Congrats Bernard, you nearly came close and you didn't even look like you were nervous.
The question is, is this all by accident or by design?
Before the innocent taxpayer doles out a cent, the shareholders of suppliers of the time, Govt regulators, architechs, inspectors, valuers, builders should have been removed of every cent of profit they gained from occasions they never fulfilled their contractual or legal obligations, no just changing names and carrying on their merry way, every trust they are involved with cracked open, these commercial pyramid scams have been going on far to long and far to easily for long enough in the land of the Sheoples.

At the end of acceptance of overt slavery in the British Empire(1830) Trusts and Corporations came to the fore, Trusts for the wealthy to hide their income, Corporations for the wealthy to be able to commit commercial frauds and leave the consequences behind.

We have resources, we have labour, all we need is money to put resources and labour to work, great opportunity to issue Kiwi sovereign dollars without interest attached as part of our monetary base, thus restore the value of part of our asset base that most would be deemed to big to fail, wise up, cut out the foreign financial middlemen and their predatory loans, the precedence for this has already been set in this country, it is the obvious solution, the Kiwi sovereign dollars spent into circulation interest free backed by the assets they would reinstate could then be used to pay down foreign debt, not increase it?
http://publiccreditorbust.blog.com/2009/02/20/the-cheapest-interest-rate...

Keynes advocated the same, but the "Chicago Way" monetarists butchered his ideas
http://publiccreditorbust.blog.com/2009/12/13/keynes-post-war-public-cre...

Somebody tell me why not?

It's simple Iain...don't spend more than you earn...the lesson that needs to be drummed into the thick skull of every politician and taught to all the little children. If we as a nation did that simple thing..in time we would pay off the debts and be a creditor nation..a nation that saved more than it spent.

Leaky homes are not the best example, the Government Guarantee of all the financial institutions is a far better one.

Or do you think Bernard, that the provisions being made in the government books for these pending failures will never be used?

In physics circles, we wondered whether there would have to be a general debt forgiveness. Or whether you would find you Nat Bank mortgage in the hands of a Mongolian warlord (slavery or death?)

If forgiveness, what would anything be relatively worth?

If you knew it was coming, you'd hock your propter.

A bit sad, I put forward a real viable alternative with precedence to boot and not one of the supposedly more financially literate members of society that inhabit this website even bothered to check out the evidence, no wonder we attract commercial pyramid scammers to this nation like moths to a light:

http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2010/03/08/investing-repor...

We are going down the same road as Greece and only our relationship to China via Rudd is delaying the end. This is the gamble Key's motly lot are prepared to run in exchange for greater certainty of winning in 2011. Goff's stupid lot are no different.
If there is trouble in Beijing, Rudd goes under and drags us with him. That is the game.
A proper Government with a statesman at the top would stop pandering to the media photographers and watching the poll results. A statesman would cut a path away from debt and that would mean most sectors doing hard time on less. It would mean ending the friendship with the banking buddies and chopping the top off the bloated salaries handed out to old men in the state sector. It requires a real effort to reduce govt splurging, to end the borrowing and to accept that the property ponzi scheme is doing serious and most likely fatal damage to the whole economy.
Sadly, Key is not a statesman and Goff is not even in the frame.

Great, Bernard. So if we accept that taxpayers are already committed to bailing out finance company investors - the interesting question is whether people generally believe it is more ethical, or more economically sensible, or whatever to bailout leaky home owners as opposed to finance company investors?

These are the opinions/thoughts I'd be interested in. I know it seems a futile debate, given the government has already committed us in favour of one investment type - but the question is a worthwhile one from a moral perspective.

@ Kin. Agree - the problem with Western society is that we have had it too easy for too long and successive Govt pampering has created a bail-out mentality. i.e. someone will bail us out. Hence why the Greeks are pushing for the Germans to bail them out rather than taking the pain of reduced Govy spending. Retirement at 60yrs in Greece - that is criminal. As Bernard corerctly points out, this is pass the parcel. And we are running out of people to pass it to.
The basic principal of a free society is: you are free to do whatever you want, provided you accept responsibility for your actions and face the consequences.
This must be harsh, but bailouts of finance companies and leeky homes goes against this basic premise.

Yes we want individual responsibility (when we come out better for it) and we want to socialise our losses (if we can avoid paying), not complex, we have become selfish, inwardly focused and don't give a cr@p about our fellow country men unless it is in our interests and someone else pays.

THis game is one of ever decreasing circles, which requires a quantum shift to move away from, i.e. responsible government that should have had the foresight to avoid the leaky homes crises, etc etc where is the wisdom to guide as opposed to knowledge to blind.

Kate, as you said Labour lost because of their "Nanny state" posture....would they have won if they had promised tax cut or enhanced benefits ? Perhaps they might not have lost or maybe at least loose less ? In the end people vote for "what is best for them"
with the assumption that "them" is same as "everybody".

I once has a friend who voted for labour in the 2003 elections because "Labour gave me more money" via "working for family" despite being a staunch Christian and Labour just pushed through "pro-prostitution" policy. In the end the pocket wins. I am of the position that most voters think the same way enroute to the ballot box.

As for National present "do nothing" position...why ?? because they cannot advance on "Tax benefit" as opposed to "cutting spending". Why is John Key always emphasising "Revenue Neutral"? To convince voters that thye will not loose any benefits with a National goverment.

We should not forget that the Building Industry Authority (BIA) should have some responsibility for the Leaky Home problem as they oversaw the regulations that allowed this form of construction and also compounded the problem by permitting the use of untreated timber on exterior framing. The crown law office have fought tooth and nail to ensure that they don't get dragged into this whole sorry saga.

Can any-one tell me do Australia have a leaky home problem as they also used Hardies and Polystyrene Monolithic cladding systems and also used untreated timber for framing etc.

And if so what measures they have undertaken to remedy