Page 1 of 2 12 Last
Results 1 to 25 of 47

  1. Post
    #1

    Official information act request help

    Hi all.

    I have been making some requests on a matter that is very important to me.

    But I am sometimes at a bit of a loss as to what is the best way to phrase the email and how I can get the result I want.

    Any advice on things?

    Cheers

  2. Post
    #2
    Insufficient information to assist.

  3. Post
    #3
    KevinL wrote:
    Insufficient information to assist.
    You left out "ticket closed".

  4. Post
    #4
    Ok.

    Essentially I want to know about the gun buy back

    Specifically about the KPMG report and how much they'll pay

    I have sent one in already. But I thought I would see if anyone has any feedback on the right way to get the information.

  5. Post
    #5
    Ask a journalist.

  6. Post
    #6
    Buy "back". Strange phrasing.

    Was the government the original legal owner of people's privately purchased and owned guns?

  7. Post
    #7
    Basileus wrote:
    Buy "back". Strange phrasing.

    Was the government the original legal owner of people's privately purchased and owned guns?
    It's standard terminology.

    I bought a gun
    The government is buying it back off me

    You could alternatively call it an amnesty, but that doesn't imply they'll pay you for the guns.

  8. Post
    #8
    I prefer confiscation with compensation.

  9. Post
    #9
    Has the government actually passed the bill describing how much will be paid for the firearms?

    I have heard market value suggested, but I have also heard reference to retail price, neither source would be reliable.

  10. Post
    #10
    Email your local MP

  11. Post
    #11
    dickytim wrote:
    Has the government actually passed the bill describing how much will be paid for the firearms?

    I have heard market value suggested, but I have also heard reference to retail price, neither source would be reliable.
    No. They're a day late and a dollar short.

    Hence why I am asking these questions. We deserve to know.

    The price depends on the retailer too. Lots of price variations.

    KiwiTT wrote:
    Email your local MP
    My local mp was one of the ones orchestrating this quagmire.

  12. Post
    #12
    Mr sika wrote:
    Specifically about the KPMG report and how much they'll pay
    I suspect nothing like the amount you paid for them.
    Mr sika wrote:
    My local mp was one of the ones orchestrating this quagmire.
    Then they are most likely to know how much.

  13. Post
    #13
    KiwiTT wrote:
    I suspect nothing like the amount you paid for them.Then they are most likely to know how much.
    I figured that. They are delusional if they believe they'll get 100 percent compliance with out paying people what they paid.

    Yes. But he would not say anything about it.

  14. Post
    #14
    So you have raised a request under the official information act to view information that doesn't exist yet?

    I can't remember what we got paid back in the gun buy back in Australia many years ago, but it was a fair market rate for the guns. I don't think it was retail, anyway my step father bought a Mac with it from memory. We went with him and watched the guns being destroyed, it was a shame as we used to spend every second Saturday at the range with him, we learnt how to take care of the guns, keep them oiled and locked away safely when not in use. Just be thankful they haven't done what the Australian government did and banned all semi automatics, based on a shooting that was using unregistered and already illegal guns, they also introduced a land tax to pay for it, so we are getting off pretty lightly really.

  15. Post
    #15
    According to this - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia - 640,000 firearms were bought back for $500 million, which is a little under $800 a weapon. NZ plans are supposedly going to be similar to this. So make your own adjustments for inflation and exchange rates.

  16. Post
    #16
    Yeah the main difference is that the requirement to pay fair market requirement is enshrines in the strayan constitution - I'm not sure we have any equivalent protections.

    Also I agree with dickytim, the issue is you're making an OIA request for information that doesn't exist yet, GW.

  17. Post
    #17
    dickytim wrote:
    So you have raised a request under the official information act to view information that doesn't exist yet?

    I can't remember what we got paid back in the gun buy back in Australia many years ago, but it was a fair market rate for the guns. I don't think it was retail, anyway my step father bought a Mac with it from memory. We went with him and watched the guns being destroyed, it was a shame as we used to spend every second Saturday at the range with him, we learnt how to take care of the guns, keep them oiled and locked away safely when not in use. Just be thankful they haven't done what the Australian government did and banned all semi automatics, based on a shooting that was using unregistered and already illegal guns, they also introduced a land tax to pay for it, so we are getting off pretty lightly really.
    How do you know what doesn't exist yet? They should by now have the pricing details. Otherwise they're a bunch of half wits.

    If they didn't have the information then they would have rejected the request under the provisions for informations doesn't exist or is not held.

    As for taxes. Just you wait. Australia didn't repeal the medicare levy so they're still paying for it.

    KiwiTT wrote:
    According to this - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia - 640,000 firearms were bought back for $500 million, which is a little under $800 a weapon. NZ plans are supposedly going to be similar to this. So make your own adjustments for inflation and exchange rates.
    I hope not. They will get abysmal compliance. All ar15's are twice that to buy.

    Our Semis are worth more than the Australian ones were.

    KevinL wrote:
    Yeah the main difference is that the requirement to pay fair market requirement is enshrines in the strayan constitution - I'm not sure we have any equivalent protections.

    Also I agree with dickytim, the issue is you're making an OIA request for information that doesn't exist yet, GW.
    Not as strongly enshrined in something like a constitution.

    It should exist. They made KPMG do a report on it.

    If it doesn't exist then this is one of the more incompetent governments of recent times.

  18. Post
    #18
    The Medicare levy was increased from 1.5 to 1.7% only for one year to fund the buyback program. It went back to 1.5%; subsequent increases have been to fund other things (namely NDIS) - so no, Australia are not still paying for it.

  19. Post
    #19
    Additionally just because they have commissioned an independent report doesn't mean they will follow the recommendations.

    Cabinet papers are considered privileged until publically released,so you're unlikely to find what you're looking for until the bill is proposed (or they enter into formal public consultation)

  20. Post
    #20
    KevinL wrote:
    The Medicare levy was increased from 1.5 to 1.7% only for one year to fund the buyback program. It went back to 1.5%; subsequent increases have been to fund other things (namely NDIS) - so no, Australia are not still paying for it.
    Ah. I may have been misled by the Internet and never really cared to fact check. My bad.

    KevinL wrote:
    Additionally just because they have commissioned an independent report doesn't mean they will follow the recommendations.

    Cabinet papers are considered privileged until publically released,so you're unlikely to find what you're looking for until the bill is proposed (or they enter into formal public consultation)
    True.

    I hope they see some sense when it goes to consultation as way too many gun grabbers would love to lobby for no compensation.

    Thanks for letting me know this sort tog stuff

  21. Post
    #21
    Mr sika wrote:
    I hope not. They will get abysmal compliance. All ar15's are twice that to buy.
    That may be true. But after the buyback amnesty, those weapons will be illegal and those people who retain those weapons will have to suffer the criminal consequences thereafter.

    Would they want to risk being a potential criminal and all the problems that may bring, including restrictions on overseas travel movements and future job opportunities. Many countries and employers dont like people with criminal records. Is it worth the risk of your current and future life consequences for a few hundred dollars? Your choice.

  22. Post
    #22
    KiwiTT wrote:
    That may be true. But after the buyback amnesty, those weapons will be illegal and those people who retain those weapons will have to suffer the criminal consequences thereafter.
    No they don't. The reality is that the police don't have the resources to search every licence holder on the chance that they may have a prohibited rifle. So should someone decide to not take the compensation offered by the government when the chance of them getting caught is very slim. The same happened back in the 1990s after Aramoana when they introduced the MSSA system, lots of people ignored the rules without getting caught.

    Where they will be hamstrung is that it will become harder for people to use them, so they'll just end up gathering dust if not handed in.

  23. Post
    #23
    Taxpayers don't care if you don't get market value, in fact they'd prefer you didn't.

    It was gun owner demand for MSSA weapons that they don't need that indirectly caused the problem in the first place.

    If there were only a few in the country it wouldn't be a problem.

  24. Post
    #24
    Zarkov wrote:
    Taxpayers don't care if you don't get market value, in fact they'd prefer you didn't.

    It was gun owner demand for MSSA weapons that they don't need that indirectly caused the problem in the first place.

    If there were only a few in the country it wouldn't be a problem.
    They purchased a product legally, the government has a knee jerk reaction and bans these products, which means that they will be taken out of law abiding citizens hands (likely not criminals though) to appease to howling masses.

    As some one whose household pays over $60,000 a year tax, I'd say this tax payer believes they should get a fair market value, or even the retail value for their products.

  25. Post
    #25
    KiwiTT wrote:
    That may be true. But after the buyback amnesty, those weapons will be illegal and those people who retain those weapons will have to suffer the criminal consequences thereafter.

    Would they want to risk being a potential criminal and all the problems that may bring, including restrictions on overseas travel movements and future job opportunities. Many countries and employers dont like people with criminal records. Is it worth the risk of your current and future life consequences for a few hundred dollars? Your choice.
    I know that. I am just saying that there's people who do not want to hand them in but will. To encourage people to do so they should not be worried about losing money

    For some people it's the principle.

    I can't really afford to lose hundreds of dollars but I have plans for overseas work so I was always going to have to hand it in