Did you notice that Key’s statements justifying additional mining in conservation areas are factually incorrect and obviously sourced from the mining industry?
Key said “Mining in New Zealand uses just 40 square kilometres of land, less than 0.015 percent of our total land area,” therefore implying that mining in conservation areas is fine.
Gerry Brownlee said exactly the same area on 15 September 2009, 40 square lilometres.
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Business/QOA/0/4/e/49HansQ_20090916_00000001-1-Mining-Minerals-Stocktake-in-Conservation.htm
Brownlee must have got it from the New Zealand Mineral Industry Association. See this statement on their website; “Current mining activities area disturbing an area of less than 30 square kilometres and mine sites are being rehabilitated progressively.”
http://www.minerals.co.nz/html/main_topics/overview/mining_other_land_uses.html

Jan Wright the PCE says there are 111 mining licences WITHOUT resource consents which cover a total licence area of 20,784 ha (207.84 km2), of which 3,019 ha are within conservation land. (30.19 km2)
http://www.pce.parliament.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/4527/Detail_of_old_mining_operations.pdf

According to MED’s Crown Minerals annual report (page 16) there are 508 mining permits/licences.
http://www.crownminerals.govt.nz/cms/about/resolveuid/caedf7ba6c36608d2ee5d2762b0799fc.
If 111 licences involve 207 km2, then 508 must cover a whole lot more area than 40km2!
So Key’s “fact” – ‘mining is only 40km2′ is wrong – just as his ‘value judgment’ that mining can be done not only without environmental effects but in a way that benefits conservation.

Can you use this information to really stick it to him?

Did you hear Simon Power’s speech?

Trevors Mallards obviously much more interested in blogging than his own leaders reply speech, as Trevor was sitting on his laptop reading blogs on his laptop!

*Possibly slight variation, but you get the drift.

Another thing I found amusing was that Jo Goodhue (National Junior Whip), made all the MP’s come really close together, so when one of them was speaking, it looked like they had the whole caucus! It won’t have been viewable from PTV, you could only see it if you were in the gallery.

Quite a let down from when he conveyed in his 12-minute DVD he would be “Ambitious for New Zealand”, and when he repetitively invoked the word ‘fresh’.

They have their slice and now they’re going to make it harder for anyone else to share it with them.

Who is going to want to invest in rental properties now?

I can imagine a host of wildfire property sales coming up, flooding the market with cheap properties, killing the building industry.

If Nacts do remove tax concessions for rental properties, it is worth noting that the largest group of people who rort the system are those with more than 1 rental property.
Those who got into rental properties after 87, or who only have 1+1 (home+rental) should not be affected by any tax changes.

As well, any law that is applied needs to take into consideration the number of titles a persons name is on. If someone is on 200 titles, then they should be counted as having a share in 200 properties. Conversely if someone is only on 2 titles, then 1 property should not be counted for any tax purposes.

Thus ensuring a more equitable system and fewer scummy landlords putting rents up 20%. A $66 per week increase on rent for a $330 property? A lot of people will be seething.

Disclaimer: I just have a mortgage on my own home.