RMA will get in the way

LETTER

Re: Labour has done it before, September 5 letter.

Come on Bob, wake up! My facts are absolutely correct for the conditions of today. Apart from the fact there are not enough builders and tradespeople to build this quantity of houses, you skip over the major reasons why what was done 70 years ago cannot be done now.

First, the RMA, building consents take months to be passed, lack of building sites available through local council policies, having to wait for submissions from every special-interest group, and everybody’s favourite, the health and safety Nazis. You try building a house without erecting scaffolding once you’re a metre off the ground! Then you have to have a written safety and hazard notification programme, and safety meetings every day.

During the 1930s and ’40s there was a surplus of available labour, and people were willing to work. How many of those houses were built by registered master builders? I would be willing to bet not very many, mostly by hammer hands — try and do that today!

Builders and contractors today advertise for staff, some to be trained on the job, and a lot of the time they don’t even get replies, because the work ethic is not there today like it was 60 or 70 years ago. Also, because of a lack of foresight by various governments over the past 20 years or so, the apprenticeship programme has sadly withered away and the trades are seen as a lesser option for young people to follow.

So, yes, it has been done before, and honestly Mickey Mouse could have been in government then and it still would have been achievable. But those were simpler times when common sense ruled — something that is sadly lacking in today’s society.

A. Abbott

Re: Labour has done it before, September 5 letter.

Come on Bob, wake up! My facts are absolutely correct for the conditions of today. Apart from the fact there are not enough builders and tradespeople to build this quantity of houses, you skip over the major reasons why what was done 70 years ago cannot be done now.

First, the RMA, building consents take months to be passed, lack of building sites available through local council policies, having to wait for submissions from every special-interest group, and everybody’s favourite, the health and safety Nazis. You try building a house without erecting scaffolding once you’re a metre off the ground! Then you have to have a written safety and hazard notification programme, and safety meetings every day.

During the 1930s and ’40s there was a surplus of available labour, and people were willing to work. How many of those houses were built by registered master builders? I would be willing to bet not very many, mostly by hammer hands — try and do that today!

Builders and contractors today advertise for staff, some to be trained on the job, and a lot of the time they don’t even get replies, because the work ethic is not there today like it was 60 or 70 years ago. Also, because of a lack of foresight by various governments over the past 20 years or so, the apprenticeship programme has sadly withered away and the trades are seen as a lesser option for young people to follow.

So, yes, it has been done before, and honestly Mickey Mouse could have been in government then and it still would have been achievable. But those were simpler times when common sense ruled — something that is sadly lacking in today’s society.

A. Abbott

Your email address will not be published. Comments will display after being approved by a staff member. Comments may be edited for clarity.

Bob Hughes - 2 months ago
A Abbott is making excuses for government not building those sorely-needed homes.
It has been proved it can be done! The need is there!
Evidently A Abbott does not believe that old saying, "Where there's a will there is a way."
A home to live in is a basic human right. It is government's duty to see the homeless in houses.
It was done once before, when GDP wasn't the measure for all achievements.

Poll

  • Voting please wait...
    Your vote has been cast. Reloading page...
    Do you think the benefits of forestry to the region outweigh its negative impacts?
    See also: