18h in many cities. But of course the exercise and associated heavy breathing whilst riding, exposes you to the risk, even though you are contributing least to the problem. So while the thought of all that damaging pollution is ever so “tyring”, it seems that the pollution, including from brakes and tyres itself might also leave you feeling worse for wear.

   An international deal on air pollution

   WHO guidelines indicate that by reducing PM10 pollution from 70 to 20 micrograms per m3, air pollution-related deaths could be reduced by roughly 15%. Staging a climate COP (Conference of the Parties) style conference to address air pollution emissions seems like a good start. Who could disagree that setting limits for polluting emissions from all sources is an absolute minimum requirement to give our lungs and environment a breather. Moving forward, it’s crucial we keep pushing governments to come up with innovations and policies that vigorously tackle air pollution issues. Governments also need to ensure that people are aware of the issues and help them make the best choices. In the meantime, we all have to play the cards we’re dealt and make a conscious effort to choose least polluting options.
   • Carolyn_nth 3.1

     23 August 2017 at 7:17 am

     Agree we do need a substantial shift to rail and light rail:

     Mr/Ms capital letters said: THIS IS A ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM THAT ROAD BUILDERS LIKE NATIONAL & THE GREEN PARTY DO NOT UNDERSTAND.

     RAIL DONT USE TYRES –

     SIMPLE THAT EH!!!

     DO WHAT NZ FIRST & LABOUR WANT TO DO.

     What on earth are you on about in lying about the Green Party? The Labour Party latest transport policies, especially re-rail, have just taken over a lot of Green Party policies.

     From the GP transport policy:

     Rail freight uses roughly one third of the fuel of road transport per tonne kilometre and is a highly energy-efficient means of commuter transport. A strong, viable rail system will be important in reducing New Zealand’s carbon emissions, and in coping with the transport needs of industry. The Green Party will:

     1.Increase commuter and long-distance rail passenger services and ensure trains
     are accessible to all users.

     2.Make rail and road access costs fair and equitable.

     3.Develop ‘land port’ facilities to minimise heavy truck movements in urban areas
     and facilitate road to rail transfer of all kinds of freight, and expand investment
     in facilities to enable easy transfer of goods from rail to local delivery services.

     4.Support completion of electrification of the North Island Main Trunk Line, and
     investigate electrifying the rest of the rail system over time.

     5.Fund the Auckland City Rail Link and ensure Auckland Transport has the funding
     for upgrades and new projects.

     6.Encourage most heavy goods are carried by rail, and facilitate the creation of
     spur lines to significant freight generators.

     7.Ensure local suppliers are preferred for production and maintenance of rail
     hardware.

     Green Party Auckland transport policy, includes a strong focus on light rail.

     And they have policies for regional rail beginning with connecting Manawatū and Hawkes Bay.

     Stop spreading mis-information about the Green Party in order to bash them.
   • Xanthe 3.2

     23 August 2017 at 7:32 am

     Ahh just a point to consider re brake polution, electric cars produce almost none! This is because all braking under driving conditions is regenerative (the motor puts the energy back into the battery) brakes are for holding stationary and emergency only on an electric car.
     Does still leave tyre and road particulates tho.
     A good example of tyre polution is some of the paris underground runs on rubber, the ventelator shafts on those lines are gross!
     • AsleepWhileWalking 3.2.1

       23 August 2017 at 8:25 am

       But don’t electric cars cause more CO2 during the production process than they save over the life of a car?

       EDIT: Ahh Googs what would we do without you…https://www.thegwpf.com/new-study-large-co2-emissions-from-batteries-of-electric-cars/

       They certainly contribute to wear and tear on roads without paying tax like diesel and petrol (enjoy that while it lasts)
       • Andre 3.2.1.1

         23 August 2017 at 8:38 am

         Note that the GWPF is a notorious collection of deniers and denialists, so anything from them should be treated with extreme suspicion.

         https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation

         In this particular instance, their critique is based around the sorry fact that the electrical power used for battery production is still primarily produced from fossil fuels. Thus it is primarily a criticism of current electricity production, and is not a valid criticism of electric vehicles.
       • xanthe 3.2.1.2

         23 August 2017 at 9:13 am

         I don’t buy that link AHW. they are drawing conclusions not supported by the study IMHO. Would you like to calculate the CO2 involved in getting oil out of the ground, refining it, and transporting it to the bowser ?
         • timbeau 3.2.1.2.1

           23 August 2017 at 12:26 pm

           This is a better link IMHO

           http://blog.ucsusa.org/rachael-nealer/gasoline-vs-electric-global-warming-emissions-953

           Their graphs show that battery cars use 51-53% fewer emissions over the car’s lifetime than petrol cars, and that’s in the USA where a lot more electricity is generated using fossil fuels than in NZ.

           So, while I’m not sure how credible these guys are (https://ecotricity.co.nz/cradle-to-grave-emissions/), they estimate that a battery powered car charged in New Zealand is 7-10 times more efficient over its lifetime than a petrol equivalent, including manufacturing costs
   • Carolyn_nth 3.3

     23 August 2017 at 7:33 am

     Also, Green Party transport policy: stuff report on GP policies announced on 24 May 2016:

     “Rail is our second corridor. A single train can remove 70 heavy trucks from the road. By investing in rail and shipping we will not only make roads safer, but the air cleaner, and create a safer climate for future generations.”

     The Greens said they would not expect a return on profit, as that had “set rail up to fail” in the past.

     “Moving freight by rail and ship is not only safer and cheaper, but better for the environment. Shifting half of New Zealand’s freight by rail and ship is the equivalent of replacing over 1.6 million petrol and diesel cars with electric vehicles.
     …
     KEY POINTS OF POLICY

     – Fund rail infrastructure from the transport budget, on the basis of best overall economic and climate impact for New Zealand

     – Set a target for 25 per cent of freight to be moved by rail and 25 per cent by coastal shipping within 10 years – 2027

     – Electrify rail in the Golden Triangle (between Auckland, Hamilton and Tauranga)

     The GP have been leading the way on rail travel with it’s many benefits, including better for the environment and climate. Good to see Labour and NZ First getting on board.
     • CLEANGREEN 3.3.1

       23 August 2017 at 8:02 am

       Very important to have this pollution of our “environment” aired and get some cut through into the press Caroyln & Xanthe.

       The elephant in the room is “ROAD RUNOFF” OF VEHICLE BASED TRANSPORTATION INTO OUR STREAMS, RIVERS, LAKES AND OUR AQUIFERS AND DRINKING WATER.

       Not even the green Party place “environment” on their policy plank now as they are only targeting CLIMATE CHANGE that is placing the pollution out of focus do you not understand this?

       POLLUTION OF OUR ‘ENVIRONMENT’. = ‘CLIMATE CHANGE’ – IS ONLY ONE OF POLLUTION IMPACTS.

       Better to also concentrate on pollution of our environment as this is also a massive public health issue now. Hence the issue of tyre dust pollution which no one talks about; – not even the Green party, so don’t back road transport please Greens.

       [Please stop using all capitals in your comments. On the internet it’s considered shouting, which is rude and will get moderated. – weka]
       • xanthe 3.3.1.1

         23 August 2017 at 9:09 am

         No argument from me there, tyre/road runoff is very big problem as well as the environmental impact of roading itself. rail is a very much smaller impact for a very much greater capacity. Where possible Public transport should be provided and where possible that should be on rails. and where possible electric.
       • weka 3.3.1.2

         23 August 2017 at 9:34 am

         Not even the green Party place “environment” on their policy plank now as they are only targeting CLIMATE CHANGE that is placing the pollution out of focus do you not understand this?

         Like Carolyn, I’d like to know why you are basically telling lies about the Green Party on this.

         You said this the other day as well and I replied demonstrating the ways that the Green Party are working on environmental issues and how they still have the environment at the centre of what they do.

         Here are their main policies for the election.

         https://www.greens.org.nz/policy/environment-policies

         And their overall Environment policy,

         https://www.greens.org.nz/page/environmental-protection-policy

         If you want to see what they work on most weeks of the year, follow their blog and news pages, their twitter and FB accounts, and what they do in parliament. The environment is core to it all.
       • weka 3.3.1.3

         23 August 2017 at 9:38 am

         Please see moderation note above.
   • Ad 3.4

     23 August 2017 at 9:31 am

     Do you watch the policy releases in an election, or do you just live under a rock?
   • eco Maori/kiwi 3.5

     23 August 2017 at 10:36 am

     Yes I have read the issues about the tyres. The minim wage workers whom fit our tyres are 10 x more likely to get cancer just when they are ready to retire WTF. All the people close to these motorways have a higher chance of getting cancer. The tyre industry has not got any ideas on ways to deposes of tyres in a economical and environmentally sustainable way. And get most of the trucks off our roads

     Some idiots in Australia decided to make a reef out of tyres to create a good surfing swell 15 years later and there is no marine life around these toxic reef and they had to spend millions to clean this shit up. I use the word shit a lot but it gets right to the point and a famous Man I admire used the word often. One can not keep shitting in your own back yard as he will eventually suffer the consequences.

     There is a invention called the Twheel now this French invention will reduce waste and they are safer IE reduce hydro planing reduce rubber waste and we would save money.

     But the powerful OIL Barron’s around our world wont let this Invention grow to its full potential We no this happens and we should not accept this behavior by the power full it is our world to.

     As for brakes most electric car have a regenerative braking which reverses the polarity captures waste energy. NOW PEOPLE LETS COME UP WITH IDEAS TO SOLVE OUR PROBLEMS IN A SUSTAINABLE AND HUMAN WAY PLEASE
     • Ad 3.5.1

       23 August 2017 at 12:52 pm

       You mean, some other policy other than the largest rail development programme seen in this country since the 1930s? That’s what the Labour and Greens policies are.

       Stop your histrionics.
   • Draco T Bastard 3.6

     23 August 2017 at 4:48 pm

     THIS IS A ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM THAT ROAD BUILDERS LIKE NATIONAL & THE GREEN PARTY DO NOT UNDERSTAND.

     Since when have the Green Party been road builders?
4. Tony Veitch (not etc) 4

   23 August 2017 at 6:56 am

   Over on TDB Dr. Wayne Hope makes a very pertinent point in a paragraph in a post, which bears repeating here:

   “The arrival of neoliberalism in the mid 1980s triggered a breakdown of ethics at every level of society.

   “The evidence is overwhelming – a rising prison population, thriving gangs, organised crime built upon the drug trade, crooked real estate agents laundering money, corporate tax evasion, law firms assisting clients to commit fraud, corrupt public servants, bribery from senior immigration officials, Ponzi schemes posing as finance companies – New Zealand has seen it all.”

   How very true! Let’s get rid of the corrupt right in this fair land!
5. patricia bremner 5

   23 August 2017 at 7:30 am

   Late last night I watched a presentation video by Labour’s Nash on Tamati Coffey’s Facebook.

   It was about starting a new NZ Forest Service to supply wood to be used in Govt builds.To be placed in Rotorua probably on the old FRI site.

   Based on sustainability goals and meeting climate change goals, this would be huge for the region, in many ways involving the Waiariki Politech, the apprenticeships, the IT,and the general forestry infrastructure.

   Worth a watch.
6. CLEANGREEN 6

   23 August 2017 at 8:17 am

   Nice one Patricia, thanks for the insight.

   We in HB/Gisborne now need a heavy rail (not light) for moving our freight north as going from HB/Gisborne down through the 250km slog south first through the Manawatu gorge is a very long leg south and strips out any economic viability of moving freight north from our regions.

   like PM Vogel planed back in 1880-90 to send rail north from Gisborne to Bay of plenty (through Taneatua near Whakatane ) we need to direct funding there now not build more truck roads for subsidising private road freight companies!!!
   • Jenny Kirk 6.1

     23 August 2017 at 10:16 am

     Labour is looking at re-opening mothballed rail lines like the Napier-Gisborne line, CleanGreen, if there is evidence that they are sustainable. In an announcement from Michael Wood Labour mP yesterday.
7. miravox 7

   23 August 2017 at 8:18 am

   New Zealand landlord spokesman Andrew King resists Renters United list of goals that already exist in reasonable European social democracies. Does he not do his research?

   GOAL ONE: All rental housing is warm, healthy and safe
   GOAL TWO: All renters have affordable housing
   GOAL THREE: Renters are secure. They can create homes and report problems without fear of eviction
   GOAL FOUR: Renters can successfully challenge illegal behaviour by landlords.
   GOAL FIVE: The ongoing situation for renters improves

   No idea why he thinks good New Zealand landlords (including the State) are unable to manage providing descent homes and are all for supporting slumlords who fear being found out.
   • AsleepWhileWalking 7.1

     23 August 2017 at 8:34 am

     Disappointing.
   • AsleepWhileWalking 7.2

     23 August 2017 at 8:37 am

     I really like their idea of having landlords licensed.
   • weka 7.3

     23 August 2017 at 10:58 am

     Miravox, a related question. Do you know from the various European systems, is there exemptions for people renting out the family home in terms of tenancy security? i.e. can those landlords stipulate that they can return or sell the house giving x amount of notice?
     • Sabine 7.3.1

       23 August 2017 at 11:39 am

       Germany, you can sell your house, but the tenants stays. You would have to proof that a. you would want to live there or that a child would want to live there in order to get rid of the tenant. Standard notice period in Germany is three month. For both the tenant of landlord. If the tenant wants to leave earlier, they can find a new tenant and present these to the landlord. The landlord can refuse, however must be reasonable while doing this. I.e. if I present 5 potentially good new tenants the landlord can not refuse all five.
       In saying that, buying a house in Europe / even an appartment is something that is expensive and people don’t move as often as they do here. So frankly once someone buys a house they usually live in it till their death. OFten time a mortgage is not paid by one generation but started by the parents and is finsihed by the children. Its a generational thing. IF there is enough land, children might add to the buidling to provide a place for themselves.
       Most rentals in Germany are not owned by private people but by Genossenschaften or Co-ops, Investment Companies etc. Private Homeownership is usally owner occupier and the left over is rentals.
       https://translate.google.co.nz/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genossenschaft&prev=search

       this article gives you a good look at what happens when ownership changes, or something is rebuild/renovated.
       http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/expatlife/11417359/Germany-the-country-where-renting-is-a-dream.html

       I like the idea that TOP is floating about adopting the german system, you only have one problem. Housing in NZ is an asset to be sold and re-sold in order to extract a profit, Housing in Germany is an asset to be leased as longterm as possible to have as little work as possible and thus make a smaller profit but more often. Two competing capitalistic ideas really.

       : “Eigentum verpflichtet. Sein Gebrauch soll zugleich dem Wohle der Allgemeinheit dienen.” “Private Ownership comes bound with duty. It’s use should also serve the public good.”
       • Andre 7.3.1.1

         23 August 2017 at 11:46 am

         The fact that population is declining in Germany but increasing quickly in New Zealand makes that whole market situation a bit different.

         https://www.populationpyramid.net/germany/2016/

         https://www.populationpyramid.net/new-zealand/2016/
         • weka 7.3.1.1.1

           23 August 2017 at 12:02 pm

           Time to stabilise NZ’s population anyway.
           • DoublePlusGood 7.3.1.1.1.1

             23 August 2017 at 2:31 pm

             Indeed. 5 million cap; it’s basically more than we can sustain long term anyway.
         • miravox 7.3.1.1.2

           23 August 2017 at 6:23 pm

           I don’t think declining population is a factor in providing secure rental housing at affordable prices.

           Vienna’s* rental housing arrangements have strong similarities to the German system, but the Vienna has a growing population. Unlike New Zealand, though, the city has a whole housing research programme to actively plan ahead for this rise.

           *Austria generally – but each province has it’s own variations in housing administration, so I generally say Vienna rather than Austria.
       • weka 7.3.1.2

         23 August 2017 at 12:01 pm

         Thanks Sabine, that’s really helpful.

         I think people renting out they family home is pretty common in NZ, so would like to see an exemption that is fair to tenants but allows home owners to keep doing that. Not sure what would happen otherwise, if people would still rent out their homes but do so illegally (e.g. a kind of black market), or if they would just stop doing it, thus taking all those houses out of the pool. It’s an interesting thing to consider because it seems very common in NZ and people do move around a lot or go away for periods of time. I’m intrigued about how home ownership happens in Germany.
         • Sabine 7.3.1.2.1

           23 August 2017 at 12:07 pm

           define ‘family home’.

           is it when the family lives in it?
           is it when it was lived in by the family but now is not?
           is it when it is not lived in by the family but might be in the future?

           In Germany don’t have the term ‘family home’ for owned properties. Our rented apartments are ‘family home’ and people live in them for decades.
           a farm house that was build four centuries ago by a farmer is still in use by the same family.
           a town house that has 6 apartments of which one is used by the owner, tow are rented to the children of the owner and the other three are rented to ‘others.
           all these would be ‘family homes’. However a property might have been in the same family for centuries/decades.

           i think really this is what needs to be defined. I now ‘own’ a house, but considering that where we have it i can’t work it will not be a ‘family home’ for me, but maybe for a local family who will rent it.

           the term ‘family home’ needs to be redefined. Start with that and then expand the term to those that rent a house, apartment, dwelling, unit etc to make it a ‘family home’.
           • weka 7.3.1.2.1.1

             23 August 2017 at 12:16 pm

             For me it’s a house that people have lived in or still live in and consider their home. It might be where they raised their kids, or where they lived the longest, and it’s a place they may want to come back to.

             So no, a house that one hasn’t lived in isn’t a family home.

             “the term ‘family home’ needs to be redefined. Start with that and then expand the term to those that rent a house, apartment, dwelling, unit etc to make it a ‘family home’.”

             Yes, I agree with this. I support long term tenancy rights precisely for this reason, so that people who don’t own can still have a family home.
             • Sabine …

               23 August 2017 at 12:23 pm

               @Weka ……..so that people who don’t own can still have a family home.

               see you are doing it again :).

               First stop the assumption that a ‘rented/leased property is not a family home.
               We all make/have family, we all need to live somewhere and where we live becomes our family home.
               Even the least among us who lives in a hovel will call it the family home.
               • weka …

                 23 August 2017 at 12:29 pm

                 I don’t assume that people that don’t own can’t have a family home. Please stop putting words in my mouth.
                 • Sabine …

                   23 August 2017 at 12:35 pm

                   i don’t put words in your mouth. I never do.

                   I am talking about an ingrained mindset that i find alien and that i believe to an extend is at the heart of the discussion.
                   And sadly in NZ, family home means owned home. Never mind that the majority in NZ does not own a house anymore and most likely never will.

                   I was not trying to offend or to ‘put words in your mouth’.
                   • weka …

                     23 August 2017 at 12:53 pm

                     All good. I also believe that people make their homes in lots of different places and situations. One of the reasons ‘family home’ in NZ is often equated to owned home is because very few people have tenancy security. I have year long lease, which seems to be considered ‘long term’. I don’t consider this my ‘family home’, mainly because if I have to move at the end of each year, I will lose my garden, so it changes how I relate with the place I live in. I’m not saying that that’s true for everyone, just that that affects things for me.

                     I don’t like how many mobile NZers we have, because I think it destabilises communities and is tied into this whole thing about upward mobility and how you have to keep getting a ‘better’ house, car etc, and this is why we now have home ownership as investment rather than being primarily about having a home. This is why I like hearing the story about Germany, am intrigued to hear that some people still live in the same house for a long period of time.

                     My parents have been married 60 years and they’ve lived in 5 houses in that time. They flatted briefly, then built a house, then moved into a larger house to have more room for the kids, then after the kids left home they moved into a smaller house, then recently they moved into an even smaller house because they are elderly. I suspect that most people now over the course of their lives will live in far more houses than that.

                     There is something in that too about nuclear families and I compare it to Māori who are trying to get bylaw permission to build more homes on land for whānau but generally aren’t allowed to. So there’s a whole cultural thing there as well that means that people are forced to move whether renting or owning.
               • Macro …

                 23 August 2017 at 1:37 pm

                 There are occassions when a family is required to move to another town for a while. In the Services if you stayed in one town for more than 2 years you were lucky. So In my case we had a home in wellington which we had for 7 years – but on being posted overseas and then to Auckland it was rented out. Had we returned to Wellington we would have returned to the house we originally bought because it was a house we loved.
                 Tenancy agreements need to be able to handle these sorts of situations because NZ’s population is one of the most mobile.

                 New Zealanders are becoming more mobile. In 2006, more than half (57.7 percent) of the
                 total usually resident population had changed their usual residence at least once in the
                 previous five years, and almost 1 in 4 people (24.8 percent) had moved within the past
                 year. In 2001, the corresponding proportions were 55.4 and 24.2 percent, respectively.
                 • Almost 1 in 10 people (9.7 percent) in 2006 had lived at their usual residence for 20 years
                 or more, compared with 10.7 percent in 2001.

                 http://www.stats.govt.nz/Census/2006CensusHomePage/QuickStats/quickstats-about-a-subject/population-mobility.aspx see the pdf.
                 • greywarshark …

                   23 August 2017 at 2:12 pm

                   The Jackal and Voxy plus NZ Herald telling how NZ state housing tenants were put out so the houses could be bulldozed and land sold to Chinese semi-government entity. That’s another problem with landlords, when government has no qualms about evicting.

                   Winston’s on their track. And revealing that the Special Housing Accord or Areas system is being rorted by government.
                   http://thejackalman.blogspot.co.nz/2017/08/who-profits-from-state-evictions.html

                   Why did a Mt Albert Housing NZ development end up in the hands of a Chinese company?

                   “New Zealand First is asking questions as to why Housing NZ sold land in the Mt Albert electorate to a developer who under the Special Housing Areas (Hon Nick Smith’s plan) the developer received government and council housing incentives to provide accommodation for Auckland residents, which is exactly what didn’t happen,” says New Zealand First Leader and Member of Parliament for Northland, Rt Hon Winston Peters….

                   Winston Peters accused of ‘race-baiting’ attack on Chinese air crew
                   National list MP Melissa Lee, who is based in Mt Albert, said the statement was “typical Winston Peters race-baiting”.

                   “He doesn’t understand housing developments or special housing areas and is simply firing out ill-informed press releases when he sees the word ‘Chinese’,” she said.

                   Housing NZ confirmed that it sold the land in April 2013 to a private developer for a reported $8.76 million.
                   The property was given Special Housing Area status in May 2014, allowing fast-track consenting with a requirement that 10 per cent of the homes must be “affordable” – priced below 75 per cent of the median Auckland house price.

                   Auckland Council said at the time that 33 new homes would be built on the land, replacing 19 former state houses.
                   However the special housing areas were disestablished when the new Auckland Unitary Plan came into force last September….

                   None of those properties need to be “affordable” now because there’s no proper provision provided for that in the Auckland Unitary Plan. Instead, affordable housing is just listed as a challenge Auckland faces….

                   Which is the crux of the matter. National can scream until they’re blue in the face about racism but it doesn’t change the fact that they sold state owned land that was being used to house low income New Zealander’s, property that ended up belonging to a company that has ties to the Chinese government.
     • miravox 7.3.2

       23 August 2017 at 6:10 pm

       Hi weka, yes, there are two types of long-term lease and also an annual rollover lease for situations like the owner leaves town for a short period of time (or a long-term tenant – the tenant can also sublet if they have to move for a sort-term work contract etc). It also helps people like us, who are unsure of how long we need the lease (it’s 5 years fixed on the landlord side – with rollover, but after 12 months we can terminate at any time, with 3 months notice).

       If they sell the house, the landlords cannot terminate the letting arrangement though. As with the German system outlined by Sabine, the tenant has the right to stay.
   • greywarshark 7.4

     23 August 2017 at 1:52 pm

     How can landlords adopt goal two that renters have affordable housing? That is not possible for them to guarantee, shouldn’t be in that list. If renters have the other four, good. Government get on and see that landlords are not over-charging and provides more good housing suitable for long-term and short-term renters at quarter to third of income.
     • miravox 7.4.1

       23 August 2017 at 7:27 pm

       Renters United is calling for a “national housing strategy (including a tax on “property speculation”) to ensure a long-term adequate supply of properties”.

       The current provision of housing is chaotic, don’t you think?

       I think it’s an essential that a national housing strategy happens and probably should be top of the list. The other points are irrelevant if people cannot afford to rent in the first place.

       Andrew King, of course, sees this simply as an attack on property rights.
8. Sable 8

   23 August 2017 at 8:49 am

   Party positions on the TPPA from Its Our Future:

   https://itsourfuture.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/IOF-political-party-positions-Final-Copy.pdf
   • eco Maori/kiwi 8.1

     23 August 2017 at 1:26 pm

     The Councils quote huge prices just for all the consents needed to build a new house.
     They are just revenue grabbing organisations someone I no got quoted $120.000 K just for consents to build on land they owned I got advice from one person whom works in the housing development field and was told one does not approach the Councils when planning to build you get a architect to design the development of the property and they no all the rules. So the architect design the development to minermise the cost where as the Councils will maxsermise the consent cost this person said that going to the Council was like going to the cops. The person that was looking into building is old school and did not take my advice I had received.
9. s y d 9

   23 August 2017 at 9:10 am

   Rachel Stewart, worth a read as always….my favourite sentence

   “Labour, and its endless parade of leaders who shave, bored me to the point of paralysis and, when you believe they have no chance to be the Government, why bother?”

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/bay-of-plenty-times/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503343&objectid=11908712
   • Ad 9.1

     23 August 2017 at 9:33 am

     High on New Car Smell.
     • Pete 9.1.1

       23 August 2017 at 10:07 am

       … and the thought of the English car going off to the scrapyard. Crushed with Collins?
       • gsays 9.1.1.1

         23 August 2017 at 11:35 am

         I have been wandering, what odds on the national party changing leadership before election?

         A Judith/Paula ticket?
         Paula/Gerry?
         Judith/ jonathon?
         The possibilities seem so limited.
         • Kevin 9.1.1.1.1

           23 August 2017 at 1:54 pm

           Judith Collins and Paula Bennett will never lead the National Party. Way to much baggage to be even considered.

           Jacinda Ardern has changed the rules of the game.
         • AB 9.1.1.1.2

           23 August 2017 at 2:55 pm

           Amy Adams and Simon Bridges.
           Bridges makes the cut because after John Key National Party leaders have a free hand to mangle words with impunity
           Anything else involving senior members would be a freak show at present – though I would get a perverse thrill from seeing how Gerry Brownlee & Maggie Barry worked out. Gerry could push opponents down the stairs and Maggie bury them in the petunias.
           Or Jonathan Coleman and Nick Smith (the “gingerfibbers”).
           No doubt there is plausible talent lower down.
           • gsays 9.1.1.1.2.1

             23 August 2017 at 5:44 pm

             Ginger fibbers! Excellent ad.

             You are prob right about Bridges/Adam’s.

             A point I was making was the profound lack of talent available to the nats, probably Bill’s saving grace.
           • greywarshark 9.1.1.1.2.2

             23 August 2017 at 6:46 pm

             ab
             +1 Haha
       • Tony Veitch (not etc) 9.1.1.2

         23 August 2017 at 3:05 pm

         @Pete

         No, crushed by Collins!
   • JanM 9.2

     23 August 2017 at 10:23 am

     Isn’t she wonderful!
10. Andre 10

    23 August 2017 at 10:08 am

    Anyone know how high BLiP’s list of Key lies got? Did it crack 1000 in his eight years? Twitterfinger J. Putinpussy got there in just 7 months. Eat your heart out, Slur John.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/96053304/us-president-donald-trumps-list-of-false-misleading-claims-tops-1000
11. Anne 11

    23 August 2017 at 10:16 am

    Mikey (Hosking) is getting really scared. He claims:

    Labour had a CGT and it didn’t work so they dumped it.

    Labour has never ‘had a CGT’. They’ve merely discussed the possibility. It’s such a blatant Nat. Party ad that the Electoral Commission should be looking very closely at it. I hope Labour is too because he’s outlined the precise nature of the Nats attack for the next 4 weeks. 🙂

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/video.cfm?c_id=1&gal_cid=1&gallery_id=180676
12. joe90 12

    23 August 2017 at 10:17 am

    Translation – 100,000 troops couldn’t do the job and after 17 years of failure we’re going to send another 3/4000 youngsters into the mincer, pin a tail on it and call our new strategy Not Losing!.

    Tillerson: US's Afghanistan effort meant to tell Taliban "you will not win a battlefield victory. We may not win one, but neither will you." pic.twitter.com/8tE8uCe9pu— ABC News Politics (@ABCPolitics) August 22, 2017

    https://twitter.com/ABCPolitics/status/900060739980767233/video/1
13. adam 13

    23 August 2017 at 1:30 pm

    Informative, and funny. 15 min. Go at trump
14. greywarshark 14

    23 August 2017 at 2:25 pm

    Trump’s got tired of needling North Korea and vice versa.

    He now wants to have a go at anyone who criticses him. I believe that elsewhere in th world this hasn’t been allowed FTTT usually in oppressive societies!

    Avaaz from 22/8
    Danny Auron – Avaaz
    Trump is forcing a company to turn over the personal details of everyone who visited an anti-Trump website! He could do whatever he wants with this kind of power, like helping his dictator friends crack down on their citizens. Lawyers are taking him to court and if a million of us file a brief with the judge, it could have a huge impact on the case. Add your name and let’s stop Trump’s internet takeover!
    sign here
    Dear friends,

    Trump is forcing an internet provider to turn over the personal details of 1.3 million people who visited an anti-Trump website! From anywhere in the world!
15. eco Maori/kiwi 15

    23 August 2017 at 2:33 pm

    [deleted]

    [lprent: Unsubstantiated allegations that we can’t easily check, verify, or even see any sources for simply aren’t something that you can leave here. They simply put this site into legal danger. If I see you doing it again, then you will not be able to comment here in the future. ]
    • eco Maori/kiwi 15.1

      23 August 2017 at 7:26 pm

      sorry about that I don’t want that to happen this site is assume I am just trying to let people no What has happend to me and my family the authority’s new what happend to but they did not help us . I have emails to the employment courts to back these claims up.
      we might have to have a private talk so this wont happen again sorry Iprent I would never want to jeopardise all your hard work regards
      eco maori
16. Ad 16

    23 August 2017 at 5:05 pm

    From NZHerald today:

    Winston Peters said his party would cut company tax rates to 25 per cent over three years, starting from April 1 2019.

    On that date its policy is for other changes including:

    • An export tax rate of 20 per cent applied to export-generated income.
    • For small and medium-sized businesses 100 per cent depreciation for business equipment worth up to $20,000 for each item.
    • Introduce research and development tax credits.

    Those changes would help businesses pay a minimum wage that NZ First has pledged to increase to $20 an hour over three years.

    He’s nothing if not clear.
17. beatie 17

    23 August 2017 at 5:22 pm

    Not a word from Labour about their policy on Welfare. I can’t find anything online either. Do they have a policy in this area or will it be the same old ”bennie-bashing”?
18. McGrath 18

    23 August 2017 at 5:41 pm

    I see Labour has announced income tax will be left alone. This can only be a good thing and will make them more electable.
    • greywarshark 18.1

      23 August 2017 at 6:52 pm

      Och aye McGrath is it your Scottish canniness showing or are you Oirish and begorrah.

      Neither of those approaches is appropriate in NZ at the moment. If you see meanness and economic malpractice and ineffectiveness as delectable then I guess that’s why you think they are electable.
      • McGrath 18.1.1

        23 August 2017 at 7:59 pm

        Aye blossom, I be Scottish with cuzzie bro for good measure. In the words of Billy T, half of me wants to get drunk and the other half doesn’t want to pay for it 🙂.

        Yes I’m glad they’re leaving high bracket income tax alone. I pay enough tax in this bracket to fund a small army. If you had the power, what would you do with income tax?

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS