Posts by Gareth Ward
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I think what they're talking about is encouraging the development of a kind of investment vehicle that's scarce on the ground here.
And that's going to be a highlight of the investment money created because of Kiwisaver - when money goes looking for a long-term, low-risk home, infrastructure investment opportunities pop up to take that money!
But I seriously doubt that these funds are going to give govt (central or local) money to deliver on these - it will only go to some form of private infrastructure company that is going to deliver investment returns. Councils may be able to issue bonds to pay for it that Kiwisaver funds will take up I suppose, but then they would have to be happy that the councils are financially stable enough to continue financing that debt long term - and big infrastructure investments run without private help won't look good in that regard... -
I suspect you guys are right about cabinetisation -- shortest path to better service in many areas but it undermines LLU.
So the short term question becomes: Do we stop a major player actually improving services just to help other players in the market make money? i.e. retard broadband improvement for broadband competition?
The longer-term view is does retarding it for now mean a longer-term competitive landscape and therefore more investment at that point?But at what point exactly are Callplus, Orcon, iHug etc going to step up and invest themselves?
And what does Telecom's NGN network require that others can't do themselves? I was all for opening up the historic network, but right now Telecom are investing a fortune (from private shareholders) for this new network - why exactly can nobody else do that?
-
There seems to be at the very least some crossed-wires here re Kiwisaver and privatisation - only way Kiwisaver money (managed by private investment funds on behalf of us investees, nothing to do with Govt at all) will be utilised to fund infrastructure investment is if that infrastructure is privatised or run via PPP. The investment funds will only put money into profitable companies, not some Govt run organisation? Macquarie etc have made fortunes doing this.
There is no "Kiwisaver money" that the Govt can direct into public infrastructure at all. So at the very least, a PPP will be in order and even then will need to be profitable (yes long-term, cash-rich, risk-averse profitable but still profit driven).
-
It seems to me that this is exactly the kind of case where in the past a parent could have successfully used s59 as a defence but they can't now.
You and that other minor player, the Judge.
Of course, he's probably an anonymous Labour party donor flunky...
-
then I got a job at Xtra. Even though I had a free phone line and monthly $50 credit that I could spend on the Telecom services of my choosing...
Having just signed a Telecom employment contract (for a very loosely affiliated business unit) I am eyeing this little clause up. How to spend? Upping the 3G cap on the free broadband plan? Or subsidising SKY? Wife's cellphone bill?
It's like a telco-loving accountants Christmas! Only I'm neither.
And the irony of having avoided any form of Telecom bill since I returned to NZ up to now hasn't escaped me... -
I'm still hoping that shortly I'll land back in the New Zealand that has a sense of fairness and proportion
Well put - I suppose it's an unfortunate effect of politics that many smart people find it easier to whip up angry public sentiment than confront things rationally. I believe that's why I find myself siding against Opposition (of any "hue") on a more regular basis than their policy would suggest - because I can't stand the irrational points scoring...
-
While I accept that this is not the intention of legislation, I do find it odd that I could stand in Aotea Square and shout at the top of my meagre lungs to never vote for Labour, but not be allowed to use a megaphone to do the same thing - and yet surely the next grade on is saying it into a radio transmitter and then TV? How do you draw lines? Means of broadcast seems a strangely "hard-coded" way to do it. "Reasonable number of people reached" perhaps? Regularity? Or do we move this type of election advertising to a $$ spent control too (per message presumedly)?
I can see flaws in all means of trying to control it - the current reading of the bill seems to be disregarding means of transmission (or at least looking to cover them all) and looking to capture intent of the commentary but that then takes you back up into right to make personal comment.
Guess it just reinforces the view that the grey lines become important ones and perhaps this type of thing takes much more time, many more people and much broader thinking...
-
I don't know, perhaps I'm a little more worried about folks just telling lies than jumping at Exclusive Brethren under the bed, and foreign bagmen in the closet.
Absolutely, outright lying seems to have become a more acceptable "political argument" in recent times. If we could firm up the legislation around that, I'd be much keener than relatively minor electoral finance reform
-
I must say that Muldoon would have been one to try and hold a law like this very much on his side of things, but if a group of people were looking to turf out one party it's not beyond comprehension that it should be open/transparent and that the group should have limits similar to that of the political party they are fighting against...
Possibly off down my Devils Advocate road I must admit, but I do think this new suggested bill is vastly improved. It sticks to the idea that political parties have spending limits and therefore so should third party electoral groups to avoid a unrelated electoral battle that would avoid all those limits. It tightens itself up to try and focus on that alone and while it has some strange outcomes (DPF's megaphone comment) they seem to be simply because of an attempt for consistency (I couldn't broadcast an anti-ACT radio ad without declaration and therefore shouldn't be able to holler the same ad all over Queen St)
-
????
Let me repost that:Craig, I do agree that election year voice being limited to registered political parties only is OTT - but if the EFB had existed in 81, and HART had been specifically against National as a political party/Muldoon as a candidate they could have registered and said what they wanted (with spending limits like National would have had).
Of course, HART was more of an issues based advocacy and as such would not have been covered under this bill at all...