Hint: I expect that Rich will never mention Findlayson again in his
attempt to defend co-governance in the Water reforms legislation.
First the Herald article for those with a subscription:
https://tinyurl.com/3rpwbdeu
next a summary and comments from DPF:
https://tinyurl.com/yp8prf4z
So this clears up what Findlayson thinks and it is not at all
supportive of Labour's definition of co-governance.
National are yet to define what they propose to do about the quality
of water services currently provided by local bodies, but the last
sentence in this article gives hope:
https://www.national.org.nz/three_waters_appoints_ceos
We may well see taxpayer support on this, but it should clearly be
targeted at specific projects undertaken by local bodies with
government approval.
--Thank you Crash.
Crash McBash
Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
Hint: I expect that Rich will never mention Findlayson again in his >>attempt to defend co-governance in the Water reforms legislation.
First the Herald article for those with a subscription:
https://tinyurl.com/3rpwbdeu
next a summary and comments from DPF:
https://tinyurl.com/yp8prf4z
The number of large projects has just grown hugely, making a
So this clears up what Findlayson thinks and it is not at all
supportive of Labour's definition of co-governance.
National are yet to define what they propose to do about the quality
of water services currently provided by local bodies, but the last
sentence in this article gives hope:
https://www.national.org.nz/three_waters_appoints_ceos
We may well see taxpayer support on this, but it should clearly be
targeted at specific projects undertaken by local bodies with
government approval.
Thank you Crash.
--
Crash McBash
Maybe we can now call the current policy what it actually is - apartheid.
On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 03:39:41 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo it was not - read the article.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
Hint: I expect that Rich will never mention Findlayson again in his >>>attempt to defend co-governance in the Water reforms legislation.
First the Herald article for those with a subscription:
https://tinyurl.com/3rpwbdeu
Behind a paywall
next a summary and comments from DPF:
https://tinyurl.com/yp8prf4z
I accept that Te Aka Whai Ora – Maori Health Authority is not the same
as the co-governance arrangements Finlayson made (and it was his staff
that invented the term co-governance)
There is little difference between management of a distinct area ofThe difference is huge - but you need to understand the terms before that becomes clear - some research on the English language would help.
the environment, and generally subject to local authority control; and >"management of a distinct area of the environment, and subject to
government control".
Following recent storms it becomes even more appropriate to have an >organisation that looks after major issues over a wider area than anyThat does not follow at all.
single local authority.
The criticism appears to be more about the lack of explanations (andOnly to you.
that criticism has some merit) than any fundamental differences.
What does that mkean.The number of large projects has just grown hugely, making a
So this clears up what Findlayson thinks and it is not at all
supportive of Labour's definition of co-governance.
National are yet to define what they propose to do about the quality
of water services currently provided by local bodies, but the last >>>sentence in this article gives hope:
https://www.national.org.nz/three_waters_appoints_ceos
We may well see taxpayer support on this, but it should clearly be >>>targeted at specific projects undertaken by local bodies with
government approval.
co-ordinated response even more important.
Thank you Crash.
--
Crash McBash
Maybe we can now call the current policy what it actually is - apartheid.
On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 03:39:41 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
Hint: I expect that Rich will never mention Findlayson again in his >>>attempt to defend co-governance in the Water reforms legislation.
First the Herald article for those with a subscription:
https://tinyurl.com/3rpwbdeu
Behind a paywall
next a summary and comments from DPF:
https://tinyurl.com/yp8prf4z
I accept that Te Aka Whai Ora – Maori Health Authority is not the same
as the co-governance arrangements Finlayson made (and it was his staff
that invented the term co-governance)
There is little difference between management of a distinct area of
the environment, and generally subject to local authority control; and >"management of a distinct area of the environment, and subject to
government control".
Following recent storms it becomes even more appropriate to have an >organisation that looks after major issues over a wider area than any
single local authority.
The criticism appears to be more about the lack of explanations (and
that criticism has some merit) than any fundamental differences.
The number of large projects has just grown hugely, making a
So this clears up what Findlayson thinks and it is not at all
supportive of Labour's definition of co-governance.
National are yet to define what they propose to do about the quality
of water services currently provided by local bodies, but the last >>>sentence in this article gives hope:
https://www.national.org.nz/three_waters_appoints_ceos
We may well see taxpayer support on this, but it should clearly be >>>targeted at specific projects undertaken by local bodies with
government approval.
co-ordinated response even more important.
Thank you Crash.
--
Crash McBash
Maybe we can now call the current policy what it actually is - apartheid.
On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 03:39:41 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
Hint: I expect that Rich will never mention Findlayson again in his >>>attempt to defend co-governance in the Water reforms legislation.
First the Herald article for those with a subscription:
https://tinyurl.com/3rpwbdeu
Behind a paywall
next a summary and comments from DPF:
https://tinyurl.com/yp8prf4z
I accept that Te Aka Whai Ora – Maori Health Authority is not the same
as the co-governance arrangements Finlayson made (and it was his staff
that invented the term co-governance)
There is little difference between management of a distinct area of
the environment, and generally subject to local authority control; and "management of a distinct area of the environment, and subject to
government control".
Following recent storms it becomes even more appropriate to have an organisation that looks after major issues over a wider area than any
single local authority.
The criticism appears to be more about the lack of explanations (and
that criticism has some merit) than any fundamental differences.
The number of large projects has just grown hugely, making a
So this clears up what Findlayson thinks and it is not at all
supportive of Labour's definition of co-governance.
National are yet to define what they propose to do about the quality
of water services currently provided by local bodies, but the last >>>sentence in this article gives hope:
https://www.national.org.nz/three_waters_appoints_ceos
We may well see taxpayer support on this, but it should clearly be >>>targeted at specific projects undertaken by local bodies with
government approval.
co-ordinated response even more important.
Thank you Crash.
--
Crash McBash
Maybe we can now call the current policy what it actually is - apartheid.
On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 03:39:41 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
Hint: I expect that Rich will never mention Findlayson again in his >>>attempt to defend co-governance in the Water reforms legislation.
First the Herald article for those with a subscription:
https://tinyurl.com/3rpwbdeu
Behind a paywall
next a summary and comments from DPF:
https://tinyurl.com/yp8prf4z
I accept that Te Aka Whai Ora – Maori Health Authority is not the same
as the co-governance arrangements Finlayson made (and it was his staff
that invented the term co-governance)
There is little difference between management of a distinct area of
the environment, and generally subject to local authority control; and "management of a distinct area of the environment, and subject to
government control".
Following recent storms it becomes even more appropriate to have an organisation that looks after major issues over a wider area than any
single local authority.
The criticism appears to be more about the lack of explanations (and
that criticism has some merit) than any fundamental differences.
The number of large projects has just grown hugely, making a
So this clears up what Findlayson thinks and it is not at all
supportive of Labour's definition of co-governance.
National are yet to define what they propose to do about the quality
of water services currently provided by local bodies, but the last >>>sentence in this article gives hope:
https://www.national.org.nz/three_waters_appoints_ceos
We may well see taxpayer support on this, but it should clearly be >>>targeted at specific projects undertaken by local bodies with
government approval.
co-ordinated response even more important.
Thank you Crash.
--
Crash McBash
Maybe we can now call the current policy what it actually is - apartheid.
On 2023-02-17, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 03:39:41 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
Hint: I expect that Rich will never mention Findlayson again in his >>>>attempt to defend co-governance in the Water reforms legislation.
First the Herald article for those with a subscription:
https://tinyurl.com/3rpwbdeu
Behind a paywall
2 lines above, "First the Herald article for those with a subscription:"
next a summary and comments from DPF:
https://tinyurl.com/yp8prf4z
I accept that Te Aka Whai Ora ? Maori Health Authority is not the same
as the co-governance arrangements Finlayson made (and it was his staff
that invented the term co-governance)
There is little difference between management of a distinct area of
the environment, and generally subject to local authority control; and
"management of a distinct area of the environment, and subject to
government control".
Following recent storms it becomes even more appropriate to have an
organisation that looks after major issues over a wider area than any
single local authority.
The criticism appears to be more about the lack of explanations (and
that criticism has some merit) than any fundamental differences.
The number of large projects has just grown hugely, making a
So this clears up what Findlayson thinks and it is not at all >>>>supportive of Labour's definition of co-governance.
National are yet to define what they propose to do about the quality
of water services currently provided by local bodies, but the last >>>>sentence in this article gives hope:
https://www.national.org.nz/three_waters_appoints_ceos
We may well see taxpayer support on this, but it should clearly be >>>>targeted at specific projects undertaken by local bodies with >>>>government approval.
co-ordinated response even more important.
Thank you Crash.
--
Crash McBash
Maybe we can now call the current policy what it actually is - apartheid.
On 2023-02-17, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 03:39:41 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
Hint: I expect that Rich will never mention Findlayson again in his >>>>attempt to defend co-governance in the Water reforms legislation.
First the Herald article for those with a subscription:
https://tinyurl.com/3rpwbdeu
Behind a paywall
next a summary and comments from DPF:
https://tinyurl.com/yp8prf4z
I accept that Te Aka Whai Ora ? Maori Health Authority is not the same
as the co-governance arrangements Finlayson made (and it was his staff
that invented the term co-governance)
Progress is indeed made on alternative Fridays.
Would not the term co-goverance come from the authors, the Government.
There is little difference between management of a distinct area of
the environment, and generally subject to local authority control; and
"management of a distinct area of the environment, and subject to
government control".
Following recent storms it becomes even more appropriate to have an
organisation that looks after major issues over a wider area than any
single local authority.
The criticism appears to be more about the lack of explanations (and
that criticism has some merit) than any fundamental differences.
The number of large projects has just grown hugely, making a
So this clears up what Findlayson thinks and it is not at all >>>>supportive of Labour's definition of co-governance.
National are yet to define what they propose to do about the quality
of water services currently provided by local bodies, but the last >>>>sentence in this article gives hope:
https://www.national.org.nz/three_waters_appoints_ceos
We may well see taxpayer support on this, but it should clearly be >>>>targeted at specific projects undertaken by local bodies with >>>>government approval.
co-ordinated response even more important.
Thank you Crash.
--
Crash McBash
Maybe we can now call the current policy what it actually is - apartheid. >>>
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 03:39:41 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo it was not - read the article.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
Hint: I expect that Rich will never mention Findlayson again in his >>>>attempt to defend co-governance in the Water reforms legislation.
First the Herald article for those with a subscription:
https://tinyurl.com/3rpwbdeu
Behind a paywall
next a summary and comments from DPF:
https://tinyurl.com/yp8prf4z
I accept that Te Aka Whai Ora – Maori Health Authority is not the same
as the co-governance arrangements Finlayson made (and it was his staff
that invented the term co-governance)
The difference is huge - but you need to understand the terms before that >becomes clear - some research on the English language would help.
There is little difference between management of a distinct area of
the environment, and generally subject to local authority control; and >>"management of a distinct area of the environment, and subject to >>government control".
Really? What else do you see?That does not follow at all.
Following recent storms it becomes even more appropriate to have an >>organisation that looks after major issues over a wider area than any >>single local authority.
Only to you.
The criticism appears to be more about the lack of explanations (and
that criticism has some merit) than any fundamental differences.
What does that mkean.
The number of large projects has just grown hugely, making a
So this clears up what Findlayson thinks and it is not at all >>>>supportive of Labour's definition of co-governance.
National are yet to define what they propose to do about the quality
of water services currently provided by local bodies, but the last >>>>sentence in this article gives hope:
https://www.national.org.nz/three_waters_appoints_ceos
We may well see taxpayer support on this, but it should clearly be >>>>targeted at specific projects undertaken by local bodies with >>>>government approval.
co-ordinated response even more important.
Oh - and if you wish to respond to Crash then respond directly to him - not >through me - capisce? It is polite to do so.
Thank you Crash.
--
Crash McBash
Maybe we can now call the current policy what it actually is - apartheid.
On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 16:58:34 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 03:39:41 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
Hint: I expect that Rich will never mention Findlayson again in his >>>>attempt to defend co-governance in the Water reforms legislation.
First the Herald article for those with a subscription:
https://tinyurl.com/3rpwbdeu
Behind a paywall
As I said it was. What part of '...for those with a subscription' do
you not understand? Do you not pay attention when reading?
I use Co-governance in the sense that Finlayson and his staff used it. Governance is it is usually defined stays with government (as doesAgreed. But the Water reforms are not about local authority control. >Co-governance ensures this is not the case.
next a summary and comments from DPF:
https://tinyurl.com/yp8prf4z
I accept that Te Aka Whai Ora – Maori Health Authority is not the same
as the co-governance arrangements Finlayson made (and it was his staff
that invented the term co-governance)
There is little difference between management of a distinct area of
the environment, and generally subject to local authority control; and >>"management of a distinct area of the environment, and subject to >>government control".
Following recent storms it becomes even more appropriate to have an >>organisation that looks after major issues over a wider area than any >>single local authority.Off topic. We are discussing Chris Findlayson's article.
The criticism appears to be more about the lack of explanations (andThen you have not read the article or DPF's summary. Come back with
that criticism has some merit) than any fundamental differences.
informed comment when you have. There are fundamental differences as
DPF's posting explains (including text from Findlayson's article).
Correct. Unfortunately only National will repeal the Water reforms >legislation and then get on with it. This is not the first weather
The number of large projects has just grown hugely, making a
So this clears up what Findlayson thinks and it is not at all >>>>supportive of Labour's definition of co-governance.
National are yet to define what they propose to do about the quality
of water services currently provided by local bodies, but the last >>>>sentence in this article gives hope:
https://www.national.org.nz/three_waters_appoints_ceos
We may well see taxpayer support on this, but it should clearly be >>>>targeted at specific projects undertaken by local bodies with >>>>government approval.
co-ordinated response even more important.
bomb and will not be the last. In the past we have responded to them
all without these reforms and we have also responded to significant
natural disasters. All have seen the coordinated actions that central >government provides. Nothing new is required.
Thank you Crash.
--
Crash McBash
Maybe we can now call the current policy what it actually is - apartheid. >>>
On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 17:33:47 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>Absolutely wrong, governance is a term used concerning company boards and even in companies that do not have boards. It is distinctly different from management.
wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 16:58:34 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 03:39:41 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
Hint: I expect that Rich will never mention Findlayson again in his >>>>>attempt to defend co-governance in the Water reforms legislation.
First the Herald article for those with a subscription:
https://tinyurl.com/3rpwbdeu
Behind a paywall
As I said it was. What part of '...for those with a subscription' do
you not understand? Do you not pay attention when reading?
Yes, it was my way of confirming that I was unable to read the
article. It appears from the other article and from Tony's inept
response that I missed very little.
I use Co-governance in the sense that Finlayson and his staff used it. >Governance is it is usually defined stays with government
Agreed. But the Water reforms are not about local authority control. >>Co-governance ensures this is not the case.
next a summary and comments from DPF:
https://tinyurl.com/yp8prf4z
I accept that Te Aka Whai Ora – Maori Health Authority is not the same
as the co-governance arrangements Finlayson made (and it was his staff >>>that invented the term co-governance)
There is little difference between management of a distinct area of
the environment, and generally subject to local authority control; and >>>"management of a distinct area of the environment, and subject to >>>government control".
(as does
sovereignity - what we really have is cooperation between different
community groups for initial and ongoing management, including
assessing priorities, persuading government to fund different
projects, and getting them done - much like most government
departments work but with greater community invovlement, but not like
the electricity generation market where priorities are distorted by
the desire to extract dividends as much as possible for as long as
possible for private shareholder . . .
Following recent storms it becomes even more appropriate to have an >>>organisation that looks after major issues over a wider area than any >>>single local authority.Off topic. We are discussing Chris Findlayson's article.
The criticism appears to be more about the lack of explanations (andThen you have not read the article or DPF's summary. Come back with >>informed comment when you have. There are fundamental differences as
that criticism has some merit) than any fundamental differences.
DPF's posting explains (including text from Findlayson's article).
Correct. Unfortunately only National will repeal the Water reforms >>legislation and then get on with it. This is not the first weather
The number of large projects has just grown hugely, making a
So this clears up what Findlayson thinks and it is not at all >>>>>supportive of Labour's definition of co-governance.
National are yet to define what they propose to do about the quality >>>>>of water services currently provided by local bodies, but the last >>>>>sentence in this article gives hope:
https://www.national.org.nz/three_waters_appoints_ceos
We may well see taxpayer support on this, but it should clearly be >>>>>targeted at specific projects undertaken by local bodies with >>>>>government approval.
co-ordinated response even more important.
bomb and will not be the last. In the past we have responded to them
all without these reforms and we have also responded to significant
natural disasters. All have seen the coordinated actions that central >>government provides. Nothing new is required.
Thank you Crash.
--
Crash McBash
Maybe we can now call the current policy what it actually is - apartheid. >>>>
On 17 Feb 2023 06:53:27 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:You are squirming again.
On 2023-02-17, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 03:39:41 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
Hint: I expect that Rich will never mention Findlayson again in his >>>>>attempt to defend co-governance in the Water reforms legislation.
First the Herald article for those with a subscription:
https://tinyurl.com/3rpwbdeu
Behind a paywall
2 lines above, "First the Herald article for those with a subscription:"
Which for those that were paying attention, I made clear I did not
have.
next a summary and comments from DPF:
https://tinyurl.com/yp8prf4z
I accept that Te Aka Whai Ora ? Maori Health Authority is not the same
as the co-governance arrangements Finlayson made (and it was his staff
that invented the term co-governance)
There is little difference between management of a distinct area of
the environment, and generally subject to local authority control; and
"management of a distinct area of the environment, and subject to
government control".
Following recent storms it becomes even more appropriate to have an
organisation that looks after major issues over a wider area than any
single local authority.
The criticism appears to be more about the lack of explanations (and
that criticism has some merit) than any fundamental differences.
The number of large projects has just grown hugely, making a
So this clears up what Findlayson thinks and it is not at all >>>>>supportive of Labour's definition of co-governance.
National are yet to define what they propose to do about the quality >>>>>of water services currently provided by local bodies, but the last >>>>>sentence in this article gives hope:
https://www.national.org.nz/three_waters_appoints_ceos
We may well see taxpayer support on this, but it should clearly be >>>>>targeted at specific projects undertaken by local bodies with >>>>>government approval.
co-ordinated response even more important.
Thank you Crash.
--
Crash McBash
Maybe we can now call the current policy what it actually is - apartheid.
On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 04:17:13 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo, that is not what he meant. Read it again.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 03:39:41 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo it was not - read the article.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
Hint: I expect that Rich will never mention Findlayson again in his >>>>>attempt to defend co-governance in the Water reforms legislation.
First the Herald article for those with a subscription:
https://tinyurl.com/3rpwbdeu
Behind a paywall
next a summary and comments from DPF:
https://tinyurl.com/yp8prf4z
I accept that Te Aka Whai Ora – Maori Health Authority is not the same
as the co-governance arrangements Finlayson made (and it was his staff >>>that invented the term co-governance)
Yes it was - I posted an article by one of Finlaysons political staff
who admitted that perhaps there could have been a better name . . .
I have not attempted to provide the obvious. But since you are asking finally try this as a starter https://reportcenter.highered.texas.gov/training-materials/handouts/governance-vs-management/#:~:text=Boards%20who%20are%20managing%20will,and%20direction%2C%20and%20institutional%20results.The difference is huge - but you need to understand the terms before that >>becomes clear - some research on the English language would help.
There is little difference between management of a distinct area of
the environment, and generally subject to local authority control; and >>>"management of a distinct area of the environment, and subject to >>>government control".
You appear to be unable to explain any substantive difference except
for scale.
Really? What else do you see?That does not follow at all.
Following recent storms it becomes even more appropriate to have an >>>organisation that looks after major issues over a wider area than any >>>single local authority.
Only to you.
The criticism appears to be more about the lack of explanations (and
that criticism has some merit) than any fundamental differences.
No nit picking, you are a lazy person.What does that mkean.
The number of large projects has just grown hugely, making a
So this clears up what Findlayson thinks and it is not at all >>>>>supportive of Labour's definition of co-governance.
National are yet to define what they propose to do about the quality >>>>>of water services currently provided by local bodies, but the last >>>>>sentence in this article gives hope:
https://www.national.org.nz/three_waters_appoints_ceos
We may well see taxpayer support on this, but it should clearly be >>>>>targeted at specific projects undertaken by local bodies with >>>>>government approval.
co-ordinated response even more important.
Oh - and if you wish to respond to Crash then respond directly to him - not >>through me - capisce? It is polite to do so.
In a group discussion, I am happy to respond to anyone and read
responses from anyone - your authoritarian nit-picking is hampering
your understanding again, Tony.
It is apartheid and you love it.
Thank you Crash.
--
Crash McBash
Maybe we can now call the current policy what it actually is - apartheid.
Certainly you could - and you would, as is becoming usual, totally
wrong yet again. . . .
On 17 Feb 2023 06:57:27 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2023-02-17, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 03:39:41 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
Hint: I expect that Rich will never mention Findlayson again in his >>>>>attempt to defend co-governance in the Water reforms legislation.
First the Herald article for those with a subscription:
https://tinyurl.com/3rpwbdeu
Behind a paywall
next a summary and comments from DPF:
https://tinyurl.com/yp8prf4z
I accept that Te Aka Whai Ora ? Maori Health Authority is not the same
as the co-governance arrangements Finlayson made (and it was his staff
that invented the term co-governance)
Progress is indeed made on alternative Fridays.
Would not the term co-goverance come from the authors, the Government.
It did, Finlayson was Minister of Treaty Settlements at the time, as
well as Attorney Geenral - he is noted for having a precise mind for >language, with a healthy grasp of the meanings of words which he can
debate at length - all Labour is doing is using the expression for a
very similar (although larger) issue where Maori have, as Finlayson >acknowledged, legitimate Treaty interests.
There is little difference between management of a distinct area of
the environment, and generally subject to local authority control; and
"management of a distinct area of the environment, and subject to
government control".
Following recent storms it becomes even more appropriate to have an
organisation that looks after major issues over a wider area than any
single local authority.
The criticism appears to be more about the lack of explanations (and
that criticism has some merit) than any fundamental differences.
The number of large projects has just grown hugely, making a
So this clears up what Findlayson thinks and it is not at all >>>>>supportive of Labour's definition of co-governance.
National are yet to define what they propose to do about the quality >>>>>of water services currently provided by local bodies, but the last >>>>>sentence in this article gives hope:
https://www.national.org.nz/three_waters_appoints_ceos
We may well see taxpayer support on this, but it should clearly be >>>>>targeted at specific projects undertaken by local bodies with >>>>>government approval.
co-ordinated response even more important.
Thank you Crash.
--
Crash McBash
Maybe we can now call the current policy what it actually is - apartheid. >>>>
On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 22:45:50 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 17 Feb 2023 06:57:27 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2023-02-17, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 03:39:41 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
Hint: I expect that Rich will never mention Findlayson again in his >>>>>>attempt to defend co-governance in the Water reforms legislation.
First the Herald article for those with a subscription:
https://tinyurl.com/3rpwbdeu
Behind a paywall
next a summary and comments from DPF:
https://tinyurl.com/yp8prf4z
I accept that Te Aka Whai Ora ? Maori Health Authority is not the same >>>> as the co-governance arrangements Finlayson made (and it was his staff >>>> that invented the term co-governance)
Progress is indeed made on alternative Fridays.
Would not the term co-goverance come from the authors, the Government.
It did, Finlayson was Minister of Treaty Settlements at the time, as
well as Attorney Geenral - he is noted for having a precise mind for >>language, with a healthy grasp of the meanings of words which he can
debate at length - all Labour is doing is using the expression for a
very similar (although larger) issue where Maori have, as Finlayson >>acknowledged, legitimate Treaty interests.
Rich you have already admitted you cannot access the Herald article.
Here is a quote from Findlayson's article in DPFs posting, also cited
in my OP.
Let me see if you are prepared to make the effort to understand what >Findlayson has said. In DPFs post there are several quotes from
Findlayson's article, each followed by a comment from DPF.
In the context of this thread, any comment on what Findalyson said as
DPF quotes, and any comment DPF makes in this article is on topic.
Anything else (particularly what you assert Findlayson has said in the
past) is off-topic.
I specifically draw your attention to the third quote from Findlayson
and the comment from DPF that follows. This discusses how Findlayson
sees the modern incarnation of co-governance that Labour have
introduced.
This clearly debunks any common connection between what Labour has
legislated for with Water Reforms and what a prior National government >legislated for through the Treaty settlement process of the time.
There is little difference between management of a distinct area of
the environment, and generally subject to local authority control; and >>>> "management of a distinct area of the environment, and subject to
government control".
Following recent storms it becomes even more appropriate to have an
organisation that looks after major issues over a wider area than any
single local authority.
The criticism appears to be more about the lack of explanations (and
that criticism has some merit) than any fundamental differences.
The number of large projects has just grown hugely, making a
So this clears up what Findlayson thinks and it is not at all >>>>>>supportive of Labour's definition of co-governance.
National are yet to define what they propose to do about the quality >>>>>>of water services currently provided by local bodies, but the last >>>>>>sentence in this article gives hope:
https://www.national.org.nz/three_waters_appoints_ceos
We may well see taxpayer support on this, but it should clearly be >>>>>>targeted at specific projects undertaken by local bodies with >>>>>>government approval.
co-ordinated response even more important.
Thank you Crash.
--
Crash McBash
Maybe we can now call the current policy what it actually is - apartheid. >>>>>
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 112:32:48 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,336,034 |