This is great news, and something that should have been done a long time ago. Also, fuck Fletcher building.

  • @eagleeyedtiger
    link
    English
    83 months ago

    I like the sound of this so far.

    It’s not mentioned in this article, but on the Herald:

    “We’re also cutting red tape and costs on farmers building small dams by raising the height threshold for safety regulations from one to four metres,” Penk said.

    Which gets a bit “Hmm…” from me. Seems like a big jump to not have safety regulations for

    • @IlovethebombOP
      link
      73 months ago

      Four metres is pretty bloody high actually.

  • @DaveMA
    link
    53 months ago

    This does sound good, and reasonable. I feel like I recall hearing about something of a monopoly for Gib, does this help ease this situation?

    • @IlovethebombOP
      link
      63 months ago

      It does, yes. This means it will be much easier to import equivalent products from overseas, bypassing the Fletcher monopoly on Wallboard.

      I can’t understand why Labour didn’t do this while in power, actually.

      • @Venator
        link
        33 months ago

        I can’t understand why Labour didn’t do this while in power, actually.

        Makes me wonder if Labour MPs have some shares or family ties in fletcher…

        • @IlovethebombOP
          link
          33 months ago

          They’re all landlords, so have a vested interest in house prices remaining high.

          • @Venator
            link
            3
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            Thats true of national as well, so I imagine there must be some other conflict of interest that somehow outweighs the landlord conflicts of interest… Or maybe they’ve just calculated that the reduced cost of building won’t really effect the housing supply too much, which would be good for landlords who want to subdivide or renovate.

            • @IlovethebombOP
              link
              33 months ago

              Cost of building doesn’t affect land values, so if your portfolio is mostly single level family homes, you don’t have too much to worry about.

              • @Venator
                link
                23 months ago

                It kinda does to a certain extent, depending on how densely things can be built. When there’s a townhouse available with double the floor area as a single family home for the same price, that’s going to decrease demand for the single family house. But yeah it doesn’t decrease demand a huge amount as most people still want to have a back yard if they can and banks will lend more for a standalone place because reasons.

        • @Venator
          link
          13 months ago

          Or maybe national mps are shorting thier stocks or investing in aussie building suppliers or something…

    • @Rangelus
      link
      43 months ago

      Sounds great, breaking up the monopoly. Of course, they products should have to meet our current regulations. If that isn’t a part of this it could just lead to Leaky Homes 2: Electric Boogaloo

      • @DaveMA
        link
        43 months ago

        Yes the article doesn’t seem to specify which standards exactly. But if for example we can now import building products that meet the equivalent Australian standards, I feel like that’s a good move.

        • @RecallMadness
          link
          3
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          $5 that this is all fluff.

          They’ll “set up the framework” and then not use it.

          “Ah yeah, Australian building standards far exceed ours in most metrics, but none of it’s been … uh … earthquake tested. Yes! None of its been earthquake tested. So … no”

          Then labour will come in, start to actually use it, and when we flip flop back to National, finger point, blame, and retroactively tear it all down. Then anyone with Australian building materials in their house get their insurance claims denied or something equally absurd.