https://emilywrites.substack.com/p/the-explainer-the-governments-three?
https://emilywrites.substack.com/p/the-explainer-the-governments-three?
On Wednesday, February 1, 2023 at 9:27:35 PM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
https://emilywrites.substack.com/p/the-explainer-the-governments-three?
Another useless and pointless troll from Rich. It escapes what passes for his understanding that we're all fully aware of what five waters is about. Which is why so many New Zealanders are opposed to it!
On Wednesday, 1 February 2023 at 22:43:41 UTC+13, bowes...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, February 1, 2023 at 9:27:35 PM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
https://emilywrites.substack.com/p/the-explainer-the-governments-three?
Another useless and pointless troll from Rich. It escapes what passes for his understanding that we're all fully aware of what five waters is about. Which is why so many New Zealanders are opposed to it!
Shane Jones nails it:
The Three Waters project is doomed to fail because it is not sustainable in our democracy for a $185 billion public utility programme to be 50% controlled by Maori.
They are public assets, not tribal baubles
SHANE JONES
Maori have no particular expertise in management of any of the 5 kinds of water. Granting them 50% control adds nothing of value.
On Wed, 01 Feb 2023 21:23:32 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
https://emilywrites.substack.com/p/the-explainer-the-governments-three?
Whenever I see "Simon Wilson" and "climate crisis" in the same
sentence, I know that a tirade of bullshit follows.
3 waters has the potential to become a centralised, bloated, racist, >bureaucratic fiasco that will make the problem much worse.
Centralisation and racism have never improved anything, ever.
Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be
forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist
centralised bureaucracy.
If they get away with this unmandated dishonesty, other ratepayer
assets are likely to follow.
Bill.
On Wed, 01 Feb 2023 21:23:32 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
https://emilywrites.substack.com/p/the-explainer-the-governments-three?
Not sure why you posted this Rich. There is nothing new here that
Labour have not claimed in the past. Thanks for reminding me of the
detail on this evil reform that could be achieved in other ways that
do not attack our democracy.
On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 11:56:00 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, 1 February 2023 at 22:43:41 UTC+13, bowes...@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Wednesday, February 1, 2023 at 9:27:35 PM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
https://emilywrites.substack.com/p/the-explainer-the-governments-three? >>>Another useless and pointless troll from Rich. It escapes what passes for his understanding that we're all fully aware of what five waters is about. Which is why so many New Zealanders are opposed to it!
Shane Jones nails it:
The Three Waters project is doomed to fail because it is not sustainable in our democracy for a $185 billion public utility programme to be 50% controlled by Maori.
They are public assets, not tribal baubles
SHANE JONES
Maori have no particular expertise in management of any of the 5 kinds of water. Granting them 50% control adds nothing of value.
Ahh so Shane Jones must certainly be on Willie Jackson's list of
'useless Maori' by now.
https://emilywrites.substack.com/p/the-explainer-the-governments-three?
On Thu, 02 Feb 2023 09:26:27 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Wed, 01 Feb 2023 21:23:32 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
https://emilywrites.substack.com/p/the-explainer-the-governments-three?
Not sure why you posted this Rich. There is nothing new here that
Labour have not claimed in the past. Thanks for reminding me of the
detail on this evil reform that could be achieved in other ways that
do not attack our democracy.
So what are those other ways, Crash? I don't see any Council
clamouring to raise rates to pay for the work needed to fix the
deficiencies in stormwater systems . . .
From the article above:
"Its interesting listening to the current National Party leader, Christopher Luxon, talking about co-governance. On RNZ recently he
said he supported the arrangements Finlayson had negotiated. But he
opposed co-governance when it involved government services.
It doesnt make any sense: the co-governance arrangements in Te
Urewera, under the deal with Tuhoe, involve a host of health,
education, housing, employment, land, economic development, welfare
and other government services.
Luxon, in my view, is merely trying to have it both ways. He knows the arrangements in place now make sense, but he doesnt want to give up
the dog whistling. Hes pandering to the sour right, presumably
because he knows Act and NZ First are doing the same thing.
The full absurdity of this whole debate is revealed in the Waikato
River arrangement. It controls much of the water for Auckland and for dairying in the Waikato, among many other things, which makes it
incredibly important to the country. And its co-governance, its been
in place for 10 years, it works really well, and everyone agrees about
that.
And its about water! The very thing some people are so antsy about
with Three Waters. How is it not just plain racism?"
On Thu, 02 Feb 2023 09:28:22 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 11:56:00 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, 1 February 2023 at 22:43:41 UTC+13, bowes...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> On Wednesday, February 1, 2023 at 9:27:35 PM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
https://emilywrites.substack.com/p/the-explainer-the-governments-three? >>>>Another useless and pointless troll from Rich. It escapes what passes for his understanding that we're all fully aware of what five waters is about. Which is why so many New Zealanders are opposed to it!
Shane Jones nails it:
The Three Waters project is doomed to fail because it is not sustainable in our democracy for a $185 billion public utility programme to be 50% controlled by Maori.
They are public assets, not tribal baubles
SHANE JONES
Maori have no particular expertise in management of any of the 5 kinds of water. Granting them 50% control adds nothing of value.
Ahh so Shane Jones must certainly be on Willie Jackson's list of
'useless Maori' by now.
From the article:
"The Act says councils will have non-financial shareholdings in the
new entities, while regional oversight groups will be set up with
equal membership drawn from mana whenua and councils. This is known as >co-governance.
The job of these groups is to appoint the board members of the
entities and help with strategic decisions. They will not be involved
in operational matters."
So regional oversight is now ownership? Rubbish. "
On 2023-02-01, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 02 Feb 2023 09:26:27 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Wed, 01 Feb 2023 21:23:32 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
https://emilywrites.substack.com/p/the-explainer-the-governments-three?
Not sure why you posted this Rich. There is nothing new here that
Labour have not claimed in the past. Thanks for reminding me of the >>>detail on this evil reform that could be achieved in other ways that
do not attack our democracy.
So what are those other ways, Crash? I don't see any Council
clamouring to raise rates to pay for the work needed to fix the
deficiencies in stormwater systems . . .
It is now the stormwater system? No it was climate change which caused all >this.
Back in the real world. The system works well apart from the old chestnut of >who is to pay for it. There is also the chestnut of that the rural areas
have less of a rating base, hence they need more $ to carry out the
required work to the given stanadrd.
From the article above:
"It?s interesting listening to the current National Party leader,
Christopher Luxon, talking about co-governance. On RNZ recently he
said he supported the arrangements Finlayson had negotiated. But he
opposed ?co-governance? when it involved ?government services?.
It doesn?t make any sense: the co-governance arrangements in Te
Urewera, under the deal with Tuhoe, involve a host of health,
education, housing, employment, land, economic development, welfare
and other government services.
Luxon, in my view, is merely trying to have it both ways. He knows the
arrangements in place now make sense, but he doesn?t want to give up
the dog whistling. He?s pandering to the ?sour right?, presumably
because he knows Act and NZ First are doing the same thing.
The full absurdity of this whole debate is revealed in the Waikato
River arrangement. It controls much of the water for Auckland and for
dairying in the Waikato, among many other things, which makes it
incredibly important to the country. And it?s co-governance, it?s been
in place for 10 years, it works really well, and everyone agrees about
that.
Here we go again. This is co-Management, not Co-Goverenance.
And it?s about water! The very thing some people are so antsy about
with Three Waters. How is it not just plain racism?"
The Co-management is about a equal partnership, two sides working together. >The fact that the patners are of different races is not at all important. >Both have the aim to work together for a common aim.
Co-governance 3 waters style is about power and money.
On Thu, 02 Feb 2023 09:26:27 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>There are no such co-governance arrangements - provide some evidence.
wrote:
On Wed, 01 Feb 2023 21:23:32 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
https://emilywrites.substack.com/p/the-explainer-the-governments-three?
Not sure why you posted this Rich. There is nothing new here that
Labour have not claimed in the past. Thanks for reminding me of the
detail on this evil reform that could be achieved in other ways that
do not attack our democracy.
So what are those other ways, Crash? I don't see any Council
clamouring to raise rates to pay for the work needed to fix the
deficiencies in stormwater systems . . .
From the article above:
"Its interesting listening to the current National Party leader,
Christopher Luxon, talking about co-governance. On RNZ recently he
said he supported the arrangements Finlayson had negotiated. But he
opposed co-governance when it involved government services.
It doesnt make any sense: the co-governance arrangements in Te
Urewera, under the deal with Tuhoe, involve a host of health,
education, housing, employment, land, economic development, welfare
and other government services.
Luxon, in my view, is merely trying to have it both ways. He knows the >arrangements in place now make sense, but he doesnt want to give upThat is your political rhetoric, no different to any bodt else.
the dog whistling. Hes pandering to the sour right, presumably
because he knows Act and NZ First are doing the same thing.
The full absurdity of this whole debate is revealed in the WaikatoNo it is not. Provide evidence that it is.
River arrangement. It controls much of the water for Auckland and for >dairying in the Waikato, among many other things, which makes it
incredibly important to the country. And its co-governance
, its beenSo what - that doesn't mean that confiscating the water resources is necessary, important or fair.
in place for 10 years, it works really well, and everyone agrees about
that.
And its about water! The very thing some people are so antsy aboutIt is racism - the entire three waters movement is racism plain and simple.
with Three Waters. How is it not just plain racism?"
On Thu, 02 Feb 2023 09:28:22 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>No not rubbish - the legislation and what the act says is thinly veiled codswallop designed to hide the reality which is control of water by a minority of the population.
wrote:
On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 11:56:00 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, 1 February 2023 at 22:43:41 UTC+13, bowes...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> On Wednesday, February 1, 2023 at 9:27:35 PM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
https://emilywrites.substack.com/p/the-explainer-the-governments-three? >>>>Another useless and pointless troll from Rich. It escapes what passes for >>>>his understanding that we're all fully aware of what five waters is about. >>>>Which is why so many New Zealanders are opposed to it!
Shane Jones nails it:
The Three Waters project is doomed to fail because it is not sustainable in >>>our democracy for a $185 billion public utility programme to be 50% controlled
by Maori.
They are public assets, not tribal baubles
SHANE JONES
Maori have no particular expertise in management of any of the 5 kinds of >>>water. Granting them 50% control adds nothing of value.
Ahh so Shane Jones must certainly be on Willie Jackson's list of
'useless Maori' by now.
From the article:
"The Act says councils will have non-financial shareholdings in the
new entities, while regional oversight groups will be set up with
equal membership drawn from mana whenua and councils. This is known as >co-governance.
The job of these groups is to appoint the board members of the
entities and help with strategic decisions. They will not be involved
in operational matters."
So regional oversight is now ownership? Rubbish. "
On 1 Feb 2023 21:25:15 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Itrrelevant - it just happens to be true and the co-management word shows your refusal to acknowledge simple concepts.
On 2023-02-01, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 02 Feb 2023 09:26:27 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Wed, 01 Feb 2023 21:23:32 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
Not sure why you posted this Rich. There is nothing new here that >>>>Labour have not claimed in the past. Thanks for reminding me of the >>>>detail on this evil reform that could be achieved in other ways thathttps://emilywrites.substack.com/p/the-explainer-the-governments-three? >>>>
do not attack our democracy.
So what are those other ways, Crash? I don't see any Council
clamouring to raise rates to pay for the work needed to fix the
deficiencies in stormwater systems . . .
It is now the stormwater system? No it was climate change which caused all >>this.
Back in the real world. The system works well apart from the old chestnut of >>who is to pay for it. There is also the chestnut of that the rural areas >>have less of a rating base, hence they need more $ to carry out the >>required work to the given stanadrd.
From the article above:
"It?s interesting listening to the current National Party leader,
Christopher Luxon, talking about co-governance. On RNZ recently he
said he supported the arrangements Finlayson had negotiated. But he
opposed ?co-governance? when it involved ?government services?.
It doesn?t make any sense: the co-governance arrangements in Te
Urewera, under the deal with Tuhoe, involve a host of health,
education, housing, employment, land, economic development, welfare
and other government services.
Luxon, in my view, is merely trying to have it both ways. He knows the
arrangements in place now make sense, but he doesn?t want to give up
the dog whistling. He?s pandering to the ?sour right?, presumably
because he knows Act and NZ First are doing the same thing.
The full absurdity of this whole debate is revealed in the Waikato
River arrangement. It controls much of the water for Auckland and for
dairying in the Waikato, among many other things, which makes it
incredibly important to the country. And it?s co-governance, it?s been
in place for 10 years, it works really well, and everyone agrees about
that.
Here we go again. This is co-Management, not Co-Goverenance.
And it?s about water! The very thing some people are so antsy about
with Three Waters. How is it not just plain racism?"
The Co-management is about a equal partnership, two sides working together. >>The fact that the patners are of different races is not at all important. >>Both have the aim to work together for a common aim.
Co-governance 3 waters style is about power and money.
Again from the article:
"The water services of our 67 local councils will be combined into
four semi-autonomous regional entities, to be operating by July 2024.
In late 2021 and early 2022, a working group of mayors and Maori >representatives reviewed the plans and made 47 recommendations. The >government accepted 44 of them and, in June 2022, Local Government
Minister Nanaia Mahuta introduced the Water Services Entities Bill. It
was passed into law in December.
Water is a taonga and is explicitly recognised in the Treaty of
Waitangi. Some manner of partnership between the Crown and tangata
whenua is therefore required.
The Act says councils will have non-financial shareholdings in the new >entities, while regional oversight groups will be set up with equal >membership drawn from mana whenua and councils. This is known as >co-governance.
The job of these groups is to appoint the board members of the
entities and help with strategic decisions. They will not be involved
in operational matters."
Whatever the name - co-governance or co-management, what part of that
last paragraph. In your terms, Co-governance 3 waters style is nothing
to do with power and money, it is about working together for a common
aim. Does it matter that you wold prefer the name co-management?
In terms of a commercial company, it is intended to have regional
oversight groups - they are not the Board of Directors or Management,
but will influence and inform government, local authorities and
management of the regional entities.
On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 5:25:20 AM UTC+13, BR wrote:Firstly it is not nonsense. A word you use with no evidence to support it. Secondly what happened in the nineteenth century is two things -
On Wed, 01 Feb 2023 21:23:32 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
https://emilywrites.substack.com/p/the-explainer-the-governments-three?
Whenever I see "Simon Wilson" and "climate crisis" in the same
sentence, I know that a tirade of bullshit follows.
3 waters has the potential to become a centralised, bloated, racist,
bureaucratic fiasco that will make the problem much worse.
Centralisation and racism have never improved anything, ever.
Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be
forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist
centralised bureaucracy.
If they get away with this unmandated dishonesty, other ratepayer
assets are likely to follow.
Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
"Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be
forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist
centralised bureaucracy."
That's nonsense, of course. But you have, unwittingly, described exactly what >was done to Maori in the nineteenth century, following the confiscation of >Waikato and Taranaki lands.
"morriss...@gmail.com" <morriss...@gmail.com> wrote:Usually by the biggest purveyor of porn and fake news: Mowwisy Bween :)
On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 5:25:20 AM UTC+13, BR wrote:
On Wed, 01 Feb 2023 21:23:32 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
https://emilywrites.substack.com/p/the-explainer-the-governments-three? >>Whenever I see "Simon Wilson" and "climate crisis" in the same
sentence, I know that a tirade of bullshit follows.
3 waters has the potential to become a centralised, bloated, racist,
bureaucratic fiasco that will make the problem much worse.
Centralisation and racism have never improved anything, ever.
Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be
forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist
centralised bureaucracy.
If they get away with this unmandated dishonesty, other ratepayer
assets are likely to follow.
Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
"Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be
forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist
centralised bureaucracy."
That's nonsense, of course. But you have, unwittingly, described exactly whatFirstly it is not nonsense. A word you use with no evidence to support it. Secondly what happened in the nineteenth century is two things -
was done to Maori in the nineteenth century, following the confiscation of >Waikato and Taranaki lands.
a. Irrelevant.
b. Usually misrepresented, hugely.
On Wed, 01 Feb 2023 21:23:32 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
https://emilywrites.substack.com/p/the-explainer-the-governments-three?
Whenever I see "Simon Wilson" and "climate crisis" in the same
sentence, I know that a tirade of bullshit follows.
3 waters has the potential to become a centralised, bloated, racist, bureaucratic fiasco that will make the problem much worse.
Centralisation and racism have never improved anything, ever.
Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be
forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist
centralised bureaucracy.
If they get away with this unmandated dishonesty, other ratepayer
assets are likely to follow.
Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
"morriss...@gmail.com" <morrisseybreen@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 5:25:20 AM UTC+13, BR wrote:Firstly it is not nonsense. A word you use with no evidence to support it. >Secondly what happened in the nineteenth century is two things -
On Wed, 01 Feb 2023 21:23:32 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
https://emilywrites.substack.com/p/the-explainer-the-governments-three? >>>Whenever I see "Simon Wilson" and "climate crisis" in the same
sentence, I know that a tirade of bullshit follows.
3 waters has the potential to become a centralised, bloated, racist,
bureaucratic fiasco that will make the problem much worse.
Centralisation and racism have never improved anything, ever.
Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be
forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist
centralised bureaucracy.
If they get away with this unmandated dishonesty, other ratepayer
assets are likely to follow.
Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
"Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be
forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist
centralised bureaucracy."
That's nonsense, of course. But you have, unwittingly, described exactly what >>was done to Maori in the nineteenth century, following the confiscation of >>Waikato and Taranaki lands.
a. Irrelevant.
b. Usually misrepresented, hugely.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:It is a direct quote from the article
On Thu, 02 Feb 2023 09:26:27 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:There are no such co-governance arrangements - provide some evidence.
On Wed, 01 Feb 2023 21:23:32 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
https://emilywrites.substack.com/p/the-explainer-the-governments-three?
Not sure why you posted this Rich. There is nothing new here that
Labour have not claimed in the past. Thanks for reminding me of the >>>detail on this evil reform that could be achieved in other ways that
do not attack our democracy.
So what are those other ways, Crash? I don't see any Council
clamouring to raise rates to pay for the work needed to fix the >>deficiencies in stormwater systems . . .
From the article above:
"Its interesting listening to the current National Party leader, >>Christopher Luxon, talking about co-governance. On RNZ recently he
said he supported the arrangements Finlayson had negotiated. But he
opposed co-governance when it involved government services.
It doesnt make any sense: the co-governance arrangements in Te
Urewera, under the deal with Tuhoe, involve a host of health,
education, housing, employment, land, economic development, welfare
and other government services.
It is a direct quote from the articleThat is your political rhetoric, no different to any bodt else.
Luxon, in my view, is merely trying to have it both ways. He knows the >>arrangements in place now make sense, but he doesnt want to give up
the dog whistling. Hes pandering to the sour right, presumably
because he knows Act and NZ First are doing the same thing.
It is a direct quote from the articleNo it is not. Provide evidence that it is.
The full absurdity of this whole debate is revealed in the Waikato
River arrangement. It controls much of the water for Auckland and for >>dairying in the Waikato, among many other things, which makes it
incredibly important to the country. And its co-governance
No confiscation, its beenSo what - that doesn't mean that confiscating the water resources is necessary,
in place for 10 years, it works really well, and everyone agrees about >>that.
important or fair.
you for recognising that reality.And its about water! The very thing some people are so antsy aboutIt is racism - the entire three waters movement is racism plain and simple. Yes those who object are often doing it for racist reasons. Good on
with Three Waters. How is it not just plain racism?"
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 03:29:44 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
"morriss...@gmail.com" <morriss...@gmail.com> wrote:It is relevant due to the impact of an important contract - the Treaty
On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 5:25:20 AM UTC+13, BR wrote:Firstly it is not nonsense. A word you use with no evidence to support it. >Secondly what happened in the nineteenth century is two things -
On Wed, 01 Feb 2023 21:23:32 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
https://emilywrites.substack.com/p/the-explainer-the-governments-three? >>>Whenever I see "Simon Wilson" and "climate crisis" in the same
sentence, I know that a tirade of bullshit follows.
3 waters has the potential to become a centralised, bloated, racist,
bureaucratic fiasco that will make the problem much worse.
Centralisation and racism have never improved anything, ever.
Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be
forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist
centralised bureaucracy.
If they get away with this unmandated dishonesty, other ratepayer
assets are likely to follow.
Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
"Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be >>forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist
centralised bureaucracy."
That's nonsense, of course. But you have, unwittingly, described exactly what
was done to Maori in the nineteenth century, following the confiscation of >>Waikato and Taranaki lands.
a. Irrelevant.
b. Usually misrepresented, hugely.
of Waitangi.
On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 5:25:20 AM UTC+13, BR wrote:
On Wed, 01 Feb 2023 21:23:32 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
https://emilywrites.substack.com/p/the-explainer-the-governments-three?
Whenever I see "Simon Wilson" and "climate crisis" in the same
sentence, I know that a tirade of bullshit follows.
3 waters has the potential to become a centralised, bloated, racist,
bureaucratic fiasco that will make the problem much worse.
Centralisation and racism have never improved anything, ever.
Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be
forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist
centralised bureaucracy.
If they get away with this unmandated dishonesty, other ratepayer
assets are likely to follow.
Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
"Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be
forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist
centralised bureaucracy."
That's nonsense, of course. But you have, unwittingly, described exactly what was done to Maori in the nineteenth century, following the confiscation of Waikato and Taranaki lands.
Br it is theft - because there is no purchase involved.
Ratepayer-owned water assets will remain ratepayer-owned but the
councils that own the assets are prohibited from operating them. Each
Water entity is co-governed.
On Thu, 02 Feb 2023 09:32:46 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
Br it is theft - because there is no purchase involved.
Ratepayer-owned water assets will remain ratepayer-owned but the
councils that own the assets are prohibited from operating them. Each >>Water entity is co-governed.
That sounds like textbook fascism to me. "You can own it but we'll
tell you what you must do with it".
For all practical purposes they will own it.
Bill.
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 05:09:07 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:As BR wrote - textbook fascism or is it textbook Marxism?
On Thu, 02 Feb 2023 09:32:46 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:
Br it is theft - because there is no purchase involved.
Ratepayer-owned water assets will remain ratepayer-owned but the
councils that own the assets are prohibited from operating them. Each >>>Water entity is co-governed.
That sounds like textbook fascism to me. "You can own it but we'll
tell you what you must do with it".
For all practical purposes they will own it.
Bill.
Very much like Watercare in Auckland. The reality is that they must
work closely with local authorities so that planning is 'joined up' -
what is important is that expertise will be better spread - Northland
does not have the resources to develop its own equivalent of
Watercare; government money is not the only answer; there must be
adequate people on the ground dealing with local problems as they
occur, but covering a much wider area than any local council if water >quantity and quality is to be delivered over such a large area
efficiently. The role of government is to ensure that money is well
spent by seeing that there is responsible planning, accountability and
that expertise is shared. Local areas know that they cannot afford to
raise money for schools and hospitals from scratch, including training
and recruitment of specialst staff - they rely on government systems
for that; water is becoming a complex system that requires New
Zealanders to work together to ensure the good of all - not solutions
only for high density areas that can afford systems and bugger the
country and country towns.
On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 19:18:07 -0800 (PST), "morriss...@gmail.com" ><morrisseybreen@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 5:25:20 AM UTC+13, BR wrote:
On Wed, 01 Feb 2023 21:23:32 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
https://emilywrites.substack.com/p/the-explainer-the-governments-three? >>>Whenever I see "Simon Wilson" and "climate crisis" in the same
sentence, I know that a tirade of bullshit follows.
3 waters has the potential to become a centralised, bloated, racist,
bureaucratic fiasco that will make the problem much worse.
Centralisation and racism have never improved anything, ever.
Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be
forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist
centralised bureaucracy.
If they get away with this unmandated dishonesty, other ratepayer
assets are likely to follow.
Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
"Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be
forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist
centralised bureaucracy."
That's nonsense, of course. But you have, unwittingly, described exactly what was done to Maori in the nineteenth century, following the confiscation of Waikato and Taranaki lands.
There was no such thing as property rights in pre-colonial New
Zealand. Property rights cannot exist without universal recognition.
Land was not owned, it was occupied, that's all. There are no accurate >records of the occupations or of their history, just hearsay and
rumours. Pre European tribal Maori owned nothing. The whole treaty >compensation process is a scam. Nobody owes the tribal elite a damn
thing. If anything they should be grateful, because colonisation had
quite possibly saved Maori from extinction. Treaty grievance claims
and three waters benefit only the tribal elite, and always at the
expense of everyone else, including most working Maori.
Bill.
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 03:29:44 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe treaty has no mention of co-govewrnance or of anything like 3/5 waters and what happened in the 19th century is almost completely irrelevant today.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
"morriss...@gmail.com" <morrisseybreen@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 5:25:20 AM UTC+13, BR wrote:Firstly it is not nonsense. A word you use with no evidence to support it. >>Secondly what happened in the nineteenth century is two things -
On Wed, 01 Feb 2023 21:23:32 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
https://emilywrites.substack.com/p/the-explainer-the-governments-three? >>>>Whenever I see "Simon Wilson" and "climate crisis" in the same
sentence, I know that a tirade of bullshit follows.
3 waters has the potential to become a centralised, bloated, racist,
bureaucratic fiasco that will make the problem much worse.
Centralisation and racism have never improved anything, ever.
Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be
forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist
centralised bureaucracy.
If they get away with this unmandated dishonesty, other ratepayer
assets are likely to follow.
Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
"Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be >>>forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist
centralised bureaucracy."
That's nonsense, of course. But you have, unwittingly, described exactly >>>what
was done to Maori in the nineteenth century, following the confiscation of >>>Waikato and Taranaki lands.
a. Irrelevant.
b. Usually misrepresented, hugely.
It is relevant due to the impact of an important contract - the Treaty
of Waitangi.
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 01:06:11 -0000 (UTC), TonySo what, that doesn't make the article correct -dear me what sort of logic do you support?
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:It is a direct quote from the article
On Thu, 02 Feb 2023 09:26:27 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:There are no such co-governance arrangements - provide some evidence.
On Wed, 01 Feb 2023 21:23:32 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
Not sure why you posted this Rich. There is nothing new here that >>>>Labour have not claimed in the past. Thanks for reminding me of the >>>>detail on this evil reform that could be achieved in other ways thathttps://emilywrites.substack.com/p/the-explainer-the-governments-three? >>>>
do not attack our democracy.
So what are those other ways, Crash? I don't see any Council
clamouring to raise rates to pay for the work needed to fix the >>>deficiencies in stormwater systems . . .
From the article above:
"Its interesting listening to the current National Party leader, >>>Christopher Luxon, talking about co-governance. On RNZ recently he
said he supported the arrangements Finlayson had negotiated. But he >>>opposed co-governance when it involved government services.
It doesnt make any sense: the co-governance arrangements in Te
Urewera, under the deal with Tuhoe, involve a host of health,
education, housing, employment, land, economic development, welfare
and other government services.
See aboveIt is a direct quote from the articleThat is your political rhetoric, no different to any bodt else.
Luxon, in my view, is merely trying to have it both ways. He knows the >>>arrangements in place now make sense, but he doesnt want to give up
the dog whistling. Hes pandering to the sour right, presumably
because he knows Act and NZ First are doing the same thing.
See aboveIt is a direct quote from the articleNo it is not. Provide evidence that it is.
The full absurdity of this whole debate is revealed in the Waikato
River arrangement. It controls much of the water for Auckland and for >>>dairying in the Waikato, among many other things, which makes it >>>incredibly important to the country. And its co-governance
Yes it isNo confiscation, its beenSo what - that doesn't mean that confiscating the water resources is >>necessary,
in place for 10 years, it works really well, and everyone agrees about >>>that.
important or fair.
You cannot comprehend simple English - the racists are those supporting co-governance - you are a racist.,you for recognising that reality.And its about water! The very thing some people are so antsy aboutIt is racism - the entire three waters movement is racism plain and simple. >Yes those who object are often doing it for racist reasons. Good on
with Three Waters. How is it not just plain racism?"
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 05:09:07 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:As BR wrote - textbook fascism or is it textbook Marxism?
On Thu, 02 Feb 2023 09:32:46 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:
Br it is theft - because there is no purchase involved.
Ratepayer-owned water assets will remain ratepayer-owned but the >>>>councils that own the assets are prohibited from operating them. Each >>>>Water entity is co-governed.
That sounds like textbook fascism to me. "You can own it but we'll
tell you what you must do with it".
For all practical purposes they will own it.
Bill.
Very much like Watercare in Auckland. The reality is that they must
work closely with local authorities so that planning is 'joined up' -
what is important is that expertise will be better spread - Northland
does not have the resources to develop its own equivalent of
Watercare; government money is not the only answer; there must be
adequate people on the ground dealing with local problems as they
occur, but covering a much wider area than any local council if water >>quantity and quality is to be delivered over such a large area
efficiently. The role of government is to ensure that money is well
spent by seeing that there is responsible planning, accountability and
that expertise is shared. Local areas know that they cannot afford to
raise money for schools and hospitals from scratch, including training
and recruitment of specialst staff - they rely on government systems
for that; water is becoming a complex system that requires New
Zealanders to work together to ensure the good of all - not solutions
only for high density areas that can afford systems and bugger the
country and country towns.
Both have no place in this country.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 03:29:44 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe treaty has no mention of co-govewrnance or of anything like 3/5 waters and >what happened in the 19th century is almost completely irrelevant today.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
"morriss...@gmail.com" <morrisseybreen@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 5:25:20 AM UTC+13, BR wrote:Firstly it is not nonsense. A word you use with no evidence to support it. >>>Secondly what happened in the nineteenth century is two things -
On Wed, 01 Feb 2023 21:23:32 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
https://emilywrites.substack.com/p/the-explainer-the-governments-three? >>>>>Whenever I see "Simon Wilson" and "climate crisis" in the same
sentence, I know that a tirade of bullshit follows.
3 waters has the potential to become a centralised, bloated, racist, >>>>> bureaucratic fiasco that will make the problem much worse.
Centralisation and racism have never improved anything, ever.
Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be
forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist
centralised bureaucracy.
If they get away with this unmandated dishonesty, other ratepayer
assets are likely to follow.
Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
"Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be >>>>forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist >>>>centralised bureaucracy."
That's nonsense, of course. But you have, unwittingly, described exactly >>>>what
was done to Maori in the nineteenth century, following the confiscation of >>>>Waikato and Taranaki lands.
a. Irrelevant.
b. Usually misrepresented, hugely.
It is relevant due to the impact of an important contract - the Treaty
of Waitangi.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 01:06:11 -0000 (UTC), TonySo what, that doesn't make the article correct -dear me what sort of logic do >you support?
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:It is a direct quote from the article
On Thu, 02 Feb 2023 09:26:27 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:There are no such co-governance arrangements - provide some evidence.
On Wed, 01 Feb 2023 21:23:32 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:
Not sure why you posted this Rich. There is nothing new here that >>>>>Labour have not claimed in the past. Thanks for reminding me of the >>>>>detail on this evil reform that could be achieved in other ways that >>>>>do not attack our democracy.https://emilywrites.substack.com/p/the-explainer-the-governments-three? >>>>>
So what are those other ways, Crash? I don't see any Council
clamouring to raise rates to pay for the work needed to fix the >>>>deficiencies in stormwater systems . . .
From the article above:
"Its interesting listening to the current National Party leader, >>>>Christopher Luxon, talking about co-governance. On RNZ recently he
said he supported the arrangements Finlayson had negotiated. But he >>>>opposed co-governance when it involved government services.
It doesnt make any sense: the co-governance arrangements in Te >>>>Urewera, under the deal with Tuhoe, involve a host of health, >>>>education, housing, employment, land, economic development, welfare
and other government services.
See above
It is a direct quote from the articleThat is your political rhetoric, no different to any bodt else.
Luxon, in my view, is merely trying to have it both ways. He knows the >>>>arrangements in place now make sense, but he doesnt want to give up >>>>the dog whistling. Hes pandering to the sour right, presumably >>>>because he knows Act and NZ First are doing the same thing.
See above
It is a direct quote from the articleNo it is not. Provide evidence that it is.
The full absurdity of this whole debate is revealed in the Waikato >>>>River arrangement. It controls much of the water for Auckland and for >>>>dairying in the Waikato, among many other things, which makes it >>>>incredibly important to the country. And its co-governance
Yes it is
No confiscation, its beenSo what - that doesn't mean that confiscating the water resources is >>>necessary,
in place for 10 years, it works really well, and everyone agrees about >>>>that.
important or fair.
You cannot comprehend simple English - the racists are those supporting >co-governance - you are a racist.,
you for recognising that reality.And its about water! The very thing some people are so antsy about >>>>with Three Waters. How is it not just plain racism?"It is racism - the entire three waters movement is racism plain and simple. >>Yes those who object are often doing it for racist reasons. Good on
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 19:43:11 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 03:29:44 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe treaty has no mention of co-govewrnance or of anything like 3/5 waters and
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
"morriss...@gmail.com" <morrisseybreen@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 5:25:20 AM UTC+13, BR wrote:Firstly it is not nonsense. A word you use with no evidence to support it. >>>>Secondly what happened in the nineteenth century is two things -
On Wed, 01 Feb 2023 21:23:32 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:
https://emilywrites.substack.com/p/the-explainer-the-governments-three? >>>>>>Whenever I see "Simon Wilson" and "climate crisis" in the same
sentence, I know that a tirade of bullshit follows.
3 waters has the potential to become a centralised, bloated, racist, >>>>>> bureaucratic fiasco that will make the problem much worse.
Centralisation and racism have never improved anything, ever.
Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be
forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist
centralised bureaucracy.
If they get away with this unmandated dishonesty, other ratepayer
assets are likely to follow.
Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
"Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be >>>>>forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist >>>>>centralised bureaucracy."
That's nonsense, of course. But you have, unwittingly, described exactly >>>>>what
was done to Maori in the nineteenth century, following the confiscation of >>>>>Waikato and Taranaki lands.
a. Irrelevant.
b. Usually misrepresented, hugely.
It is relevant due to the impact of an important contract - the Treaty
of Waitangi.
what happened in the 19th century is almost completely irrelevant today.
From the article:
"Water is a taonga and is explicitly recognised in the Treaty of
Waitangi. Some manner of partnership between the Crown and tangata
whenua is therefore required."
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 05:09:07 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Thu, 02 Feb 2023 09:32:46 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:
Br it is theft - because there is no purchase involved.
Ratepayer-owned water assets will remain ratepayer-owned but the
councils that own the assets are prohibited from operating them. Each >>>Water entity is co-governed.
That sounds like textbook fascism to me. "You can own it but we'll
tell you what you must do with it".
For all practical purposes they will own it.
Bill.
Very much like Watercare in Auckland.
The reality is that they must
work closely with local authorities so that planning is 'joined up' -
what is important is that expertise will be better spread - Northland
does not have the resources to develop its own equivalent of
Watercare;
government money is not the only answer; there must be
adequate people on the ground dealing with local problems as they
occur, but covering a much wider area than any local council if water >quantity and quality is to be delivered over such a large area
efficiently. The role of government is to ensure that money is well
spent by seeing that there is responsible planning, accountability and
that expertise is shared. Local areas know that they cannot afford to
raise money for schools and hospitals from scratch, including training
and recruitment of specialst staff - they rely on government systems
for that; water is becoming a complex system that requires New
Zealanders to work together to ensure the good of all - not solutions
only for high density areas that can afford systems and bugger the
country and country towns.
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Part of the problem with the Treaty is there are TWO of them and they're both different! Rich is basing his bullshit on the Maori version which unlike the English version doesn't ensure equal treatment irrespective of race. However neither Treaty
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 03:29:44 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
"morriss...@gmail.com" <morriss...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 5:25:20 AM UTC+13, BR wrote:Firstly it is not nonsense. A word you use with no evidence to support it. >>Secondly what happened in the nineteenth century is two things -
On Wed, 01 Feb 2023 21:23:32 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>>> wrote:
https://emilywrites.substack.com/p/the-explainer-the-governments-three?
Whenever I see "Simon Wilson" and "climate crisis" in the same
sentence, I know that a tirade of bullshit follows.
3 waters has the potential to become a centralised, bloated, racist, >>>> bureaucratic fiasco that will make the problem much worse.
Centralisation and racism have never improved anything, ever.
Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be
forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist
centralised bureaucracy.
If they get away with this unmandated dishonesty, other ratepayer
assets are likely to follow.
Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
"Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be >>>forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist >>>centralised bureaucracy."
That's nonsense, of course. But you have, unwittingly, described exactly >>>what
was done to Maori in the nineteenth century, following the confiscation of
Waikato and Taranaki lands.
a. Irrelevant.
b. Usually misrepresented, hugely.
It is relevant due to the impact of an important contract - the TreatyThe treaty has no mention of co-govewrnance or of anything like 3/5 waters and
of Waitangi.
what happened in the 19th century is almost completely irrelevant today.
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 08:27:25 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>Owned is correct, but many in Auckland would be surprised to hear that
wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 05:09:07 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Thu, 02 Feb 2023 09:32:46 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:
Br it is theft - because there is no purchase involved.
Ratepayer-owned water assets will remain ratepayer-owned but the >>>>councils that own the assets are prohibited from operating them. Each >>>>Water entity is co-governed.
That sounds like textbook fascism to me. "You can own it but we'll
tell you what you must do with it".
For all practical purposes they will own it.
Bill.
Very much like Watercare in Auckland.
Totally incorrect. Watercare is owned by Auckland Council (ie a CCO),
so currently Auckland's water assets are entirely owned and operated
by Auckland Council. Water Entity A will operate these assets but
although Auckland Council still own them they have no control over
operation.
Agreed.The reality is that they must
work closely with local authorities so that planning is 'joined up' -
what is important is that expertise will be better spread - Northland
does not have the resources to develop its own equivalent of
Watercare;
Northland consists of 3 local bodies, each of which has chosen to
operate their own water services. This is related to their
circumstances, not their capability. Each council has a CCO for other >purposes. There are problems with water services in some of those
councils but they have the capability to address them in their
entirety (no major infrastructure projects required) and there has
never been any suggestion otherwise.
government money is not the only answer; there must be
adequate people on the ground dealing with local problems as they
occur, but covering a much wider area than any local council if water >>quantity and quality is to be delivered over such a large area
efficiently. The role of government is to ensure that money is well
spent by seeing that there is responsible planning, accountability and
that expertise is shared. Local areas know that they cannot afford to
raise money for schools and hospitals from scratch, including training
and recruitment of specialst staff - they rely on government systems
for that; water is becoming a complex system that requires New
Zealanders to work together to ensure the good of all - not solutions
only for high density areas that can afford systems and bugger the
country and country towns.
Then leave Northland out of this - there is no centralised approach
required with all water services operating as needed now and into the
future. We say to Water Entity A - bugger off we don't want or need
you - we can and will provide our own solutions to any water issues as
we have in the past.
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 08:54:50 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 19:43:11 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 03:29:44 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe treaty has no mention of co-govewrnance or of anything like 3/5 waters and
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
"morriss...@gmail.com" <morrisseybreen@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 5:25:20 AM UTC+13, BR wrote:Firstly it is not nonsense. A word you use with no evidence to support it. >>>>>Secondly what happened in the nineteenth century is two things -
On Wed, 01 Feb 2023 21:23:32 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
https://emilywrites.substack.com/p/the-explainer-the-governments-three?
Whenever I see "Simon Wilson" and "climate crisis" in the same
sentence, I know that a tirade of bullshit follows.
3 waters has the potential to become a centralised, bloated, racist, >>>>>>> bureaucratic fiasco that will make the problem much worse.
Centralisation and racism have never improved anything, ever.
Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be >>>>>>> forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist
centralised bureaucracy.
If they get away with this unmandated dishonesty, other ratepayer >>>>>>> assets are likely to follow.
Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
"Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be >>>>>>forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist >>>>>>centralised bureaucracy."
That's nonsense, of course. But you have, unwittingly, described exactly >>>>>>what
was done to Maori in the nineteenth century, following the confiscation of
Waikato and Taranaki lands.
a. Irrelevant.
b. Usually misrepresented, hugely.
It is relevant due to the impact of an important contract - the Treaty >>>>of Waitangi.
what happened in the 19th century is almost completely irrelevant today.
From the article:
"Water is a taonga and is explicitly recognised in the Treaty of
Waitangi. Some manner of partnership between the Crown and tangata
whenua is therefore required."
So how come it has taken 182 years to raise this? Current governance
of water supply has been fine up to now. Co-governance is a solution
for which there is no problem.
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 09:16:07 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 08:27:25 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:Owned is correct, but many in Auckland would be surprised to hear that
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 05:09:07 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Thu, 02 Feb 2023 09:32:46 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:
Br it is theft - because there is no purchase involved. >>>>>Ratepayer-owned water assets will remain ratepayer-owned but the >>>>>councils that own the assets are prohibited from operating them. Each >>>>>Water entity is co-governed.
That sounds like textbook fascism to me. "You can own it but we'll
tell you what you must do with it".
For all practical purposes they will own it.
Bill.
Very much like Watercare in Auckland.
Totally incorrect. Watercare is owned by Auckland Council (ie a CCO),
so currently Auckland's water assets are entirely owned and operated
by Auckland Council. Water Entity A will operate these assets but
although Auckland Council still own them they have no control over >>operation.
it is operated by Auckland Council. The role of Council is to appoint >Directors. Yes there is contact / liaison / even cooperation between >Watercare and the Auckland Council. This is a structure set up by a
National Government, but is fairly similar to the Water entities under
Three Waters
Agreed.
The reality is that they must
work closely with local authorities so that planning is 'joined up' - >>>what is important is that expertise will be better spread - Northland >>>does not have the resources to develop its own equivalent of
Watercare;
Northland consists of 3 local bodies, each of which has chosen to
operate their own water services. This is related to their
circumstances, not their capability. Each council has a CCO for other >>purposes. There are problems with water services in some of those
councils but they have the capability to address them in their
entirety (no major infrastructure projects required) and there has
never been any suggestion otherwise.
Such fragmentation is ineffeicient. There are problems that are
stretching the ability of a lot of local councils to fund.
government money is not the only answer; there must be
adequate people on the ground dealing with local problems as they
occur, but covering a much wider area than any local council if water >>>quantity and quality is to be delivered over such a large area >>>efficiently. The role of government is to ensure that money is well
spent by seeing that there is responsible planning, accountability and >>>that expertise is shared. Local areas know that they cannot afford to >>>raise money for schools and hospitals from scratch, including training >>>and recruitment of specialst staff - they rely on government systems
for that; water is becoming a complex system that requires New
Zealanders to work together to ensure the good of all - not solutions >>>only for high density areas that can afford systems and bugger the >>>country and country towns.
Then leave Northland out of this - there is no centralised approach >>required with all water services operating as needed now and into the >>future. We say to Water Entity A - bugger off we don't want or need
you - we can and will provide our own solutions to any water issues as
we have in the past.
So are all water standards currently being met?
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 09:18:58 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 08:54:50 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 19:43:11 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:From the article:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 03:29:44 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:The treaty has no mention of co-govewrnance or of anything like 3/5 waters and
"morriss...@gmail.com" <morrisseybreen@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 5:25:20 AM UTC+13, BR wrote:Firstly it is not nonsense. A word you use with no evidence to support it.
On Wed, 01 Feb 2023 21:23:32 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
https://emilywrites.substack.com/p/the-explainer-the-governments-three?
Whenever I see "Simon Wilson" and "climate crisis" in the same >>>>>>>> sentence, I know that a tirade of bullshit follows.
3 waters has the potential to become a centralised, bloated, racist, >>>>>>>> bureaucratic fiasco that will make the problem much worse.
Centralisation and racism have never improved anything, ever.
Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be >>>>>>>> forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist
centralised bureaucracy.
If they get away with this unmandated dishonesty, other ratepayer >>>>>>>> assets are likely to follow.
Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
"Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be >>>>>>>forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist >>>>>>>centralised bureaucracy."
That's nonsense, of course. But you have, unwittingly, described exactly >>>>>>>what
was done to Maori in the nineteenth century, following the confiscation of
Waikato and Taranaki lands.
Secondly what happened in the nineteenth century is two things -
a. Irrelevant.
b. Usually misrepresented, hugely.
It is relevant due to the impact of an important contract - the Treaty >>>>>of Waitangi.
what happened in the 19th century is almost completely irrelevant today. >>>
"Water is a taonga and is explicitly recognised in the Treaty of >>>Waitangi. Some manner of partnership between the Crown and tangata
whenua is therefore required."
So how come it has taken 182 years to raise this? Current governance
of water supply has been fine up to now. Co-governance is a solution
for which there is no problem.
Foreshore and Seabed? Radio Frequencies?
Wanganui River? Waikato
River?
For those last two, Labour and then National agreed to
structures which are now being called ''co-governance"
For Treaty
Claims, land has been a priority for most Maori claims - seems
understandable to me. . .
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 19:43:11 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo. Taonga is something that is precious it has zero to do with ownership. The article is biased and wrong.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 03:29:44 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe treaty has no mention of co-govewrnance or of anything like 3/5 waters >>and
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
"morriss...@gmail.com" <morrisseybreen@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 5:25:20 AM UTC+13, BR wrote:Firstly it is not nonsense. A word you use with no evidence to support it. >>>>Secondly what happened in the nineteenth century is two things -
On Wed, 01 Feb 2023 21:23:32 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:
https://emilywrites.substack.com/p/the-explainer-the-governments-three? >>>>>>Whenever I see "Simon Wilson" and "climate crisis" in the same
sentence, I know that a tirade of bullshit follows.
3 waters has the potential to become a centralised, bloated, racist, >>>>>> bureaucratic fiasco that will make the problem much worse.
Centralisation and racism have never improved anything, ever.
Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be
forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist
centralised bureaucracy.
If they get away with this unmandated dishonesty, other ratepayer
assets are likely to follow.
Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
"Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be >>>>>forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist >>>>>centralised bureaucracy."
That's nonsense, of course. But you have, unwittingly, described exactly >>>>>what
was done to Maori in the nineteenth century, following the confiscation of >>>>>Waikato and Taranaki lands.
a. Irrelevant.
b. Usually misrepresented, hugely.
It is relevant due to the impact of an important contract - the Treaty
of Waitangi.
what happened in the 19th century is almost completely irrelevant today.
From the article:
"Water is a taonga and is explicitly recognised in the Treaty of
Waitangi. Some manner of partnership between the Crown and tangata
whenua is therefore required."
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 19:39:34 -0000 (UTC), TonyIt is one or the other I suspect.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 05:09:07 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:As BR wrote - textbook fascism or is it textbook Marxism?
On Thu, 02 Feb 2023 09:32:46 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:
Br it is theft - because there is no purchase involved. >>>>>Ratepayer-owned water assets will remain ratepayer-owned but the >>>>>councils that own the assets are prohibited from operating them. Each >>>>>Water entity is co-governed.
That sounds like textbook fascism to me. "You can own it but we'll
tell you what you must do with it".
For all practical purposes they will own it.
Bill.
Very much like Watercare in Auckland. The reality is that they must
work closely with local authorities so that planning is 'joined up' - >>>what is important is that expertise will be better spread - Northland >>>does not have the resources to develop its own equivalent of
Watercare; government money is not the only answer; there must be >>>adequate people on the ground dealing with local problems as they
occur, but covering a much wider area than any local council if water >>>quantity and quality is to be delivered over such a large area >>>efficiently. The role of government is to ensure that money is well
spent by seeing that there is responsible planning, accountability and >>>that expertise is shared. Local areas know that they cannot afford to >>>raise money for schools and hospitals from scratch, including training >>>and recruitment of specialst staff - they rely on government systems
for that; water is becoming a complex system that requires New
Zealanders to work together to ensure the good of all - not solutions >>>only for high density areas that can afford systems and bugger the >>>country and country towns.
Both have no place in this country.
It is neither, Tony. Just sensible structures for a mix of local and
national issues. NZ Government provides standards and overall
policies, local people provide for local conditions. which for water
can vary considerably.
If you cannot identify anything that is either fascism or marism - or
even tell the difference between them, perhaps the government has hit
on exactly the right mix of national / local responsibilities -
including government making a commitment to share costs . . .
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 19:45:37 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 01:06:11 -0000 (UTC), TonySo what, that doesn't make the article correct -dear me what sort of logic do >>you support?
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:It is a direct quote from the article
On Thu, 02 Feb 2023 09:26:27 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:There are no such co-governance arrangements - provide some evidence.
On Wed, 01 Feb 2023 21:23:32 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:
Not sure why you posted this Rich. There is nothing new here that >>>>>>Labour have not claimed in the past. Thanks for reminding me of the >>>>>>detail on this evil reform that could be achieved in other ways that >>>>>>do not attack our democracy.https://emilywrites.substack.com/p/the-explainer-the-governments-three? >>>>>>
So what are those other ways, Crash? I don't see any Council >>>>>clamouring to raise rates to pay for the work needed to fix the >>>>>deficiencies in stormwater systems . . .
From the article above:
"Its interesting listening to the current National Party leader, >>>>>Christopher Luxon, talking about co-governance. On RNZ recently he >>>>>said he supported the arrangements Finlayson had negotiated. But he >>>>>opposed co-governance when it involved government services.
It doesnt make any sense: the co-governance arrangements in Te >>>>>Urewera, under the deal with Tuhoe, involve a host of health, >>>>>education, housing, employment, land, economic development, welfare >>>>>and other government services.
See above
It is a direct quote from the articleThat is your political rhetoric, no different to any bodt else.
Luxon, in my view, is merely trying to have it both ways. He knows the >>>>>arrangements in place now make sense, but he doesnt want to give up >>>>>the dog whistling. Hes pandering to the sour right, presumably >>>>>because he knows Act and NZ First are doing the same thing.
See above
It is a direct quote from the articleNo it is not. Provide evidence that it is.
The full absurdity of this whole debate is revealed in the Waikato >>>>>River arrangement. It controls much of the water for Auckland and for >>>>>dairying in the Waikato, among many other things, which makes it >>>>>incredibly important to the country. And its co-governance
Yes it is
No confiscation, its beenSo what - that doesn't mean that confiscating the water resources is >>>>necessary,
in place for 10 years, it works really well, and everyone agrees about >>>>>that.
important or fair.
You cannot comprehend simple English - the racists are those supporting >>co-governance - you are a racist.,
you for recognising that reality.And its about water! The very thing some people are so antsy about >>>>>with Three Waters. How is it not just plain racism?"It is racism - the entire three waters movement is racism plain and simple. >>>Yes those who object are often doing it for racist reasons. Good on
YUou have made a number of assertions without any evidence, or
examples, Tony. try again . . .
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 09:51:58 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 09:18:58 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 08:54:50 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 19:43:11 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:From the article:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 03:29:44 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:The treaty has no mention of co-govewrnance or of anything like 3/5 waters and
"morriss...@gmail.com" <morrisseybreen@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 5:25:20 AM UTC+13, BR wrote:Firstly it is not nonsense. A word you use with no evidence to support it.
On Wed, 01 Feb 2023 21:23:32 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
https://emilywrites.substack.com/p/the-explainer-the-governments-three?
Whenever I see "Simon Wilson" and "climate crisis" in the same >>>>>>>>> sentence, I know that a tirade of bullshit follows.
3 waters has the potential to become a centralised, bloated, racist, >>>>>>>>> bureaucratic fiasco that will make the problem much worse.
Centralisation and racism have never improved anything, ever. >>>>>>>>>
Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be >>>>>>>>> forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist >>>>>>>>> centralised bureaucracy.
If they get away with this unmandated dishonesty, other ratepayer >>>>>>>>> assets are likely to follow.
Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
"Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be >>>>>>>>forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist >>>>>>>>centralised bureaucracy."
That's nonsense, of course. But you have, unwittingly, described exactly
what
was done to Maori in the nineteenth century, following the confiscation of
Waikato and Taranaki lands.
Secondly what happened in the nineteenth century is two things - >>>>>>>a. Irrelevant.
b. Usually misrepresented, hugely.
It is relevant due to the impact of an important contract - the Treaty >>>>>>of Waitangi.
what happened in the 19th century is almost completely irrelevant today. >>>>
"Water is a taonga and is explicitly recognised in the Treaty of >>>>Waitangi. Some manner of partnership between the Crown and tangata >>>>whenua is therefore required."
So how come it has taken 182 years to raise this? Current governance
of water supply has been fine up to now. Co-governance is a solution
for which there is no problem.
Foreshore and Seabed? Radio Frequencies?
Are you serious? No water there.
Wanganui River? Waikato
River?
Owned by Waikato Regional Council and co-managed.
For those last two, Labour and then National agreed to
structures which are now being called ''co-governance"
For the 100th time - they are co-managed, not co-governed as Water
Entities are.
For Treaty
Claims, land has been a priority for most Maori claims - seems >>understandable to me. . .
Irrelevant. Nothing to do with water assets.
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 09:47:10 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 09:16:07 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 08:27:25 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:Owned is correct, but many in Auckland would be surprised to hear that
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 05:09:07 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Thu, 02 Feb 2023 09:32:46 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:
Br it is theft - because there is no purchase involved. >>>>>>Ratepayer-owned water assets will remain ratepayer-owned but the >>>>>>councils that own the assets are prohibited from operating them. Each >>>>>>Water entity is co-governed.
That sounds like textbook fascism to me. "You can own it but we'll >>>>>tell you what you must do with it".
For all practical purposes they will own it.
Bill.
Very much like Watercare in Auckland.
Totally incorrect. Watercare is owned by Auckland Council (ie a CCO),
so currently Auckland's water assets are entirely owned and operated
by Auckland Council. Water Entity A will operate these assets but >>>although Auckland Council still own them they have no control over >>>operation.
it is operated by Auckland Council. The role of Council is to appoint >>Directors. Yes there is contact / liaison / even cooperation between >>Watercare and the Auckland Council. This is a structure set up by a >>National Government, but is fairly similar to the Water entities under >>Three Waters
Absolutely incorrect. There are no similarities. The new Water
entity will simply take over an entity that Auckland owns and controls
in its entirety.
Agreed.
The reality is that they must
work closely with local authorities so that planning is 'joined up' - >>>>what is important is that expertise will be better spread - Northland >>>>does not have the resources to develop its own equivalent of
Watercare;
Northland consists of 3 local bodies, each of which has chosen to
operate their own water services. This is related to their >>>circumstances, not their capability. Each council has a CCO for other >>>purposes. There are problems with water services in some of those >>>councils but they have the capability to address them in their
entirety (no major infrastructure projects required) and there has
never been any suggestion otherwise.
Such fragmentation is ineffeicient. There are problems that are
stretching the ability of a lot of local councils to fund.
There is no undesirable fragmentation and significant by its absence
is any evidence that the Water Entities will be any more efficient
than local bodies.
government money is not the only answer; there must be
adequate people on the ground dealing with local problems as they >>>>occur, but covering a much wider area than any local council if water >>>>quantity and quality is to be delivered over such a large area >>>>efficiently. The role of government is to ensure that money is well >>>>spent by seeing that there is responsible planning, accountability and >>>>that expertise is shared. Local areas know that they cannot afford to >>>>raise money for schools and hospitals from scratch, including training >>>>and recruitment of specialst staff - they rely on government systems >>>>for that; water is becoming a complex system that requires New >>>>Zealanders to work together to ensure the good of all - not solutions >>>>only for high density areas that can afford systems and bugger the >>>>country and country towns.
Then leave Northland out of this - there is no centralised approach >>>required with all water services operating as needed now and into the >>>future. We say to Water Entity A - bugger off we don't want or need
you - we can and will provide our own solutions to any water issues as
we have in the past.
So are all water standards currently being met?
No - but there has is a plan in place and there are no public safety
issues. This is why I have always advocated that standards be set.
One council is 98% there - I don't know about the others. There is,
of course, no proof that Water Entity A will have any focus on
Northland.
On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 8:43:13 AM UTC+13, Tony wrote:mentions co-governance so as usual Rich is posting garbage to try and support his stupidity...
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 03:29:44 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe treaty has no mention of co-govewrnance or of anything like 3/5 waters and
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
"morriss...@gmail.com" <morriss...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 5:25:20 AM UTC+13, BR wrote:Firstly it is not nonsense. A word you use with no evidence to support it. >> >>Secondly what happened in the nineteenth century is two things -
On Wed, 01 Feb 2023 21:23:32 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
https://emilywrites.substack.com/p/the-explainer-the-governments-three?
Whenever I see "Simon Wilson" and "climate crisis" in the same
sentence, I know that a tirade of bullshit follows.
3 waters has the potential to become a centralised, bloated, racist,
bureaucratic fiasco that will make the problem much worse.
Centralisation and racism have never improved anything, ever.
Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be
forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist
centralised bureaucracy.
If they get away with this unmandated dishonesty, other ratepayer
assets are likely to follow.
Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
"Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be
forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist
centralised bureaucracy."
That's nonsense, of course. But you have, unwittingly, described exactly >> >>>what
was done to Maori in the nineteenth century, following the confiscation of
Waikato and Taranaki lands.
a. Irrelevant.
b. Usually misrepresented, hugely.
It is relevant due to the impact of an important contract - the Treaty
of Waitangi.
what happened in the 19th century is almost completely irrelevant today. >Part of the problem with the Treaty is there are TWO of them and they're both different! Rich is basing his bullshit on the Maori version which unlike the English version doesn't ensure equal treatment irrespective of race. However neither Treaty
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 09:51:58 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>Ownership of the banks is not the same as ownership of the water, or
wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 09:18:58 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 08:54:50 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 19:43:11 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:From the article:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 03:29:44 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:The treaty has no mention of co-govewrnance or of anything like 3/5 waters and
"morriss...@gmail.com" <morrisseybreen@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 5:25:20 AM UTC+13, BR wrote:Firstly it is not nonsense. A word you use with no evidence to support it.
On Wed, 01 Feb 2023 21:23:32 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
https://emilywrites.substack.com/p/the-explainer-the-governments-three?
Whenever I see "Simon Wilson" and "climate crisis" in the same >>>>>>>>> sentence, I know that a tirade of bullshit follows.
3 waters has the potential to become a centralised, bloated, racist, >>>>>>>>> bureaucratic fiasco that will make the problem much worse.
Centralisation and racism have never improved anything, ever. >>>>>>>>>
Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be >>>>>>>>> forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist >>>>>>>>> centralised bureaucracy.
If they get away with this unmandated dishonesty, other ratepayer >>>>>>>>> assets are likely to follow.
Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
"Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be >>>>>>>>forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist >>>>>>>>centralised bureaucracy."
That's nonsense, of course. But you have, unwittingly, described exactly
what
was done to Maori in the nineteenth century, following the confiscation of
Waikato and Taranaki lands.
Secondly what happened in the nineteenth century is two things - >>>>>>>a. Irrelevant.
b. Usually misrepresented, hugely.
It is relevant due to the impact of an important contract - the Treaty >>>>>>of Waitangi.
what happened in the 19th century is almost completely irrelevant today. >>>>
"Water is a taonga and is explicitly recognised in the Treaty of >>>>Waitangi. Some manner of partnership between the Crown and tangata >>>>whenua is therefore required."
So how come it has taken 182 years to raise this? Current governance
of water supply has been fine up to now. Co-governance is a solution
for which there is no problem.
Foreshore and Seabed? Radio Frequencies?
Are you serious? No water there.
Wanganui River? Waikato
River?
Owned by Waikato Regional Council and co-managed.
Language does not always follow your preferences, Crash - which IFor those last two, Labour and then National agreed to
structures which are now being called ''co-governance"
For the 100th time - they are co-managed, not co-governed as Water
Entities are.
I was responding to a query "how come it has taken 182 years to raiseFor Treaty
Claims, land has been a priority for most Maori claims - seems >>understandable to me. . .
Irrelevant. Nothing to do with water assets.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 19:39:34 -0000 (UTC), TonyIt is one or the other I suspect.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 05:09:07 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:As BR wrote - textbook fascism or is it textbook Marxism?
On Thu, 02 Feb 2023 09:32:46 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:
Br it is theft - because there is no purchase involved. >>>>>>Ratepayer-owned water assets will remain ratepayer-owned but the >>>>>>councils that own the assets are prohibited from operating them. Each >>>>>>Water entity is co-governed.
That sounds like textbook fascism to me. "You can own it but we'll >>>>>tell you what you must do with it".
For all practical purposes they will own it.
Bill.
Very much like Watercare in Auckland. The reality is that they must >>>>work closely with local authorities so that planning is 'joined up' - >>>>what is important is that expertise will be better spread - Northland >>>>does not have the resources to develop its own equivalent of
Watercare; government money is not the only answer; there must be >>>>adequate people on the ground dealing with local problems as they >>>>occur, but covering a much wider area than any local council if water >>>>quantity and quality is to be delivered over such a large area >>>>efficiently. The role of government is to ensure that money is well >>>>spent by seeing that there is responsible planning, accountability and >>>>that expertise is shared. Local areas know that they cannot afford to >>>>raise money for schools and hospitals from scratch, including training >>>>and recruitment of specialst staff - they rely on government systems >>>>for that; water is becoming a complex system that requires New >>>>Zealanders to work together to ensure the good of all - not solutions >>>>only for high density areas that can afford systems and bugger the >>>>country and country towns.
Both have no place in this country.
It is neither, Tony. Just sensible structures for a mix of local and >>national issues. NZ Government provides standards and overall
policies, local people provide for local conditions. which for water
can vary considerably.
If you cannot identify anything that is either fascism or marxism - or
even tell the difference between them, perhaps the government has hit
on exactly the right mix of national / local responsibilities -
including government making a commitment to share costs . . .
This government was and may still be hell bent on removing control of water >from the people and investing control in a minority race.
That is fact.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 19:43:11 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo. Taonga is something that is precious it has zero to do with ownership. The >article is biased and wrong.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 03:29:44 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe treaty has no mention of co-govewrnance or of anything like 3/5 waters >>>and
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
"morriss...@gmail.com" <morrisseybreen@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 5:25:20 AM UTC+13, BR wrote:Firstly it is not nonsense. A word you use with no evidence to support it. >>>>>Secondly what happened in the nineteenth century is two things -
On Wed, 01 Feb 2023 21:23:32 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
https://emilywrites.substack.com/p/the-explainer-the-governments-three?
Whenever I see "Simon Wilson" and "climate crisis" in the same
sentence, I know that a tirade of bullshit follows.
3 waters has the potential to become a centralised, bloated, racist, >>>>>>> bureaucratic fiasco that will make the problem much worse.
Centralisation and racism have never improved anything, ever.
Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be >>>>>>> forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist
centralised bureaucracy.
If they get away with this unmandated dishonesty, other ratepayer >>>>>>> assets are likely to follow.
Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
"Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be >>>>>>forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist >>>>>>centralised bureaucracy."
That's nonsense, of course. But you have, unwittingly, described exactly >>>>>>what
was done to Maori in the nineteenth century, following the confiscation of
Waikato and Taranaki lands.
a. Irrelevant.
b. Usually misrepresented, hugely.
It is relevant due to the impact of an important contract - the Treaty >>>>of Waitangi.
what happened in the 19th century is almost completely irrelevant today.
From the article:
"Water is a taonga and is explicitly recognised in the Treaty of
Waitangi. Some manner of partnership between the Crown and tangata
whenua is therefore required."
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 10:15:03 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 09:51:58 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 09:18:58 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 08:54:50 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 19:43:11 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:From the article:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 03:29:44 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:The treaty has no mention of co-govewrnance or of anything like 3/5 waters and
"morriss...@gmail.com" <morrisseybreen@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 5:25:20 AM UTC+13, BR wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 01 Feb 2023 21:23:32 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:Firstly it is not nonsense. A word you use with no evidence to support it.
https://emilywrites.substack.com/p/the-explainer-the-governments-three?
Whenever I see "Simon Wilson" and "climate crisis" in the same >>>>>>>>>> sentence, I know that a tirade of bullshit follows.
3 waters has the potential to become a centralised, bloated, racist, >>>>>>>>>> bureaucratic fiasco that will make the problem much worse. >>>>>>>>>>
Centralisation and racism have never improved anything, ever. >>>>>>>>>>
Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be >>>>>>>>>> forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist >>>>>>>>>> centralised bureaucracy.
If they get away with this unmandated dishonesty, other ratepayer >>>>>>>>>> assets are likely to follow.
Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
"Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be >>>>>>>>>forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist >>>>>>>>>centralised bureaucracy."
That's nonsense, of course. But you have, unwittingly, described exactly
what
was done to Maori in the nineteenth century, following the confiscation of
Waikato and Taranaki lands.
Secondly what happened in the nineteenth century is two things - >>>>>>>>a. Irrelevant.
b. Usually misrepresented, hugely.
It is relevant due to the impact of an important contract - the Treaty >>>>>>>of Waitangi.
what happened in the 19th century is almost completely irrelevant today. >>>>>
"Water is a taonga and is explicitly recognised in the Treaty of >>>>>Waitangi. Some manner of partnership between the Crown and tangata >>>>>whenua is therefore required."
So how come it has taken 182 years to raise this? Current governance >>>>of water supply has been fine up to now. Co-governance is a solution >>>>for which there is no problem.
Foreshore and Seabed? Radio Frequencies?
Are you serious? No water there.
I should add that the Foreshore and Seabed Act was about land
ownership and was repealed by a National-led government in 2011.
Wanganui River? Waikato
River?
Owned by Waikato Regional Council and co-managed.
For those last two, Labour and then National agreed to
structures which are now being called ''co-governance"
For the 100th time - they are co-managed, not co-governed as Water
Entities are.
For Treaty
Claims, land has been a priority for most Maori claims - seems >>>understandable to me. . .
Irrelevant. Nothing to do with water assets.
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 12:43:57 -0800 (PST), John BowesThat latter comment is a bald lie.
<bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 8:43:13 AM UTC+13, Tony wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 03:29:44 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe treaty has no mention of co-govewrnance or of anything like 3/5 waters >>>and
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
"morriss...@gmail.com" <morriss...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 5:25:20 AM UTC+13, BR wrote:Firstly it is not nonsense. A word you use with no evidence to support >>> >>it.
On Wed, 01 Feb 2023 21:23:32 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>> >>>> wrote:
https://emilywrites.substack.com/p/the-explainer-the-governments-three?
Whenever I see "Simon Wilson" and "climate crisis" in the same
sentence, I know that a tirade of bullshit follows.
3 waters has the potential to become a centralised, bloated, racist, >>> >>>> bureaucratic fiasco that will make the problem much worse.
Centralisation and racism have never improved anything, ever.
Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be
forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist
centralised bureaucracy.
If they get away with this unmandated dishonesty, other ratepayer
assets are likely to follow.
Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
"Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be
forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist
centralised bureaucracy."
That's nonsense, of course. But you have, unwittingly, described exactly >>> >>>what
was done to Maori in the nineteenth century, following the confiscation >>> >>>of
Waikato and Taranaki lands.
Secondly what happened in the nineteenth century is two things -
a. Irrelevant.
b. Usually misrepresented, hugely.
It is relevant due to the impact of an important contract - the Treaty
of Waitangi.
what happened in the 19th century is almost completely irrelevant today. >>Part of the problem with the Treaty is there are TWO of them and they're both >>different! Rich is basing his bullshit on the Maori version which unlike the >>English version doesn't ensure equal treatment irrespective of race. However >>neither Treaty mentions co-governance so as usual Rich is posting garbage to >>try and support his stupidity...
The courts and international law have determined that it is the Maori
version that is to be used to determine meaning. The English version
is close enough for many purposes however. Language has changed - >co-governance is a term used in recent years to describe the
arrangement agreed by the National Government for the Waikato
agreement.
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 21:20:05 -0000 (UTC), TonyWShat bullshit.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 19:39:34 -0000 (UTC), TonyIt is one or the other I suspect.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 05:09:07 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:As BR wrote - textbook fascism or is it textbook Marxism?
On Thu, 02 Feb 2023 09:32:46 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>wrote:
Br it is theft - because there is no purchase involved. >>>>>>>Ratepayer-owned water assets will remain ratepayer-owned but the >>>>>>>councils that own the assets are prohibited from operating them. Each >>>>>>>Water entity is co-governed.
That sounds like textbook fascism to me. "You can own it but we'll >>>>>>tell you what you must do with it".
For all practical purposes they will own it.
Bill.
Very much like Watercare in Auckland. The reality is that they must >>>>>work closely with local authorities so that planning is 'joined up' - >>>>>what is important is that expertise will be better spread - Northland >>>>>does not have the resources to develop its own equivalent of >>>>>Watercare; government money is not the only answer; there must be >>>>>adequate people on the ground dealing with local problems as they >>>>>occur, but covering a much wider area than any local council if water >>>>>quantity and quality is to be delivered over such a large area >>>>>efficiently. The role of government is to ensure that money is well >>>>>spent by seeing that there is responsible planning, accountability and >>>>>that expertise is shared. Local areas know that they cannot afford to >>>>>raise money for schools and hospitals from scratch, including training >>>>>and recruitment of specialst staff - they rely on government systems >>>>>for that; water is becoming a complex system that requires New >>>>>Zealanders to work together to ensure the good of all - not solutions >>>>>only for high density areas that can afford systems and bugger the >>>>>country and country towns.
Both have no place in this country.
It is neither, Tony. Just sensible structures for a mix of local and >>>national issues. NZ Government provides standards and overall
policies, local people provide for local conditions. which for water
can vary considerably.
If you cannot identify anything that is either fascism or marxism - or >>>even tell the difference between them, perhaps the government has hit
on exactly the right mix of national / local responsibilities -
including government making a commitment to share costs . . .
This government was and may still be hell bent on removing control of water >>from the people and investing control in a minority race.
That is fact.
There are no plans to remove control of water from the people - a
future government could make changes. The danger of removing control
from the people lies in a future government selling off structures to
create privately controlled entities - National did that with the
electricity companies which has turned out to be contrary to the
interests of the public. Labour wanted to introduce such provisions
into legislation, but due to scare-mongering from the Opposition
parties, those provisions were not made. So there is a danger that a
future ACT/Nat government could privatise control of water - you are
correct to see that as a danger.
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 21:22:52 -0000 (UTC), TonyA bald faced lie. It was never called that.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 19:43:11 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo. Taonga is something that is precious it has zero to do with ownership. >>The
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:From the article:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 03:29:44 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:The treaty has no mention of co-govewrnance or of anything like 3/5 waters >>>>and
"morriss...@gmail.com" <morrisseybreen@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 5:25:20 AM UTC+13, BR wrote:Firstly it is not nonsense. A word you use with no evidence to support it.
On Wed, 01 Feb 2023 21:23:32 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
https://emilywrites.substack.com/p/the-explainer-the-governments-three?
Whenever I see "Simon Wilson" and "climate crisis" in the same >>>>>>>> sentence, I know that a tirade of bullshit follows.
3 waters has the potential to become a centralised, bloated, racist, >>>>>>>> bureaucratic fiasco that will make the problem much worse.
Centralisation and racism have never improved anything, ever.
Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be >>>>>>>> forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist
centralised bureaucracy.
If they get away with this unmandated dishonesty, other ratepayer >>>>>>>> assets are likely to follow.
Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
"Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be >>>>>>>forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist >>>>>>>centralised bureaucracy."
That's nonsense, of course. But you have, unwittingly, described exactly >>>>>>>what
was done to Maori in the nineteenth century, following the confiscation >>>>>>>of
Waikato and Taranaki lands.
Secondly what happened in the nineteenth century is two things -
a. Irrelevant.
b. Usually misrepresented, hugely.
It is relevant due to the impact of an important contract - the Treaty >>>>>of Waitangi.
what happened in the 19th century is almost completely irrelevant today. >>>
"Water is a taonga and is explicitly recognised in the Treaty of >>>Waitangi. Some manner of partnership between the Crown and tangata
whenua is therefore required."
article is biased and wrong.
Adequate protection of taonga can possibly be done in a number of ways
- Cullen and then Finlayson found that cooperation agreements (called >'co-governance' by the National government) were a good way of
achieving settlement on such issues.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 21:20:05 -0000 (UTC), TonyWShat bullshit.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 19:39:34 -0000 (UTC), TonyIt is one or the other I suspect.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 05:09:07 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:As BR wrote - textbook fascism or is it textbook Marxism?
On Thu, 02 Feb 2023 09:32:46 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>wrote:
Br it is theft - because there is no purchase involved. >>>>>>>>Ratepayer-owned water assets will remain ratepayer-owned but the >>>>>>>>councils that own the assets are prohibited from operating them. Each >>>>>>>>Water entity is co-governed.
That sounds like textbook fascism to me. "You can own it but we'll >>>>>>>tell you what you must do with it".
For all practical purposes they will own it.
Bill.
Very much like Watercare in Auckland. The reality is that they must >>>>>>work closely with local authorities so that planning is 'joined up' - >>>>>>what is important is that expertise will be better spread - Northland >>>>>>does not have the resources to develop its own equivalent of >>>>>>Watercare; government money is not the only answer; there must be >>>>>>adequate people on the ground dealing with local problems as they >>>>>>occur, but covering a much wider area than any local council if water >>>>>>quantity and quality is to be delivered over such a large area >>>>>>efficiently. The role of government is to ensure that money is well >>>>>>spent by seeing that there is responsible planning, accountability and >>>>>>that expertise is shared. Local areas know that they cannot afford to >>>>>>raise money for schools and hospitals from scratch, including training >>>>>>and recruitment of specialst staff - they rely on government systems >>>>>>for that; water is becoming a complex system that requires New >>>>>>Zealanders to work together to ensure the good of all - not solutions >>>>>>only for high density areas that can afford systems and bugger the >>>>>>country and country towns.
Both have no place in this country.
It is neither, Tony. Just sensible structures for a mix of local and >>>>national issues. NZ Government provides standards and overall
policies, local people provide for local conditions. which for water >>>>can vary considerably.
If you cannot identify anything that is either fascism or marxism - or >>>>even tell the difference between them, perhaps the government has hit >>>>on exactly the right mix of national / local responsibilities - >>>>including government making a commitment to share costs . . .
This government was and may still be hell bent on removing control of water >>>from the people and investing control in a minority race.
That is fact.
There are no plans to remove control of water from the people - a
future government could make changes. The danger of removing control
from the people lies in a future government selling off structures to >>create privately controlled entities - National did that with the >>electricity companies which has turned out to be contrary to the
interests of the public. Labour wanted to introduce such provisions
into legislation, but due to scare-mongering from the Opposition
parties, those provisions were not made. So there is a danger that a
future ACT/Nat government could privatise control of water - you are >>correct to see that as a danger.
Labopur are currently removing control of water from elected councils. Period.
Show otherwise you sily fraud.
No opposition party is involved.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:But the example they left from a previous time in government is why
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 21:20:05 -0000 (UTC), TonyWShat bullshit.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 19:39:34 -0000 (UTC), TonyIt is one or the other I suspect.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 05:09:07 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:As BR wrote - textbook fascism or is it textbook Marxism?
On Thu, 02 Feb 2023 09:32:46 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>wrote:
Br it is theft - because there is no purchase involved. >>>>>>>>Ratepayer-owned water assets will remain ratepayer-owned but the >>>>>>>>councils that own the assets are prohibited from operating them. Each >>>>>>>>Water entity is co-governed.
That sounds like textbook fascism to me. "You can own it but we'll >>>>>>>tell you what you must do with it".
For all practical purposes they will own it.
Bill.
Very much like Watercare in Auckland. The reality is that they must >>>>>>work closely with local authorities so that planning is 'joined up' - >>>>>>what is important is that expertise will be better spread - Northland >>>>>>does not have the resources to develop its own equivalent of >>>>>>Watercare; government money is not the only answer; there must be >>>>>>adequate people on the ground dealing with local problems as they >>>>>>occur, but covering a much wider area than any local council if water >>>>>>quantity and quality is to be delivered over such a large area >>>>>>efficiently. The role of government is to ensure that money is well >>>>>>spent by seeing that there is responsible planning, accountability and >>>>>>that expertise is shared. Local areas know that they cannot afford to >>>>>>raise money for schools and hospitals from scratch, including training >>>>>>and recruitment of specialst staff - they rely on government systems >>>>>>for that; water is becoming a complex system that requires New >>>>>>Zealanders to work together to ensure the good of all - not solutions >>>>>>only for high density areas that can afford systems and bugger the >>>>>>country and country towns.
Both have no place in this country.
It is neither, Tony. Just sensible structures for a mix of local and >>>>national issues. NZ Government provides standards and overall
policies, local people provide for local conditions. which for water >>>>can vary considerably.
If you cannot identify anything that is either fascism or marxism - or >>>>even tell the difference between them, perhaps the government has hit >>>>on exactly the right mix of national / local responsibilities - >>>>including government making a commitment to share costs . . .
This government was and may still be hell bent on removing control of water >>>from the people and investing control in a minority race.
That is fact.
There are no plans to remove control of water from the people - a
future government could make changes. The danger of removing control
from the people lies in a future government selling off structures to >>create privately controlled entities - National did that with the >>electricity companies which has turned out to be contrary to the
interests of the public. Labour wanted to introduce such provisions
into legislation, but due to scare-mongering from the Opposition
parties, those provisions were not made. So there is a danger that a
future ACT/Nat government could privatise control of water - you are >>correct to see that as a danger.
Labopur are currently removing control of water from elected councils. Period.
Show otherwise you sily fraud.
No opposition party is involved.
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 12:43:57 -0800 (PST), John Bowesmentions co-governance so as usual Rich is posting garbage to try and support his stupidity...
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 8:43:13 AM UTC+13, Tony wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 03:29:44 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe treaty has no mention of co-govewrnance or of anything like 3/5 waters and
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
"morriss...@gmail.com" <morriss...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 5:25:20 AM UTC+13, BR wrote:Firstly it is not nonsense. A word you use with no evidence to support it.
On Wed, 01 Feb 2023 21:23:32 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >> >>>> wrote:
https://emilywrites.substack.com/p/the-explainer-the-governments-three?
Whenever I see "Simon Wilson" and "climate crisis" in the same
sentence, I know that a tirade of bullshit follows.
3 waters has the potential to become a centralised, bloated, racist, >> >>>> bureaucratic fiasco that will make the problem much worse.
Centralisation and racism have never improved anything, ever.
Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be
forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist
centralised bureaucracy.
If they get away with this unmandated dishonesty, other ratepayer
assets are likely to follow.
Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
"Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be
forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist
centralised bureaucracy."
That's nonsense, of course. But you have, unwittingly, described exactly
what
was done to Maori in the nineteenth century, following the confiscation of
Waikato and Taranaki lands.
Secondly what happened in the nineteenth century is two things -
a. Irrelevant.
b. Usually misrepresented, hugely.
It is relevant due to the impact of an important contract - the Treaty >> >of Waitangi.
what happened in the 19th century is almost completely irrelevant today. >Part of the problem with the Treaty is there are TWO of them and they're both different! Rich is basing his bullshit on the Maori version which unlike the English version doesn't ensure equal treatment irrespective of race. However neither Treaty
The courts and international law have determined that it is the Maori version that is to be used to determine meaning. The English versionBullshit! Got any cites for your fake news that the courts and international law have determined which of two Treaty's take precedence? I ask because the Maori version is supposedly a translation of the English version yet bears no resemblance to it
is close enough for many purposes however. Language has changed - co-governance is a term used in recent years to describe the
arrangement agreed by the National Government for the Waikato
agreement.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:If you are aware of an earlier use ofthe term that would be
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 12:43:57 -0800 (PST), John BowesThat latter comment is a bald lie.
<bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 8:43:13 AM UTC+13, Tony wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:different! Rich is basing his bullshit on the Maori version which unlike the >>>English version doesn't ensure equal treatment irrespective of race. However >>>neither Treaty mentions co-governance so as usual Rich is posting garbage to >>>try and support his stupidity...
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 03:29:44 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe treaty has no mention of co-govewrnance or of anything like 3/5 waters >>>>and
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
"morriss...@gmail.com" <morriss...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 5:25:20 AM UTC+13, BR wrote:Firstly it is not nonsense. A word you use with no evidence to support >>>> >>it.
On Wed, 01 Feb 2023 21:23:32 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>>> >>>> wrote:
https://emilywrites.substack.com/p/the-explainer-the-governments-three?
Whenever I see "Simon Wilson" and "climate crisis" in the same
sentence, I know that a tirade of bullshit follows.
3 waters has the potential to become a centralised, bloated, racist, >>>> >>>> bureaucratic fiasco that will make the problem much worse.
Centralisation and racism have never improved anything, ever.
Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be >>>> >>>> forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist
centralised bureaucracy.
If they get away with this unmandated dishonesty, other ratepayer >>>> >>>> assets are likely to follow.
Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
"Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be
forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist
centralised bureaucracy."
That's nonsense, of course. But you have, unwittingly, described exactly
what
was done to Maori in the nineteenth century, following the confiscation >>>> >>>of
Waikato and Taranaki lands.
Secondly what happened in the nineteenth century is two things -
a. Irrelevant.
b. Usually misrepresented, hugely.
It is relevant due to the impact of an important contract - the Treaty >>>> >of Waitangi.
what happened in the 19th century is almost completely irrelevant today. >>>Part of the problem with the Treaty is there are TWO of them and they're both
The courts and international law have determined that it is the Maori >>version that is to be used to determine meaning. The English version
is close enough for many purposes however. Language has changed - >>co-governance is a term used in recent years to describe the
arrangement agreed by the National Government for the Waikato
agreement.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 21:22:52 -0000 (UTC), TonyA bald faced lie. It was never called that.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 19:43:11 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo. Taonga is something that is precious it has zero to do with ownership. >>>The
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:From the article:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 03:29:44 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:The treaty has no mention of co-govewrnance or of anything like 3/5 waters >>>>>and
"morriss...@gmail.com" <morrisseybreen@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 5:25:20 AM UTC+13, BR wrote:Firstly it is not nonsense. A word you use with no evidence to support it.
On Wed, 01 Feb 2023 21:23:32 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
https://emilywrites.substack.com/p/the-explainer-the-governments-three?
Whenever I see "Simon Wilson" and "climate crisis" in the same >>>>>>>>> sentence, I know that a tirade of bullshit follows.
3 waters has the potential to become a centralised, bloated, racist, >>>>>>>>> bureaucratic fiasco that will make the problem much worse.
Centralisation and racism have never improved anything, ever. >>>>>>>>>
Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be >>>>>>>>> forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist >>>>>>>>> centralised bureaucracy.
If they get away with this unmandated dishonesty, other ratepayer >>>>>>>>> assets are likely to follow.
Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
"Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be >>>>>>>>forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist >>>>>>>>centralised bureaucracy."
That's nonsense, of course. But you have, unwittingly, described exactly
what
was done to Maori in the nineteenth century, following the confiscation >>>>>>>>of
Waikato and Taranaki lands.
Secondly what happened in the nineteenth century is two things - >>>>>>>a. Irrelevant.
b. Usually misrepresented, hugely.
It is relevant due to the impact of an important contract - the Treaty >>>>>>of Waitangi.
what happened in the 19th century is almost completely irrelevant today. >>>>
"Water is a taonga and is explicitly recognised in the Treaty of >>>>Waitangi. Some manner of partnership between the Crown and tangata >>>>whenua is therefore required."
article is biased and wrong.
Adequate protection of taonga can possibly be done in a number of ways
- Cullen and then Finlayson found that cooperation agreements (called >>'co-governance' by the National government) were a good way of
achieving settlement on such issues.
And the treaty is completely silent on it. You keep lying.
On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 00:55:20 -0000 (UTC), TonyOff topic but as an aside the arraggements are not co-operative. They are dominated by Maori.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:But the example they left from a previous time in government is why
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 21:20:05 -0000 (UTC), TonyWShat bullshit.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 19:39:34 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:It is one or the other I suspect.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 05:09:07 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:As BR wrote - textbook fascism or is it textbook Marxism?
On Thu, 02 Feb 2023 09:32:46 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>wrote:
Br it is theft - because there is no purchase involved. >>>>>>>>>Ratepayer-owned water assets will remain ratepayer-owned but the >>>>>>>>>councils that own the assets are prohibited from operating them. Each >>>>>>>>>Water entity is co-governed.
That sounds like textbook fascism to me. "You can own it but we'll >>>>>>>>tell you what you must do with it".
For all practical purposes they will own it.
Bill.
Very much like Watercare in Auckland. The reality is that they must >>>>>>>work closely with local authorities so that planning is 'joined up' - >>>>>>>what is important is that expertise will be better spread - Northland >>>>>>>does not have the resources to develop its own equivalent of >>>>>>>Watercare; government money is not the only answer; there must be >>>>>>>adequate people on the ground dealing with local problems as they >>>>>>>occur, but covering a much wider area than any local council if water >>>>>>>quantity and quality is to be delivered over such a large area >>>>>>>efficiently. The role of government is to ensure that money is well >>>>>>>spent by seeing that there is responsible planning, accountability and >>>>>>>that expertise is shared. Local areas know that they cannot afford to >>>>>>>raise money for schools and hospitals from scratch, including training >>>>>>>and recruitment of specialst staff - they rely on government systems >>>>>>>for that; water is becoming a complex system that requires New >>>>>>>Zealanders to work together to ensure the good of all - not solutions >>>>>>>only for high density areas that can afford systems and bugger the >>>>>>>country and country towns.
Both have no place in this country.
It is neither, Tony. Just sensible structures for a mix of local and >>>>>national issues. NZ Government provides standards and overall >>>>>policies, local people provide for local conditions. which for water >>>>>can vary considerably.
If you cannot identify anything that is either fascism or marxism - or >>>>>even tell the difference between them, perhaps the government has hit >>>>>on exactly the right mix of national / local responsibilities - >>>>>including government making a commitment to share costs . . .
This government was and may still be hell bent on removing control of water >>>>from the people and investing control in a minority race.
That is fact.
There are no plans to remove control of water from the people - a
future government could make changes. The danger of removing control
from the people lies in a future government selling off structures to >>>create privately controlled entities - National did that with the >>>electricity companies which has turned out to be contrary to the >>>interests of the public. Labour wanted to introduce such provisions
into legislation, but due to scare-mongering from the Opposition
parties, those provisions were not made. So there is a danger that a >>>future ACT/Nat government could privatise control of water - you are >>>correct to see that as a danger.
Labopur are currently removing control of water from elected councils. >>Period.
Show otherwise you sily fraud.
No opposition party is involved.
our electricity costs are higher than necessary - a problem that is
now very difficult and expensive to reverse. Maori invovlement in the >co-operative arrangements will ensure we do not see that sort of
diaster again.
On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 00:56:26 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou cannot change the use of the word managememt and call it governance nor the other way round.. They are two very distinctly different things. Something you have demonstrated many times that you do not understand. Therefore you cannot change the co- versions either.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:If you are aware of an earlier use ofthe term that would be
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 12:43:57 -0800 (PST), John Bowes >>><bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:That latter comment is a bald lie.
On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 8:43:13 AM UTC+13, Tony wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:different! Rich is basing his bullshit on the Maori version which unlike >>>>the
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 03:29:44 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe treaty has no mention of co-govewrnance or of anything like 3/5 >>>>>waters
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
"morriss...@gmail.com" <morriss...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 5:25:20 AM UTC+13, BR wrote:Firstly it is not nonsense. A word you use with no evidence to support >>>>> >>it.
On Wed, 01 Feb 2023 21:23:32 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>>>> >>>> wrote:
https://emilywrites.substack.com/p/the-explainer-the-governments-three?
Whenever I see "Simon Wilson" and "climate crisis" in the same
sentence, I know that a tirade of bullshit follows.
3 waters has the potential to become a centralised, bloated, racist, >>>>> >>>> bureaucratic fiasco that will make the problem much worse.
Centralisation and racism have never improved anything, ever.
Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be >>>>> >>>> forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist
centralised bureaucracy.
If they get away with this unmandated dishonesty, other ratepayer >>>>> >>>> assets are likely to follow.
Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
"Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be >>>>> >>>forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist
centralised bureaucracy."
That's nonsense, of course. But you have, unwittingly, described
exactly
what
was done to Maori in the nineteenth century, following the
confiscation
of
Waikato and Taranaki lands.
Secondly what happened in the nineteenth century is two things -
a. Irrelevant.
b. Usually misrepresented, hugely.
It is relevant due to the impact of an important contract - the Treaty >>>>> >of Waitangi.
and
what happened in the 19th century is almost completely irrelevant today. >>>>Part of the problem with the Treaty is there are TWO of them and they're >>>>both
English version doesn't ensure equal treatment irrespective of race. >>>>However
neither Treaty mentions co-governance so as usual Rich is posting garbage >>>>to
try and support his stupidity...
The courts and international law have determined that it is the Maori >>>version that is to be used to determine meaning. The English version
is close enough for many purposes however. Language has changed - >>>co-governance is a term used in recent years to describe the
arrangement agreed by the National Government for the Waikato
agreement.
interesting, Tony - was it used by Cullen for the Wanganui River >arrangements?
On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 00:58:08 -0000 (UTC), TonyThat is another lie.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 21:22:52 -0000 (UTC), TonyA bald faced lie. It was never called that.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 19:43:11 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:No. Taonga is something that is precious it has zero to do with ownership. >>>>The
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:From the article:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 03:29:44 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:The treaty has no mention of co-govewrnance or of anything like 3/5 >>>>>>waters
"morriss...@gmail.com" <morrisseybreen@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 5:25:20 AM UTC+13, BR wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 01 Feb 2023 21:23:32 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:Firstly it is not nonsense. A word you use with no evidence to support >>>>>>>>it.
https://emilywrites.substack.com/p/the-explainer-the-governments-three?
Whenever I see "Simon Wilson" and "climate crisis" in the same >>>>>>>>>> sentence, I know that a tirade of bullshit follows.
3 waters has the potential to become a centralised, bloated, racist, >>>>>>>>>> bureaucratic fiasco that will make the problem much worse. >>>>>>>>>>
Centralisation and racism have never improved anything, ever. >>>>>>>>>>
Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be >>>>>>>>>> forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist >>>>>>>>>> centralised bureaucracy.
If they get away with this unmandated dishonesty, other ratepayer >>>>>>>>>> assets are likely to follow.
Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
"Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be >>>>>>>>>forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist >>>>>>>>>centralised bureaucracy."
That's nonsense, of course. But you have, unwittingly, described >>>>>>>>>exactly
what
was done to Maori in the nineteenth century, following the >>>>>>>>>confiscation
of
Waikato and Taranaki lands.
Secondly what happened in the nineteenth century is two things - >>>>>>>>a. Irrelevant.
b. Usually misrepresented, hugely.
It is relevant due to the impact of an important contract - the Treaty >>>>>>>of Waitangi.
and
what happened in the 19th century is almost completely irrelevant today. >>>>>
"Water is a taonga and is explicitly recognised in the Treaty of >>>>>Waitangi. Some manner of partnership between the Crown and tangata >>>>>whenua is therefore required."
article is biased and wrong.
Adequate protection of taonga can possibly be done in a number of ways
- Cullen and then Finlayson found that cooperation agreements (called >>>'co-governance' by the National government) were a good way of
achieving settlement on such issues.
And the treaty is completely silent on it. You keep lying.
The Treaty presumes that both parties will fulfill their obligations - >settlement for grievances relating to the Treaty not being followed
have been achieved in a wide number of ways - the co-governance
arrangements put together with (and supported by ) Finlayson have
benen called 'co-governance'. I am less clear about whether the
expression was used previously.
On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 00:55:20 -0000 (UTC), TonyCouncils will no ,longer be in control, a handful of people representing a minority of the population will be.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 21:20:05 -0000 (UTC), TonyWShat bullshit.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 19:39:34 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:It is one or the other I suspect.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 05:09:07 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:As BR wrote - textbook fascism or is it textbook Marxism?
On Thu, 02 Feb 2023 09:32:46 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>wrote:
Br it is theft - because there is no purchase involved. >>>>>>>>>Ratepayer-owned water assets will remain ratepayer-owned but the >>>>>>>>>councils that own the assets are prohibited from operating them. Each >>>>>>>>>Water entity is co-governed.
That sounds like textbook fascism to me. "You can own it but we'll >>>>>>>>tell you what you must do with it".
For all practical purposes they will own it.
Bill.
Very much like Watercare in Auckland. The reality is that they must >>>>>>>work closely with local authorities so that planning is 'joined up' - >>>>>>>what is important is that expertise will be better spread - Northland >>>>>>>does not have the resources to develop its own equivalent of >>>>>>>Watercare; government money is not the only answer; there must be >>>>>>>adequate people on the ground dealing with local problems as they >>>>>>>occur, but covering a much wider area than any local council if water >>>>>>>quantity and quality is to be delivered over such a large area >>>>>>>efficiently. The role of government is to ensure that money is well >>>>>>>spent by seeing that there is responsible planning, accountability and >>>>>>>that expertise is shared. Local areas know that they cannot afford to >>>>>>>raise money for schools and hospitals from scratch, including training >>>>>>>and recruitment of specialst staff - they rely on government systems >>>>>>>for that; water is becoming a complex system that requires New >>>>>>>Zealanders to work together to ensure the good of all - not solutions >>>>>>>only for high density areas that can afford systems and bugger the >>>>>>>country and country towns.
Both have no place in this country.
It is neither, Tony. Just sensible structures for a mix of local and >>>>>national issues. NZ Government provides standards and overall >>>>>policies, local people provide for local conditions. which for water >>>>>can vary considerably.
If you cannot identify anything that is either fascism or marxism - or >>>>>even tell the difference between them, perhaps the government has hit >>>>>on exactly the right mix of national / local responsibilities - >>>>>including government making a commitment to share costs . . .
This government was and may still be hell bent on removing control of water >>>>from the people and investing control in a minority race.
That is fact.
There are no plans to remove control of water from the people - a
future government could make changes. The danger of removing control
from the people lies in a future government selling off structures to >>>create privately controlled entities - National did that with the >>>electricity companies which has turned out to be contrary to the >>>interests of the public. Labour wanted to introduce such provisions
into legislation, but due to scare-mongering from the Opposition
parties, those provisions were not made. So there is a danger that a >>>future ACT/Nat government could privatise control of water - you are >>>correct to see that as a danger.
Labopur are currently removing control of water from elected councils. >>Period.
Show otherwise you sily fraud.
No opposition party is involved.
They are sharing both costs as well as planning and controls. Local
councils will still need to include water issues in plans, and will
have an interest in results. Central government is bringing money to
the arrangements together with enabling sufficietly large
organisations to meet operational needs in different areas to ensure
that standards start o be regularly met.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 00:55:20 -0000 (UTC), TonyCouncils will no ,longer be in control, a handful of people representing a >minority of the population will be.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 21:20:05 -0000 (UTC), TonyWShat bullshit.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 19:39:34 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:It is one or the other I suspect.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 05:09:07 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:As BR wrote - textbook fascism or is it textbook Marxism?
On Thu, 02 Feb 2023 09:32:46 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>>wrote:
Br it is theft - because there is no purchase involved. >>>>>>>>>>Ratepayer-owned water assets will remain ratepayer-owned but the >>>>>>>>>>councils that own the assets are prohibited from operating them. Each
Water entity is co-governed.
That sounds like textbook fascism to me. "You can own it but we'll >>>>>>>>>tell you what you must do with it".
For all practical purposes they will own it.
Bill.
Very much like Watercare in Auckland. The reality is that they must >>>>>>>>work closely with local authorities so that planning is 'joined up' - >>>>>>>>what is important is that expertise will be better spread - Northland >>>>>>>>does not have the resources to develop its own equivalent of >>>>>>>>Watercare; government money is not the only answer; there must be >>>>>>>>adequate people on the ground dealing with local problems as they >>>>>>>>occur, but covering a much wider area than any local council if water >>>>>>>>quantity and quality is to be delivered over such a large area >>>>>>>>efficiently. The role of government is to ensure that money is well >>>>>>>>spent by seeing that there is responsible planning, accountability and >>>>>>>>that expertise is shared. Local areas know that they cannot afford to >>>>>>>>raise money for schools and hospitals from scratch, including training >>>>>>>>and recruitment of specialst staff - they rely on government systems >>>>>>>>for that; water is becoming a complex system that requires New >>>>>>>>Zealanders to work together to ensure the good of all - not solutions >>>>>>>>only for high density areas that can afford systems and bugger the >>>>>>>>country and country towns.
Both have no place in this country.
It is neither, Tony. Just sensible structures for a mix of local and >>>>>>national issues. NZ Government provides standards and overall >>>>>>policies, local people provide for local conditions. which for water >>>>>>can vary considerably.
If you cannot identify anything that is either fascism or marxism - or >>>>>>even tell the difference between them, perhaps the government has hit >>>>>>on exactly the right mix of national / local responsibilities - >>>>>>including government making a commitment to share costs . . .
This government was and may still be hell bent on removing control of water
from the people and investing control in a minority race.
That is fact.
There are no plans to remove control of water from the people - a >>>>future government could make changes. The danger of removing control >>>>from the people lies in a future government selling off structures to >>>>create privately controlled entities - National did that with the >>>>electricity companies which has turned out to be contrary to the >>>>interests of the public. Labour wanted to introduce such provisions >>>>into legislation, but due to scare-mongering from the Opposition >>>>parties, those provisions were not made. So there is a danger that a >>>>future ACT/Nat government could privatise control of water - you are >>>>correct to see that as a danger.
Labopur are currently removing control of water from elected councils. >>>Period.
Show otherwise you sily fraud.
No opposition party is involved.
They are sharing both costs as well as planning and controls. Local >>councils will still need to include water issues in plans, and will
have an interest in results. Central government is bringing money to
the arrangements together with enabling sufficietly large
organisations to meet operational needs in different areas to ensure
that standards start o be regularly met.
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 12:03:16 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 10:15:03 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 09:51:58 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 09:18:58 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 08:54:50 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 19:43:11 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:From the article:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 03:29:44 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:The treaty has no mention of co-govewrnance or of anything like 3/5 waters and
"morriss...@gmail.com" <morrisseybreen@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 5:25:20 AM UTC+13, BR wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 01 Feb 2023 21:23:32 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:Firstly it is not nonsense. A word you use with no evidence to support it.
https://emilywrites.substack.com/p/the-explainer-the-governments-three?
Whenever I see "Simon Wilson" and "climate crisis" in the same >>>>>>>>>>> sentence, I know that a tirade of bullshit follows.
3 waters has the potential to become a centralised, bloated, racist,
bureaucratic fiasco that will make the problem much worse. >>>>>>>>>>>
Centralisation and racism have never improved anything, ever. >>>>>>>>>>>
Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be >>>>>>>>>>> forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist >>>>>>>>>>> centralised bureaucracy.
If they get away with this unmandated dishonesty, other ratepayer >>>>>>>>>>> assets are likely to follow.
Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
"Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be >>>>>>>>>>forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist >>>>>>>>>>centralised bureaucracy."
That's nonsense, of course. But you have, unwittingly, described exactly
what
was done to Maori in the nineteenth century, following the confiscation of
Waikato and Taranaki lands.
Secondly what happened in the nineteenth century is two things - >>>>>>>>>a. Irrelevant.
b. Usually misrepresented, hugely.
It is relevant due to the impact of an important contract - the Treaty >>>>>>>>of Waitangi.
what happened in the 19th century is almost completely irrelevant today. >>>>>>
"Water is a taonga and is explicitly recognised in the Treaty of >>>>>>Waitangi. Some manner of partnership between the Crown and tangata >>>>>>whenua is therefore required."
So how come it has taken 182 years to raise this? Current governance >>>>>of water supply has been fine up to now. Co-governance is a solution >>>>>for which there is no problem.
Foreshore and Seabed? Radio Frequencies?
Are you serious? No water there.
I should add that the Foreshore and Seabed Act was about land
ownership and was repealed by a National-led government in 2011.
I had always thought that the foreshore took in some of the sea - but
I am happy to accept your statement.
Wanganui River? Waikato
River?
Owned by Waikato Regional Council and co-managed.
For those last two, Labour and then National agreed to
structures which are now being called ''co-governance"
For the 100th time - they are co-managed, not co-governed as Water >>>Entities are.
For Treaty
Claims, land has been a priority for most Maori claims - seems >>>>understandable to me. . .
Irrelevant. Nothing to do with water assets.
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 10:15:03 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 09:51:58 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:Ownership of the banks is not the same as ownership of the water, or
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 09:18:58 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 08:54:50 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 19:43:11 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:From the article:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 03:29:44 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:The treaty has no mention of co-govewrnance or of anything like 3/5 waters and
"morriss...@gmail.com" <morrisseybreen@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 5:25:20 AM UTC+13, BR wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 01 Feb 2023 21:23:32 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:Firstly it is not nonsense. A word you use with no evidence to support it.
https://emilywrites.substack.com/p/the-explainer-the-governments-three?
Whenever I see "Simon Wilson" and "climate crisis" in the same >>>>>>>>>> sentence, I know that a tirade of bullshit follows.
3 waters has the potential to become a centralised, bloated, racist, >>>>>>>>>> bureaucratic fiasco that will make the problem much worse. >>>>>>>>>>
Centralisation and racism have never improved anything, ever. >>>>>>>>>>
Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be >>>>>>>>>> forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist >>>>>>>>>> centralised bureaucracy.
If they get away with this unmandated dishonesty, other ratepayer >>>>>>>>>> assets are likely to follow.
Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
"Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be >>>>>>>>>forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist >>>>>>>>>centralised bureaucracy."
That's nonsense, of course. But you have, unwittingly, described exactly
what
was done to Maori in the nineteenth century, following the confiscation of
Waikato and Taranaki lands.
Secondly what happened in the nineteenth century is two things - >>>>>>>>a. Irrelevant.
b. Usually misrepresented, hugely.
It is relevant due to the impact of an important contract - the Treaty >>>>>>>of Waitangi.
what happened in the 19th century is almost completely irrelevant today. >>>>>
"Water is a taonga and is explicitly recognised in the Treaty of >>>>>Waitangi. Some manner of partnership between the Crown and tangata >>>>>whenua is therefore required."
So how come it has taken 182 years to raise this? Current governance >>>>of water supply has been fine up to now. Co-governance is a solution >>>>for which there is no problem.
Foreshore and Seabed? Radio Frequencies?
Are you serious? No water there.
Wanganui River? Waikato
River?
Owned by Waikato Regional Council and co-managed.
of the river-bed.
Language does not always follow your preferences, Crash - which I >acknowledged by saying that is what they are called.
For those last two, Labour and then National agreed to
structures which are now being called ''co-governance"
For the 100th time - they are co-managed, not co-governed as Water
Entities are.
I was responding to a query "how come it has taken 182 years to raise
For Treaty
Claims, land has been a priority for most Maori claims - seems >>>understandable to me. . .
Irrelevant. Nothing to do with water assets.
this?"
On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 01:51:07 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo evidence they can either Rich. In fact it's pretty evident that to those who don't share your racist views that a certain part of Maori society aren't prepared to work with Pakeha unless it's with Maori as the guiding light! Mahuta is a classic
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:There you go again, playing the racist card . . . There is no
On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 00:55:20 -0000 (UTC), TonyOff topic but as an aside the arraggements are not co-operative. They are >dominated by Maori.
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:But the example they left from a previous time in government is why
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 21:20:05 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:WShat bullshit.
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 19:39:34 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:It is one or the other I suspect.
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 05:09:07 +1300, BR <bl...@blah.blah> wrote: >>>>>>>>As BR wrote - textbook fascism or is it textbook Marxism?
On Thu, 02 Feb 2023 09:32:46 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
Br it is theft - because there is no purchase involved. >>>>>>>>>>Ratepayer-owned water assets will remain ratepayer-owned but the >>>>>>>>>>councils that own the assets are prohibited from operating them. Each
Water entity is co-governed.
That sounds like textbook fascism to me. "You can own it but we'll >>>>>>>>>tell you what you must do with it".
For all practical purposes they will own it.
Bill.
Very much like Watercare in Auckland. The reality is that they must >>>>>>>>work closely with local authorities so that planning is 'joined up' -
what is important is that expertise will be better spread - Northland
does not have the resources to develop its own equivalent of >>>>>>>>Watercare; government money is not the only answer; there must be >>>>>>>>adequate people on the ground dealing with local problems as they >>>>>>>>occur, but covering a much wider area than any local council if water
quantity and quality is to be delivered over such a large area >>>>>>>>efficiently. The role of government is to ensure that money is well >>>>>>>>spent by seeing that there is responsible planning, accountability and
that expertise is shared. Local areas know that they cannot afford to
raise money for schools and hospitals from scratch, including training
and recruitment of specialst staff - they rely on government systems >>>>>>>>for that; water is becoming a complex system that requires New >>>>>>>>Zealanders to work together to ensure the good of all - not solutions
only for high density areas that can afford systems and bugger the >>>>>>>>country and country towns.
Both have no place in this country.
It is neither, Tony. Just sensible structures for a mix of local and >>>>>>national issues. NZ Government provides standards and overall >>>>>>policies, local people provide for local conditions. which for water >>>>>>can vary considerably.
If you cannot identify anything that is either fascism or marxism - or >>>>>>even tell the difference between them, perhaps the government has hit >>>>>>on exactly the right mix of national / local responsibilities - >>>>>>including government making a commitment to share costs . . .
This government was and may still be hell bent on removing control of water
from the people and investing control in a minority race.
That is fact.
There are no plans to remove control of water from the people - a >>>>future government could make changes. The danger of removing control >>>>from the people lies in a future government selling off structures to >>>>create privately controlled entities - National did that with the >>>>electricity companies which has turned out to be contrary to the >>>>interests of the public. Labour wanted to introduce such provisions >>>>into legislation, but due to scare-mongering from the Opposition >>>>parties, those provisions were not made. So there is a danger that a >>>>future ACT/Nat government could privatise control of water - you are >>>>correct to see that as a danger.
Labopur are currently removing control of water from elected councils. >>>Period.
Show otherwise you sily fraud.
No opposition party is involved.
our electricity costs are higher than necessary - a problem that is
now very difficult and expensive to reverse. Maori invovlement in the >>co-operative arrangements will ensure we do not see that sort of
diaster again.
evidence that people with Maori ancestry have any less ability to work co-operatively than anyone else.
On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 01:51:07 -0000 (UTC), TonyI did not say that you half wit.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 00:55:20 -0000 (UTC), TonyOff topic but as an aside the arraggements are not co-operative. They are >>dominated by Maori.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:But the example they left from a previous time in government is why
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 21:20:05 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:WShat bullshit.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 19:39:34 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:It is one or the other I suspect.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 05:09:07 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote: >>>>>>>>>As BR wrote - textbook fascism or is it textbook Marxism?
On Thu, 02 Feb 2023 09:32:46 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>wrote:
Br it is theft - because there is no purchase involved. >>>>>>>>>>>Ratepayer-owned water assets will remain ratepayer-owned but the >>>>>>>>>>>councils that own the assets are prohibited from operating them. >>>>>>>>>>>Each
Water entity is co-governed.
That sounds like textbook fascism to me. "You can own it but we'll >>>>>>>>>>tell you what you must do with it".
For all practical purposes they will own it.
Bill.
Very much like Watercare in Auckland. The reality is that they must >>>>>>>>>work closely with local authorities so that planning is 'joined up' - >>>>>>>>>what is important is that expertise will be better spread - Northland >>>>>>>>>does not have the resources to develop its own equivalent of >>>>>>>>>Watercare; government money is not the only answer; there must be >>>>>>>>>adequate people on the ground dealing with local problems as they >>>>>>>>>occur, but covering a much wider area than any local council if water >>>>>>>>>quantity and quality is to be delivered over such a large area >>>>>>>>>efficiently. The role of government is to ensure that money is well >>>>>>>>>spent by seeing that there is responsible planning, accountability and >>>>>>>>>that expertise is shared. Local areas know that they cannot afford to >>>>>>>>>raise money for schools and hospitals from scratch, including training >>>>>>>>>and recruitment of specialst staff - they rely on government systems >>>>>>>>>for that; water is becoming a complex system that requires New >>>>>>>>>Zealanders to work together to ensure the good of all - not solutions >>>>>>>>>only for high density areas that can afford systems and bugger the >>>>>>>>>country and country towns.
Both have no place in this country.
It is neither, Tony. Just sensible structures for a mix of local and >>>>>>>national issues. NZ Government provides standards and overall >>>>>>>policies, local people provide for local conditions. which for water >>>>>>>can vary considerably.
If you cannot identify anything that is either fascism or marxism - or >>>>>>>even tell the difference between them, perhaps the government has hit >>>>>>>on exactly the right mix of national / local responsibilities - >>>>>>>including government making a commitment to share costs . . .
This government was and may still be hell bent on removing control of >>>>>>water
from the people and investing control in a minority race.
That is fact.
There are no plans to remove control of water from the people - a >>>>>future government could make changes. The danger of removing control >>>>>from the people lies in a future government selling off structures to >>>>>create privately controlled entities - National did that with the >>>>>electricity companies which has turned out to be contrary to the >>>>>interests of the public. Labour wanted to introduce such provisions >>>>>into legislation, but due to scare-mongering from the Opposition >>>>>parties, those provisions were not made. So there is a danger that a >>>>>future ACT/Nat government could privatise control of water - you are >>>>>correct to see that as a danger.
Labopur are currently removing control of water from elected councils. >>>>Period.
Show otherwise you sily fraud.
No opposition party is involved.
our electricity costs are higher than necessary - a problem that is
now very difficult and expensive to reverse. Maori invovlement in the >>>co-operative arrangements will ensure we do not see that sort of
diaster again.
There you go again, playing the racist card . . . There is no
evidence that people with Maori ancestry have any less ability to work >co-operatively than anyone else.
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 21:20:05 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 19:39:34 -0000 (UTC), TonyIt is one or the other I suspect.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 05:09:07 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:As BR wrote - textbook fascism or is it textbook Marxism?
On Thu, 02 Feb 2023 09:32:46 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>wrote:
Br it is theft - because there is no purchase involved. >>>>>>>Ratepayer-owned water assets will remain ratepayer-owned but the >>>>>>>councils that own the assets are prohibited from operating them. Each >>>>>>>Water entity is co-governed.
That sounds like textbook fascism to me. "You can own it but we'll >>>>>>tell you what you must do with it".
For all practical purposes they will own it.
Bill.
Very much like Watercare in Auckland. The reality is that they must >>>>>work closely with local authorities so that planning is 'joined up' - >>>>>what is important is that expertise will be better spread - Northland >>>>>does not have the resources to develop its own equivalent of >>>>>Watercare; government money is not the only answer; there must be >>>>>adequate people on the ground dealing with local problems as they >>>>>occur, but covering a much wider area than any local council if water >>>>>quantity and quality is to be delivered over such a large area >>>>>efficiently. The role of government is to ensure that money is well >>>>>spent by seeing that there is responsible planning, accountability and >>>>>that expertise is shared. Local areas know that they cannot afford to >>>>>raise money for schools and hospitals from scratch, including training >>>>>and recruitment of specialst staff - they rely on government systems >>>>>for that; water is becoming a complex system that requires New >>>>>Zealanders to work together to ensure the good of all - not solutions >>>>>only for high density areas that can afford systems and bugger the >>>>>country and country towns.
Both have no place in this country.
It is neither, Tony. Just sensible structures for a mix of local and >>>national issues. NZ Government provides standards and overall
policies, local people provide for local conditions. which for water
can vary considerably.
If you cannot identify anything that is either fascism or marxism - or >>>even tell the difference between them, perhaps the government has hit
on exactly the right mix of national / local responsibilities -
including government making a commitment to share costs . . .
This government was and may still be hell bent on removing control of water >>from the people and investing control in a minority race.
That is fact.
There are no plans to remove control of water from the people - a
future government could make changes. The danger of removing control
from the people lies in a future government selling off structures to
create privately controlled entities - National did that with the
electricity companies which has turned out to be contrary to the
interests of the public. Labour wanted to introduce such provisions
into legislation, but due to scare-mongering from the Opposition
parties, those provisions were not made. So there is a danger that a
future ACT/Nat government could privatise control of water - you are
correct to see that as a danger.
On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 01:49:54 -0000 (UTC), TonyAbsolute bullshit - you are playing with words (aka lying).
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 00:55:20 -0000 (UTC), TonyCouncils will no ,longer be in control, a handful of people representing a >>minority of the population will be.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 21:20:05 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:WShat bullshit.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 19:39:34 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:It is one or the other I suspect.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 05:09:07 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote: >>>>>>>>>As BR wrote - textbook fascism or is it textbook Marxism?
On Thu, 02 Feb 2023 09:32:46 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>wrote:
Br it is theft - because there is no purchase involved. >>>>>>>>>>>Ratepayer-owned water assets will remain ratepayer-owned but the >>>>>>>>>>>councils that own the assets are prohibited from operating them. >>>>>>>>>>>Each
Water entity is co-governed.
That sounds like textbook fascism to me. "You can own it but we'll >>>>>>>>>>tell you what you must do with it".
For all practical purposes they will own it.
Bill.
Very much like Watercare in Auckland. The reality is that they must >>>>>>>>>work closely with local authorities so that planning is 'joined up' - >>>>>>>>>what is important is that expertise will be better spread - Northland >>>>>>>>>does not have the resources to develop its own equivalent of >>>>>>>>>Watercare; government money is not the only answer; there must be >>>>>>>>>adequate people on the ground dealing with local problems as they >>>>>>>>>occur, but covering a much wider area than any local council if water >>>>>>>>>quantity and quality is to be delivered over such a large area >>>>>>>>>efficiently. The role of government is to ensure that money is well >>>>>>>>>spent by seeing that there is responsible planning, accountability and >>>>>>>>>that expertise is shared. Local areas know that they cannot afford to >>>>>>>>>raise money for schools and hospitals from scratch, including training >>>>>>>>>and recruitment of specialst staff - they rely on government systems >>>>>>>>>for that; water is becoming a complex system that requires New >>>>>>>>>Zealanders to work together to ensure the good of all - not solutions >>>>>>>>>only for high density areas that can afford systems and bugger the >>>>>>>>>country and country towns.
Both have no place in this country.
It is neither, Tony. Just sensible structures for a mix of local and >>>>>>>national issues. NZ Government provides standards and overall >>>>>>>policies, local people provide for local conditions. which for water >>>>>>>can vary considerably.
If you cannot identify anything that is either fascism or marxism - or >>>>>>>even tell the difference between them, perhaps the government has hit >>>>>>>on exactly the right mix of national / local responsibilities - >>>>>>>including government making a commitment to share costs . . .
This government was and may still be hell bent on removing control of >>>>>>water
from the people and investing control in a minority race.
That is fact.
There are no plans to remove control of water from the people - a >>>>>future government could make changes. The danger of removing control >>>>>from the people lies in a future government selling off structures to >>>>>create privately controlled entities - National did that with the >>>>>electricity companies which has turned out to be contrary to the >>>>>interests of the public. Labour wanted to introduce such provisions >>>>>into legislation, but due to scare-mongering from the Opposition >>>>>parties, those provisions were not made. So there is a danger that a >>>>>future ACT/Nat government could privatise control of water - you are >>>>>correct to see that as a danger.
Labopur are currently removing control of water from elected councils. >>>>Period.
Show otherwise you sily fraud.
No opposition party is involved.
They are sharing both costs as well as planning and controls. Local >>>councils will still need to include water issues in plans, and will
have an interest in results. Central government is bringing money to
the arrangements together with enabling sufficietly large
organisations to meet operational needs in different areas to ensure
that standards start o be regularly met.
Councils will no longer have to meet al the costs, they will still
need to be aware of water issues and will need to be involved in
planning, but they will have a larger team that may well enable that
larger group to employ more specialists and to own more equipment so
that ratepayers will get better service without paying more - the
government is picking up some of the costs. Given we have had a clear >demonstration recently that there are major water issues to be sorted
out, what is there not to like?
As for who those invovled will represent, that is of course everyone
living or working in the area they cover - I suspect it may be more
than 5 people, but they will represent everyone - just as current
Councils and Government do.
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 13:44:22 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 10:15:03 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 09:51:58 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>wrote:Ownership of the banks is not the same as ownership of the water, or
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 09:18:58 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 08:54:50 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 19:43:11 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 03:29:44 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:The treaty has no mention of co-govewrnance or of anything like 3/5 waters and
"morriss...@gmail.com" <morriss...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 5:25:20 AM UTC+13, BR wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 01 Feb 2023 21:23:32 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>Firstly it is not nonsense. A word you use with no evidence to support it.
wrote:
https://emilywrites.substack.com/p/the-explainer-the-governments-three?
Whenever I see "Simon Wilson" and "climate crisis" in the same >>>>>>>>>> sentence, I know that a tirade of bullshit follows.
3 waters has the potential to become a centralised, bloated, racist,
bureaucratic fiasco that will make the problem much worse. >>>>>>>>>>
Centralisation and racism have never improved anything, ever. >>>>>>>>>>
Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be >>>>>>>>>> forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist >>>>>>>>>> centralised bureaucracy.
If they get away with this unmandated dishonesty, other ratepayer >>>>>>>>>> assets are likely to follow.
Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
"Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be >>>>>>>>>forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist >>>>>>>>>centralised bureaucracy."
That's nonsense, of course. But you have, unwittingly, described exactly
what
was done to Maori in the nineteenth century, following the confiscation of
Waikato and Taranaki lands.
Secondly what happened in the nineteenth century is two things - >>>>>>>>a. Irrelevant.
b. Usually misrepresented, hugely.
It is relevant due to the impact of an important contract - the Treaty >>>>>>>of Waitangi.
what happened in the 19th century is almost completely irrelevant today.
From the article:
"Water is a taonga and is explicitly recognised in the Treaty of >>>>>Waitangi. Some manner of partnership between the Crown and tangata >>>>>whenua is therefore required."
So how come it has taken 182 years to raise this? Current governance >>>>of water supply has been fine up to now. Co-governance is a solution >>>>for which there is no problem.
Foreshore and Seabed? Radio Frequencies?
Are you serious? No water there.
Wanganui River? Waikato
River?
Owned by Waikato Regional Council and co-managed.
of the river-bed.
I was outlining that we have gone 182 years since the Treaty wasLanguage does not always follow your preferences, Crash - which I >acknowledged by saying that is what they are called.
For those last two, Labour and then National agreed to
structures which are now being called ''co-governance"
For the 100th time - they are co-managed, not co-governed as Water >>Entities are.
I was responding to a query "how come it has taken 182 years to raise >this?"
For Treaty
Claims, land has been a priority for most Maori claims - seems >>>understandable to me. . .
Irrelevant. Nothing to do with water assets.
signed without co-governance as defined in the Water reforms
legislation. There is no precedent and after 182 years there is no
logical justification for using the Treaty to justify an undemocratic
and racist reform that favours those who are descended from Maori
prior to the arrival of non-Maori.
--If Rich could get his head out of his arse and look at the make up of our parliament he'd see that we do in fact have co governance as the percentage of Maori exceeds the percentage of the population that claim Maori descent...
Crash McBash
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 00:55:20 -0000 (UTC), TonyOff topic but as an aside the arraggements are not co-operative. They are >dominated by Maori.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:But the example they left from a previous time in government is why
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 21:20:05 -0000 (UTC), TonyWShat bullshit.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 19:39:34 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:It is one or the other I suspect.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 05:09:07 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:As BR wrote - textbook fascism or is it textbook Marxism?
On Thu, 02 Feb 2023 09:32:46 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>>wrote:
Br it is theft - because there is no purchase involved. >>>>>>>>>>Ratepayer-owned water assets will remain ratepayer-owned but the >>>>>>>>>>councils that own the assets are prohibited from operating them. Each
Water entity is co-governed.
That sounds like textbook fascism to me. "You can own it but we'll >>>>>>>>>tell you what you must do with it".
For all practical purposes they will own it.
Bill.
Very much like Watercare in Auckland. The reality is that they must >>>>>>>>work closely with local authorities so that planning is 'joined up' - >>>>>>>>what is important is that expertise will be better spread - Northland >>>>>>>>does not have the resources to develop its own equivalent of >>>>>>>>Watercare; government money is not the only answer; there must be >>>>>>>>adequate people on the ground dealing with local problems as they >>>>>>>>occur, but covering a much wider area than any local council if water >>>>>>>>quantity and quality is to be delivered over such a large area >>>>>>>>efficiently. The role of government is to ensure that money is well >>>>>>>>spent by seeing that there is responsible planning, accountability and >>>>>>>>that expertise is shared. Local areas know that they cannot afford to >>>>>>>>raise money for schools and hospitals from scratch, including training >>>>>>>>and recruitment of specialst staff - they rely on government systems >>>>>>>>for that; water is becoming a complex system that requires New >>>>>>>>Zealanders to work together to ensure the good of all - not solutions >>>>>>>>only for high density areas that can afford systems and bugger the >>>>>>>>country and country towns.
Both have no place in this country.
It is neither, Tony. Just sensible structures for a mix of local and >>>>>>national issues. NZ Government provides standards and overall >>>>>>policies, local people provide for local conditions. which for water >>>>>>can vary considerably.
If you cannot identify anything that is either fascism or marxism - or >>>>>>even tell the difference between them, perhaps the government has hit >>>>>>on exactly the right mix of national / local responsibilities - >>>>>>including government making a commitment to share costs . . .
This government was and may still be hell bent on removing control of water
from the people and investing control in a minority race.
That is fact.
There are no plans to remove control of water from the people - a >>>>future government could make changes. The danger of removing control >>>>from the people lies in a future government selling off structures to >>>>create privately controlled entities - National did that with the >>>>electricity companies which has turned out to be contrary to the >>>>interests of the public. Labour wanted to introduce such provisions >>>>into legislation, but due to scare-mongering from the Opposition >>>>parties, those provisions were not made. So there is a danger that a >>>>future ACT/Nat government could privatise control of water - you are >>>>correct to see that as a danger.
Labopur are currently removing control of water from elected councils. >>>Period.
Show otherwise you sily fraud.
No opposition party is involved.
our electricity costs are higher than necessary - a problem that is
now very difficult and expensive to reverse. Maori invovlement in the >>co-operative arrangements will ensure we do not see that sort of
diaster again.
On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 01:56:29 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 00:58:08 -0000 (UTC), TonyThat is another lie.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 21:22:52 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:A bald faced lie. It was never called that.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 19:43:11 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:No. Taonga is something that is precious it has zero to do with >>>>>>ownership.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 03:29:44 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:The treaty has no mention of co-govewrnance or of anything like 3/5 >>>>>>>>waters
"morriss...@gmail.com" <morrisseybreen@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 5:25:20 AM UTC+13, BR wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 01 Feb 2023 21:23:32 +1300, Rich80105 >>>>>>>>>>>><Rich...@hotmail.com>
Firstly it is not nonsense. A word you use with no evidence to >>>>>>>>>>supportwrote:
https://emilywrites.substack.com/p/the-explainer-the-governments-three?
Whenever I see "Simon Wilson" and "climate crisis" in the same >>>>>>>>>>>> sentence, I know that a tirade of bullshit follows.
3 waters has the potential to become a centralised, bloated, >>>>>>>>>>>>racist,
bureaucratic fiasco that will make the problem much worse. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Centralisation and racism have never improved anything, ever. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be >>>>>>>>>>>> forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist >>>>>>>>>>>> centralised bureaucracy.
If they get away with this unmandated dishonesty, other ratepayer >>>>>>>>>>>> assets are likely to follow.
Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
"Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be >>>>>>>>>>>forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist >>>>>>>>>>>centralised bureaucracy."
That's nonsense, of course. But you have, unwittingly, described >>>>>>>>>>>exactly
what
was done to Maori in the nineteenth century, following the >>>>>>>>>>>confiscation
of
Waikato and Taranaki lands.
it.
Secondly what happened in the nineteenth century is two things - >>>>>>>>>>a. Irrelevant.
b. Usually misrepresented, hugely.
It is relevant due to the impact of an important contract - the Treaty >>>>>>>>>of Waitangi.
and
what happened in the 19th century is almost completely irrelevant today.
From the article:
"Water is a taonga and is explicitly recognised in the Treaty of >>>>>>>Waitangi. Some manner of partnership between the Crown and tangata >>>>>>>whenua is therefore required."
The
article is biased and wrong.
Adequate protection of taonga can possibly be done in a number of ways >>>>>- Cullen and then Finlayson found that cooperation agreements (called >>>>>'co-governance' by the National government) were a good way of >>>>>achieving settlement on such issues.
And the treaty is completely silent on it. You keep lying.
The Treaty presumes that both parties will fulfill their obligations - >>>settlement for grievances relating to the Treaty not being followed
have been achieved in a wide number of ways - the co-governance >>>arrangements put together with (and supported by ) Finlayson have
benen called 'co-governance'. I am less clear about whether the >>>expression was used previously.
But completely off topic. I don't give a fig what they called anything. the >>co-gopvernmance you suppport is plain racism.
I agree with you that whatever it is called is irrelevant - it is an >arrangement that meets obligations under the Treaty,
but moreIt is not semantices you profound faker. The difference is massive.
importantly brings together people with different perspectives to
co-operate together, liaising with Government and many local
authorites to work on a large number of water related issues so that
we can rely on systems that deliver clean water and adequately dispose
of waste and storm water without poinoning rivers and beaches. Current >arrangements are failing on all three. So call it co-management if you >prefer, but semantics aside
, I expect good things from a higher levelAnother lie. There have been a few isolated problems and all are fixed or have plans in place.
of spending to solve the manifest problems we have seen so starkly in >Auckland and other areas in the last year - having drinkable water
will be welcome to Canterbury small towns for example.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 00:58:08 -0000 (UTC), TonyThat is another lie.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 21:22:52 -0000 (UTC), TonyA bald faced lie. It was never called that.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 19:43:11 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:No. Taonga is something that is precious it has zero to do with ownership. >>>>>The
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:From the article:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 03:29:44 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:The treaty has no mention of co-govewrnance or of anything like 3/5 >>>>>>>waters
"morriss...@gmail.com" <morrisseybreen@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 5:25:20 AM UTC+13, BR wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 01 Feb 2023 21:23:32 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:Firstly it is not nonsense. A word you use with no evidence to support >>>>>>>>>it.
https://emilywrites.substack.com/p/the-explainer-the-governments-three?
Whenever I see "Simon Wilson" and "climate crisis" in the same >>>>>>>>>>> sentence, I know that a tirade of bullshit follows.
3 waters has the potential to become a centralised, bloated, racist,
bureaucratic fiasco that will make the problem much worse. >>>>>>>>>>>
Centralisation and racism have never improved anything, ever. >>>>>>>>>>>
Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be >>>>>>>>>>> forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist >>>>>>>>>>> centralised bureaucracy.
If they get away with this unmandated dishonesty, other ratepayer >>>>>>>>>>> assets are likely to follow.
Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
"Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be >>>>>>>>>>forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist >>>>>>>>>>centralised bureaucracy."
That's nonsense, of course. But you have, unwittingly, described >>>>>>>>>>exactly
what
was done to Maori in the nineteenth century, following the >>>>>>>>>>confiscation
of
Waikato and Taranaki lands.
Secondly what happened in the nineteenth century is two things - >>>>>>>>>a. Irrelevant.
b. Usually misrepresented, hugely.
It is relevant due to the impact of an important contract - the Treaty >>>>>>>>of Waitangi.
and
what happened in the 19th century is almost completely irrelevant today. >>>>>>
"Water is a taonga and is explicitly recognised in the Treaty of >>>>>>Waitangi. Some manner of partnership between the Crown and tangata >>>>>>whenua is therefore required."
article is biased and wrong.
Adequate protection of taonga can possibly be done in a number of ways >>>>- Cullen and then Finlayson found that cooperation agreements (called >>>>'co-governance' by the National government) were a good way of >>>>achieving settlement on such issues.
And the treaty is completely silent on it. You keep lying.
The Treaty presumes that both parties will fulfill their obligations - >>settlement for grievances relating to the Treaty not being followed
have been achieved in a wide number of ways - the co-governance >>arrangements put together with (and supported by ) Finlayson have
benen called 'co-governance'. I am less clear about whether the
expression was used previously.
But completely off topic. I don't give a fig what they called anything. the >co-gopvernmance you suppport is plain racism.
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 10:10:08 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 09:47:10 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 09:16:07 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 08:27:25 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:Owned is correct, but many in Auckland would be surprised to hear that
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 05:09:07 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Thu, 02 Feb 2023 09:32:46 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>wrote:
Br it is theft - because there is no purchase involved. >>>>>>>Ratepayer-owned water assets will remain ratepayer-owned but the >>>>>>>councils that own the assets are prohibited from operating them. Each >>>>>>>Water entity is co-governed.
That sounds like textbook fascism to me. "You can own it but we'll >>>>>>tell you what you must do with it".
For all practical purposes they will own it.
Bill.
Very much like Watercare in Auckland.
Totally incorrect. Watercare is owned by Auckland Council (ie a CCO), >>>>so currently Auckland's water assets are entirely owned and operated
by Auckland Council. Water Entity A will operate these assets but >>>>although Auckland Council still own them they have no control over >>>>operation.
it is operated by Auckland Council. The role of Council is to appoint >>>Directors. Yes there is contact / liaison / even cooperation between >>>Watercare and the Auckland Council. This is a structure set up by a >>>National Government, but is fairly similar to the Water entities under >>>Three Waters
Absolutely incorrect. There are no similarities. The new Water
entity will simply take over an entity that Auckland owns and controls
in its entirety.
Agreed.
The reality is that they must
work closely with local authorities so that planning is 'joined up' - >>>>>what is important is that expertise will be better spread - Northland >>>>>does not have the resources to develop its own equivalent of >>>>>Watercare;
Northland consists of 3 local bodies, each of which has chosen to >>>>operate their own water services. This is related to their >>>>circumstances, not their capability. Each council has a CCO for other >>>>purposes. There are problems with water services in some of those >>>>councils but they have the capability to address them in their
entirety (no major infrastructure projects required) and there has >>>>never been any suggestion otherwise.
Such fragmentation is ineffeicient. There are problems that are >>>stretching the ability of a lot of local councils to fund.
There is no undesirable fragmentation and significant by its absence
is any evidence that the Water Entities will be any more efficient
than local bodies.
So are you suggesting that rates should be increased to pay for the
work now needed? I cannnot see why a government should be expected to >bank-roll such work unless they have some say in the structures that
willbe looking to resolve both current and future problems.
government money is not the only answer; there must be
adequate people on the ground dealing with local problems as they >>>>>occur, but covering a much wider area than any local council if water >>>>>quantity and quality is to be delivered over such a large area >>>>>efficiently. The role of government is to ensure that money is well >>>>>spent by seeing that there is responsible planning, accountability and >>>>>that expertise is shared. Local areas know that they cannot afford to >>>>>raise money for schools and hospitals from scratch, including training >>>>>and recruitment of specialst staff - they rely on government systems >>>>>for that; water is becoming a complex system that requires New >>>>>Zealanders to work together to ensure the good of all - not solutions >>>>>only for high density areas that can afford systems and bugger the >>>>>country and country towns.
Then leave Northland out of this - there is no centralised approach >>>>required with all water services operating as needed now and into the >>>>future. We say to Water Entity A - bugger off we don't want or need >>>>you - we can and will provide our own solutions to any water issues as >>>>we have in the past.
So are all water standards currently being met?
No - but there has is a plan in place and there are no public safety >>issues. This is why I have always advocated that standards be set.
One council is 98% there - I don't know about the others. There is,
of course, no proof that Water Entity A will have any focus on
Northland.
Watercare currently has no responsibility for Northland - but the new
entity would - why would you believe that they would not address
problems for which they are responsible?
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 10:15:03 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 09:51:58 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:Ownership of the banks is not the same as ownership of the water, or
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 09:18:58 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 08:54:50 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 19:43:11 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:From the article:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 03:29:44 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:The treaty has no mention of co-govewrnance or of anything like 3/5 waters and
"morriss...@gmail.com" <morrisseybreen@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 5:25:20 AM UTC+13, BR wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 01 Feb 2023 21:23:32 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:Firstly it is not nonsense. A word you use with no evidence to support it.
https://emilywrites.substack.com/p/the-explainer-the-governments-three?
Whenever I see "Simon Wilson" and "climate crisis" in the same >>>>>>>>>> sentence, I know that a tirade of bullshit follows.
3 waters has the potential to become a centralised, bloated, racist, >>>>>>>>>> bureaucratic fiasco that will make the problem much worse. >>>>>>>>>>
Centralisation and racism have never improved anything, ever. >>>>>>>>>>
Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be >>>>>>>>>> forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist >>>>>>>>>> centralised bureaucracy.
If they get away with this unmandated dishonesty, other ratepayer >>>>>>>>>> assets are likely to follow.
Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
"Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be >>>>>>>>>forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist >>>>>>>>>centralised bureaucracy."
That's nonsense, of course. But you have, unwittingly, described exactly
what
was done to Maori in the nineteenth century, following the confiscation of
Waikato and Taranaki lands.
Secondly what happened in the nineteenth century is two things - >>>>>>>>a. Irrelevant.
b. Usually misrepresented, hugely.
It is relevant due to the impact of an important contract - the Treaty >>>>>>>of Waitangi.
what happened in the 19th century is almost completely irrelevant today. >>>>>
"Water is a taonga and is explicitly recognised in the Treaty of >>>>>Waitangi. Some manner of partnership between the Crown and tangata >>>>>whenua is therefore required."
So how come it has taken 182 years to raise this? Current governance >>>>of water supply has been fine up to now. Co-governance is a solution >>>>for which there is no problem.
Foreshore and Seabed? Radio Frequencies?
Are you serious? No water there.
Wanganui River? Waikato
River?
Owned by Waikato Regional Council and co-managed.
of the river-bed.
Language does not always follow your preferences, Crash - which I acknowledged by saying that is what they are called.
For those last two, Labour and then National agreed to
structures which are now being called ''co-governance"
For the 100th time - they are co-managed, not co-governed as Water
Entities are.
I was responding to a query "how come it has taken 182 years to raise
For Treaty
Claims, land has been a priority for most Maori claims - seems >>>understandable to me. . .
Irrelevant. Nothing to do with water assets.
this?"
On 2023-02-03, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 21:20:05 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 19:39:34 -0000 (UTC), TonyIt is one or the other I suspect.
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 05:09:07 +1300, BR <bl...@blah.blah> wrote:As BR wrote - textbook fascism or is it textbook Marxism?
On Thu, 02 Feb 2023 09:32:46 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>wrote:
Br it is theft - because there is no purchase involved. >>>>>>>Ratepayer-owned water assets will remain ratepayer-owned but the >>>>>>>councils that own the assets are prohibited from operating them. Each >>>>>>>Water entity is co-governed.
That sounds like textbook fascism to me. "You can own it but we'll >>>>>>tell you what you must do with it".
For all practical purposes they will own it.
Bill.
Very much like Watercare in Auckland. The reality is that they must >>>>>work closely with local authorities so that planning is 'joined up' - >>>>>what is important is that expertise will be better spread - Northland >>>>>does not have the resources to develop its own equivalent of >>>>>Watercare; government money is not the only answer; there must be >>>>>adequate people on the ground dealing with local problems as they >>>>>occur, but covering a much wider area than any local council if water >>>>>quantity and quality is to be delivered over such a large area >>>>>efficiently. The role of government is to ensure that money is well >>>>>spent by seeing that there is responsible planning, accountability and >>>>>that expertise is shared. Local areas know that they cannot afford to >>>>>raise money for schools and hospitals from scratch, including training >>>>>and recruitment of specialst staff - they rely on government systems >>>>>for that; water is becoming a complex system that requires New >>>>>Zealanders to work together to ensure the good of all - not solutions >>>>>only for high density areas that can afford systems and bugger the >>>>>country and country towns.
Both have no place in this country.
It is neither, Tony. Just sensible structures for a mix of local and >>>national issues. NZ Government provides standards and overall >>>policies, local people provide for local conditions. which for water >>>can vary considerably.
If you cannot identify anything that is either fascism or marxism - or >>>even tell the difference between them, perhaps the government has hit >>>on exactly the right mix of national / local responsibilities - >>>including government making a commitment to share costs . . .
This government was and may still be hell bent on removing control of water
from the people and investing control in a minority race.
That is fact.
There are no plans to remove control of water from the people - aLet us get on thing clear, it is not The People who will be in control, it is a small group of Elites.
future government could make changes. The danger of removing control
from the people lies in a future government selling off structures to create privately controlled entities - National did that with the electricity companies which has turned out to be contrary to the
interests of the public. Labour wanted to introduce such provisions
into legislation, but due to scare-mongering from the Opposition
parties, those provisions were not made. So there is a danger that a future ACT/Nat government could privatise control of water - you are correct to see that as a danger.
In a Democracy it is The People who are in control, not the Government. If the Government is in control then there is a dictatorship. It matters not if there are elections.
The People have not voted for the 3 waters. The Labour Government did. The People lost control. For this reason alone the 5 waters need to be revoked.
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 10:10:08 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 09:47:10 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 09:16:07 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 08:27:25 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:Owned is correct, but many in Auckland would be surprised to hear that
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 05:09:07 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Thu, 02 Feb 2023 09:32:46 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>wrote:
Br it is theft - because there is no purchase involved. >>>>>>>Ratepayer-owned water assets will remain ratepayer-owned but the >>>>>>>councils that own the assets are prohibited from operating them. Each >>>>>>>Water entity is co-governed.
That sounds like textbook fascism to me. "You can own it but we'll >>>>>>tell you what you must do with it".
For all practical purposes they will own it.
Bill.
Very much like Watercare in Auckland.
Totally incorrect. Watercare is owned by Auckland Council (ie a CCO), >>>>so currently Auckland's water assets are entirely owned and operated
by Auckland Council. Water Entity A will operate these assets but >>>>although Auckland Council still own them they have no control over >>>>operation.
it is operated by Auckland Council. The role of Council is to appoint >>>Directors. Yes there is contact / liaison / even cooperation between >>>Watercare and the Auckland Council. This is a structure set up by a >>>National Government, but is fairly similar to the Water entities under >>>Three Waters
Absolutely incorrect. There are no similarities. The new Water
entity will simply take over an entity that Auckland owns and controls
in its entirety.
Agreed.
The reality is that they must
work closely with local authorities so that planning is 'joined up' - >>>>>what is important is that expertise will be better spread - Northland >>>>>does not have the resources to develop its own equivalent of >>>>>Watercare;
Northland consists of 3 local bodies, each of which has chosen to >>>>operate their own water services. This is related to their >>>>circumstances, not their capability. Each council has a CCO for other >>>>purposes. There are problems with water services in some of those >>>>councils but they have the capability to address them in their
entirety (no major infrastructure projects required) and there has >>>>never been any suggestion otherwise.
Such fragmentation is ineffeicient. There are problems that are >>>stretching the ability of a lot of local councils to fund.
There is no undesirable fragmentation and significant by its absence
is any evidence that the Water Entities will be any more efficient
than local bodies.
So are you suggesting that rates should be increased to pay for the
work now needed? I cannnot see why a government should be expected to bank-roll such work unless they have some say in the structures that
willbe looking to resolve both current and future problems.
government money is not the only answer; there must be
adequate people on the ground dealing with local problems as they >>>>>occur, but covering a much wider area than any local council if water >>>>>quantity and quality is to be delivered over such a large area >>>>>efficiently. The role of government is to ensure that money is well >>>>>spent by seeing that there is responsible planning, accountability and >>>>>that expertise is shared. Local areas know that they cannot afford to >>>>>raise money for schools and hospitals from scratch, including training >>>>>and recruitment of specialst staff - they rely on government systems >>>>>for that; water is becoming a complex system that requires New >>>>>Zealanders to work together to ensure the good of all - not solutions >>>>>only for high density areas that can afford systems and bugger the >>>>>country and country towns.
Then leave Northland out of this - there is no centralised approach >>>>required with all water services operating as needed now and into the >>>>future. We say to Water Entity A - bugger off we don't want or need >>>>you - we can and will provide our own solutions to any water issues as >>>>we have in the past.
So are all water standards currently being met?
No - but there has is a plan in place and there are no public safety >>issues. This is why I have always advocated that standards be set.
One council is 98% there - I don't know about the others. There is,
of course, no proof that Water Entity A will have any focus on
Northland.
Watercare currently has no responsibility for Northland - but the new
entity would - why would you believe that they would not address
problems for which they are responsible?
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 13:39:50 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>Others in the media have pointed out that one of the reasons for the
wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 10:10:08 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:I have never mentioned rates increases or Government intervention.
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 09:47:10 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 09:16:07 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 08:27:25 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:Owned is correct, but many in Auckland would be surprised to hear that >>>>it is operated by Auckland Council. The role of Council is to appoint >>>>Directors. Yes there is contact / liaison / even cooperation between >>>>Watercare and the Auckland Council. This is a structure set up by a >>>>National Government, but is fairly similar to the Water entities under >>>>Three Waters
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 05:09:07 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Thu, 02 Feb 2023 09:32:46 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>wrote:
Br it is theft - because there is no purchase involved. >>>>>>>>Ratepayer-owned water assets will remain ratepayer-owned but the >>>>>>>>councils that own the assets are prohibited from operating them. Each >>>>>>>>Water entity is co-governed.
That sounds like textbook fascism to me. "You can own it but we'll >>>>>>>tell you what you must do with it".
For all practical purposes they will own it.
Bill.
Very much like Watercare in Auckland.
Totally incorrect. Watercare is owned by Auckland Council (ie a CCO), >>>>>so currently Auckland's water assets are entirely owned and operated >>>>>by Auckland Council. Water Entity A will operate these assets but >>>>>although Auckland Council still own them they have no control over >>>>>operation.
Absolutely incorrect. There are no similarities. The new Water
entity will simply take over an entity that Auckland owns and controls
in its entirety.
Agreed.
The reality is that they must
work closely with local authorities so that planning is 'joined up' - >>>>>>what is important is that expertise will be better spread - Northland >>>>>>does not have the resources to develop its own equivalent of >>>>>>Watercare;
Northland consists of 3 local bodies, each of which has chosen to >>>>>operate their own water services. This is related to their >>>>>circumstances, not their capability. Each council has a CCO for other >>>>>purposes. There are problems with water services in some of those >>>>>councils but they have the capability to address them in their >>>>>entirety (no major infrastructure projects required) and there has >>>>>never been any suggestion otherwise.
Such fragmentation is ineffeicient. There are problems that are >>>>stretching the ability of a lot of local councils to fund.
There is no undesirable fragmentation and significant by its absence
is any evidence that the Water Entities will be any more efficient
than local bodies.
So are you suggesting that rates should be increased to pay for the
work now needed? I cannnot see why a government should be expected to >>bank-roll such work unless they have some say in the structures that
willbe looking to resolve both current and future problems.
There may be some local bodies where this is needed but if so the
solution must be customised to those local bodies only.
government money is not the only answer; there must be
adequate people on the ground dealing with local problems as they >>>>>>occur, but covering a much wider area than any local council if water >>>>>>quantity and quality is to be delivered over such a large area >>>>>>efficiently. The role of government is to ensure that money is well >>>>>>spent by seeing that there is responsible planning, accountability and >>>>>>that expertise is shared. Local areas know that they cannot afford to >>>>>>raise money for schools and hospitals from scratch, including training >>>>>>and recruitment of specialst staff - they rely on government systems >>>>>>for that; water is becoming a complex system that requires New >>>>>>Zealanders to work together to ensure the good of all - not solutions >>>>>>only for high density areas that can afford systems and bugger the >>>>>>country and country towns.
Then leave Northland out of this - there is no centralised approach >>>>>required with all water services operating as needed now and into the >>>>>future. We say to Water Entity A - bugger off we don't want or need >>>>>you - we can and will provide our own solutions to any water issues as >>>>>we have in the past.
So are all water standards currently being met?
No - but there has is a plan in place and there are no public safety >>>issues. This is why I have always advocated that standards be set.
One council is 98% there - I don't know about the others. There is,
of course, no proof that Water Entity A will have any focus on
Northland.
Watercare currently has no responsibility for Northland - but the new >>entity would - why would you believe that they would not address
problems for which they are responsible?
That is not the question. The question is would Water Entity A do a
better job than the current Northland local bodies. As 50% of Water
Entity A directors are appointed by iwi, Northland local bodies
governance and operational control of their water assets go from 100%
to zero effectively. All this when there is no substantial problem to
fix with current water assets.
On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 3:51:23 PM UTC+13, Crash wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 13:44:22 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>If Rich could get his head out of his arse and look at the make up of our parliament he'd see that we do in fact have co governance as the percentage of Maori exceeds the percentage of the population that claim Maori descent...
wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 10:15:03 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>I was outlining that we have gone 182 years since the Treaty was
wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 09:51:58 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>Ownership of the banks is not the same as ownership of the water, or
wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 09:18:58 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 08:54:50 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 19:43:11 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 03:29:44 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe treaty has no mention of co-govewrnance or of anything like 3/5 waters and
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
"morriss...@gmail.com" <morriss...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 5:25:20 AM UTC+13, BR wrote:Firstly it is not nonsense. A word you use with no evidence to support it.
On Wed, 01 Feb 2023 21:23:32 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
https://emilywrites.substack.com/p/the-explainer-the-governments-three?
Whenever I see "Simon Wilson" and "climate crisis" in the same
sentence, I know that a tirade of bullshit follows.
3 waters has the potential to become a centralised, bloated, racist,
bureaucratic fiasco that will make the problem much worse.
Centralisation and racism have never improved anything, ever.
Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be >> >>>>>>>>>> forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist
centralised bureaucracy.
If they get away with this unmandated dishonesty, other ratepayer >> >>>>>>>>>> assets are likely to follow.
Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
"Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be >> >>>>>>>>>forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist
centralised bureaucracy."
That's nonsense, of course. But you have, unwittingly, described exactly
what
was done to Maori in the nineteenth century, following the confiscation of
Waikato and Taranaki lands.
Secondly what happened in the nineteenth century is two things -
a. Irrelevant.
b. Usually misrepresented, hugely.
It is relevant due to the impact of an important contract - the Treaty
of Waitangi.
what happened in the 19th century is almost completely irrelevant today.
From the article:
"Water is a taonga and is explicitly recognised in the Treaty of
Waitangi. Some manner of partnership between the Crown and tangata
whenua is therefore required."
So how come it has taken 182 years to raise this? Current governance
of water supply has been fine up to now. Co-governance is a solution
for which there is no problem.
Foreshore and Seabed? Radio Frequencies?
Are you serious? No water there.
Wanganui River? Waikato
River?
Owned by Waikato Regional Council and co-managed.
of the river-bed.
Language does not always follow your preferences, Crash - which I
For those last two, Labour and then National agreed to
structures which are now being called ''co-governance"
For the 100th time - they are co-managed, not co-governed as Water
Entities are.
acknowledged by saying that is what they are called.
I was responding to a query "how come it has taken 182 years to raise
For Treaty
Claims, land has been a priority for most Maori claims - seems
understandable to me. . .
Irrelevant. Nothing to do with water assets.
this?"
signed without co-governance as defined in the Water reforms
legislation. There is no precedent and after 182 years there is no
logical justification for using the Treaty to justify an undemocratic
and racist reform that favours those who are descended from Maori
prior to the arrival of non-Maori.
--
Crash McBash
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 01:56:29 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 00:58:08 -0000 (UTC), TonyThat is another lie.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 21:22:52 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:A bald faced lie. It was never called that.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 19:43:11 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:No. Taonga is something that is precious it has zero to do with >>>>>>>ownership.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 03:29:44 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:The treaty has no mention of co-govewrnance or of anything like 3/5 >>>>>>>>>waters
"morriss...@gmail.com" <morrisseybreen@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 5:25:20 AM UTC+13, BR wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 01 Feb 2023 21:23:32 +1300, Rich80105 >>>>>>>>>>>>><Rich...@hotmail.com>
Firstly it is not nonsense. A word you use with no evidence to >>>>>>>>>>>supportwrote:
https://emilywrites.substack.com/p/the-explainer-the-governments-three?
Whenever I see "Simon Wilson" and "climate crisis" in the same >>>>>>>>>>>>> sentence, I know that a tirade of bullshit follows.
3 waters has the potential to become a centralised, bloated, >>>>>>>>>>>>>racist,
bureaucratic fiasco that will make the problem much worse. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Centralisation and racism have never improved anything, ever. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be >>>>>>>>>>>>> forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist >>>>>>>>>>>>> centralised bureaucracy.
If they get away with this unmandated dishonesty, other ratepayer >>>>>>>>>>>>> assets are likely to follow.
Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
"Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be >>>>>>>>>>>>forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist >>>>>>>>>>>>centralised bureaucracy."
That's nonsense, of course. But you have, unwittingly, described >>>>>>>>>>>>exactly
what
was done to Maori in the nineteenth century, following the >>>>>>>>>>>>confiscation
of
Waikato and Taranaki lands.
it.
Secondly what happened in the nineteenth century is two things - >>>>>>>>>>>a. Irrelevant.
b. Usually misrepresented, hugely.
It is relevant due to the impact of an important contract - the Treaty
of Waitangi.
and
what happened in the 19th century is almost completely irrelevant today.
From the article:
"Water is a taonga and is explicitly recognised in the Treaty of >>>>>>>>Waitangi. Some manner of partnership between the Crown and tangata >>>>>>>>whenua is therefore required."
The
article is biased and wrong.
Adequate protection of taonga can possibly be done in a number of ways >>>>>>- Cullen and then Finlayson found that cooperation agreements (called >>>>>>'co-governance' by the National government) were a good way of >>>>>>achieving settlement on such issues.
And the treaty is completely silent on it. You keep lying.
The Treaty presumes that both parties will fulfill their obligations - >>>>settlement for grievances relating to the Treaty not being followed >>>>have been achieved in a wide number of ways - the co-governance >>>>arrangements put together with (and supported by ) Finlayson have
benen called 'co-governance'. I am less clear about whether the >>>>expression was used previously.
But completely off topic. I don't give a fig what they called anything. the >>>co-gopvernmance you suppport is plain racism.
I agree with you that whatever it is called is irrelevant - it is an >>arrangement that meets obligations under the Treaty,
No it damn well is not and you keep telling that lie - you have not ever >provided any cite to show that to be other than a lie.
but moreIt is not semantices you profound faker. The difference is massive.
importantly brings together people with different perspectives to >>co-operate together, liaising with Government and many local
authorites to work on a large number of water related issues so that
we can rely on systems that deliver clean water and adequately dispose
of waste and storm water without poinoning rivers and beaches. Current >>arrangements are failing on all three. So call it co-management if you >>prefer, but semantics aside
, I expect good things from a higher levelAnother lie. There have been a few isolated problems and all are fixed or have >plans in place.
of spending to solve the manifest problems we have seen so starkly in >>Auckland and other areas in the last year - having drinkable water
will be welcome to Canterbury small towns for example.
Show otherwise.
On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 4:10:04 PM UTC+13, Gordon wrote:they've acted like typical Marxist Totalitarian dictators! It's why Arern got so much abuse. Yes the people might have voted it in but since then they've had no control over the government. Time for Labour/Green to be tossed like a used facemask...
On 2023-02-03, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 21:20:05 -0000 (UTC), TonyLet us get on thing clear, it is not The People who will be in control, it >> is a small group of Elites.
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 19:39:34 -0000 (UTC), TonyIt is one or the other I suspect.
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 05:09:07 +1300, BR <bl...@blah.blah> wrote:As BR wrote - textbook fascism or is it textbook Marxism?
On Thu, 02 Feb 2023 09:32:46 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >> >>>>>>wrote:
Br it is theft - because there is no purchase involved.
Ratepayer-owned water assets will remain ratepayer-owned but the
councils that own the assets are prohibited from operating them. Each >> >>>>>>>Water entity is co-governed.
That sounds like textbook fascism to me. "You can own it but we'll
tell you what you must do with it".
For all practical purposes they will own it.
Bill.
Very much like Watercare in Auckland. The reality is that they must
work closely with local authorities so that planning is 'joined up' - >> >>>>>what is important is that expertise will be better spread - Northland >> >>>>>does not have the resources to develop its own equivalent of
Watercare; government money is not the only answer; there must be
adequate people on the ground dealing with local problems as they
occur, but covering a much wider area than any local council if water >> >>>>>quantity and quality is to be delivered over such a large area
efficiently. The role of government is to ensure that money is well
spent by seeing that there is responsible planning, accountability and >> >>>>>that expertise is shared. Local areas know that they cannot afford to >> >>>>>raise money for schools and hospitals from scratch, including training >> >>>>>and recruitment of specialst staff - they rely on government systems
for that; water is becoming a complex system that requires New
Zealanders to work together to ensure the good of all - not solutions >> >>>>>only for high density areas that can afford systems and bugger the
country and country towns.
Both have no place in this country.
It is neither, Tony. Just sensible structures for a mix of local and
national issues. NZ Government provides standards and overall
policies, local people provide for local conditions. which for water
can vary considerably.
If you cannot identify anything that is either fascism or marxism - or
even tell the difference between them, perhaps the government has hit
on exactly the right mix of national / local responsibilities -
including government making a commitment to share costs . . .
This government was and may still be hell bent on removing control of water
from the people and investing control in a minority race.
That is fact.
There are no plans to remove control of water from the people - a
future government could make changes. The danger of removing control
from the people lies in a future government selling off structures to
create privately controlled entities - National did that with the
electricity companies which has turned out to be contrary to the
interests of the public. Labour wanted to introduce such provisions
into legislation, but due to scare-mongering from the Opposition
parties, those provisions were not made. So there is a danger that a
future ACT/Nat government could privatise control of water - you are
correct to see that as a danger.
In a Democracy it is The People who are in control, not the Government. If >> the Government is in control then there is a dictatorship. It matters not if >> there are elections.
The People have not voted for the 3 waters. The Labour Government did. The >> People lost control. For this reason alone the 5 waters need to be revoked.
The current Labour government and it's crony's have used undemocratic methods to push through their pet projects while refusing to take notice of submissions questioning/protesting against them. They may have been elected democratically but since then
3/5 waters should have been put to a referendum. What Mahuta did was totally undemocratic!
On 2023-02-03, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 10:15:03 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 09:51:58 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:Ownership of the banks is not the same as ownership of the water, or
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 09:18:58 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 08:54:50 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 19:43:11 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:From the article:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 03:29:44 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:The treaty has no mention of co-govewrnance or of anything like 3/5 waters and
"morriss...@gmail.com" <morrisseybreen@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 5:25:20 AM UTC+13, BR wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 01 Feb 2023 21:23:32 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:Firstly it is not nonsense. A word you use with no evidence to support it.
https://emilywrites.substack.com/p/the-explainer-the-governments-three?
Whenever I see "Simon Wilson" and "climate crisis" in the same >>>>>>>>>>> sentence, I know that a tirade of bullshit follows.
3 waters has the potential to become a centralised, bloated, racist,
bureaucratic fiasco that will make the problem much worse. >>>>>>>>>>>
Centralisation and racism have never improved anything, ever. >>>>>>>>>>>
Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be >>>>>>>>>>> forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist >>>>>>>>>>> centralised bureaucracy.
If they get away with this unmandated dishonesty, other ratepayer >>>>>>>>>>> assets are likely to follow.
Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
"Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be >>>>>>>>>>forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist >>>>>>>>>>centralised bureaucracy."
That's nonsense, of course. But you have, unwittingly, described exactly
what
was done to Maori in the nineteenth century, following the confiscation of
Waikato and Taranaki lands.
Secondly what happened in the nineteenth century is two things - >>>>>>>>>a. Irrelevant.
b. Usually misrepresented, hugely.
It is relevant due to the impact of an important contract - the Treaty >>>>>>>>of Waitangi.
what happened in the 19th century is almost completely irrelevant today. >>>>>>
"Water is a taonga and is explicitly recognised in the Treaty of >>>>>>Waitangi. Some manner of partnership between the Crown and tangata >>>>>>whenua is therefore required."
So how come it has taken 182 years to raise this? Current governance >>>>>of water supply has been fine up to now. Co-governance is a solution >>>>>for which there is no problem.
Foreshore and Seabed? Radio Frequencies?
Are you serious? No water there.
Wanganui River? Waikato
River?
Owned by Waikato Regional Council and co-managed.
of the river-bed.
Language does not always follow your preferences, Crash - which I
For those last two, Labour and then National agreed to
structures which are now being called ''co-governance"
For the 100th time - they are co-managed, not co-governed as Water >>>Entities are.
acknowledged by saying that is what they are called.
Now you really are getting in the blurring spin.
It is not a matter of preferences it is a matter of being clear. So with that >co-governance is to be replaced with elite dictorship.
There have been cases which have led to this - there has been aI was responding to a query "how come it has taken 182 years to raise
For Treaty
Claims, land has been a priority for most Maori claims - seems >>>>understandable to me. . .
Irrelevant. Nothing to do with water assets.
this?"
The opptunity has not arisen until now.
On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 19:18:07 -0800 (PST), "morriss...@gmail.com" <morriss...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 5:25:20 AM UTC+13, BR wrote:
On Wed, 01 Feb 2023 21:23:32 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
https://emilywrites.substack.com/p/the-explainer-the-governments-three? >>Whenever I see "Simon Wilson" and "climate crisis" in the same
sentence, I know that a tirade of bullshit follows.
3 waters has the potential to become a centralised, bloated, racist,
bureaucratic fiasco that will make the problem much worse.
Centralisation and racism have never improved anything, ever.
Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be
forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist
centralised bureaucracy.
If they get away with this unmandated dishonesty, other ratepayer
assets are likely to follow.
Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
"Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be
forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist
centralised bureaucracy."
That's nonsense, of course. But you have, unwittingly, described exactly what was done to Maori in the nineteenth century, following the confiscation of Waikato and Taranaki lands.There was no such thing as property rights in pre-colonial New
Zealand. Property rights cannot exist without universal recognition.
Land was not owned, it was occupied, that's all. There are no accurate records of the occupations or of their history, just hearsay and
rumours. Pre European tribal Maori owned nothing. The whole treaty compensation process is a scam. Nobody owes the tribal elite a damn
thing. If anything they should be grateful, because colonisation had
quite possibly saved Maori from extinction. Treaty grievance claims
and three waters benefit only the tribal elite, and always at the
expense of everyone else, including most working Maori.
Bill.
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 13:44:22 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 10:15:03 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 09:51:58 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:Ownership of the banks is not the same as ownership of the water, or
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 09:18:58 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 08:54:50 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 19:43:11 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:From the article:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 03:29:44 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:The treaty has no mention of co-govewrnance or of anything like 3/5 waters and
"morriss...@gmail.com" <morrisseybreen@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 5:25:20 AM UTC+13, BR wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 01 Feb 2023 21:23:32 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:Firstly it is not nonsense. A word you use with no evidence to support it.
https://emilywrites.substack.com/p/the-explainer-the-governments-three?
Whenever I see "Simon Wilson" and "climate crisis" in the same >>>>>>>>>>> sentence, I know that a tirade of bullshit follows.
3 waters has the potential to become a centralised, bloated, racist,
bureaucratic fiasco that will make the problem much worse. >>>>>>>>>>>
Centralisation and racism have never improved anything, ever. >>>>>>>>>>>
Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be >>>>>>>>>>> forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist >>>>>>>>>>> centralised bureaucracy.
If they get away with this unmandated dishonesty, other ratepayer >>>>>>>>>>> assets are likely to follow.
Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
"Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be >>>>>>>>>>forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist >>>>>>>>>>centralised bureaucracy."
That's nonsense, of course. But you have, unwittingly, described exactly
what
was done to Maori in the nineteenth century, following the confiscation of
Waikato and Taranaki lands.
Secondly what happened in the nineteenth century is two things - >>>>>>>>>a. Irrelevant.
b. Usually misrepresented, hugely.
It is relevant due to the impact of an important contract - the Treaty >>>>>>>>of Waitangi.
what happened in the 19th century is almost completely irrelevant today. >>>>>>
"Water is a taonga and is explicitly recognised in the Treaty of >>>>>>Waitangi. Some manner of partnership between the Crown and tangata >>>>>>whenua is therefore required."
So how come it has taken 182 years to raise this? Current governance >>>>>of water supply has been fine up to now. Co-governance is a solution >>>>>for which there is no problem.
Foreshore and Seabed? Radio Frequencies?
Are you serious? No water there.
Wanganui River? Waikato
River?
Owned by Waikato Regional Council and co-managed.
of the river-bed.
Language does not always follow your preferences, Crash - which I >>acknowledged by saying that is what they are called.
For those last two, Labour and then National agreed to
structures which are now being called ''co-governance"
For the 100th time - they are co-managed, not co-governed as Water >>>Entities are.
I was responding to a query "how come it has taken 182 years to raise >>this?"
For Treaty
Claims, land has been a priority for most Maori claims - seems >>>>understandable to me. . .
Irrelevant. Nothing to do with water assets.
I was outlining that we have gone 182 years since the Treaty was
signed without co-governance as defined in the Water reforms
legislation. There is no precedent and after 182 years there is no
logical justification for using the Treaty to justify an undemocratic
and racist reform that favours those who are descended from Maori
prior to the arrival of non-Maori.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 01:51:07 -0000 (UTC), TonyI did not say that you half wit.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 00:55:20 -0000 (UTC), TonyOff topic but as an aside the arraggements are not co-operative. They are >>>dominated by Maori.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:But the example they left from a previous time in government is why
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 21:20:05 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:WShat bullshit.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 19:39:34 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:It is one or the other I suspect.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 05:09:07 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>As BR wrote - textbook fascism or is it textbook Marxism? >>>>>>>>>Both have no place in this country.
On Thu, 02 Feb 2023 09:32:46 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
Br it is theft - because there is no purchase involved. >>>>>>>>>>>>Ratepayer-owned water assets will remain ratepayer-owned but the >>>>>>>>>>>>councils that own the assets are prohibited from operating them. >>>>>>>>>>>>Each
Water entity is co-governed.
That sounds like textbook fascism to me. "You can own it but we'll >>>>>>>>>>>tell you what you must do with it".
For all practical purposes they will own it.
Bill.
Very much like Watercare in Auckland. The reality is that they must >>>>>>>>>>work closely with local authorities so that planning is 'joined up' - >>>>>>>>>>what is important is that expertise will be better spread - Northland >>>>>>>>>>does not have the resources to develop its own equivalent of >>>>>>>>>>Watercare; government money is not the only answer; there must be >>>>>>>>>>adequate people on the ground dealing with local problems as they >>>>>>>>>>occur, but covering a much wider area than any local council if water >>>>>>>>>>quantity and quality is to be delivered over such a large area >>>>>>>>>>efficiently. The role of government is to ensure that money is well >>>>>>>>>>spent by seeing that there is responsible planning, accountability and
that expertise is shared. Local areas know that they cannot afford to >>>>>>>>>>raise money for schools and hospitals from scratch, including training
and recruitment of specialst staff - they rely on government systems >>>>>>>>>>for that; water is becoming a complex system that requires New >>>>>>>>>>Zealanders to work together to ensure the good of all - not solutions >>>>>>>>>>only for high density areas that can afford systems and bugger the >>>>>>>>>>country and country towns.
It is neither, Tony. Just sensible structures for a mix of local and >>>>>>>>national issues. NZ Government provides standards and overall >>>>>>>>policies, local people provide for local conditions. which for water >>>>>>>>can vary considerably.
If you cannot identify anything that is either fascism or marxism - or >>>>>>>>even tell the difference between them, perhaps the government has hit >>>>>>>>on exactly the right mix of national / local responsibilities - >>>>>>>>including government making a commitment to share costs . . .
This government was and may still be hell bent on removing control of >>>>>>>water
from the people and investing control in a minority race.
That is fact.
There are no plans to remove control of water from the people - a >>>>>>future government could make changes. The danger of removing control >>>>>>from the people lies in a future government selling off structures to >>>>>>create privately controlled entities - National did that with the >>>>>>electricity companies which has turned out to be contrary to the >>>>>>interests of the public. Labour wanted to introduce such provisions >>>>>>into legislation, but due to scare-mongering from the Opposition >>>>>>parties, those provisions were not made. So there is a danger that a >>>>>>future ACT/Nat government could privatise control of water - you are >>>>>>correct to see that as a danger.
Labopur are currently removing control of water from elected councils. >>>>>Period.
Show otherwise you sily fraud.
No opposition party is involved.
our electricity costs are higher than necessary - a problem that is
now very difficult and expensive to reverse. Maori invovlement in the >>>>co-operative arrangements will ensure we do not see that sort of >>>>diaster again.
There you go again, playing the racist card . . . There is no
evidence that people with Maori ancestry have any less ability to work >>co-operatively than anyone else.
But when people get authority because of their race then tyhat is racist - and >that is 3/5 waters.
You are a racist because you suppport that. I am not.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 01:49:54 -0000 (UTC), TonyAbsolute bullshit - you are playing with words (aka lying).
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 00:55:20 -0000 (UTC), TonyCouncils will no ,longer be in control, a handful of people representing a >>>minority of the population will be.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 21:20:05 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:WShat bullshit.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 19:39:34 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:It is one or the other I suspect.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 05:09:07 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>As BR wrote - textbook fascism or is it textbook Marxism? >>>>>>>>>Both have no place in this country.
On Thu, 02 Feb 2023 09:32:46 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
Br it is theft - because there is no purchase involved. >>>>>>>>>>>>Ratepayer-owned water assets will remain ratepayer-owned but the >>>>>>>>>>>>councils that own the assets are prohibited from operating them. >>>>>>>>>>>>Each
Water entity is co-governed.
That sounds like textbook fascism to me. "You can own it but we'll >>>>>>>>>>>tell you what you must do with it".
For all practical purposes they will own it.
Bill.
Very much like Watercare in Auckland. The reality is that they must >>>>>>>>>>work closely with local authorities so that planning is 'joined up' - >>>>>>>>>>what is important is that expertise will be better spread - Northland >>>>>>>>>>does not have the resources to develop its own equivalent of >>>>>>>>>>Watercare; government money is not the only answer; there must be >>>>>>>>>>adequate people on the ground dealing with local problems as they >>>>>>>>>>occur, but covering a much wider area than any local council if water >>>>>>>>>>quantity and quality is to be delivered over such a large area >>>>>>>>>>efficiently. The role of government is to ensure that money is well >>>>>>>>>>spent by seeing that there is responsible planning, accountability and
that expertise is shared. Local areas know that they cannot afford to >>>>>>>>>>raise money for schools and hospitals from scratch, including training
and recruitment of specialst staff - they rely on government systems >>>>>>>>>>for that; water is becoming a complex system that requires New >>>>>>>>>>Zealanders to work together to ensure the good of all - not solutions >>>>>>>>>>only for high density areas that can afford systems and bugger the >>>>>>>>>>country and country towns.
It is neither, Tony. Just sensible structures for a mix of local and >>>>>>>>national issues. NZ Government provides standards and overall >>>>>>>>policies, local people provide for local conditions. which for water >>>>>>>>can vary considerably.
If you cannot identify anything that is either fascism or marxism - or >>>>>>>>even tell the difference between them, perhaps the government has hit >>>>>>>>on exactly the right mix of national / local responsibilities - >>>>>>>>including government making a commitment to share costs . . .
This government was and may still be hell bent on removing control of >>>>>>>water
from the people and investing control in a minority race.
That is fact.
There are no plans to remove control of water from the people - a >>>>>>future government could make changes. The danger of removing control >>>>>>from the people lies in a future government selling off structures to >>>>>>create privately controlled entities - National did that with the >>>>>>electricity companies which has turned out to be contrary to the >>>>>>interests of the public. Labour wanted to introduce such provisions >>>>>>into legislation, but due to scare-mongering from the Opposition >>>>>>parties, those provisions were not made. So there is a danger that a >>>>>>future ACT/Nat government could privatise control of water - you are >>>>>>correct to see that as a danger.
Labopur are currently removing control of water from elected councils. >>>>>Period.
Show otherwise you sily fraud.
No opposition party is involved.
They are sharing both costs as well as planning and controls. Local >>>>councils will still need to include water issues in plans, and will >>>>have an interest in results. Central government is bringing money to >>>>the arrangements together with enabling sufficietly large
organisations to meet operational needs in different areas to ensure >>>>that standards start o be regularly met.
Councils will no longer have to meet al the costs, they will still
need to be aware of water issues and will need to be involved in
planning, but they will have a larger team that may well enable that
larger group to employ more specialists and to own more equipment so
that ratepayers will get better service without paying more - the >>government is picking up some of the costs. Given we have had a clear >>demonstration recently that there are major water issues to be sorted
out, what is there not to like?
As for who those invovled will represent, that is of course everyone
living or working in the area they cover - I suspect it may be more
than 5 people, but they will represent everyone - just as current
Councils and Government do.
On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 03:08:55 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe authority is clearly spelled out in the act. Read it and then read the treaty. You understand neither of them.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 01:51:07 -0000 (UTC), TonyI did not say that you half wit.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 00:55:20 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Off topic but as an aside the arraggements are not co-operative. They are >>>>dominated by Maori.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:But the example they left from a previous time in government is why >>>>>our electricity costs are higher than necessary - a problem that is >>>>>now very difficult and expensive to reverse. Maori invovlement in the >>>>>co-operative arrangements will ensure we do not see that sort of >>>>>diaster again.
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 21:20:05 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:WShat bullshit.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 19:39:34 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:This government was and may still be hell bent on removing control of >>>>>>>>water
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 05:09:07 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>As BR wrote - textbook fascism or is it textbook Marxism? >>>>>>>>>>Both have no place in this country.
On Thu, 02 Feb 2023 09:32:46 +1300, Crash >>>>>>>>>>>><nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
Br it is theft - because there is no purchase involved. >>>>>>>>>>>>>Ratepayer-owned water assets will remain ratepayer-owned but the >>>>>>>>>>>>>councils that own the assets are prohibited from operating them. >>>>>>>>>>>>>Each
Water entity is co-governed.
That sounds like textbook fascism to me. "You can own it but we'll >>>>>>>>>>>>tell you what you must do with it".
For all practical purposes they will own it.
Bill.
Very much like Watercare in Auckland. The reality is that they must >>>>>>>>>>>work closely with local authorities so that planning is 'joined up' -
what is important is that expertise will be better spread - Northland
does not have the resources to develop its own equivalent of >>>>>>>>>>>Watercare; government money is not the only answer; there must be >>>>>>>>>>>adequate people on the ground dealing with local problems as they >>>>>>>>>>>occur, but covering a much wider area than any local council if water
quantity and quality is to be delivered over such a large area >>>>>>>>>>>efficiently. The role of government is to ensure that money is well >>>>>>>>>>>spent by seeing that there is responsible planning, accountability >>>>>>>>>>>and
that expertise is shared. Local areas know that they cannot afford to
raise money for schools and hospitals from scratch, including >>>>>>>>>>>training
and recruitment of specialst staff - they rely on government systems >>>>>>>>>>>for that; water is becoming a complex system that requires New >>>>>>>>>>>Zealanders to work together to ensure the good of all - not solutions
only for high density areas that can afford systems and bugger the >>>>>>>>>>>country and country towns.
It is neither, Tony. Just sensible structures for a mix of local and >>>>>>>>>national issues. NZ Government provides standards and overall >>>>>>>>>policies, local people provide for local conditions. which for water >>>>>>>>>can vary considerably.
If you cannot identify anything that is either fascism or marxism - or >>>>>>>>>even tell the difference between them, perhaps the government has hit >>>>>>>>>on exactly the right mix of national / local responsibilities - >>>>>>>>>including government making a commitment to share costs . . . >>>>>>>>It is one or the other I suspect.
from the people and investing control in a minority race.
That is fact.
There are no plans to remove control of water from the people - a >>>>>>>future government could make changes. The danger of removing control >>>>>>>from the people lies in a future government selling off structures to >>>>>>>create privately controlled entities - National did that with the >>>>>>>electricity companies which has turned out to be contrary to the >>>>>>>interests of the public. Labour wanted to introduce such provisions >>>>>>>into legislation, but due to scare-mongering from the Opposition >>>>>>>parties, those provisions were not made. So there is a danger that a >>>>>>>future ACT/Nat government could privatise control of water - you are >>>>>>>correct to see that as a danger.
Labopur are currently removing control of water from elected councils. >>>>>>Period.
Show otherwise you sily fraud.
No opposition party is involved.
There you go again, playing the racist card . . . There is no
evidence that people with Maori ancestry have any less ability to work >>>co-operatively than anyone else.
But when people get authority because of their race then tyhat is racist - >>and
that is 3/5 waters.
You are a racist because you suppport that. I am not.
No specific authority - just the ability to ensure that as promised in
the Treaty, different perspectives are considered in reaching
solutions that affect us all.
On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 03:10:04 -0000 (UTC), TonySo why do you fail to provide a basis for your lies? Because lies they are.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 01:49:54 -0000 (UTC), TonyAbsolute bullshit - you are playing with words (aka lying).
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 00:55:20 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Councils will no ,longer be in control, a handful of people representing a >>>>minority of the population will be.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 21:20:05 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:WShat bullshit.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 19:39:34 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:This government was and may still be hell bent on removing control of >>>>>>>>water
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 05:09:07 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>As BR wrote - textbook fascism or is it textbook Marxism? >>>>>>>>>>Both have no place in this country.
On Thu, 02 Feb 2023 09:32:46 +1300, Crash >>>>>>>>>>>><nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
Br it is theft - because there is no purchase involved. >>>>>>>>>>>>>Ratepayer-owned water assets will remain ratepayer-owned but the >>>>>>>>>>>>>councils that own the assets are prohibited from operating them. >>>>>>>>>>>>>Each
Water entity is co-governed.
That sounds like textbook fascism to me. "You can own it but we'll >>>>>>>>>>>>tell you what you must do with it".
For all practical purposes they will own it.
Bill.
Very much like Watercare in Auckland. The reality is that they must >>>>>>>>>>>work closely with local authorities so that planning is 'joined up' -
what is important is that expertise will be better spread - Northland
does not have the resources to develop its own equivalent of >>>>>>>>>>>Watercare; government money is not the only answer; there must be >>>>>>>>>>>adequate people on the ground dealing with local problems as they >>>>>>>>>>>occur, but covering a much wider area than any local council if water
quantity and quality is to be delivered over such a large area >>>>>>>>>>>efficiently. The role of government is to ensure that money is well >>>>>>>>>>>spent by seeing that there is responsible planning, accountability >>>>>>>>>>>and
that expertise is shared. Local areas know that they cannot afford to
raise money for schools and hospitals from scratch, including >>>>>>>>>>>training
and recruitment of specialst staff - they rely on government systems >>>>>>>>>>>for that; water is becoming a complex system that requires New >>>>>>>>>>>Zealanders to work together to ensure the good of all - not solutions
only for high density areas that can afford systems and bugger the >>>>>>>>>>>country and country towns.
It is neither, Tony. Just sensible structures for a mix of local and >>>>>>>>>national issues. NZ Government provides standards and overall >>>>>>>>>policies, local people provide for local conditions. which for water >>>>>>>>>can vary considerably.
If you cannot identify anything that is either fascism or marxism - or >>>>>>>>>even tell the difference between them, perhaps the government has hit >>>>>>>>>on exactly the right mix of national / local responsibilities - >>>>>>>>>including government making a commitment to share costs . . . >>>>>>>>It is one or the other I suspect.
from the people and investing control in a minority race.
That is fact.
There are no plans to remove control of water from the people - a >>>>>>>future government could make changes. The danger of removing control >>>>>>>from the people lies in a future government selling off structures to >>>>>>>create privately controlled entities - National did that with the >>>>>>>electricity companies which has turned out to be contrary to the >>>>>>>interests of the public. Labour wanted to introduce such provisions >>>>>>>into legislation, but due to scare-mongering from the Opposition >>>>>>>parties, those provisions were not made. So there is a danger that a >>>>>>>future ACT/Nat government could privatise control of water - you are >>>>>>>correct to see that as a danger.
Labopur are currently removing control of water from elected councils. >>>>>>Period.
Show otherwise you sily fraud.
No opposition party is involved.
They are sharing both costs as well as planning and controls. Local >>>>>councils will still need to include water issues in plans, and will >>>>>have an interest in results. Central government is bringing money to >>>>>the arrangements together with enabling sufficietly large >>>>>organisations to meet operational needs in different areas to ensure >>>>>that standards start o be regularly met.
Councils will no longer have to meet al the costs, they will still
need to be aware of water issues and will need to be involved in >>>planning, but they will have a larger team that may well enable that >>>larger group to employ more specialists and to own more equipment so
that ratepayers will get better service without paying more - the >>>government is picking up some of the costs. Given we have had a clear >>>demonstration recently that there are major water issues to be sorted >>>out, what is there not to like?
As for who those invovled will represent, that is of course everyone >>>living or working in the area they cover - I suspect it may be more
than 5 people, but they will represent everyone - just as current >>>Councils and Government do.
Calling another poster a liar is no excuse for a lack of constructive >argument - or even any argument at all, Tony.
On 2023-02-03, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 10:10:08 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 09:47:10 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 09:16:07 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 08:27:25 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:Owned is correct, but many in Auckland would be surprised to hear that >>>>it is operated by Auckland Council. The role of Council is to appoint >>>>Directors. Yes there is contact / liaison / even cooperation between >>>>Watercare and the Auckland Council. This is a structure set up by a >>>>National Government, but is fairly similar to the Water entities under >>>>Three Waters
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 05:09:07 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Thu, 02 Feb 2023 09:32:46 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>wrote:
Br it is theft - because there is no purchase involved. >>>>>>>>Ratepayer-owned water assets will remain ratepayer-owned but the >>>>>>>>councils that own the assets are prohibited from operating them. Each >>>>>>>>Water entity is co-governed.
That sounds like textbook fascism to me. "You can own it but we'll >>>>>>>tell you what you must do with it".
For all practical purposes they will own it.
Bill.
Very much like Watercare in Auckland.
Totally incorrect. Watercare is owned by Auckland Council (ie a CCO), >>>>>so currently Auckland's water assets are entirely owned and operated >>>>>by Auckland Council. Water Entity A will operate these assets but >>>>>although Auckland Council still own them they have no control over >>>>>operation.
Absolutely incorrect. There are no similarities. The new Water
entity will simply take over an entity that Auckland owns and controls
in its entirety.
Agreed.
The reality is that they must
work closely with local authorities so that planning is 'joined up' - >>>>>>what is important is that expertise will be better spread - Northland >>>>>>does not have the resources to develop its own equivalent of >>>>>>Watercare;
Northland consists of 3 local bodies, each of which has chosen to >>>>>operate their own water services. This is related to their >>>>>circumstances, not their capability. Each council has a CCO for other >>>>>purposes. There are problems with water services in some of those >>>>>councils but they have the capability to address them in their >>>>>entirety (no major infrastructure projects required) and there has >>>>>never been any suggestion otherwise.
Such fragmentation is ineffeicient. There are problems that are >>>>stretching the ability of a lot of local councils to fund.
There is no undesirable fragmentation and significant by its absence
is any evidence that the Water Entities will be any more efficient
than local bodies.
So are you suggesting that rates should be increased to pay for the
work now needed? I cannnot see why a government should be expected to
bank-roll such work unless they have some say in the structures that
willbe looking to resolve both current and future problems.
Once again you seen to be confused. Any money the the Government has is The >Peoples' money. Gained from the tax payer. The Councils money like wise is >comes from the people, via rates.
So it is a matter of who pays and how much. The People need to agree to
this, not the Government, not the Councils.
government money is not the only answer; there must be
adequate people on the ground dealing with local problems as they >>>>>>occur, but covering a much wider area than any local council if water >>>>>>quantity and quality is to be delivered over such a large area >>>>>>efficiently. The role of government is to ensure that money is well >>>>>>spent by seeing that there is responsible planning, accountability and >>>>>>that expertise is shared. Local areas know that they cannot afford to >>>>>>raise money for schools and hospitals from scratch, including training >>>>>>and recruitment of specialst staff - they rely on government systems >>>>>>for that; water is becoming a complex system that requires New >>>>>>Zealanders to work together to ensure the good of all - not solutions >>>>>>only for high density areas that can afford systems and bugger the >>>>>>country and country towns.
Then leave Northland out of this - there is no centralised approach >>>>>required with all water services operating as needed now and into the >>>>>future. We say to Water Entity A - bugger off we don't want or need >>>>>you - we can and will provide our own solutions to any water issues as >>>>>we have in the past.
So are all water standards currently being met?
No - but there has is a plan in place and there are no public safety >>>issues. This is why I have always advocated that standards be set.
One council is 98% there - I don't know about the others. There is,
of course, no proof that Water Entity A will have any focus on
Northland.
Watercare currently has no responsibility for Northland - but the new
entity would - why would you believe that they would not address
problems for which they are responsible?
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 19:18:55 -0800 (PST), John BowesWrong. A decision by parliament absolutely can be undemocratic. 3/5 waters was an example of that.
<bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 4:10:04 PM UTC+13, Gordon wrote:
On 2023-02-03, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:The current Labour government and it's crony's have used undemocratic methods >>to push through their pet projects while refusing to take notice of submissions
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 21:20:05 -0000 (UTC), TonyLet us get on thing clear, it is not The People who will be in control, it >>> is a small group of Elites.
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 19:39:34 -0000 (UTC), TonyIt is one or the other I suspect.
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 05:09:07 +1300, BR <bl...@blah.blah> wrote:As BR wrote - textbook fascism or is it textbook Marxism?
On Thu, 02 Feb 2023 09:32:46 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >>> >>>>>>wrote:
Br it is theft - because there is no purchase involved.
Ratepayer-owned water assets will remain ratepayer-owned but the
councils that own the assets are prohibited from operating them.
Each
Water entity is co-governed.
That sounds like textbook fascism to me. "You can own it but we'll >>> >>>>>>tell you what you must do with it".
For all practical purposes they will own it.
Bill.
Very much like Watercare in Auckland. The reality is that they must >>> >>>>>work closely with local authorities so that planning is 'joined up' - >>> >>>>>what is important is that expertise will be better spread - Northland >>> >>>>>does not have the resources to develop its own equivalent of
Watercare; government money is not the only answer; there must be
adequate people on the ground dealing with local problems as they
occur, but covering a much wider area than any local council if water >>> >>>>>quantity and quality is to be delivered over such a large area
efficiently. The role of government is to ensure that money is well >>> >>>>>spent by seeing that there is responsible planning, accountability and >>> >>>>>that expertise is shared. Local areas know that they cannot afford to >>> >>>>>raise money for schools and hospitals from scratch, including training >>> >>>>>and recruitment of specialst staff - they rely on government systems >>> >>>>>for that; water is becoming a complex system that requires New
Zealanders to work together to ensure the good of all - not solutions >>> >>>>>only for high density areas that can afford systems and bugger the
country and country towns.
Both have no place in this country.
It is neither, Tony. Just sensible structures for a mix of local and
national issues. NZ Government provides standards and overall
policies, local people provide for local conditions. which for water
can vary considerably.
If you cannot identify anything that is either fascism or marxism - or >>> >>>even tell the difference between them, perhaps the government has hit >>> >>>on exactly the right mix of national / local responsibilities -
including government making a commitment to share costs . . .
This government was and may still be hell bent on removing control of
water
from the people and investing control in a minority race.
That is fact.
There are no plans to remove control of water from the people - a
future government could make changes. The danger of removing control
from the people lies in a future government selling off structures to
create privately controlled entities - National did that with the
electricity companies which has turned out to be contrary to the
interests of the public. Labour wanted to introduce such provisions
into legislation, but due to scare-mongering from the Opposition
parties, those provisions were not made. So there is a danger that a
future ACT/Nat government could privatise control of water - you are
correct to see that as a danger.
In a Democracy it is The People who are in control, not the Government. If >>> the Government is in control then there is a dictatorship. It matters not >>>if
there are elections.
The People have not voted for the 3 waters. The Labour Government did. The >>> People lost control. For this reason alone the 5 waters need to be revoked. >>
questioning/protesting against them. They may have been elected democratically
but since then they've acted like typical Marxist Totalitarian dictators! It's
why Arern got so much abuse. Yes the people might have voted it in but since >>then they've had no control over the government. Time for Labour/Green to be >>tossed like a used facemask...
3/5 waters should have been put to a referendum. What Mahuta did was totally >>undemocratic!
A vote in parliament canot be undemocratic. You are talking shit as
usual John.
On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 03:14:11 -0000 (UTC), TonyPathetic and childish logic.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 01:56:29 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 00:58:08 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:That is another lie.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 21:22:52 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:A bald faced lie. It was never called that.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 19:43:11 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:No. Taonga is something that is precious it has zero to do with >>>>>>>>ownership.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 03:29:44 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:The treaty has no mention of co-govewrnance or of anything like 3/5 >>>>>>>>>>waters
"morriss...@gmail.com" <morrisseybreen@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 5:25:20 AM UTC+13, BR wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 01 Feb 2023 21:23:32 +1300, Rich80105 >>>>>>>>>>>>>><Rich...@hotmail.com>
Firstly it is not nonsense. A word you use with no evidence to >>>>>>>>>>>>supportwrote:
https://emilywrites.substack.com/p/the-explainer-the-governments-three?
Whenever I see "Simon Wilson" and "climate crisis" in the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sentence, I know that a tirade of bullshit follows. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
3 waters has the potential to become a centralised, bloated, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>racist,
bureaucratic fiasco that will make the problem much worse. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Centralisation and racism have never improved anything, ever. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>be
forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist >>>>>>>>>>>>>> centralised bureaucracy.
If they get away with this unmandated dishonesty, other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>ratepayer
assets are likely to follow.
Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
"Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist >>>>>>>>>>>>>centralised bureaucracy."
That's nonsense, of course. But you have, unwittingly, described >>>>>>>>>>>>>exactly
what
was done to Maori in the nineteenth century, following the >>>>>>>>>>>>>confiscation
of
Waikato and Taranaki lands.
it.
Secondly what happened in the nineteenth century is two things - >>>>>>>>>>>>a. Irrelevant.
b. Usually misrepresented, hugely.
It is relevant due to the impact of an important contract - the >>>>>>>>>>>Treaty
of Waitangi.
and
what happened in the 19th century is almost completely irrelevant >>>>>>>>>>today.
From the article:
"Water is a taonga and is explicitly recognised in the Treaty of >>>>>>>>>Waitangi. Some manner of partnership between the Crown and tangata >>>>>>>>>whenua is therefore required."
The
article is biased and wrong.
Adequate protection of taonga can possibly be done in a number of ways >>>>>>>- Cullen and then Finlayson found that cooperation agreements (called >>>>>>>'co-governance' by the National government) were a good way of >>>>>>>achieving settlement on such issues.
And the treaty is completely silent on it. You keep lying.
The Treaty presumes that both parties will fulfill their obligations - >>>>>settlement for grievances relating to the Treaty not being followed >>>>>have been achieved in a wide number of ways - the co-governance >>>>>arrangements put together with (and supported by ) Finlayson have >>>>>benen called 'co-governance'. I am less clear about whether the >>>>>expression was used previously.
But completely off topic. I don't give a fig what they called anything. the >>>>co-gopvernmance you suppport is plain racism.
I agree with you that whatever it is called is irrelevant - it is an >>>arrangement that meets obligations under the Treaty,
No it damn well is not and you keep telling that lie - you have not ever >>provided any cite to show that to be other than a lie.
but moreIt is not semantices you profound faker. The difference is massive.
importantly brings together people with different perspectives to >>>co-operate together, liaising with Government and many local
authorites to work on a large number of water related issues so that
we can rely on systems that deliver clean water and adequately dispose
of waste and storm water without poinoning rivers and beaches. Current >>>arrangements are failing on all three. So call it co-management if you >>>prefer, but semantics aside
, I expect good things from a higher levelAnother lie. There have been a few isolated problems and all are fixed or >>have
of spending to solve the manifest problems we have seen so starkly in >>>Auckland and other areas in the last year - having drinkable water
will be welcome to Canterbury small towns for example.
plans in place.
Show otherwise.
Your unsupported claim - prove it!
In a post full of bilious ignorance, this quote by our friend Bill takes the cake:
"colonisation had quite possibly saved Maori from extinction."
????!!!!?!?!?!?!?
Bill, tell us, will you: are you David "Dumbo" Seymour's speechwriter?
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 19:18:55 -0800 (PST), John Bowesthey've acted like typical Marxist Totalitarian dictators! It's why Arern got so much abuse. Yes the people might have voted it in but since then they've had no control over the government. Time for Labour/Green to be tossed like a used facemask...
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 4:10:04 PM UTC+13, Gordon wrote:
On 2023-02-03, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 21:20:05 -0000 (UTC), TonyLet us get on thing clear, it is not The People who will be in control, it
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 19:39:34 -0000 (UTC), TonyIt is one or the other I suspect.
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 05:09:07 +1300, BR <bl...@blah.blah> wrote:As BR wrote - textbook fascism or is it textbook Marxism?
On Thu, 02 Feb 2023 09:32:46 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
Br it is theft - because there is no purchase involved.
Ratepayer-owned water assets will remain ratepayer-owned but the >> >>>>>>>councils that own the assets are prohibited from operating them. Each
Water entity is co-governed.
That sounds like textbook fascism to me. "You can own it but we'll >> >>>>>>tell you what you must do with it".
For all practical purposes they will own it.
Bill.
Very much like Watercare in Auckland. The reality is that they must >> >>>>>work closely with local authorities so that planning is 'joined up' -
what is important is that expertise will be better spread - Northland
does not have the resources to develop its own equivalent of
Watercare; government money is not the only answer; there must be
adequate people on the ground dealing with local problems as they
occur, but covering a much wider area than any local council if water
quantity and quality is to be delivered over such a large area
efficiently. The role of government is to ensure that money is well >> >>>>>spent by seeing that there is responsible planning, accountability and
that expertise is shared. Local areas know that they cannot afford to
raise money for schools and hospitals from scratch, including training
and recruitment of specialst staff - they rely on government systems >> >>>>>for that; water is becoming a complex system that requires New
Zealanders to work together to ensure the good of all - not solutions
only for high density areas that can afford systems and bugger the >> >>>>>country and country towns.
Both have no place in this country.
It is neither, Tony. Just sensible structures for a mix of local and >> >>>national issues. NZ Government provides standards and overall
policies, local people provide for local conditions. which for water >> >>>can vary considerably.
If you cannot identify anything that is either fascism or marxism - or >> >>>even tell the difference between them, perhaps the government has hit >> >>>on exactly the right mix of national / local responsibilities -
including government making a commitment to share costs . . .
This government was and may still be hell bent on removing control of water
from the people and investing control in a minority race.
That is fact.
There are no plans to remove control of water from the people - a
future government could make changes. The danger of removing control
from the people lies in a future government selling off structures to >> > create privately controlled entities - National did that with the
electricity companies which has turned out to be contrary to the
interests of the public. Labour wanted to introduce such provisions
into legislation, but due to scare-mongering from the Opposition
parties, those provisions were not made. So there is a danger that a
future ACT/Nat government could privatise control of water - you are
correct to see that as a danger.
is a small group of Elites.
In a Democracy it is The People who are in control, not the Government. If
the Government is in control then there is a dictatorship. It matters not if
there are elections.
The People have not voted for the 3 waters. The Labour Government did. The
People lost control. For this reason alone the 5 waters need to be revoked.
The current Labour government and it's crony's have used undemocratic methods to push through their pet projects while refusing to take notice of submissions questioning/protesting against them. They may have been elected democratically but since then
3/5 waters should have been put to a referendum. What Mahuta did was totally undemocratic!A vote in parliament canot be undemocratic. You are talking shit as
usual John.
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 19:12:07 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 3:51:23 PM UTC+13, Crash wrote:That is the choice of political parties who determine who goes on
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 13:44:22 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>If Rich could get his head out of his arse and look at the make up of our parliament he'd see that we do in fact have co governance as the percentage of Maori exceeds the percentage of the population that claim Maori descent...
wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 10:15:03 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>I was outlining that we have gone 182 years since the Treaty was
wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 09:51:58 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>Ownership of the banks is not the same as ownership of the water, or
wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 09:18:58 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >> >>>wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 08:54:50 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >> >>>>wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 19:43:11 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 03:29:44 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe treaty has no mention of co-govewrnance or of anything like 3/5 waters and
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
"morriss...@gmail.com" <morriss...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 5:25:20 AM UTC+13, BR wrote:Firstly it is not nonsense. A word you use with no evidence to support it.
On Wed, 01 Feb 2023 21:23:32 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
https://emilywrites.substack.com/p/the-explainer-the-governments-three?
Whenever I see "Simon Wilson" and "climate crisis" in the same >> >>>>>>>>>> sentence, I know that a tirade of bullshit follows.
3 waters has the potential to become a centralised, bloated, racist,
bureaucratic fiasco that will make the problem much worse.
Centralisation and racism have never improved anything, ever. >> >>>>>>>>>>
Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be
forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist >> >>>>>>>>>> centralised bureaucracy.
If they get away with this unmandated dishonesty, other ratepayer
assets are likely to follow.
Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
"Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be
forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist
centralised bureaucracy."
That's nonsense, of course. But you have, unwittingly, described exactly
what
was done to Maori in the nineteenth century, following the confiscation of
Waikato and Taranaki lands.
Secondly what happened in the nineteenth century is two things - >> >>>>>>>>a. Irrelevant.
b. Usually misrepresented, hugely.
It is relevant due to the impact of an important contract - the Treaty
of Waitangi.
what happened in the 19th century is almost completely irrelevant today.
From the article:
"Water is a taonga and is explicitly recognised in the Treaty of
Waitangi. Some manner of partnership between the Crown and tangata >> >>>>>whenua is therefore required."
So how come it has taken 182 years to raise this? Current governance >> >>>>of water supply has been fine up to now. Co-governance is a solution >> >>>>for which there is no problem.
Foreshore and Seabed? Radio Frequencies?
Are you serious? No water there.
Wanganui River? Waikato
River?
Owned by Waikato Regional Council and co-managed.
of the river-bed.
Language does not always follow your preferences, Crash - which I
For those last two, Labour and then National agreed to
structures which are now being called ''co-governance"
For the 100th time - they are co-managed, not co-governed as Water
Entities are.
acknowledged by saying that is what they are called.
I was responding to a query "how come it has taken 182 years to raise
For Treaty
Claims, land has been a priority for most Maori claims - seems
understandable to me. . .
Irrelevant. Nothing to do with water assets.
this?"
signed without co-governance as defined in the Water reforms
legislation. There is no precedent and after 182 years there is no
logical justification for using the Treaty to justify an undemocratic
and racist reform that favours those who are descended from Maori
prior to the arrival of non-Maori.
--
Crash McBash
their lists. Each vote has exactly the same effect on determining how
many from each party will be in parliament. The system does not care
about the racial background of any candidate.
On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 5:08:23 AM UTC+13, BR wrote:
On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 19:18:07 -0800 (PST), "morriss...@gmail.com" <morriss...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 5:25:20 AM UTC+13, BR wrote:
On Wed, 01 Feb 2023 21:23:32 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
https://emilywrites.substack.com/p/the-explainer-the-governments-three? >>Whenever I see "Simon Wilson" and "climate crisis" in the same
sentence, I know that a tirade of bullshit follows.
3 waters has the potential to become a centralised, bloated, racist,
bureaucratic fiasco that will make the problem much worse.
Centralisation and racism have never improved anything, ever.
Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be
forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist
centralised bureaucracy.
If they get away with this unmandated dishonesty, other ratepayer
assets are likely to follow.
Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
"Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be >forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist
centralised bureaucracy."
That's nonsense, of course. But you have, unwittingly, described exactly what was done to Maori in the nineteenth century, following the confiscation of Waikato and Taranaki lands.There was no such thing as property rights in pre-colonial New
Zealand. Property rights cannot exist without universal recognition.
Land was not owned, it was occupied, that's all. There are no accurate records of the occupations or of their history, just hearsay and
rumours. Pre European tribal Maori owned nothing. The whole treaty compensation process is a scam. Nobody owes the tribal elite a damn
thing. If anything they should be grateful, because colonisation had
quite possibly saved Maori from extinction. Treaty grievance claims
and three waters benefit only the tribal elite, and always at the
expense of everyone else, including most working Maori.
Bill.
In a post full of bilious ignorance, this quote by our friend Bill takes the cake:
"colonisation had quite possibly saved Maori from extinction."
????!!!!?!?!?!?!?
Bill, tell us, will you: are you David "Dumbo" Seymour's speechwriter?
On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 03:08:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 01:51:07 -0000 (UTC), TonyI did not say that you half wit.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 00:55:20 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Off topic but as an aside the arraggements are not co-operative. They are >>>>dominated by Maori.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:But the example they left from a previous time in government is why >>>>>our electricity costs are higher than necessary - a problem that is >>>>>now very difficult and expensive to reverse. Maori invovlement in the >>>>>co-operative arrangements will ensure we do not see that sort of >>>>>diaster again.
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 21:20:05 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:WShat bullshit.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 19:39:34 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:This government was and may still be hell bent on removing control of >>>>>>>>water
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 05:09:07 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>As BR wrote - textbook fascism or is it textbook Marxism? >>>>>>>>>>Both have no place in this country.
On Thu, 02 Feb 2023 09:32:46 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
Br it is theft - because there is no purchase involved. >>>>>>>>>>>>>Ratepayer-owned water assets will remain ratepayer-owned but the >>>>>>>>>>>>>councils that own the assets are prohibited from operating them. >>>>>>>>>>>>>Each
Water entity is co-governed.
That sounds like textbook fascism to me. "You can own it but we'll >>>>>>>>>>>>tell you what you must do with it".
For all practical purposes they will own it.
Bill.
Very much like Watercare in Auckland. The reality is that they must >>>>>>>>>>>work closely with local authorities so that planning is 'joined up' -
what is important is that expertise will be better spread - Northland
does not have the resources to develop its own equivalent of >>>>>>>>>>>Watercare; government money is not the only answer; there must be >>>>>>>>>>>adequate people on the ground dealing with local problems as they >>>>>>>>>>>occur, but covering a much wider area than any local council if water
quantity and quality is to be delivered over such a large area >>>>>>>>>>>efficiently. The role of government is to ensure that money is well >>>>>>>>>>>spent by seeing that there is responsible planning, accountability and
that expertise is shared. Local areas know that they cannot afford to
raise money for schools and hospitals from scratch, including training
and recruitment of specialst staff - they rely on government systems >>>>>>>>>>>for that; water is becoming a complex system that requires New >>>>>>>>>>>Zealanders to work together to ensure the good of all - not solutions
only for high density areas that can afford systems and bugger the >>>>>>>>>>>country and country towns.
It is neither, Tony. Just sensible structures for a mix of local and >>>>>>>>>national issues. NZ Government provides standards and overall >>>>>>>>>policies, local people provide for local conditions. which for water >>>>>>>>>can vary considerably.
If you cannot identify anything that is either fascism or marxism - or >>>>>>>>>even tell the difference between them, perhaps the government has hit >>>>>>>>>on exactly the right mix of national / local responsibilities - >>>>>>>>>including government making a commitment to share costs . . . >>>>>>>>It is one or the other I suspect.
from the people and investing control in a minority race.
That is fact.
There are no plans to remove control of water from the people - a >>>>>>>future government could make changes. The danger of removing control >>>>>>>from the people lies in a future government selling off structures to >>>>>>>create privately controlled entities - National did that with the >>>>>>>electricity companies which has turned out to be contrary to the >>>>>>>interests of the public. Labour wanted to introduce such provisions >>>>>>>into legislation, but due to scare-mongering from the Opposition >>>>>>>parties, those provisions were not made. So there is a danger that a >>>>>>>future ACT/Nat government could privatise control of water - you are >>>>>>>correct to see that as a danger.
Labopur are currently removing control of water from elected councils. >>>>>>Period.
Show otherwise you sily fraud.
No opposition party is involved.
There you go again, playing the racist card . . . There is no
evidence that people with Maori ancestry have any less ability to work >>>co-operatively than anyone else.
But when people get authority because of their race then tyhat is racist - and
that is 3/5 waters.
You are a racist because you suppport that. I am not.
No specific authority - just the ability to ensure that as promised in
the Treaty, different perspectives are considered in reaching
solutions that affect us all.
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 15:40:36 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 13:39:50 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:Others in the media have pointed out that one of the reasons for the
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 10:10:08 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:I have never mentioned rates increases or Government intervention.
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 09:47:10 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 09:16:07 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 08:27:25 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:Owned is correct, but many in Auckland would be surprised to hear that >>>>>it is operated by Auckland Council. The role of Council is to appoint >>>>>Directors. Yes there is contact / liaison / even cooperation between >>>>>Watercare and the Auckland Council. This is a structure set up by a >>>>>National Government, but is fairly similar to the Water entities under >>>>>Three Waters
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 05:09:07 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Thu, 02 Feb 2023 09:32:46 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>wrote:
Br it is theft - because there is no purchase involved. >>>>>>>>>Ratepayer-owned water assets will remain ratepayer-owned but the >>>>>>>>>councils that own the assets are prohibited from operating them. Each >>>>>>>>>Water entity is co-governed.
That sounds like textbook fascism to me. "You can own it but we'll >>>>>>>>tell you what you must do with it".
For all practical purposes they will own it.
Bill.
Very much like Watercare in Auckland.
Totally incorrect. Watercare is owned by Auckland Council (ie a CCO), >>>>>>so currently Auckland's water assets are entirely owned and operated >>>>>>by Auckland Council. Water Entity A will operate these assets but >>>>>>although Auckland Council still own them they have no control over >>>>>>operation.
Absolutely incorrect. There are no similarities. The new Water
entity will simply take over an entity that Auckland owns and controls >>>>in its entirety.
Agreed.
The reality is that they must
work closely with local authorities so that planning is 'joined up' - >>>>>>>what is important is that expertise will be better spread - Northland >>>>>>>does not have the resources to develop its own equivalent of >>>>>>>Watercare;
Northland consists of 3 local bodies, each of which has chosen to >>>>>>operate their own water services. This is related to their >>>>>>circumstances, not their capability. Each council has a CCO for other >>>>>>purposes. There are problems with water services in some of those >>>>>>councils but they have the capability to address them in their >>>>>>entirety (no major infrastructure projects required) and there has >>>>>>never been any suggestion otherwise.
Such fragmentation is ineffeicient. There are problems that are >>>>>stretching the ability of a lot of local councils to fund.
There is no undesirable fragmentation and significant by its absence
is any evidence that the Water Entities will be any more efficient
than local bodies.
So are you suggesting that rates should be increased to pay for the
work now needed? I cannnot see why a government should be expected to >>>bank-roll such work unless they have some say in the structures that >>>willbe looking to resolve both current and future problems.
There may be some local bodies where this is needed but if so the
solution must be customised to those local bodies only.
problems we do have is the difficulty of either cities or rural areas
would have to raise rates to pay for systems to meet desirable (and >"mandatory'') quality standards.
The recent heavy rain has identified a nunber of problems, including I >believe some in Northland which may however only relate to stormwater >systems; I do not have enogh information. Most areas that have been
affected however would however have difficulty paying for significant >upgrades, and most areas do have problems with at least one aspect of
three waters. Some parts of Northland have had problems with supply
of clean water in the past - to have to reply on trucked water is not
what an area should really expect.
government money is not the only answer; there must be
adequate people on the ground dealing with local problems as they >>>>>>>occur, but covering a much wider area than any local council if water >>>>>>>quantity and quality is to be delivered over such a large area >>>>>>>efficiently. The role of government is to ensure that money is well >>>>>>>spent by seeing that there is responsible planning, accountability and >>>>>>>that expertise is shared. Local areas know that they cannot afford to >>>>>>>raise money for schools and hospitals from scratch, including training >>>>>>>and recruitment of specialst staff - they rely on government systems >>>>>>>for that; water is becoming a complex system that requires New >>>>>>>Zealanders to work together to ensure the good of all - not solutions >>>>>>>only for high density areas that can afford systems and bugger the >>>>>>>country and country towns.
Then leave Northland out of this - there is no centralised approach >>>>>>required with all water services operating as needed now and into the >>>>>>future. We say to Water Entity A - bugger off we don't want or need >>>>>>you - we can and will provide our own solutions to any water issues as >>>>>>we have in the past.
So are all water standards currently being met?
No - but there has is a plan in place and there are no public safety >>>>issues. This is why I have always advocated that standards be set.
One council is 98% there - I don't know about the others. There is,
of course, no proof that Water Entity A will have any focus on >>>>Northland.
Watercare currently has no responsibility for Northland - but the new >>>entity would - why would you believe that they would not address
problems for which they are responsible?
That is not the question. The question is would Water Entity A do a
better job than the current Northland local bodies. As 50% of Water
Entity A directors are appointed by iwi, Northland local bodies
governance and operational control of their water assets go from 100%
to zero effectively. All this when there is no substantial problem to
fix with current water assets.
More money would certainly help, but I understand there would be
concerns given the disaster of flooding in Auckland - would priority
to the City actually starve other areas? That is where government
would need to ensure that funding is targetted to meet the needs of
all areas - overall, more money being available has to be good for
most if not all areas; and over time definately to all. Engagement
with all local authorities is just as important as previously.
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 15:51:20 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 13:44:22 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 10:15:03 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 09:51:58 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:Ownership of the banks is not the same as ownership of the water, or
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 09:18:58 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 08:54:50 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 19:43:11 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 03:29:44 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:The treaty has no mention of co-govewrnance or of anything like 3/5 waters and
"morriss...@gmail.com" <morrisseybreen@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 5:25:20 AM UTC+13, BR wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 01 Feb 2023 21:23:32 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
Firstly it is not nonsense. A word you use with no evidence to support it.wrote:
https://emilywrites.substack.com/p/the-explainer-the-governments-three?
Whenever I see "Simon Wilson" and "climate crisis" in the same >>>>>>>>>>>> sentence, I know that a tirade of bullshit follows.
3 waters has the potential to become a centralised, bloated, racist,
bureaucratic fiasco that will make the problem much worse. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Centralisation and racism have never improved anything, ever. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be >>>>>>>>>>>> forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist >>>>>>>>>>>> centralised bureaucracy.
If they get away with this unmandated dishonesty, other ratepayer >>>>>>>>>>>> assets are likely to follow.
Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
"Three waters is theft. The ratepayer owned water assets are to be >>>>>>>>>>>forcibly purchased for a pittance and handed over to a racist >>>>>>>>>>>centralised bureaucracy."
That's nonsense, of course. But you have, unwittingly, described exactly
what
was done to Maori in the nineteenth century, following the confiscation of
Waikato and Taranaki lands.
Secondly what happened in the nineteenth century is two things - >>>>>>>>>>a. Irrelevant.
b. Usually misrepresented, hugely.
It is relevant due to the impact of an important contract - the Treaty >>>>>>>>>of Waitangi.
what happened in the 19th century is almost completely irrelevant today.
From the article:
"Water is a taonga and is explicitly recognised in the Treaty of >>>>>>>Waitangi. Some manner of partnership between the Crown and tangata >>>>>>>whenua is therefore required."
So how come it has taken 182 years to raise this? Current governance >>>>>>of water supply has been fine up to now. Co-governance is a solution >>>>>>for which there is no problem.
Foreshore and Seabed? Radio Frequencies?
Are you serious? No water there.
Wanganui River? Waikato
River?
Owned by Waikato Regional Council and co-managed.
of the river-bed.
Language does not always follow your preferences, Crash - which I >>>acknowledged by saying that is what they are called.
For those last two, Labour and then National agreed to
structures which are now being called ''co-governance"
For the 100th time - they are co-managed, not co-governed as Water >>>>Entities are.
I was responding to a query "how come it has taken 182 years to raise >>>this?"
For Treaty
Claims, land has been a priority for most Maori claims - seems >>>>>understandable to me. . .
Irrelevant. Nothing to do with water assets.
I was outlining that we have gone 182 years since the Treaty was
signed without co-governance as defined in the Water reforms
legislation. There is no precedent and after 182 years there is no
logical justification for using the Treaty to justify an undemocratic
and racist reform that favours those who are descended from Maori
prior to the arrival of non-Maori.
So what sanctions against non-compliance of the Treaty were included
in the Treaty? The redress is being determined by an independent
specialist Court - what other method do you propose?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 102:26:25 |
| Calls: | 6,660 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,334,988 |