Written By:
- Date published:
6:00 am, October 22nd, 2025 - 41 comments
Categories: open mike -
Tags:
Open mike is your post.
For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.
The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).
Step up to the mike …
OK, how many here thought the Whangarei Hospital cars on fire in the car park was caused by an EV mishap?
Be honest… I know I did.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/576546/cause-of-whangarei-hospital-car-park-fire-revealed
Apparently whomever has the contract for keeping the grounds in order has been tardy.
In the news report I could not see where a car. with the hot exhaust was close enough to the dry grass.
One of the pictures shows the dried grass, burnt!
Note: there have been more grass fires caused by car exhausts in Australia than there have been EV fires.
I suspect it is the same for NZ?
yes, but the exhaust has to be in contact with the grass. Obviously the grass on the berm beside the carpark isn't close enough, so I'm guess there was debris and/or grass in the area between the berm and the rear end of the cars. Winds would have made it much worse.
Makes sense Weka.
best guess 😉 Would be nice if they released the CCTV footage showing the fire start.
Cars park jutting over the grass islands at the hospital all the time. I live here.
pic of fire location shows barriers, hard to tell what's going on
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/576546/cause-of-whangarei-hospital-car-park-fire-revealed
For your info. gsays (from AI but numerous other sources):
"Studies consistently show that electric vehicles have a significantly lower fire incident rate than gasoline or diesel vehicles."
How many electric cars have caught fire in Australia? | Drive
Electric vehicle fires are very rare. The risk for petrol and diesel vehicles is at least 20 times higher | Swinburne
Chur.
Full disclosure we have committed to a VW ID3, full electric.
It's true there is a strong bias against the future.
Electric motorbikes are now banned from race courses around the country.
Because
they were winning every event they enteredthe 'fire' risk.Because they don't make cool rrrrrrrmmmm rrrrrrrrmmmmmm noises
Yes.
Amazing really, that the assumption from Facebook experts is that every vehicle fire is an EV.
Given that on a per vehicle basis, EV's are 60 to 100 times less likely to catch fire than a ICE vehicle, and there are still many more times ICE cars in NZ than EV's, it is many times more likely an ICE car that caused any individual fire.
Like the car carrier fire where there was thousands of ICE cars on board and 70 EV's. The immediate assumption that it was started by an EV, given the lack of evidence, is probably false.
We were very concerned about the possibility of fires, when we carried 600 ICE cars on a ship, long before EV's. After myriads of actual accident reports of fires on ships. Exploding petrol is a much greater hazard. Firefighting on RoRo and container ships has always been problematic.
Now. The automatic assumption seems to be that it is always an EV.
My initial thought was a ICE fire, fuel tank exploded, burning fuel running down gutters and igniting further vehicles. EV batteries are only likely to ignite if batteries are damaged, intact battery fires are extremely rare.
The problem is that EV fires are almost impossible to suppress or extinguish on a car carrier. All of the fire suppressant systems are intended to 'work' for ICE cars (and they're reasonably effective).
So, if an EV catches fire (whether it's the initial cause or not), the ship is in serious trouble.
Matson is now refusing to carry them at all (most significant shipping line into Hawaii). While not a permanent ban, the lifting is dependent on "industry efforts to develop comprehensive standards and procedures to address fire risk posed by lithium-ion batteries at sea and plans to resume acceptance of them when appropriate safety solutions that meet our requirements can be implemented" — so not a quick fix.
https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a65539651/shipping-company-refusing-to-transport-ev-phev-fire-risk/
Belladona.
Most ships don't even have fire suppression systems adequate for petrol cars, or DG's in containers.
They are not “reasonably effective for ICE cars” as numerous marine accident reports show
If they were logically consistent, given the degree of proven risk, they would be banning carriage of ICE cars without fuel systems being totally drained and certified gas free.
Ironically we had two RoRo's in NZ built in the 70's whose fire suppression systems would have worked fine for EV's. A drencher system combined with a very powerful bilge pumping, drainage system, which could be run for days if required. The ones lost to fires recently had CO2. Which is inadequate for any fire on a ships cargo space. At least one, the system wasn't even working properly.
It seems the lessons learnt before the 70's have been lost to cost cutting.
2 years ago there was a fire in on of the multistorey carparks at Luton Airport in London. Over 200 vehicles were destroyed and the top floor of the building fell in.
Media filled up with people blaming EVs for the blaze. They shut up PDQ when the security cameras showed very clearly that the fire was stared by a diesel Landrover.
PS, don't leave your house keys in the glovebox of your vehicle in airport carparks. Lots of people whose cars were either destroyed or stuck in the carpark were complaining that when they eventually got home, they had to break in.
There are people on Whangārei Facebook pages, right now, saying the Luton fire "was an EV" and the fire investigation yesterday is " covering up for an EV fire".
Cookers gonna Cook!
We were in London at the time and saw it all on the TV, including the footage from the security cameras showing the start of the fire in the Land Rover.
But as you say – Cookers gotta Cook.
A very interesting read from the Guardian which makes the connection between rolling back welfare to the rise of the populist parties.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/oct/21/welfare-cuts-have-fuelled-rise-of-far-right-and-populism-top-un-expert-says
For my sins I listened to RNZ and an interview with an economist. A senior one at that to hear the latest round of hand wringing over Superannuation affordability.
I would love to hear some conflict disclosures from this sort of defender of the status quo.
For example: do you have a property portfolio (direct benefit from this governments policies).
Would you be impacted by income or asset testing if the Super?
They trot out the same old lines- too difficult to enable/enforce.
Funny how ACC or MSD (or whatever their current moniker is) can pry into every nook and cranny of a claimant, solo mum or disabled person.
That's without the benefit or power IRD has over the tax paying lifetime of an individual to ascertain their financial position regards Superannuation entitlement.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2019009494/treasury-boss-issues-grim-warning-on-long-term-state-of-the-books
This is frankly professional neglegence by a treasury official. They should be explaining that the 35k public debt is precisely NZs savings buffers (saving in practice being paying off debt). One of the big reasons people save is for eventual retirement. For a country which typically runs external deficits, (occasional surpluses) the savings balance is offset by the govt deficit. NZ should expect to run a slight govt deficit on average over the longer term (facilitating saving). Otherwise treasury is basically asking a lot of people to retire with substantial outstanding debt.
or not retiring.
Or dying before reaching retirement age.
A "hardy annual"!
https://thestandard.nz/super-reprise/
You will find the comments interesting also.
I find it frustrating how easily people fall into the trap of thinking Superannuation isn’t affordable. NZ Super is one of the most cost-effective pension systems in the world, and its universality is exactly what makes it simple, fair, and widely supported.
Means testing sounds tidy in theory, but in reality, it invites avoidance, shifting assets to trusts, gifting, manipulating income. All things wealthier retirees are well-positioned to do. Meanwhile, it punishes those with modest savings who’ve done the “right thing” by preparing for retirement.
If superann will cost the country too much rather than buggering around with means testing, gradually raise the age of entitlement to 67. Have a transition system in place for people who might have to retire before 67 and perhaps a more graduated introduction for maori/pasifika who dies some years earlier than other ethnicities. Ensure first however that we are taxing all types of income in the country so tax payers get a fair go. So the likes of a cgt first and then address superann
The problem is the usual suspects consider super, and indeed all welfare only as a cost.. They love Government money, but only if it goes to themselves!
In fact super is what keeps many communities viable, and the younger people in those communities employed.
The alternative. More of that money going to offshore accounts of the wealthy, costs more than super.
Our super has proven one of the most cost effective in the world at keeping the elderly out of poverty.
The idea should be extended, not reduced.
indeed, keep it universal and it has been successful. if cost is such a problem there are viable alternatives to means testing. and not some wanky neo-liberal ACT type idea, nor some political points scoring type dickery like national has recently proposed, but something well thoughts through and well discussed
Do you support universal welfare for under 65s?
WINZ already manages that, why wouldn't they just include Superannuitants along with other beneficiaries?
Not suggesting it’s a good idea, just pointing out we already do it with others.
Because the purpose of means testing would be to catch those who don't need NZ Super to live on.
But those people who don't need it, are the very same people that fund our asset protection industry. When it comes to means testing our richest, you will almost always find they personally own next to nothing.
My view is keep universality for it simplicity but fund it through taxing that wealth. Then it doesn't matter which complex trust structure owns the wealth, that wealth funds the super.
I puzzle with the notion that super is unaffordable.
The baby boom was between 1945 qnd 1960. The peak rate was 3.5 births per family. In the 60's the birthrate rapidly declined to 1.5 (the pill) and is now 2.4.
All boomers are on the pension now (between 65 and 80) and will fall off the perch over the next 20 years (me included)
Surely Now is as bad as superannuation will get as far as affordability.
I get that immigration may throw a bit of a spanner in the works but most immigrants are working and their education was paid for by another country.
What am I missing
didn't the government raid the fund?
I'm also assuming the difference between 3.5 and 2.4 is significant. Isn't the issue that there will be a lot of retired people and not enough workers to pay for it (or to care for the aging population)?
The other main issue for superannuitants is the housing crisis has made retirement unafforable. Some people are ok with their investments and mortgage free house, but many aren't. That will get worse.
There is a big difference between not having enough productivity to look after the retired and superannuitant income. Basically productivity is the actual potential issue with more retiree's. On the other hand if you look at it in relation to our country you can also see the economy can easily cope with the numbers of people retired (consider what goods and services retiree's consume). On the other hand if you cut super you will end up with an additional class of unnecessary poverty. Thats making the country worse off in my opinion.
As with all govt payments there is no budget constraint. Virtually any spending the govt does will eventually be collected as tax at easily more than the interest payments rates the govt volunteers. This applies to benefits as well.
by productivity do you mean the ability to provide elder care? Because we are already failing at that quite badly. Agree that pushing middle aged and older people into poverty will make the country worse off. We really are quite shitty to our oldies.
If you have a larger cohort of retiree's then the balance of goods and services used will shift slightly towards their needs, so yes somewhat. But I'm really talking about everything the country does just only the real side of it (what gets paid for, not the payment). In that sense we can easily take care of the population and if all members of the population have a reasonable basic income then that becomes easier.
John G – In most countries the baby boomer cohort covers people born from the mid 1940s to the mid 1960s. https://www.britannica.com/topic/baby-boomers
In NZ the cohort covers a longer time frame – people born between 1945 and the early 1970s – i.e. people now aged from about 53 through to 80.
The NZ phenomenon is explained in the following links:
https://teara.govt.nz/en/families-a-history/page-5
"Page 5. Baby boom begins: 1945–1959
As soldiers returned at the end of the Second World War, New Zealand experienced the first stage of the baby boom – high rates of early marriage and increasing family size. The fertility rate for Pākehā women rose and this continued until the early 1970s. Women generally married young and became mothers soon after marriage. In the mid-1950s, Pākehā women had on average 3.8 live births while Māori women experienced on average almost seven….
https://teara.govt.nz/en/families-a-history/page-6
Page 6. Baby boom continues: 1960s – early 1970s
During the 1960s and early 1970s most women were still marrying early and focusing on parenting, but the ex-nuptial birth rate rose, divorces increased and married women were more likely to be in the paid workforce. Conventional family arrangements were challenged as feminism began to have an impact. Changes in women’s lives and aspirations had implications for men as lovers, husbands and fathers"…
The pill became available in NZ in the 1960s, but was initially prescribed only to married women, until the 1970s.
"Baby bust families: mid-1970s to 1990s
…From the 1970s access to effective contraception, particularly the contraceptive pill and sterilization, made it easier for people to control their fertility. The beginning of the baby bust also coincided with feminist activism and public debate about contraception, abortion and women’s participation in all aspects of public life – paid work, politics, sport, entertainment, art and culture"…
Crusher has a new friend.
/
https://x.com/JudithCollinsMP/status/1980659639760089359
The White House’s omission of Jewish victims of the Holocaust in its statement for Holocaust Remembrance Day raised objections from Jewish groups across the political spectrum but the Trump administration’s combative defense was perhaps the most surprising move by a presidency facing record low approval numbers. Last Monday, Deputy Assistant to the President Sebastian Gorka refused to admit that that it may have been poor judgment not to specifically acknowledge the suffering of Jews in the Holocaust.
http://lobelog.com/why-is-trump-adviser-wearing-medal-of-nazi-collaborators/
Nope, JC and her ilk don’t have nor make friends, only allies, based on mutual interest at a point in time.