Not neo-liberalism but it is generally what happens when there are easier Speculative ways to make money..in our case through government policy.
Printable View
Welcome to the thread, Raz. Do you mean immigration policy? National seem to be quite good at that.
http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_...HOTPJun16.aspx
Seasonally adjusted, we are levelling out at about 6,000 net migrants per month, an extra 72,000 p.a. to house, on top of any normal population growth. That is a guaranteed recipe for increased house prices throughout NZ, it's a 1.6% annual increase in population.
Funnily enough, it's about the same as the growth in the economy.
From Trading economics.com
Latest stats on population:Quote:
The New Zealand economy advanced a seasonally adjusted 0.7 percent in the three months to March of 2016, following 0.9 percent expansion in the previous period and above market expectations of a 0.5 percent increase. The latest growth was driven by the construction and health industries, but partly offset by decreases in the primary industries and manufacturing. Year-on-year, the economy expanded 2.8 percent. The main driver behind the GDP growth was construction, which rose 4.9 percent. This was the strongest quarterly growth for the industry since March 2014.
http://www.interest.co.nz/property/8...13+August+2016
Shamubeel Eaqub comments:
Well that's fine if you only judge things on economics. Unfortunately we don't value our environment the same way. We don't build the infrastructure in advance of policy implementation. Living in the Far North we diabolical roading, sewerage systems that can't cater for the current population let alone tourism and now we are seeing massive population growth. I drove to Auckland recently and I averaged 45kms/hour! Due to the roadworks, truck after truck and no where to pass. And yet the government instead of re-implementing rail wants to rip more up! This same government only 18 months ago was driving centralization of services are now giving the homeless money to leave Auckland and forgiveness of student loans if they move to the regions. This is a government that governs by the seat of their pants and are constantly reacting to the consequences of their own policy, because they haven't been proactive or even thought it through.
Reminded me of this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDscbVWRBCw
Not sure I'd like to be drinking the water in Havelock North for a while.
The current policy on the bottom line for water is simply that it must be wadeable and suitable for boating. Not for swimming in.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/politi...ers-opposition
I was told the other day that just down the road from where I live at a central Hamilton address, are large holding tanks for sewage. There's at least another set on the other side of the Waikato River. In the 50s or 60s, council staff would go down to these tanks in the middle of the night on occasion, and let the sewage into the river, if there had been a lot of rain and the sewage system wasn't coping. Who knows, they may still be doing that, it would be a simple button press from the control room.
Remember Bruce Wills, ex Federated Farmers President, who wrote - while he was still in office - that waterway quality needed to be suitable enough that you could put your arm in up to the elbow, and not get ill afterwards. Since expunged from the web, but he wrote that.
Should government be providing a bit more direction on this at the moment? Did Craig Foss, MP, do anything useful to help?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/heal...d-into-inquiry
Liam Dann with a good article, mildy scathing of the govt.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/economy/ne...17+August+2016
Not one of your more rational posts El Z. Accusing your local govt of systematically dumping sewerage based on a rumour of what happened in the 50s is hardly strong argument. The US/British exploded atomic bombs in central Australia in the 50s (that's fact not rumour). Does that mean the Aussies are letting off a few sly ones now?
The answer is probably yes, the stinky bast.....
I guess I should have provided some proof. Maybe we shouldn't look.
It turns out the bastion of good information, Wikipedia, has this on Hamilton City:
So this lines up with the fact that the Waikato River immediately north of Huntly, for example, was quite clear in the late 40s, early 50s, but got quickly worse in the years that followed (reliable hearsay).Quote:
Although by 1956 80% of Hamilton had sewage pipes, it was only piped to 14 septic tanks (17 when replaced in 1976[127]), which were emptied several times a year, either into the Waitawhirwhiri Stream, or directly into the Waikato.[110] In 1956 the Pollution Advisory Council said, "the daily flow of sewage effluent and trade wastes from Hamilton City is three million gallons… in effect, partly digested sludge and raw sewage is being disposed of into the Waikato River". Downstream from Hamilton contaminants increased 10 times between the 1950s and the early 1970s.[128] The 1953 Water Pollution Act set up a Pollution Advisory Council, but it had no control powers until 1963.
In 1964 the Department of Health ordered adequate treatment for the sewage. Steven and Fitzmaurice, Consulting Engineers, presented a plan to Council early in 1966. There was some work on piping new areas in 1966, but work on the major trunks and interceptors didn't start until 1969 and building at Pukete sewage works started in January 1972. The first sewage was treated in July 1975 and was fully connected early in 1977.[127]
Grant Robertson on favourable statistics:
Quote:
Tomorrow the latest Household Labour Force Survey is released. These are the official statistics used to track, among other things, the level of unemployment. This will be the first survey undertaken since a change in how someone is defined as being unemployed. To be considered unemployed you need not only to be out of work, but also ‘actively seeking work’. Fair enough. But what is considered actively seeking work has changed. Looking on the internet on a website such as Seek or Trade Me is now considered “passive” rather than “active” and therefore is not sufficient for the person to be included as being unemployed. The result when this new criteria was applied to the last survey’s results was that unemployment magically went down from 5.7% to 5.2%.
This change in measurement just does not fit with the modern world and how people go about looking for work.
I accept the Chief Statistician’s assurance there was no political interference in the decision to make this change. What I know is that we have a National government that regularly misuses and misrepresents statistics and mark my words they will do it with this change particularly closer to the election.
The sad reality is that while the change in measurement might elicit a lower number or percentage it will not mean one fewer person is unemployed.
We need a more active government partnering with communities to create decent meaningful work right across NZ, not just celebrating a statistical change.
just as well the billion plus people of India and their toilet habits has nothing to do with the world that we live in........
really?........ I thought all the oceans were inter connected......
how many people live in Hamilton? and in the 1950s how many people lived there?
obviously one mans poos and wees is less than a another mans....... even if there a billions of poos floating down a foreign countries streams.......
bad NZ, we cant have a single poo floating in the water.
who cares about other countries!!!
not our problem.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/h...w/18804660.cms
isnt politics and peoples views great!
I can't see how we can do much about solving India's issues. But we live on the last major land mass to be discovered by humans, a part of Gondwana that happened to have only bats as the mammal representatives in recent times. It's a very special place, and we should do all we can to protect what's left. Humans are overrunning the world's ecosystems almost everywhere else - why don't we make a stand on principle, here in NZ?
Another symptom of a National Govt:
Unicef calls for action on child poverty - in NZ!
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/nation...d-for-homeless
Question: Should the new Ministry for vulnerable children come under the umbrella of the Minister of Social Housing or Immigration?
As I see policies of both have lead to the extreme disparity of wealth in NZ creating more vulnerable families.
So what happens to those who were covered under the previous ministry that aren't children or the most vulnerable as the government keeps referring to.