https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/04/a-whos-who-of-new-zealands-dodgiest.html

And before some immediately dismiss this as biased, just think about
whether this proposed legislation and the obvious pay-backs would have
been acceptable to any previous government . . .

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/04/a-whos-who-of-new-zealands-dodgiest.html
>
>And before some immediately dismiss this as biased, just think about
>whether this proposed legislation and the obvious pay-backs would have
>been acceptable to any previous government . . .
Of course it is biased, it is a left wing publication - whatever else could it
be but biased?
What a pathetically childish post.

On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 04:33:28 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/04/a-whos-who-of-new-zealands-dodgiest.html
>>
>>And before some immediately dismiss this as biased, just think about
>>whether this proposed legislation and the obvious pay-backs would have
>>been acceptable to any previous government . . .
>Of course it is biased, it is a left wing publication - whatever else could it
>be but biased?
>What a pathetically childish post.

So would you have been happy with the last Labour Government deciding
that decisions on major projects could be decided by three Ministers
with no need to meet normal regulatory requirements for safety and
environment concerns and no need for consultation with local citizens,
Tony?

Would you be happy with ''Leaky Buildings'' happening again?

Or can you only ever attack the author, and ot address arguments that
embarrass you?

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 04:33:28 -0000 (UTC), Tony
><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/04/a-whos-who-of-new-zealands-dodgiest.html
>>>
>>>And before some immediately dismiss this as biased, just think about
>>>whether this proposed legislation and the obvious pay-backs would have
>>>been acceptable to any previous government . . .
>>Of course it is biased, it is a left wing publication - whatever else could
>>it
>>be but biased?
>>What a pathetically childish post.
>
>So would you have been happy with the last Labour Government deciding
>that decisions on major projects could be decided by three Ministers
>with no need to meet normal regulatory requirements for safety and
>environment concerns and no need for consultation with local citizens,
>Tony?
Irrelevant - you argued that the blog was not biased - it is. Period.
>
>Would you be happy with ''Leaky Buildings'' happening again?
Itrrelevant.
>
>Or can you only ever attack the author, and ot address arguments that
>embarrass you?
More abuse. Attacking authors is what you do, not me.

On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 20:14:47 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 04:33:28 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/04/a-whos-who-of-new-zealands-dodgiest.html
>>>>
>>>>And before some immediately dismiss this as biased, just think about
>>>>whether this proposed legislation and the obvious pay-backs would have
>>>>been acceptable to any previous government . . .
>>>Of course it is biased, it is a left wing publication - whatever else could
>>>it
>>>be but biased?
>>>What a pathetically childish post.
>>
>>So would you have been happy with the last Labour Government deciding
>>that decisions on major projects could be decided by three Ministers
>>with no need to meet normal regulatory requirements for safety and
>>environment concerns and no need for consultation with local citizens,
>>Tony?
>Irrelevant - you argued that the blog was not biased - it is. Period.
No I did not, I asked that this particular article not be dismissed
just because it is clearly objecting to a proposal made by the current
government, but to look to whether a similar proposal under any
previous government. Clearly the proposed authority to three Ministers
has not been granted previously; would it have been acceptable under
any previous government? I do not expect you to not have any bias
Tony; what is needed is honest appraisal of proposals from all
different points of view - and you cannot deny that you have
particular political views that are not the same as those expressed on
No Right Turn . . .

>>
>>Would you be happy with ''Leaky Buildings'' happening again?
>Itrrelevant.
No, it is directly relevant. See here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaky_homes_crisis

The cost has variously been estimated to have cost the economy between
$12 billion and $45 billion. Many building companies went out of
business to avoid liability; some individuals moved overseas.

There may be gains from deregulation, but there may also be losses.

>>
>>Or can you only ever attack the author, and ot address arguments that
>>embarrass you?
>More abuse. Attacking authors is what you do, not me.
I was not attacking you, I was seeking reaction to the article posted
and different views. If you do not have a view then don't pretend that
you do.

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 20:14:47 -0000 (UTC), Tony
><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 04:33:28 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/04/a-whos-who-of-new-zealands-dodgiest.html
>>>>>
>>>>>And before some immediately dismiss this as biased, just think about
>>>>>whether this proposed legislation and the obvious pay-backs would have
>>>>>been acceptable to any previous government . . .
>>>>Of course it is biased, it is a left wing publication - whatever else could
>>>>it
>>>>be but biased?
>>>>What a pathetically childish post.
>>>
>>>So would you have been happy with the last Labour Government deciding
>>>that decisions on major projects could be decided by three Ministers
>>>with no need to meet normal regulatory requirements for safety and
>>>environment concerns and no need for consultation with local citizens,
>>>Tony?
>>Irrelevant - you argued that the blog was not biased - it is. Period.
>No I did not
Bullshit. Twisting words is what you do, but this time it is bullshit, You got
sprung.
>, I asked that this particular article not be dismissed
>just because it is clearly objecting to a proposal made by the current
>government, but to look to whether a similar proposal under any
>previous government. Clearly the proposed authority to three Ministers
>has not been granted previously; would it have been acceptable under
>any previous government? I do not expect you to not have any bias
>Tony; what is needed is honest appraisal of proposals from all
>different points of view - and you cannot deny that you have
>particular political views that are not the same as those expressed on
>No Right Turn . . .
Irrelevant
>
>
>>>
>>>Would you be happy with ''Leaky Buildings'' happening again?
>>Itrrelevant.
>No, it is directly relevant. See here:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaky_homes_crisis
Irrelevant to my point which is all I have assressed. but you cannot move away
from your bias.
>
>The cost has variously been estimated to have cost the economy between
>$12 billion and $45 billion. Many building companies went out of
>business to avoid liability; some individuals moved overseas.
>
>There may be gains from deregulation, but there may also be losses.
Itrrelevant as above,
>
>>>
>>>Or can you only ever attack the author, and ot address arguments that
>>>embarrass you?
>>More abuse. Attacking authors is what you do, not me.
>I was not attacking you, I was seeking reaction to the article posted
>and different views. If you do not have a view then don't pretend that
>you do.
Morfe abuse and irrelevance.

On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 14:13:24 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/04/a-whos-who-of-new-zealands-dodgiest.html
>
>And before some immediately dismiss this as biased, just think about
>whether this proposed legislation and the obvious pay-backs would have
>been acceptable to any previous government . . .

Irrelevant Rich. Can you point to anything in this that is not in the
two coalition agreements that National have concluded? Can you point
to anything that is not included in the manifestos of any none of the
3 parties in the current Government? If you can then you have a point
worth making. If you ant then your post is another example of your
relentless anti-Government rhetoric.

--
Crash McBash

On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 21:00:01 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:

>On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 14:13:24 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/04/a-whos-who-of-new-zealands-dodgiest.html
>>
>>And before some immediately dismiss this as biased, just think about
>>whether this proposed legislation and the obvious pay-backs would have
>>been acceptable to any previous government . . .
>
>
>Irrelevant Rich. Can you point to anything in this that is not in the
>two coalition agreements that National have concluded? Can you point
>to anything that is not included in the manifestos of any none of the
>3 parties in the current Government? If you can then you have a point
>worth making. If you ant then your post is another example of your
>relentless anti-Government rhetoric.

There may have been some vague talk about quicker decision making, but
I do not believe allowing Ministers to overall normal planning and
safety and environmental legislation with no recourse was campaigned
on or in the coalition agreements. The coalition agreements were made
in a rush involving a very small group - they are not legally binding
on either the parties or individual members of parliament - if they
vote the current proposals in they are creating in effect a system
somewhat akin to a personal dictatorship, with three Ministers each
able to make decisions that would normally require a majority of votes
in parliament. When democracy is convenient, NAct1st are prepared to
by-pass it . . .

My question is still unanswered - would a Labour or Labour-led
government giving Ministers the power to make decisions contrary to
legislation and without consultation or justification have been
acceptable to any previous government?

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 21:00:01 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 14:13:24 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/04/a-whos-who-of-new-zealands-dodgiest.html
>>>
>>>And before some immediately dismiss this as biased, just think about
>>>whether this proposed legislation and the obvious pay-backs would have
>>>been acceptable to any previous government . . .
>>
>>
>>Irrelevant Rich. Can you point to anything in this that is not in the
>>two coalition agreements that National have concluded? Can you point
>>to anything that is not included in the manifestos of any none of the
>>3 parties in the current Government? If you can then you have a point
>>worth making. If you ant then your post is another example of your
>>relentless anti-Government rhetoric.
>
>There may have been some vague talk about quicker decision making, but
>I do not believe allowing Ministers to overall normal planning and
>safety and environmental legislation with no recourse was campaigned
>on or in the coalition agreements. The coalition agreements were made
>in a rush involving a very small group - they are not legally binding
>on either the parties or individual members of parliament - if they
>vote the current proposals in they are creating in effect a system
>somewhat akin to a personal dictatorship, with three Ministers each
>able to make decisions that would normally require a majority of votes
>in parliament. When democracy is convenient, NAct1st are prepared to
>by-pass it . . .
>
>My question is still unanswered - would a Labour or Labour-led
>government giving Ministers the power to make decisions contrary to
>legislation and without consultation or justification have been
>acceptable to any previous government?
There is a good reason that it is unanswered - it is a pointless question
disguising (very poorly) a political attack.

On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 20:33:05 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 21:00:01 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 14:13:24 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/04/a-whos-who-of-new-zealands-dodgiest.html
>>>>
>>>>And before some immediately dismiss this as biased, just think about
>>>>whether this proposed legislation and the obvious pay-backs would have
>>>>been acceptable to any previous government . . .
>>>
>>>
>>>Irrelevant Rich. Can you point to anything in this that is not in the
>>>two coalition agreements that National have concluded? Can you point
>>>to anything that is not included in the manifestos of any none of the
>>>3 parties in the current Government? If you can then you have a point
>>>worth making. If you ant then your post is another example of your
>>>relentless anti-Government rhetoric.
>>
>>There may have been some vague talk about quicker decision making, but
>>I do not believe allowing Ministers to overall normal planning and
>>safety and environmental legislation with no recourse was campaigned
>>on or in the coalition agreements. The coalition agreements were made
>>in a rush involving a very small group - they are not legally binding
>>on either the parties or individual members of parliament - if they
>>vote the current proposals in they are creating in effect a system
>>somewhat akin to a personal dictatorship, with three Ministers each
>>able to make decisions that would normally require a majority of votes
>>in parliament. When democracy is convenient, NAct1st are prepared to
>>by-pass it . . .
>>
>>My question is still unanswered - would a Labour or Labour-led
>>government giving Ministers the power to make decisions contrary to
>>legislation and without consultation or justification have been
>>acceptable to any previous government?
>There is a good reason that it is unanswered - it is a pointless question
>disguising (very poorly) a political attack.

Well we will watch with interest what happens regarding this case:
https://www.odt.co.nz/regions/central-otago/mining-activity-undertaken-without-consent
https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/04/more-criminal-miners.html