Jump to content

Seafaring nation?


Recommended Posts

Totally different argument, sorry. General tourists (by plane) pose a huge and difficult to control (expensive to quarantine) risk to NZ.

The cruising sailboats, on the other hand, are easy to quarantine (anchor out, remove dinghy, or behind barriers on wharf/marina) for the little time they have left in quarantine. Then take the economic benefit that they can provide. 

On a daily basis, the average cruiser will spend less than the average tourist, but as they are here longer, and often refit, it adds up...

Little risk, with good benefits, we should do it. IMO.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bad Kitty said:

"Closed is closed is closed, with one rule for all."

Haha, what colour is the ocean on your planet?

 

4 hours ago, Gappy said:

Obviously your one eyed view means you don't rely on these guys been let in for income and been able to pay a mortgage and feed your family.

These guys provide income to allot of businesses which also you probably buy gear from as well for your boat but its these bigger boats that keep these businesses afloat so if they go tits up because these big boats cannot come in where will you get your gear from. 

I don't, personally support letting anyone in, regardless of what they do, or their net worth - that's the messaging for the government, and, to be really frank, as soon as there is one exception, there will be more. Everyone is desperate for people, or has some solid reason for being let in.

That being said, if we have an exemption for super yachts, who can count time on passage as quarantine, and also quarantine (with their crew) on the quarantine dock in the city center (yeah that's not risky), we should also have an exemption in place for the cruisers in the South Pacific who would normally come here for the cyclone season - the same risk applies there.

Hell, find an island we can station a navy cruiser at, have people serve out their quarantine there, and then let them sail into NZ, and clear as normal, then there's no risk, but again, you get onto exemptions for others, etc, etc.

It's a slippery slope with no good answers, hence the closed is closed mindset.

Makes it all simple to administer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What defines a super yacht?? 100ft owned by a billionaire or joe average who is more likely to spend more as there are more joe averages around.

The border is shut end of story except for a rugby team And Yes I have issues with that as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgetting whether you agree with it or not, one huge difference between 1 super yacht coming in & spending 3 million dollars, and 300 small yachts coming in & spending $10,000 each to reach the same 3 mill spend, is it takes very little cost, manpower or resource to safely get a superyacht in & quarantined safely. And like the film industry, the superyacht picks up the bill. 

Same as getting 250 overseas film crew in, Directors, Producers, Actors etc. who enable projects that employ thousands of Kiwis, & kickstart 1.5 billion in film projects.   

Vs 250 fruit pickers, who generate a few thousand apples?

If you want to say 1 rule for all, then no-one comes in, and we kill a whole lot more businesses.

Even crayon eaters like our present Govt. aren't that stupid. Thanks god. 

Anchoring several hundred yachts in a bay for quarantine is easy if you say it fast. Doing it & ensuring the security of the border isn't quite so simple.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Sabre said:

Seems a rather callous and disrespectfull way of describing an article on a family who recently lost a child.

I have relatives who lost their kid in a tragic accident a few years back. Something you never get over.

This family just want to come to NZ, sell their boat and go home to the UK to try and rebuild their lives.

"Every time I go out in the cockpit and look over I remember the scene, seeing my son floating in the water unconscious and probably dead by that time, being dragged by a woman who recovered him."

Not sure how that doesn't tick the humanitarian box.

They want to come to NZ not because their son died, not because of weather problems, but because their broker says the yacht will sell more easily here.

They left and buried their son in the uk, then returned to the yacht.  Get that - they CHOSE to return to the yacht, recently.  They have a range of options avaialble to them before that. 

They could have stayed in the UK in August when they already should have known the position of the NZ govt on cruising yachts entering NZ.

Having chosen to return to the yacht, they could stay where they are and sell there, or appoint an agent to care for the yacht while they sort their sh*t out.

Its pretty clear they are making financial decisions here, not humanitarian ones.

Thousands of people daily have relatives die in-situ.  They don't all suddenly claim that they have to get out of Dodge, and sell their assets in the best market available globally so they can "move on".

The article is an emotive and manipulative piece of trash journalism.  Even the headline is deceiving and a distortion of the facts.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

It would net improve the economy because a NZ buyer would transfer $1m from their NZ bank account into a floating asset that requires ongoing spending and maintenance - even at just 5% of value that would equates to $50k pa average service fees pumped into the NZ economy forever. Unlike the $50k threshold for superyachts which would be a one-off spend this year only.

Clearly Covid has not changed any of NZ’s thinking horizons - they are as short-term as ever.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sabre said:

In saying that it is still a pretty sh*t position to be in espiecially if that is their main asset.

Agreed.  But life can be sh*t for anyone anytime anywhere.  Its not the greratest single reason for an immigration policy waiver in a time of global pandemic

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Fogg said:

It would net improve the economy because a NZ buyer would transfer $1m from their NZ bank account into a floating asset that requires ongoing spending and maintenance - even at just 5% of value that would equates to $50k pa average service fees pumped into the NZ economy forever. Unlike the $50k threshold for superyachts which would be a one-off spend this year only.

Clearly Covid has not changed any of NZ’s thinking horizons - they are as short-term as ever.

Anyone who regards their pleasure craft as an asset has not considered the full ramifications of ownership.

Another argument could easily be made that $1m will probably be taken out of a productive asset (a business) and transferred to a non-productive asset (a yacht) thereby reducing the earning potential of the country.

Your thinking is classic NZ business - the sole goal is the three Bs.  Today, the boat.  Next week, the bach and perhaps the beemer.  Its a part of why NZ small businesses stend to stay small.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sabre said:

Common sense shouldn't go out the window just because of a virus.

Do you think an immigration policy should be based on rational sound thinking or nonsensical hysterical paranoia?

The former, which ours currently is.

I'm pretty confident the balance is right because there is a small but vocal minority saying the boarder should be opened wider, while an equally sized minority say it should be closed tighter.

The vast majority of people are so unconcerned they are saying nothing.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, aardvarkash10 said:

Anyone who regards their pleasure craft as an asset has not considered the full ramifications of ownership.

Another argument could easily be made that $1m will probably be taken out of a productive asset (a business) and transferred to a non-productive asset (a yacht) thereby reducing the earning potential of the country.

Your thinking is classic NZ business - the sole goal is the three Bs.  Today, the boat.  Next week, the bach and perhaps the beemer.  Its a part of why NZ small businesses stend to stay small.

If you knew what I did for a living you would realise you are way off the mark with pretending to understand how I think and believing it’s “classic NZ business”. 😊

Meanwhile, back in the real world, the most likely source of $1m spent on a toy like a boat would be from property equity release or other low cost borrowing rather than working capital from a business struggling to scale. If you seriously think that the only thing that stops a business successfully scaling is that the owner makes a bad decision to take excess drawings to buy a boat.... then you probably don’t understand how business globally scale.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Fogg said:

It would net improve loss to the economy because a NZ buyer would transfer $1m from their NZ bank account into a foreign bank account and end up with a floating asset liability (or depreciating assset) that requires ongoing spending and maintenance. Or to be real fussy it could be net zero as you are changing $ for goods

Not that that is necessarily wrong, you can't sail, or do much at all, with a bank balance until you spend it, but it should be stated correctly. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Fogg said:

It would net improve the economy because a NZ buyer would transfer $1m from their NZ bank account into a floating asset that requires ongoing spending and maintenance - even at just 5% of value that would equates to $50k pa average service fees pumped into the NZ economy forever. Unlike the $50k threshold for superyachts which would be a one-off spend this year only.

Clearly Covid has not changed any of NZ’s thinking horizons - they are as short-term as ever.

Frog, I'm trying to understand... If it is a foreign boat and a New Zealander puts 1M into it, That liquid capital leaves the country and is probably gone forever. New Zealand now has a 1M asset that is deprecating at some rate (high if a new boat and lower if old) Money spent of the boat is already in the NZ economy and is going into the maintanance of a deprecating asset (i.e. lost capital) instead of into say into a home or business, that usually increases in value.  How does this actually build capital or help the NZ economy. I don't mean to disagree, I am looking to understand this better?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, aardvarkash10 said:

They want to come to NZ not because their son died, not because of weather problems, but because their broker says the yacht will sell more easily here.

They left and buried their son in the uk, then returned to the yacht.  Get that - they CHOSE to return to the yacht, recently.  They have a range of options avaialble to them before that. 

They could have stayed in the UK in August when they already should have known the position of the NZ govt on cruising yachts entering NZ.

Having chosen to return to the yacht, they could stay where they are and sell there, or appoint an agent to care for the yacht while they sort their sh*t out.

Its pretty clear they are making financial decisions here, not humanitarian ones.

Thousands of people daily have relatives die in-situ.  They don't all suddenly claim that they have to get out of Dodge, and sell their assets in the best market available globally so they can "move on".

The article is an emotive and manipulative piece of trash journalism.  Even the headline is deceiving and a distortion of the facts.

This (for me) is a truly tough one and it may be that the herald got some of the facts muddled? It might  help to know that I had an exchange with the mother and she said that they had to leave FP with no time to spare to accomplish the burial of their son. Then apparently  had to return  to attend a judicial investigation hearing in September in Tahiti over this tragic death. It may be that they could not have stayed in the UK ?  There is allot to this we don't know and many possibilities.  In the end... I feel very very sad for this family.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends on the source of capital and the alternatives uses you’re comparing it against. If you’re comparing it against investing $1m in new plant (also a depreciating asset) in a growing business that will obviously generate more positive economic activity for the NZ economy than the boat. But if you’re comparing it against sitting as dormant equity that could be released at relatively low cost (eg $30,000 pa) to generate new economic activity (eg $50,000 pa) then you’ve got a small net gain.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Slightly related, Tahiti PM catches it.

The latest official figure showed French Polyensia had 2754 cases of which 633 were active.

In July, the borders were reopened and mandatory quarantine requirements were abolished in order to boost tourism and revive the economy.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/428117/french-polynesia-president-tests-covid-19-positive

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...