I might be (a little) to blame for this one. Way back I did some work for the Ministry of Transport because someone noticed that sharing a ride with a couple of mates and giving them a few dollars for petrol was illegal. The law was changed so that 'passengers' could make a contribution towards actual costs, but we were careful to make sure this couldn't be used as a profit making enterprise (passengers can make a contribution to fuel costs and reasonable wear and tear but NOT driver time).

In relation to Uber, their claim that it's ridesharing is bullshit because it's profit making, even putting aside all the other points you make. The only way it would fall under the exemption is if you don't get any money in relation to your time.

Two shows in Auckland in mid-December. I've seen them a few times and these should be cracking.

The problem in Australia isn't so much compulsory voting, it's the voting system. The current FPP system (at least for the lower house) means some swing seats have a disproportionate impact on policy - there are some policies that are pretty unpopular with the broader community, but are designed to win particular seats.

Also, because it's an FPP system it is difficult for smaller parties to become established (easier in the upper house). So the majority of voters have (at best) a choice between two parties if they don't want to cast a vote for a party with no chance of winning the seat.

MMP means that neither of these would be a problem in NZ if compulsory voting was introducted. If anything, the space might open up for a new party/s to emerge with policies that appeal to voters who currently aren't engaged.

As for funding the quickest way for the moment is to have a GST sharing arrangement like Australia does between Federal and State Governments. That is all GST collected off general rates goes back to the Council. All GST off water rates goes to Watercare. All GST off public transport goes back to Auckland Transport

This may or may not be a good idea, but it's quite different to how Australian GST is distributed. In Australia poorer states receive more GST than they contribute while richer states get given back less than they gave, they don't simply return all the GST collected in a particular state back to that state. Currently, that's pretty controversial in Western Australia, who are (at least at present) a net loser. I suspect the same would be true here ('hey, we're sending GST collected in your region to Auckland because they need it more than you and don't want to raise rates'), which would be a pretty significant hurdle to have to overcome.

I'm a bit worried about the idea that the Ryall was "challenged" to sack the board chair. That may have been in effect the result of his actions, but it seems to me that this is more like a meme being used by Ryall to make it easier for him to pull the plug on the guy. In reality Ryall has a number of options (including just shutting up), but the idea that there was some kind of challenge from the chair to Ryall to fire him seems to be fast catching on.

1999 Law & Order Question:

“Should there be a reform of the justice system placing greater emphasis on the needs of victims, providing restitution and
compensation for them and imposing minimum sentences and hard labour for all serious violent offences?"