Info message
Successful operation message
Warning message
Error message

da_meerkat

77 comments · +1,424 / −363 · rank #925 of 40,276

so let me get this right.... I dont insure my house and in the event of an earthquake the Government will pay me out the rateable value at the time of the earthquake? so why do I pay for insurance...? and what about all of those in ChCh who do pay insurance do they get some kind of compensation for doing so....?

+63−22

What...! Hes right because he doesnt know his portfolio, hes right because hes out of his depth, hes right because he cant conduct himself in a manner becoming a Minister...? Hes a Muppet...the slightest challenge and hes loosing his cool, it wont take long before everyone sees he, like others in labour, arent fit to be in office.

+49−8

I agree shes no threat but laws are laws and it appears if you are the left you can make special dispensation that suit the left agenda. We also have laws that prohibit convicted criminals making revenue from their crimes, Manning is also doing that on our shores another law Labour seem to want to bend.

+21−3

Men will and do support equality, they just dont support feminists pushing their unequal agenda and quotas based on gender alone and not merit. When feminists finally realise that the change they want comes through evolution not revolution then we all will get equality...

+16−1

Guess it depends on your motivations for playing...is is money or is it pride? Id argue that because we have so much depth and talent in the rugby world there are going to be high profile players (Sopoaga and the like) that will become casualties of this. Sopoage has done the right thing by him and theres nothing wrong with that for his business but it may not be for others who have different motivations.

+14−1

What so the Government can tax them for renting out their bach? And what about when the owner wants to use it, can we move these people out? And what about if its not fully insulated? had a heating source? doesnt meet the standards this government is/has putting in place...what then..?. you make an assumption that people who have baches are wealthy. Some are, some might be...but certainly not all are.

+11−0

So the tenants who smoked meth have no liability in this? Perhaps they should be made to apologise as they have created this problem in the first instance what about the damage and harm they have caused.But that would suit your socialist agenda would it...?

+15−4

for the Ministry not to know Asparona wasnt owned by Deloitte is an absolute lie. When a Govt department engages a third party (Contractor, Company etc) they do due diligence on that third party...standard procurement practice. If they didnt then theyre guilty of not following procurement rules. This is rubbish!

+14−3

What a load of tripe... I, along with my siblings, own a bach. We, pay for it out of our taxable income as our investment in our family. We contribute to the local authority by way of rates, we pay the local lawn mowing man to mow the lawns and local contractors to provide maintenance on the bach... WE CONTRIBUTE and therefore there are benefits. You forget the value and I mean non monetary value, that a bach provides, something more fulfilling than shares in some company that can be influenced and wiped by some rubbish like Trumps trade war.

+8−1

you miss the point... had these properties been inspected properly and then consented these poor people would have a house worth more than what the council is offering...and to that end they cannot afford to buy another house of the same spec as properties has risen. TCC made the mistakes (if you can call incompetence a mistake) they should pay for it. Too often City Councils take the money and never the liability...its about time councils were made to account for their incompetence. you wouldnt except it from any trades you hired or any service you bought. You pay the council to inspect and consent they should pay for their negligence.

+11−6

What makes you so sure that theyre still not being lied to now? Yes, PLANS.... plans dont always work and this is still all theory, practice is where the rubber hits the road... the real pretenders could be the ones giving 0 hope now and using this as a political platform.

+3−2

I do feel for the Pike River Families but at what point do you need to get to before you accept the fact that they are not recoverable. What risks are they and this Government willing to take, more lives, millions and millions of dollars? What if theres an accident while this recovery is going on, this will be on their heads, they and the labour government...

+5−4

daveymac - All new houses need to be inspected - end of story. At each stage the houses would have been inspected you cannot proceed to the next stage until you have one. At the end of the build you get a code of compliance. There is NO WAY only some of these houses were inspected properly it doesnt work that way. Its obvious that the council inspectors have signed off work that was substandard and didnt meet code, this allowed the developer/builder to go to the next stage when they shouldnt. The council inspectors could have signaled there was an issue with the whole development...they didnt, they even gave some houses a code of compliance! They are derelict in their duty, incompetent and should pay these poor people.

+2−3

token gestures... while it may seem that theyre doing the right thing by tightening/freezing salaries for MPs and CEOs theyre merely plugging up a very, very small hole in a leaking bucket full of holes! perhaps plugging up a big hole or two will better serve the tax payer... but that wouldnt provide the right kind of spin they need.

+3−4