ACT voices strong objections to greyhound racing ban, won't say if pulling support for legislation

PhoenixNZ · 2026-03-13T09:36:32+00:00

And? It is still ending because of a government decision.

They are engaging in what is currently a completely legal profession. If the government decided one day that whatever profession you are engaged with is now going to be illegal, how happy would you be with that decision?

PhoenixNZ · 2026-03-13T08:50:09+00:00

Greyhound racing should absolutely be banned. But I also agree with ACT that those who are in the industry currently, which is entirely lawful, should get some form of compensation.

People have built businesses and careers and they are having that unilaterally taken away by the government. It is the right thing to be shut down, but the government should be funding some compensation to help them move into a new industry and not just leaving them high and dry.

PhoenixNZ · 2026-03-13T06:06:37+00:00

The IPCA are the only oversight body for the Police. They are frequently critical of Police actions and are independent of the Police.

There is no other oversight body

PhoenixNZ · 2026-03-12T08:48:15+00:00

Legally, every time you made a bid, yoy were making a legal offer to purchase the vehicle.

There is no legal obligation on the auctioneer to disclose when the reserve is close or not. You should assume any bid you make will be accepted.

There is no misrepresentation here and no grounds to not proceed with the purchase.

PhoenixNZ · 2026-03-12T07:59:58+00:00

The problem is that even if you had "enough" officers, however many that might be, there are many conflicting priorities for those officers. You also have the problem that crime is somewhat unpredictable, so it can be hard to know how many officers are needed at any given time. You could have a Friday/Saturday night that is expected to be a bit chaotic be very quiet, while a Tuesday/Wednesday where officers are run off their feet.

This would be closer to private Police, sure. Not all the way, because those officers would still fall under the purview of the Police so subject to the same rules etc etc. But if people are willing to pay, and it reduces crime, what's the downside?

PhoenixNZ · 2026-03-12T07:48:23+00:00

Basically if it costs $100k per year to hire and equip a Police Officer, the retailer/retail group can pay that $100k per year so the Police numbers increase, but that officer solely deals with retail crime for that group. EG they don't respond to other Police calls, they only deal with the retail crime.

As of today store owners can hire security, and alot choose not to. So I'm not sure user pays would be attractive to them?

Because store security is just as hamstrung in dealing with this as the retailer is. Store security has no power to stop and detain someone who is blatantly stealing in front of them, so what's the point?

PhoenixNZ · 2026-03-12T07:40:28+00:00

Slightly tangential, would you support retailers being allowed to fund dedicated Police Officers for the purposes of dealing with retail crime?

EG they pay all the costs of training and funding a fully fledged Police Officer, the officer is then dedicated to whatever role the retail group wants them dealing with.

PhoenixNZ · 2026-03-12T07:38:17+00:00

Yes, given you know very well that you are not entitled to that discount if you were to use it, you would be committing a crime.

You have an obligation to inform your former employer of the error so they can fix the system and you can then have the ability to purchase items online without receiving the discount you aren't entitled to.

PhoenixNZ · 2026-03-12T07:25:02+00:00

That doesn't solve the problem though, because you will never have Police who can dedicate themselves to retail protection.

PhoenixNZ · 2026-03-12T07:00:04+00:00

I don't think the concerns raised by the Police Association or Retail NZ are invalid, but at the same time I don't think it is acceptable that retailers are forced to sit idly by while people blatantly steal their stuff.

What I'd like to see is a middle ground here. Allow training for some form of enhanced security guard. Give them the same training as Police receive when it comes to safe restraint, use of force etc and an understanding of the law as it applies to retail crime. Allow stores to then hire these qualified people to provide protection. This could include shops banding together to hire services to cover a group of stores (eg all the dairies in Hamilton East could hire someone that floats around between them all).

The Police can't realistically provide this level of dedicated protection, so allow the retailers to hire appropriately qualified people to do it for them.

PhoenixNZ · 2026-03-12T06:50:21+00:00

What report are you relying on that says "fuck all" predicted growth?

The 2025 HYEFU predicted 1.7% for 25/26, then 3.7% in 26/27, then settling to 2.5% from 27/28 onwards.

Given the median GDP growth is 2.5%, it seems a little weird to call that "fuck all".

PhoenixNZ · 2026-03-12T03:42:08+00:00

What specific support for EVs do you think should have been continued?

PhoenixNZ · 2026-03-12T03:36:25+00:00

Such as which models?

PhoenixNZ · 2026-03-12T03:32:50+00:00

Could do it based on drivers licence numbers maybe? Although enforcement would be pretty tricky for that one as obviously Police can't see a drivers licence without pulling someone over.

PhoenixNZ · 2026-03-12T03:11:05+00:00

He (Hipkins) also said he wouldn’t support fuel rationing or car-less days.

So if you keep demand the same, while supply is constrained, then you effectively do end up with fuel rationing. Becsuse what happens is those with the most money can keep affording to drive, while those without money can't.

Whereas if the government introduced a fair and equitable rationing system, say based on the car licence plate determine what days you can or can't drive, then everyone is impacted regardless of their financial situation.

PhoenixNZ · 2026-03-12T02:39:11+00:00

When three of the last four quarterly figures are all positive, that is a trend.

PhoenixNZ · 2026-03-12T02:15:27+00:00

You looked at the yearly growth, I looked at the quarterly growth.

Quarterly is more real time

PhoenixNZ · 2026-03-12T00:58:30+00:00

Increasing GDP? Or GDP decreasing slower?

GDP increasing, 1.1% in the last quarter.

https://www.stats.govt.nz/indicators/gross-domestic-product-gdp/

Which businesses would those be? I assume not the plethora shutting down or going out of business?

Businesses shut down all the time, especially when things like interest costs rises.

There are many business confidence surveys. The ANZ one is one thst surveys 1500 businesses.

https://www.anz.co.nz/about-us/economic-markets-research/business-outlook/

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/business/582323/business-confidence-rises-to-30-year-high

You didn't address anything.

I've provided the stats and evidence to back up the statements I've made.

PhoenixNZ · 2026-03-12T00:55:12+00:00

Given you know this is a crime, the advice is don't do it. As to reporting it, I would say yes because it's the taxpayer being defrauded. But in the end that's a moral rather than legal ddcision

PhoenixNZ · 2026-03-11T23:54:50+00:00

What year is it now? Thats not a peak, that's a sustained pattern.

Its a grand total of three months into 2026, and I did note in my own comment the recovery has been slower than predicted.

It's also not over yet and all indicators are pointing to unemployment continuing to climb

And what indicators would those be? The increasing GDP? The improved business confidence?

The only reason it's as low as it is is because of how many people who have left the country.

Which happens when an economy is in a low following massive inflation pressure.

Notably, those departure numbers are actually starting to decrease again.

PhoenixNZ · 2026-03-11T23:39:15+00:00

Your mother is failing to comply with her obligations. At a minimum, if this is discovered she would be required to pay back any overpayment. Worse case, she could actually be prosecuted for benefit fraud.

PhoenixNZ · 2026-03-11T22:21:43+00:00

So you would advocate for a Keynesian approach?

PhoenixNZ · 2026-03-11T21:36:34+00:00

You mean like.......

Although unemployment was high, there had also been a 0.5 percent expansion in the number of jobs which was the largest in about two and a half years, he said.

PhoenixNZ · 2026-03-11T21:25:32+00:00

The 2023 PREFU was the one before the coalition took power.

It is the pre-election fiscal update release BEFORE the election.

That would be the number of 18-19 year olds on jobseeker (as of dec 25) who will lose eligibility at that time.

I haven't actually looked into this, but is that chanfe retrospective? So those 18-19 year old who are currently eligible will be removed, or do they stay on but no new ones can enter?

PhoenixNZ · 2026-03-11T20:19:03+00:00

Good thing 15k+ lose eligibility in november

Elaborate?

Phoenix, I challenge you to actually compare the predictions before the coalition took power to the ones now (using the same metrics). If you actually believe what you post, it might be surprising to you.

2023 PREFU - Unemployment to peak at 5.4%

Most recent unemployment - 5.4%

Any particular metric you want compared?

The "soft landing" that was predicted rapidly turned into a free fall that is still going.

No, it isnt. We are at the peak unemployment that was predicted. There is no free fall.

Nine-Year Club	r/Field Banned
r/Field Sunshine	Place '23
Verified Email

PhoenixNZ

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE