but there’s a hoop or two to jump through first, and a licencing agreement to accept
The "hoop" is providing an email address and the licence just agreeing not to retain certain data that may have become hidden. It's not an obstacle.
You’re pretty much saying the data isn’t all public, ever, and even what is public is at considerable (at least for a lot of data) cost, which you’re meant to pay to get it?
Property title data, including owners, is public and freely available. The LINZ data service is excellent. To figure out transfers you'd need to compare two snapshots, I think.
Cafes have always been allowed to open, as has anywhere else "whose principal business is selling ... prepared or cooked food ready to be eaten immediately in the form in which it is sold".
They don't have to close on Monday either.
Our concern is [...] access[ing] content without needing any technical know-how
The attitude behind this kind of statement is troubling to me. Why does having or not having "any technical know-how" make a difference?
It's almost verbatim the same article they had a few weeks ago (including that detail). I wondered whether they'd said more than they intended at the time, but seemingly not.
people who hacked into the Labour website
They really, really didn't. I wish people would stop saying this; it's needlessly inflammatory and false to the point of undermining any legitimate complaints that are attached to it.
Online voting is a mindbogglingly terrible idea. Electronic voting in general is a terrible idea, because it's entirely unverifiable. Doing it online only makes it worse.
it was my family home, I moved into a rest home, there are is CGT on family homes, so if I sell my family home before I die the family member can inherit the cash and pay no CGT, but if I die before selling the home, then the CGT must be paid when my family sells the (2nd) home? So it’s a tax on me dying before converting the asset?
I don't know what the precise definition of "family home" was intended to be, and I suspect it was a detail to be hammered out later.
The exception is bad policy, really. So if your point is that CGT should be uniformly applied to all assets - yes, probably. It's fairly obvious why it wasn't, though.
capital gains payable on cash
No. It was already paid (if applicable) when you sold whatever got you the cash. Cash by definition has not increased in value from any time to any other time.
or other inheritance such as collections
If there is some capital gain (increase in value) between the later date of the passage of the law or the acquisition of the items, and you then sell the items, yes. If you don't sell them - no. If they haven't appreciated in value - no.
you are forced to realize the gain when you die
No you aren't. That was the point of the policy passage he quoted, even.