If National wins ...

[elZorro]

Rocket Lab says the average cost of a dedicated satellite launch system is $155 million, but it will be able to do the same job for $5.7 million. $25 Million is a good investment if they can secure business from customers used to paying $155 million but will only pay $5.7 million to this Kiwi company who will still make a good profit. Sounds like good enterprise to me.

Think about it, it won't be a kiwi company any more. It'll employ a few kiwis, maybe, and the big profits will go offshore. I bet it's all going to be run through a tax haven. One or two NZers will get a big tax-free payout.

Back in the line of big business not always being good for NZ, a mining firm left behind the Tui Mine mess, which contaminated the Waihou River for years. Its remediation is now complete and the site is going to receive the Arthur Mead award. Funds were set aside and work started in 2007, Helen Clark's govt saw to it. It had been a festering sore for decades. I bet National MPs will attend this PR event, as though it was their doing.

http://www.doc.govt.nz/conservation/...ects/tui-mine/

National implies it was all their idea, 2013.

[BlackPeter]

No, that's not the point I was making, this is an interesting industry, and one we could do from here. But, the govt has granted these guys $25mill, it's a gift, they probably started saying that this is the end of the line as far as grants go. So then the business owners have targeted a bigger fish overseas, and these new people won't be doing it for free, they'll want a big return. The NZ govt won't have any holding interest in the operation, and now it runs the risk of being an Endace, overseas owned and no refund of the substantial grants back to the NZ taxpayer. It's a taxpayer rort if that happens. A really big one.

Forget about the Greens, what about all the smaller businesses that don't get grants or R&D tax credits under National? For the entire year, the NZ govt allows 195 uni undergrads funding for 400 hrs @$16 for job training out in businesses. Funds involved: about $1.3mill. The positions were taken in just a few days. Fonterra used to take 100 students by themselves, this year, none. There are thousands of students who'd like to be doing holiday work relating to their degrees. Most of them don't get the chance. So employers end up with new employees who need quite a bit of hand-holding in their first fulltime jobs.

EZ, I understand ... and to a degree I even concur. Yes, the current system (a la National) of picking winners and subsidizing losers is certainly not the best of all worlds - and yes, looking into the professional education of children - the NZ professional education is going downhill together with the whole education system. Some of it is due to government inaction and ideological blindness, some of it is however funnily enough as well because left wing ideologists are still running our teachers education system (probably one of Helen Clarks legacies National didn't manage to get rid of).

I understand that some of Labour's policies are well intended (even if not always well thought through). Problem is however - you can't forget about the Greens (as you suggest), given that Labour has even with them little chance to form a government (and NIL without them). I.e. every vote for Labour is a vote for Green, which is at current a Nay-saying bunch of protesters. I know, there was a time when the Greens stood for more than just for saying NO, but this was a different team. The current Greens are happy to destroy as much wealth and jobs as they can. Land based mining - NO, Off shore mining - NO, Fishing - NO, Wind energy - NO, Agriculture - NO, Tourism - NO, New Hydro energy and irrigation - NO, more useless bureaucrats - YES ... o.k. I agree, their is something they say YES to;

[Banksie]

Land based mining - NO, Off shore mining - NO, Fishing - NO, Wind energy - NO, Agriculture - NO, Tourism - NO, New Hydro energy and irrigation - NO, more useless bureaucrats - YES ... o.k. I agree, their is something they say YES to;

I was just having a discussion on the other thread regarding mining, and some of the sound bites being bantered around regarding the greens are just not true.
https://www.greens.org.nz/conservation/mining

Unless I am misreading their policy this is their position:

No to,
* Fracking,
* Deep sea oil drilling,
* Mining in national parks.
Yes to,
* shallow sea offshore drilling,
* On shore drilling(just no fracking),
* On shore mining
They are not even writing off fracking, rather they say
"[f]racking shouldn't happen until we know more about it and have a proper regulatory regime in place."

Edit: I decided to research one of your other NOs. I think you must be making it up. Here is their position on Wind Farms.

B. Supporting Wind Energy
New Zealand has an excellent wind resource that can be used for pumping or electricity generation. Wind farms are quick to be commissioned, easily extended, and can be sited close to demand. The combination of wind and hydro is particularly beneficial as water can be stored in the lakes when the wind is blowing and used to generate power when it is not. Care is needed in choosing sites for wind farms, in order to respect cultural values such as iconic views. We want to see communities and energy companies agreeing about possible wind farm sites before specific proposals are developed. The Green Party will:


Provide planning assistance to district and regional councils, to enable them to provide sites for wind farms in their plans that minimise conflict with other community values in advance of specific proposals.

https://www.greens.org.nz/policy/energy-policy

[elZorro]

I was just having a chat with a business owner, he has voted National and Act in the past. This year, he's voting for the Greens. He is heavily involved in resource consent related work, and has looked very hard at their policies. He likes them a lot. And this guy is a smart operator. Unlike many others in NZ, he's not scared of the Greens. We need a new direction.

[fungus pudding]

I was just having a chat with a business owner, he has voted National and Act in the past. This year, he's voting for the Greens.

That settles it then. Doesn't seem much point in having an election after all.

[BlackPeter]

I was just having a discussion on the other thread regarding mining, and some of the sound bites being bantered around regarding the greens are just not true.
https://www.greens.org.nz/conservation/mining

Unless I am misreading their policy this is their position:

No to,
* Fracking,
* Deep sea oil drilling,
* Mining in national parks.
Yes to,
* shallow sea offshore drilling,
* On shore drilling(just no fracking),
* On shore mining
They are not even writing off fracking, rather they say
"[f]racking shouldn't happen until we know more about it and have a proper regulatory regime in place."

Edit: I decided to research one of your other NOs. I think you must be making it up. Here is their position on Wind Farms.

B. Supporting Wind Energy
New Zealand has an excellent wind resource that can be used for pumping or electricity generation. Wind farms are quick to be commissioned, easily extended, and can be sited close to demand. The combination of wind and hydro is particularly beneficial as water can be stored in the lakes when the wind is blowing and used to generate power when it is not. Care is needed in choosing sites for wind farms, in order to respect cultural values such as iconic views. We want to see communities and energy companies agreeing about possible wind farm sites before specific proposals are developed. The Green Party will:


Provide planning assistance to district and regional councils, to enable them to provide sites for wind farms in their plans that minimise conflict with other community values in advance of specific proposals.

https://www.greens.org.nz/policy/energy-policy

Hi Banksie,

(I presume not THE Banksie??). I admit that I generalised somewhat (mea culpa), but on the other hand - don't measure them on their words, but on their deeds. I remember several South Island wind farms the Greens opposed - and if you look at NWF (Palmerston North) - sure, this is a self serving city council as main opposition, but I would be very surprised if they (the opposers) wouldn't have support from the Greens as well.

So I guess in practise, the Greens claim to support wind farms as long as nobody (including any native animal) can see them or hear them (the wind farm, not the Greens), as long as no landmark is optically polluted and as long as nobody else opposes them for whatever reason. How many NZ wind farms do you remember receiving support from the Greens?

[elZorro]

That settles it then. Doesn't seem much point in having an election after all.

Not for you, FP, he'll cancel out your party vote I'm sure. You'll need some like-minded voters.

[BlackPeter]

I was just having a chat with a business owner, he has voted National and Act in the past. This year, he's voting for the Greens. He is heavily involved in resource consent related work, and has looked very hard at their policies. He likes them a lot. And this guy is a smart operator. Unlike many others in NZ, he's not scared of the Greens. We need a new direction.

I am not afraid of the Greens - and just for the record: l voted last time for the Green party. Won't repeat this mistake this round, though. See , the problem is that the current bunch of "Greens" use the name only as camouflage for their left-wing ideology and their can't do attitude.

[fungus pudding]

I am not afraid of the Greens - and just for the record: l voted last time for the Green party. Won't repeat this mistake this round, though. See , the problem is that the current bunch of "Greens" use the name only as camouflage for their left-wing ideology and their can't do attitude.

The Greens are certainly costing Labour some votes. They are now inseparable and should agree on major policies before the election. Given the relative strength of them now it's just pointless for each party spewing out stuff that is in conflict with or very different from the other. 'Vote Labour and get Norman and Turei as co deputy PMs'. Oh dear - not a vote winner.

[elZorro]

The Greens are certainly costing Labour some votes. They are now inseparable and should agree on major policies before the election. Given the relative strength of them now it's just pointless for each party spewing out stuff that is in conflict with or very different from the other. 'Vote Labour and get Norman and Turei as co deputy PMs'. Oh dear - not a vote winner.

Yes, it could be FP. Norman and Turei both speak common sense backed up with research, and they're good at sound bites. You should indeed be worried.

Steven Joyce finally moves to get control of Novopay, as Talent2 refuses to modify the code any more, within the contract. Looks like a team of NZ software writers will get access to the source code for up to 6 years, at a price of course. But at least we'll see if NZ programmers are any more organised and dedicated than Australians.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...payroll-system

I note that one school kept sane by writing their own Excel spreadsheet to keep track of the situation. NovoPay cost $125million, so far.

Transfer to NZ will occur after the election. So if the swapover isn't clean, it won't affect the voting.

This NovoPay debacle should be high in the mind of politicians when they decide who should write the new IRD software. No matter what the track record in software writing of this size, it should be done in NZ. Keep the work here.