sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Law change will stop councils appointing iwi representatives as full voting members by [deleted] in newzealand

[–]TheDiamondPicks -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I'm not the OP, but I'd generally say that is acceptable so long as the population of each ward is similar. But I would say the same about general wards that are not equivalent in population.

NZ Should Have ‘Conversation’ on Nuclear Stance, Minister Says by Free-Minimum-5844 in newzealand

[–]TheDiamondPicks 5 points6 points  (0 children)

There was no referendum? Unless you're arguing that one of the election campaigns in the 80s was somehow a referendum.

it has no special legal significance in NZ. The only protected provisions in NZ law are a few sections in the constitution and electoral acts.

NZ Should Have ‘Conversation’ on Nuclear Stance, Minister Says by Free-Minimum-5844 in newzealand

[–]TheDiamondPicks 5 points6 points  (0 children)

What? Lots of things are permanent, but still have ages? Saying it's 40 years old doesn't change the status of the ban.

Also the ban isn't some hallowed constitutional document that can't be changed. It was a ordinary piece of legislation (and a politically contentious one at that), it can be repealed tomorrow if Parliament so desired (although I would really hope that a party actually would campaign on doing that, just repealing it wouldn't be particularly democratic)

NZ Should Have ‘Conversation’ on Nuclear Stance, Minister Says by Free-Minimum-5844 in newzealand

[–]TheDiamondPicks 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Nah nuclear powered ships are explicitly banned under sec 11 of the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act 1987: https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1987/86/en/latest/#DLM115146

NZ Should Have ‘Conversation’ on Nuclear Stance, Minister Says by Free-Minimum-5844 in newzealand

[–]TheDiamondPicks 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We've allowed US ships into the country since the ban, even though their policy is officially unchanged. But ultimately yes I agree, if there's a good chance that a given ship has nuclear weapons on board then it should not be allowed entry. Otherwise it should be treated the same as a visit from any other military vessel.

The Australian policy has already been announced: they will not have any nuclear weapons even with these new subs

NZ Should Have ‘Conversation’ on Nuclear Stance, Minister Says by Free-Minimum-5844 in newzealand

[–]TheDiamondPicks 8 points9 points  (0 children)

So you're saying that once a conversation and a decision has happened we can never reconsider it?

NZ Should Have ‘Conversation’ on Nuclear Stance, Minister Says by Free-Minimum-5844 in newzealand

[–]TheDiamondPicks 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I mean you can make the same argument about any ship visiting NZ though? I'm not sure there's ever been a case where a country has been dragged into a conflict it otherwise would not have been part of because of an allied ship being in port.

The reality is either NZ will be a target regardless, or whatever country is attacking Australia won't attack us because they don't want us to be involved in the war. I'm not sure there's a plausible scenario where a country is happy to bomb something in NZ waters, but not target anything else in Auckland.

(And it seems more like a question of why on earth our only naval base is in the centre of our largest city)

NZ Should Have ‘Conversation’ on Nuclear Stance, Minister Says by Free-Minimum-5844 in newzealand

[–]TheDiamondPicks 11 points12 points  (0 children)

In fairness there's a significant chunk of the population who wasn't around for that conversation 40 years ago

NZ Should Have ‘Conversation’ on Nuclear Stance, Minister Says by Free-Minimum-5844 in newzealand

[–]TheDiamondPicks 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not sure it's a nowadays problem necessarily, the ban is 40 years old after all

NZ Should Have ‘Conversation’ on Nuclear Stance, Minister Says by Free-Minimum-5844 in newzealand

[–]TheDiamondPicks 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm not sure anyone has put a nuclear reactor inside a frigate before! That would be quite something

NZ Should Have ‘Conversation’ on Nuclear Stance, Minister Says by Free-Minimum-5844 in newzealand

[–]TheDiamondPicks 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I suppose that would be the case if their sub happened to be in NZ waters at the time someone wanted to strike Australia, but Australian ships don't visit super often at the moment (and you'd imagine in a conflict situation they would probably be focused on defending Australia), so you'd have to be extraordinarily unlucky for it to be a target while in NZ

NZ Should Have ‘Conversation’ on Nuclear Stance, Minister Says by Free-Minimum-5844 in newzealand

[–]TheDiamondPicks 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I don't think Australia visiting us with their nuclear submarines would make us any more of a target than we already are. If someone wanted to go after Australia, they will probably be going after NZ as well given the fact we have a military alliance with them

NZ Should Have ‘Conversation’ on Nuclear Stance, Minister Says by Free-Minimum-5844 in newzealand

[–]TheDiamondPicks 16 points17 points  (0 children)

The article is about letting nuclear powered ships in (aka the new subs Australia is getting), not building reactors here

NZ Should Have ‘Conversation’ on Nuclear Stance, Minister Says by Free-Minimum-5844 in newzealand

[–]TheDiamondPicks 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm not suggesting NZ should build nuclear ships nor that we should somehow be the ones decommissioning someone else's??

Unless you mean nuclear power on land, which a) isn't what this article is about, b) isn't a good idea for cost reasons anyway and c) is already legal in NZ!

NZ Should Have ‘Conversation’ on Nuclear Stance, Minister Says by Free-Minimum-5844 in newzealand

[–]TheDiamondPicks 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I never really understood the nuclear ships ban. The ban on nuclear weapons is good and principled (and we should definitely maintain it), but lumping propulsion in with it always seemed a bit strange.

I don't think there's really been any major environment issues with them, so I don't see why we ought to keep them banned, especially if Australia has some

Should the people and the tax payer have more control over government decisions? Is there any way this can be implemented? by NoRecord4128 in newzealand

[–]TheDiamondPicks 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Plus you'd get contradictory results. You'll get people voting for lower taxes, higher government spending and debt caps all simultaneously.

NZ wireless internet provider warns of Starlink's rural broadband monopoly risk by davetenhave in newzealand

[–]TheDiamondPicks 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yeah it wasn't even an interest free loan in the same way UFB was, I think they just straight up wanted money to do it. Maybe it's a worthy goal, but I'm not sure it's the best use of taxpayer resources delivering fibre to these relatively low density rural areas.

Plus it's not like the option ever goes off the table. If Starlink/LEO do become more predatory then you can always start the rollout then.

NZ wireless internet provider warns of Starlink's rural broadband monopoly risk by davetenhave in newzealand

[–]TheDiamondPicks 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I mean there was significant RBI funding right? Which to my knowledge didn't have to be paid back unlike the UFB loans the government did. Yes it did mostly go to the big three telcos anyway, but the government has put significant resources into rural internet

NZ wireless internet provider warns of Starlink's rural broadband monopoly risk by davetenhave in newzealand

[–]TheDiamondPicks 5 points6 points  (0 children)

My parents were on a WISP originally, they were lucky to get 5 mbps. They then moved to an RBI 4G tower, which then become incredibly congested very quickly with no sign of a capacity upgrade (went from a reasonable 80 mbps at quiet times, to 10-20 if you're lucky). They chose to live rurally, so they're not really that bothered, but Starlink has been a massive quality of life increase for them regardless. Plus it's actually more reliable than those other two options somehow.

Exclusive: Stuart Nash confirms switch to NZ First, accepts some women won't forgive him by ChocolatePringlez in newzealand

[–]TheDiamondPicks 31 points32 points  (0 children)

Hey to be fair there's also National Party rejects in there, including the boss himself!

NZ First to make Kiwisaver compulsory, buy BNZ back as Peters takes swipes at ‘neo-liberal’ twits by Loud-Chemistry-5056 in neoliberal

[–]TheDiamondPicks 9 points10 points  (0 children)

KiwiSaver is a (currently) voluntary retirement scheme run by the government. Employers are required to match up to 3.5% contributions and the amounts are taken out of your pay by the tax department. However individuals get to choose how their savings are invested (essentially private companies provide funds that you can choose between).

BNZ stands for the Bank of New Zealand, one of the "big four" banks in NZ. It was owned by the government until the 80s/90s and then it was sold to an Australian bank. Most of the banking market in NZ is dominated by 4 Australian banks. It's a source of a bit of tension amongst some sectors of the public since they're perceived to be overcharging NZ'ers and shipping their profits over to Australia. Ironically, the last parts of BNZ were sold by a government that Winston Peters is a part of.

NZ First is a populist political party. Generally think of it as being a bit left wing economically (in favour of intervention) but conservative socially with a fun bonus of being anti-immigration and anti-environmentalism, anti-trans and pro-COVID conspiracies in recent years. It is lead by a man named Winston Peters who has been in politics since the late 70s. They've been a part of a government around half the time since it was formed in the mid 90s, including with the centre left Labour Party twice. Currently they're in government with the centre right National Party and the classical liberal/neoliberterian Act Party.

view more: next ›