https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/analysis-the-three-biggest-lessons-from-aucklands-historic-floods/SKKD6HGILZENPMN2WKC5Q3MP4I/
It will not be easy, but I am sure that working together - government
with local authorities, and consulting with local communities,
businesses and interest groups is the way to go.
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 18:19:39 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>They did consult with local authorities for the Three Waters
wrote:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/analysis-the-three-biggest-lessons-from-aucklands-historic-floods/SKKD6HGILZENPMN2WKC5Q3MP4I/
It will not be easy, but I am sure that working together - government
with local authorities, and consulting with local communities,
businesses and interest groups is the way to go.
So a U-turn on Water reforms is needed. The current government does
indeed need to consult with local authorities on this.
LocalIf they are not considered that may slow down response - there could
authorities need to consult with interested groups within their
territory. Pre-conceived political policies (such as co-governance)
need not be considered unless the final decisions justify the concept
that community-owned water assets can be co-managed with Maori
descendants on a basis of fair equity in the area that each local body >operates in.
Labour cannot be trusted to do this, National do not currently have a
policy that meets these criteria.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/analysis-the-three-biggest-lessons-from-aucklands-historic-floods/SKKD6HGILZENPMN2WKC5Q3MP4I/
It will not be easy, but I am sure that working together - government
with local authorities, and consulting with local communities,
businesses and interest groups is the way to go.
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 18:19:39 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>You forgot pumps for stormwater where they'd get flooded in extreme events...
wrote: >https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/analysis-the-three-biggest-lessons-from-aucklands-historic-floods/SKKD6HGILZENPMN2WKC5Q3MP4I/
It will not be easy, but I am sure that working together - governmentEvery time there is an extreme weather event, all the climate hustlers
with local authorities, and consulting with local communities,
businesses and interest groups is the way to go.
and political hacks come crawling out of the trash pile to promote
their agenda.
The truth is that all the overpaid bureaucrats in the Auckland council
don't really believe in the phony climate narrative. If they did, the millions of dollars they've poured into clogging Auckland's streets
with empty buses, underground trains, traffic obstructions, bike lanes
and kickbacks for EV owners etc. would have been spent on fattening up Auckland's stormwater reticulation. That is core business for the
council and should have been near the top of their priority list. If
they had done that in the flood prone areas, the infrastructure would
have coped. They didn't see the flood coming and neither did anybody
else. However, everyone is expected to believe that these people know
what the climate will do decades into the future in spite of the fact
that every climate disaster prediction published in the last 50 years
has failed to eventuate.
Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 18:19:39 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/analysis-the-three-biggest-lessons-from-aucklands-historic-floods/SKKD6HGILZENPMN2WKC5Q3MP4I/
It will not be easy, but I am sure that working together - government
with local authorities, and consulting with local communities,
businesses and interest groups is the way to go.
Every time there is an extreme weather event, all the climate hustlers
and political hacks come crawling out of the trash pile to promote
their agenda.
The truth is that all the overpaid bureaucrats in the Auckland council
don't really believe in the phony climate narrative. If they did, the >millions of dollars they've poured into clogging Auckland's streets
with empty buses, underground trains, traffic obstructions, bike lanes
and kickbacks for EV owners etc. would have been spent on fattening up >Auckland's stormwater reticulation. That is core business for the
council and should have been near the top of their priority list. If
they had done that in the flood prone areas, the infrastructure would
have coped. They didn't see the flood coming and neither did anybody
else. However, everyone is expected to believe that these people know
what the climate will do decades into the future in spite of the fact
that every climate disaster prediction published in the last 50 years
has failed to eventuate.
Bill.
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 20:10:36 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 18:19:39 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:They did consult with local authorities for the Three Waters
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/analysis-the-three-biggest-lessons-from-aucklands-historic-floods/SKKD6HGILZENPMN2WKC5Q3MP4I/
It will not be easy, but I am sure that working together - government >>>with local authorities, and consulting with local communities,
businesses and interest groups is the way to go.
So a U-turn on Water reforms is needed. The current government does
indeed need to consult with local authorities on this.
legislation.
I agree that the events of this last week are likely to
see some changes - certainly the needs of local authorities have
changed - Southland for example was asking for government assistance
for work relating to river banks; Auckland needs have changed
suddently as covered in the article.
LocalIf they are not considered that may slow down response - there could
authorities need to consult with interested groups within their
territory. Pre-conceived political policies (such as co-governance)
need not be considered unless the final decisions justify the concept
that community-owned water assets can be co-managed with Maori
descendants on a basis of fair equity in the area that each local body >>operates in.
well be an appeal to the Waitangi Tribunal, similar to the Foreshore
and Sebad protest; but it is certainly one way of making sure that >consultation is not token but real - and that includes as you say with >interested groups - but some actions will be needed quickly. An
alternative that I have suggested for the short term is to set up
structures under the legislaition for areas where local councils want
to participate; that may enable some work to start quickly while
solutions for other areas are considered without quite the same
urgency.
Labour cannot be trusted to do this, National do not currently have a >>policy that meets these criteria.
Actions are needed before the next election. National have said they
will repeal Labour's legislation, but not what they would replace it
with - and I cannot see them just handing money over to Councils
without input on where that money goes.
The previous National
Government was enthusastically following the co-governance route,
which has made it difficult for the current or any future government
to claim that it does not work - it clearly does.
Which leaved National apparently not able to cope with serious issues
such as oour water problems. It has been suggested that while they
would repeal legislation, they would put back fairly much the same
thing, including formal consultation in a similar way to the Waikato >agreement that brought us the expression co-governance. But why would
we want to leave it to a party that is not prepared to talk about any >policies for such an urgent problem - we need work done before the
election.
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 22:02:05 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 20:10:36 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 18:19:39 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:They did consult with local authorities for the Three Waters
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/analysis-the-three-biggest-lessons-from-aucklands-historic-floods/SKKD6HGILZENPMN2WKC5Q3MP4I/
It will not be easy, but I am sure that working together - government >>>>with local authorities, and consulting with local communities, >>>>businesses and interest groups is the way to go.
So a U-turn on Water reforms is needed. The current government does >>>indeed need to consult with local authorities on this.
legislation.
Correct but they ignored the fact that most local authorities were
opposed to the reforms. Originally Labour offered an opt-out option
but this was withdrawn when it became apparent that a significant
number of local authorities indicated they would opt out - including
Auckland Council with a Labour ex-cabinet-member as Mayor.
So yes Labour consulted, but the response was to ignore concerns and
to remove the opt-out option.
I agree that the events of this last week are likely toMost local bodies have not asked for and do not need assistance with
see some changes - certainly the needs of local authorities have
changed - Southland for example was asking for government assistance
for work relating to river banks; Auckland needs have changed
suddently as covered in the article.
weather bombs. This is no justification for the Water reforms.
LocalIf they are not considered that may slow down response - there could
authorities need to consult with interested groups within their >>>territory. Pre-conceived political policies (such as co-governance) >>>need not be considered unless the final decisions justify the concept >>>that community-owned water assets can be co-managed with Maori >>>descendants on a basis of fair equity in the area that each local body >>>operates in.
well be an appeal to the Waitangi Tribunal, similar to the Foreshore
and Sebad protest; but it is certainly one way of making sure that >>consultation is not token but real - and that includes as you say with >>interested groups - but some actions will be needed quickly. An
alternative that I have suggested for the short term is to set up >>structures under the legislaition for areas where local councils want
to participate; that may enable some work to start quickly while
solutions for other areas are considered without quite the same
urgency.
Labour are a long way from making these concessions, and I am sure
that any change will be a difficult sell to their Maori caucus
members. They will not tolerate the removal of compulsory
co-governance measures particularly, with opt-out also being needed.
Labour cannot be trusted to do this, National do not currently have a >>>policy that meets these criteria.
Actions are needed before the next election. National have said they
will repeal Labour's legislation, but not what they would replace it
with - and I cannot see them just handing money over to Councils
without input on where that money goes.
I agree with that - National will need to publish a Water reforms
policy that addresses the issue for each local body that opts in.
The previous NationalSenseless repetition of a lie does not change the fact you lie when
Government was enthusastically following the co-governance route,
which has made it difficult for the current or any future government
to claim that it does not work - it clearly does.
you say this. National went down the co-management route, not the >co-governance route as defined in the current Water reforms
legislation, and it works specifically because co-management is
different to co-governance.
Which leaved National apparently not able to cope with serious issues
such as oour water problems. It has been suggested that while they
would repeal legislation, they would put back fairly much the same
thing, including formal consultation in a similar way to the Waikato >>agreement that brought us the expression co-governance. But why would
we want to leave it to a party that is not prepared to talk about any >>policies for such an urgent problem - we need work done before the >>election.
Pure political rhetoric Rich. I agree National needs to put forward a
plan that goes beyond the promised repeal of the current legislation.
That plan does not exist publicly yet so your speculation is as
pointless as it is useless.
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 08:22:26 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 18:19:39 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/analysis-the-three-biggest-lessons-from-aucklands-historic-floods/SKKD6HGILZENPMN2WKC5Q3MP4I/
It will not be easy, but I am sure that working together - government >>>with local authorities, and consulting with local communities,
businesses and interest groups is the way to go.
Every time there is an extreme weather event, all the climate hustlers
and political hacks come crawling out of the trash pile to promote
their agenda.
The truth is that all the overpaid bureaucrats in the Auckland council >>don't really believe in the phony climate narrative. If they did, the >>millions of dollars they've poured into clogging Auckland's streets
with empty buses, underground trains, traffic obstructions, bike lanes
and kickbacks for EV owners etc. would have been spent on fattening up >>Auckland's stormwater reticulation. That is core business for the
council and should have been near the top of their priority list. If
they had done that in the flood prone areas, the infrastructure would
have coped. They didn't see the flood coming and neither did anybody
else. However, everyone is expected to believe that these people know
what the climate will do decades into the future in spite of the fact
that every climate disaster prediction published in the last 50 years
has failed to eventuate.
Bill.
The overpaid bureaucrats did not however make the decision not to
spend more money on stormwater articulation - those decisions are made
by Council.
Brown was elected to get rid of expensive waste, not to
increase rates.
Some people did know the dangers of flooding - quite a few of the
houses with yellowand red stickers have been flooded before; they just
didn't know when it was going to happen.
Then there are those that knew of the beach pollution due to
inadequate systems - sewage getting into stormwater has meant an
increasing number of times that beaches have had to be closed.
But spending on water systems has been up to the structure created by
a previous National Government - the control over water priorities by
Cuncil is restricted to the amount of money they give them and
appointing directors - apparently that is enough community input. But
I have been please by the statements from many Aucklanders that they
do not need assistance from central govenment because Watercare is
providing everything that Auckland needs - a good system that may have
a few minor problems but is doing better than water systems elsewhere
around New Zealand. That's good, because I am in Wellington and we
need Three Waters and money from central government. Wellington has
had 'keep the rates down' councils as much as anywhere else, and the
ability for any council to make large changes is very limited - we
know that much of our infrastructure is getting very old, that
population density has increased significantly, and that we need a lot
of work done.
I hope the governmetn gets going on starting with Councils that are
prepared to enter into partnership with central government - I want
problems in my local area given priority. Good on Aucklanders for
their altruism and faith in Cit-Rats . . .
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 10:17:55 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 22:02:05 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 20:10:36 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 18:19:39 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:They did consult with local authorities for the Three Waters >>legislation.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/analysis-the-three-biggest-lessons-from-aucklands-historic-floods/SKKD6HGILZENPMN2WKC5Q3MP4I/
It will not be easy, but I am sure that working together - government >>>>with local authorities, and consulting with local communities, >>>>businesses and interest groups is the way to go.
So a U-turn on Water reforms is needed. The current government does >>>indeed need to consult with local authorities on this.
Correct but they ignored the fact that most local authorities were
opposed to the reforms. Originally Labour offered an opt-out option
but this was withdrawn when it became apparent that a significant
number of local authorities indicated they would opt out - including >Auckland Council with a Labour ex-cabinet-member as Mayor.
So yes Labour consulted, but the response was to ignore concerns and
to remove the opt-out option.
I agree that the events of this last week are likely toMost local bodies have not asked for and do not need assistance with >weather bombs. This is no justification for the Water reforms.
see some changes - certainly the needs of local authorities have
changed - Southland for example was asking for government assistance
for work relating to river banks; Auckland needs have changed
suddently as covered in the article.
LocalIf they are not considered that may slow down response - there could >>well be an appeal to the Waitangi Tribunal, similar to the Foreshore
authorities need to consult with interested groups within their >>>territory. Pre-conceived political policies (such as co-governance) >>>need not be considered unless the final decisions justify the concept >>>that community-owned water assets can be co-managed with Maori >>>descendants on a basis of fair equity in the area that each local body >>>operates in.
and Sebad protest; but it is certainly one way of making sure that >>consultation is not token but real - and that includes as you say with >>interested groups - but some actions will be needed quickly. An >>alternative that I have suggested for the short term is to set up >>structures under the legislaition for areas where local councils want
to participate; that may enable some work to start quickly while >>solutions for other areas are considered without quite the same
urgency.
Labour are a long way from making these concessions, and I am sure
that any change will be a difficult sell to their Maori caucus
members. They will not tolerate the removal of compulsory
co-governance measures particularly, with opt-out also being needed.
Labour cannot be trusted to do this, National do not currently have a >>>policy that meets these criteria.
Actions are needed before the next election. National have said they >>will repeal Labour's legislation, but not what they would replace it >>with - and I cannot see them just handing money over to Councils
without input on where that money goes.
I agree with that - National will need to publish a Water reforms
policy that addresses the issue for each local body that opts in.
The previous NationalSenseless repetition of a lie does not change the fact you lie when
Government was enthusastically following the co-governance route,
which has made it difficult for the current or any future government
to claim that it does not work - it clearly does.
you say this. National went down the co-management route, not the >co-governance route as defined in the current Water reforms
legislation, and it works specifically because co-management is
different to co-governance. https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/02/waitangi-tribunal-recommendations-should-be-rejected-as-consequence-could-be-kiwis-rights-up-in-air-david-seymour.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
There is a video atthe top - watch from 1:57 in - National know that
Labour is just using the name that Chris Finlayson used when they
followed a solution used by Michael Cullen for the Wanganui River.
National are not saying that they would do anything different in the
next term
The problem with the words of David Seymour is that he appears to
believe that government can unilaterally amend a contract by
legislation - the TReaty of Waitangi is one of the earliest contracts entered into by the British Crown - New Zealand committed to honour
those contracts when we gained independence. Do you think Seymours
attitude is correct?
Which leaved National apparently not able to cope with serious issues >>such as oour water problems. It has been suggested that while they
would repeal legislation, they would put back fairly much the same >>thing, including formal consultation in a similar way to the Waikato >>agreement that brought us the expression co-governance. But why would
we want to leave it to a party that is not prepared to talk about any >>policies for such an urgent problem - we need work done before the >>election.
Pure political rhetoric Rich. I agree National needs to put forward a
plan that goes beyond the promised repeal of the current legislation.
That plan does not exist publicly yet so your speculation is as
pointless as it is useless.
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 20:10:36 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 18:19:39 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:They did consult with local authorities for the Three Waters
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/analysis-the-three-biggest-lessons-from-aucklands-historic-floods/SKKD6HGILZENPMN2WKC5Q3MP4I/
It will not be easy, but I am sure that working together - government >>>with local authorities, and consulting with local communities,
businesses and interest groups is the way to go.
So a U-turn on Water reforms is needed. The current government does
indeed need to consult with local authorities on this.
legislation. I agree that the events of this last week are likely to
see some changes - certainly the needs of local authorities have
changed - Southland for example was asking for government assistance
for work relating to river banks; Auckland needs have changed
suddently as covered in the article.
LocalIf they are not considered that may slow down response - there could
authorities need to consult with interested groups within their
territory. Pre-conceived political policies (such as co-governance)
need not be considered unless the final decisions justify the concept
that community-owned water assets can be co-managed with Maori
descendants on a basis of fair equity in the area that each local body >>operates in.
well be an appeal to the Waitangi Tribunal, similar to the Foreshore
and Sebad protest; but it is certainly one way of making sure that consultation is not token but real - and that includes as you say with interested groups - but some actions will be needed quickly. An
alternative that I have suggested for the short term is to set up
structures under the legislaition for areas where local councils want
to participate; that may enable some work to start quickly while
solutions for other areas are considered without quite the same
urgency.
Labour cannot be trusted to do this, National do not currently have a >>policy that meets these criteria.
Actions are needed before the next election. National have said they
will repeal Labour's legislation, but not what they would replace it
with - and I cannot see them just handing money over to Councils
without input on where that money goes. The previous National
Government was enthusastically following the co-governance route,
which has made it difficult for the current or any future government
to claim that it does not work - it clearly does.
Which leaved National apparently not able to cope with serious issues
such as oour water problems. It has been suggested that while they
would repeal legislation, they would put back fairly much the same
thing, including formal consultation in a similar way to the Waikato agreement that brought us the expression co-governance. But why would
we want to leave it to a party that is not prepared to talk about any policies for such an urgent problem - we need work done before the
election.
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 10:17:55 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 22:02:05 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 20:10:36 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 18:19:39 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:They did consult with local authorities for the Three Waters
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/analysis-the-three-biggest-lessons-from-aucklands-historic-floods/SKKD6HGILZENPMN2WKC5Q3MP4I/
It will not be easy, but I am sure that working together - government >>>>>with local authorities, and consulting with local communities, >>>>>businesses and interest groups is the way to go.
So a U-turn on Water reforms is needed. The current government does >>>>indeed need to consult with local authorities on this.
legislation.
Correct but they ignored the fact that most local authorities were
opposed to the reforms. Originally Labour offered an opt-out option
but this was withdrawn when it became apparent that a significant
number of local authorities indicated they would opt out - including >>Auckland Council with a Labour ex-cabinet-member as Mayor.
So yes Labour consulted, but the response was to ignore concerns and
to remove the opt-out option.
I agree that the events of this last week are likely toMost local bodies have not asked for and do not need assistance with >>weather bombs. This is no justification for the Water reforms.
see some changes - certainly the needs of local authorities have
changed - Southland for example was asking for government assistance
for work relating to river banks; Auckland needs have changed
suddently as covered in the article.
LocalIf they are not considered that may slow down response - there could
authorities need to consult with interested groups within their >>>>territory. Pre-conceived political policies (such as co-governance) >>>>need not be considered unless the final decisions justify the concept >>>>that community-owned water assets can be co-managed with Maori >>>>descendants on a basis of fair equity in the area that each local body >>>>operates in.
well be an appeal to the Waitangi Tribunal, similar to the Foreshore
and Sebad protest; but it is certainly one way of making sure that >>>consultation is not token but real - and that includes as you say with >>>interested groups - but some actions will be needed quickly. An >>>alternative that I have suggested for the short term is to set up >>>structures under the legislaition for areas where local councils want
to participate; that may enable some work to start quickly while >>>solutions for other areas are considered without quite the same
urgency.
Labour are a long way from making these concessions, and I am sure
that any change will be a difficult sell to their Maori caucus
members. They will not tolerate the removal of compulsory
co-governance measures particularly, with opt-out also being needed.
Labour cannot be trusted to do this, National do not currently have a >>>>policy that meets these criteria.
Actions are needed before the next election. National have said they
will repeal Labour's legislation, but not what they would replace it
with - and I cannot see them just handing money over to Councils
without input on where that money goes.
I agree with that - National will need to publish a Water reforms
policy that addresses the issue for each local body that opts in.
The previous NationalSenseless repetition of a lie does not change the fact you lie when
Government was enthusastically following the co-governance route,
which has made it difficult for the current or any future government
to claim that it does not work - it clearly does.
you say this. National went down the co-management route, not the >>co-governance route as defined in the current Water reforms
legislation, and it works specifically because co-management is
different to co-governance.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/02/waitangi-tribunal-recommendations-should-be-rejected-as-consequence-could-be-kiwis-rights-up-in-air-david-seymour.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
There is a video atthe top - watch from 1:57 in - National know that
Labour is just using the name that Chris Finlayson used when they
followed a solution used by Michael Cullen for the Wanganui River.
National are not saying that they would do anything different in the
next term
The problem with the words of David Seymour is that he appears to
believe that government can unilaterally amend a contract by
legislation - the TReaty of Waitangi is one of the earliest contracts
entered into by the British Crown - New Zealand committed to honour
those contracts when we gained independence. Do you think Seymours
attitude is correct?
Which leaved National apparently not able to cope with serious issues >>>such as oour water problems. It has been suggested that while they
would repeal legislation, they would put back fairly much the same
thing, including formal consultation in a similar way to the Waikato >>>agreement that brought us the expression co-governance. But why would
we want to leave it to a party that is not prepared to talk about any >>>policies for such an urgent problem - we need work done before the >>>election.
Pure political rhetoric Rich. I agree National needs to put forward a
plan that goes beyond the promised repeal of the current legislation.
That plan does not exist publicly yet so your speculation is as
pointless as it is useless.
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 10:39:25 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>Yes fair comment Crash - the different issues arose from comments from
wrote:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 10:17:55 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 22:02:05 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 20:10:36 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 18:19:39 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:They did consult with local authorities for the Three Waters >>>>legislation.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/analysis-the-three-biggest-lessons-from-aucklands-historic-floods/SKKD6HGILZENPMN2WKC5Q3MP4I/
It will not be easy, but I am sure that working together - government >>>>>>with local authorities, and consulting with local communities, >>>>>>businesses and interest groups is the way to go.
So a U-turn on Water reforms is needed. The current government does >>>>>indeed need to consult with local authorities on this.
Correct but they ignored the fact that most local authorities were >>>opposed to the reforms. Originally Labour offered an opt-out option
but this was withdrawn when it became apparent that a significant
number of local authorities indicated they would opt out - including >>>Auckland Council with a Labour ex-cabinet-member as Mayor.
So yes Labour consulted, but the response was to ignore concerns and
to remove the opt-out option.
I agree that the events of this last week are likely toMost local bodies have not asked for and do not need assistance with >>>weather bombs. This is no justification for the Water reforms.
see some changes - certainly the needs of local authorities have >>>>changed - Southland for example was asking for government assistance >>>>for work relating to river banks; Auckland needs have changed
suddently as covered in the article.
LocalIf they are not considered that may slow down response - there could >>>>well be an appeal to the Waitangi Tribunal, similar to the Foreshore >>>>and Sebad protest; but it is certainly one way of making sure that >>>>consultation is not token but real - and that includes as you say with >>>>interested groups - but some actions will be needed quickly. An >>>>alternative that I have suggested for the short term is to set up >>>>structures under the legislaition for areas where local councils want >>>>to participate; that may enable some work to start quickly while >>>>solutions for other areas are considered without quite the same >>>>urgency.
authorities need to consult with interested groups within their >>>>>territory. Pre-conceived political policies (such as co-governance) >>>>>need not be considered unless the final decisions justify the concept >>>>>that community-owned water assets can be co-managed with Maori >>>>>descendants on a basis of fair equity in the area that each local body >>>>>operates in.
Labour are a long way from making these concessions, and I am sure
that any change will be a difficult sell to their Maori caucus
members. They will not tolerate the removal of compulsory
co-governance measures particularly, with opt-out also being needed.
Labour cannot be trusted to do this, National do not currently have a >>>>>policy that meets these criteria.
Actions are needed before the next election. National have said they >>>>will repeal Labour's legislation, but not what they would replace it >>>>with - and I cannot see them just handing money over to Councils >>>>without input on where that money goes.
I agree with that - National will need to publish a Water reforms
policy that addresses the issue for each local body that opts in.
The previous NationalSenseless repetition of a lie does not change the fact you lie when
Government was enthusastically following the co-governance route,
which has made it difficult for the current or any future government
to claim that it does not work - it clearly does.
you say this. National went down the co-management route, not the >>>co-governance route as defined in the current Water reforms
legislation, and it works specifically because co-management is
different to co-governance.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/02/waitangi-tribunal-recommendations-should-be-rejected-as-consequence-could-be-kiwis-rights-up-in-air-david-seymour.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
There is a video atthe top - watch from 1:57 in - National know that
Labour is just using the name that Chris Finlayson used when they
followed a solution used by Michael Cullen for the Wanganui River.
National are not saying that they would do anything different in the
next term
The problem with the words of David Seymour is that he appears to
believe that government can unilaterally amend a contract by
legislation - the TReaty of Waitangi is one of the earliest contracts >>entered into by the British Crown - New Zealand committed to honour
those contracts when we gained independence. Do you think Seymours >>attitude is correct?
Your latest post wanders away from the debate your original post
started. Accordingly I conclude you have nothing more to add to that
debate. Debate around a recent report from the Waitangi Tribunal is
another subject - feel free to start a new thread.
Which leaved National apparently not able to cope with serious issues >>>>such as oour water problems. It has been suggested that while they >>>>would repeal legislation, they would put back fairly much the same >>>>thing, including formal consultation in a similar way to the Waikato >>>>agreement that brought us the expression co-governance. But why would >>>>we want to leave it to a party that is not prepared to talk about any >>>>policies for such an urgent problem - we need work done before the >>>>election.
Pure political rhetoric Rich. I agree National needs to put forward a >>>plan that goes beyond the promised repeal of the current legislation. >>>That plan does not exist publicly yet so your speculation is as
pointless as it is useless.
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 10:17:55 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>Nothing in that even hints that co-governance and co-management are the same. They are not, not even close.
wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 22:02:05 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 20:10:36 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 18:19:39 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:They did consult with local authorities for the Three Waters
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/analysis-the-three-biggest-lessons-from-aucklands-historic-floods/SKKD6HGILZENPMN2WKC5Q3MP4I/
It will not be easy, but I am sure that working together - government >>>>>with local authorities, and consulting with local communities, >>>>>businesses and interest groups is the way to go.
So a U-turn on Water reforms is needed. The current government does >>>>indeed need to consult with local authorities on this.
legislation.
Correct but they ignored the fact that most local authorities were
opposed to the reforms. Originally Labour offered an opt-out option
but this was withdrawn when it became apparent that a significant
number of local authorities indicated they would opt out - including >>Auckland Council with a Labour ex-cabinet-member as Mayor.
So yes Labour consulted, but the response was to ignore concerns and
to remove the opt-out option.
I agree that the events of this last week are likely toMost local bodies have not asked for and do not need assistance with >>weather bombs. This is no justification for the Water reforms.
see some changes - certainly the needs of local authorities have
changed - Southland for example was asking for government assistance
for work relating to river banks; Auckland needs have changed
suddently as covered in the article.
LocalIf they are not considered that may slow down response - there could
authorities need to consult with interested groups within their >>>>territory. Pre-conceived political policies (such as co-governance) >>>>need not be considered unless the final decisions justify the concept >>>>that community-owned water assets can be co-managed with Maori >>>>descendants on a basis of fair equity in the area that each local body >>>>operates in.
well be an appeal to the Waitangi Tribunal, similar to the Foreshore
and Sebad protest; but it is certainly one way of making sure that >>>consultation is not token but real - and that includes as you say with >>>interested groups - but some actions will be needed quickly. An >>>alternative that I have suggested for the short term is to set up >>>structures under the legislaition for areas where local councils want
to participate; that may enable some work to start quickly while >>>solutions for other areas are considered without quite the same
urgency.
Labour are a long way from making these concessions, and I am sure
that any change will be a difficult sell to their Maori caucus
members. They will not tolerate the removal of compulsory
co-governance measures particularly, with opt-out also being needed.
Labour cannot be trusted to do this, National do not currently have a >>>>policy that meets these criteria.
Actions are needed before the next election. National have said they
will repeal Labour's legislation, but not what they would replace it
with - and I cannot see them just handing money over to Councils
without input on where that money goes.
I agree with that - National will need to publish a Water reforms
policy that addresses the issue for each local body that opts in.
The previous NationalSenseless repetition of a lie does not change the fact you lie when
Government was enthusastically following the co-governance route,
which has made it difficult for the current or any future government
to claim that it does not work - it clearly does.
you say this. National went down the co-management route, not the >>co-governance route as defined in the current Water reforms
legislation, and it works specifically because co-management is
different to co-governance.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/02/waitangi-tribunal-recommendations-should-be-rejected-as-consequence-could-be-kiwis-rights-up-in-air-david-seymour.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
There is a video atthe top - watch from 1:57 in - National know that
Labour is just using the name that Chris Finlayson used when they
followed a solution used by Michael Cullen for the Wanganui River.
National are not saying that they would do anything different in the
next term
The problem with the words of David Seymour is that he appears toThe Treaty does not menstion or even suggest anyuthing whatsoever about c-governance.
believe that government can unilaterally amend a contract by
legislation - the TReaty of Waitangi is one of the earliest contracts
entered into by the British Crown - New Zealand committed to honour
those contracts when we gained independence. Do you think Seymours
attitude is correct?
Which leaved National apparently not able to cope with serious issues >>>such as oour water problems. It has been suggested that while they
would repeal legislation, they would put back fairly much the same
thing, including formal consultation in a similar way to the Waikato >>>agreement that brought us the expression co-governance. But why would
we want to leave it to a party that is not prepared to talk about any >>>policies for such an urgent problem - we need work done before the >>>election.
Pure political rhetoric Rich. I agree National needs to put forward a
plan that goes beyond the promised repeal of the current legislation.
That plan does not exist publicly yet so your speculation is as
pointless as it is useless.
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 12:31:29 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>Neither of which are co-governance.
wrote:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 10:39:25 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:Yes fair comment Crash - the different issues arose from comments from
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 10:17:55 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 22:02:05 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 20:10:36 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 18:19:39 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:They did consult with local authorities for the Three Waters >>>>>legislation.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/analysis-the-three-biggest-lessons-from-aucklands-historic-floods/SKKD6HGILZENPMN2WKC5Q3MP4I/
It will not be easy, but I am sure that working together - government >>>>>>>with local authorities, and consulting with local communities, >>>>>>>businesses and interest groups is the way to go.
So a U-turn on Water reforms is needed. The current government does >>>>>>indeed need to consult with local authorities on this.
Correct but they ignored the fact that most local authorities were >>>>opposed to the reforms. Originally Labour offered an opt-out option >>>>but this was withdrawn when it became apparent that a significant >>>>number of local authorities indicated they would opt out - including >>>>Auckland Council with a Labour ex-cabinet-member as Mayor.
So yes Labour consulted, but the response was to ignore concerns and
to remove the opt-out option.
I agree that the events of this last week are likely toMost local bodies have not asked for and do not need assistance with >>>>weather bombs. This is no justification for the Water reforms.
see some changes - certainly the needs of local authorities have >>>>>changed - Southland for example was asking for government assistance >>>>>for work relating to river banks; Auckland needs have changed >>>>>suddently as covered in the article.
LocalIf they are not considered that may slow down response - there could >>>>>well be an appeal to the Waitangi Tribunal, similar to the Foreshore >>>>>and Sebad protest; but it is certainly one way of making sure that >>>>>consultation is not token but real - and that includes as you say with >>>>>interested groups - but some actions will be needed quickly. An >>>>>alternative that I have suggested for the short term is to set up >>>>>structures under the legislaition for areas where local councils want >>>>>to participate; that may enable some work to start quickly while >>>>>solutions for other areas are considered without quite the same >>>>>urgency.
authorities need to consult with interested groups within their >>>>>>territory. Pre-conceived political policies (such as co-governance) >>>>>>need not be considered unless the final decisions justify the concept >>>>>>that community-owned water assets can be co-managed with Maori >>>>>>descendants on a basis of fair equity in the area that each local body >>>>>>operates in.
Labour are a long way from making these concessions, and I am sure
that any change will be a difficult sell to their Maori caucus
members. They will not tolerate the removal of compulsory >>>>co-governance measures particularly, with opt-out also being needed.
Labour cannot be trusted to do this, National do not currently have a >>>>>>policy that meets these criteria.
Actions are needed before the next election. National have said they >>>>>will repeal Labour's legislation, but not what they would replace it >>>>>with - and I cannot see them just handing money over to Councils >>>>>without input on where that money goes.
I agree with that - National will need to publish a Water reforms >>>>policy that addresses the issue for each local body that opts in.
The previous NationalSenseless repetition of a lie does not change the fact you lie when
Government was enthusastically following the co-governance route, >>>>>which has made it difficult for the current or any future government >>>>>to claim that it does not work - it clearly does.
you say this. National went down the co-management route, not the >>>>co-governance route as defined in the current Water reforms >>>>legislation, and it works specifically because co-management is >>>>different to co-governance.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/02/waitangi-tribunal-recommendations-should-be-rejected-as-consequence-could-be-kiwis-rights-up-in-air-david-seymour.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
There is a video atthe top - watch from 1:57 in - National know that >>>Labour is just using the name that Chris Finlayson used when they >>>followed a solution used by Michael Cullen for the Wanganui River. >>>National are not saying that they would do anything different in the
next term
The problem with the words of David Seymour is that he appears to
believe that government can unilaterally amend a contract by
legislation - the TReaty of Waitangi is one of the earliest contracts >>>entered into by the British Crown - New Zealand committed to honour
those contracts when we gained independence. Do you think Seymours >>>attitude is correct?
Your latest post wanders away from the debate your original post
started. Accordingly I conclude you have nothing more to add to that >>debate. Debate around a recent report from the Waitangi Tribunal is >>another subject - feel free to start a new thread.
David Seymour at a time (now) when consultation with Maori, and the >arrangements made by previous governments, are very much in the news.
The comments by Ben Thomas are however very pertinent to the debate
above - the government is arguing that they wish to work with Maori to >advance common interests - that has worked well for the arrangments
relating to the Wanganui and Waikato Rivers.
Which leaved National apparently not able to cope with serious issues >>>>>such as oour water problems. It has been suggested that while they >>>>>would repeal legislation, they would put back fairly much the same >>>>>thing, including formal consultation in a similar way to the Waikato >>>>>agreement that brought us the expression co-governance. But why would >>>>>we want to leave it to a party that is not prepared to talk about any >>>>>policies for such an urgent problem - we need work done before the >>>>>election.
Pure political rhetoric Rich. I agree National needs to put forward a >>>>plan that goes beyond the promised repeal of the current legislation. >>>>That plan does not exist publicly yet so your speculation is as >>>>pointless as it is useless.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Irrelevant - they are what National called co-governance, and are
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 12:31:29 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:Neither of which are co-governance.
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 10:39:25 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:Yes fair comment Crash - the different issues arose from comments from >>David Seymour at a time (now) when consultation with Maori, and the >>arrangements made by previous governments, are very much in the news.
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 10:17:55 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 22:02:05 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 20:10:36 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 18:19:39 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:They did consult with local authorities for the Three Waters >>>>>>legislation.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/analysis-the-three-biggest-lessons-from-aucklands-historic-floods/SKKD6HGILZENPMN2WKC5Q3MP4I/
It will not be easy, but I am sure that working together - government >>>>>>>>with local authorities, and consulting with local communities, >>>>>>>>businesses and interest groups is the way to go.
So a U-turn on Water reforms is needed. The current government does >>>>>>>indeed need to consult with local authorities on this.
Correct but they ignored the fact that most local authorities were >>>>>opposed to the reforms. Originally Labour offered an opt-out option >>>>>but this was withdrawn when it became apparent that a significant >>>>>number of local authorities indicated they would opt out - including >>>>>Auckland Council with a Labour ex-cabinet-member as Mayor.
So yes Labour consulted, but the response was to ignore concerns and >>>>>to remove the opt-out option.
I agree that the events of this last week are likely toMost local bodies have not asked for and do not need assistance with >>>>>weather bombs. This is no justification for the Water reforms.
see some changes - certainly the needs of local authorities have >>>>>>changed - Southland for example was asking for government assistance >>>>>>for work relating to river banks; Auckland needs have changed >>>>>>suddently as covered in the article.
LocalIf they are not considered that may slow down response - there could >>>>>>well be an appeal to the Waitangi Tribunal, similar to the Foreshore >>>>>>and Sebad protest; but it is certainly one way of making sure that >>>>>>consultation is not token but real - and that includes as you say with >>>>>>interested groups - but some actions will be needed quickly. An >>>>>>alternative that I have suggested for the short term is to set up >>>>>>structures under the legislaition for areas where local councils want >>>>>>to participate; that may enable some work to start quickly while >>>>>>solutions for other areas are considered without quite the same >>>>>>urgency.
authorities need to consult with interested groups within their >>>>>>>territory. Pre-conceived political policies (such as co-governance) >>>>>>>need not be considered unless the final decisions justify the concept >>>>>>>that community-owned water assets can be co-managed with Maori >>>>>>>descendants on a basis of fair equity in the area that each local body >>>>>>>operates in.
Labour are a long way from making these concessions, and I am sure >>>>>that any change will be a difficult sell to their Maori caucus >>>>>members. They will not tolerate the removal of compulsory >>>>>co-governance measures particularly, with opt-out also being needed.
Labour cannot be trusted to do this, National do not currently have a >>>>>>>policy that meets these criteria.
Actions are needed before the next election. National have said they >>>>>>will repeal Labour's legislation, but not what they would replace it >>>>>>with - and I cannot see them just handing money over to Councils >>>>>>without input on where that money goes.
I agree with that - National will need to publish a Water reforms >>>>>policy that addresses the issue for each local body that opts in.
The previous NationalSenseless repetition of a lie does not change the fact you lie when >>>>>you say this. National went down the co-management route, not the >>>>>co-governance route as defined in the current Water reforms >>>>>legislation, and it works specifically because co-management is >>>>>different to co-governance.
Government was enthusastically following the co-governance route, >>>>>>which has made it difficult for the current or any future government >>>>>>to claim that it does not work - it clearly does.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/02/waitangi-tribunal-recommendations-should-be-rejected-as-consequence-could-be-kiwis-rights-up-in-air-david-seymour.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
There is a video atthe top - watch from 1:57 in - National know that >>>>Labour is just using the name that Chris Finlayson used when they >>>>followed a solution used by Michael Cullen for the Wanganui River. >>>>National are not saying that they would do anything different in the >>>>next term
The problem with the words of David Seymour is that he appears to >>>>believe that government can unilaterally amend a contract by >>>>legislation - the TReaty of Waitangi is one of the earliest contracts >>>>entered into by the British Crown - New Zealand committed to honour >>>>those contracts when we gained independence. Do you think Seymours >>>>attitude is correct?
Your latest post wanders away from the debate your original post
started. Accordingly I conclude you have nothing more to add to that >>>debate. Debate around a recent report from the Waitangi Tribunal is >>>another subject - feel free to start a new thread.
The comments by Ben Thomas are however very pertinent to the debate
above - the government is arguing that they wish to work with Maori to >>advance common interests - that has worked well for the arrangments >>relating to the Wanganui and Waikato Rivers.
Which leaved National apparently not able to cope with serious issues >>>>>>such as oour water problems. It has been suggested that while they >>>>>>would repeal legislation, they would put back fairly much the same >>>>>>thing, including formal consultation in a similar way to the Waikato >>>>>>agreement that brought us the expression co-governance. But why would >>>>>>we want to leave it to a party that is not prepared to talk about any >>>>>>policies for such an urgent problem - we need work done before the >>>>>>election.
Pure political rhetoric Rich. I agree National needs to put forward a >>>>>plan that goes beyond the promised repeal of the current legislation. >>>>>That plan does not exist publicly yet so your speculation is as >>>>>pointless as it is useless.
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 02:29:14 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo it is you who is confused. You heve demonstrated many times that you do not understand the difference.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Ben Thomas was suggesting that National may have been better calling
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 10:17:55 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:Nothing in that even hints that co-governance and co-management are the same. >>They are not, not even close.
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 22:02:05 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 20:10:36 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 18:19:39 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:They did consult with local authorities for the Three Waters >>>>>legislation.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/analysis-the-three-biggest-lessons-from-aucklands-historic-floods/SKKD6HGILZENPMN2WKC5Q3MP4I/
It will not be easy, but I am sure that working together - government >>>>>>>with local authorities, and consulting with local communities, >>>>>>>businesses and interest groups is the way to go.
So a U-turn on Water reforms is needed. The current government does >>>>>>indeed need to consult with local authorities on this.
Correct but they ignored the fact that most local authorities were >>>>opposed to the reforms. Originally Labour offered an opt-out option >>>>but this was withdrawn when it became apparent that a significant >>>>number of local authorities indicated they would opt out - including >>>>Auckland Council with a Labour ex-cabinet-member as Mayor.
So yes Labour consulted, but the response was to ignore concerns and
to remove the opt-out option.
I agree that the events of this last week are likely toMost local bodies have not asked for and do not need assistance with >>>>weather bombs. This is no justification for the Water reforms.
see some changes - certainly the needs of local authorities have >>>>>changed - Southland for example was asking for government assistance >>>>>for work relating to river banks; Auckland needs have changed >>>>>suddently as covered in the article.
LocalIf they are not considered that may slow down response - there could >>>>>well be an appeal to the Waitangi Tribunal, similar to the Foreshore >>>>>and Sebad protest; but it is certainly one way of making sure that >>>>>consultation is not token but real - and that includes as you say with >>>>>interested groups - but some actions will be needed quickly. An >>>>>alternative that I have suggested for the short term is to set up >>>>>structures under the legislaition for areas where local councils want >>>>>to participate; that may enable some work to start quickly while >>>>>solutions for other areas are considered without quite the same >>>>>urgency.
authorities need to consult with interested groups within their >>>>>>territory. Pre-conceived political policies (such as co-governance) >>>>>>need not be considered unless the final decisions justify the concept >>>>>>that community-owned water assets can be co-managed with Maori >>>>>>descendants on a basis of fair equity in the area that each local body >>>>>>operates in.
Labour are a long way from making these concessions, and I am sure
that any change will be a difficult sell to their Maori caucus
members. They will not tolerate the removal of compulsory >>>>co-governance measures particularly, with opt-out also being needed.
Labour cannot be trusted to do this, National do not currently have a >>>>>>policy that meets these criteria.
Actions are needed before the next election. National have said they >>>>>will repeal Labour's legislation, but not what they would replace it >>>>>with - and I cannot see them just handing money over to Councils >>>>>without input on where that money goes.
I agree with that - National will need to publish a Water reforms >>>>policy that addresses the issue for each local body that opts in.
The previous NationalSenseless repetition of a lie does not change the fact you lie when
Government was enthusastically following the co-governance route, >>>>>which has made it difficult for the current or any future government >>>>>to claim that it does not work - it clearly does.
you say this. National went down the co-management route, not the >>>>co-governance route as defined in the current Water reforms >>>>legislation, and it works specifically because co-management is >>>>different to co-governance.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/02/waitangi-tribunal-recommendations-should-be-rejected-as-consequence-could-be-kiwis-rights-up-in-air-david-seymour.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
There is a video atthe top - watch from 1:57 in - National know that >>>Labour is just using the name that Chris Finlayson used when they >>>followed a solution used by Michael Cullen for the Wanganui River. >>>National are not saying that they would do anything different in the
next term
what they did co-managment than co-governance since it seems to have
cofused people - perhaps that includes you Tony.
We have been reaching Treaty Settlements for many years - theseThe Treaty does not menstion or even suggest anyuthing whatsoever about >>c-governance.
The problem with the words of David Seymour is that he appears to
believe that government can unilaterally amend a contract by
legislation - the TReaty of Waitangi is one of the earliest contracts >>>entered into by the British Crown - New Zealand committed to honour
those contracts when we gained independence. Do you think Seymours >>>attitude is correct?
You keep lying.
settlements are not about land; they need a different approach. Luxon
now appears to be denying the successful approach taken by National
when they were last in government - but then perhaps National no
longer believe in consultation and working together with Maori . . .
Which leaved National apparently not able to cope with serious issues >>>>>such as oour water problems. It has been suggested that while they >>>>>would repeal legislation, they would put back fairly much the same >>>>>thing, including formal consultation in a similar way to the Waikato >>>>>agreement that brought us the expression co-governance. But why would >>>>>we want to leave it to a party that is not prepared to talk about any >>>>>policies for such an urgent problem - we need work done before the >>>>>election.
Pure political rhetoric Rich. I agree National needs to put forward a >>>>plan that goes beyond the promised repeal of the current legislation. >>>>That plan does not exist publicly yet so your speculation is as >>>>pointless as it is useless.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Ben Thomas was suggesting that National may have been better calling
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 10:17:55 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:Nothing in that even hints that co-governance and co-management are the same. >They are not, not even close.
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 22:02:05 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 20:10:36 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 18:19:39 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:They did consult with local authorities for the Three Waters >>>>legislation.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/analysis-the-three-biggest-lessons-from-aucklands-historic-floods/SKKD6HGILZENPMN2WKC5Q3MP4I/
It will not be easy, but I am sure that working together - government >>>>>>with local authorities, and consulting with local communities, >>>>>>businesses and interest groups is the way to go.
So a U-turn on Water reforms is needed. The current government does >>>>>indeed need to consult with local authorities on this.
Correct but they ignored the fact that most local authorities were >>>opposed to the reforms. Originally Labour offered an opt-out option
but this was withdrawn when it became apparent that a significant
number of local authorities indicated they would opt out - including >>>Auckland Council with a Labour ex-cabinet-member as Mayor.
So yes Labour consulted, but the response was to ignore concerns and
to remove the opt-out option.
I agree that the events of this last week are likely toMost local bodies have not asked for and do not need assistance with >>>weather bombs. This is no justification for the Water reforms.
see some changes - certainly the needs of local authorities have >>>>changed - Southland for example was asking for government assistance >>>>for work relating to river banks; Auckland needs have changed
suddently as covered in the article.
LocalIf they are not considered that may slow down response - there could >>>>well be an appeal to the Waitangi Tribunal, similar to the Foreshore >>>>and Sebad protest; but it is certainly one way of making sure that >>>>consultation is not token but real - and that includes as you say with >>>>interested groups - but some actions will be needed quickly. An >>>>alternative that I have suggested for the short term is to set up >>>>structures under the legislaition for areas where local councils want >>>>to participate; that may enable some work to start quickly while >>>>solutions for other areas are considered without quite the same >>>>urgency.
authorities need to consult with interested groups within their >>>>>territory. Pre-conceived political policies (such as co-governance) >>>>>need not be considered unless the final decisions justify the concept >>>>>that community-owned water assets can be co-managed with Maori >>>>>descendants on a basis of fair equity in the area that each local body >>>>>operates in.
Labour are a long way from making these concessions, and I am sure
that any change will be a difficult sell to their Maori caucus
members. They will not tolerate the removal of compulsory
co-governance measures particularly, with opt-out also being needed.
Labour cannot be trusted to do this, National do not currently have a >>>>>policy that meets these criteria.
Actions are needed before the next election. National have said they >>>>will repeal Labour's legislation, but not what they would replace it >>>>with - and I cannot see them just handing money over to Councils >>>>without input on where that money goes.
I agree with that - National will need to publish a Water reforms
policy that addresses the issue for each local body that opts in.
The previous NationalSenseless repetition of a lie does not change the fact you lie when
Government was enthusastically following the co-governance route,
which has made it difficult for the current or any future government
to claim that it does not work - it clearly does.
you say this. National went down the co-management route, not the >>>co-governance route as defined in the current Water reforms
legislation, and it works specifically because co-management is
different to co-governance.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/02/waitangi-tribunal-recommendations-should-be-rejected-as-consequence-could-be-kiwis-rights-up-in-air-david-seymour.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
There is a video atthe top - watch from 1:57 in - National know that
Labour is just using the name that Chris Finlayson used when they
followed a solution used by Michael Cullen for the Wanganui River.
National are not saying that they would do anything different in the
next term
We have been reaching Treaty Settlements for many years - theseThe Treaty does not menstion or even suggest anyuthing whatsoever about >c-governance.
The problem with the words of David Seymour is that he appears to
believe that government can unilaterally amend a contract by
legislation - the TReaty of Waitangi is one of the earliest contracts >>entered into by the British Crown - New Zealand committed to honour
those contracts when we gained independence. Do you think Seymours >>attitude is correct?
You keep lying.
Which leaved National apparently not able to cope with serious issues >>>>such as oour water problems. It has been suggested that while they >>>>would repeal legislation, they would put back fairly much the same >>>>thing, including formal consultation in a similar way to the Waikato >>>>agreement that brought us the expression co-governance. But why would >>>>we want to leave it to a party that is not prepared to talk about any >>>>policies for such an urgent problem - we need work done before the >>>>election.
Pure political rhetoric Rich. I agree National needs to put forward a >>>plan that goes beyond the promised repeal of the current legislation. >>>That plan does not exist publicly yet so your speculation is as
pointless as it is useless.
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 02:30:29 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
No that is a lie. they are ebtirely different.Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Irrelevant - they are what National called co-governance, and are
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 12:31:29 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:Neither of which are co-governance.
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 10:39:25 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:Yes fair comment Crash - the different issues arose from comments from >>>David Seymour at a time (now) when consultation with Maori, and the >>>arrangements made by previous governments, are very much in the news. >>>The comments by Ben Thomas are however very pertinent to the debate >>>above - the government is arguing that they wish to work with Maori to >>>advance common interests - that has worked well for the arrangments >>>relating to the Wanganui and Waikato Rivers.
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 10:17:55 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 22:02:05 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 20:10:36 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 18:19:39 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>wrote:They did consult with local authorities for the Three Waters >>>>>>>legislation.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/analysis-the-three-biggest-lessons-from-aucklands-historic-floods/SKKD6HGILZENPMN2WKC5Q3MP4I/
It will not be easy, but I am sure that working together - government
with local authorities, and consulting with local communities, >>>>>>>>>businesses and interest groups is the way to go.
So a U-turn on Water reforms is needed. The current government does >>>>>>>>indeed need to consult with local authorities on this.
Correct but they ignored the fact that most local authorities were >>>>>>opposed to the reforms. Originally Labour offered an opt-out option >>>>>>but this was withdrawn when it became apparent that a significant >>>>>>number of local authorities indicated they would opt out - including >>>>>>Auckland Council with a Labour ex-cabinet-member as Mayor.
So yes Labour consulted, but the response was to ignore concerns and >>>>>>to remove the opt-out option.
I agree that the events of this last week are likely toMost local bodies have not asked for and do not need assistance with >>>>>>weather bombs. This is no justification for the Water reforms.
see some changes - certainly the needs of local authorities have >>>>>>>changed - Southland for example was asking for government assistance >>>>>>>for work relating to river banks; Auckland needs have changed >>>>>>>suddently as covered in the article.
LocalIf they are not considered that may slow down response - there could >>>>>>>well be an appeal to the Waitangi Tribunal, similar to the Foreshore >>>>>>>and Sebad protest; but it is certainly one way of making sure that >>>>>>>consultation is not token but real - and that includes as you say with >>>>>>>interested groups - but some actions will be needed quickly. An >>>>>>>alternative that I have suggested for the short term is to set up >>>>>>>structures under the legislaition for areas where local councils want >>>>>>>to participate; that may enable some work to start quickly while >>>>>>>solutions for other areas are considered without quite the same >>>>>>>urgency.
authorities need to consult with interested groups within their >>>>>>>>territory. Pre-conceived political policies (such as co-governance) >>>>>>>>need not be considered unless the final decisions justify the concept >>>>>>>>that community-owned water assets can be co-managed with Maori >>>>>>>>descendants on a basis of fair equity in the area that each local body
operates in.
Labour are a long way from making these concessions, and I am sure >>>>>>that any change will be a difficult sell to their Maori caucus >>>>>>members. They will not tolerate the removal of compulsory >>>>>>co-governance measures particularly, with opt-out also being needed. >>>>>>
Labour cannot be trusted to do this, National do not currently have a >>>>>>>>policy that meets these criteria.
Actions are needed before the next election. National have said they >>>>>>>will repeal Labour's legislation, but not what they would replace it >>>>>>>with - and I cannot see them just handing money over to Councils >>>>>>>without input on where that money goes.
I agree with that - National will need to publish a Water reforms >>>>>>policy that addresses the issue for each local body that opts in. >>>>>>
The previous NationalSenseless repetition of a lie does not change the fact you lie when >>>>>>you say this. National went down the co-management route, not the >>>>>>co-governance route as defined in the current Water reforms >>>>>>legislation, and it works specifically because co-management is >>>>>>different to co-governance.
Government was enthusastically following the co-governance route, >>>>>>>which has made it difficult for the current or any future government >>>>>>>to claim that it does not work - it clearly does.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/02/waitangi-tribunal-recommendations-should-be-rejected-as-consequence-could-be-kiwis-rights-up-in-air-david-seymour.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
There is a video atthe top - watch from 1:57 in - National know that >>>>>Labour is just using the name that Chris Finlayson used when they >>>>>followed a solution used by Michael Cullen for the Wanganui River. >>>>>National are not saying that they would do anything different in the >>>>>next term
The problem with the words of David Seymour is that he appears to >>>>>believe that government can unilaterally amend a contract by >>>>>legislation - the TReaty of Waitangi is one of the earliest contracts >>>>>entered into by the British Crown - New Zealand committed to honour >>>>>those contracts when we gained independence. Do you think Seymours >>>>>attitude is correct?
Your latest post wanders away from the debate your original post >>>>started. Accordingly I conclude you have nothing more to add to that >>>>debate. Debate around a recent report from the Waitangi Tribunal is >>>>another subject - feel free to start a new thread.
close to what Labour is doing with Three Waters.
Provide evidence or admit you are lying.
Rich is incapable of providing evidence for his extravagant and stupid claims for the simple reason thatt he's a simple liar!
Which leaved National apparently not able to cope with serious issues >>>>>>>such as oour water problems. It has been suggested that while they >>>>>>>would repeal legislation, they would put back fairly much the same >>>>>>>thing, including formal consultation in a similar way to the Waikato >>>>>>>agreement that brought us the expression co-governance. But why would >>>>>>>we want to leave it to a party that is not prepared to talk about any >>>>>>>policies for such an urgent problem - we need work done before the >>>>>>>election.
Pure political rhetoric Rich. I agree National needs to put forward a >>>>>>plan that goes beyond the promised repeal of the current legislation. >>>>>>That plan does not exist publicly yet so your speculation is as >>>>>>pointless as it is useless.
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 02:30:29 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo that is a lie. they are ebtirely different.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Irrelevant - they are what National called co-governance, and are
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 12:31:29 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:Neither of which are co-governance.
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 10:39:25 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:Yes fair comment Crash - the different issues arose from comments from >>>David Seymour at a time (now) when consultation with Maori, and the >>>arrangements made by previous governments, are very much in the news.
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 10:17:55 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 22:02:05 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 20:10:36 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 18:19:39 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>wrote:They did consult with local authorities for the Three Waters >>>>>>>legislation.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/analysis-the-three-biggest-lessons-from-aucklands-historic-floods/SKKD6HGILZENPMN2WKC5Q3MP4I/
It will not be easy, but I am sure that working together - government >>>>>>>>>with local authorities, and consulting with local communities, >>>>>>>>>businesses and interest groups is the way to go.
So a U-turn on Water reforms is needed. The current government does >>>>>>>>indeed need to consult with local authorities on this.
Correct but they ignored the fact that most local authorities were >>>>>>opposed to the reforms. Originally Labour offered an opt-out option >>>>>>but this was withdrawn when it became apparent that a significant >>>>>>number of local authorities indicated they would opt out - including >>>>>>Auckland Council with a Labour ex-cabinet-member as Mayor.
So yes Labour consulted, but the response was to ignore concerns and >>>>>>to remove the opt-out option.
I agree that the events of this last week are likely toMost local bodies have not asked for and do not need assistance with >>>>>>weather bombs. This is no justification for the Water reforms.
see some changes - certainly the needs of local authorities have >>>>>>>changed - Southland for example was asking for government assistance >>>>>>>for work relating to river banks; Auckland needs have changed >>>>>>>suddently as covered in the article.
LocalIf they are not considered that may slow down response - there could >>>>>>>well be an appeal to the Waitangi Tribunal, similar to the Foreshore >>>>>>>and Sebad protest; but it is certainly one way of making sure that >>>>>>>consultation is not token but real - and that includes as you say with >>>>>>>interested groups - but some actions will be needed quickly. An >>>>>>>alternative that I have suggested for the short term is to set up >>>>>>>structures under the legislaition for areas where local councils want >>>>>>>to participate; that may enable some work to start quickly while >>>>>>>solutions for other areas are considered without quite the same >>>>>>>urgency.
authorities need to consult with interested groups within their >>>>>>>>territory. Pre-conceived political policies (such as co-governance) >>>>>>>>need not be considered unless the final decisions justify the concept >>>>>>>>that community-owned water assets can be co-managed with Maori >>>>>>>>descendants on a basis of fair equity in the area that each local body >>>>>>>>operates in.
Labour are a long way from making these concessions, and I am sure >>>>>>that any change will be a difficult sell to their Maori caucus >>>>>>members. They will not tolerate the removal of compulsory >>>>>>co-governance measures particularly, with opt-out also being needed. >>>>>>
Labour cannot be trusted to do this, National do not currently have a >>>>>>>>policy that meets these criteria.
Actions are needed before the next election. National have said they >>>>>>>will repeal Labour's legislation, but not what they would replace it >>>>>>>with - and I cannot see them just handing money over to Councils >>>>>>>without input on where that money goes.
I agree with that - National will need to publish a Water reforms >>>>>>policy that addresses the issue for each local body that opts in.
The previous NationalSenseless repetition of a lie does not change the fact you lie when >>>>>>you say this. National went down the co-management route, not the >>>>>>co-governance route as defined in the current Water reforms >>>>>>legislation, and it works specifically because co-management is >>>>>>different to co-governance.
Government was enthusastically following the co-governance route, >>>>>>>which has made it difficult for the current or any future government >>>>>>>to claim that it does not work - it clearly does.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/02/waitangi-tribunal-recommendations-should-be-rejected-as-consequence-could-be-kiwis-rights-up-in-air-david-seymour.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
There is a video atthe top - watch from 1:57 in - National know that >>>>>Labour is just using the name that Chris Finlayson used when they >>>>>followed a solution used by Michael Cullen for the Wanganui River. >>>>>National are not saying that they would do anything different in the >>>>>next term
The problem with the words of David Seymour is that he appears to >>>>>believe that government can unilaterally amend a contract by >>>>>legislation - the TReaty of Waitangi is one of the earliest contracts >>>>>entered into by the British Crown - New Zealand committed to honour >>>>>those contracts when we gained independence. Do you think Seymours >>>>>attitude is correct?
Your latest post wanders away from the debate your original post >>>>started. Accordingly I conclude you have nothing more to add to that >>>>debate. Debate around a recent report from the Waitangi Tribunal is >>>>another subject - feel free to start a new thread.
The comments by Ben Thomas are however very pertinent to the debate >>>above - the government is arguing that they wish to work with Maori to >>>advance common interests - that has worked well for the arrangments >>>relating to the Wanganui and Waikato Rivers.
close to what Labour is doing with Three Waters.
Which leaved National apparently not able to cope with serious issues >>>>>>>such as oour water problems. It has been suggested that while they >>>>>>>would repeal legislation, they would put back fairly much the same >>>>>>>thing, including formal consultation in a similar way to the Waikato >>>>>>>agreement that brought us the expression co-governance. But why would >>>>>>>we want to leave it to a party that is not prepared to talk about any >>>>>>>policies for such an urgent problem - we need work done before the >>>>>>>election.
Pure political rhetoric Rich. I agree National needs to put forward a >>>>>>plan that goes beyond the promised repeal of the current legislation. >>>>>>That plan does not exist publicly yet so your speculation is as >>>>>>pointless as it is useless.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 02:29:14 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo it is you who is confused. You heve demonstrated many times that you do not >understand the difference.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Ben Thomas was suggesting that National may have been better calling
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 10:17:55 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:Nothing in that even hints that co-governance and co-management are the same.
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 22:02:05 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 20:10:36 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 18:19:39 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:They did consult with local authorities for the Three Waters >>>>>>legislation.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/analysis-the-three-biggest-lessons-from-aucklands-historic-floods/SKKD6HGILZENPMN2WKC5Q3MP4I/
It will not be easy, but I am sure that working together - government >>>>>>>>with local authorities, and consulting with local communities, >>>>>>>>businesses and interest groups is the way to go.
So a U-turn on Water reforms is needed. The current government does >>>>>>>indeed need to consult with local authorities on this.
Correct but they ignored the fact that most local authorities were >>>>>opposed to the reforms. Originally Labour offered an opt-out option >>>>>but this was withdrawn when it became apparent that a significant >>>>>number of local authorities indicated they would opt out - including >>>>>Auckland Council with a Labour ex-cabinet-member as Mayor.
So yes Labour consulted, but the response was to ignore concerns and >>>>>to remove the opt-out option.
I agree that the events of this last week are likely toMost local bodies have not asked for and do not need assistance with >>>>>weather bombs. This is no justification for the Water reforms.
see some changes - certainly the needs of local authorities have >>>>>>changed - Southland for example was asking for government assistance >>>>>>for work relating to river banks; Auckland needs have changed >>>>>>suddently as covered in the article.
LocalIf they are not considered that may slow down response - there could >>>>>>well be an appeal to the Waitangi Tribunal, similar to the Foreshore >>>>>>and Sebad protest; but it is certainly one way of making sure that >>>>>>consultation is not token but real - and that includes as you say with >>>>>>interested groups - but some actions will be needed quickly. An >>>>>>alternative that I have suggested for the short term is to set up >>>>>>structures under the legislaition for areas where local councils want >>>>>>to participate; that may enable some work to start quickly while >>>>>>solutions for other areas are considered without quite the same >>>>>>urgency.
authorities need to consult with interested groups within their >>>>>>>territory. Pre-conceived political policies (such as co-governance) >>>>>>>need not be considered unless the final decisions justify the concept >>>>>>>that community-owned water assets can be co-managed with Maori >>>>>>>descendants on a basis of fair equity in the area that each local body >>>>>>>operates in.
Labour are a long way from making these concessions, and I am sure >>>>>that any change will be a difficult sell to their Maori caucus >>>>>members. They will not tolerate the removal of compulsory >>>>>co-governance measures particularly, with opt-out also being needed.
Labour cannot be trusted to do this, National do not currently have a >>>>>>>policy that meets these criteria.
Actions are needed before the next election. National have said they >>>>>>will repeal Labour's legislation, but not what they would replace it >>>>>>with - and I cannot see them just handing money over to Councils >>>>>>without input on where that money goes.
I agree with that - National will need to publish a Water reforms >>>>>policy that addresses the issue for each local body that opts in.
The previous NationalSenseless repetition of a lie does not change the fact you lie when >>>>>you say this. National went down the co-management route, not the >>>>>co-governance route as defined in the current Water reforms >>>>>legislation, and it works specifically because co-management is >>>>>different to co-governance.
Government was enthusastically following the co-governance route, >>>>>>which has made it difficult for the current or any future government >>>>>>to claim that it does not work - it clearly does.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/02/waitangi-tribunal-recommendations-should-be-rejected-as-consequence-could-be-kiwis-rights-up-in-air-david-seymour.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
There is a video atthe top - watch from 1:57 in - National know that >>>>Labour is just using the name that Chris Finlayson used when they >>>>followed a solution used by Michael Cullen for the Wanganui River. >>>>National are not saying that they would do anything different in the >>>>next term
They are not, not even close.
what they did co-managment than co-governance since it seems to have >>cofused people - perhaps that includes you Tony.
I do understand, I have lived the difference.
However I note your snide remark, slipping again into abuse are you?
We have been reaching Treaty Settlements for many years - theseThe Treaty does not menstion or even suggest anyuthing whatsoever about >>>c-governance.
The problem with the words of David Seymour is that he appears to >>>>believe that government can unilaterally amend a contract by >>>>legislation - the TReaty of Waitangi is one of the earliest contracts >>>>entered into by the British Crown - New Zealand committed to honour >>>>those contracts when we gained independence. Do you think Seymours >>>>attitude is correct?
You keep lying.
settlements are not about land; they need a different approach. Luxon
now appears to be denying the successful approach taken by National
when they were last in government - but then perhaps National no
longer believe in consultation and working together with Maori . . .
Which leaved National apparently not able to cope with serious issues >>>>>>such as oour water problems. It has been suggested that while they >>>>>>would repeal legislation, they would put back fairly much the same >>>>>>thing, including formal consultation in a similar way to the Waikato >>>>>>agreement that brought us the expression co-governance. But why would >>>>>>we want to leave it to a party that is not prepared to talk about any >>>>>>policies for such an urgent problem - we need work done before the >>>>>>election.
Pure political rhetoric Rich. I agree National needs to put forward a >>>>>plan that goes beyond the promised repeal of the current legislation. >>>>>That plan does not exist publicly yet so your speculation is as >>>>>pointless as it is useless.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 02:30:29 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo that is a lie. they are ebtirely different.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Irrelevant - they are what National called co-governance, and are
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 12:31:29 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:Neither of which are co-governance.
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 10:39:25 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:Yes fair comment Crash - the different issues arose from comments from >>>>David Seymour at a time (now) when consultation with Maori, and the >>>>arrangements made by previous governments, are very much in the news. >>>>The comments by Ben Thomas are however very pertinent to the debate >>>>above - the government is arguing that they wish to work with Maori to >>>>advance common interests - that has worked well for the arrangments >>>>relating to the Wanganui and Waikato Rivers.
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 10:17:55 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 22:02:05 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 20:10:36 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 18:19:39 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>wrote:They did consult with local authorities for the Three Waters >>>>>>>>legislation.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/analysis-the-three-biggest-lessons-from-aucklands-historic-floods/SKKD6HGILZENPMN2WKC5Q3MP4I/
It will not be easy, but I am sure that working together - government
with local authorities, and consulting with local communities, >>>>>>>>>>businesses and interest groups is the way to go.
So a U-turn on Water reforms is needed. The current government does >>>>>>>>>indeed need to consult with local authorities on this.
Correct but they ignored the fact that most local authorities were >>>>>>>opposed to the reforms. Originally Labour offered an opt-out option >>>>>>>but this was withdrawn when it became apparent that a significant >>>>>>>number of local authorities indicated they would opt out - including >>>>>>>Auckland Council with a Labour ex-cabinet-member as Mayor.
So yes Labour consulted, but the response was to ignore concerns and >>>>>>>to remove the opt-out option.
I agree that the events of this last week are likely toMost local bodies have not asked for and do not need assistance with >>>>>>>weather bombs. This is no justification for the Water reforms.
see some changes - certainly the needs of local authorities have >>>>>>>>changed - Southland for example was asking for government assistance >>>>>>>>for work relating to river banks; Auckland needs have changed >>>>>>>>suddently as covered in the article.
LocalIf they are not considered that may slow down response - there could >>>>>>>>well be an appeal to the Waitangi Tribunal, similar to the Foreshore >>>>>>>>and Sebad protest; but it is certainly one way of making sure that >>>>>>>>consultation is not token but real - and that includes as you say with >>>>>>>>interested groups - but some actions will be needed quickly. An >>>>>>>>alternative that I have suggested for the short term is to set up >>>>>>>>structures under the legislaition for areas where local councils want >>>>>>>>to participate; that may enable some work to start quickly while >>>>>>>>solutions for other areas are considered without quite the same >>>>>>>>urgency.
authorities need to consult with interested groups within their >>>>>>>>>territory. Pre-conceived political policies (such as co-governance) >>>>>>>>>need not be considered unless the final decisions justify the concept >>>>>>>>>that community-owned water assets can be co-managed with Maori >>>>>>>>>descendants on a basis of fair equity in the area that each local body >>>>>>>>>operates in.
Labour are a long way from making these concessions, and I am sure >>>>>>>that any change will be a difficult sell to their Maori caucus >>>>>>>members. They will not tolerate the removal of compulsory >>>>>>>co-governance measures particularly, with opt-out also being needed. >>>>>>>
Labour cannot be trusted to do this, National do not currently have a >>>>>>>>>policy that meets these criteria.
Actions are needed before the next election. National have said they >>>>>>>>will repeal Labour's legislation, but not what they would replace it >>>>>>>>with - and I cannot see them just handing money over to Councils >>>>>>>>without input on where that money goes.
I agree with that - National will need to publish a Water reforms >>>>>>>policy that addresses the issue for each local body that opts in. >>>>>>>
The previous NationalSenseless repetition of a lie does not change the fact you lie when >>>>>>>you say this. National went down the co-management route, not the >>>>>>>co-governance route as defined in the current Water reforms >>>>>>>legislation, and it works specifically because co-management is >>>>>>>different to co-governance.
Government was enthusastically following the co-governance route, >>>>>>>>which has made it difficult for the current or any future government >>>>>>>>to claim that it does not work - it clearly does.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/02/waitangi-tribunal-recommendations-should-be-rejected-as-consequence-could-be-kiwis-rights-up-in-air-david-seymour.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
There is a video atthe top - watch from 1:57 in - National know that >>>>>>Labour is just using the name that Chris Finlayson used when they >>>>>>followed a solution used by Michael Cullen for the Wanganui River. >>>>>>National are not saying that they would do anything different in the >>>>>>next term
The problem with the words of David Seymour is that he appears to >>>>>>believe that government can unilaterally amend a contract by >>>>>>legislation - the TReaty of Waitangi is one of the earliest contracts >>>>>>entered into by the British Crown - New Zealand committed to honour >>>>>>those contracts when we gained independence. Do you think Seymours >>>>>>attitude is correct?
Your latest post wanders away from the debate your original post >>>>>started. Accordingly I conclude you have nothing more to add to that >>>>>debate. Debate around a recent report from the Waitangi Tribunal is >>>>>another subject - feel free to start a new thread.
close to what Labour is doing with Three Waters.
Provide evidence or admit you are lying.
Which leaved National apparently not able to cope with serious issues >>>>>>>>such as oour water problems. It has been suggested that while they >>>>>>>>would repeal legislation, they would put back fairly much the same >>>>>>>>thing, including formal consultation in a similar way to the Waikato >>>>>>>>agreement that brought us the expression co-governance. But why would >>>>>>>>we want to leave it to a party that is not prepared to talk about any >>>>>>>>policies for such an urgent problem - we need work done before the >>>>>>>>election.
Pure political rhetoric Rich. I agree National needs to put forward a >>>>>>>plan that goes beyond the promised repeal of the current legislation. >>>>>>>That plan does not exist publicly yet so your speculation is as >>>>>>>pointless as it is useless.
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 05:48:40 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 02:30:29 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo that is a lie. they are ebtirely different.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Irrelevant - they are what National called co-governance, and are
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 12:31:29 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:Neither of which are co-governance.
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 10:39:25 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:Yes fair comment Crash - the different issues arose from comments from >>>>>David Seymour at a time (now) when consultation with Maori, and the >>>>>arrangements made by previous governments, are very much in the news. >>>>>The comments by Ben Thomas are however very pertinent to the debate >>>>>above - the government is arguing that they wish to work with Maori to >>>>>advance common interests - that has worked well for the arrangments >>>>>relating to the Wanganui and Waikato Rivers.
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 10:17:55 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 22:02:05 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 20:10:36 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 18:19:39 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>wrote:They did consult with local authorities for the Three Waters >>>>>>>>>legislation.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/analysis-the-three-biggest-lessons-from-aucklands-historic-floods/SKKD6HGILZENPMN2WKC5Q3MP4I/
It will not be easy, but I am sure that working together - government
with local authorities, and consulting with local communities, >>>>>>>>>>>businesses and interest groups is the way to go.
So a U-turn on Water reforms is needed. The current government does >>>>>>>>>>indeed need to consult with local authorities on this.
Correct but they ignored the fact that most local authorities were >>>>>>>>opposed to the reforms. Originally Labour offered an opt-out option >>>>>>>>but this was withdrawn when it became apparent that a significant >>>>>>>>number of local authorities indicated they would opt out - including >>>>>>>>Auckland Council with a Labour ex-cabinet-member as Mayor.
So yes Labour consulted, but the response was to ignore concerns and >>>>>>>>to remove the opt-out option.
I agree that the events of this last week are likely toMost local bodies have not asked for and do not need assistance with >>>>>>>>weather bombs. This is no justification for the Water reforms. >>>>>>>>
see some changes - certainly the needs of local authorities have >>>>>>>>>changed - Southland for example was asking for government assistance >>>>>>>>>for work relating to river banks; Auckland needs have changed >>>>>>>>>suddently as covered in the article.
LocalIf they are not considered that may slow down response - there could >>>>>>>>>well be an appeal to the Waitangi Tribunal, similar to the Foreshore >>>>>>>>>and Sebad protest; but it is certainly one way of making sure that >>>>>>>>>consultation is not token but real - and that includes as you say with >>>>>>>>>interested groups - but some actions will be needed quickly. An >>>>>>>>>alternative that I have suggested for the short term is to set up >>>>>>>>>structures under the legislaition for areas where local councils want >>>>>>>>>to participate; that may enable some work to start quickly while >>>>>>>>>solutions for other areas are considered without quite the same >>>>>>>>>urgency.
authorities need to consult with interested groups within their >>>>>>>>>>territory. Pre-conceived political policies (such as co-governance) >>>>>>>>>>need not be considered unless the final decisions justify the concept >>>>>>>>>>that community-owned water assets can be co-managed with Maori >>>>>>>>>>descendants on a basis of fair equity in the area that each local body
operates in.
Labour are a long way from making these concessions, and I am sure >>>>>>>>that any change will be a difficult sell to their Maori caucus >>>>>>>>members. They will not tolerate the removal of compulsory >>>>>>>>co-governance measures particularly, with opt-out also being needed. >>>>>>>>
Labour cannot be trusted to do this, National do not currently have a >>>>>>>>>>policy that meets these criteria.
Actions are needed before the next election. National have said they >>>>>>>>>will repeal Labour's legislation, but not what they would replace it >>>>>>>>>with - and I cannot see them just handing money over to Councils >>>>>>>>>without input on where that money goes.
I agree with that - National will need to publish a Water reforms >>>>>>>>policy that addresses the issue for each local body that opts in. >>>>>>>>
The previous NationalSenseless repetition of a lie does not change the fact you lie when >>>>>>>>you say this. National went down the co-management route, not the >>>>>>>>co-governance route as defined in the current Water reforms >>>>>>>>legislation, and it works specifically because co-management is >>>>>>>>different to co-governance.
Government was enthusastically following the co-governance route, >>>>>>>>>which has made it difficult for the current or any future government >>>>>>>>>to claim that it does not work - it clearly does.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/02/waitangi-tribunal-recommendations-should-be-rejected-as-consequence-could-be-kiwis-rights-up-in-air-david-seymour.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
There is a video atthe top - watch from 1:57 in - National know that >>>>>>>Labour is just using the name that Chris Finlayson used when they >>>>>>>followed a solution used by Michael Cullen for the Wanganui River. >>>>>>>National are not saying that they would do anything different in the >>>>>>>next term
The problem with the words of David Seymour is that he appears to >>>>>>>believe that government can unilaterally amend a contract by >>>>>>>legislation - the TReaty of Waitangi is one of the earliest contracts >>>>>>>entered into by the British Crown - New Zealand committed to honour >>>>>>>those contracts when we gained independence. Do you think Seymours >>>>>>>attitude is correct?
Your latest post wanders away from the debate your original post >>>>>>started. Accordingly I conclude you have nothing more to add to that >>>>>>debate. Debate around a recent report from the Waitangi Tribunal is >>>>>>another subject - feel free to start a new thread.
close to what Labour is doing with Three Waters.
Provide evidence or admit you are lying.
Rich cant - so he just continues his lie. National never called them >co-governance because the term did not exist until Labour introduced
the Water reforms legislation starting after the He Puapua report was
leaked.
Which leaved National apparently not able to cope with serious issues >>>>>>>>>such as oour water problems. It has been suggested that while they >>>>>>>>>would repeal legislation, they would put back fairly much the same >>>>>>>>>thing, including formal consultation in a similar way to the Waikato >>>>>>>>>agreement that brought us the expression co-governance. But why would >>>>>>>>>we want to leave it to a party that is not prepared to talk about any >>>>>>>>>policies for such an urgent problem - we need work done before the >>>>>>>>>election.
Pure political rhetoric Rich. I agree National needs to put forward a >>>>>>>>plan that goes beyond the promised repeal of the current legislation. >>>>>>>>That plan does not exist publicly yet so your speculation is as >>>>>>>>pointless as it is useless.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 02:30:29 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo that is a lie. they are ebtirely different.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Irrelevant - they are what National called co-governance, and are
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 12:31:29 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:Neither of which are co-governance.
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 10:39:25 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:Yes fair comment Crash - the different issues arose from comments from >>>>David Seymour at a time (now) when consultation with Maori, and the >>>>arrangements made by previous governments, are very much in the news. >>>>The comments by Ben Thomas are however very pertinent to the debate >>>>above - the government is arguing that they wish to work with Maori to >>>>advance common interests - that has worked well for the arrangments >>>>relating to the Wanganui and Waikato Rivers.
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 10:17:55 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 22:02:05 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 20:10:36 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 18:19:39 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>wrote:They did consult with local authorities for the Three Waters >>>>>>>>legislation.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/analysis-the-three-biggest-lessons-from-aucklands-historic-floods/SKKD6HGILZENPMN2WKC5Q3MP4I/
It will not be easy, but I am sure that working together - government
with local authorities, and consulting with local communities, >>>>>>>>>>businesses and interest groups is the way to go.
So a U-turn on Water reforms is needed. The current government does >>>>>>>>>indeed need to consult with local authorities on this.
Correct but they ignored the fact that most local authorities were >>>>>>>opposed to the reforms. Originally Labour offered an opt-out option >>>>>>>but this was withdrawn when it became apparent that a significant >>>>>>>number of local authorities indicated they would opt out - including >>>>>>>Auckland Council with a Labour ex-cabinet-member as Mayor.
So yes Labour consulted, but the response was to ignore concerns and >>>>>>>to remove the opt-out option.
I agree that the events of this last week are likely toMost local bodies have not asked for and do not need assistance with >>>>>>>weather bombs. This is no justification for the Water reforms.
see some changes - certainly the needs of local authorities have >>>>>>>>changed - Southland for example was asking for government assistance >>>>>>>>for work relating to river banks; Auckland needs have changed >>>>>>>>suddently as covered in the article.
LocalIf they are not considered that may slow down response - there could >>>>>>>>well be an appeal to the Waitangi Tribunal, similar to the Foreshore >>>>>>>>and Sebad protest; but it is certainly one way of making sure that >>>>>>>>consultation is not token but real - and that includes as you say with >>>>>>>>interested groups - but some actions will be needed quickly. An >>>>>>>>alternative that I have suggested for the short term is to set up >>>>>>>>structures under the legislaition for areas where local councils want >>>>>>>>to participate; that may enable some work to start quickly while >>>>>>>>solutions for other areas are considered without quite the same >>>>>>>>urgency.
authorities need to consult with interested groups within their >>>>>>>>>territory. Pre-conceived political policies (such as co-governance) >>>>>>>>>need not be considered unless the final decisions justify the concept >>>>>>>>>that community-owned water assets can be co-managed with Maori >>>>>>>>>descendants on a basis of fair equity in the area that each local body >>>>>>>>>operates in.
Labour are a long way from making these concessions, and I am sure >>>>>>>that any change will be a difficult sell to their Maori caucus >>>>>>>members. They will not tolerate the removal of compulsory >>>>>>>co-governance measures particularly, with opt-out also being needed. >>>>>>>
Labour cannot be trusted to do this, National do not currently have a >>>>>>>>>policy that meets these criteria.
Actions are needed before the next election. National have said they >>>>>>>>will repeal Labour's legislation, but not what they would replace it >>>>>>>>with - and I cannot see them just handing money over to Councils >>>>>>>>without input on where that money goes.
I agree with that - National will need to publish a Water reforms >>>>>>>policy that addresses the issue for each local body that opts in. >>>>>>>
The previous NationalSenseless repetition of a lie does not change the fact you lie when >>>>>>>you say this. National went down the co-management route, not the >>>>>>>co-governance route as defined in the current Water reforms >>>>>>>legislation, and it works specifically because co-management is >>>>>>>different to co-governance.
Government was enthusastically following the co-governance route, >>>>>>>>which has made it difficult for the current or any future government >>>>>>>>to claim that it does not work - it clearly does.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/02/waitangi-tribunal-recommendations-should-be-rejected-as-consequence-could-be-kiwis-rights-up-in-air-david-seymour.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
There is a video atthe top - watch from 1:57 in - National know that >>>>>>Labour is just using the name that Chris Finlayson used when they >>>>>>followed a solution used by Michael Cullen for the Wanganui River. >>>>>>National are not saying that they would do anything different in the >>>>>>next term
The problem with the words of David Seymour is that he appears to >>>>>>believe that government can unilaterally amend a contract by >>>>>>legislation - the TReaty of Waitangi is one of the earliest contracts >>>>>>entered into by the British Crown - New Zealand committed to honour >>>>>>those contracts when we gained independence. Do you think Seymours >>>>>>attitude is correct?
Your latest post wanders away from the debate your original post >>>>>started. Accordingly I conclude you have nothing more to add to that >>>>>debate. Debate around a recent report from the Waitangi Tribunal is >>>>>another subject - feel free to start a new thread.
close to what Labour is doing with Three Waters.
Provide evidence or admit you are lying.
Which leaved National apparently not able to cope with serious issues >>>>>>>>such as oour water problems. It has been suggested that while they >>>>>>>>would repeal legislation, they would put back fairly much the same >>>>>>>>thing, including formal consultation in a similar way to the Waikato >>>>>>>>agreement that brought us the expression co-governance. But why would >>>>>>>>we want to leave it to a party that is not prepared to talk about any >>>>>>>>policies for such an urgent problem - we need work done before the >>>>>>>>election.
Pure political rhetoric Rich. I agree National needs to put forward a >>>>>>>plan that goes beyond the promised repeal of the current legislation. >>>>>>>That plan does not exist publicly yet so your speculation is as >>>>>>>pointless as it is useless.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I doubt Ben Thomas knows you, but confusing people with the term is
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 02:29:14 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo it is you who is confused. You heve demonstrated many times that you do not >understand the difference.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Ben Thomas was suggesting that National may have been better calling
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 10:17:55 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:Nothing in that even hints that co-governance and co-management are the same.
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 22:02:05 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 20:10:36 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 18:19:39 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:They did consult with local authorities for the Three Waters >>>>>>legislation.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/analysis-the-three-biggest-lessons-from-aucklands-historic-floods/SKKD6HGILZENPMN2WKC5Q3MP4I/
It will not be easy, but I am sure that working together - government >>>>>>>>with local authorities, and consulting with local communities, >>>>>>>>businesses and interest groups is the way to go.
So a U-turn on Water reforms is needed. The current government does >>>>>>>indeed need to consult with local authorities on this.
Correct but they ignored the fact that most local authorities were >>>>>opposed to the reforms. Originally Labour offered an opt-out option >>>>>but this was withdrawn when it became apparent that a significant >>>>>number of local authorities indicated they would opt out - including >>>>>Auckland Council with a Labour ex-cabinet-member as Mayor.
So yes Labour consulted, but the response was to ignore concerns and >>>>>to remove the opt-out option.
I agree that the events of this last week are likely toMost local bodies have not asked for and do not need assistance with >>>>>weather bombs. This is no justification for the Water reforms.
see some changes - certainly the needs of local authorities have >>>>>>changed - Southland for example was asking for government assistance >>>>>>for work relating to river banks; Auckland needs have changed >>>>>>suddently as covered in the article.
LocalIf they are not considered that may slow down response - there could >>>>>>well be an appeal to the Waitangi Tribunal, similar to the Foreshore >>>>>>and Sebad protest; but it is certainly one way of making sure that >>>>>>consultation is not token but real - and that includes as you say with >>>>>>interested groups - but some actions will be needed quickly. An >>>>>>alternative that I have suggested for the short term is to set up >>>>>>structures under the legislaition for areas where local councils want >>>>>>to participate; that may enable some work to start quickly while >>>>>>solutions for other areas are considered without quite the same >>>>>>urgency.
authorities need to consult with interested groups within their >>>>>>>territory. Pre-conceived political policies (such as co-governance) >>>>>>>need not be considered unless the final decisions justify the concept >>>>>>>that community-owned water assets can be co-managed with Maori >>>>>>>descendants on a basis of fair equity in the area that each local body >>>>>>>operates in.
Labour are a long way from making these concessions, and I am sure >>>>>that any change will be a difficult sell to their Maori caucus >>>>>members. They will not tolerate the removal of compulsory >>>>>co-governance measures particularly, with opt-out also being needed.
Labour cannot be trusted to do this, National do not currently have a >>>>>>>policy that meets these criteria.
Actions are needed before the next election. National have said they >>>>>>will repeal Labour's legislation, but not what they would replace it >>>>>>with - and I cannot see them just handing money over to Councils >>>>>>without input on where that money goes.
I agree with that - National will need to publish a Water reforms >>>>>policy that addresses the issue for each local body that opts in.
The previous NationalSenseless repetition of a lie does not change the fact you lie when >>>>>you say this. National went down the co-management route, not the >>>>>co-governance route as defined in the current Water reforms >>>>>legislation, and it works specifically because co-management is >>>>>different to co-governance.
Government was enthusastically following the co-governance route, >>>>>>which has made it difficult for the current or any future government >>>>>>to claim that it does not work - it clearly does.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/02/waitangi-tribunal-recommendations-should-be-rejected-as-consequence-could-be-kiwis-rights-up-in-air-david-seymour.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
There is a video atthe top - watch from 1:57 in - National know that >>>>Labour is just using the name that Chris Finlayson used when they >>>>followed a solution used by Michael Cullen for the Wanganui River. >>>>National are not saying that they would do anything different in the >>>>next term
They are not, not even close.
what they did co-managment than co-governance since it seems to have >>cofused people - perhaps that includes you Tony.
I do understand, I have lived the difference.
However I note your snide remark, slipping again into abuse are you?
We have been reaching Treaty Settlements for many years - theseThe Treaty does not menstion or even suggest anyuthing whatsoever about >>>c-governance.
The problem with the words of David Seymour is that he appears to >>>>believe that government can unilaterally amend a contract by >>>>legislation - the TReaty of Waitangi is one of the earliest contracts >>>>entered into by the British Crown - New Zealand committed to honour >>>>those contracts when we gained independence. Do you think Seymours >>>>attitude is correct?
You keep lying.
settlements are not about land; they need a different approach. Luxon
now appears to be denying the successful approach taken by National
when they were last in government - but then perhaps National no
longer believe in consultation and working together with Maori . . .
Which leaved National apparently not able to cope with serious issues >>>>>>such as oour water problems. It has been suggested that while they >>>>>>would repeal legislation, they would put back fairly much the same >>>>>>thing, including formal consultation in a similar way to the Waikato >>>>>>agreement that brought us the expression co-governance. But why would >>>>>>we want to leave it to a party that is not prepared to talk about any >>>>>>policies for such an urgent problem - we need work done before the >>>>>>election.
Pure political rhetoric Rich. I agree National needs to put forward a >>>>>plan that goes beyond the promised repeal of the current legislation. >>>>>That plan does not exist publicly yet so your speculation is as >>>>>pointless as it is useless.
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 05:48:40 -0000 (UTC), TonyWhat absolute nonsense/ If they used the wrong term then that proves the two are different.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 02:30:29 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo that is a lie. they are ebtirely different.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Irrelevant - they are what National called co-governance, and are
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 12:31:29 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:Neither of which are co-governance.
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 10:39:25 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:Yes fair comment Crash - the different issues arose from comments from >>>>>David Seymour at a time (now) when consultation with Maori, and the >>>>>arrangements made by previous governments, are very much in the news. >>>>>The comments by Ben Thomas are however very pertinent to the debate >>>>>above - the government is arguing that they wish to work with Maori to >>>>>advance common interests - that has worked well for the arrangments >>>>>relating to the Wanganui and Waikato Rivers.
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 10:17:55 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 22:02:05 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 20:10:36 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 18:19:39 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>wrote:They did consult with local authorities for the Three Waters >>>>>>>>>legislation.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/analysis-the-three-biggest-lessons-from-aucklands-historic-floods/SKKD6HGILZENPMN2WKC5Q3MP4I/
It will not be easy, but I am sure that working together - >>>>>>>>>>>government
with local authorities, and consulting with local communities, >>>>>>>>>>>businesses and interest groups is the way to go.
So a U-turn on Water reforms is needed. The current government does >>>>>>>>>>indeed need to consult with local authorities on this.
Correct but they ignored the fact that most local authorities were >>>>>>>>opposed to the reforms. Originally Labour offered an opt-out option >>>>>>>>but this was withdrawn when it became apparent that a significant >>>>>>>>number of local authorities indicated they would opt out - including >>>>>>>>Auckland Council with a Labour ex-cabinet-member as Mayor.
So yes Labour consulted, but the response was to ignore concerns and >>>>>>>>to remove the opt-out option.
I agree that the events of this last week are likely toMost local bodies have not asked for and do not need assistance with >>>>>>>>weather bombs. This is no justification for the Water reforms. >>>>>>>>
see some changes - certainly the needs of local authorities have >>>>>>>>>changed - Southland for example was asking for government assistance >>>>>>>>>for work relating to river banks; Auckland needs have changed >>>>>>>>>suddently as covered in the article.
LocalIf they are not considered that may slow down response - there could >>>>>>>>>well be an appeal to the Waitangi Tribunal, similar to the Foreshore >>>>>>>>>and Sebad protest; but it is certainly one way of making sure that >>>>>>>>>consultation is not token but real - and that includes as you say with >>>>>>>>>interested groups - but some actions will be needed quickly. An >>>>>>>>>alternative that I have suggested for the short term is to set up >>>>>>>>>structures under the legislaition for areas where local councils want >>>>>>>>>to participate; that may enable some work to start quickly while >>>>>>>>>solutions for other areas are considered without quite the same >>>>>>>>>urgency.
authorities need to consult with interested groups within their >>>>>>>>>>territory. Pre-conceived political policies (such as co-governance) >>>>>>>>>>need not be considered unless the final decisions justify the concept >>>>>>>>>>that community-owned water assets can be co-managed with Maori >>>>>>>>>>descendants on a basis of fair equity in the area that each local body
operates in.
Labour are a long way from making these concessions, and I am sure >>>>>>>>that any change will be a difficult sell to their Maori caucus >>>>>>>>members. They will not tolerate the removal of compulsory >>>>>>>>co-governance measures particularly, with opt-out also being needed. >>>>>>>>
Labour cannot be trusted to do this, National do not currently have a >>>>>>>>>>policy that meets these criteria.
Actions are needed before the next election. National have said they >>>>>>>>>will repeal Labour's legislation, but not what they would replace it >>>>>>>>>with - and I cannot see them just handing money over to Councils >>>>>>>>>without input on where that money goes.
I agree with that - National will need to publish a Water reforms >>>>>>>>policy that addresses the issue for each local body that opts in. >>>>>>>>
The previous NationalSenseless repetition of a lie does not change the fact you lie when >>>>>>>>you say this. National went down the co-management route, not the >>>>>>>>co-governance route as defined in the current Water reforms >>>>>>>>legislation, and it works specifically because co-management is >>>>>>>>different to co-governance.
Government was enthusastically following the co-governance route, >>>>>>>>>which has made it difficult for the current or any future government >>>>>>>>>to claim that it does not work - it clearly does.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/02/waitangi-tribunal-recommendations-should-be-rejected-as-consequence-could-be-kiwis-rights-up-in-air-david-seymour.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
There is a video atthe top - watch from 1:57 in - National know that >>>>>>>Labour is just using the name that Chris Finlayson used when they >>>>>>>followed a solution used by Michael Cullen for the Wanganui River. >>>>>>>National are not saying that they would do anything different in the >>>>>>>next term
The problem with the words of David Seymour is that he appears to >>>>>>>believe that government can unilaterally amend a contract by >>>>>>>legislation - the TReaty of Waitangi is one of the earliest contracts >>>>>>>entered into by the British Crown - New Zealand committed to honour >>>>>>>those contracts when we gained independence. Do you think Seymours >>>>>>>attitude is correct?
Your latest post wanders away from the debate your original post >>>>>>started. Accordingly I conclude you have nothing more to add to that >>>>>>debate. Debate around a recent report from the Waitangi Tribunal is >>>>>>another subject - feel free to start a new thread.
close to what Labour is doing with Three Waters.
Provide evidence or admit you are lying.
There you go again with your unsupported accusations - and yet again
you did not read or in this case listen!
Go back up to the Newshub url - there is a video at the top; listen
from 1:57 to Ben Thomas, who worked for the National Party, and claims
to have come up wth the term co-governance for what they arranged
forthe Waikato river. He says that perhaps it was not the best name
because it gets cofused with government. So So-Governance is what
National called thier Waikato settlement / solution, and what they did
there is similar to the working together that Labour is seeking with
Three Waters.
Which leaved National apparently not able to cope with serious issues >>>>>>>>>such as oour water problems. It has been suggested that while they >>>>>>>>>would repeal legislation, they would put back fairly much the same >>>>>>>>>thing, including formal consultation in a similar way to the Waikato >>>>>>>>>agreement that brought us the expression co-governance. But why would >>>>>>>>>we want to leave it to a party that is not prepared to talk about any >>>>>>>>>policies for such an urgent problem - we need work done before the >>>>>>>>>election.
Pure political rhetoric Rich. I agree National needs to put forward a >>>>>>>>plan that goes beyond the promised repeal of the current legislation. >>>>>>>>That plan does not exist publicly yet so your speculation is as >>>>>>>>pointless as it is useless.
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 05:51:23 -0000 (UTC), TonyJesus wept.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I doubt Ben Thomas knows you, but confusing people with the term is
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 02:29:14 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo it is you who is confused. You heve demonstrated many times that you do >>not
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Ben Thomas was suggesting that National may have been better calling
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 10:17:55 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:Nothing in that even hints that co-governance and co-management are the >>>>same.
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 22:02:05 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 20:10:36 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 18:19:39 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>wrote:They did consult with local authorities for the Three Waters >>>>>>>legislation.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/analysis-the-three-biggest-lessons-from-aucklands-historic-floods/SKKD6HGILZENPMN2WKC5Q3MP4I/
It will not be easy, but I am sure that working together - government >>>>>>>>>with local authorities, and consulting with local communities, >>>>>>>>>businesses and interest groups is the way to go.
So a U-turn on Water reforms is needed. The current government does >>>>>>>>indeed need to consult with local authorities on this.
Correct but they ignored the fact that most local authorities were >>>>>>opposed to the reforms. Originally Labour offered an opt-out option >>>>>>but this was withdrawn when it became apparent that a significant >>>>>>number of local authorities indicated they would opt out - including >>>>>>Auckland Council with a Labour ex-cabinet-member as Mayor.
So yes Labour consulted, but the response was to ignore concerns and >>>>>>to remove the opt-out option.
I agree that the events of this last week are likely toMost local bodies have not asked for and do not need assistance with >>>>>>weather bombs. This is no justification for the Water reforms.
see some changes - certainly the needs of local authorities have >>>>>>>changed - Southland for example was asking for government assistance >>>>>>>for work relating to river banks; Auckland needs have changed >>>>>>>suddently as covered in the article.
LocalIf they are not considered that may slow down response - there could >>>>>>>well be an appeal to the Waitangi Tribunal, similar to the Foreshore >>>>>>>and Sebad protest; but it is certainly one way of making sure that >>>>>>>consultation is not token but real - and that includes as you say with >>>>>>>interested groups - but some actions will be needed quickly. An >>>>>>>alternative that I have suggested for the short term is to set up >>>>>>>structures under the legislaition for areas where local councils want >>>>>>>to participate; that may enable some work to start quickly while >>>>>>>solutions for other areas are considered without quite the same >>>>>>>urgency.
authorities need to consult with interested groups within their >>>>>>>>territory. Pre-conceived political policies (such as co-governance) >>>>>>>>need not be considered unless the final decisions justify the concept >>>>>>>>that community-owned water assets can be co-managed with Maori >>>>>>>>descendants on a basis of fair equity in the area that each local body >>>>>>>>operates in.
Labour are a long way from making these concessions, and I am sure >>>>>>that any change will be a difficult sell to their Maori caucus >>>>>>members. They will not tolerate the removal of compulsory >>>>>>co-governance measures particularly, with opt-out also being needed. >>>>>>
Labour cannot be trusted to do this, National do not currently have a >>>>>>>>policy that meets these criteria.
Actions are needed before the next election. National have said they >>>>>>>will repeal Labour's legislation, but not what they would replace it >>>>>>>with - and I cannot see them just handing money over to Councils >>>>>>>without input on where that money goes.
I agree with that - National will need to publish a Water reforms >>>>>>policy that addresses the issue for each local body that opts in.
The previous NationalSenseless repetition of a lie does not change the fact you lie when >>>>>>you say this. National went down the co-management route, not the >>>>>>co-governance route as defined in the current Water reforms >>>>>>legislation, and it works specifically because co-management is >>>>>>different to co-governance.
Government was enthusastically following the co-governance route, >>>>>>>which has made it difficult for the current or any future government >>>>>>>to claim that it does not work - it clearly does.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/02/waitangi-tribunal-recommendations-should-be-rejected-as-consequence-could-be-kiwis-rights-up-in-air-david-seymour.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
There is a video atthe top - watch from 1:57 in - National know that >>>>>Labour is just using the name that Chris Finlayson used when they >>>>>followed a solution used by Michael Cullen for the Wanganui River. >>>>>National are not saying that they would do anything different in the >>>>>next term
They are not, not even close.
what they did co-managment than co-governance since it seems to have >>>cofused people - perhaps that includes you Tony.
understand the difference.
I do understand, I have lived the difference.
However I note your snide remark, slipping again into abuse are you?
what he claims has happened.
We have been reaching Treaty Settlements for many years - these >>>settlements are not about land; they need a different approach. LuxonThe Treaty does not menstion or even suggest anyuthing whatsoever about >>>>c-governance.
The problem with the words of David Seymour is that he appears to >>>>>believe that government can unilaterally amend a contract by >>>>>legislation - the TReaty of Waitangi is one of the earliest contracts >>>>>entered into by the British Crown - New Zealand committed to honour >>>>>those contracts when we gained independence. Do you think Seymours >>>>>attitude is correct?
You keep lying.
now appears to be denying the successful approach taken by National
when they were last in government - but then perhaps National no
longer believe in consultation and working together with Maori . . .
Which leaved National apparently not able to cope with serious issues >>>>>>>such as oour water problems. It has been suggested that while they >>>>>>>would repeal legislation, they would put back fairly much the same >>>>>>>thing, including formal consultation in a similar way to the Waikato >>>>>>>agreement that brought us the expression co-governance. But why would >>>>>>>we want to leave it to a party that is not prepared to talk about any >>>>>>>policies for such an urgent problem - we need work done before the >>>>>>>election.
Pure political rhetoric Rich. I agree National needs to put forward a >>>>>>plan that goes beyond the promised repeal of the current legislation. >>>>>>That plan does not exist publicly yet so your speculation is as >>>>>>pointless as it is useless.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 05:51:23 -0000 (UTC), TonyJesus wept.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I doubt Ben Thomas knows you, but confusing people with the term is
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 02:29:14 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo it is you who is confused. You heve demonstrated many times that you do >>>not
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Ben Thomas was suggesting that National may have been better calling >>>>what they did co-managment than co-governance since it seems to have >>>>cofused people - perhaps that includes you Tony.
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 10:17:55 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>wrote:Nothing in that even hints that co-governance and co-management are the >>>>>same.
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 22:02:05 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 20:10:36 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 18:19:39 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>wrote:They did consult with local authorities for the Three Waters >>>>>>>>legislation.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/analysis-the-three-biggest-lessons-from-aucklands-historic-floods/SKKD6HGILZENPMN2WKC5Q3MP4I/
It will not be easy, but I am sure that working together - government
with local authorities, and consulting with local communities, >>>>>>>>>>businesses and interest groups is the way to go.
So a U-turn on Water reforms is needed. The current government does >>>>>>>>>indeed need to consult with local authorities on this.
Correct but they ignored the fact that most local authorities were >>>>>>>opposed to the reforms. Originally Labour offered an opt-out option >>>>>>>but this was withdrawn when it became apparent that a significant >>>>>>>number of local authorities indicated they would opt out - including >>>>>>>Auckland Council with a Labour ex-cabinet-member as Mayor.
So yes Labour consulted, but the response was to ignore concerns and >>>>>>>to remove the opt-out option.
I agree that the events of this last week are likely toMost local bodies have not asked for and do not need assistance with >>>>>>>weather bombs. This is no justification for the Water reforms.
see some changes - certainly the needs of local authorities have >>>>>>>>changed - Southland for example was asking for government assistance >>>>>>>>for work relating to river banks; Auckland needs have changed >>>>>>>>suddently as covered in the article.
LocalIf they are not considered that may slow down response - there could >>>>>>>>well be an appeal to the Waitangi Tribunal, similar to the Foreshore >>>>>>>>and Sebad protest; but it is certainly one way of making sure that >>>>>>>>consultation is not token but real - and that includes as you say with >>>>>>>>interested groups - but some actions will be needed quickly. An >>>>>>>>alternative that I have suggested for the short term is to set up >>>>>>>>structures under the legislaition for areas where local councils want >>>>>>>>to participate; that may enable some work to start quickly while >>>>>>>>solutions for other areas are considered without quite the same >>>>>>>>urgency.
authorities need to consult with interested groups within their >>>>>>>>>territory. Pre-conceived political policies (such as co-governance) >>>>>>>>>need not be considered unless the final decisions justify the concept >>>>>>>>>that community-owned water assets can be co-managed with Maori >>>>>>>>>descendants on a basis of fair equity in the area that each local body >>>>>>>>>operates in.
Labour are a long way from making these concessions, and I am sure >>>>>>>that any change will be a difficult sell to their Maori caucus >>>>>>>members. They will not tolerate the removal of compulsory >>>>>>>co-governance measures particularly, with opt-out also being needed. >>>>>>>
Labour cannot be trusted to do this, National do not currently have a >>>>>>>>>policy that meets these criteria.
Actions are needed before the next election. National have said they >>>>>>>>will repeal Labour's legislation, but not what they would replace it >>>>>>>>with - and I cannot see them just handing money over to Councils >>>>>>>>without input on where that money goes.
I agree with that - National will need to publish a Water reforms >>>>>>>policy that addresses the issue for each local body that opts in. >>>>>>>
The previous NationalSenseless repetition of a lie does not change the fact you lie when >>>>>>>you say this. National went down the co-management route, not the >>>>>>>co-governance route as defined in the current Water reforms >>>>>>>legislation, and it works specifically because co-management is >>>>>>>different to co-governance.
Government was enthusastically following the co-governance route, >>>>>>>>which has made it difficult for the current or any future government >>>>>>>>to claim that it does not work - it clearly does.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/02/waitangi-tribunal-recommendations-should-be-rejected-as-consequence-could-be-kiwis-rights-up-in-air-david-seymour.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
There is a video atthe top - watch from 1:57 in - National know that >>>>>>Labour is just using the name that Chris Finlayson used when they >>>>>>followed a solution used by Michael Cullen for the Wanganui River. >>>>>>National are not saying that they would do anything different in the >>>>>>next term
They are not, not even close.
understand the difference.
I do understand, I have lived the difference.
However I note your snide remark, slipping again into abuse are you?
what he claims has happened.
You lied.
Period.
Thomas and his opinions are irrelevant and entirely off topiuc. Everybody in >the universe knows that except you. Even Thomas certainly knopws that.
We have been reaching Treaty Settlements for many years - these >>>>settlements are not about land; they need a different approach. Luxon >>>>now appears to be denying the successful approach taken by National >>>>when they were last in government - but then perhaps National noThe Treaty does not menstion or even suggest anyuthing whatsoever about >>>>>c-governance.
The problem with the words of David Seymour is that he appears to >>>>>>believe that government can unilaterally amend a contract by >>>>>>legislation - the TReaty of Waitangi is one of the earliest contracts >>>>>>entered into by the British Crown - New Zealand committed to honour >>>>>>those contracts when we gained independence. Do you think Seymours >>>>>>attitude is correct?
You keep lying.
longer believe in consultation and working together with Maori . . .
Which leaved National apparently not able to cope with serious issues >>>>>>>>such as oour water problems. It has been suggested that while they >>>>>>>>would repeal legislation, they would put back fairly much the same >>>>>>>>thing, including formal consultation in a similar way to the Waikato >>>>>>>>agreement that brought us the expression co-governance. But why would >>>>>>>>we want to leave it to a party that is not prepared to talk about any >>>>>>>>policies for such an urgent problem - we need work done before the >>>>>>>>election.
Pure political rhetoric Rich. I agree National needs to put forward a >>>>>>>plan that goes beyond the promised repeal of the current legislation. >>>>>>>That plan does not exist publicly yet so your speculation is as >>>>>>>pointless as it is useless.
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 19:27:04 -0000 (UTC), TonyBut that is a lie.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 05:51:23 -0000 (UTC), TonyJesus wept.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I doubt Ben Thomas knows you, but confusing people with the term is
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 02:29:14 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:No it is you who is confused. You heve demonstrated many times that you do >>>>not
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Ben Thomas was suggesting that National may have been better calling >>>>>what they did co-managment than co-governance since it seems to have >>>>>cofused people - perhaps that includes you Tony.
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 10:17:55 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>wrote:Nothing in that even hints that co-governance and co-management are the >>>>>>same.
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 22:02:05 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 20:10:36 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 18:19:39 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>wrote:They did consult with local authorities for the Three Waters >>>>>>>>>legislation.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/analysis-the-three-biggest-lessons-from-aucklands-historic-floods/SKKD6HGILZENPMN2WKC5Q3MP4I/
It will not be easy, but I am sure that working together - >>>>>>>>>>>government
with local authorities, and consulting with local communities, >>>>>>>>>>>businesses and interest groups is the way to go.
So a U-turn on Water reforms is needed. The current government does >>>>>>>>>>indeed need to consult with local authorities on this.
Correct but they ignored the fact that most local authorities were >>>>>>>>opposed to the reforms. Originally Labour offered an opt-out option >>>>>>>>but this was withdrawn when it became apparent that a significant >>>>>>>>number of local authorities indicated they would opt out - including >>>>>>>>Auckland Council with a Labour ex-cabinet-member as Mayor.
So yes Labour consulted, but the response was to ignore concerns and >>>>>>>>to remove the opt-out option.
I agree that the events of this last week are likely toMost local bodies have not asked for and do not need assistance with >>>>>>>>weather bombs. This is no justification for the Water reforms. >>>>>>>>
see some changes - certainly the needs of local authorities have >>>>>>>>>changed - Southland for example was asking for government assistance >>>>>>>>>for work relating to river banks; Auckland needs have changed >>>>>>>>>suddently as covered in the article.
LocalIf they are not considered that may slow down response - there could >>>>>>>>>well be an appeal to the Waitangi Tribunal, similar to the Foreshore >>>>>>>>>and Sebad protest; but it is certainly one way of making sure that >>>>>>>>>consultation is not token but real - and that includes as you say with >>>>>>>>>interested groups - but some actions will be needed quickly. An >>>>>>>>>alternative that I have suggested for the short term is to set up >>>>>>>>>structures under the legislaition for areas where local councils want >>>>>>>>>to participate; that may enable some work to start quickly while >>>>>>>>>solutions for other areas are considered without quite the same >>>>>>>>>urgency.
authorities need to consult with interested groups within their >>>>>>>>>>territory. Pre-conceived political policies (such as co-governance) >>>>>>>>>>need not be considered unless the final decisions justify the concept >>>>>>>>>>that community-owned water assets can be co-managed with Maori >>>>>>>>>>descendants on a basis of fair equity in the area that each local body
operates in.
Labour are a long way from making these concessions, and I am sure >>>>>>>>that any change will be a difficult sell to their Maori caucus >>>>>>>>members. They will not tolerate the removal of compulsory >>>>>>>>co-governance measures particularly, with opt-out also being needed. >>>>>>>>
Labour cannot be trusted to do this, National do not currently have a >>>>>>>>>>policy that meets these criteria.
Actions are needed before the next election. National have said they >>>>>>>>>will repeal Labour's legislation, but not what they would replace it >>>>>>>>>with - and I cannot see them just handing money over to Councils >>>>>>>>>without input on where that money goes.
I agree with that - National will need to publish a Water reforms >>>>>>>>policy that addresses the issue for each local body that opts in. >>>>>>>>
The previous NationalSenseless repetition of a lie does not change the fact you lie when >>>>>>>>you say this. National went down the co-management route, not the >>>>>>>>co-governance route as defined in the current Water reforms >>>>>>>>legislation, and it works specifically because co-management is >>>>>>>>different to co-governance.
Government was enthusastically following the co-governance route, >>>>>>>>>which has made it difficult for the current or any future government >>>>>>>>>to claim that it does not work - it clearly does.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/02/waitangi-tribunal-recommendations-should-be-rejected-as-consequence-could-be-kiwis-rights-up-in-air-david-seymour.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
There is a video atthe top - watch from 1:57 in - National know that >>>>>>>Labour is just using the name that Chris Finlayson used when they >>>>>>>followed a solution used by Michael Cullen for the Wanganui River. >>>>>>>National are not saying that they would do anything different in the >>>>>>>next term
They are not, not even close.
understand the difference.
I do understand, I have lived the difference.
However I note your snide remark, slipping again into abuse are you?
what he claims has happened.
You lied.
Period.
Thomas and his opinions are irrelevant and entirely off topiuc. Everybody in >>the universe knows that except you. Even Thomas certainly knopws that.
Your caution over believing anything from a National Party person, is >understandable, but in this case wrong. National are having an
internal struggle in Luxon trying to avoid having to admit that the
previous National-led government followed a Labour Party example
(Wanganui River) of a way to reach a Treaty settlement; they then
called the Waikato settlement co-governance.
It is just an internalYour abuse is noted.
problem for National, your lies are, as usual, totally unnecessary
Tony. You are not helping Luxon, or harming Labour - you are just
being a prat.
We have been reaching Treaty Settlements for many years - these >>>>>settlements are not about land; they need a different approach. Luxon >>>>>now appears to be denying the successful approach taken by National >>>>>when they were last in government - but then perhaps National no >>>>>longer believe in consultation and working together with Maori . . .The Treaty does not menstion or even suggest anyuthing whatsoever about >>>>>>c-governance.
The problem with the words of David Seymour is that he appears to >>>>>>>believe that government can unilaterally amend a contract by >>>>>>>legislation - the TReaty of Waitangi is one of the earliest contracts >>>>>>>entered into by the British Crown - New Zealand committed to honour >>>>>>>those contracts when we gained independence. Do you think Seymours >>>>>>>attitude is correct?
You keep lying.
Which leaved National apparently not able to cope with serious issues >>>>>>>>>such as oour water problems. It has been suggested that while they >>>>>>>>>would repeal legislation, they would put back fairly much the same >>>>>>>>>thing, including formal consultation in a similar way to the Waikato >>>>>>>>>agreement that brought us the expression co-governance. But why would >>>>>>>>>we want to leave it to a party that is not prepared to talk about any >>>>>>>>>policies for such an urgent problem - we need work done before the >>>>>>>>>election.
Pure political rhetoric Rich. I agree National needs to put forward a >>>>>>>>plan that goes beyond the promised repeal of the current legislation. >>>>>>>>That plan does not exist publicly yet so your speculation is as >>>>>>>>pointless as it is useless.
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 05:48:40 -0000 (UTC), TonyBen Thomas didn't mention co-governance Rich he only claimed it was a bad term to describe things. It's only the reporter who mentions co-governance. Once again your lack of comprehension supports your desire to look like a fucking imbecile!
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:There you go again with your unsupported accusations - and yet again
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 02:30:29 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo that is a lie. they are ebtirely different.
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Irrelevant - they are what National called co-governance, and are
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 12:31:29 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:Neither of which are co-governance.
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 10:39:25 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:Yes fair comment Crash - the different issues arose from comments from >>>>David Seymour at a time (now) when consultation with Maori, and the >>>>arrangements made by previous governments, are very much in the news. >>>>The comments by Ben Thomas are however very pertinent to the debate >>>>above - the government is arguing that they wish to work with Maori to >>>>advance common interests - that has worked well for the arrangments >>>>relating to the Wanganui and Waikato Rivers.
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 10:17:55 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 22:02:05 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 20:10:36 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 18:19:39 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>wrote:They did consult with local authorities for the Three Waters >>>>>>>>legislation.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/analysis-the-three-biggest-lessons-from-aucklands-historic-floods/SKKD6HGILZENPMN2WKC5Q3MP4I/
It will not be easy, but I am sure that working together - government
with local authorities, and consulting with local communities, >>>>>>>>>>businesses and interest groups is the way to go.
So a U-turn on Water reforms is needed. The current government does >>>>>>>>>indeed need to consult with local authorities on this.
Correct but they ignored the fact that most local authorities were >>>>>>>opposed to the reforms. Originally Labour offered an opt-out option >>>>>>>but this was withdrawn when it became apparent that a significant >>>>>>>number of local authorities indicated they would opt out - including >>>>>>>Auckland Council with a Labour ex-cabinet-member as Mayor.
So yes Labour consulted, but the response was to ignore concerns and >>>>>>>to remove the opt-out option.
I agree that the events of this last week are likely toMost local bodies have not asked for and do not need assistance with >>>>>>>weather bombs. This is no justification for the Water reforms.
see some changes - certainly the needs of local authorities have >>>>>>>>changed - Southland for example was asking for government assistance >>>>>>>>for work relating to river banks; Auckland needs have changed >>>>>>>>suddently as covered in the article.
LocalIf they are not considered that may slow down response - there could >>>>>>>>well be an appeal to the Waitangi Tribunal, similar to the Foreshore >>>>>>>>and Sebad protest; but it is certainly one way of making sure that >>>>>>>>consultation is not token but real - and that includes as you say with
authorities need to consult with interested groups within their >>>>>>>>>territory. Pre-conceived political policies (such as co-governance) >>>>>>>>>need not be considered unless the final decisions justify the concept
that community-owned water assets can be co-managed with Maori >>>>>>>>>descendants on a basis of fair equity in the area that each local body
operates in.
interested groups - but some actions will be needed quickly. An >>>>>>>>alternative that I have suggested for the short term is to set up >>>>>>>>structures under the legislaition for areas where local councils want >>>>>>>>to participate; that may enable some work to start quickly while >>>>>>>>solutions for other areas are considered without quite the same >>>>>>>>urgency.
Labour are a long way from making these concessions, and I am sure >>>>>>>that any change will be a difficult sell to their Maori caucus >>>>>>>members. They will not tolerate the removal of compulsory >>>>>>>co-governance measures particularly, with opt-out also being needed. >>>>>>>
Labour cannot be trusted to do this, National do not currently have a
policy that meets these criteria.
Actions are needed before the next election. National have said they >>>>>>>>will repeal Labour's legislation, but not what they would replace it >>>>>>>>with - and I cannot see them just handing money over to Councils >>>>>>>>without input on where that money goes.
I agree with that - National will need to publish a Water reforms >>>>>>>policy that addresses the issue for each local body that opts in. >>>>>>>
The previous NationalSenseless repetition of a lie does not change the fact you lie when >>>>>>>you say this. National went down the co-management route, not the >>>>>>>co-governance route as defined in the current Water reforms >>>>>>>legislation, and it works specifically because co-management is >>>>>>>different to co-governance.
Government was enthusastically following the co-governance route, >>>>>>>>which has made it difficult for the current or any future government >>>>>>>>to claim that it does not work - it clearly does.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/02/waitangi-tribunal-recommendations-should-be-rejected-as-consequence-could-be-kiwis-rights-up-in-air-david-seymour.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
There is a video atthe top - watch from 1:57 in - National know that >>>>>>Labour is just using the name that Chris Finlayson used when they >>>>>>followed a solution used by Michael Cullen for the Wanganui River. >>>>>>National are not saying that they would do anything different in the >>>>>>next term
The problem with the words of David Seymour is that he appears to >>>>>>believe that government can unilaterally amend a contract by >>>>>>legislation - the TReaty of Waitangi is one of the earliest contracts >>>>>>entered into by the British Crown - New Zealand committed to honour >>>>>>those contracts when we gained independence. Do you think Seymours >>>>>>attitude is correct?
Your latest post wanders away from the debate your original post >>>>>started. Accordingly I conclude you have nothing more to add to that >>>>>debate. Debate around a recent report from the Waitangi Tribunal is >>>>>another subject - feel free to start a new thread.
close to what Labour is doing with Three Waters.
Provide evidence or admit you are lying.
you did not read or in this case listen!
Go back up to the Newshub url - there is a video at the top; listen
from 1:57 to Ben Thomas, who worked for the National Party, and claims
to have come up wth the term co-governance for what they arranged
forthe Waikato river. He says that perhaps it was not the best name
because it gets cofused with government. So So-Governance is what
National called thier Waikato settlement / solution, and what they did
there is similar to the working together that Labour is seeking with
Three Waters.
Which leaved National apparently not able to cope with serious issues >>>>>>>>such as oour water problems. It has been suggested that while they >>>>>>>>would repeal legislation, they would put back fairly much the same >>>>>>>>thing, including formal consultation in a similar way to the Waikato >>>>>>>>agreement that brought us the expression co-governance. But why would >>>>>>>>we want to leave it to a party that is not prepared to talk about any >>>>>>>>policies for such an urgent problem - we need work done before the >>>>>>>>election.
Pure political rhetoric Rich. I agree National needs to put forward a >>>>>>>plan that goes beyond the promised repeal of the current legislation. >>>>>>>That plan does not exist publicly yet so your speculation is as >>>>>>>pointless as it is useless.
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 05:48:40 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 02:30:29 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo that is a lie. they are ebtirely different.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Irrelevant - they are what National called co-governance, and are
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 12:31:29 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:Neither of which are co-governance.
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 10:39:25 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:Yes fair comment Crash - the different issues arose from comments from >>>>>David Seymour at a time (now) when consultation with Maori, and the >>>>>arrangements made by previous governments, are very much in the news. >>>>>The comments by Ben Thomas are however very pertinent to the debate >>>>>above - the government is arguing that they wish to work with Maori to >>>>>advance common interests - that has worked well for the arrangments >>>>>relating to the Wanganui and Waikato Rivers.
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 10:17:55 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 22:02:05 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 20:10:36 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 18:19:39 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>wrote:They did consult with local authorities for the Three Waters >>>>>>>>>legislation.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/analysis-the-three-biggest-lessons-from-aucklands-historic-floods/SKKD6HGILZENPMN2WKC5Q3MP4I/
It will not be easy, but I am sure that working together - government
with local authorities, and consulting with local communities, >>>>>>>>>>>businesses and interest groups is the way to go.
So a U-turn on Water reforms is needed. The current government does >>>>>>>>>>indeed need to consult with local authorities on this.
Correct but they ignored the fact that most local authorities were >>>>>>>>opposed to the reforms. Originally Labour offered an opt-out option >>>>>>>>but this was withdrawn when it became apparent that a significant >>>>>>>>number of local authorities indicated they would opt out - including >>>>>>>>Auckland Council with a Labour ex-cabinet-member as Mayor.
So yes Labour consulted, but the response was to ignore concerns and >>>>>>>>to remove the opt-out option.
I agree that the events of this last week are likely toMost local bodies have not asked for and do not need assistance with >>>>>>>>weather bombs. This is no justification for the Water reforms. >>>>>>>>
see some changes - certainly the needs of local authorities have >>>>>>>>>changed - Southland for example was asking for government assistance >>>>>>>>>for work relating to river banks; Auckland needs have changed >>>>>>>>>suddently as covered in the article.
LocalIf they are not considered that may slow down response - there could >>>>>>>>>well be an appeal to the Waitangi Tribunal, similar to the Foreshore >>>>>>>>>and Sebad protest; but it is certainly one way of making sure that >>>>>>>>>consultation is not token but real - and that includes as you say with >>>>>>>>>interested groups - but some actions will be needed quickly. An >>>>>>>>>alternative that I have suggested for the short term is to set up >>>>>>>>>structures under the legislaition for areas where local councils want >>>>>>>>>to participate; that may enable some work to start quickly while >>>>>>>>>solutions for other areas are considered without quite the same >>>>>>>>>urgency.
authorities need to consult with interested groups within their >>>>>>>>>>territory. Pre-conceived political policies (such as co-governance) >>>>>>>>>>need not be considered unless the final decisions justify the concept >>>>>>>>>>that community-owned water assets can be co-managed with Maori >>>>>>>>>>descendants on a basis of fair equity in the area that each local body
operates in.
Labour are a long way from making these concessions, and I am sure >>>>>>>>that any change will be a difficult sell to their Maori caucus >>>>>>>>members. They will not tolerate the removal of compulsory >>>>>>>>co-governance measures particularly, with opt-out also being needed. >>>>>>>>
Labour cannot be trusted to do this, National do not currently have a >>>>>>>>>>policy that meets these criteria.
Actions are needed before the next election. National have said they >>>>>>>>>will repeal Labour's legislation, but not what they would replace it >>>>>>>>>with - and I cannot see them just handing money over to Councils >>>>>>>>>without input on where that money goes.
I agree with that - National will need to publish a Water reforms >>>>>>>>policy that addresses the issue for each local body that opts in. >>>>>>>>
The previous NationalSenseless repetition of a lie does not change the fact you lie when >>>>>>>>you say this. National went down the co-management route, not the >>>>>>>>co-governance route as defined in the current Water reforms >>>>>>>>legislation, and it works specifically because co-management is >>>>>>>>different to co-governance.
Government was enthusastically following the co-governance route, >>>>>>>>>which has made it difficult for the current or any future government >>>>>>>>>to claim that it does not work - it clearly does.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/02/waitangi-tribunal-recommendations-should-be-rejected-as-consequence-could-be-kiwis-rights-up-in-air-david-seymour.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
There is a video atthe top - watch from 1:57 in - National know that >>>>>>>Labour is just using the name that Chris Finlayson used when they >>>>>>>followed a solution used by Michael Cullen for the Wanganui River. >>>>>>>National are not saying that they would do anything different in the >>>>>>>next term
The problem with the words of David Seymour is that he appears to >>>>>>>believe that government can unilaterally amend a contract by >>>>>>>legislation - the TReaty of Waitangi is one of the earliest contracts >>>>>>>entered into by the British Crown - New Zealand committed to honour >>>>>>>those contracts when we gained independence. Do you think Seymours >>>>>>>attitude is correct?
Your latest post wanders away from the debate your original post >>>>>>started. Accordingly I conclude you have nothing more to add to that >>>>>>debate. Debate around a recent report from the Waitangi Tribunal is >>>>>>another subject - feel free to start a new thread.
close to what Labour is doing with Three Waters.
Provide evidence or admit you are lying.
There you go again with your unsupported accusations - and yet again
you did not read or in this case listen!
Go back up to the Newshub url - there is a video at the top; listen
from 1:57 to Ben Thomas, who worked for the National Party, and claims
to have come up wth the term co-governance for what they arranged
forthe Waikato river. He says that perhaps it was not the best name
because it gets cofused with government. So So-Governance is what
National called thier Waikato settlement / solution, and what they did
there is similar to the working together that Labour is seeking with
Three Waters.
Which leaved National apparently not able to cope with serious issues >>>>>>>>>such as oour water problems. It has been suggested that while they >>>>>>>>>would repeal legislation, they would put back fairly much the same >>>>>>>>>thing, including formal consultation in a similar way to the Waikato >>>>>>>>>agreement that brought us the expression co-governance. But why would >>>>>>>>>we want to leave it to a party that is not prepared to talk about any >>>>>>>>>policies for such an urgent problem - we need work done before the >>>>>>>>>election.
Pure political rhetoric Rich. I agree National needs to put forward a >>>>>>>>plan that goes beyond the promised repeal of the current legislation. >>>>>>>>That plan does not exist publicly yet so your speculation is as >>>>>>>>pointless as it is useless.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 19:27:04 -0000 (UTC), TonyBut that is a lie.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 05:51:23 -0000 (UTC), TonyJesus wept.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I doubt Ben Thomas knows you, but confusing people with the term is >>>>what he claims has happened.
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 02:29:14 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:No it is you who is confused. You heve demonstrated many times that you do >>>>>not
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Ben Thomas was suggesting that National may have been better calling >>>>>>what they did co-managment than co-governance since it seems to have >>>>>>cofused people - perhaps that includes you Tony.
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 10:17:55 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>wrote:Nothing in that even hints that co-governance and co-management are the >>>>>>>same.
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 22:02:05 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 20:10:36 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 18:19:39 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/analysis-the-three-biggest-lessons-from-aucklands-historic-floods/SKKD6HGILZENPMN2WKC5Q3MP4I/
It will not be easy, but I am sure that working together - >>>>>>>>>>>>government
with local authorities, and consulting with local communities, >>>>>>>>>>>>businesses and interest groups is the way to go.
So a U-turn on Water reforms is needed. The current government does >>>>>>>>>>>indeed need to consult with local authorities on this. >>>>>>>>>>They did consult with local authorities for the Three Waters >>>>>>>>>>legislation.
Correct but they ignored the fact that most local authorities were >>>>>>>>>opposed to the reforms. Originally Labour offered an opt-out option >>>>>>>>>but this was withdrawn when it became apparent that a significant >>>>>>>>>number of local authorities indicated they would opt out - including >>>>>>>>>Auckland Council with a Labour ex-cabinet-member as Mayor.
So yes Labour consulted, but the response was to ignore concerns and >>>>>>>>>to remove the opt-out option.
I agree that the events of this last week are likely toMost local bodies have not asked for and do not need assistance with >>>>>>>>>weather bombs. This is no justification for the Water reforms. >>>>>>>>>
see some changes - certainly the needs of local authorities have >>>>>>>>>>changed - Southland for example was asking for government assistance >>>>>>>>>>for work relating to river banks; Auckland needs have changed >>>>>>>>>>suddently as covered in the article.
LocalIf they are not considered that may slow down response - there could >>>>>>>>>>well be an appeal to the Waitangi Tribunal, similar to the Foreshore >>>>>>>>>>and Sebad protest; but it is certainly one way of making sure that >>>>>>>>>>consultation is not token but real - and that includes as you say with
authorities need to consult with interested groups within their >>>>>>>>>>>territory. Pre-conceived political policies (such as co-governance)
need not be considered unless the final decisions justify the concept
that community-owned water assets can be co-managed with Maori >>>>>>>>>>>descendants on a basis of fair equity in the area that each local body
operates in.
interested groups - but some actions will be needed quickly. An >>>>>>>>>>alternative that I have suggested for the short term is to set up >>>>>>>>>>structures under the legislaition for areas where local councils want >>>>>>>>>>to participate; that may enable some work to start quickly while >>>>>>>>>>solutions for other areas are considered without quite the same >>>>>>>>>>urgency.
Labour are a long way from making these concessions, and I am sure >>>>>>>>>that any change will be a difficult sell to their Maori caucus >>>>>>>>>members. They will not tolerate the removal of compulsory >>>>>>>>>co-governance measures particularly, with opt-out also being needed. >>>>>>>>>
Labour cannot be trusted to do this, National do not currently have a
policy that meets these criteria.
Actions are needed before the next election. National have said they >>>>>>>>>>will repeal Labour's legislation, but not what they would replace it >>>>>>>>>>with - and I cannot see them just handing money over to Councils >>>>>>>>>>without input on where that money goes.
I agree with that - National will need to publish a Water reforms >>>>>>>>>policy that addresses the issue for each local body that opts in. >>>>>>>>>
The previous NationalSenseless repetition of a lie does not change the fact you lie when >>>>>>>>>you say this. National went down the co-management route, not the >>>>>>>>>co-governance route as defined in the current Water reforms >>>>>>>>>legislation, and it works specifically because co-management is >>>>>>>>>different to co-governance.
Government was enthusastically following the co-governance route, >>>>>>>>>>which has made it difficult for the current or any future government >>>>>>>>>>to claim that it does not work - it clearly does.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/02/waitangi-tribunal-recommendations-should-be-rejected-as-consequence-could-be-kiwis-rights-up-in-air-david-seymour.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
There is a video atthe top - watch from 1:57 in - National know that >>>>>>>>Labour is just using the name that Chris Finlayson used when they >>>>>>>>followed a solution used by Michael Cullen for the Wanganui River. >>>>>>>>National are not saying that they would do anything different in the >>>>>>>>next term
They are not, not even close.
understand the difference.
I do understand, I have lived the difference.
However I note your snide remark, slipping again into abuse are you?
You lied.
Period.
Thomas and his opinions are irrelevant and entirely off topiuc. Everybody in >>>the universe knows that except you. Even Thomas certainly knopws that.
Your caution over believing anything from a National Party person, is >>understandable, but in this case wrong. National are having an
internal struggle in Luxon trying to avoid having to admit that the >>previous National-led government followed a Labour Party example
(Wanganui River) of a way to reach a Treaty settlement; they then
called the Waikato settlement co-governance.
It is just an internalYour abuse is noted.
problem for National, your lies are, as usual, totally unnecessary
Tony. You are not helping Luxon, or harming Labour - you are just
being a prat.
Just once provide a single example of where any previous co-management was in >fact co-governance.
You might need to understanbd the difference between the two for the first time
but there is plenty of information available. Your personal experience clearly >lacks both.
You can continue to make a fool of yourself but that is your right and your >only hope of ever being noticed.
Do get a life and do some research. No National government has ever practiced >co-governance. Your only hope of showing otherwise is to provide examples and >to do so without changing the subject or being abusive. Sorry, I know how >difficult that is for you but help is available.
We have been reaching Treaty Settlements for many years - these >>>>>>settlements are not about land; they need a different approach. Luxon >>>>>>now appears to be denying the successful approach taken by National >>>>>>when they were last in government - but then perhaps National no >>>>>>longer believe in consultation and working together with Maori . . . >>>>>>The Treaty does not menstion or even suggest anyuthing whatsoever about >>>>>>>c-governance.
The problem with the words of David Seymour is that he appears to >>>>>>>>believe that government can unilaterally amend a contract by >>>>>>>>legislation - the TReaty of Waitangi is one of the earliest contracts >>>>>>>>entered into by the British Crown - New Zealand committed to honour >>>>>>>>those contracts when we gained independence. Do you think Seymours >>>>>>>>attitude is correct?
You keep lying.
Which leaved National apparently not able to cope with serious issues >>>>>>>>>>such as oour water problems. It has been suggested that while they >>>>>>>>>>would repeal legislation, they would put back fairly much the same >>>>>>>>>>thing, including formal consultation in a similar way to the Waikato >>>>>>>>>>agreement that brought us the expression co-governance. But why would >>>>>>>>>>we want to leave it to a party that is not prepared to talk about any >>>>>>>>>>policies for such an urgent problem - we need work done before the >>>>>>>>>>election.
Pure political rhetoric Rich. I agree National needs to put forward a >>>>>>>>>plan that goes beyond the promised repeal of the current legislation. >>>>>>>>>That plan does not exist publicly yet so your speculation is as >>>>>>>>>pointless as it is useless.
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 21:28:26 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou should not be so unkind to yourself - I vaguely recall one occasion when you posted a response supported by facts. I can't remember the topic, probably not very important.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 19:27:04 -0000 (UTC), TonyBut that is a lie.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 05:51:23 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Jesus wept.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 02:29:14 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:No it is you who is confused. You heve demonstrated many times that you >>>>>>do
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Ben Thomas was suggesting that National may have been better calling >>>>>>>what they did co-managment than co-governance since it seems to have >>>>>>>cofused people - perhaps that includes you Tony.
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 10:17:55 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>>wrote:Nothing in that even hints that co-governance and co-management are the >>>>>>>>same.
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 22:02:05 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 20:10:36 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 18:19:39 +1300, Rich80105 >>>>>>>>>>>><Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/analysis-the-three-biggest-lessons-from-aucklands-historic-floods/SKKD6HGILZENPMN2WKC5Q3MP4I/
It will not be easy, but I am sure that working together - >>>>>>>>>>>>>government
with local authorities, and consulting with local communities, >>>>>>>>>>>>>businesses and interest groups is the way to go.
So a U-turn on Water reforms is needed. The current government does
indeed need to consult with local authorities on this. >>>>>>>>>>>They did consult with local authorities for the Three Waters >>>>>>>>>>>legislation.
Correct but they ignored the fact that most local authorities were >>>>>>>>>>opposed to the reforms. Originally Labour offered an opt-out option >>>>>>>>>>but this was withdrawn when it became apparent that a significant >>>>>>>>>>number of local authorities indicated they would opt out - including >>>>>>>>>>Auckland Council with a Labour ex-cabinet-member as Mayor.
So yes Labour consulted, but the response was to ignore concerns and >>>>>>>>>>to remove the opt-out option.
I agree that the events of this last week are likely to >>>>>>>>>>>see some changes - certainly the needs of local authorities have >>>>>>>>>>>changed - Southland for example was asking for government assistance >>>>>>>>>>>for work relating to river banks; Auckland needs have changed >>>>>>>>>>>suddently as covered in the article.Most local bodies have not asked for and do not need assistance with >>>>>>>>>>weather bombs. This is no justification for the Water reforms. >>>>>>>>>>
LocalIf they are not considered that may slow down response - there could >>>>>>>>>>>well be an appeal to the Waitangi Tribunal, similar to the Foreshore >>>>>>>>>>>and Sebad protest; but it is certainly one way of making sure that >>>>>>>>>>>consultation is not token but real - and that includes as you say >>>>>>>>>>>with
authorities need to consult with interested groups within their >>>>>>>>>>>>territory. Pre-conceived political policies (such as >>>>>>>>>>>>co-governance)
need not be considered unless the final decisions justify the >>>>>>>>>>>>concept
that community-owned water assets can be co-managed with Maori >>>>>>>>>>>>descendants on a basis of fair equity in the area that each local >>>>>>>>>>>>body
operates in.
interested groups - but some actions will be needed quickly. An >>>>>>>>>>>alternative that I have suggested for the short term is to set up >>>>>>>>>>>structures under the legislaition for areas where local councils want
to participate; that may enable some work to start quickly while >>>>>>>>>>>solutions for other areas are considered without quite the same >>>>>>>>>>>urgency.
Labour are a long way from making these concessions, and I am sure >>>>>>>>>>that any change will be a difficult sell to their Maori caucus >>>>>>>>>>members. They will not tolerate the removal of compulsory >>>>>>>>>>co-governance measures particularly, with opt-out also being needed. >>>>>>>>>>
Labour cannot be trusted to do this, National do not currently have >>>>>>>>>>>>a
policy that meets these criteria.
Actions are needed before the next election. National have said they >>>>>>>>>>>will repeal Labour's legislation, but not what they would replace it >>>>>>>>>>>with - and I cannot see them just handing money over to Councils >>>>>>>>>>>without input on where that money goes.
I agree with that - National will need to publish a Water reforms >>>>>>>>>>policy that addresses the issue for each local body that opts in. >>>>>>>>>>
The previous NationalSenseless repetition of a lie does not change the fact you lie when >>>>>>>>>>you say this. National went down the co-management route, not the >>>>>>>>>>co-governance route as defined in the current Water reforms >>>>>>>>>>legislation, and it works specifically because co-management is >>>>>>>>>>different to co-governance.
Government was enthusastically following the co-governance route, >>>>>>>>>>>which has made it difficult for the current or any future government >>>>>>>>>>>to claim that it does not work - it clearly does.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/02/waitangi-tribunal-recommendations-should-be-rejected-as-consequence-could-be-kiwis-rights-up-in-air-david-seymour.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
There is a video atthe top - watch from 1:57 in - National know that >>>>>>>>>Labour is just using the name that Chris Finlayson used when they >>>>>>>>>followed a solution used by Michael Cullen for the Wanganui River. >>>>>>>>>National are not saying that they would do anything different in the >>>>>>>>>next term
They are not, not even close.
not
understand the difference.
I do understand, I have lived the difference.
However I note your snide remark, slipping again into abuse are you? >>>>>I doubt Ben Thomas knows you, but confusing people with the term is >>>>>what he claims has happened.
You lied.
Period.
Thomas and his opinions are irrelevant and entirely off topiuc. Everybody >>>>in
the universe knows that except you. Even Thomas certainly knopws that.
Your caution over believing anything from a National Party person, is >>>understandable, but in this case wrong. National are having an
internal struggle in Luxon trying to avoid having to admit that the >>>previous National-led government followed a Labour Party example >>>(Wanganui River) of a way to reach a Treaty settlement; they then
called the Waikato settlement co-governance.
It is just an internalYour abuse is noted.
problem for National, your lies are, as usual, totally unnecessary
Tony. You are not helping Luxon, or harming Labour - you are just
being a prat.
Just once provide a single example of where any previous co-management was in >>fact co-governance.
You might need to understanbd the difference between the two for the first >>time
but there is plenty of information available. Your personal experience >>clearly
lacks both.
You can continue to make a fool of yourself but that is your right and your >>only hope of ever being noticed.
Do get a life and do some research. No National government has ever practiced >>co-governance. Your only hope of showing otherwise is to provide examples and >>to do so without changing the subject or being abusive. Sorry, I know how >>difficult that is for you but help is available.
Chris Finlayson however says that they did. So who to believe - an >opinionated occasional poster to nz.general who never supports those
opinions with facts
, or a past Cabinet Minister who is regarded asAnd who never said what you have posted.
having done well with Treaty settlements, and in particular with the >co-governance arranements for the Waikato River . . .
(And yes, I have posted a link to CHris Finlason sang thatI doubt he sang it. But he certainly never said it.
co-governance is the way forward and that we should be proceeding as
fast as possible to just get on with co-governance arrangements)
We have been reaching Treaty Settlements for many years - these >>>>>>>settlements are not about land; they need a different approach. Luxon >>>>>>>now appears to be denying the successful approach taken by National >>>>>>>when they were last in government - but then perhaps National no >>>>>>>longer believe in consultation and working together with Maori . . . >>>>>>>The Treaty does not menstion or even suggest anyuthing whatsoever about >>>>>>>>c-governance.
The problem with the words of David Seymour is that he appears to >>>>>>>>>believe that government can unilaterally amend a contract by >>>>>>>>>legislation - the TReaty of Waitangi is one of the earliest contracts >>>>>>>>>entered into by the British Crown - New Zealand committed to honour >>>>>>>>>those contracts when we gained independence. Do you think Seymours >>>>>>>>>attitude is correct?
You keep lying.
Which leaved National apparently not able to cope with serious issues
such as oour water problems. It has been suggested that while they >>>>>>>>>>>would repeal legislation, they would put back fairly much the same >>>>>>>>>>>thing, including formal consultation in a similar way to the Waikato >>>>>>>>>>>agreement that brought us the expression co-governance. But why would
we want to leave it to a party that is not prepared to talk about any
policies for such an urgent problem - we need work done before the >>>>>>>>>>>election.
Pure political rhetoric Rich. I agree National needs to put forward a
plan that goes beyond the promised repeal of the current legislation. >>>>>>>>>>That plan does not exist publicly yet so your speculation is as >>>>>>>>>>pointless as it is useless.
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 21:50:01 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>No, lisyten again - Ben Thomas suggests the he wondered at the time if
wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 05:48:40 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 02:30:29 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo that is a lie. they are ebtirely different.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Irrelevant - they are what National called co-governance, and are
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 12:31:29 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>wrote:Neither of which are co-governance.
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 10:39:25 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:Yes fair comment Crash - the different issues arose from comments from >>>>>>David Seymour at a time (now) when consultation with Maori, and the >>>>>>arrangements made by previous governments, are very much in the news. >>>>>>The comments by Ben Thomas are however very pertinent to the debate >>>>>>above - the government is arguing that they wish to work with Maori to >>>>>>advance common interests - that has worked well for the arrangments >>>>>>relating to the Wanganui and Waikato Rivers.
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 10:17:55 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 22:02:05 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 20:10:36 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 18:19:39 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/analysis-the-three-biggest-lessons-from-aucklands-historic-floods/SKKD6HGILZENPMN2WKC5Q3MP4I/
It will not be easy, but I am sure that working together - government
with local authorities, and consulting with local communities, >>>>>>>>>>>>businesses and interest groups is the way to go.
So a U-turn on Water reforms is needed. The current government does >>>>>>>>>>>indeed need to consult with local authorities on this. >>>>>>>>>>They did consult with local authorities for the Three Waters >>>>>>>>>>legislation.
Correct but they ignored the fact that most local authorities were >>>>>>>>>opposed to the reforms. Originally Labour offered an opt-out option >>>>>>>>>but this was withdrawn when it became apparent that a significant >>>>>>>>>number of local authorities indicated they would opt out - including >>>>>>>>>Auckland Council with a Labour ex-cabinet-member as Mayor.
So yes Labour consulted, but the response was to ignore concerns and >>>>>>>>>to remove the opt-out option.
I agree that the events of this last week are likely toMost local bodies have not asked for and do not need assistance with >>>>>>>>>weather bombs. This is no justification for the Water reforms. >>>>>>>>>
see some changes - certainly the needs of local authorities have >>>>>>>>>>changed - Southland for example was asking for government assistance >>>>>>>>>>for work relating to river banks; Auckland needs have changed >>>>>>>>>>suddently as covered in the article.
LocalIf they are not considered that may slow down response - there could >>>>>>>>>>well be an appeal to the Waitangi Tribunal, similar to the Foreshore >>>>>>>>>>and Sebad protest; but it is certainly one way of making sure that >>>>>>>>>>consultation is not token but real - and that includes as you say with
authorities need to consult with interested groups within their >>>>>>>>>>>territory. Pre-conceived political policies (such as co-governance)
need not be considered unless the final decisions justify the concept
that community-owned water assets can be co-managed with Maori >>>>>>>>>>>descendants on a basis of fair equity in the area that each local body
operates in.
interested groups - but some actions will be needed quickly. An >>>>>>>>>>alternative that I have suggested for the short term is to set up >>>>>>>>>>structures under the legislaition for areas where local councils want >>>>>>>>>>to participate; that may enable some work to start quickly while >>>>>>>>>>solutions for other areas are considered without quite the same >>>>>>>>>>urgency.
Labour are a long way from making these concessions, and I am sure >>>>>>>>>that any change will be a difficult sell to their Maori caucus >>>>>>>>>members. They will not tolerate the removal of compulsory >>>>>>>>>co-governance measures particularly, with opt-out also being needed. >>>>>>>>>
Labour cannot be trusted to do this, National do not currently have a
policy that meets these criteria.
Actions are needed before the next election. National have said they >>>>>>>>>>will repeal Labour's legislation, but not what they would replace it >>>>>>>>>>with - and I cannot see them just handing money over to Councils >>>>>>>>>>without input on where that money goes.
I agree with that - National will need to publish a Water reforms >>>>>>>>>policy that addresses the issue for each local body that opts in. >>>>>>>>>
The previous NationalSenseless repetition of a lie does not change the fact you lie when >>>>>>>>>you say this. National went down the co-management route, not the >>>>>>>>>co-governance route as defined in the current Water reforms >>>>>>>>>legislation, and it works specifically because co-management is >>>>>>>>>different to co-governance.
Government was enthusastically following the co-governance route, >>>>>>>>>>which has made it difficult for the current or any future government >>>>>>>>>>to claim that it does not work - it clearly does.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/02/waitangi-tribunal-recommendations-should-be-rejected-as-consequence-could-be-kiwis-rights-up-in-air-david-seymour.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
There is a video atthe top - watch from 1:57 in - National know that >>>>>>>>Labour is just using the name that Chris Finlayson used when they >>>>>>>>followed a solution used by Michael Cullen for the Wanganui River. >>>>>>>>National are not saying that they would do anything different in the >>>>>>>>next term
The problem with the words of David Seymour is that he appears to >>>>>>>>believe that government can unilaterally amend a contract by >>>>>>>>legislation - the TReaty of Waitangi is one of the earliest contracts >>>>>>>>entered into by the British Crown - New Zealand committed to honour >>>>>>>>those contracts when we gained independence. Do you think Seymours >>>>>>>>attitude is correct?
Your latest post wanders away from the debate your original post >>>>>>>started. Accordingly I conclude you have nothing more to add to that >>>>>>>debate. Debate around a recent report from the Waitangi Tribunal is >>>>>>>another subject - feel free to start a new thread.
close to what Labour is doing with Three Waters.
Provide evidence or admit you are lying.
There you go again with your unsupported accusations - and yet again
you did not read or in this case listen!
Go back up to the Newshub url - there is a video at the top; listen
from 1:57 to Ben Thomas, who worked for the National Party, and claims
to have come up wth the term co-governance for what they arranged
forthe Waikato river. He says that perhaps it was not the best name
because it gets cofused with government. So So-Governance is what >>National called thier Waikato settlement / solution, and what they did >>there is similar to the working together that Labour is seeking with
Three Waters.
I have listened to that portion of the interview. Thomas never
actually mentions co-governance, but responds to a suggestion from
Wade that the mechanism of co-governance was used with Treaty
settlements negotiated by Findlayson. Thomas then suggests Labour
should have spent more time white boarding alternative names.
So the
fact remains that co-governance was a term first introduced by Labour
to explain Maori involvement in Water Entity management and ownership, >blueprinted by the He Puapua report commissioned by Labour when in
coalition with NZF and according to Winston without his agreement, and
first made public by an unauthorised leak.
Rich you just cannot let go of any lie that you believe furthersI certainly try to refute lies from other posters when I see them, but
Labour interests.
Which leaved National apparently not able to cope with serious issues >>>>>>>>>>such as oour water problems. It has been suggested that while they >>>>>>>>>>would repeal legislation, they would put back fairly much the same >>>>>>>>>>thing, including formal consultation in a similar way to the Waikato >>>>>>>>>>agreement that brought us the expression co-governance. But why would >>>>>>>>>>we want to leave it to a party that is not prepared to talk about any >>>>>>>>>>policies for such an urgent problem - we need work done before the >>>>>>>>>>election.
Pure political rhetoric Rich. I agree National needs to put forward a >>>>>>>>>plan that goes beyond the promised repeal of the current legislation. >>>>>>>>>That plan does not exist publicly yet so your speculation is as >>>>>>>>>pointless as it is useless.
On Mon, 06 Feb 2023 11:24:53 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>Isn't this thread supposedly about the Auckland floods which have nothing whatsoever to do with 5 waters and what Finlayson etc did or did not say? The lesson learned from the floods in Auckland is that an ex Labour leader oversaw work that would appear
wrote:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 21:50:01 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 05:48:40 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 02:30:29 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:No that is a lie. they are ebtirely different.
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Irrelevant - they are what National called co-governance, and are >>>>close to what Labour is doing with Three Waters.
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 12:31:29 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>wrote:Neither of which are co-governance.
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 10:39:25 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:Yes fair comment Crash - the different issues arose from comments from >>>>>>David Seymour at a time (now) when consultation with Maori, and the >>>>>>arrangements made by previous governments, are very much in the news. >>>>>>The comments by Ben Thomas are however very pertinent to the debate >>>>>>above - the government is arguing that they wish to work with Maori to >>>>>>advance common interests - that has worked well for the arrangments >>>>>>relating to the Wanganui and Waikato Rivers.
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 10:17:55 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 22:02:05 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 20:10:36 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 18:19:39 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/analysis-the-three-biggest-lessons-from-aucklands-historic-floods/SKKD6HGILZENPMN2WKC5Q3MP4I/
It will not be easy, but I am sure that working together - government
with local authorities, and consulting with local communities, >>>>>>>>>>>>businesses and interest groups is the way to go.
So a U-turn on Water reforms is needed. The current government does
indeed need to consult with local authorities on this. >>>>>>>>>>They did consult with local authorities for the Three Waters >>>>>>>>>>legislation.
Correct but they ignored the fact that most local authorities were >>>>>>>>>opposed to the reforms. Originally Labour offered an opt-out option >>>>>>>>>but this was withdrawn when it became apparent that a significant >>>>>>>>>number of local authorities indicated they would opt out - including
Auckland Council with a Labour ex-cabinet-member as Mayor. >>>>>>>>>
So yes Labour consulted, but the response was to ignore concerns and
to remove the opt-out option.
I agree that the events of this last week are likely to >>>>>>>>>>see some changes - certainly the needs of local authorities have >>>>>>>>>>changed - Southland for example was asking for government assistanceMost local bodies have not asked for and do not need assistance with
for work relating to river banks; Auckland needs have changed >>>>>>>>>>suddently as covered in the article.
weather bombs. This is no justification for the Water reforms. >>>>>>>>>
LocalIf they are not considered that may slow down response - there could
authorities need to consult with interested groups within their >>>>>>>>>>>territory. Pre-conceived political policies (such as co-governance)
need not be considered unless the final decisions justify the concept
that community-owned water assets can be co-managed with Maori >>>>>>>>>>>descendants on a basis of fair equity in the area that each local body
operates in.
well be an appeal to the Waitangi Tribunal, similar to the Foreshore
and Sebad protest; but it is certainly one way of making sure that >>>>>>>>>>consultation is not token but real - and that includes as you say with
interested groups - but some actions will be needed quickly. An >>>>>>>>>>alternative that I have suggested for the short term is to set up >>>>>>>>>>structures under the legislaition for areas where local councils want
to participate; that may enable some work to start quickly while >>>>>>>>>>solutions for other areas are considered without quite the same >>>>>>>>>>urgency.
Labour are a long way from making these concessions, and I am sure >>>>>>>>>that any change will be a difficult sell to their Maori caucus >>>>>>>>>members. They will not tolerate the removal of compulsory >>>>>>>>>co-governance measures particularly, with opt-out also being needed.
Labour cannot be trusted to do this, National do not currently have a
policy that meets these criteria.
Actions are needed before the next election. National have said they
will repeal Labour's legislation, but not what they would replace it
with - and I cannot see them just handing money over to Councils >>>>>>>>>>without input on where that money goes.
I agree with that - National will need to publish a Water reforms >>>>>>>>>policy that addresses the issue for each local body that opts in. >>>>>>>>>
The previous NationalSenseless repetition of a lie does not change the fact you lie when >>>>>>>>>you say this. National went down the co-management route, not the >>>>>>>>>co-governance route as defined in the current Water reforms >>>>>>>>>legislation, and it works specifically because co-management is >>>>>>>>>different to co-governance.
Government was enthusastically following the co-governance route, >>>>>>>>>>which has made it difficult for the current or any future government
to claim that it does not work - it clearly does.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/02/waitangi-tribunal-recommendations-should-be-rejected-as-consequence-could-be-kiwis-rights-up-in-air-david-seymour.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
There is a video atthe top - watch from 1:57 in - National know that >>>>>>>>Labour is just using the name that Chris Finlayson used when they >>>>>>>>followed a solution used by Michael Cullen for the Wanganui River. >>>>>>>>National are not saying that they would do anything different in the >>>>>>>>next term
The problem with the words of David Seymour is that he appears to >>>>>>>>believe that government can unilaterally amend a contract by >>>>>>>>legislation - the TReaty of Waitangi is one of the earliest contracts
entered into by the British Crown - New Zealand committed to honour >>>>>>>>those contracts when we gained independence. Do you think Seymours >>>>>>>>attitude is correct?
Your latest post wanders away from the debate your original post >>>>>>>started. Accordingly I conclude you have nothing more to add to that >>>>>>>debate. Debate around a recent report from the Waitangi Tribunal is >>>>>>>another subject - feel free to start a new thread.
Provide evidence or admit you are lying.
There you go again with your unsupported accusations - and yet again
you did not read or in this case listen!
Go back up to the Newshub url - there is a video at the top; listen
from 1:57 to Ben Thomas, who worked for the National Party, and claims >>to have come up wth the term co-governance for what they arranged
forthe Waikato river. He says that perhaps it was not the best name >>because it gets cofused with government. So So-Governance is what >>National called thier Waikato settlement / solution, and what they did >>there is similar to the working together that Labour is seeking with >>Three Waters.
I have listened to that portion of the interview. Thomas neverNo, lisyten again - Ben Thomas suggests the he wondered at the time if
actually mentions co-governance, but responds to a suggestion from
Wade that the mechanism of co-governance was used with Treaty
settlements negotiated by Findlayson. Thomas then suggests Labour
should have spent more time white boarding alternative names.
it would be confused with government, and suggests that perhaps he
should have spent a little more time and chosen a different name.
So theNo, Chris Finlayson used the term fpr the Waikato settlement well
fact remains that co-governance was a term first introduced by Labour
to explain Maori involvement in Water Entity management and ownership, >blueprinted by the He Puapua report commissioned by Labour when in >coalition with NZF and according to Winston without his agreement, and >first made public by an unauthorised leak.
before the election that saw Labour elected - and Treaty settlements
were not an issue at that election.
Rich you just cannot let go of any lie that you believe furthersI certainly try to refute lies from other posters when I see them, but
Labour interests.
I suspect as usual it will make little difference to closed minds.
Which leaved National apparently not able to cope with serious issues
such as oour water problems. It has been suggested that while they >>>>>>>>>>would repeal legislation, they would put back fairly much the same >>>>>>>>>>thing, including formal consultation in a similar way to the Waikato
agreement that brought us the expression co-governance. But why would
we want to leave it to a party that is not prepared to talk about any
policies for such an urgent problem - we need work done before the >>>>>>>>>>election.
Pure political rhetoric Rich. I agree National needs to put forward a
plan that goes beyond the promised repeal of the current legislation.
That plan does not exist publicly yet so your speculation is as >>>>>>>>>pointless as it is useless.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:What a short memory you have - and an inherent inability to search .
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 21:28:26 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou should not be so unkind to yourself - I vaguely recall one occasion when >you posted a response supported by facts. I can't remember the topic, probably >not very important.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 19:27:04 -0000 (UTC), TonyBut that is a lie.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Your caution over believing anything from a National Party person, is >>>>understandable, but in this case wrong. National are having an
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 05:51:23 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Jesus wept.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 02:29:14 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:No it is you who is confused. You heve demonstrated many times that you >>>>>>>do
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Ben Thomas was suggesting that National may have been better calling >>>>>>>>what they did co-managment than co-governance since it seems to have >>>>>>>>cofused people - perhaps that includes you Tony.
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 10:17:55 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>wrote:Nothing in that even hints that co-governance and co-management are the
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 22:02:05 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 20:10:36 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 18:19:39 +1300, Rich80105 >>>>>>>>>>>>><Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/analysis-the-three-biggest-lessons-from-aucklands-historic-floods/SKKD6HGILZENPMN2WKC5Q3MP4I/
It will not be easy, but I am sure that working together - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>government
with local authorities, and consulting with local communities, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>businesses and interest groups is the way to go.
So a U-turn on Water reforms is needed. The current government does
indeed need to consult with local authorities on this. >>>>>>>>>>>>They did consult with local authorities for the Three Waters >>>>>>>>>>>>legislation.
Correct but they ignored the fact that most local authorities were >>>>>>>>>>>opposed to the reforms. Originally Labour offered an opt-out option >>>>>>>>>>>but this was withdrawn when it became apparent that a significant >>>>>>>>>>>number of local authorities indicated they would opt out - including >>>>>>>>>>>Auckland Council with a Labour ex-cabinet-member as Mayor. >>>>>>>>>>>
So yes Labour consulted, but the response was to ignore concerns and >>>>>>>>>>>to remove the opt-out option.
I agree that the events of this last week are likely to >>>>>>>>>>>>see some changes - certainly the needs of local authorities have >>>>>>>>>>>>changed - Southland for example was asking for government assistanceMost local bodies have not asked for and do not need assistance with >>>>>>>>>>>weather bombs. This is no justification for the Water reforms. >>>>>>>>>>>
for work relating to river banks; Auckland needs have changed >>>>>>>>>>>>suddently as covered in the article.
LocalIf they are not considered that may slow down response - there could
authorities need to consult with interested groups within their >>>>>>>>>>>>>territory. Pre-conceived political policies (such as >>>>>>>>>>>>>co-governance)
need not be considered unless the final decisions justify the >>>>>>>>>>>>>concept
that community-owned water assets can be co-managed with Maori >>>>>>>>>>>>>descendants on a basis of fair equity in the area that each local >>>>>>>>>>>>>body
operates in.
well be an appeal to the Waitangi Tribunal, similar to the Foreshore
and Sebad protest; but it is certainly one way of making sure that >>>>>>>>>>>>consultation is not token but real - and that includes as you say >>>>>>>>>>>>with
interested groups - but some actions will be needed quickly. An >>>>>>>>>>>>alternative that I have suggested for the short term is to set up >>>>>>>>>>>>structures under the legislaition for areas where local councils want
to participate; that may enable some work to start quickly while >>>>>>>>>>>>solutions for other areas are considered without quite the same >>>>>>>>>>>>urgency.
Labour are a long way from making these concessions, and I am sure >>>>>>>>>>>that any change will be a difficult sell to their Maori caucus >>>>>>>>>>>members. They will not tolerate the removal of compulsory >>>>>>>>>>>co-governance measures particularly, with opt-out also being needed. >>>>>>>>>>>
Labour cannot be trusted to do this, National do not currently have
a
policy that meets these criteria.
Actions are needed before the next election. National have said they
will repeal Labour's legislation, but not what they would replace it
with - and I cannot see them just handing money over to Councils >>>>>>>>>>>>without input on where that money goes.
I agree with that - National will need to publish a Water reforms >>>>>>>>>>>policy that addresses the issue for each local body that opts in. >>>>>>>>>>>
The previous NationalSenseless repetition of a lie does not change the fact you lie when >>>>>>>>>>>you say this. National went down the co-management route, not the >>>>>>>>>>>co-governance route as defined in the current Water reforms >>>>>>>>>>>legislation, and it works specifically because co-management is >>>>>>>>>>>different to co-governance.
Government was enthusastically following the co-governance route, >>>>>>>>>>>>which has made it difficult for the current or any future government
to claim that it does not work - it clearly does.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/02/waitangi-tribunal-recommendations-should-be-rejected-as-consequence-could-be-kiwis-rights-up-in-air-david-seymour.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
There is a video atthe top - watch from 1:57 in - National know that >>>>>>>>>>Labour is just using the name that Chris Finlayson used when they >>>>>>>>>>followed a solution used by Michael Cullen for the Wanganui River. >>>>>>>>>>National are not saying that they would do anything different in the >>>>>>>>>>next term
same.
They are not, not even close.
not
understand the difference.
I do understand, I have lived the difference.
However I note your snide remark, slipping again into abuse are you? >>>>>>I doubt Ben Thomas knows you, but confusing people with the term is >>>>>>what he claims has happened.
You lied.
Period.
Thomas and his opinions are irrelevant and entirely off topiuc. Everybody >>>>>in
the universe knows that except you. Even Thomas certainly knopws that. >>>>
internal struggle in Luxon trying to avoid having to admit that the >>>>previous National-led government followed a Labour Party example >>>>(Wanganui River) of a way to reach a Treaty settlement; they then >>>>called the Waikato settlement co-governance.
It is just an internalYour abuse is noted.
problem for National, your lies are, as usual, totally unnecessary >>>>Tony. You are not helping Luxon, or harming Labour - you are just
being a prat.
Just once provide a single example of where any previous co-management was in
fact co-governance.
You might need to understanbd the difference between the two for the first >>>time
but there is plenty of information available. Your personal experience >>>clearly
lacks both.
You can continue to make a fool of yourself but that is your right and your >>>only hope of ever being noticed.
Do get a life and do some research. No National government has ever practiced
co-governance. Your only hope of showing otherwise is to provide examples and
to do so without changing the subject or being abusive. Sorry, I know how >>>difficult that is for you but help is available.
Chris Finlayson however says that they did. So who to believe - an >>opinionated occasional poster to nz.general who never supports those >>opinions with facts
, or a past Cabinet Minister who is regarded asAnd who never said what you have posted.
having done well with Treaty settlements, and in particular with the >>co-governance arranements for the Waikato River . . .
I doubt he sang it. But he certainly never said it.
(And yes, I have posted a link to CHris Finlason sang that
co-governance is the way forward and that we should be proceeding as
fast as possible to just get on with co-governance arrangements)
However as previously explained - what he said is now irrelevant and has been >for years.
How about something about the current co-governance power grab?
We have been reaching Treaty Settlements for many years - these >>>>>>>>settlements are not about land; they need a different approach. Luxon >>>>>>>>now appears to be denying the successful approach taken by National >>>>>>>>when they were last in government - but then perhaps National no >>>>>>>>longer believe in consultation and working together with Maori . . . >>>>>>>>The Treaty does not menstion or even suggest anyuthing whatsoever about
The problem with the words of David Seymour is that he appears to >>>>>>>>>>believe that government can unilaterally amend a contract by >>>>>>>>>>legislation - the TReaty of Waitangi is one of the earliest contracts >>>>>>>>>>entered into by the British Crown - New Zealand committed to honour >>>>>>>>>>those contracts when we gained independence. Do you think Seymours >>>>>>>>>>attitude is correct?
c-governance.
You keep lying.
Which leaved National apparently not able to cope with serious issues
such as oour water problems. It has been suggested that while they >>>>>>>>>>>>would repeal legislation, they would put back fairly much the same >>>>>>>>>>>>thing, including formal consultation in a similar way to the Waikato
agreement that brought us the expression co-governance. But why would
we want to leave it to a party that is not prepared to talk about any
policies for such an urgent problem - we need work done before the >>>>>>>>>>>>election.
Pure political rhetoric Rich. I agree National needs to put forward a
plan that goes beyond the promised repeal of the current legislation.
That plan does not exist publicly yet so your speculation is as >>>>>>>>>>>pointless as it is useless.
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 21:20:42 -0800 (PST), John Bowesappear to be not fit for purpose!
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 4:32:03 PM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 06 Feb 2023 11:24:53 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>Isn't this thread supposedly about the Auckland floods which have nothing whatsoever to do with 5 waters and what Finlayson etc did or did not say? The lesson learned from the floods in Auckland is that an ex Labour leader oversaw work that would
wrote:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 21:50:01 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>No, lisyten again - Ben Thomas suggests the he wondered at the time if
wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 05:48:40 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 02:30:29 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo that is a lie. they are ebtirely different.
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Irrelevant - they are what National called co-governance, and are
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 12:31:29 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>Neither of which are co-governance.
wrote:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 10:39:25 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>Yes fair comment Crash - the different issues arose from comments from
wrote:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 10:17:55 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 22:02:05 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 20:10:36 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 18:19:39 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>They did consult with local authorities for the Three Waters
wrote:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/analysis-the-three-biggest-lessons-from-aucklands-historic-floods/SKKD6HGILZENPMN2WKC5Q3MP4I/
It will not be easy, but I am sure that working together - government
with local authorities, and consulting with local communities,
businesses and interest groups is the way to go.
So a U-turn on Water reforms is needed. The current government does
indeed need to consult with local authorities on this.
legislation.
Correct but they ignored the fact that most local authorities were
opposed to the reforms. Originally Labour offered an opt-out option
but this was withdrawn when it became apparent that a significant
number of local authorities indicated they would opt out - including
Auckland Council with a Labour ex-cabinet-member as Mayor.
So yes Labour consulted, but the response was to ignore concerns and
to remove the opt-out option.
I agree that the events of this last week are likely toMost local bodies have not asked for and do not need assistance with
see some changes - certainly the needs of local authorities have
changed - Southland for example was asking for government assistance
for work relating to river banks; Auckland needs have changed >> >>>>>>>>>>suddently as covered in the article.
weather bombs. This is no justification for the Water reforms. >> >>>>>>>>>
LocalIf they are not considered that may slow down response - there could
authorities need to consult with interested groups within their
territory. Pre-conceived political policies (such as co-governance)
need not be considered unless the final decisions justify the concept
that community-owned water assets can be co-managed with Maori >> >>>>>>>>>>>descendants on a basis of fair equity in the area that each local body
operates in.
well be an appeal to the Waitangi Tribunal, similar to the Foreshore
and Sebad protest; but it is certainly one way of making sure that
consultation is not token but real - and that includes as you say with
interested groups - but some actions will be needed quickly. An >> >>>>>>>>>>alternative that I have suggested for the short term is to set up
structures under the legislaition for areas where local councils want
to participate; that may enable some work to start quickly while
solutions for other areas are considered without quite the same >> >>>>>>>>>>urgency.
Labour are a long way from making these concessions, and I am sure
that any change will be a difficult sell to their Maori caucus >> >>>>>>>>>members. They will not tolerate the removal of compulsory
co-governance measures particularly, with opt-out also being needed.
Labour cannot be trusted to do this, National do not currently have a
policy that meets these criteria.
Actions are needed before the next election. National have said they
will repeal Labour's legislation, but not what they would replace it
with - and I cannot see them just handing money over to Councils
without input on where that money goes.
I agree with that - National will need to publish a Water reforms
policy that addresses the issue for each local body that opts in.
The previous NationalSenseless repetition of a lie does not change the fact you lie when
Government was enthusastically following the co-governance route,
which has made it difficult for the current or any future government
to claim that it does not work - it clearly does.
you say this. National went down the co-management route, not the
co-governance route as defined in the current Water reforms
legislation, and it works specifically because co-management is >> >>>>>>>>>different to co-governance.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/02/waitangi-tribunal-recommendations-should-be-rejected-as-consequence-could-be-kiwis-rights-up-in-air-david-seymour.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
There is a video atthe top - watch from 1:57 in - National know that
Labour is just using the name that Chris Finlayson used when they >> >>>>>>>>followed a solution used by Michael Cullen for the Wanganui River.
National are not saying that they would do anything different in the
next term
The problem with the words of David Seymour is that he appears to >> >>>>>>>>believe that government can unilaterally amend a contract by
legislation - the TReaty of Waitangi is one of the earliest contracts
entered into by the British Crown - New Zealand committed to honour
those contracts when we gained independence. Do you think Seymours
attitude is correct?
Your latest post wanders away from the debate your original post >> >>>>>>>started. Accordingly I conclude you have nothing more to add to that
debate. Debate around a recent report from the Waitangi Tribunal is
another subject - feel free to start a new thread.
David Seymour at a time (now) when consultation with Maori, and the >> >>>>>>arrangements made by previous governments, are very much in the news.
The comments by Ben Thomas are however very pertinent to the debate >> >>>>>>above - the government is arguing that they wish to work with Maori to
advance common interests - that has worked well for the arrangments >> >>>>>>relating to the Wanganui and Waikato Rivers.
close to what Labour is doing with Three Waters.
Provide evidence or admit you are lying.
There you go again with your unsupported accusations - and yet again
you did not read or in this case listen!
Go back up to the Newshub url - there is a video at the top; listen
from 1:57 to Ben Thomas, who worked for the National Party, and claims >> >>to have come up wth the term co-governance for what they arranged
forthe Waikato river. He says that perhaps it was not the best name
because it gets cofused with government. So So-Governance is what
National called thier Waikato settlement / solution, and what they did >> >>there is similar to the working together that Labour is seeking with
Three Waters.
I have listened to that portion of the interview. Thomas never
actually mentions co-governance, but responds to a suggestion from
Wade that the mechanism of co-governance was used with Treaty
settlements negotiated by Findlayson. Thomas then suggests Labour
should have spent more time white boarding alternative names.
it would be confused with government, and suggests that perhaps he
should have spent a little more time and chosen a different name.
So theNo, Chris Finlayson used the term fpr the Waikato settlement well
fact remains that co-governance was a term first introduced by Labour
to explain Maori involvement in Water Entity management and ownership, >> >blueprinted by the He Puapua report commissioned by Labour when in
coalition with NZF and according to Winston without his agreement, and >> >first made public by an unauthorised leak.
before the election that saw Labour elected - and Treaty settlements
were not an issue at that election.
I certainly try to refute lies from other posters when I see them, but
Rich you just cannot let go of any lie that you believe furthers
Labour interests.
I suspect as usual it will make little difference to closed minds.
Which leaved National apparently not able to cope with serious issues
such as oour water problems. It has been suggested that while they
would repeal legislation, they would put back fairly much the same
thing, including formal consultation in a similar way to the Waikato
agreement that brought us the expression co-governance. But why would
we want to leave it to a party that is not prepared to talk about any
policies for such an urgent problem - we need work done before the
election.
Pure political rhetoric Rich. I agree National needs to put forward a
plan that goes beyond the promised repeal of the current legislation.
That plan does not exist publicly yet so your speculation is as >> >>>>>>>>>pointless as it is useless.
You have exactly hit on it, John Bowes, well done. Despite good work
being done by various local authorities, there is a large amount of
work still tobe done - that is what the flooding has told us. One of
those areas is improved water systems - only a few weeks ago many were claiming htat the major cities had water well under control and did
not need assistance from central government. That is now shown to not
be true.
So do you think Auckand City should go it alone and put up the rates
to pay for the work that is needed? What will Mayor Brown push for?
On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 13:14:45 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 03:46:37 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:What a short memory you have - and an inherent inability to search .
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 21:28:26 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou should not be so unkind to yourself - I vaguely recall one occasion when
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 19:27:04 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:But that is a lie.
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Your caution over believing anything from a National Party person, is >>>>>understandable, but in this case wrong. National are having an >>>>>internal struggle in Luxon trying to avoid having to admit that the >>>>>previous National-led government followed a Labour Party example >>>>>(Wanganui River) of a way to reach a Treaty settlement; they then >>>>>called the Waikato settlement co-governance.
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 05:51:23 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Jesus wept.
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 02:29:14 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:No it is you who is confused. You heve demonstrated many times that you
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Ben Thomas was suggesting that National may have been better calling >>>>>>>>>what they did co-managment than co-governance since it seems to have >>>>>>>>>cofused people - perhaps that includes you Tony.
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 10:17:55 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>Nothing in that even hints that co-governance and co-management are the
wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 22:02:05 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 20:10:36 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 18:19:39 +1300, Rich80105 >>>>>>>>>>>>>><Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
So a U-turn on Water reforms is needed. The current government doeshttps://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/analysis-the-three-biggest-lessons-from-aucklands-historic-floods/SKKD6HGILZENPMN2WKC5Q3MP4I/
It will not be easy, but I am sure that working together - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>government
with local authorities, and consulting with local communities, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>businesses and interest groups is the way to go. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
indeed need to consult with local authorities on this. >>>>>>>>>>>>>They did consult with local authorities for the Three Waters >>>>>>>>>>>>>legislation.
Correct but they ignored the fact that most local authorities were
opposed to the reforms. Originally Labour offered an opt-out option
but this was withdrawn when it became apparent that a significant >>>>>>>>>>>>number of local authorities indicated they would opt out - including
Auckland Council with a Labour ex-cabinet-member as Mayor. >>>>>>>>>>>>
So yes Labour consulted, but the response was to ignore concerns and
to remove the opt-out option.
I agree that the events of this last week are likely to >>>>>>>>>>>>>see some changes - certainly the needs of local authorities have >>>>>>>>>>>>>changed - Southland for example was asking for government assistanceMost local bodies have not asked for and do not need assistance with
for work relating to river banks; Auckland needs have changed >>>>>>>>>>>>>suddently as covered in the article.
weather bombs. This is no justification for the Water reforms. >>>>>>>>>>>>
LocalIf they are not considered that may slow down response - there could
authorities need to consult with interested groups within their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>territory. Pre-conceived political policies (such as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>co-governance)
need not be considered unless the final decisions justify the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>concept
that community-owned water assets can be co-managed with Maori >>>>>>>>>>>>>>descendants on a basis of fair equity in the area that each local
body
operates in.
well be an appeal to the Waitangi Tribunal, similar to the Foreshore
and Sebad protest; but it is certainly one way of making sure that
consultation is not token but real - and that includes as you say
with
interested groups - but some actions will be needed quickly. An >>>>>>>>>>>>>alternative that I have suggested for the short term is to set up
structures under the legislaition for areas where local councils want
to participate; that may enable some work to start quickly while >>>>>>>>>>>>>solutions for other areas are considered without quite the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>urgency.
Labour are a long way from making these concessions, and I am sure
that any change will be a difficult sell to their Maori caucus >>>>>>>>>>>>members. They will not tolerate the removal of compulsory >>>>>>>>>>>>co-governance measures particularly, with opt-out also being needed.
Labour cannot be trusted to do this, National do not currently have
a
policy that meets these criteria.
Actions are needed before the next election. National have said they
will repeal Labour's legislation, but not what they would replace it
with - and I cannot see them just handing money over to Councils >>>>>>>>>>>>>without input on where that money goes.
I agree with that - National will need to publish a Water reforms >>>>>>>>>>>>policy that addresses the issue for each local body that opts in. >>>>>>>>>>>>
The previous NationalSenseless repetition of a lie does not change the fact you lie when
Government was enthusastically following the co-governance route,
which has made it difficult for the current or any future government
to claim that it does not work - it clearly does.
you say this. National went down the co-management route, not the >>>>>>>>>>>>co-governance route as defined in the current Water reforms >>>>>>>>>>>>legislation, and it works specifically because co-management is >>>>>>>>>>>>different to co-governance.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/02/waitangi-tribunal-recommendations-should-be-rejected-as-consequence-could-be-kiwis-rights-up-in-air-david-seymour.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
There is a video atthe top - watch from 1:57 in - National know that
Labour is just using the name that Chris Finlayson used when they >>>>>>>>>>>followed a solution used by Michael Cullen for the Wanganui River. >>>>>>>>>>>National are not saying that they would do anything different in the
next term
same.
They are not, not even close.
do
not
understand the difference.
I do understand, I have lived the difference.
However I note your snide remark, slipping again into abuse are you? >>>>>>>I doubt Ben Thomas knows you, but confusing people with the term is >>>>>>>what he claims has happened.
You lied.
Period.
Thomas and his opinions are irrelevant and entirely off topiuc. Everybody
in
the universe knows that except you. Even Thomas certainly knopws that. >>>>>
It is just an internalYour abuse is noted.
problem for National, your lies are, as usual, totally unnecessary >>>>>Tony. You are not helping Luxon, or harming Labour - you are just >>>>>being a prat.
Just once provide a single example of where any previous co-management was in
fact co-governance.
You might need to understanbd the difference between the two for the first
time
but there is plenty of information available. Your personal experience >>>>clearly
lacks both.
You can continue to make a fool of yourself but that is your right and your
only hope of ever being noticed.
Do get a life and do some research. No National government has ever practiced
co-governance. Your only hope of showing otherwise is to provide examples and
to do so without changing the subject or being abusive. Sorry, I know how >>>>difficult that is for you but help is available.
Chris Finlayson however says that they did. So who to believe - an >>>opinionated occasional poster to nz.general who never supports those >>>opinions with facts
you posted a response supported by facts. I can't remember the topic, probably
not very important.
, or a past Cabinet Minister who is regarded asAnd who never said what you have posted.
having done well with Treaty settlements, and in particular with the >>>co-governance arranements for the Waikato River . . .
I doubt he sang it. But he certainly never said it.
(And yes, I have posted a link to CHris Finlason sang that >>>co-governance is the way forward and that we should be proceeding as >>>fast as possible to just get on with co-governance arrangements)
. . >https://e-tangata.co.nz/comment-and-analysis/chris-finlayson-co-governance-should-be-embraced-not-feared/
and >https://www.minterellison.co.nz/insights/co-governance-the-misunderstood-political-hot-potato-and-likely-election-dominator
You have posted those links in other threads before.
Those are articles outlining Findlayson's support of co-governance as enshrined in the Water reforms legislation. He may well see his
actions as Treaty Settlement minister to negotiate Treaty settlement agreements that involved co-management as similar to the co-governance ownership model.
There is no escaping the fact that co-government as enshrined in the
Water reforms legislation is different to the agreements that
Findlayson negotiated on behalf of the crown. The Water reforms
legislation does not arise from a Treaty claim lodged with the
Waitangi Tribunal, it does transfer control of every water asset owned
by elected local bodies (many of which have exclusively-Maori wards)
to Water Entities that are not governed by democratically-elected authorities.
Also don't forget that the entire co-governance was not a stated
Labour policy prior to the 2020 election so Labour have no mandate for
it.
Your attempt to dismiss Nationals opposition (in particular) to
co-governance on the basis of hypocrisy is irrational nonsense.
However as previously explained - what he said is now irrelevant and has been
for years.
How about something about the current co-governance power grab?
--
We have been reaching Treaty Settlements for many years - these >>>>>>>>>settlements are not about land; they need a different approach. LuxonThe Treaty does not menstion or even suggest anyuthing whatsoever about
The problem with the words of David Seymour is that he appears to >>>>>>>>>>>believe that government can unilaterally amend a contract by >>>>>>>>>>>legislation - the TReaty of Waitangi is one of the earliest contracts
entered into by the British Crown - New Zealand committed to honour
those contracts when we gained independence. Do you think Seymours >>>>>>>>>>>attitude is correct?
c-governance.
You keep lying.
now appears to be denying the successful approach taken by National >>>>>>>>>when they were last in government - but then perhaps National no >>>>>>>>>longer believe in consultation and working together with Maori . . . >>>>>>>>>
Which leaved National apparently not able to cope with serious issues
such as oour water problems. It has been suggested that while they
would repeal legislation, they would put back fairly much the same
thing, including formal consultation in a similar way to the Waikato
agreement that brought us the expression co-governance. But why would
we want to leave it to a party that is not prepared to talk about any
policies for such an urgent problem - we need work done before the
election.
Pure political rhetoric Rich. I agree National needs to put forward a
plan that goes beyond the promised repeal of the current legislation.
That plan does not exist publicly yet so your speculation is as >>>>>>>>>>>>pointless as it is useless.
Crash McBash
On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 4:32:03 PM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:to be not fit for purpose!
On Mon, 06 Feb 2023 11:24:53 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>Isn't this thread supposedly about the Auckland floods which have nothing whatsoever to do with 5 waters and what Finlayson etc did or did not say? The lesson learned from the floods in Auckland is that an ex Labour leader oversaw work that would appear
wrote:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 21:50:01 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>No, lisyten again - Ben Thomas suggests the he wondered at the time if
wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 05:48:40 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 02:30:29 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo that is a lie. they are ebtirely different.
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Irrelevant - they are what National called co-governance, and are
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 12:31:29 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >> >>>>>>wrote:Neither of which are co-governance.
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 10:39:25 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >> >>>>>>>wrote:Yes fair comment Crash - the different issues arose from comments from >> >>>>>>David Seymour at a time (now) when consultation with Maori, and the
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 10:17:55 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 22:02:05 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >> >>>>>>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 20:10:36 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 18:19:39 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>They did consult with local authorities for the Three Waters
wrote:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/analysis-the-three-biggest-lessons-from-aucklands-historic-floods/SKKD6HGILZENPMN2WKC5Q3MP4I/
It will not be easy, but I am sure that working together - government
with local authorities, and consulting with local communities, >> >>>>>>>>>>>>businesses and interest groups is the way to go.
So a U-turn on Water reforms is needed. The current government does
indeed need to consult with local authorities on this.
legislation.
Correct but they ignored the fact that most local authorities were >> >>>>>>>>>opposed to the reforms. Originally Labour offered an opt-out option >> >>>>>>>>>but this was withdrawn when it became apparent that a significant >> >>>>>>>>>number of local authorities indicated they would opt out - including
Auckland Council with a Labour ex-cabinet-member as Mayor.
So yes Labour consulted, but the response was to ignore concerns and
to remove the opt-out option.
I agree that the events of this last week are likely toMost local bodies have not asked for and do not need assistance with
see some changes - certainly the needs of local authorities have >> >>>>>>>>>>changed - Southland for example was asking for government assistance
for work relating to river banks; Auckland needs have changed
suddently as covered in the article.
weather bombs. This is no justification for the Water reforms.
LocalIf they are not considered that may slow down response - there could
authorities need to consult with interested groups within their >> >>>>>>>>>>>territory. Pre-conceived political policies (such as co-governance)
need not be considered unless the final decisions justify the concept
that community-owned water assets can be co-managed with Maori
descendants on a basis of fair equity in the area that each local body
operates in.
well be an appeal to the Waitangi Tribunal, similar to the Foreshore
and Sebad protest; but it is certainly one way of making sure that >> >>>>>>>>>>consultation is not token but real - and that includes as you say with
interested groups - but some actions will be needed quickly. An
alternative that I have suggested for the short term is to set up >> >>>>>>>>>>structures under the legislaition for areas where local councils want
to participate; that may enable some work to start quickly while >> >>>>>>>>>>solutions for other areas are considered without quite the same
urgency.
Labour are a long way from making these concessions, and I am sure >> >>>>>>>>>that any change will be a difficult sell to their Maori caucus
members. They will not tolerate the removal of compulsory
co-governance measures particularly, with opt-out also being needed.
Labour cannot be trusted to do this, National do not currently have a
policy that meets these criteria.
Actions are needed before the next election. National have said they
will repeal Labour's legislation, but not what they would replace it
with - and I cannot see them just handing money over to Councils >> >>>>>>>>>>without input on where that money goes.
I agree with that - National will need to publish a Water reforms >> >>>>>>>>>policy that addresses the issue for each local body that opts in. >> >>>>>>>>>
The previous NationalSenseless repetition of a lie does not change the fact you lie when >> >>>>>>>>>you say this. National went down the co-management route, not the >> >>>>>>>>>co-governance route as defined in the current Water reforms
Government was enthusastically following the co-governance route, >> >>>>>>>>>>which has made it difficult for the current or any future government
to claim that it does not work - it clearly does.
legislation, and it works specifically because co-management is
different to co-governance.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/02/waitangi-tribunal-recommendations-should-be-rejected-as-consequence-could-be-kiwis-rights-up-in-air-david-seymour.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
There is a video atthe top - watch from 1:57 in - National know that >> >>>>>>>>Labour is just using the name that Chris Finlayson used when they
followed a solution used by Michael Cullen for the Wanganui River. >> >>>>>>>>National are not saying that they would do anything different in the >> >>>>>>>>next term
The problem with the words of David Seymour is that he appears to
believe that government can unilaterally amend a contract by
legislation - the TReaty of Waitangi is one of the earliest contracts
entered into by the British Crown - New Zealand committed to honour >> >>>>>>>>those contracts when we gained independence. Do you think Seymours >> >>>>>>>>attitude is correct?
Your latest post wanders away from the debate your original post
started. Accordingly I conclude you have nothing more to add to that >> >>>>>>>debate. Debate around a recent report from the Waitangi Tribunal is >> >>>>>>>another subject - feel free to start a new thread.
arrangements made by previous governments, are very much in the news. >> >>>>>>The comments by Ben Thomas are however very pertinent to the debate
above - the government is arguing that they wish to work with Maori to >> >>>>>>advance common interests - that has worked well for the arrangments
relating to the Wanganui and Waikato Rivers.
close to what Labour is doing with Three Waters.
Provide evidence or admit you are lying.
There you go again with your unsupported accusations - and yet again
you did not read or in this case listen!
Go back up to the Newshub url - there is a video at the top; listen
from 1:57 to Ben Thomas, who worked for the National Party, and claims
to have come up wth the term co-governance for what they arranged
forthe Waikato river. He says that perhaps it was not the best name
because it gets cofused with government. So So-Governance is what
National called thier Waikato settlement / solution, and what they did
there is similar to the working together that Labour is seeking with
Three Waters.
I have listened to that portion of the interview. Thomas never
actually mentions co-governance, but responds to a suggestion from
Wade that the mechanism of co-governance was used with Treaty
settlements negotiated by Findlayson. Thomas then suggests Labour
should have spent more time white boarding alternative names.
it would be confused with government, and suggests that perhaps he
should have spent a little more time and chosen a different name.
So theNo, Chris Finlayson used the term fpr the Waikato settlement well
fact remains that co-governance was a term first introduced by Labour
to explain Maori involvement in Water Entity management and ownership,
blueprinted by the He Puapua report commissioned by Labour when in
coalition with NZF and according to Winston without his agreement, and
first made public by an unauthorised leak.
before the election that saw Labour elected - and Treaty settlements
were not an issue at that election.
I certainly try to refute lies from other posters when I see them, but
Rich you just cannot let go of any lie that you believe furthers
Labour interests.
I suspect as usual it will make little difference to closed minds.
Which leaved National apparently not able to cope with serious issues
such as oour water problems. It has been suggested that while they >> >>>>>>>>>>would repeal legislation, they would put back fairly much the same >> >>>>>>>>>>thing, including formal consultation in a similar way to the Waikato
agreement that brought us the expression co-governance. But why would
we want to leave it to a party that is not prepared to talk about any
policies for such an urgent problem - we need work done before the >> >>>>>>>>>>election.
Pure political rhetoric Rich. I agree National needs to put forward a
plan that goes beyond the promised repeal of the current legislation.
That plan does not exist publicly yet so your speculation is as
pointless as it is useless.
On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 03:46:37 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:What a short memory you have - and an inherent inability to search .
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 21:28:26 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou should not be so unkind to yourself - I vaguely recall one occasion when >>you posted a response supported by facts. I can't remember the topic, probably
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 19:27:04 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:But that is a lie.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Your caution over believing anything from a National Party person, is >>>>>understandable, but in this case wrong. National are having an >>>>>internal struggle in Luxon trying to avoid having to admit that the >>>>>previous National-led government followed a Labour Party example >>>>>(Wanganui River) of a way to reach a Treaty settlement; they then >>>>>called the Waikato settlement co-governance.
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 05:51:23 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Jesus wept.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 02:29:14 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:No it is you who is confused. You heve demonstrated many times that you >>>>>>>>do
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Ben Thomas was suggesting that National may have been better calling >>>>>>>>>what they did co-managment than co-governance since it seems to have >>>>>>>>>cofused people - perhaps that includes you Tony.
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 10:17:55 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>Nothing in that even hints that co-governance and co-management are the
wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 22:02:05 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 20:10:36 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 18:19:39 +1300, Rich80105 >>>>>>>>>>>>>><Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/analysis-the-three-biggest-lessons-from-aucklands-historic-floods/SKKD6HGILZENPMN2WKC5Q3MP4I/
It will not be easy, but I am sure that working together - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>government
with local authorities, and consulting with local communities, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>businesses and interest groups is the way to go.
So a U-turn on Water reforms is needed. The current government does
indeed need to consult with local authorities on this. >>>>>>>>>>>>>They did consult with local authorities for the Three Waters >>>>>>>>>>>>>legislation.
Correct but they ignored the fact that most local authorities were >>>>>>>>>>>>opposed to the reforms. Originally Labour offered an opt-out option
but this was withdrawn when it became apparent that a significant >>>>>>>>>>>>number of local authorities indicated they would opt out - including
Auckland Council with a Labour ex-cabinet-member as Mayor. >>>>>>>>>>>>
So yes Labour consulted, but the response was to ignore concerns and
to remove the opt-out option.
I agree that the events of this last week are likely to >>>>>>>>>>>>>see some changes - certainly the needs of local authorities have >>>>>>>>>>>>>changed - Southland for example was asking for government assistanceMost local bodies have not asked for and do not need assistance with
for work relating to river banks; Auckland needs have changed >>>>>>>>>>>>>suddently as covered in the article.
weather bombs. This is no justification for the Water reforms. >>>>>>>>>>>>
LocalIf they are not considered that may slow down response - there could
authorities need to consult with interested groups within their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>territory. Pre-conceived political policies (such as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>co-governance)
need not be considered unless the final decisions justify the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>concept
that community-owned water assets can be co-managed with Maori >>>>>>>>>>>>>>descendants on a basis of fair equity in the area that each local >>>>>>>>>>>>>>body
operates in.
well be an appeal to the Waitangi Tribunal, similar to the Foreshore
and Sebad protest; but it is certainly one way of making sure that >>>>>>>>>>>>>consultation is not token but real - and that includes as you say >>>>>>>>>>>>>with
interested groups - but some actions will be needed quickly. An >>>>>>>>>>>>>alternative that I have suggested for the short term is to set up >>>>>>>>>>>>>structures under the legislaition for areas where local councils want
to participate; that may enable some work to start quickly while >>>>>>>>>>>>>solutions for other areas are considered without quite the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>urgency.
Labour are a long way from making these concessions, and I am sure >>>>>>>>>>>>that any change will be a difficult sell to their Maori caucus >>>>>>>>>>>>members. They will not tolerate the removal of compulsory >>>>>>>>>>>>co-governance measures particularly, with opt-out also being needed.
Labour cannot be trusted to do this, National do not currently have
a
policy that meets these criteria.
Actions are needed before the next election. National have said they
will repeal Labour's legislation, but not what they would replace it
with - and I cannot see them just handing money over to Councils >>>>>>>>>>>>>without input on where that money goes.
I agree with that - National will need to publish a Water reforms >>>>>>>>>>>>policy that addresses the issue for each local body that opts in. >>>>>>>>>>>>
The previous NationalSenseless repetition of a lie does not change the fact you lie when >>>>>>>>>>>>you say this. National went down the co-management route, not the >>>>>>>>>>>>co-governance route as defined in the current Water reforms >>>>>>>>>>>>legislation, and it works specifically because co-management is >>>>>>>>>>>>different to co-governance.
Government was enthusastically following the co-governance route, >>>>>>>>>>>>>which has made it difficult for the current or any future government
to claim that it does not work - it clearly does.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/02/waitangi-tribunal-recommendations-should-be-rejected-as-consequence-could-be-kiwis-rights-up-in-air-david-seymour.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
There is a video atthe top - watch from 1:57 in - National know that >>>>>>>>>>>Labour is just using the name that Chris Finlayson used when they >>>>>>>>>>>followed a solution used by Michael Cullen for the Wanganui River. >>>>>>>>>>>National are not saying that they would do anything different in the >>>>>>>>>>>next term
same.
They are not, not even close.
not
understand the difference.
I do understand, I have lived the difference.
However I note your snide remark, slipping again into abuse are you? >>>>>>>I doubt Ben Thomas knows you, but confusing people with the term is >>>>>>>what he claims has happened.
You lied.
Period.
Thomas and his opinions are irrelevant and entirely off topiuc. Everybody >>>>>>in
the universe knows that except you. Even Thomas certainly knopws that. >>>>>
It is just an internalYour abuse is noted.
problem for National, your lies are, as usual, totally unnecessary >>>>>Tony. You are not helping Luxon, or harming Labour - you are just >>>>>being a prat.
Just once provide a single example of where any previous co-management was in
fact co-governance.
You might need to understanbd the difference between the two for the first >>>>time
but there is plenty of information available. Your personal experience >>>>clearly
lacks both.
You can continue to make a fool of yourself but that is your right and your >>>>only hope of ever being noticed.
Do get a life and do some research. No National government has ever practiced
co-governance. Your only hope of showing otherwise is to provide examples and
to do so without changing the subject or being abusive. Sorry, I know how >>>>difficult that is for you but help is available.
Chris Finlayson however says that they did. So who to believe - an >>>opinionated occasional poster to nz.general who never supports those >>>opinions with facts
not very important.
, or a past Cabinet Minister who is regarded asAnd who never said what you have posted.
having done well with Treaty settlements, and in particular with the >>>co-governance arranements for the Waikato River . . .
I doubt he sang it. But he certainly never said it.
(And yes, I have posted a link to CHris Finlason sang that
co-governance is the way forward and that we should be proceeding as
fast as possible to just get on with co-governance arrangements)
. . >https://e-tangata.co.nz/comment-and-analysis/chris-finlayson-co-governance-should-be-embraced-not-feared/
and >https://www.minterellison.co.nz/insights/co-governance-the-misunderstood-political-hot-potato-and-likely-election-dominator
However as previously explained - what he said is now irrelevant and has been >>for years.
How about something about the current co-governance power grab?
We have been reaching Treaty Settlements for many years - these >>>>>>>>>settlements are not about land; they need a different approach. Luxon >>>>>>>>>now appears to be denying the successful approach taken by National >>>>>>>>>when they were last in government - but then perhaps National no >>>>>>>>>longer believe in consultation and working together with Maori . . . >>>>>>>>>The Treaty does not menstion or even suggest anyuthing whatsoever about
The problem with the words of David Seymour is that he appears to >>>>>>>>>>>believe that government can unilaterally amend a contract by >>>>>>>>>>>legislation - the TReaty of Waitangi is one of the earliest contracts
entered into by the British Crown - New Zealand committed to honour >>>>>>>>>>>those contracts when we gained independence. Do you think Seymours >>>>>>>>>>>attitude is correct?
c-governance.
You keep lying.
Which leaved National apparently not able to cope with serious issues
such as oour water problems. It has been suggested that while they >>>>>>>>>>>>>would repeal legislation, they would put back fairly much the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>thing, including formal consultation in a similar way to the Waikato
agreement that brought us the expression co-governance. But why would
we want to leave it to a party that is not prepared to talk about any
policies for such an urgent problem - we need work done before the >>>>>>>>>>>>>election.
Pure political rhetoric Rich. I agree National needs to put forward a
plan that goes beyond the promised repeal of the current legislation.
That plan does not exist publicly yet so your speculation is as >>>>>>>>>>>>pointless as it is useless.
On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 03:46:37 -0000 (UTC), TonyMy memory is fine. What Finlayson said or rather didn't say is completely irrelevant and it has been since you started your lie.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:What a short memory you have - and an inherent inability to search .
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 21:28:26 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou should not be so unkind to yourself - I vaguely recall one occasion when >>you posted a response supported by facts. I can't remember the topic, >>probably
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 19:27:04 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:But that is a lie.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Your caution over believing anything from a National Party person, is >>>>>understandable, but in this case wrong. National are having an >>>>>internal struggle in Luxon trying to avoid having to admit that the >>>>>previous National-led government followed a Labour Party example >>>>>(Wanganui River) of a way to reach a Treaty settlement; they then >>>>>called the Waikato settlement co-governance.
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 05:51:23 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Jesus wept.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 02:29:14 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:No it is you who is confused. You heve demonstrated many times that you >>>>>>>>do
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Ben Thomas was suggesting that National may have been better calling >>>>>>>>>what they did co-managment than co-governance since it seems to have >>>>>>>>>cofused people - perhaps that includes you Tony.
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 10:17:55 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>Nothing in that even hints that co-governance and co-management are >>>>>>>>>>the
wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 22:02:05 +1300, Rich80105 >>>>>>>>>>>><Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 20:10:36 +1300, Crash >>>>>>>>>>>>><nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 18:19:39 +1300, Rich80105 >>>>>>>>>>>>>><Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/analysis-the-three-biggest-lessons-from-aucklands-historic-floods/SKKD6HGILZENPMN2WKC5Q3MP4I/
It will not be easy, but I am sure that working together - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>government
with local authorities, and consulting with local communities, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>businesses and interest groups is the way to go.
So a U-turn on Water reforms is needed. The current government >>>>>>>>>>>>>>does
indeed need to consult with local authorities on this. >>>>>>>>>>>>>They did consult with local authorities for the Three Waters >>>>>>>>>>>>>legislation.
Correct but they ignored the fact that most local authorities were >>>>>>>>>>>>opposed to the reforms. Originally Labour offered an opt-out option
but this was withdrawn when it became apparent that a significant >>>>>>>>>>>>number of local authorities indicated they would opt out - including
Auckland Council with a Labour ex-cabinet-member as Mayor. >>>>>>>>>>>>
So yes Labour consulted, but the response was to ignore concerns and
to remove the opt-out option.
I agree that the events of this last week are likely to >>>>>>>>>>>>>see some changes - certainly the needs of local authorities have >>>>>>>>>>>>>changed - Southland for example was asking for government >>>>>>>>>>>>>assistanceMost local bodies have not asked for and do not need assistance with
for work relating to river banks; Auckland needs have changed >>>>>>>>>>>>>suddently as covered in the article.
weather bombs. This is no justification for the Water reforms. >>>>>>>>>>>>
LocalIf they are not considered that may slow down response - there >>>>>>>>>>>>>could
authorities need to consult with interested groups within their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>territory. Pre-conceived political policies (such as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>co-governance)
need not be considered unless the final decisions justify the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>concept
that community-owned water assets can be co-managed with Maori >>>>>>>>>>>>>>descendants on a basis of fair equity in the area that each local >>>>>>>>>>>>>>body
operates in.
well be an appeal to the Waitangi Tribunal, similar to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>Foreshore
and Sebad protest; but it is certainly one way of making sure that >>>>>>>>>>>>>consultation is not token but real - and that includes as you say >>>>>>>>>>>>>with
interested groups - but some actions will be needed quickly. An >>>>>>>>>>>>>alternative that I have suggested for the short term is to set up >>>>>>>>>>>>>structures under the legislaition for areas where local councils >>>>>>>>>>>>>want
to participate; that may enable some work to start quickly while >>>>>>>>>>>>>solutions for other areas are considered without quite the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>urgency.
Labour are a long way from making these concessions, and I am sure >>>>>>>>>>>>that any change will be a difficult sell to their Maori caucus >>>>>>>>>>>>members. They will not tolerate the removal of compulsory >>>>>>>>>>>>co-governance measures particularly, with opt-out also being needed.
Labour cannot be trusted to do this, National do not currently >>>>>>>>>>>>>>have
a
policy that meets these criteria.
Actions are needed before the next election. National have said >>>>>>>>>>>>>they
will repeal Labour's legislation, but not what they would replace >>>>>>>>>>>>>it
with - and I cannot see them just handing money over to Councils >>>>>>>>>>>>>without input on where that money goes.
I agree with that - National will need to publish a Water reforms >>>>>>>>>>>>policy that addresses the issue for each local body that opts in. >>>>>>>>>>>>
The previous NationalSenseless repetition of a lie does not change the fact you lie when >>>>>>>>>>>>you say this. National went down the co-management route, not the >>>>>>>>>>>>co-governance route as defined in the current Water reforms >>>>>>>>>>>>legislation, and it works specifically because co-management is >>>>>>>>>>>>different to co-governance.
Government was enthusastically following the co-governance route, >>>>>>>>>>>>>which has made it difficult for the current or any future >>>>>>>>>>>>>government
to claim that it does not work - it clearly does.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/02/waitangi-tribunal-recommendations-should-be-rejected-as-consequence-could-be-kiwis-rights-up-in-air-david-seymour.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
There is a video atthe top - watch from 1:57 in - National know that >>>>>>>>>>>Labour is just using the name that Chris Finlayson used when they >>>>>>>>>>>followed a solution used by Michael Cullen for the Wanganui River. >>>>>>>>>>>National are not saying that they would do anything different in the >>>>>>>>>>>next term
same.
They are not, not even close.
not
understand the difference.
I do understand, I have lived the difference.
However I note your snide remark, slipping again into abuse are you? >>>>>>>I doubt Ben Thomas knows you, but confusing people with the term is >>>>>>>what he claims has happened.
You lied.
Period.
Thomas and his opinions are irrelevant and entirely off topiuc. Everybody >>>>>>in
the universe knows that except you. Even Thomas certainly knopws that. >>>>>
It is just an internalYour abuse is noted.
problem for National, your lies are, as usual, totally unnecessary >>>>>Tony. You are not helping Luxon, or harming Labour - you are just >>>>>being a prat.
Just once provide a single example of where any previous co-management was >>>>in
fact co-governance.
You might need to understanbd the difference between the two for the first >>>>time
but there is plenty of information available. Your personal experience >>>>clearly
lacks both.
You can continue to make a fool of yourself but that is your right and your >>>>only hope of ever being noticed.
Do get a life and do some research. No National government has ever >>>>practiced
co-governance. Your only hope of showing otherwise is to provide examples >>>>and
to do so without changing the subject or being abusive. Sorry, I know how >>>>difficult that is for you but help is available.
Chris Finlayson however says that they did. So who to believe - an >>>opinionated occasional poster to nz.general who never supports those >>>opinions with facts
not very important.
, or a past Cabinet Minister who is regarded asAnd who never said what you have posted.
having done well with Treaty settlements, and in particular with the >>>co-governance arranements for the Waikato River . . .
I doubt he sang it. But he certainly never said it.
(And yes, I have posted a link to CHris Finlason sang that
co-governance is the way forward and that we should be proceeding as
fast as possible to just get on with co-governance arrangements)
. . >https://e-tangata.co.nz/comment-and-analysis/chris-finlayson-co-governance-should-be-embraced-not-feared/
and >https://www.minterellison.co.nz/insights/co-governance-the-misunderstood-political-hot-potato-and-likely-election-dominator
However as previously explained - what he said is now irrelevant and has been >>for years.
How about something about the current co-governance power grab?
We have been reaching Treaty Settlements for many years - these >>>>>>>>>settlements are not about land; they need a different approach. Luxon >>>>>>>>>now appears to be denying the successful approach taken by National >>>>>>>>>when they were last in government - but then perhaps National no >>>>>>>>>longer believe in consultation and working together with Maori . . . >>>>>>>>>The Treaty does not menstion or even suggest anyuthing whatsoever >>>>>>>>>>about
The problem with the words of David Seymour is that he appears to >>>>>>>>>>>believe that government can unilaterally amend a contract by >>>>>>>>>>>legislation - the TReaty of Waitangi is one of the earliest contracts
entered into by the British Crown - New Zealand committed to honour >>>>>>>>>>>those contracts when we gained independence. Do you think Seymours >>>>>>>>>>>attitude is correct?
c-governance.
You keep lying.
Which leaved National apparently not able to cope with serious >>>>>>>>>>>>>issues
such as oour water problems. It has been suggested that while they >>>>>>>>>>>>>would repeal legislation, they would put back fairly much the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>thing, including formal consultation in a similar way to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>Waikato
agreement that brought us the expression co-governance. But why >>>>>>>>>>>>>would
we want to leave it to a party that is not prepared to talk about >>>>>>>>>>>>>any
policies for such an urgent problem - we need work done before the >>>>>>>>>>>>>election.
Pure political rhetoric Rich. I agree National needs to put >>>>>>>>>>>>forward a
plan that goes beyond the promised repeal of the current >>>>>>>>>>>>legislation.
That plan does not exist publicly yet so your speculation is as >>>>>>>>>>>>pointless as it is useless.
On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 1:18:05 PM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:appear to be not fit for purpose!
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 21:20:42 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 4:32:03 PM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 06 Feb 2023 11:24:53 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>Isn't this thread supposedly about the Auckland floods which have nothing whatsoever to do with 5 waters and what Finlayson etc did or did not say? The lesson learned from the floods in Auckland is that an ex Labour leader oversaw work that would
wrote:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 21:50:01 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>No, lisyten again - Ben Thomas suggests the he wondered at the time if
wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 05:48:40 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 02:30:29 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo that is a lie. they are ebtirely different.
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Irrelevant - they are what National called co-governance, and are
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 12:31:29 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>Neither of which are co-governance.
wrote:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 10:39:25 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>Yes fair comment Crash - the different issues arose from comments from
wrote:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 10:17:55 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 22:02:05 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 20:10:36 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 18:19:39 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>They did consult with local authorities for the Three Waters
wrote:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/analysis-the-three-biggest-lessons-from-aucklands-historic-floods/SKKD6HGILZENPMN2WKC5Q3MP4I/
It will not be easy, but I am sure that working together - government
with local authorities, and consulting with local communities,
businesses and interest groups is the way to go.
So a U-turn on Water reforms is needed. The current government does
indeed need to consult with local authorities on this.
legislation.
Correct but they ignored the fact that most local authorities were
opposed to the reforms. Originally Labour offered an opt-out option
but this was withdrawn when it became apparent that a significant
number of local authorities indicated they would opt out - including
Auckland Council with a Labour ex-cabinet-member as Mayor.
So yes Labour consulted, but the response was to ignore concerns and
to remove the opt-out option.
I agree that the events of this last week are likely toMost local bodies have not asked for and do not need assistance with
see some changes - certainly the needs of local authorities have
changed - Southland for example was asking for government assistance
for work relating to river banks; Auckland needs have changed >> >> >>>>>>>>>>suddently as covered in the article.
weather bombs. This is no justification for the Water reforms. >> >> >>>>>>>>>
LocalIf they are not considered that may slow down response - there could
authorities need to consult with interested groups within their
territory. Pre-conceived political policies (such as co-governance)
need not be considered unless the final decisions justify the concept
that community-owned water assets can be co-managed with Maori >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>descendants on a basis of fair equity in the area that each local body
operates in.
well be an appeal to the Waitangi Tribunal, similar to the Foreshore
and Sebad protest; but it is certainly one way of making sure that
consultation is not token but real - and that includes as you say with
interested groups - but some actions will be needed quickly. An >> >> >>>>>>>>>>alternative that I have suggested for the short term is to set up
structures under the legislaition for areas where local councils want
to participate; that may enable some work to start quickly while
solutions for other areas are considered without quite the same >> >> >>>>>>>>>>urgency.
Labour are a long way from making these concessions, and I am sure
that any change will be a difficult sell to their Maori caucus >> >> >>>>>>>>>members. They will not tolerate the removal of compulsory
co-governance measures particularly, with opt-out also being needed.
Labour cannot be trusted to do this, National do not currently have a
policy that meets these criteria.
Actions are needed before the next election. National have said they
will repeal Labour's legislation, but not what they would replace it
with - and I cannot see them just handing money over to Councils
without input on where that money goes.
I agree with that - National will need to publish a Water reforms
policy that addresses the issue for each local body that opts in.
The previous NationalSenseless repetition of a lie does not change the fact you lie when
Government was enthusastically following the co-governance route,
which has made it difficult for the current or any future government
to claim that it does not work - it clearly does.
you say this. National went down the co-management route, not the
co-governance route as defined in the current Water reforms
legislation, and it works specifically because co-management is >> >> >>>>>>>>>different to co-governance.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/02/waitangi-tribunal-recommendations-should-be-rejected-as-consequence-could-be-kiwis-rights-up-in-air-david-seymour.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
There is a video atthe top - watch from 1:57 in - National know that
Labour is just using the name that Chris Finlayson used when they >> >> >>>>>>>>followed a solution used by Michael Cullen for the Wanganui River.
National are not saying that they would do anything different in the
next term
The problem with the words of David Seymour is that he appears to >> >> >>>>>>>>believe that government can unilaterally amend a contract by
legislation - the TReaty of Waitangi is one of the earliest contracts
entered into by the British Crown - New Zealand committed to honour
those contracts when we gained independence. Do you think Seymours
attitude is correct?
Your latest post wanders away from the debate your original post >> >> >>>>>>>started. Accordingly I conclude you have nothing more to add to that
debate. Debate around a recent report from the Waitangi Tribunal is
another subject - feel free to start a new thread.
David Seymour at a time (now) when consultation with Maori, and the >> >> >>>>>>arrangements made by previous governments, are very much in the news.
The comments by Ben Thomas are however very pertinent to the debate >> >> >>>>>>above - the government is arguing that they wish to work with Maori to
advance common interests - that has worked well for the arrangments >> >> >>>>>>relating to the Wanganui and Waikato Rivers.
close to what Labour is doing with Three Waters.
Provide evidence or admit you are lying.
There you go again with your unsupported accusations - and yet again
you did not read or in this case listen!
Go back up to the Newshub url - there is a video at the top; listen
from 1:57 to Ben Thomas, who worked for the National Party, and claims >> >> >>to have come up wth the term co-governance for what they arranged
forthe Waikato river. He says that perhaps it was not the best name
because it gets cofused with government. So So-Governance is what
National called thier Waikato settlement / solution, and what they did >> >> >>there is similar to the working together that Labour is seeking with
Three Waters.
I have listened to that portion of the interview. Thomas never
actually mentions co-governance, but responds to a suggestion from
Wade that the mechanism of co-governance was used with Treaty
settlements negotiated by Findlayson. Thomas then suggests Labour
should have spent more time white boarding alternative names.
it would be confused with government, and suggests that perhaps he
should have spent a little more time and chosen a different name.
So theNo, Chris Finlayson used the term fpr the Waikato settlement well
fact remains that co-governance was a term first introduced by Labour
to explain Maori involvement in Water Entity management and ownership, >> >> >blueprinted by the He Puapua report commissioned by Labour when in
coalition with NZF and according to Winston without his agreement, and >> >> >first made public by an unauthorised leak.
before the election that saw Labour elected - and Treaty settlements
were not an issue at that election.
I certainly try to refute lies from other posters when I see them, but
Rich you just cannot let go of any lie that you believe furthers
Labour interests.
I suspect as usual it will make little difference to closed minds.
Which leaved National apparently not able to cope with serious issues
such as oour water problems. It has been suggested that while they
would repeal legislation, they would put back fairly much the same
thing, including formal consultation in a similar way to the Waikato
agreement that brought us the expression co-governance. But why would
we want to leave it to a party that is not prepared to talk about any
policies for such an urgent problem - we need work done before the
election.
Pure political rhetoric Rich. I agree National needs to put forward a
plan that goes beyond the promised repeal of the current legislation.
That plan does not exist publicly yet so your speculation is as >> >> >>>>>>>>>pointless as it is useless.
You have exactly hit on it, John Bowes, well done. Despite good work
being done by various local authorities, there is a large amount of
work still tobe done - that is what the flooding has told us. One of
those areas is improved water systems - only a few weeks ago many were
claiming htat the major cities had water well under control and did
not need assistance from central government. That is now shown to not
be true.
What the floods told us is nature will always trump humans! Time for some common sense rather than your standard of bullshit Rich. Funny how you sweep Goff's failure under the carpet...
Besides which NOBODY has claimed the big cities have water under control. Only a numbskull like you would make such a stupid lie!
So do you think Auckand City should go it alone and put up the rates
to pay for the work that is needed? What will Mayor Brown push for?
Irrelevant! The thread is about the floods not the aftermath... and they weren't in Auckand!
On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 13:14:45 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>Of course - but tony apparently had not seen them
wrote:
On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 03:46:37 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou have posted those links in other threads before.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:What a short memory you have - and an inherent inability to search .
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 21:28:26 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou should not be so unkind to yourself - I vaguely recall one occasion when >>>you posted a response supported by facts. I can't remember the topic, probably
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 19:27:04 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:But that is a lie.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Your caution over believing anything from a National Party person, is >>>>>>understandable, but in this case wrong. National are having an >>>>>>internal struggle in Luxon trying to avoid having to admit that the >>>>>>previous National-led government followed a Labour Party example >>>>>>(Wanganui River) of a way to reach a Treaty settlement; they then >>>>>>called the Waikato settlement co-governance.
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 05:51:23 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Jesus wept.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 02:29:14 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:No it is you who is confused. You heve demonstrated many times that you
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Ben Thomas was suggesting that National may have been better calling >>>>>>>>>>what they did co-managment than co-governance since it seems to have >>>>>>>>>>cofused people - perhaps that includes you Tony.
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 10:17:55 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>Nothing in that even hints that co-governance and co-management are the
wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 22:02:05 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 20:10:36 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 18:19:39 +1300, Rich80105 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>><Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
So a U-turn on Water reforms is needed. The current government doeshttps://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/analysis-the-three-biggest-lessons-from-aucklands-historic-floods/SKKD6HGILZENPMN2WKC5Q3MP4I/
It will not be easy, but I am sure that working together - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>government
with local authorities, and consulting with local communities, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>businesses and interest groups is the way to go. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
indeed need to consult with local authorities on this. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>They did consult with local authorities for the Three Waters >>>>>>>>>>>>>>legislation.
Correct but they ignored the fact that most local authorities were >>>>>>>>>>>>>opposed to the reforms. Originally Labour offered an opt-out option
but this was withdrawn when it became apparent that a significant >>>>>>>>>>>>>number of local authorities indicated they would opt out - including
Auckland Council with a Labour ex-cabinet-member as Mayor. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
So yes Labour consulted, but the response was to ignore concerns and
to remove the opt-out option.
I agree that the events of this last week are likely to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>see some changes - certainly the needs of local authorities have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>changed - Southland for example was asking for government assistanceMost local bodies have not asked for and do not need assistance with
for work relating to river banks; Auckland needs have changed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>suddently as covered in the article.
weather bombs. This is no justification for the Water reforms. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
LocalIf they are not considered that may slow down response - there could
authorities need to consult with interested groups within their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>territory. Pre-conceived political policies (such as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>co-governance)
need not be considered unless the final decisions justify the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>concept
that community-owned water assets can be co-managed with Maori >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>descendants on a basis of fair equity in the area that each local
body
operates in.
well be an appeal to the Waitangi Tribunal, similar to the Foreshore
and Sebad protest; but it is certainly one way of making sure that
consultation is not token but real - and that includes as you say >>>>>>>>>>>>>>with
interested groups - but some actions will be needed quickly. An >>>>>>>>>>>>>>alternative that I have suggested for the short term is to set up >>>>>>>>>>>>>>structures under the legislaition for areas where local councils want
to participate; that may enable some work to start quickly while >>>>>>>>>>>>>>solutions for other areas are considered without quite the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>urgency.
Labour are a long way from making these concessions, and I am sure >>>>>>>>>>>>>that any change will be a difficult sell to their Maori caucus >>>>>>>>>>>>>members. They will not tolerate the removal of compulsory >>>>>>>>>>>>>co-governance measures particularly, with opt-out also being needed.
Labour cannot be trusted to do this, National do not currently have
a
policy that meets these criteria.
Actions are needed before the next election. National have said they
will repeal Labour's legislation, but not what they would replace it
with - and I cannot see them just handing money over to Councils >>>>>>>>>>>>>>without input on where that money goes.
I agree with that - National will need to publish a Water reforms >>>>>>>>>>>>>policy that addresses the issue for each local body that opts in. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
The previous NationalSenseless repetition of a lie does not change the fact you lie when
Government was enthusastically following the co-governance route, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>which has made it difficult for the current or any future government
to claim that it does not work - it clearly does.
you say this. National went down the co-management route, not the >>>>>>>>>>>>>co-governance route as defined in the current Water reforms >>>>>>>>>>>>>legislation, and it works specifically because co-management is >>>>>>>>>>>>>different to co-governance.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/02/waitangi-tribunal-recommendations-should-be-rejected-as-consequence-could-be-kiwis-rights-up-in-air-david-seymour.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
There is a video atthe top - watch from 1:57 in - National know that
Labour is just using the name that Chris Finlayson used when they >>>>>>>>>>>>followed a solution used by Michael Cullen for the Wanganui River. >>>>>>>>>>>>National are not saying that they would do anything different in the
next term
same.
They are not, not even close.
do
not
understand the difference.
I do understand, I have lived the difference.
However I note your snide remark, slipping again into abuse are you? >>>>>>>>I doubt Ben Thomas knows you, but confusing people with the term is >>>>>>>>what he claims has happened.
You lied.
Period.
Thomas and his opinions are irrelevant and entirely off topiuc. Everybody
in
the universe knows that except you. Even Thomas certainly knopws that. >>>>>>
It is just an internalYour abuse is noted.
problem for National, your lies are, as usual, totally unnecessary >>>>>>Tony. You are not helping Luxon, or harming Labour - you are just >>>>>>being a prat.
Just once provide a single example of where any previous co-management was in
fact co-governance.
You might need to understanbd the difference between the two for the first >>>>>time
but there is plenty of information available. Your personal experience >>>>>clearly
lacks both.
You can continue to make a fool of yourself but that is your right and your
only hope of ever being noticed.
Do get a life and do some research. No National government has ever practiced
co-governance. Your only hope of showing otherwise is to provide examples and
to do so without changing the subject or being abusive. Sorry, I know how >>>>>difficult that is for you but help is available.
Chris Finlayson however says that they did. So who to believe - an >>>>opinionated occasional poster to nz.general who never supports those >>>>opinions with facts
not very important.
, or a past Cabinet Minister who is regarded asAnd who never said what you have posted.
having done well with Treaty settlements, and in particular with the >>>>co-governance arranements for the Waikato River . . .
I doubt he sang it. But he certainly never said it.
(And yes, I have posted a link to CHris Finlason sang that >>>>co-governance is the way forward and that we should be proceeding as >>>>fast as possible to just get on with co-governance arrangements)
. . >>https://e-tangata.co.nz/comment-and-analysis/chris-finlayson-co-governance-should-be-embraced-not-feared/
and >>https://www.minterellison.co.nz/insights/co-governance-the-misunderstood-political-hot-potato-and-likely-election-dominator
Those are articles outlining Findlayson's support of co-governance as >enshrined in the Water reforms legislation. He may well see his
actions as Treaty Settlement minister to negotiate Treaty settlement >agreements that involved co-management as similar to the co-governance >ownership model.
There is no escaping the fact that co-government as enshrined in theThe Three Waters anticipates that if a stasfactory agreement is not
Water reforms legislation is different to the agreements that
Findlayson negotiated on behalf of the crown. The Water reforms
legislation does not arise from a Treaty claim lodged with the
Waitangi Tribunal, it does transfer control of every water asset owned
by elected local bodies (many of which have exclusively-Maori wards)
to Water Entities that are not governed by democratically-elected >authorities.
Also don't forget that the entire co-governance was not a statedThat is a stupid argument. National had no mandate to react to teh
Labour policy prior to the 2020 election so Labour have no mandate for
it.
Your attempt to dismiss Nationals opposition (in particular) toI don;t see it as just hypocrisy - the press appear to believe that
co-governance on the basis of hypocrisy is irrational nonsense.
However as previously explained - what he said is now irrelevant and has been
for years.
How about something about the current co-governance power grab?
We have been reaching Treaty Settlements for many years - these >>>>>>>>>>settlements are not about land; they need a different approach. Luxon >>>>>>>>>>now appears to be denying the successful approach taken by National >>>>>>>>>>when they were last in government - but then perhaps National no >>>>>>>>>>longer believe in consultation and working together with Maori . . . >>>>>>>>>>The Treaty does not menstion or even suggest anyuthing whatsoever about
The problem with the words of David Seymour is that he appears to >>>>>>>>>>>>believe that government can unilaterally amend a contract by >>>>>>>>>>>>legislation - the TReaty of Waitangi is one of the earliest contracts
entered into by the British Crown - New Zealand committed to honour >>>>>>>>>>>>those contracts when we gained independence. Do you think Seymours >>>>>>>>>>>>attitude is correct?
c-governance.
You keep lying.
Which leaved National apparently not able to cope with serious issues
such as oour water problems. It has been suggested that while they
would repeal legislation, they would put back fairly much the same
thing, including formal consultation in a similar way to the Waikato
agreement that brought us the expression co-governance. But why would
we want to leave it to a party that is not prepared to talk about any
policies for such an urgent problem - we need work done before the
election.
Pure political rhetoric Rich. I agree National needs to put forward a
plan that goes beyond the promised repeal of the current legislation.
That plan does not exist publicly yet so your speculation is as >>>>>>>>>>>>>pointless as it is useless.
On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 13:37:15 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>You childish little man. They have been refuted so many times in the last few day I thought you may have understood by now. But no. Just more Rich80105 abuse.
wrote:
On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 13:14:45 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:Of course - but tony apparently had not seen them
On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 03:46:37 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou have posted those links in other threads before.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:What a short memory you have - and an inherent inability to search .
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 21:28:26 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You should not be so unkind to yourself - I vaguely recall one occasion >>>>when
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 19:27:04 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:But that is a lie.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Your caution over believing anything from a National Party person, is >>>>>>>understandable, but in this case wrong. National are having an >>>>>>>internal struggle in Luxon trying to avoid having to admit that the >>>>>>>previous National-led government followed a Labour Party example >>>>>>>(Wanganui River) of a way to reach a Treaty settlement; they then >>>>>>>called the Waikato settlement co-governance.
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 05:51:23 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Jesus wept.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 02:29:14 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:No it is you who is confused. You heve demonstrated many times that >>>>>>>>>>you
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Ben Thomas was suggesting that National may have been better calling >>>>>>>>>>>what they did co-managment than co-governance since it seems to have >>>>>>>>>>>cofused people - perhaps that includes you Tony.
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 10:17:55 +1300, Crash >>>>>>>>>>>>><nogood@dontbother.invalid>Nothing in that even hints that co-governance and co-management are >>>>>>>>>>>>the
wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 22:02:05 +1300, Rich80105 >>>>>>>>>>>>>><Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 20:10:36 +1300, Crash >>>>>>>>>>>>>>><nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 18:19:39 +1300, Rich80105 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
So a U-turn on Water reforms is needed. The current government >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>doeshttps://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/analysis-the-three-biggest-lessons-from-aucklands-historic-floods/SKKD6HGILZENPMN2WKC5Q3MP4I/
It will not be easy, but I am sure that working together - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>government
with local authorities, and consulting with local communities, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>businesses and interest groups is the way to go. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
indeed need to consult with local authorities on this. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>They did consult with local authorities for the Three Waters >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>legislation.
Correct but they ignored the fact that most local authorities were
opposed to the reforms. Originally Labour offered an opt-out >>>>>>>>>>>>>>option
but this was withdrawn when it became apparent that a significant >>>>>>>>>>>>>>number of local authorities indicated they would opt out - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>including
Auckland Council with a Labour ex-cabinet-member as Mayor. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So yes Labour consulted, but the response was to ignore concerns >>>>>>>>>>>>>>and
to remove the opt-out option.
I agree that the events of this last week are likely to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>see some changes - certainly the needs of local authorities have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>changed - Southland for example was asking for government >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>assistanceMost local bodies have not asked for and do not need assistance >>>>>>>>>>>>>>with
for work relating to river banks; Auckland needs have changed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>suddently as covered in the article.
weather bombs. This is no justification for the Water reforms. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
LocalIf they are not considered that may slow down response - there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>could
authorities need to consult with interested groups within their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>territory. Pre-conceived political policies (such as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>co-governance)
need not be considered unless the final decisions justify the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>concept
that community-owned water assets can be co-managed with Maori >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>descendants on a basis of fair equity in the area that each >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>local
body
operates in.
well be an appeal to the Waitangi Tribunal, similar to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Foreshore
and Sebad protest; but it is certainly one way of making sure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>that
consultation is not token but real - and that includes as you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>say
with
interested groups - but some actions will be needed quickly. An >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>alternative that I have suggested for the short term is to set up
structures under the legislaition for areas where local councils >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>want
to participate; that may enable some work to start quickly while >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>solutions for other areas are considered without quite the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>urgency.
Labour are a long way from making these concessions, and I am sure
that any change will be a difficult sell to their Maori caucus >>>>>>>>>>>>>>members. They will not tolerate the removal of compulsory >>>>>>>>>>>>>>co-governance measures particularly, with opt-out also being >>>>>>>>>>>>>>needed.
Labour cannot be trusted to do this, National do not currently >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>have
a
policy that meets these criteria.
Actions are needed before the next election. National have said >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>they
will repeal Labour's legislation, but not what they would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>replace it
with - and I cannot see them just handing money over to Councils >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>without input on where that money goes.
I agree with that - National will need to publish a Water reforms >>>>>>>>>>>>>>policy that addresses the issue for each local body that opts in. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The previous NationalSenseless repetition of a lie does not change the fact you lie >>>>>>>>>>>>>>when
Government was enthusastically following the co-governance route,
which has made it difficult for the current or any future >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>government
to claim that it does not work - it clearly does. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
you say this. National went down the co-management route, not the
co-governance route as defined in the current Water reforms >>>>>>>>>>>>>>legislation, and it works specifically because co-management is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>different to co-governance.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/02/waitangi-tribunal-recommendations-should-be-rejected-as-consequence-could-be-kiwis-rights-up-in-air-david-seymour.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
There is a video atthe top - watch from 1:57 in - National know >>>>>>>>>>>>>that
Labour is just using the name that Chris Finlayson used when they >>>>>>>>>>>>>followed a solution used by Michael Cullen for the Wanganui River. >>>>>>>>>>>>>National are not saying that they would do anything different in >>>>>>>>>>>>>the
next term
same.
They are not, not even close.
do
not
understand the difference.
I do understand, I have lived the difference.
However I note your snide remark, slipping again into abuse are you? >>>>>>>>>I doubt Ben Thomas knows you, but confusing people with the term is >>>>>>>>>what he claims has happened.
You lied.
Period.
Thomas and his opinions are irrelevant and entirely off topiuc. >>>>>>>>Everybody
in
the universe knows that except you. Even Thomas certainly knopws that. >>>>>>>
It is just an internalYour abuse is noted.
problem for National, your lies are, as usual, totally unnecessary >>>>>>>Tony. You are not helping Luxon, or harming Labour - you are just >>>>>>>being a prat.
Just once provide a single example of where any previous co-management >>>>>>was in
fact co-governance.
You might need to understanbd the difference between the two for the >>>>>>first
time
but there is plenty of information available. Your personal experience >>>>>>clearly
lacks both.
You can continue to make a fool of yourself but that is your right and >>>>>>your
only hope of ever being noticed.
Do get a life and do some research. No National government has ever >>>>>>practiced
co-governance. Your only hope of showing otherwise is to provide examples >>>>>>and
to do so without changing the subject or being abusive. Sorry, I know how >>>>>>difficult that is for you but help is available.
Chris Finlayson however says that they did. So who to believe - an >>>>>opinionated occasional poster to nz.general who never supports those >>>>>opinions with facts
you posted a response supported by facts. I can't remember the topic, >>>>probably
not very important.
, or a past Cabinet Minister who is regarded asAnd who never said what you have posted.
having done well with Treaty settlements, and in particular with the >>>>>co-governance arranements for the Waikato River . . .
I doubt he sang it. But he certainly never said it.
(And yes, I have posted a link to CHris Finlason sang that >>>>>co-governance is the way forward and that we should be proceeding as >>>>>fast as possible to just get on with co-governance arrangements)
. . >>>https://e-tangata.co.nz/comment-and-analysis/chris-finlayson-co-governance-should-be-embraced-not-feared/
and >>>https://www.minterellison.co.nz/insights/co-governance-the-misunderstood-political-hot-potato-and-likely-election-dominator
Those are articles outlining Findlayson's support of co-governance as >>enshrined in the Water reforms legislation. He may well see his
actions as Treaty Settlement minister to negotiate Treaty settlement >>agreements that involved co-management as similar to the co-governance >>ownership model.
Indeed he does, but he is now careful not to get in the way of Luxon's >policies of fomenting dissatisfaction and racism through dog-whislte >simplistic speeches that we have not seen since Brash dropped support
for ACT from 7% to 1% through similar statements.
The Three Waters anticipates that if a stasfactory agreement is not
There is no escaping the fact that co-government as enshrined in the
Water reforms legislation is different to the agreements that
Findlayson negotiated on behalf of the crown. The Water reforms >>legislation does not arise from a Treaty claim lodged with the
Waitangi Tribunal, it does transfer control of every water asset owned
by elected local bodies (many of which have exclusively-Maori wards)
to Water Entities that are not governed by democratically-elected >>authorities.
reached, there would be a Treaty Claim - that is why the River
agreements were made; they forestalled the necessity of going to court
. . . - a lesson both parties learned from teh Foreshore and Sebed
days.
That is a stupid argument. National had no mandate to react to teh
Also don't forget that the entire co-governance was not a stated
Labour policy prior to the 2020 election so Labour have no mandate for
it.
GFC; Labour had no mandate to react to Covid, no government ever
anticipated unexpected events such as the recent flooing. During every
term there are reasons for legislation that was not anticipated prior
to the election.
Co-governance has been used at least twice now - it leaves overall
governance to parliament, but shares thinking from different groups in
long terms planning and priorities. Government and local authories are
of course also involved - they regulate where the money comes from,
and makes sure it fits planning requirements.
Your attempt to dismiss Nationals opposition (in particular) to >>co-governance on the basis of hypocrisy is irrational nonsense.I don;t see it as just hypocrisy - the press appear to believe that
some of it is Luxon being still 'finding his way' and being easily
mislead by factions within the party - he is balancing relentless
attackes on government with the need to acknowledge at some point that
the problems need to be resolved, and National don't seem to have any >policies yet to fix those problems. Still on training wheels sounds so
much better than hypocrisy . . .
However as previously explained - what he said is now irrelevant and has >>>>been
for years.
How about something about the current co-governance power grab?
We have been reaching Treaty Settlements for many years - these >>>>>>>>>>>settlements are not about land; they need a different approach. LuxonThe Treaty does not menstion or even suggest anyuthing whatsoever >>>>>>>>>>>>about
The problem with the words of David Seymour is that he appears to >>>>>>>>>>>>>believe that government can unilaterally amend a contract by >>>>>>>>>>>>>legislation - the TReaty of Waitangi is one of the earliest >>>>>>>>>>>>>contracts
entered into by the British Crown - New Zealand committed to honour
those contracts when we gained independence. Do you think Seymours
attitude is correct?
c-governance.
You keep lying.
now appears to be denying the successful approach taken by National >>>>>>>>>>>when they were last in government - but then perhaps National no >>>>>>>>>>>longer believe in consultation and working together with Maori . . . >>>>>>>>>>>
Which leaved National apparently not able to cope with serious >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>issues
such as oour water problems. It has been suggested that while >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>they
would repeal legislation, they would put back fairly much the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>same
thing, including formal consultation in a similar way to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Waikato
agreement that brought us the expression co-governance. But why >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>would
we want to leave it to a party that is not prepared to talk >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>about any
policies for such an urgent problem - we need work done before >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the
election.
Pure political rhetoric Rich. I agree National needs to put >>>>>>>>>>>>>>forward a
plan that goes beyond the promised repeal of the current >>>>>>>>>>>>>>legislation.
That plan does not exist publicly yet so your speculation is as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>pointless as it is useless.
On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 13:37:15 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 13:14:45 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:Of course - but tony apparently had not seen them
On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 03:46:37 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou have posted those links in other threads before.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:What a short memory you have - and an inherent inability to search .
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 21:28:26 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You should not be so unkind to yourself - I vaguely recall one occasion when
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 19:27:04 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:But that is a lie.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Your caution over believing anything from a National Party person, is >>>>>>>understandable, but in this case wrong. National are having an >>>>>>>internal struggle in Luxon trying to avoid having to admit that the >>>>>>>previous National-led government followed a Labour Party example >>>>>>>(Wanganui River) of a way to reach a Treaty settlement; they then >>>>>>>called the Waikato settlement co-governance.
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 05:51:23 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Jesus wept.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 02:29:14 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:No it is you who is confused. You heve demonstrated many times that you
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Ben Thomas was suggesting that National may have been better calling >>>>>>>>>>>what they did co-managment than co-governance since it seems to have >>>>>>>>>>>cofused people - perhaps that includes you Tony.
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 10:17:55 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>Nothing in that even hints that co-governance and co-management are the
wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 22:02:05 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 20:10:36 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 18:19:39 +1300, Rich80105 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
So a U-turn on Water reforms is needed. The current government doeshttps://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/analysis-the-three-biggest-lessons-from-aucklands-historic-floods/SKKD6HGILZENPMN2WKC5Q3MP4I/
It will not be easy, but I am sure that working together - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>government
with local authorities, and consulting with local communities, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>businesses and interest groups is the way to go. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
indeed need to consult with local authorities on this. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>They did consult with local authorities for the Three Waters >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>legislation.
Correct but they ignored the fact that most local authorities were
opposed to the reforms. Originally Labour offered an opt-out option
but this was withdrawn when it became apparent that a significant >>>>>>>>>>>>>>number of local authorities indicated they would opt out - including
Auckland Council with a Labour ex-cabinet-member as Mayor. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So yes Labour consulted, but the response was to ignore concerns and
to remove the opt-out option.
I agree that the events of this last week are likely to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>see some changes - certainly the needs of local authorities have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>changed - Southland for example was asking for government assistanceMost local bodies have not asked for and do not need assistance with
for work relating to river banks; Auckland needs have changed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>suddently as covered in the article.
weather bombs. This is no justification for the Water reforms. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
LocalIf they are not considered that may slow down response - there could
authorities need to consult with interested groups within their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>territory. Pre-conceived political policies (such as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>co-governance)
need not be considered unless the final decisions justify the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>concept
that community-owned water assets can be co-managed with Maori >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>descendants on a basis of fair equity in the area that each local
body
operates in.
well be an appeal to the Waitangi Tribunal, similar to the Foreshore
and Sebad protest; but it is certainly one way of making sure that
consultation is not token but real - and that includes as you say
with
interested groups - but some actions will be needed quickly. An >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>alternative that I have suggested for the short term is to set up
structures under the legislaition for areas where local councils want
to participate; that may enable some work to start quickly while >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>solutions for other areas are considered without quite the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>urgency.
Labour are a long way from making these concessions, and I am sure
that any change will be a difficult sell to their Maori caucus >>>>>>>>>>>>>>members. They will not tolerate the removal of compulsory >>>>>>>>>>>>>>co-governance measures particularly, with opt-out also being needed.
Labour cannot be trusted to do this, National do not currently have
a
policy that meets these criteria.
Actions are needed before the next election. National have said they
will repeal Labour's legislation, but not what they would replace it
with - and I cannot see them just handing money over to Councils >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>without input on where that money goes.
I agree with that - National will need to publish a Water reforms >>>>>>>>>>>>>>policy that addresses the issue for each local body that opts in. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The previous NationalSenseless repetition of a lie does not change the fact you lie when
Government was enthusastically following the co-governance route,
which has made it difficult for the current or any future government
to claim that it does not work - it clearly does. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
you say this. National went down the co-management route, not the
co-governance route as defined in the current Water reforms >>>>>>>>>>>>>>legislation, and it works specifically because co-management is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>different to co-governance.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/02/waitangi-tribunal-recommendations-should-be-rejected-as-consequence-could-be-kiwis-rights-up-in-air-david-seymour.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
There is a video atthe top - watch from 1:57 in - National know that
Labour is just using the name that Chris Finlayson used when they >>>>>>>>>>>>>followed a solution used by Michael Cullen for the Wanganui River. >>>>>>>>>>>>>National are not saying that they would do anything different in the
next term
same.
They are not, not even close.
do
not
understand the difference.
I do understand, I have lived the difference.
However I note your snide remark, slipping again into abuse are you? >>>>>>>>>I doubt Ben Thomas knows you, but confusing people with the term is >>>>>>>>>what he claims has happened.
You lied.
Period.
Thomas and his opinions are irrelevant and entirely off topiuc. Everybody
in
the universe knows that except you. Even Thomas certainly knopws that. >>>>>>>
It is just an internalYour abuse is noted.
problem for National, your lies are, as usual, totally unnecessary >>>>>>>Tony. You are not helping Luxon, or harming Labour - you are just >>>>>>>being a prat.
Just once provide a single example of where any previous co-management was in
fact co-governance.
You might need to understanbd the difference between the two for the first
time
but there is plenty of information available. Your personal experience >>>>>>clearly
lacks both.
You can continue to make a fool of yourself but that is your right and your
only hope of ever being noticed.
Do get a life and do some research. No National government has ever practiced
co-governance. Your only hope of showing otherwise is to provide examples and
to do so without changing the subject or being abusive. Sorry, I know how >>>>>>difficult that is for you but help is available.
Chris Finlayson however says that they did. So who to believe - an >>>>>opinionated occasional poster to nz.general who never supports those >>>>>opinions with facts
you posted a response supported by facts. I can't remember the topic, probably
not very important.
, or a past Cabinet Minister who is regarded asAnd who never said what you have posted.
having done well with Treaty settlements, and in particular with the >>>>>co-governance arranements for the Waikato River . . .
I doubt he sang it. But he certainly never said it.
(And yes, I have posted a link to CHris Finlason sang that >>>>>co-governance is the way forward and that we should be proceeding as >>>>>fast as possible to just get on with co-governance arrangements)
. . >>>https://e-tangata.co.nz/comment-and-analysis/chris-finlayson-co-governance-should-be-embraced-not-feared/
and >>>https://www.minterellison.co.nz/insights/co-governance-the-misunderstood-political-hot-potato-and-likely-election-dominator
Those are articles outlining Findlayson's support of co-governance as >>enshrined in the Water reforms legislation. He may well see his
actions as Treaty Settlement minister to negotiate Treaty settlement >>agreements that involved co-management as similar to the co-governance >>ownership model.
Indeed he does, but he is now careful not to get in the way of Luxon's >policies of fomenting dissatisfaction and racism through dog-whislte >simplistic speeches that we have not seen since Brash dropped support
for ACT from 7% to 1% through similar statements.
The Three Waters anticipates that if a stasfactory agreement is not
There is no escaping the fact that co-government as enshrined in the
Water reforms legislation is different to the agreements that
Findlayson negotiated on behalf of the crown. The Water reforms >>legislation does not arise from a Treaty claim lodged with the
Waitangi Tribunal, it does transfer control of every water asset owned
by elected local bodies (many of which have exclusively-Maori wards)
to Water Entities that are not governed by democratically-elected >>authorities.
reached, there would be a Treaty Claim
- that is why the River
agreements were made; they forestalled the necessity of going to court
. . . - a lesson both parties learned from teh Foreshore and Sebed
days.
That is a stupid argument.
Also don't forget that the entire co-governance was not a stated
Labour policy prior to the 2020 election so Labour have no mandate for
it.
National had no mandate to react to teh
GFC;
Labour had no mandate to react to Covid, no government ever
anticipated unexpected events such as the recent flooing. During every
term there are reasons for legislation that was not anticipated prior
to the election.
Co-governance has been used at least twice now
- it leaves overall
governance to parliament, but shares thinking from different groups in
long terms planning and priorities. Government and local authories are
of course also involved - they regulate where the money comes from,
and makes sure it fits planning requirements.
Your attempt to dismiss Nationals opposition (in particular) to >>co-governance on the basis of hypocrisy is irrational nonsense.I don;t see it as just hypocrisy - the press appear to believe that
some of it is Luxon being still 'finding his way' and being easily
mislead by factions within the party - he is balancing relentless
attackes on government with the need to acknowledge at some point that
the problems need to be resolved, and National don't seem to have any >policies yet to fix those problems. Still on training wheels sounds so
much better than hypocrisy . . .
However as previously explained - what he said is now irrelevant and has been
for years.
How about something about the current co-governance power grab?
We have been reaching Treaty Settlements for many years - these >>>>>>>>>>>settlements are not about land; they need a different approach. LuxonThe Treaty does not menstion or even suggest anyuthing whatsoever about
The problem with the words of David Seymour is that he appears to >>>>>>>>>>>>>believe that government can unilaterally amend a contract by >>>>>>>>>>>>>legislation - the TReaty of Waitangi is one of the earliest contracts
entered into by the British Crown - New Zealand committed to honour
those contracts when we gained independence. Do you think Seymours
attitude is correct?
c-governance.
You keep lying.
now appears to be denying the successful approach taken by National >>>>>>>>>>>when they were last in government - but then perhaps National no >>>>>>>>>>>longer believe in consultation and working together with Maori . . . >>>>>>>>>>>
Which leaved National apparently not able to cope with serious issues
such as oour water problems. It has been suggested that while they
would repeal legislation, they would put back fairly much the same
thing, including formal consultation in a similar way to the Waikato
agreement that brought us the expression co-governance. But why would
we want to leave it to a party that is not prepared to talk about any
policies for such an urgent problem - we need work done before the
election.
Pure political rhetoric Rich. I agree National needs to put forward a
plan that goes beyond the promised repeal of the current legislation.
That plan does not exist publicly yet so your speculation is as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>pointless as it is useless.
On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 16:55:22 -0800 (PST), John Bowesappear to be not fit for purpose!
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 1:18:05 PM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 21:20:42 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 4:32:03 PM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 06 Feb 2023 11:24:53 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >> >> wrote:Isn't this thread supposedly about the Auckland floods which have nothing whatsoever to do with 5 waters and what Finlayson etc did or did not say? The lesson learned from the floods in Auckland is that an ex Labour leader oversaw work that would
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 21:50:01 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >> >> >wrote:No, lisyten again - Ben Thomas suggests the he wondered at the time if >> >> it would be confused with government, and suggests that perhaps he
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 05:48:40 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 02:30:29 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo that is a lie. they are ebtirely different.
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Irrelevant - they are what National called co-governance, and are >> >> >>>>close to what Labour is doing with Three Waters.
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 12:31:29 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>Neither of which are co-governance.
wrote:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 10:39:25 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>Yes fair comment Crash - the different issues arose from comments from
wrote:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 10:17:55 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 22:02:05 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 20:10:36 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 18:19:39 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>They did consult with local authorities for the Three Waters >> >> >>>>>>>>>>legislation.
wrote:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/analysis-the-three-biggest-lessons-from-aucklands-historic-floods/SKKD6HGILZENPMN2WKC5Q3MP4I/
It will not be easy, but I am sure that working together - government
with local authorities, and consulting with local communities,
businesses and interest groups is the way to go.
So a U-turn on Water reforms is needed. The current government does
indeed need to consult with local authorities on this.
Correct but they ignored the fact that most local authorities were
opposed to the reforms. Originally Labour offered an opt-out option
but this was withdrawn when it became apparent that a significant
number of local authorities indicated they would opt out - including
Auckland Council with a Labour ex-cabinet-member as Mayor.
So yes Labour consulted, but the response was to ignore concerns and
to remove the opt-out option.
I agree that the events of this last week are likely toMost local bodies have not asked for and do not need assistance with
see some changes - certainly the needs of local authorities have
changed - Southland for example was asking for government assistance
for work relating to river banks; Auckland needs have changed
suddently as covered in the article.
weather bombs. This is no justification for the Water reforms.
LocalIf they are not considered that may slow down response - there could
authorities need to consult with interested groups within their
territory. Pre-conceived political policies (such as co-governance)
need not be considered unless the final decisions justify the concept
that community-owned water assets can be co-managed with Maori
descendants on a basis of fair equity in the area that each local body
operates in.
well be an appeal to the Waitangi Tribunal, similar to the Foreshore
and Sebad protest; but it is certainly one way of making sure that
consultation is not token but real - and that includes as you say with
interested groups - but some actions will be needed quickly. An
alternative that I have suggested for the short term is to set up
structures under the legislaition for areas where local councils want
to participate; that may enable some work to start quickly while
solutions for other areas are considered without quite the same
urgency.
Labour are a long way from making these concessions, and I am sure
that any change will be a difficult sell to their Maori caucus
members. They will not tolerate the removal of compulsory
co-governance measures particularly, with opt-out also being needed.
Labour cannot be trusted to do this, National do not currently have a
policy that meets these criteria.
Actions are needed before the next election. National have said they
will repeal Labour's legislation, but not what they would replace it
with - and I cannot see them just handing money over to Councils
without input on where that money goes.
I agree with that - National will need to publish a Water reforms
policy that addresses the issue for each local body that opts in.
The previous NationalSenseless repetition of a lie does not change the fact you lie when
Government was enthusastically following the co-governance route,
which has made it difficult for the current or any future government
to claim that it does not work - it clearly does.
you say this. National went down the co-management route, not the
co-governance route as defined in the current Water reforms >> >> >>>>>>>>>legislation, and it works specifically because co-management is
different to co-governance.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/02/waitangi-tribunal-recommendations-should-be-rejected-as-consequence-could-be-kiwis-rights-up-in-air-david-seymour.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
There is a video atthe top - watch from 1:57 in - National know that
Labour is just using the name that Chris Finlayson used when they
followed a solution used by Michael Cullen for the Wanganui River.
National are not saying that they would do anything different in the
next term
The problem with the words of David Seymour is that he appears to
believe that government can unilaterally amend a contract by >> >> >>>>>>>>legislation - the TReaty of Waitangi is one of the earliest contracts
entered into by the British Crown - New Zealand committed to honour
those contracts when we gained independence. Do you think Seymours
attitude is correct?
Your latest post wanders away from the debate your original post
started. Accordingly I conclude you have nothing more to add to that
debate. Debate around a recent report from the Waitangi Tribunal is
another subject - feel free to start a new thread.
David Seymour at a time (now) when consultation with Maori, and the
arrangements made by previous governments, are very much in the news.
The comments by Ben Thomas are however very pertinent to the debate
above - the government is arguing that they wish to work with Maori to
advance common interests - that has worked well for the arrangments
relating to the Wanganui and Waikato Rivers.
Provide evidence or admit you are lying.
There you go again with your unsupported accusations - and yet again >> >> >>you did not read or in this case listen!
Go back up to the Newshub url - there is a video at the top; listen >> >> >>from 1:57 to Ben Thomas, who worked for the National Party, and claims
to have come up wth the term co-governance for what they arranged
forthe Waikato river. He says that perhaps it was not the best name >> >> >>because it gets cofused with government. So So-Governance is what
National called thier Waikato settlement / solution, and what they did
there is similar to the working together that Labour is seeking with >> >> >>Three Waters.
I have listened to that portion of the interview. Thomas never
actually mentions co-governance, but responds to a suggestion from
Wade that the mechanism of co-governance was used with Treaty
settlements negotiated by Findlayson. Thomas then suggests Labour
should have spent more time white boarding alternative names.
should have spent a little more time and chosen a different name.
So theNo, Chris Finlayson used the term fpr the Waikato settlement well
fact remains that co-governance was a term first introduced by Labour >> >> >to explain Maori involvement in Water Entity management and ownership,
blueprinted by the He Puapua report commissioned by Labour when in
coalition with NZF and according to Winston without his agreement, and
first made public by an unauthorised leak.
before the election that saw Labour elected - and Treaty settlements >> >> were not an issue at that election.
I certainly try to refute lies from other posters when I see them, but >> >> I suspect as usual it will make little difference to closed minds.
Rich you just cannot let go of any lie that you believe furthers
Labour interests.
Which leaved National apparently not able to cope with serious issues
such as oour water problems. It has been suggested that while they
would repeal legislation, they would put back fairly much the same
thing, including formal consultation in a similar way to the Waikato
agreement that brought us the expression co-governance. But why would
we want to leave it to a party that is not prepared to talk about any
policies for such an urgent problem - we need work done before the
election.
Pure political rhetoric Rich. I agree National needs to put forward a
plan that goes beyond the promised repeal of the current legislation.
That plan does not exist publicly yet so your speculation is as
pointless as it is useless.
You have exactly hit on it, John Bowes, well done. Despite good work
being done by various local authorities, there is a large amount of
work still tobe done - that is what the flooding has told us. One of
those areas is improved water systems - only a few weeks ago many were
claiming htat the major cities had water well under control and did
not need assistance from central government. That is now shown to not
be true.
What the floods told us is nature will always trump humans! Time for some common sense rather than your standard of bullshit Rich. Funny how you sweep Goff's failure under the carpet...
Besides which NOBODY has claimed the big cities have water under control. Only a numbskull like you would make such a stupid lie!
So do you think Auckand City should go it alone and put up the rates
to pay for the work that is needed? What will Mayor Brown push for?
Irrelevant! The thread is about the floods not the aftermath... and they weren't in Auckand!There were quite a few houses flooded in Auckland, John - some for the second time . . .
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 13:37:15 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:You childish little man. They have been refuted so many times in the last few >day I thought you may have understood by now. But no. Just more Rich80105 abuse.
On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 13:14:45 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:Of course - but tony apparently had not seen them
On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 03:46:37 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou have posted those links in other threads before.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:What a short memory you have - and an inherent inability to search .
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 21:28:26 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You should not be so unkind to yourself - I vaguely recall one occasion >>>>>when
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 19:27:04 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:But that is a lie.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Your caution over believing anything from a National Party person, is >>>>>>>>understandable, but in this case wrong. National are having an >>>>>>>>internal struggle in Luxon trying to avoid having to admit that the >>>>>>>>previous National-led government followed a Labour Party example >>>>>>>>(Wanganui River) of a way to reach a Treaty settlement; they then >>>>>>>>called the Waikato settlement co-governance.
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 05:51:23 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Jesus wept.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 02:29:14 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:No it is you who is confused. You heve demonstrated many times that >>>>>>>>>>>you
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Ben Thomas was suggesting that National may have been better calling
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 10:17:55 +1300, Crash >>>>>>>>>>>>>><nogood@dontbother.invalid>Nothing in that even hints that co-governance and co-management are
wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 22:02:05 +1300, Rich80105 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>><Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 20:10:36 +1300, Crash >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 18:19:39 +1300, Rich80105 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
So a U-turn on Water reforms is needed. The current governmenthttps://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/analysis-the-three-biggest-lessons-from-aucklands-historic-floods/SKKD6HGILZENPMN2WKC5Q3MP4I/
It will not be easy, but I am sure that working together - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>government
with local authorities, and consulting with local communities,
businesses and interest groups is the way to go. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
does
indeed need to consult with local authorities on this. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>They did consult with local authorities for the Three Waters >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>legislation.
Correct but they ignored the fact that most local authorities were
opposed to the reforms. Originally Labour offered an opt-out >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>option
but this was withdrawn when it became apparent that a significant
number of local authorities indicated they would opt out - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>including
Auckland Council with a Labour ex-cabinet-member as Mayor. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So yes Labour consulted, but the response was to ignore concerns >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>and
to remove the opt-out option.
I agree that the events of this last week are likely to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>see some changes - certainly the needs of local authorities haveMost local bodies have not asked for and do not need assistance >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>with
changed - Southland for example was asking for government >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>assistance
for work relating to river banks; Auckland needs have changed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>suddently as covered in the article.
weather bombs. This is no justification for the Water reforms. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
LocalIf they are not considered that may slow down response - there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>could
authorities need to consult with interested groups within their
territory. Pre-conceived political policies (such as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>co-governance)
need not be considered unless the final decisions justify the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>concept
that community-owned water assets can be co-managed with Maori >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>descendants on a basis of fair equity in the area that each >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>local
body
operates in.
well be an appeal to the Waitangi Tribunal, similar to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Foreshore
and Sebad protest; but it is certainly one way of making sure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>that
consultation is not token but real - and that includes as you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>say
with
interested groups - but some actions will be needed quickly. An >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>alternative that I have suggested for the short term is to set up
structures under the legislaition for areas where local councils
want
to participate; that may enable some work to start quickly while
solutions for other areas are considered without quite the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>urgency.
Labour are a long way from making these concessions, and I am sure
that any change will be a difficult sell to their Maori caucus >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>members. They will not tolerate the removal of compulsory >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>co-governance measures particularly, with opt-out also being >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>needed.
Labour cannot be trusted to do this, National do not currently >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>have
a
policy that meets these criteria.
Actions are needed before the next election. National have said >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>they
will repeal Labour's legislation, but not what they would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>replace it
with - and I cannot see them just handing money over to Councils
without input on where that money goes.
I agree with that - National will need to publish a Water reforms
policy that addresses the issue for each local body that opts in.
The previous NationalSenseless repetition of a lie does not change the fact you lie >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>when
Government was enthusastically following the co-governance route,
which has made it difficult for the current or any future >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>government
to claim that it does not work - it clearly does. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
you say this. National went down the co-management route, not the
co-governance route as defined in the current Water reforms >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>legislation, and it works specifically because co-management is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>different to co-governance.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/02/waitangi-tribunal-recommendations-should-be-rejected-as-consequence-could-be-kiwis-rights-up-in-air-david-seymour.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
There is a video atthe top - watch from 1:57 in - National know >>>>>>>>>>>>>>that
Labour is just using the name that Chris Finlayson used when they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>followed a solution used by Michael Cullen for the Wanganui River.
National are not saying that they would do anything different in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>the
next term
the
same.
They are not, not even close.
what they did co-managment than co-governance since it seems to have
cofused people - perhaps that includes you Tony.
do
not
understand the difference.
I do understand, I have lived the difference.
However I note your snide remark, slipping again into abuse are you? >>>>>>>>>>I doubt Ben Thomas knows you, but confusing people with the term is >>>>>>>>>>what he claims has happened.
You lied.
Period.
Thomas and his opinions are irrelevant and entirely off topiuc. >>>>>>>>>Everybody
in
the universe knows that except you. Even Thomas certainly knopws that. >>>>>>>>
It is just an internalYour abuse is noted.
problem for National, your lies are, as usual, totally unnecessary >>>>>>>>Tony. You are not helping Luxon, or harming Labour - you are just >>>>>>>>being a prat.
Just once provide a single example of where any previous co-management >>>>>>>was in
fact co-governance.
You might need to understanbd the difference between the two for the >>>>>>>first
time
but there is plenty of information available. Your personal experience >>>>>>>clearly
lacks both.
You can continue to make a fool of yourself but that is your right and >>>>>>>your
only hope of ever being noticed.
Do get a life and do some research. No National government has ever >>>>>>>practiced
co-governance. Your only hope of showing otherwise is to provide examples
and
to do so without changing the subject or being abusive. Sorry, I know how
difficult that is for you but help is available.
Chris Finlayson however says that they did. So who to believe - an >>>>>>opinionated occasional poster to nz.general who never supports those >>>>>>opinions with facts
you posted a response supported by facts. I can't remember the topic, >>>>>probably
not very important.
, or a past Cabinet Minister who is regarded asAnd who never said what you have posted.
having done well with Treaty settlements, and in particular with the >>>>>>co-governance arranements for the Waikato River . . .
I doubt he sang it. But he certainly never said it.
(And yes, I have posted a link to CHris Finlason sang that >>>>>>co-governance is the way forward and that we should be proceeding as >>>>>>fast as possible to just get on with co-governance arrangements)
. . >>>>https://e-tangata.co.nz/comment-and-analysis/chris-finlayson-co-governance-should-be-embraced-not-feared/
and >>>>https://www.minterellison.co.nz/insights/co-governance-the-misunderstood-political-hot-potato-and-likely-election-dominator
Those are articles outlining Findlayson's support of co-governance as >>>enshrined in the Water reforms legislation. He may well see his
actions as Treaty Settlement minister to negotiate Treaty settlement >>>agreements that involved co-management as similar to the co-governance >>>ownership model.
Indeed he does, but he is now careful not to get in the way of Luxon's >>policies of fomenting dissatisfaction and racism through dog-whislte >>simplistic speeches that we have not seen since Brash dropped support
for ACT from 7% to 1% through similar statements.
The Three Waters anticipates that if a stasfactory agreement is not >>reached, there would be a Treaty Claim - that is why the River
There is no escaping the fact that co-government as enshrined in the >>>Water reforms legislation is different to the agreements that
Findlayson negotiated on behalf of the crown. The Water reforms >>>legislation does not arise from a Treaty claim lodged with the
Waitangi Tribunal, it does transfer control of every water asset owned
by elected local bodies (many of which have exclusively-Maori wards)
to Water Entities that are not governed by democratically-elected >>>authorities.
agreements were made; they forestalled the necessity of going to court
. . . - a lesson both parties learned from teh Foreshore and Sebed
days.
That is a stupid argument. National had no mandate to react to teh
Also don't forget that the entire co-governance was not a stated
Labour policy prior to the 2020 election so Labour have no mandate for >>>it.
GFC; Labour had no mandate to react to Covid, no government ever >>anticipated unexpected events such as the recent flooing. During every
term there are reasons for legislation that was not anticipated prior
to the election.
Co-governance has been used at least twice now - it leaves overall >>governance to parliament, but shares thinking from different groups in
long terms planning and priorities. Government and local authories are
of course also involved - they regulate where the money comes from,
and makes sure it fits planning requirements.
Your attempt to dismiss Nationals opposition (in particular) to >>>co-governance on the basis of hypocrisy is irrational nonsense.I don;t see it as just hypocrisy - the press appear to believe that
some of it is Luxon being still 'finding his way' and being easily
mislead by factions within the party - he is balancing relentless
attackes on government with the need to acknowledge at some point that
the problems need to be resolved, and National don't seem to have any >>policies yet to fix those problems. Still on training wheels sounds so
much better than hypocrisy . . .
However as previously explained - what he said is now irrelevant and has >>>>>been
for years.
How about something about the current co-governance power grab?
We have been reaching Treaty Settlements for many years - these >>>>>>>>>>>>settlements are not about land; they need a different approach. LuxonThe Treaty does not menstion or even suggest anyuthing whatsoever >>>>>>>>>>>>>about
The problem with the words of David Seymour is that he appears to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>believe that government can unilaterally amend a contract by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>legislation - the TReaty of Waitangi is one of the earliest >>>>>>>>>>>>>>contracts
entered into by the British Crown - New Zealand committed to honour
those contracts when we gained independence. Do you think Seymours
attitude is correct?
c-governance.
You keep lying.
now appears to be denying the successful approach taken by National >>>>>>>>>>>>when they were last in government - but then perhaps National no >>>>>>>>>>>>longer believe in consultation and working together with Maori . . .
Which leaved National apparently not able to cope with serious >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>issues
such as oour water problems. It has been suggested that while >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>they
would repeal legislation, they would put back fairly much the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>same
thing, including formal consultation in a similar way to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Waikato
agreement that brought us the expression co-governance. But why >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>would
we want to leave it to a party that is not prepared to talk >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>about any
policies for such an urgent problem - we need work done before >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the
election.
Pure political rhetoric Rich. I agree National needs to put >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>forward a
plan that goes beyond the promised repeal of the current >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>legislation.
That plan does not exist publicly yet so your speculation is as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>pointless as it is useless.
On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 02:53:58 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou can try to change the narrative as many times as you wish but the fact (yes the Fact) is that co-governance is not co-management. I have not wavered on that but you keep trying to move the goalposts. Pity you are such a terrible goalkeeper.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 13:37:15 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:You childish little man. They have been refuted so many times in the last few >>day I thought you may have understood by now. But no. Just more Rich80105 >>abuse.
On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 13:14:45 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:Of course - but tony apparently had not seen them
On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 03:46:37 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You have posted those links in other threads before.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:What a short memory you have - and an inherent inability to search . >>>>>. . >>>>>https://e-tangata.co.nz/comment-and-analysis/chris-finlayson-co-governance-should-be-embraced-not-feared/
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 21:28:26 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You should not be so unkind to yourself - I vaguely recall one occasion >>>>>>when
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 19:27:04 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:But that is a lie.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 05:51:23 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Jesus wept.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I doubt Ben Thomas knows you, but confusing people with the term is >>>>>>>>>>>what he claims has happened.
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 02:29:14 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:No it is you who is confused. You heve demonstrated many times that >>>>>>>>>>>>you
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Ben Thomas was suggesting that National may have been better >>>>>>>>>>>>>calling
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 10:17:55 +1300, Crash >>>>>>>>>>>>>>><nogood@dontbother.invalid>Nothing in that even hints that co-governance and co-management >>>>>>>>>>>>>>are
wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 22:02:05 +1300, Rich80105 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 20:10:36 +1300, Crash >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 18:19:39 +1300, Rich80105 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
So a U-turn on Water reforms is needed. The current >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>governmenthttps://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/analysis-the-three-biggest-lessons-from-aucklands-historic-floods/SKKD6HGILZENPMN2WKC5Q3MP4I/
It will not be easy, but I am sure that working together - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>government
with local authorities, and consulting with local >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>communities,
businesses and interest groups is the way to go. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
does
indeed need to consult with local authorities on this. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>They did consult with local authorities for the Three Waters >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>legislation.
Correct but they ignored the fact that most local authorities >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>were
opposed to the reforms. Originally Labour offered an opt-out >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>option
but this was withdrawn when it became apparent that a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>significant
number of local authorities indicated they would opt out - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>including
Auckland Council with a Labour ex-cabinet-member as Mayor. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So yes Labour consulted, but the response was to ignore >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>concerns
and
to remove the opt-out option.
I agree that the events of this last week are likely to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>see some changes - certainly the needs of local authorities >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>haveMost local bodies have not asked for and do not need assistance >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>with
changed - Southland for example was asking for government >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>assistance
for work relating to river banks; Auckland needs have changed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>suddently as covered in the article.
weather bombs. This is no justification for the Water reforms. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
LocalIf they are not considered that may slow down response - there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>could
authorities need to consult with interested groups within >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>their
territory. Pre-conceived political policies (such as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>co-governance)
need not be considered unless the final decisions justify the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>concept
that community-owned water assets can be co-managed with Maori
descendants on a basis of fair equity in the area that each >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>local
body
operates in.
well be an appeal to the Waitangi Tribunal, similar to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Foreshore
and Sebad protest; but it is certainly one way of making sure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>that
consultation is not token but real - and that includes as you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>say
with
interested groups - but some actions will be needed quickly. An
alternative that I have suggested for the short term is to set >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>up
structures under the legislaition for areas where local >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>councils
want
to participate; that may enable some work to start quickly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>while
solutions for other areas are considered without quite the same
urgency.
Labour are a long way from making these concessions, and I am >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>sure
that any change will be a difficult sell to their Maori caucus >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>members. They will not tolerate the removal of compulsory >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>co-governance measures particularly, with opt-out also being >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>needed.
Labour cannot be trusted to do this, National do not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>currently
have
a
policy that meets these criteria.
Actions are needed before the next election. National have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>said
they
will repeal Labour's legislation, but not what they would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>replace it
with - and I cannot see them just handing money over to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Councils
without input on where that money goes.
I agree with that - National will need to publish a Water >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>reforms
policy that addresses the issue for each local body that opts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>in.
The previous NationalSenseless repetition of a lie does not change the fact you lie >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>when
Government was enthusastically following the co-governance >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>route,
which has made it difficult for the current or any future >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>government
to claim that it does not work - it clearly does. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
you say this. National went down the co-management route, not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the
co-governance route as defined in the current Water reforms >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>legislation, and it works specifically because co-management is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>different to co-governance.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/02/waitangi-tribunal-recommendations-should-be-rejected-as-consequence-could-be-kiwis-rights-up-in-air-david-seymour.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
There is a video atthe top - watch from 1:57 in - National know >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>that
Labour is just using the name that Chris Finlayson used when they
followed a solution used by Michael Cullen for the Wanganui >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>River.
National are not saying that they would do anything different in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the
next term
the
same.
They are not, not even close.
what they did co-managment than co-governance since it seems to >>>>>>>>>>>>>have
cofused people - perhaps that includes you Tony.
do
not
understand the difference.
I do understand, I have lived the difference.
However I note your snide remark, slipping again into abuse are you?
You lied.
Period.
Thomas and his opinions are irrelevant and entirely off topiuc. >>>>>>>>>>Everybody
in
the universe knows that except you. Even Thomas certainly knopws that.
Your caution over believing anything from a National Party person, is >>>>>>>>>understandable, but in this case wrong. National are having an >>>>>>>>>internal struggle in Luxon trying to avoid having to admit that the >>>>>>>>>previous National-led government followed a Labour Party example >>>>>>>>>(Wanganui River) of a way to reach a Treaty settlement; they then >>>>>>>>>called the Waikato settlement co-governance.
It is just an internalYour abuse is noted.
problem for National, your lies are, as usual, totally unnecessary >>>>>>>>>Tony. You are not helping Luxon, or harming Labour - you are just >>>>>>>>>being a prat.
Just once provide a single example of where any previous co-management >>>>>>>>was in
fact co-governance.
You might need to understanbd the difference between the two for the >>>>>>>>first
time
but there is plenty of information available. Your personal experience >>>>>>>>clearly
lacks both.
You can continue to make a fool of yourself but that is your right and >>>>>>>>your
only hope of ever being noticed.
Do get a life and do some research. No National government has ever >>>>>>>>practiced
co-governance. Your only hope of showing otherwise is to provide >>>>>>>>examples
and
to do so without changing the subject or being abusive. Sorry, I know >>>>>>>>how
difficult that is for you but help is available.
Chris Finlayson however says that they did. So who to believe - an >>>>>>>opinionated occasional poster to nz.general who never supports those >>>>>>>opinions with facts
you posted a response supported by facts. I can't remember the topic, >>>>>>probably
not very important.
, or a past Cabinet Minister who is regarded asAnd who never said what you have posted.
having done well with Treaty settlements, and in particular with the >>>>>>>co-governance arranements for the Waikato River . . .
I doubt he sang it. But he certainly never said it.
(And yes, I have posted a link to CHris Finlason sang that >>>>>>>co-governance is the way forward and that we should be proceeding as >>>>>>>fast as possible to just get on with co-governance arrangements)
and >>>>>https://www.minterellison.co.nz/insights/co-governance-the-misunderstood-political-hot-potato-and-likely-election-dominator
They are direct quotations from Chris Finlayson - that has not been
refuted. You mmay disagree with his statements, but there is no doubt
that he did make the statements I claimed. You may disagree, but you
cannot change reality Tony, and you have not even given any evidence
that would justify saying that Finlayson was in error in his
statement. Do you really believe Finlayson lied in his statements?
Those are articles outlining Findlayson's support of co-governance as >>>>enshrined in the Water reforms legislation. He may well see his >>>>actions as Treaty Settlement minister to negotiate Treaty settlement >>>>agreements that involved co-management as similar to the co-governance >>>>ownership model.
Indeed he does, but he is now careful not to get in the way of Luxon's >>>policies of fomenting dissatisfaction and racism through dog-whislte >>>simplistic speeches that we have not seen since Brash dropped support
for ACT from 7% to 1% through similar statements.
The Three Waters anticipates that if a stasfactory agreement is not >>>reached, there would be a Treaty Claim - that is why the River
There is no escaping the fact that co-government as enshrined in the >>>>Water reforms legislation is different to the agreements that >>>>Findlayson negotiated on behalf of the crown. The Water reforms >>>>legislation does not arise from a Treaty claim lodged with the
Waitangi Tribunal, it does transfer control of every water asset owned >>>>by elected local bodies (many of which have exclusively-Maori wards)
to Water Entities that are not governed by democratically-elected >>>>authorities.
agreements were made; they forestalled the necessity of going to court
. . . - a lesson both parties learned from teh Foreshore and Sebed
days.
That is a stupid argument. National had no mandate to react to teh
Also don't forget that the entire co-governance was not a stated
Labour policy prior to the 2020 election so Labour have no mandate for >>>>it.
GFC; Labour had no mandate to react to Covid, no government ever >>>anticipated unexpected events such as the recent flooing. During every >>>term there are reasons for legislation that was not anticipated prior
to the election.
Co-governance has been used at least twice now - it leaves overall >>>governance to parliament, but shares thinking from different groups in >>>long terms planning and priorities. Government and local authories are
of course also involved - they regulate where the money comes from,
and makes sure it fits planning requirements.
Your attempt to dismiss Nationals opposition (in particular) to >>>>co-governance on the basis of hypocrisy is irrational nonsense.I don;t see it as just hypocrisy - the press appear to believe that
some of it is Luxon being still 'finding his way' and being easily >>>mislead by factions within the party - he is balancing relentless >>>attackes on government with the need to acknowledge at some point that >>>the problems need to be resolved, and National don't seem to have any >>>policies yet to fix those problems. Still on training wheels sounds so >>>much better than hypocrisy . . .
However as previously explained - what he said is now irrelevant and has >>>>>>been
for years.
How about something about the current co-governance power grab?
We have been reaching Treaty Settlements for many years - these >>>>>>>>>>>>>settlements are not about land; they need a different approach. >>>>>>>>>>>>>LuxonThe Treaty does not menstion or even suggest anyuthing whatsoever >>>>>>>>>>>>>>about
The problem with the words of David Seymour is that he appears to
believe that government can unilaterally amend a contract by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>legislation - the TReaty of Waitangi is one of the earliest >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>contracts
entered into by the British Crown - New Zealand committed to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>honour
those contracts when we gained independence. Do you think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Seymours
attitude is correct?
c-governance.
You keep lying.
now appears to be denying the successful approach taken by National
when they were last in government - but then perhaps National no >>>>>>>>>>>>>longer believe in consultation and working together with Maori . . >>>>>>>>>>>>>.
Which leaved National apparently not able to cope with serious >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>issues
such as oour water problems. It has been suggested that while >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>they
would repeal legislation, they would put back fairly much the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>same
thing, including formal consultation in a similar way to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Waikato
agreement that brought us the expression co-governance. But >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>why
would
we want to leave it to a party that is not prepared to talk >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>about any
policies for such an urgent problem - we need work done before >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the
election.
Pure political rhetoric Rich. I agree National needs to put >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>forward a
plan that goes beyond the promised repeal of the current >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>legislation.
That plan does not exist publicly yet so your speculation is as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>pointless as it is useless.
On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 14:58:00 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 13:37:15 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:Its beginning to look like you consider opposition to Labour as
On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 13:14:45 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:Of course - but tony apparently had not seen them
On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 03:46:37 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou have posted those links in other threads before.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:What a short memory you have - and an inherent inability to search .
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 21:28:26 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You should not be so unkind to yourself - I vaguely recall one occasion when
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 19:27:04 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:But that is a lie.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Your caution over believing anything from a National Party person, is >>>>>>>>understandable, but in this case wrong. National are having an >>>>>>>>internal struggle in Luxon trying to avoid having to admit that the >>>>>>>>previous National-led government followed a Labour Party example >>>>>>>>(Wanganui River) of a way to reach a Treaty settlement; they then >>>>>>>>called the Waikato settlement co-governance.
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 05:51:23 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Jesus wept.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 02:29:14 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:No it is you who is confused. You heve demonstrated many times that you
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Ben Thomas was suggesting that National may have been better calling
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 10:17:55 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>Nothing in that even hints that co-governance and co-management are the
wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 22:02:05 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 20:10:36 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 18:19:39 +1300, Rich80105 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
So a U-turn on Water reforms is needed. The current government doeshttps://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/analysis-the-three-biggest-lessons-from-aucklands-historic-floods/SKKD6HGILZENPMN2WKC5Q3MP4I/
It will not be easy, but I am sure that working together - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>government
with local authorities, and consulting with local communities,
businesses and interest groups is the way to go. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
indeed need to consult with local authorities on this. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>They did consult with local authorities for the Three Waters >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>legislation.
Correct but they ignored the fact that most local authorities were
opposed to the reforms. Originally Labour offered an opt-out option
but this was withdrawn when it became apparent that a significant
number of local authorities indicated they would opt out - including
Auckland Council with a Labour ex-cabinet-member as Mayor. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So yes Labour consulted, but the response was to ignore concerns and
to remove the opt-out option.
I agree that the events of this last week are likely to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>see some changes - certainly the needs of local authorities haveMost local bodies have not asked for and do not need assistance with
changed - Southland for example was asking for government assistance
for work relating to river banks; Auckland needs have changed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>suddently as covered in the article.
weather bombs. This is no justification for the Water reforms. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
LocalIf they are not considered that may slow down response - there could
authorities need to consult with interested groups within their
territory. Pre-conceived political policies (such as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>co-governance)
need not be considered unless the final decisions justify the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>concept
that community-owned water assets can be co-managed with Maori >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>descendants on a basis of fair equity in the area that each local
body
operates in.
well be an appeal to the Waitangi Tribunal, similar to the Foreshore
and Sebad protest; but it is certainly one way of making sure that
consultation is not token but real - and that includes as you say
with
interested groups - but some actions will be needed quickly. An >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>alternative that I have suggested for the short term is to set up
structures under the legislaition for areas where local councils want
to participate; that may enable some work to start quickly while
solutions for other areas are considered without quite the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>urgency.
Labour are a long way from making these concessions, and I am sure
that any change will be a difficult sell to their Maori caucus >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>members. They will not tolerate the removal of compulsory >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>co-governance measures particularly, with opt-out also being needed.
Labour cannot be trusted to do this, National do not currently have
a
policy that meets these criteria.
Actions are needed before the next election. National have said they
will repeal Labour's legislation, but not what they would replace it
with - and I cannot see them just handing money over to Councils
without input on where that money goes.
I agree with that - National will need to publish a Water reforms
policy that addresses the issue for each local body that opts in.
The previous NationalSenseless repetition of a lie does not change the fact you lie when
Government was enthusastically following the co-governance route,
which has made it difficult for the current or any future government
to claim that it does not work - it clearly does. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
you say this. National went down the co-management route, not the
co-governance route as defined in the current Water reforms >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>legislation, and it works specifically because co-management is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>different to co-governance.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/02/waitangi-tribunal-recommendations-should-be-rejected-as-consequence-could-be-kiwis-rights-up-in-air-david-seymour.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
There is a video atthe top - watch from 1:57 in - National know that
Labour is just using the name that Chris Finlayson used when they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>followed a solution used by Michael Cullen for the Wanganui River.
National are not saying that they would do anything different in the
next term
same.
They are not, not even close.
what they did co-managment than co-governance since it seems to have
cofused people - perhaps that includes you Tony.
do
not
understand the difference.
I do understand, I have lived the difference.
However I note your snide remark, slipping again into abuse are you? >>>>>>>>>>I doubt Ben Thomas knows you, but confusing people with the term is >>>>>>>>>>what he claims has happened.
You lied.
Period.
Thomas and his opinions are irrelevant and entirely off topiuc. Everybody
in
the universe knows that except you. Even Thomas certainly knopws that. >>>>>>>>
It is just an internalYour abuse is noted.
problem for National, your lies are, as usual, totally unnecessary >>>>>>>>Tony. You are not helping Luxon, or harming Labour - you are just >>>>>>>>being a prat.
Just once provide a single example of where any previous co-management was in
fact co-governance.
You might need to understanbd the difference between the two for the first
time
but there is plenty of information available. Your personal experience >>>>>>>clearly
lacks both.
You can continue to make a fool of yourself but that is your right and your
only hope of ever being noticed.
Do get a life and do some research. No National government has ever practiced
co-governance. Your only hope of showing otherwise is to provide examples and
to do so without changing the subject or being abusive. Sorry, I know how
difficult that is for you but help is available.
Chris Finlayson however says that they did. So who to believe - an >>>>>>opinionated occasional poster to nz.general who never supports those >>>>>>opinions with facts
you posted a response supported by facts. I can't remember the topic, probably
not very important.
, or a past Cabinet Minister who is regarded asAnd who never said what you have posted.
having done well with Treaty settlements, and in particular with the >>>>>>co-governance arranements for the Waikato River . . .
I doubt he sang it. But he certainly never said it.
(And yes, I have posted a link to CHris Finlason sang that >>>>>>co-governance is the way forward and that we should be proceeding as >>>>>>fast as possible to just get on with co-governance arrangements)
. . >>>>https://e-tangata.co.nz/comment-and-analysis/chris-finlayson-co-governance-should-be-embraced-not-feared/
and >>>>https://www.minterellison.co.nz/insights/co-governance-the-misunderstood-political-hot-potato-and-likely-election-dominator
Those are articles outlining Findlayson's support of co-governance as >>>enshrined in the Water reforms legislation. He may well see his
actions as Treaty Settlement minister to negotiate Treaty settlement >>>agreements that involved co-management as similar to the co-governance >>>ownership model.
Indeed he does, but he is now careful not to get in the way of Luxon's >>policies of fomenting dissatisfaction and racism through dog-whislte >>simplistic speeches that we have not seen since Brash dropped support
for ACT from 7% to 1% through similar statements.
'dog-whistle politics'. You cannot see the wood for the trees.
The Three Waters anticipates that if a stasfactory agreement is not >>reached, there would be a Treaty Claim
There is no escaping the fact that co-government as enshrined in the >>>Water reforms legislation is different to the agreements that
Findlayson negotiated on behalf of the crown. The Water reforms >>>legislation does not arise from a Treaty claim lodged with the
Waitangi Tribunal, it does transfer control of every water asset owned
by elected local bodies (many of which have exclusively-Maori wards)
to Water Entities that are not governed by democratically-elected >>>authorities.
So? Why not let that happen (and inevitably fail)? Feel free to cite
your contention.
- that is why the RiverNo mention of court cases with these co-management agreements.
agreements were made; they forestalled the necessity of going to court
. . . - a lesson both parties learned from teh Foreshore and Sebed
days.
I disagree - both National and Labour refer to the Waikato agreement
That is a stupid argument.
Also don't forget that the entire co-governance was not a stated
Labour policy prior to the 2020 election so Labour have no mandate for >>>it.
Are you serious?
National had no mandate to react to teh
GFC;
Are you serious again? the GFC was imposed on us, as was the Chch >earthquakes.
Labour had no mandate to react to Covid, no government ever
anticipated unexpected events such as the recent flooing. During every
term there are reasons for legislation that was not anticipated prior
to the election.
Co-governance has been used at least twice now
There is no justification for co-governance. It has not been used
before as you claim and therefore is a new construct that gives 50% >governance to a group based on the race of their forbears.
I do not think National does object to co-governance; but it suits- it leaves overall
governance to parliament, but shares thinking from different groups in
long terms planning and priorities. Government and local authories are
of course also involved - they regulate where the money comes from,
and makes sure it fits planning requirements.
Your attempt to dismiss Nationals opposition (in particular) to >>>co-governance on the basis of hypocrisy is irrational nonsense.
You have not shown why - a bald assertion that relies on a particualrI don;t see it as just hypocrisy - the press appear to believe thatLuxon's personal position has no bearing on whether co-governance is
some of it is Luxon being still 'finding his way' and being easily
mislead by factions within the party - he is balancing relentless
attackes on government with the need to acknowledge at some point that
the problems need to be resolved, and National don't seem to have any >>policies yet to fix those problems. Still on training wheels sounds so
much better than hypocrisy . . .
right or wrong. It is wrong.
You continue to repeat debunked claims about co-governance. They don't
stand up and you attempt to twist and turn with verbal gymnastics in
the face of an opposing viewpoint.
Co-governance will be the lightening-rod that will turn voters away
from Labour in the upcoming election. No amount of bombast on your
part, Rich, will reverse this even with National leadership that is so >inexperienced in politics.
However as previously explained - what he said is now irrelevant and has been
for years.
How about something about the current co-governance power grab?
We have been reaching Treaty Settlements for many years - these >>>>>>>>>>>>settlements are not about land; they need a different approach. LuxonThe Treaty does not menstion or even suggest anyuthing whatsoever about
The problem with the words of David Seymour is that he appears to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>believe that government can unilaterally amend a contract by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>legislation - the TReaty of Waitangi is one of the earliest contracts
entered into by the British Crown - New Zealand committed to honour
those contracts when we gained independence. Do you think Seymours
attitude is correct?
c-governance.
You keep lying.
now appears to be denying the successful approach taken by National >>>>>>>>>>>>when they were last in government - but then perhaps National no >>>>>>>>>>>>longer believe in consultation and working together with Maori . . .
Which leaved National apparently not able to cope with serious issues
such as oour water problems. It has been suggested that while they
would repeal legislation, they would put back fairly much the same
thing, including formal consultation in a similar way to the Waikato
agreement that brought us the expression co-governance. But why would
we want to leave it to a party that is not prepared to talk about any
policies for such an urgent problem - we need work done before the
election.
Pure political rhetoric Rich. I agree National needs to put forward a
plan that goes beyond the promised repeal of the current legislation.
That plan does not exist publicly yet so your speculation is as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>pointless as it is useless.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 02:53:58 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou can try to change the narrative as many times as you wish but the fact (yes
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 13:37:15 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:You childish little man. They have been refuted so many times in the last few
On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 13:14:45 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:Of course - but tony apparently had not seen them
On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 03:46:37 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You have posted those links in other threads before.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:What a short memory you have - and an inherent inability to search . >>>>>>. . >>>>>>https://e-tangata.co.nz/comment-and-analysis/chris-finlayson-co-governance-should-be-embraced-not-feared/
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 21:28:26 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You should not be so unkind to yourself - I vaguely recall one occasion >>>>>>>when
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 19:27:04 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:But that is a lie.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 05:51:23 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Jesus wept.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I doubt Ben Thomas knows you, but confusing people with the term is >>>>>>>>>>>>what he claims has happened.
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 02:29:14 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:No it is you who is confused. You heve demonstrated many times that
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Ben Thomas was suggesting that National may have been better >>>>>>>>>>>>>>calling
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 10:17:55 +1300, Crash >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><nogood@dontbother.invalid>Nothing in that even hints that co-governance and co-management >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>are
wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 22:02:05 +1300, Rich80105 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 20:10:36 +1300, Crash >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 18:19:39 +1300, Rich80105 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
So a U-turn on Water reforms is needed. The current >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>governmenthttps://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/analysis-the-three-biggest-lessons-from-aucklands-historic-floods/SKKD6HGILZENPMN2WKC5Q3MP4I/
It will not be easy, but I am sure that working together - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>government
with local authorities, and consulting with local >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>communities,
businesses and interest groups is the way to go. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
does
indeed need to consult with local authorities on this. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>They did consult with local authorities for the Three Waters >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>legislation.
Correct but they ignored the fact that most local authorities >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>were
opposed to the reforms. Originally Labour offered an opt-out >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>option
but this was withdrawn when it became apparent that a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>significant
number of local authorities indicated they would opt out - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>including
Auckland Council with a Labour ex-cabinet-member as Mayor. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So yes Labour consulted, but the response was to ignore >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>concerns
and
to remove the opt-out option.
I agree that the events of this last week are likely to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>see some changes - certainly the needs of local authorities >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>haveMost local bodies have not asked for and do not need assistance
changed - Southland for example was asking for government >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>assistance
for work relating to river banks; Auckland needs have changed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>suddently as covered in the article.
with
weather bombs. This is no justification for the Water reforms.
LocalIf they are not considered that may slow down response - there
authorities need to consult with interested groups within >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>their
territory. Pre-conceived political policies (such as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>co-governance)
need not be considered unless the final decisions justify the
concept
that community-owned water assets can be co-managed with Maori
descendants on a basis of fair equity in the area that each >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>local
body
operates in.
could
well be an appeal to the Waitangi Tribunal, similar to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Foreshore
and Sebad protest; but it is certainly one way of making sure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>that
consultation is not token but real - and that includes as you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>say
with
interested groups - but some actions will be needed quickly. An
alternative that I have suggested for the short term is to set
up
structures under the legislaition for areas where local >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>councils
want
to participate; that may enable some work to start quickly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>while
solutions for other areas are considered without quite the same
urgency.
Labour are a long way from making these concessions, and I am >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>sure
that any change will be a difficult sell to their Maori caucus >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>members. They will not tolerate the removal of compulsory >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>co-governance measures particularly, with opt-out also being >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>needed.
Labour cannot be trusted to do this, National do not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>currently
have
a
policy that meets these criteria.
Actions are needed before the next election. National have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>said
they
will repeal Labour's legislation, but not what they would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>replace it
with - and I cannot see them just handing money over to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Councils
without input on where that money goes.
I agree with that - National will need to publish a Water >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>reforms
policy that addresses the issue for each local body that opts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>in.
The previous NationalSenseless repetition of a lie does not change the fact you lie >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>when
Government was enthusastically following the co-governance >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>route,
which has made it difficult for the current or any future >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>government
to claim that it does not work - it clearly does. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
you say this. National went down the co-management route, not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the
co-governance route as defined in the current Water reforms >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>legislation, and it works specifically because co-management is
different to co-governance.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/02/waitangi-tribunal-recommendations-should-be-rejected-as-consequence-could-be-kiwis-rights-up-in-air-david-seymour.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
There is a video atthe top - watch from 1:57 in - National know >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>that
Labour is just using the name that Chris Finlayson used when they
followed a solution used by Michael Cullen for the Wanganui >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>River.
National are not saying that they would do anything different in
the
next term
the
same.
They are not, not even close.
what they did co-managment than co-governance since it seems to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>have
cofused people - perhaps that includes you Tony.
you
do
not
understand the difference.
I do understand, I have lived the difference.
However I note your snide remark, slipping again into abuse are you?
You lied.
Period.
Thomas and his opinions are irrelevant and entirely off topiuc. >>>>>>>>>>>Everybody
in
the universe knows that except you. Even Thomas certainly knopws that.
Your caution over believing anything from a National Party person, is >>>>>>>>>>understandable, but in this case wrong. National are having an >>>>>>>>>>internal struggle in Luxon trying to avoid having to admit that the >>>>>>>>>>previous National-led government followed a Labour Party example >>>>>>>>>>(Wanganui River) of a way to reach a Treaty settlement; they then >>>>>>>>>>called the Waikato settlement co-governance.
It is just an internalYour abuse is noted.
problem for National, your lies are, as usual, totally unnecessary >>>>>>>>>>Tony. You are not helping Luxon, or harming Labour - you are just >>>>>>>>>>being a prat.
Just once provide a single example of where any previous co-management >>>>>>>>>was in
fact co-governance.
You might need to understanbd the difference between the two for the >>>>>>>>>first
time
but there is plenty of information available. Your personal experience >>>>>>>>>clearly
lacks both.
You can continue to make a fool of yourself but that is your right and >>>>>>>>>your
only hope of ever being noticed.
Do get a life and do some research. No National government has ever >>>>>>>>>practiced
co-governance. Your only hope of showing otherwise is to provide >>>>>>>>>examples
and
to do so without changing the subject or being abusive. Sorry, I know >>>>>>>>>how
difficult that is for you but help is available.
Chris Finlayson however says that they did. So who to believe - an >>>>>>>>opinionated occasional poster to nz.general who never supports those >>>>>>>>opinions with facts
you posted a response supported by facts. I can't remember the topic, >>>>>>>probably
not very important.
, or a past Cabinet Minister who is regarded asAnd who never said what you have posted.
having done well with Treaty settlements, and in particular with the >>>>>>>>co-governance arranements for the Waikato River . . .
(And yes, I have posted a link to CHris Finlason sang that >>>>>>>>co-governance is the way forward and that we should be proceeding as >>>>>>>>fast as possible to just get on with co-governance arrangements) >>>>>>>I doubt he sang it. But he certainly never said it.
and >>>>>>https://www.minterellison.co.nz/insights/co-governance-the-misunderstood-political-hot-potato-and-likely-election-dominator
day I thought you may have understood by now. But no. Just more Rich80105 >>>abuse.
They are direct quotations from Chris Finlayson - that has not been >>refuted. You mmay disagree with his statements, but there is no doubt
that he did make the statements I claimed. You may disagree, but you
cannot change reality Tony, and you have not even given any evidence
that would justify saying that Finlayson was in error in his
statement. Do you really believe Finlayson lied in his statements?
the Fact) is that co-governance is not co-management. I have not wavered on >that but you keep trying to move the goalposts. Pity you are such a terrible >goalkeeper.
Those are articles outlining Findlayson's support of co-governance as >>>>>enshrined in the Water reforms legislation. He may well see his >>>>>actions as Treaty Settlement minister to negotiate Treaty settlement >>>>>agreements that involved co-management as similar to the co-governance >>>>>ownership model.
Indeed he does, but he is now careful not to get in the way of Luxon's >>>>policies of fomenting dissatisfaction and racism through dog-whislte >>>>simplistic speeches that we have not seen since Brash dropped support >>>>for ACT from 7% to 1% through similar statements.
The Three Waters anticipates that if a stasfactory agreement is not >>>>reached, there would be a Treaty Claim - that is why the River >>>>agreements were made; they forestalled the necessity of going to court >>>>. . . - a lesson both parties learned from teh Foreshore and Sebed >>>>days.
There is no escaping the fact that co-government as enshrined in the >>>>>Water reforms legislation is different to the agreements that >>>>>Findlayson negotiated on behalf of the crown. The Water reforms >>>>>legislation does not arise from a Treaty claim lodged with the >>>>>Waitangi Tribunal, it does transfer control of every water asset owned >>>>>by elected local bodies (many of which have exclusively-Maori wards) >>>>>to Water Entities that are not governed by democratically-elected >>>>>authorities.
That is a stupid argument. National had no mandate to react to teh
Also don't forget that the entire co-governance was not a stated >>>>>Labour policy prior to the 2020 election so Labour have no mandate for >>>>>it.
GFC; Labour had no mandate to react to Covid, no government ever >>>>anticipated unexpected events such as the recent flooing. During every >>>>term there are reasons for legislation that was not anticipated prior >>>>to the election.
Co-governance has been used at least twice now - it leaves overall >>>>governance to parliament, but shares thinking from different groups in >>>>long terms planning and priorities. Government and local authories are >>>>of course also involved - they regulate where the money comes from,
and makes sure it fits planning requirements.
Your attempt to dismiss Nationals opposition (in particular) to >>>>>co-governance on the basis of hypocrisy is irrational nonsense.I don;t see it as just hypocrisy - the press appear to believe that >>>>some of it is Luxon being still 'finding his way' and being easily >>>>mislead by factions within the party - he is balancing relentless >>>>attackes on government with the need to acknowledge at some point that >>>>the problems need to be resolved, and National don't seem to have any >>>>policies yet to fix those problems. Still on training wheels sounds so >>>>much better than hypocrisy . . .
However as previously explained - what he said is now irrelevant and has >>>>>>>been
for years.
How about something about the current co-governance power grab?
We have been reaching Treaty Settlements for many years - these >>>>>>>>>>>>>>settlements are not about land; they need a different approach. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>LuxonThe Treaty does not menstion or even suggest anyuthing whatsoever
The problem with the words of David Seymour is that he appears to
believe that government can unilaterally amend a contract by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>legislation - the TReaty of Waitangi is one of the earliest >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>contracts
entered into by the British Crown - New Zealand committed to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>honour
those contracts when we gained independence. Do you think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Seymours
attitude is correct?
about
c-governance.
You keep lying.
now appears to be denying the successful approach taken by National
when they were last in government - but then perhaps National no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>longer believe in consultation and working together with Maori . .
.
Which leaved National apparently not able to cope with serious
issues
such as oour water problems. It has been suggested that while >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>they
would repeal legislation, they would put back fairly much the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>same
thing, including formal consultation in a similar way to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Waikato
agreement that brought us the expression co-governance. But >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>why
would
we want to leave it to a party that is not prepared to talk >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>about any
policies for such an urgent problem - we need work done before
the
election.
Pure political rhetoric Rich. I agree National needs to put >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>forward a
plan that goes beyond the promised repeal of the current >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>legislation.
That plan does not exist publicly yet so your speculation is as
pointless as it is useless.
On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 04:58:38 -0000 (UTC), TonyBothe management and governance are extremely well defined. You simply have not looked. Just add the co- in front and all will be revealed.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 02:53:58 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou can try to change the narrative as many times as you wish but the fact >>(yes
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 13:37:15 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:You childish little man. They have been refuted so many times in the last >>>>few
On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 13:14:45 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:Of course - but tony apparently had not seen them
On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 03:46:37 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You have posted those links in other threads before.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:What a short memory you have - and an inherent inability to search . >>>>>>>. . >>>>>>>https://e-tangata.co.nz/comment-and-analysis/chris-finlayson-co-governance-should-be-embraced-not-feared/
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 21:28:26 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You should not be so unkind to yourself - I vaguely recall one occasion >>>>>>>>when
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 19:27:04 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:But that is a lie.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 05:51:23 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Jesus wept.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I doubt Ben Thomas knows you, but confusing people with the term is
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 02:29:14 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:you
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Ben Thomas was suggesting that National may have been better >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>calling
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 10:17:55 +1300, Crash >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><nogood@dontbother.invalid>Nothing in that even hints that co-governance and co-management >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>are
wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 22:02:05 +1300, Rich80105 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 20:10:36 +1300, Crash >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 18:19:39 +1300, Rich80105 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
So a U-turn on Water reforms is needed. The current >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>governmenthttps://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/analysis-the-three-biggest-lessons-from-aucklands-historic-floods/SKKD6HGILZENPMN2WKC5Q3MP4I/
It will not be easy, but I am sure that working together >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>-
government
with local authorities, and consulting with local >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>communities,
businesses and interest groups is the way to go. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
does
indeed need to consult with local authorities on this. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>They did consult with local authorities for the Three Waters >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>legislation.
Correct but they ignored the fact that most local authorities >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>were
opposed to the reforms. Originally Labour offered an opt-out >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>option
but this was withdrawn when it became apparent that a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>significant
number of local authorities indicated they would opt out - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>including
Auckland Council with a Labour ex-cabinet-member as Mayor. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So yes Labour consulted, but the response was to ignore >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>concerns
and
to remove the opt-out option.
I agree that the events of this last week are likely to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>see some changes - certainly the needs of local authorities >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>haveMost local bodies have not asked for and do not need >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>assistance
changed - Southland for example was asking for government >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>assistance
for work relating to river banks; Auckland needs have changed
suddently as covered in the article.
with
weather bombs. This is no justification for the Water >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>reforms.
LocalIf they are not considered that may slow down response - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>there
authorities need to consult with interested groups within >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>their
territory. Pre-conceived political policies (such as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>co-governance)
need not be considered unless the final decisions justify >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the
concept
that community-owned water assets can be co-managed with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Maori
descendants on a basis of fair equity in the area that each >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>local
body
operates in.
could
well be an appeal to the Waitangi Tribunal, similar to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Foreshore
and Sebad protest; but it is certainly one way of making >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>sure
that
consultation is not token but real - and that includes as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>you
say
with
interested groups - but some actions will be needed quickly. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>An
alternative that I have suggested for the short term is to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>set
up
structures under the legislaition for areas where local >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>councils
want
to participate; that may enable some work to start quickly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>while
solutions for other areas are considered without quite the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>same
urgency.
Labour are a long way from making these concessions, and I am >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>sure
that any change will be a difficult sell to their Maori caucus
members. They will not tolerate the removal of compulsory >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>co-governance measures particularly, with opt-out also being >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>needed.
Labour cannot be trusted to do this, National do not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>currently
have
a
policy that meets these criteria.
Actions are needed before the next election. National have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>said
they
will repeal Labour's legislation, but not what they would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>replace it
with - and I cannot see them just handing money over to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Councils
without input on where that money goes.
I agree with that - National will need to publish a Water >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>reforms
policy that addresses the issue for each local body that opts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>in.
The previous NationalSenseless repetition of a lie does not change the fact you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>lie
Government was enthusastically following the co-governance >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>route,
which has made it difficult for the current or any future >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>government
to claim that it does not work - it clearly does. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
when
you say this. National went down the co-management route, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>not
the
co-governance route as defined in the current Water reforms >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>legislation, and it works specifically because co-management >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>is
different to co-governance.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/02/waitangi-tribunal-recommendations-should-be-rejected-as-consequence-could-be-kiwis-rights-up-in-air-david-seymour.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
There is a video atthe top - watch from 1:57 in - National >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>know
that
Labour is just using the name that Chris Finlayson used when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>they
followed a solution used by Michael Cullen for the Wanganui >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>River.
National are not saying that they would do anything different >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>in
the
next term
the
same.
They are not, not even close.
what they did co-managment than co-governance since it seems to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>have
cofused people - perhaps that includes you Tony. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>No it is you who is confused. You heve demonstrated many times >>>>>>>>>>>>>>that
do
not
understand the difference.
I do understand, I have lived the difference. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>However I note your snide remark, slipping again into abuse are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>you?
what he claims has happened.
You lied.
Period.
Thomas and his opinions are irrelevant and entirely off topiuc. >>>>>>>>>>>>Everybody
in
the universe knows that except you. Even Thomas certainly knopws >>>>>>>>>>>>that.
Your caution over believing anything from a National Party person, is
understandable, but in this case wrong. National are having an >>>>>>>>>>>internal struggle in Luxon trying to avoid having to admit that the >>>>>>>>>>>previous National-led government followed a Labour Party example >>>>>>>>>>>(Wanganui River) of a way to reach a Treaty settlement; they then >>>>>>>>>>>called the Waikato settlement co-governance.
It is just an internalYour abuse is noted.
problem for National, your lies are, as usual, totally unnecessary >>>>>>>>>>>Tony. You are not helping Luxon, or harming Labour - you are just >>>>>>>>>>>being a prat.
Just once provide a single example of where any previous >>>>>>>>>>co-management
was in
fact co-governance.
You might need to understanbd the difference between the two for the >>>>>>>>>>first
time
but there is plenty of information available. Your personal >>>>>>>>>>experience
clearly
lacks both.
You can continue to make a fool of yourself but that is your right >>>>>>>>>>and
your
only hope of ever being noticed.
Do get a life and do some research. No National government has ever >>>>>>>>>>practiced
co-governance. Your only hope of showing otherwise is to provide >>>>>>>>>>examples
and
to do so without changing the subject or being abusive. Sorry, I know >>>>>>>>>>how
difficult that is for you but help is available.
Chris Finlayson however says that they did. So who to believe - an >>>>>>>>>opinionated occasional poster to nz.general who never supports those >>>>>>>>>opinions with facts
you posted a response supported by facts. I can't remember the topic, >>>>>>>>probably
not very important.
, or a past Cabinet Minister who is regarded asAnd who never said what you have posted.
having done well with Treaty settlements, and in particular with the >>>>>>>>>co-governance arranements for the Waikato River . . .
(And yes, I have posted a link to CHris Finlason sang that >>>>>>>>>co-governance is the way forward and that we should be proceeding as >>>>>>>>>fast as possible to just get on with co-governance arrangements) >>>>>>>>I doubt he sang it. But he certainly never said it.
and >>>>>>>https://www.minterellison.co.nz/insights/co-governance-the-misunderstood-political-hot-potato-and-likely-election-dominator
day I thought you may have understood by now. But no. Just more Rich80105 >>>>abuse.
They are direct quotations from Chris Finlayson - that has not been >>>refuted. You mmay disagree with his statements, but there is no doubt >>>that he did make the statements I claimed. You may disagree, but you >>>cannot change reality Tony, and you have not even given any evidence
that would justify saying that Finlayson was in error in his
statement. Do you really believe Finlayson lied in his statements?
the Fact) is that co-governance is not co-management. I have not wavered on >>that but you keep trying to move the goalposts. Pity you are such a terrible >>goalkeeper.
No change in narrative. Neither term is well-defined
, and certainlyOh really?
different people interpret them differently.
I accept that many mayThat is not for me to do - you keep claiming they are the same and yet provide no evidence - your problem not mine.
believe that they are different, but you have not attempted to define
either.
talking about the Waikato River agreements - and the then MinisterIrrelevant - show how the two termas are the same if you can.
believes that co-governance using that model is worth repeating and
that we should get on with it.
I don't really care what it is calledObviously you do care you have spent days pontificatinga bout how they are the same - what is your problem?
, but there does not seem to beI have not emphasized semantics - that demonstrably is what you have done. Co-governance and co-management are very different things and you have refused to accept the truth of that simple and self evident statement.
any opposition to the co-governance arrangements put in place then;
and the Three Waters Proposals appear very similar; although of course >reflecting a different situation they cannot be identical. We should >therefore not argue about a name given to the agreements, and with
respect to Three Waters, determine what the actual areas of concern
may be, based on what we know, rather than accusations from people we
know are only looking to oppose, not to achieve the goals New
Zealanders want with respect to long term water issues. I suspect your >emphasis on semantics relates to such as aim - the agreement itself
will probably not use the expression co-governance - the Waikato
agreement probably does not.
Those are articles outlining Findlayson's support of co-governance as >>>>>>enshrined in the Water reforms legislation. He may well see his >>>>>>actions as Treaty Settlement minister to negotiate Treaty settlement >>>>>>agreements that involved co-management as similar to the co-governance >>>>>>ownership model.
Indeed he does, but he is now careful not to get in the way of Luxon's >>>>>policies of fomenting dissatisfaction and racism through dog-whislte >>>>>simplistic speeches that we have not seen since Brash dropped support >>>>>for ACT from 7% to 1% through similar statements.
The Three Waters anticipates that if a stasfactory agreement is not >>>>>reached, there would be a Treaty Claim - that is why the River >>>>>agreements were made; they forestalled the necessity of going to court >>>>>. . . - a lesson both parties learned from teh Foreshore and Sebed >>>>>days.
There is no escaping the fact that co-government as enshrined in the >>>>>>Water reforms legislation is different to the agreements that >>>>>>Findlayson negotiated on behalf of the crown. The Water reforms >>>>>>legislation does not arise from a Treaty claim lodged with the >>>>>>Waitangi Tribunal, it does transfer control of every water asset owned >>>>>>by elected local bodies (many of which have exclusively-Maori wards) >>>>>>to Water Entities that are not governed by democratically-elected >>>>>>authorities.
That is a stupid argument. National had no mandate to react to teh >>>>>GFC; Labour had no mandate to react to Covid, no government ever >>>>>anticipated unexpected events such as the recent flooing. During every >>>>>term there are reasons for legislation that was not anticipated prior >>>>>to the election.
Also don't forget that the entire co-governance was not a stated >>>>>>Labour policy prior to the 2020 election so Labour have no mandate for >>>>>>it.
Co-governance has been used at least twice now - it leaves overall >>>>>governance to parliament, but shares thinking from different groups in >>>>>long terms planning and priorities. Government and local authories are >>>>>of course also involved - they regulate where the money comes from, >>>>>and makes sure it fits planning requirements.
Your attempt to dismiss Nationals opposition (in particular) to >>>>>>co-governance on the basis of hypocrisy is irrational nonsense.I don;t see it as just hypocrisy - the press appear to believe that >>>>>some of it is Luxon being still 'finding his way' and being easily >>>>>mislead by factions within the party - he is balancing relentless >>>>>attackes on government with the need to acknowledge at some point that >>>>>the problems need to be resolved, and National don't seem to have any >>>>>policies yet to fix those problems. Still on training wheels sounds so >>>>>much better than hypocrisy . . .
However as previously explained - what he said is now irrelevant and >>>>>>>>has
been
for years.
How about something about the current co-governance power grab?
We have been reaching Treaty Settlements for many years - these >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>settlements are not about land; they need a different approach. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>LuxonThe Treaty does not menstion or even suggest anyuthing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>whatsoever
The problem with the words of David Seymour is that he appears >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>to
believe that government can unilaterally amend a contract by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>legislation - the TReaty of Waitangi is one of the earliest >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>contracts
entered into by the British Crown - New Zealand committed to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>honour
those contracts when we gained independence. Do you think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Seymours
attitude is correct?
about
c-governance.
You keep lying.
now appears to be denying the successful approach taken by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>National
when they were last
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 04:58:38 -0000 (UTC), TonyBothe management and governance are extremely well defined. You simply have not
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 02:53:58 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou can try to change the narrative as many times as you wish but the fact >>>(yes
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 13:37:15 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>wrote:You childish little man. They have been refuted so many times in the last >>>>>few
On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 13:14:45 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:Of course - but tony apparently had not seen them
On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 03:46:37 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You have posted those links in other threads before.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:What a short memory you have - and an inherent inability to search . >>>>>>>>. . >>>>>>>>https://e-tangata.co.nz/comment-and-analysis/chris-finlayson-co-governance-should-be-embraced-not-feared/
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 21:28:26 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You should not be so unkind to yourself - I vaguely recall one occasion
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 19:27:04 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:But that is a lie.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 05:51:23 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Jesus wept.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I doubt Ben Thomas knows you, but confusing people with the term is
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 02:29:14 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:you
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Ben Thomas was suggesting that National may have been better >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>calling
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 10:17:55 +1300, Crash >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><nogood@dontbother.invalid>Nothing in that even hints that co-governance and co-management
wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 22:02:05 +1300, Rich80105 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 20:10:36 +1300, Crash >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 18:19:39 +1300, Rich80105 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><Rich80105@hotmail.com>legislation.
wrote:
So a U-turn on Water reforms is needed. The current >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>governmenthttps://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/analysis-the-three-biggest-lessons-from-aucklands-historic-floods/SKKD6HGILZENPMN2WKC5Q3MP4I/
It will not be easy, but I am sure that working together >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>-
government
with local authorities, and consulting with local >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>communities,
businesses and interest groups is the way to go. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
does
indeed need to consult with local authorities on this. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>They did consult with local authorities for the Three Waters
Correct but they ignored the fact that most local authorities
were
opposed to the reforms. Originally Labour offered an opt-out
option
but this was withdrawn when it became apparent that a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>significant
number of local authorities indicated they would opt out - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>including
Auckland Council with a Labour ex-cabinet-member as Mayor. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So yes Labour consulted, but the response was to ignore >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>concerns
and
to remove the opt-out option.
I agree that the events of this last week are likely to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>see some changes - certainly the needs of local authorities >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>haveMost local bodies have not asked for and do not need >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>assistance
changed - Southland for example was asking for government >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>assistance
for work relating to river banks; Auckland needs have changed
suddently as covered in the article.
with
weather bombs. This is no justification for the Water >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>reforms.
LocalIf they are not considered that may slow down response - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>there
authorities need to consult with interested groups within >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>their
territory. Pre-conceived political policies (such as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>co-governance)
need not be considered unless the final decisions justify >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the
concept
that community-owned water assets can be co-managed with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Maori
descendants on a basis of fair equity in the area that each
local
body
operates in.
could
well be an appeal to the Waitangi Tribunal, similar to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Foreshore
and Sebad protest; but it is certainly one way of making >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>sure
that
consultation is not token but real - and that includes as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>you
say
with
interested groups - but some actions will be needed quickly.
An
alternative that I have suggested for the short term is to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>set
up
structures under the legislaition for areas where local >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>councils
want
to participate; that may enable some work to start quickly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>while
solutions for other areas are considered without quite the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>same
urgency.
Labour are a long way from making these concessions, and I am
sure
that any change will be a difficult sell to their Maori caucus
members. They will not tolerate the removal of compulsory >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>co-governance measures particularly, with opt-out also being >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>needed.
Labour cannot be trusted to do this, National do not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>currently
have
a
policy that meets these criteria.
Actions are needed before the next election. National have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>said
they
will repeal Labour's legislation, but not what they would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>replace it
with - and I cannot see them just handing money over to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Councils
without input on where that money goes.
I agree with that - National will need to publish a Water >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>reforms
policy that addresses the issue for each local body that opts
in.
The previous NationalSenseless repetition of a lie does not change the fact you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>lie
Government was enthusastically following the co-governance >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>route,
which has made it difficult for the current or any future >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>government
to claim that it does not work - it clearly does. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
when
you say this. National went down the co-management route, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>not
the
co-governance route as defined in the current Water reforms >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>legislation, and it works specifically because co-management >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>is
different to co-governance.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/02/waitangi-tribunal-recommendations-should-be-rejected-as-consequence-could-be-kiwis-rights-up-in-air-david-seymour.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
There is a video atthe top - watch from 1:57 in - National >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>know
that
Labour is just using the name that Chris Finlayson used when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>they
followed a solution used by Michael Cullen for the Wanganui >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>River.
National are not saying that they would do anything different >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>in
the
next term
are
the
same.
They are not, not even close.
what they did co-managment than co-governance since it seems to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>have
cofused people - perhaps that includes you Tony. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No it is you who is confused. You heve demonstrated many times >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>that
do
not
understand the difference.
I do understand, I have lived the difference. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>However I note your snide remark, slipping again into abuse are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>you?
what he claims has happened.
You lied.
Period.
Thomas and his opinions are irrelevant and entirely off topiuc. >>>>>>>>>>>>>Everybody
in
the universe knows that except you. Even Thomas certainly knopws >>>>>>>>>>>>>that.
Your caution over believing anything from a National Party person, is
understandable, but in this case wrong. National are having an >>>>>>>>>>>>internal struggle in Luxon trying to avoid having to admit that the >>>>>>>>>>>>previous National-led government followed a Labour Party example >>>>>>>>>>>>(Wanganui River) of a way to reach a Treaty settlement; they then >>>>>>>>>>>>called the Waikato settlement co-governance.
It is just an internalYour abuse is noted.
problem for National, your lies are, as usual, totally unnecessary >>>>>>>>>>>>Tony. You are not helping Luxon, or harming Labour - you are just >>>>>>>>>>>>being a prat.
Just once provide a single example of where any previous >>>>>>>>>>>co-management
was in
fact co-governance.
You might need to understanbd the difference between the two for the >>>>>>>>>>>first
time
but there is plenty of information available. Your personal >>>>>>>>>>>experience
clearly
lacks both.
You can continue to make a fool of yourself but that is your right >>>>>>>>>>>and
your
only hope of ever being noticed.
Do get a life and do some research. No National government has ever >>>>>>>>>>>practiced
co-governance. Your only hope of showing otherwise is to provide >>>>>>>>>>>examples
and
to do so without changing the subject or being abusive. Sorry, I know
how
difficult that is for you but help is available.
Chris Finlayson however says that they did. So who to believe - an >>>>>>>>>>opinionated occasional poster to nz.general who never supports those >>>>>>>>>>opinions with facts
when
you posted a response supported by facts. I can't remember the topic, >>>>>>>>>probably
not very important.
, or a past Cabinet Minister who is regarded asAnd who never said what you have posted.
having done well with Treaty settlements, and in particular with the >>>>>>>>>>co-governance arranements for the Waikato River . . .
(And yes, I have posted a link to CHris Finlason sang that >>>>>>>>>>co-governance is the way forward and that we should be proceeding as >>>>>>>>>>fast as possible to just get on with co-governance arrangements) >>>>>>>>>I doubt he sang it. But he certainly never said it.
and >>>>>>>>https://www.minterellison.co.nz/insights/co-governance-the-misunderstood-political-hot-potato-and-likely-election-dominator
day I thought you may have understood by now. But no. Just more Rich80105 >>>>>abuse.
They are direct quotations from Chris Finlayson - that has not been >>>>refuted. You mmay disagree with his statements, but there is no doubt >>>>that he did make the statements I claimed. You may disagree, but you >>>>cannot change reality Tony, and you have not even given any evidence >>>>that would justify saying that Finlayson was in error in his
statement. Do you really believe Finlayson lied in his statements?
the Fact) is that co-governance is not co-management. I have not wavered on >>>that but you keep trying to move the goalposts. Pity you are such a terrible >>>goalkeeper.
No change in narrative. Neither term is well-defined
looked. Just add the co- in front and all will be revealed.
, and certainlyOh really?
different people interpret them differently.
I accept that many mayThat is not for me to do - you keep claiming they are the same and yet provide >no evidence - your problem not mine.
believe that they are different, but you have not attempted to define >>either.
What we do know is that National first used the term whenHe only used the one term - co-governance. What other term did
talking about the Waikato River agreements - and the then MinisterIrrelevant - show how the two termas are the same if you can.
believes that co-governance using that model is worth repeating and
that we should get on with it.
No I have not - they are both labels used for convenience - and BenObviously you do care you have spent days pontificatinga bout how they are the >same - what is your problem?
I don't really care what it is called
, but there does not seem to beI have not emphasized semantics - that demonstrably is what you have done. >Co-governance and co-management are very different things and you have refused >to accept the truth of that simple and self evident statement.
any opposition to the co-governance arrangements put in place then;
and the Three Waters Proposals appear very similar; although of course >>reflecting a different situation they cannot be identical. We should >>therefore not argue about a name given to the agreements, and with
respect to Three Waters, determine what the actual areas of concern
may be, based on what we know, rather than accusations from people we
know are only looking to oppose, not to achieve the goals New
Zealanders want with respect to long term water issues. I suspect your >>emphasis on semantics relates to such as aim - the agreement itself
will probably not use the expression co-governance - the Waikato
agreement probably does not.
Those are articles outlining Findlayson's support of co-governance as >>>>>>>enshrined in the Water reforms legislation. He may well see his >>>>>>>actions as Treaty Settlement minister to negotiate Treaty settlement >>>>>>>agreements that involved co-management as similar to the co-governance >>>>>>>ownership model.
Indeed he does, but he is now careful not to get in the way of Luxon's >>>>>>policies of fomenting dissatisfaction and racism through dog-whislte >>>>>>simplistic speeches that we have not seen since Brash dropped support >>>>>>for ACT from 7% to 1% through similar statements.
The Three Waters anticipates that if a stasfactory agreement is not >>>>>>reached, there would be a Treaty Claim - that is why the River >>>>>>agreements were made; they forestalled the necessity of going to court >>>>>>. . . - a lesson both parties learned from teh Foreshore and Sebed >>>>>>days.
There is no escaping the fact that co-government as enshrined in the >>>>>>>Water reforms legislation is different to the agreements that >>>>>>>Findlayson negotiated on behalf of the crown. The Water reforms >>>>>>>legislation does not arise from a Treaty claim lodged with the >>>>>>>Waitangi Tribunal, it does transfer control of every water asset owned >>>>>>>by elected local bodies (many of which have exclusively-Maori wards) >>>>>>>to Water Entities that are not governed by democratically-elected >>>>>>>authorities.
That is a stupid argument. National had no mandate to react to teh >>>>>>GFC; Labour had no mandate to react to Covid, no government ever >>>>>>anticipated unexpected events such as the recent flooing. During every >>>>>>term there are reasons for legislation that was not anticipated prior >>>>>>to the election.
Also don't forget that the entire co-governance was not a stated >>>>>>>Labour policy prior to the 2020 election so Labour have no mandate for >>>>>>>it.
Co-governance has been used at least twice now - it leaves overall >>>>>>governance to parliament, but shares thinking from different groups in >>>>>>long terms planning and priorities. Government and local authories are >>>>>>of course also involved - they regulate where the money comes from, >>>>>>and makes sure it fits planning requirements.
Your attempt to dismiss Nationals opposition (in particular) to >>>>>>>co-governance on the basis of hypocrisy is irrational nonsense.I don;t see it as just hypocrisy - the press appear to believe that >>>>>>some of it is Luxon being still 'finding his way' and being easily >>>>>>mislead by factions within the party - he is balancing relentless >>>>>>attackes on government with the need to acknowledge at some point that >>>>>>the problems need to be resolved, and National don't seem to have any >>>>>>policies yet to fix those problems. Still on training wheels sounds so >>>>>>much better than hypocrisy . . .
However as previously explained - what he said is now irrelevant and >>>>>>>>>has
been
for years.
How about something about the current co-governance power grab? >>>>>>>>
We have been reaching Treaty Settlements for many years - these >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>settlements are not about land; they need a different approach. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>LuxonThe Treaty does not menstion or even suggest anyuthing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>whatsoever
The problem with the words of David Seymour is that he appears
to
believe that government can unilaterally amend a contract by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>legislation - the TReaty of Waitangi is one of the earliest >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>contracts
entered into by the British Crown - New Zealand committed to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>honour
those contracts when we gained independence. Do you think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Seymours
attitude is correct?
about
c-governance.
You keep lying.
now appears to be denying the successful approach taken by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>National
when they were last
On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 06:30:38 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou are the one that is confused. Governance and management are terms that are extreme;ly well defined and understood by almost everybody but you.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 04:58:38 -0000 (UTC), TonyBothe management and governance are extremely well defined. You simply have >>not
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 02:53:58 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You can try to change the narrative as many times as you wish but the fact >>>>(yes
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 13:37:15 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>wrote:You childish little man. They have been refuted so many times in the last >>>>>>few
On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 13:14:45 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>wrote:Of course - but tony apparently had not seen them
On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 03:46:37 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You have posted those links in other threads before.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:What a short memory you have - and an inherent inability to search . >>>>>>>>>. . >>>>>>>>>https://e-tangata.co.nz/comment-and-analysis/chris-finlayson-co-governance-should-be-embraced-not-feared/
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 21:28:26 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You should not be so unkind to yourself - I vaguely recall one >>>>>>>>>>occasion
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 19:27:04 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:But that is a lie.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 05:51:23 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Jesus wept.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I doubt Ben Thomas knows you, but confusing people with the term >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>is
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 02:29:14 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:you
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 10:17:55 +1300, Crash >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><nogood@dontbother.invalid>Ben Thomas was suggesting that National may have been better >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>calling
wrote:Nothing in that even hints that co-governance and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>co-management
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 22:02:05 +1300, Rich80105 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 20:10:36 +1300, Crash >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 18:19:39 +1300, Rich80105 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><Rich80105@hotmail.com>legislation.
wrote:
So a U-turn on Water reforms is needed. The current >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>governmenthttps://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/analysis-the-three-biggest-lessons-from-aucklands-historic-floods/SKKD6HGILZENPMN2WKC5Q3MP4I/
It will not be easy, but I am sure that working together >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
-
government
with local authorities, and consulting with local >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>communities,
businesses and interest groups is the way to go. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
does
indeed need to consult with local authorities on this. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>They did consult with local authorities for the Three >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Waters
Correct but they ignored the fact that most local >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>authorities
were
opposed to the reforms. Originally Labour offered an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>opt-out
option
but this was withdrawn when it became apparent that a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>significant
number of local authorities indicated they would opt out - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>including
Auckland Council with a Labour ex-cabinet-member as Mayor. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So yes Labour consulted, but the response was to ignore >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>concerns
and
to remove the opt-out option.
I agree that the events of this last week are likely to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>see some changes - certainly the needs of local >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>authoritiesMost local bodies have not asked for and do not need >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>assistance
have
changed - Southland for example was asking for government >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>assistance
for work relating to river banks; Auckland needs have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>changed
suddently as covered in the article.
with
weather bombs. This is no justification for the Water >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>reforms.
LocalIf they are not considered that may slow down response - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>there
authorities need to consult with interested groups within >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>their
territory. Pre-conceived political policies (such as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>co-governance)
need not be considered unless the final decisions justify >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the
concept
that community-owned water assets can be co-managed with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Maori
descendants on a basis of fair equity in the area that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>each
local
body
operates in.
could
well be an appeal to the Waitangi Tribunal, similar to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Foreshore
and Sebad protest; but it is certainly one way of making >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>sure
that
consultation is not token but real - and that includes as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>you
say
with
interested groups - but some actions will be needed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>quickly.
An
alternative that I have suggested for the short term is to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>set
up
structures under the legislaition for areas where local >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>councils
want
to participate; that may enable some work to start quickly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>while
solutions for other areas are considered without quite the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>same
urgency.
Labour are a long way from making these concessions, and I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>am
sure
that any change will be a difficult sell to their Maori >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>caucus
members. They will not tolerate the removal of compulsory >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>co-governance measures particularly, with opt-out also >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>being
needed.
I agree with that - National will need to publish a Water >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>reforms
Labour cannot be trusted to do this, National do not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>currently
have
a
policy that meets these criteria.
Actions are needed before the next election. National have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>said
they
will repeal Labour's legislation, but not what they would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>replace it
with - and I cannot see them just handing money over to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Councils
without input on where that money goes. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
policy that addresses the issue for each local body that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>opts
in.
The previous NationalSenseless repetition of a lie does not change the fact you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>lie
Government was enthusastically following the co-governance >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>route,
which has made it difficult for the current or any future >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>government
to claim that it does not work - it clearly does. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
when
you say this. National went down the co-management route, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>not
the
co-governance route as defined in the current Water reforms >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>legislation, and it works specifically because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>co-management
is
different to co-governance.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/02/waitangi-tribunal-recommendations-should-be-rejected-as-consequence-could-be-kiwis-rights-up-in-air-david-seymour.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
There is a video atthe top - watch from 1:57 in - National >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>know
that
Labour is just using the name that Chris Finlayson used when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>they
followed a solution used by Michael Cullen for the Wanganui >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>River.
National are not saying that they would do anything >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>different
in
the
next term
are
the
same.
They are not, not even close.
what they did co-managment than co-governance since it seems >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>to
have
cofused people - perhaps that includes you Tony. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No it is you who is confused. You heve demonstrated many times >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>that
do
not
understand the difference.
I do understand, I have lived the difference. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>However I note your snide remark, slipping again into abuse are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>you?
what he claims has happened.
You lied.
Period.
Thomas and his opinions are irrelevant and entirely off topiuc. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Everybody
in
the universe knows that except you. Even Thomas certainly knopws >>>>>>>>>>>>>>that.
Your caution over believing anything from a National Party person, >>>>>>>>>>>>>is
understandable, but in this case wrong. National are having an >>>>>>>>>>>>>internal struggle in Luxon trying to avoid having to admit that the
previous National-led government followed a Labour Party example >>>>>>>>>>>>>(Wanganui River) of a way to reach a Treaty settlement; they then >>>>>>>>>>>>>called the Waikato settlement co-governance.
It is just an internalYour abuse is noted.
problem for National, your lies are, as usual, totally unnecessary >>>>>>>>>>>>>Tony. You are not helping Luxon, or harming Labour - you are just >>>>>>>>>>>>>being a prat.
Just once provide a single example of where any previous >>>>>>>>>>>>co-management
was in
fact co-governance.
You might need to understanbd the difference between the two for >>>>>>>>>>>>the
first
time
but there is plenty of information available. Your personal >>>>>>>>>>>>experience
clearly
lacks both.
You can continue to make a fool of yourself but that is your right >>>>>>>>>>>>and
your
only hope of ever being noticed.
Do get a life and do some research. No National government has ever >>>>>>>>>>>>practiced
co-governance. Your only hope of showing otherwise is to provide >>>>>>>>>>>>examples
and
to do so without changing the subject or being abusive. Sorry, I >>>>>>>>>>>>know
how
difficult that is for you but help is available.
Chris Finlayson however says that they did. So who to believe - an >>>>>>>>>>>opinionated occasional poster to nz.general who never supports those >>>>>>>>>>>opinions with facts
when
you posted a response supported by facts. I can't remember the topic, >>>>>>>>>>probably
not very important.
, or a past Cabinet Minister who is regarded asAnd who never said what you have posted.
having done well with Treaty settlements, and in particular with the >>>>>>>>>>>co-governance arranements for the Waikato River . . .
(And yes, I have posted a link to CHris Finlason sang that >>>>>>>>>>>co-governance is the way forward and that we should be proceeding as >>>>>>>>>>>fast as possible to just get on with co-governance arrangements) >>>>>>>>>>I doubt he sang it. But he certainly never said it.
and >>>>>>>>>https://www.minterellison.co.nz/insights/co-governance-the-misunderstood-political-hot-potato-and-likely-election-dominator
day I thought you may have understood by now. But no. Just more Rich80105 >>>>>>abuse.
They are direct quotations from Chris Finlayson - that has not been >>>>>refuted. You mmay disagree with his statements, but there is no doubt >>>>>that he did make the statements I claimed. You may disagree, but you >>>>>cannot change reality Tony, and you have not even given any evidence >>>>>that would justify saying that Finlayson was in error in his >>>>>statement. Do you really believe Finlayson lied in his statements?
the Fact) is that co-governance is not co-management. I have not wavered on >>>>that but you keep trying to move the goalposts. Pity you are such a >>>>terrible
goalkeeper.
No change in narrative. Neither term is well-defined
looked. Just add the co- in front and all will be revealed.
, and certainlyOh really?
different people interpret them differently.
I accept that many mayThat is not for me to do - you keep claiming they are the same and yet >>provide
believe that they are different, but you have not attempted to define >>>either.
no evidence - your problem not mine.
I do _not_ claim that they are the same; just that they are both
ill-defined - as demonstrated by your confusion. For Three Waters
there will be elements of governance and management at the levels of >parliament / cabinet/ Ministers / Govt Departments / Water entities /
local authorities / public (not necessarily in that order!) for
diffferent issues).
What we do know is that National first used the term whenHe only used the one term - co-governance. What other term did
talking about the Waikato River agreements - and the then Minister >>>believes that co-governance using that model is worth repeating andIrrelevant - show how the two termas are the same if you can.
that we should get on with it.
National use, Tony?
No I have not - they are both labels used for convenience - and BenObviously you do care you have spent days pontificatinga bout how they are >>the
I don't really care what it is called
same - what is your problem?
Thomas from National has said that perhaps they should have spent a
little more time of selecting a name.
, but there does not seem to beI have not emphasized semantics - that demonstrably is what you have done. >>Co-governance and co-management are very different things and you have >>refused
any opposition to the co-governance arrangements put in place then;
and the Three Waters Proposals appear very similar; although of course >>>reflecting a different situation they cannot be identical. We should >>>therefore not argue about a name given to the agreements, and with >>>respect to Three Waters, determine what the actual areas of concern
may be, based on what we know, rather than accusations from people we >>>know are only looking to oppose, not to achieve the goals New
Zealanders want with respect to long term water issues. I suspect your >>>emphasis on semantics relates to such as aim - the agreement itself
will probably not use the expression co-governance - the Waikato >>>agreement probably does not.
to accept the truth of that simple and self evident statement.
I accept that both governance and management are essential parts at
many levels of a complex system that operates across different areas
of New Zealand with complex water flows and different processing needs
for each of the three waters.
Those are articles outlining Findlayson's support of co-governance as >>>>>>>>enshrined in the Water reforms legislation. He may well see his >>>>>>>>actions as Treaty Settlement minister to negotiate Treaty settlement >>>>>>>>agreements that involved co-management as similar to the co-governance >>>>>>>>ownership model.
Indeed he does, but he is now careful not to get in the way of Luxon's >>>>>>>policies of fomenting dissatisfaction and racism through dog-whislte >>>>>>>simplistic speeches that we have not seen since Brash dropped support >>>>>>>for ACT from 7% to 1% through similar statements.
The Three Waters anticipates that if a stasfactory agreement is not >>>>>>>reached, there would be a Treaty Claim - that is why the River >>>>>>>agreements were made; they forestalled the necessity of going to court >>>>>>>. . . - a lesson both parties learned from teh Foreshore and Sebed >>>>>>>days.
There is no escaping the fact that co-government as enshrined in the >>>>>>>>Water reforms legislation is different to the agreements that >>>>>>>>Findlayson negotiated on behalf of the crown. The Water reforms >>>>>>>>legislation does not arise from a Treaty claim lodged with the >>>>>>>>Waitangi Tribunal, it does transfer control of every water asset owned >>>>>>>>by elected local bodies (many of which have exclusively-Maori wards) >>>>>>>>to Water Entities that are not governed by democratically-elected >>>>>>>>authorities.
Also don't forget that the entire co-governance was not a stated >>>>>>>>Labour policy prior to
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Remember once again Rich is using his newspeak dictionary. The one only he and the woke left use. It's unknown to the rest of us because we live in a real world rather than the Marxist construct that controls Rich the totalitarian twit!
On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 06:30:38 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 04:58:38 -0000 (UTC), TonyBothe management and governance are extremely well defined. You simply have >>not
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 02:53:58 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:(yes
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 13:37:15 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>wrote:You childish little man. They have been refuted so many times in the last
On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 13:14:45 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>wrote:Of course - but tony apparently had not seen them
On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 03:46:37 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You have posted those links in other threads before.
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:What a short memory you have - and an inherent inability to search . >>>>>>>>>. . >>>>>>>>>https://e-tangata.co.nz/comment-and-analysis/chris-finlayson-co-governance-should-be-embraced-not-feared/
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 21:28:26 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You should not be so unkind to yourself - I vaguely recall one >>>>>>>>>>occasion
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 19:27:04 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:But that is a lie.
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 05:51:23 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>>>>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Jesus wept.
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:I doubt Ben Thomas knows you, but confusing people with the term
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 02:29:14 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:that
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 10:17:55 +1300, Crash >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><nog...@dontbother.invalid>Ben Thomas was suggesting that National may have been better >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>calling
wrote:Nothing in that even hints that co-governance and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>co-management
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 22:02:05 +1300, Rich80105 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 20:10:36 +1300, Crash >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 18:19:39 +1300, Rich80105 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><Rich...@hotmail.com>legislation.
wrote:
So a U-turn on Water reforms is needed. The current >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>governmenthttps://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/analysis-the-three-biggest-lessons-from-aucklands-historic-floods/SKKD6HGILZENPMN2WKC5Q3MP4I/
It will not be easy, but I am sure that working together
-
government
with local authorities, and consulting with local >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>communities,
businesses and interest groups is the way to go. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
does
indeed need to consult with local authorities on this. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>They did consult with local authorities for the Three >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Waters
Correct but they ignored the fact that most local >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>authorities
were
opposed to the reforms. Originally Labour offered an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>opt-out
option
but this was withdrawn when it became apparent that a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>significant
number of local authorities indicated they would opt out -
including
Auckland Council with a Labour ex-cabinet-member as Mayor.
So yes Labour consulted, but the response was to ignore >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>concerns
and
to remove the opt-out option.
I agree that the events of this last week are likely to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>see some changes - certainly the needs of local >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>authoritiesMost local bodies have not asked for and do not need >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>assistance
have
changed - Southland for example was asking for government
assistance
for work relating to river banks; Auckland needs have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>changed
suddently as covered in the article. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
with
weather bombs. This is no justification for the Water >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>reforms.
LocalIf they are not considered that may slow down response - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>there
authorities need to consult with interested groups within
their
territory. Pre-conceived political policies (such as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>co-governance)
need not be considered unless the final decisions justify
the
concept
that community-owned water assets can be co-managed with
Maori
descendants on a basis of fair equity in the area that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>each
local
body
operates in.
could
well be an appeal to the Waitangi Tribunal, similar to the
Foreshore
and Sebad protest; but it is certainly one way of making >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>sure
that
consultation is not token but real - and that includes as
you
say
with
interested groups - but some actions will be needed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>quickly.
An
alternative that I have suggested for the short term is to
set
up
structures under the legislaition for areas where local >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>councils
want
to participate; that may enable some work to start quickly
while
solutions for other areas are considered without quite the
same
urgency.
Labour are a long way from making these concessions, and I
am
sure
that any change will be a difficult sell to their Maori >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>caucus
members. They will not tolerate the removal of compulsory >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>co-governance measures particularly, with opt-out also >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>being
needed.
I agree with that - National will need to publish a Water >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>reforms
Labour cannot be trusted to do this, National do not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>currently
have
a
policy that meets these criteria.
Actions are needed before the next election. National have
said
they
will repeal Labour's legislation, but not what they would
replace it
with - and I cannot see them just handing money over to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Councils
without input on where that money goes. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
policy that addresses the issue for each local body that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>opts
in.
The previous NationalSenseless repetition of a lie does not change the fact you
Government was enthusastically following the co-governance
route,
which has made it difficult for the current or any future
government
to claim that it does not work - it clearly does. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
lie
when
you say this. National went down the co-management route, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>not
the
co-governance route as defined in the current Water reforms
legislation, and it works specifically because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>co-management
is
different to co-governance.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/02/waitangi-tribunal-recommendations-should-be-rejected-as-consequence-could-be-kiwis-rights-up-in-air-david-seymour.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
There is a video atthe top - watch from 1:57 in - National >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>know
that
Labour is just using the name that Chris Finlayson used when
they
followed a solution used by Michael Cullen for the Wanganui
River.
National are not saying that they would do anything >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>different
in
the
next term
are
the
same.
They are not, not even close.
what they did co-managment than co-governance since it seems >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>to
have
cofused people - perhaps that includes you Tony. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No it is you who is confused. You heve demonstrated many times
you
do
not
understand the difference.
I do understand, I have lived the difference. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>However I note your snide remark, slipping again into abuse are
you?
is
what he claims has happened.
You lied.
Period.
Thomas and his opinions are irrelevant and entirely off topiuc. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Everybody
in
the universe knows that except you. Even Thomas certainly knopws
that.
Your caution over believing anything from a National Party person,
is
understandable, but in this case wrong. National are having an >>>>>>>>>>>>>internal struggle in Luxon trying to avoid having to admit that the
previous National-led government followed a Labour Party example >>>>>>>>>>>>>(Wanganui River) of a way to reach a Treaty settlement; they then
called the Waikato settlement co-governance.
It is just an internalYour abuse is noted.
problem for National, your lies are, as usual, totally unnecessary
Tony. You are not helping Luxon, or harming Labour - you are just
being a prat.
Just once provide a single example of where any previous >>>>>>>>>>>>co-management
was in
fact co-governance.
You might need to understanbd the difference between the two for >>>>>>>>>>>>the
first
time
but there is plenty of information available. Your personal >>>>>>>>>>>>experience
clearly
lacks both.
You can continue to make a fool of yourself but that is your right
and
your
only hope of ever being noticed.
Do get a life and do some research. No National government has ever
practiced
co-governance. Your only hope of showing otherwise is to provide >>>>>>>>>>>>examples
and
to do so without changing the subject or being abusive. Sorry, I >>>>>>>>>>>>know
how
difficult that is for you but help is available.
Chris Finlayson however says that they did. So who to believe - an >>>>>>>>>>>opinionated occasional poster to nz.general who never supports those
opinions with facts
when
you posted a response supported by facts. I can't remember the topic,
probably
not very important.
, or a past Cabinet Minister who is regarded as
having done well with Treaty settlements, and in particular with the
co-governance arranements for the Waikato River . . . >>>>>>>>>>And who never said what you have posted.
(And yes, I have posted a link to CHris Finlason sang that >>>>>>>>>>>co-governance is the way forward and that we should be proceeding as
fast as possible to just get on with co-governance arrangements) >>>>>>>>>>I doubt he sang it. But he certainly never said it.
and >>>>>>>>>https://www.minterellison.co.nz/insights/co-governance-the-misunderstood-political-hot-potato-and-likely-election-dominator
few
day I thought you may have understood by now. But no. Just more Rich80105
abuse.
They are direct quotations from Chris Finlayson - that has not been >>>>>refuted. You mmay disagree with his statements, but there is no doubt >>>>>that he did make the statements I claimed. You may disagree, but you >>>>>cannot change reality Tony, and you have not even given any evidence >>>>>that would justify saying that Finlayson was in error in his >>>>>statement. Do you really believe Finlayson lied in his statements? >>>>You can try to change the narrative as many times as you wish but the fact
the Fact) is that co-governance is not co-management. I have not wavered on
that but you keep trying to move the goalposts. Pity you are such a >>>>terrible
goalkeeper.
No change in narrative. Neither term is well-defined
looked. Just add the co- in front and all will be revealed.
, and certainlyOh really?
different people interpret them differently.
I accept that many mayThat is not for me to do - you keep claiming they are the same and yet >>provide
believe that they are different, but you have not attempted to define >>>either.
no evidence - your problem not mine.
I do _not_ claim that they are the same; just that they are both >ill-defined - as demonstrated by your confusion. For Three Waters
there will be elements of governance and management at the levels of >parliament / cabinet/ Ministers / Govt Departments / Water entities /
local authorities / public (not necessarily in that order!) for
diffferent issues).
What we do know is that National first used the term whenHe only used the one term - co-governance. What other term did
talking about the Waikato River agreements - and the then Minister >>>believes that co-governance using that model is worth repeating and >>>that we should get on with it.Irrelevant - show how the two termas are the same if you can.
National use, Tony?
No I have not - they are both labels used for convenience - and BenObviously you do care you have spent days pontificatinga bout how they are >>the
I don't really care what it is called
same - what is your problem?
Thomas from National has said that perhaps they should have spent a
little more time of selecting a name.
, but there does not seem to beI have not emphasized semantics - that demonstrably is what you have done. >>Co-governance and co-management are very different things and you have >>refused
any opposition to the co-governance arrangements put in place then;
and the Three Waters Proposals appear very similar; although of course >>>reflecting a different situation they cannot be identical. We should >>>therefore not argue about a name given to the agreements, and with >>>respect to Three Waters, determine what the actual areas of concern
may be, based on what we know, rather than accusations from people we >>>know are only looking to oppose, not to achieve the goals New >>>Zealanders want with respect to long term water issues. I suspect your >>>emphasis on semantics relates to such as aim - the agreement itself >>>will probably not use the expression co-governance - the Waikato >>>agreement probably does not.
to accept the truth of that simple and self evident statement.
I accept that both governance and management are essential parts atYou are the one that is confused. Governance and management are terms that are
many levels of a complex system that operates across different areas
of New Zealand with complex water flows and different processing needs
for each of the three waters.
extreme;ly well defined and understood by almost everybody but you.
Your last sentence shows how ignorant you are. Governance and management occur
in all businesses regardless of size and are distinctly different skills. Local
and national government are no exception.
You could easily understand the profound difference if you were to do a tiny bit of research.
Those are articles outlining Findlayson's support of co-governance as >>>>>>>>enshrined in the Water reforms legislation. He may well see his >>>>>>>>actions as Treaty Settlement minister to negotiate Treaty settlement >>>>>>>>agreements that involved co-management as similar to the co-governance
ownership model.
Indeed he does, but he is now careful not to get in the way of Luxon's >>>>>>>policies of fomenting dissatisfaction and racism through dog-whislte >>>>>>>simplistic speeches that we have not seen since Brash dropped support >>>>>>>for ACT from 7% to 1% through similar statements.
The Three Waters anticipates that if a stasfactory agreement is not >>>>>>>reached, there would be a Treaty Claim - that is why the River >>>>>>>agreements were made; they forestalled the necessity of going to court >>>>>>>. . . - a lesson both parties learned from teh Foreshore and Sebed >>>>>>>days.
There is no escaping the fact that co-government as enshrined in the >>>>>>>>Water reforms legislation is different to the agreements that >>>>>>>>Findlayson negotiated on behalf of the crown. The Water reforms >>>>>>>>legislation does not arise from a Treaty claim lodged with the >>>>>>>>Waitangi Tribunal, it does transfer control of every water asset owned
by elected local bodies (many of which have exclusively-Maori wards) >>>>>>>>to Water Entities that are not governed by democratically-elected >>>>>>>>authorities.
Also don't forget that the entire co-governance was not a stated >>>>>>>>Labour policy prior to
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 116:08:18 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,334,176 |