First a reminder of where we are with Labour's policy. They have set
up four new Water Entities that each will acquire and operate all
water assets in their area. There is no local input and each will be co-governed with Maori interests. These Water Entities are in the
throes of establishment so clearly their first focus is to take over
existing assets and operational staff to keep water flowing. Exactly
what, how and when the infrastructure deficit will be tackled is not
in sight and not likely to be for at least a year or 2, given they
commence operation on July 1 2024.
My interest here is that Labour have legislated a fundamentally flawed solution to water infrastructure deficits in some local bodies driven
by the hidden agenda that is the He Puapua report advocating
co-governance amongst other things. I do not support National in
general - but in this case they have promised to tackle this problem
with a vastly more acceptable solution.
The Water reforms legislated by Labour will be almost entirely
repealed (only the Water Services Regulator remains). National's plan
is that 3-waters will remain owned and operated by local bodies but
with Government oversight in the form of the (existing) Water Services Regulator (which sets water standards that must be met) and a new
Water Infrastructure Regulator that monitors each local body operation
of water services - ensuring plant and equipment is fit-for-purpose
and properly maintained.
Where either regulator finds that any one local body is unable to meet
their regulatory obligations enforcement action will be taken and this
may require financial assistance to be given if the impost on
ratepayers is not sustainable. This is a vastly superior plan that
comes with no hidden agendas other than regulation and possible
taxpayer assistance where required.
Details are here (including a downloadable pdf document for detail):
https://www.national.org.nz/local_water_done_well
First a reminder of where we are with Labour's policy. They have set
up four new Water Entities that each will acquire and operate all
water assets in their area. There is no local input and each will be >co-governed with Maori interests. These Water Entities are in the
throes of establishment so clearly their first focus is to take over
existing assets and operational staff to keep water flowing. Exactly
what, how and when the infrastructure deficit will be tackled is not
in sight and not likely to be for at least a year or 2, given they
commence operation on July 1 2024.
My interest here is that Labour have legislated a fundamentally flawed >solution to water infrastructure deficits in some local bodies driven
by the hidden agenda that is the He Puapua report advocating
co-governance amongst other things. I do not support National in
general - but in this case they have promised to tackle this problem
with a vastly more acceptable solution.
The Water reforms legislated by Labour will be almost entirely
repealed (only the Water Services Regulator remains). National's plan
is that 3-waters will remain owned and operated by local bodies but
with Government oversight in the form of the (existing) Water Services >Regulator (which sets water standards that must be met) and a new
Water Infrastructure Regulator that monitors each local body operation
of water services - ensuring plant and equipment is fit-for-purpose
and properly maintained.
Where either regulator finds that any one local body is unable to meet
their regulatory obligations enforcement action will be taken and this
may require financial assistance to be given if the impost on
ratepayers is not sustainable. This is a vastly superior plan that
comes with no hidden agendas other than regulation and possible
taxpayer assistance where required.
Details are here (including a downloadable pdf document for detail):
https://www.national.org.nz/local_water_done_well
Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Labour persisting with the highly unpopular and stupid 3 waters can only help Labours chances of coming third later this year :)
On 2023-02-25, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
First a reminder of where we are with Labour's policy. They have setWell, this is ecouraging. A detailed plan which reaks of common sense and a >pledge to do away with it.
up four new Water Entities that each will acquire and operate all
water assets in their area. There is no local input and each will be
co-governed with Maori interests. These Water Entities are in the
throes of establishment so clearly their first focus is to take over
existing assets and operational staff to keep water flowing. Exactly
what, how and when the infrastructure deficit will be tackled is not
in sight and not likely to be for at least a year or 2, given they
commence operation on July 1 2024.
My interest here is that Labour have legislated a fundamentally flawed
solution to water infrastructure deficits in some local bodies driven
by the hidden agenda that is the He Puapua report advocating
co-governance amongst other things. I do not support National in
general - but in this case they have promised to tackle this problem
with a vastly more acceptable solution.
The Water reforms legislated by Labour will be almost entirely
repealed (only the Water Services Regulator remains). National's plan
is that 3-waters will remain owned and operated by local bodies but
with Government oversight in the form of the (existing) Water Services
Regulator (which sets water standards that must be met) and a new
Water Infrastructure Regulator that monitors each local body operation
of water services - ensuring plant and equipment is fit-for-purpose
and properly maintained.
Where either regulator finds that any one local body is unable to meet
their regulatory obligations enforcement action will be taken and this
may require financial assistance to be given if the impost on
ratepayers is not sustainable. This is a vastly superior plan that
comes with no hidden agendas other than regulation and possible
taxpayer assistance where required.
Details are here (including a downloadable pdf document for detail):
https://www.national.org.nz/local_water_done_well
National has motars loaded, it now is just a matter of watching Labour dive >for cover and the whole party implodes as the polls dive.
New Zealand we can do this!Yes we can and I believe we must.
On 2023-02-25, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:Yes we can and I believe we must.
First a reminder of where we are with Labour's policy. They have setWell, this is ecouraging. A detailed plan which reaks of common sense and a >pledge to do away with it.
up four new Water Entities that each will acquire and operate all
water assets in their area. There is no local input and each will be
co-governed with Maori interests. These Water Entities are in the
throes of establishment so clearly their first focus is to take over
existing assets and operational staff to keep water flowing. Exactly
what, how and when the infrastructure deficit will be tackled is not
in sight and not likely to be for at least a year or 2, given they
commence operation on July 1 2024.
My interest here is that Labour have legislated a fundamentally flawed
solution to water infrastructure deficits in some local bodies driven
by the hidden agenda that is the He Puapua report advocating
co-governance amongst other things. I do not support National in
general - but in this case they have promised to tackle this problem
with a vastly more acceptable solution.
The Water reforms legislated by Labour will be almost entirely
repealed (only the Water Services Regulator remains). National's plan
is that 3-waters will remain owned and operated by local bodies but
with Government oversight in the form of the (existing) Water Services
Regulator (which sets water standards that must be met) and a new
Water Infrastructure Regulator that monitors each local body operation
of water services - ensuring plant and equipment is fit-for-purpose
and properly maintained.
Where either regulator finds that any one local body is unable to meet
their regulatory obligations enforcement action will be taken and this
may require financial assistance to be given if the impost on
ratepayers is not sustainable. This is a vastly superior plan that
comes with no hidden agendas other than regulation and possible
taxpayer assistance where required.
Details are here (including a downloadable pdf document for detail):
https://www.national.org.nz/local_water_done_well
National has motars loaded, it now is just a matter of watching Labour dive >for cover and the whole party implodes as the polls dive.
New Zealand we can do this!
On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 5:18:23?PM UTC+13, Tony wrote:
Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Labour persisting with the highly unpopular and stupid 3 waters can only help Labours chances of coming third later this year :)
On 2023-02-25, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:Yes we can and I believe we must.
First a reminder of where we are with Labour's policy. They have setWell, this is ecouraging. A detailed plan which reaks of common sense and a >> >pledge to do away with it.
up four new Water Entities that each will acquire and operate all
water assets in their area. There is no local input and each will be
co-governed with Maori interests. These Water Entities are in the
throes of establishment so clearly their first focus is to take over
existing assets and operational staff to keep water flowing. Exactly
what, how and when the infrastructure deficit will be tackled is not
in sight and not likely to be for at least a year or 2, given they
commence operation on July 1 2024.
My interest here is that Labour have legislated a fundamentally flawed
solution to water infrastructure deficits in some local bodies driven
by the hidden agenda that is the He Puapua report advocating
co-governance amongst other things. I do not support National in
general - but in this case they have promised to tackle this problem
with a vastly more acceptable solution.
The Water reforms legislated by Labour will be almost entirely
repealed (only the Water Services Regulator remains). National's plan
is that 3-waters will remain owned and operated by local bodies but
with Government oversight in the form of the (existing) Water Services
Regulator (which sets water standards that must be met) and a new
Water Infrastructure Regulator that monitors each local body operation
of water services - ensuring plant and equipment is fit-for-purpose
and properly maintained.
Where either regulator finds that any one local body is unable to meet
their regulatory obligations enforcement action will be taken and this
may require financial assistance to be given if the impost on
ratepayers is not sustainable. This is a vastly superior plan that
comes with no hidden agendas other than regulation and possible
taxpayer assistance where required.
Details are here (including a downloadable pdf document for detail):
https://www.national.org.nz/local_water_done_well
National has motars loaded, it now is just a matter of watching Labour dive >> >for cover and the whole party implodes as the polls dive.
New Zealand we can do this!
On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 21:09:33 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
<bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 5:18:23?PM UTC+13, Tony wrote:
Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Labour persisting with the highly unpopular and stupid 3 waters can only help >>Labours chances of coming third later this year :)
On 2023-02-25, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:Yes we can and I believe we must.
First a reminder of where we are with Labour's policy. They have setWell, this is ecouraging. A detailed plan which reaks of common sense and >>> >a
up four new Water Entities that each will acquire and operate all
water assets in their area. There is no local input and each will be
co-governed with Maori interests. These Water Entities are in the
throes of establishment so clearly their first focus is to take over
existing assets and operational staff to keep water flowing. Exactly
what, how and when the infrastructure deficit will be tackled is not
in sight and not likely to be for at least a year or 2, given they
commence operation on July 1 2024.
My interest here is that Labour have legislated a fundamentally flawed >>> >> solution to water infrastructure deficits in some local bodies driven >>> >> by the hidden agenda that is the He Puapua report advocating
co-governance amongst other things. I do not support National in
general - but in this case they have promised to tackle this problem
with a vastly more acceptable solution.
The Water reforms legislated by Labour will be almost entirely
repealed (only the Water Services Regulator remains). National's plan >>> >> is that 3-waters will remain owned and operated by local bodies but
with Government oversight in the form of the (existing) Water Services >>> >> Regulator (which sets water standards that must be met) and a new
Water Infrastructure Regulator that monitors each local body operation >>> >> of water services - ensuring plant and equipment is fit-for-purpose
and properly maintained.
Where either regulator finds that any one local body is unable to meet >>> >> their regulatory obligations enforcement action will be taken and this >>> >> may require financial assistance to be given if the impost on
ratepayers is not sustainable. This is a vastly superior plan that
comes with no hidden agendas other than regulation and possible
taxpayer assistance where required.
Details are here (including a downloadable pdf document for detail):
https://www.national.org.nz/local_water_done_well
pledge to do away with it.
National has motars loaded, it now is just a matter of watching Labour
dive
for cover and the whole party implodes as the polls dive.
New Zealand we can do this!
Interesting that Rich has yet to engage in this thread. Perhaps he
will wait and see if or how Labour respond. He is usually very quick
to respond with his anti-National rhetoric.
Newsroom have responded with an editorial claiming that what National
have announced is not new and has resulted in the current issues of
failure. My response to that is that the new Water Infrastructure
Regulator should have the power to recommend to the Local Government
Minister that the elected Council be replaced with Commissioners in
the event of wilful failure to maintain water assets as required.
On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 21:09:33 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 5:18:23?PM UTC+13, Tony wrote:Interesting that Rich has yet to engage in this thread. Perhaps he
Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Labour persisting with the highly unpopular and stupid 3 waters can only help Labours chances of coming third later this year :)
On 2023-02-25, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:Yes we can and I believe we must.
First a reminder of where we are with Labour's policy. They have set >> >> up four new Water Entities that each will acquire and operate allWell, this is ecouraging. A detailed plan which reaks of common sense and a
water assets in their area. There is no local input and each will be >> >> co-governed with Maori interests. These Water Entities are in the
throes of establishment so clearly their first focus is to take over >> >> existing assets and operational staff to keep water flowing. Exactly >> >> what, how and when the infrastructure deficit will be tackled is not >> >> in sight and not likely to be for at least a year or 2, given they
commence operation on July 1 2024.
My interest here is that Labour have legislated a fundamentally flawed >> >> solution to water infrastructure deficits in some local bodies driven >> >> by the hidden agenda that is the He Puapua report advocating
co-governance amongst other things. I do not support National in
general - but in this case they have promised to tackle this problem >> >> with a vastly more acceptable solution.
The Water reforms legislated by Labour will be almost entirely
repealed (only the Water Services Regulator remains). National's plan >> >> is that 3-waters will remain owned and operated by local bodies but
with Government oversight in the form of the (existing) Water Services >> >> Regulator (which sets water standards that must be met) and a new
Water Infrastructure Regulator that monitors each local body operation >> >> of water services - ensuring plant and equipment is fit-for-purpose
and properly maintained.
Where either regulator finds that any one local body is unable to meet >> >> their regulatory obligations enforcement action will be taken and this >> >> may require financial assistance to be given if the impost on
ratepayers is not sustainable. This is a vastly superior plan that
comes with no hidden agendas other than regulation and possible
taxpayer assistance where required.
Details are here (including a downloadable pdf document for detail): >> >>
https://www.national.org.nz/local_water_done_well
pledge to do away with it.
National has motars loaded, it now is just a matter of watching Labour dive
for cover and the whole party implodes as the polls dive.
New Zealand we can do this!
will wait and see if or how Labour respond. He is usually very quick
to respond with his anti-National rhetoric.
Newsroom have responded with an editorial claiming that what National
have announced is not new and has resulted in the current issues of
failure. My response to that is that the new Water Infrastructure
Regulator should have the power to recommend to the Local Government Minister that the elected Council be replaced with Commissioners in
the event of wilful failure to maintain water assets as required.
--
Crash McBash
Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 21:09:33 -0800 (PST), John Bowes >><bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:Newsroom had to do that of course. They are a defacto Labour mouthpiece.
On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 5:18:23?PM UTC+13, Tony wrote:
Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Labour persisting with the highly unpopular and stupid 3 waters can only help
On 2023-02-25, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:Yes we can and I believe we must.
First a reminder of where we are with Labour's policy. They have set >>>> >> up four new Water Entities that each will acquire and operate allWell, this is ecouraging. A detailed plan which reaks of common sense and >>>> >a
water assets in their area. There is no local input and each will be >>>> >> co-governed with Maori interests. These Water Entities are in the
throes of establishment so clearly their first focus is to take over >>>> >> existing assets and operational staff to keep water flowing. Exactly >>>> >> what, how and when the infrastructure deficit will be tackled is not >>>> >> in sight and not likely to be for at least a year or 2, given they
commence operation on July 1 2024.
My interest here is that Labour have legislated a fundamentally flawed >>>> >> solution to water infrastructure deficits in some local bodies driven >>>> >> by the hidden agenda that is the He Puapua report advocating
co-governance amongst other things. I do not support National in
general - but in this case they have promised to tackle this problem >>>> >> with a vastly more acceptable solution.
The Water reforms legislated by Labour will be almost entirely
repealed (only the Water Services Regulator remains). National's plan >>>> >> is that 3-waters will remain owned and operated by local bodies but >>>> >> with Government oversight in the form of the (existing) Water Services >>>> >> Regulator (which sets water standards that must be met) and a new
Water Infrastructure Regulator that monitors each local body operation >>>> >> of water services - ensuring plant and equipment is fit-for-purpose >>>> >> and properly maintained.
Where either regulator finds that any one local body is unable to meet >>>> >> their regulatory obligations enforcement action will be taken and this >>>> >> may require financial assistance to be given if the impost on
ratepayers is not sustainable. This is a vastly superior plan that
comes with no hidden agendas other than regulation and possible
taxpayer assistance where required.
Details are here (including a downloadable pdf document for detail): >>>> >>
https://www.national.org.nz/local_water_done_well
pledge to do away with it.
National has motars loaded, it now is just a matter of watching Labour >>>> >dive
for cover and the whole party implodes as the polls dive.
New Zealand we can do this!
Labours chances of coming third later this year :)
Interesting that Rich has yet to engage in this thread. Perhaps he
will wait and see if or how Labour respond. He is usually very quick
to respond with his anti-National rhetoric.
Newsroom have responded with an editorial claiming that what National
have announced is not new and has resulted in the current issues of >>failure. My response to that is that the new Water Infrastructure >>Regulator should have the power to recommend to the Local Government >>Minister that the elected Council be replaced with Commissioners in
the event of wilful failure to maintain water assets as required.
On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 14:04:00 -0800 (PST), John BowesAnd perhaps the same amount of money would have to be raised by any government - the alternatives are too obvious.
<bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 9:01:03?AM UTC+13, Crash wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 21:09:33 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 5:18:23?PM UTC+13, Tony wrote:Interesting that Rich has yet to engage in this thread. Perhaps he
Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Labour persisting with the highly unpopular and stupid 3 waters can only >>> >help Labours chances of coming third later this year :)
On 2023-02-25, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:Yes we can and I believe we must.
First a reminder of where we are with Labour's policy. They have set >>> >> >> up four new Water Entities that each will acquire and operate allWell, this is ecouraging. A detailed plan which reaks of common sense >>> >> >and a
water assets in their area. There is no local input and each will be >>> >> >> co-governed with Maori interests. These Water Entities are in the
throes of establishment so clearly their first focus is to take over >>> >> >> existing assets and operational staff to keep water flowing. Exactly >>> >> >> what, how and when the infrastructure deficit will be tackled is not >>> >> >> in sight and not likely to be for at least a year or 2, given they >>> >> >> commence operation on July 1 2024.
My interest here is that Labour have legislated a fundamentally
flawed
solution to water infrastructure deficits in some local bodies driven >>> >> >> by the hidden agenda that is the He Puapua report advocating
co-governance amongst other things. I do not support National in
general - but in this case they have promised to tackle this problem >>> >> >> with a vastly more acceptable solution.
The Water reforms legislated by Labour will be almost entirely
repealed (only the Water Services Regulator remains). National's plan >>> >> >> is that 3-waters will remain owned and operated by local bodies but >>> >> >> with Government oversight in the form of the (existing) Water
Services
Regulator (which sets water standards that must be met) and a new
Water Infrastructure Regulator that monitors each local body
operation
of water services - ensuring plant and equipment is fit-for-purpose >>> >> >> and properly maintained.
Where either regulator finds that any one local body is unable to
meet
their regulatory obligations enforcement action will be taken and
this
may require financial assistance to be given if the impost on
ratepayers is not sustainable. This is a vastly superior plan that >>> >> >> comes with no hidden agendas other than regulation and possible
taxpayer assistance where required.
Details are here (including a downloadable pdf document for detail): >>> >> >>
https://www.national.org.nz/local_water_done_well
pledge to do away with it.
National has motars loaded, it now is just a matter of watching Labour >>> >> >dive
for cover and the whole party implodes as the polls dive.
New Zealand we can do this!
will wait and see if or how Labour respond. He is usually very quick
to respond with his anti-National rhetoric.
Rich had the good sense to start his own thread on it Crash. It's just the >>usual mindless left wing political nonsense and lies :)
Newsroom have responded with an editorial claiming that what National
have announced is not new and has resulted in the current issues of
failure. My response to that is that the new Water Infrastructure
Regulator should have the power to recommend to the Local Government
Minister that the elected Council be replaced with Commissioners in
the event of wilful failure to maintain water assets as required.
I covered that in my post earlier today - the government did just that
for the Kaipara Council when they ran up debt they could not service.
But on the news this morning was an assurance from National that rates
would not increase under National as they would be arranging long tem >finance. Most people know that if you borrow then both the interest
and capital do need to be repaid - perhaps the National spokesperson
has a bit more explaining to do . . .
--
Crash McBash
On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 9:01:03?AM UTC+13, Crash wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 21:09:33 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 5:18:23?PM UTC+13, Tony wrote:Interesting that Rich has yet to engage in this thread. Perhaps he
Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Labour persisting with the highly unpopular and stupid 3 waters can only help Labours chances of coming third later this year :)
On 2023-02-25, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:Yes we can and I believe we must.
First a reminder of where we are with Labour's policy. They have set >> >> >> up four new Water Entities that each will acquire and operate allWell, this is ecouraging. A detailed plan which reaks of common sense and a
water assets in their area. There is no local input and each will be >> >> >> co-governed with Maori interests. These Water Entities are in the
throes of establishment so clearly their first focus is to take over >> >> >> existing assets and operational staff to keep water flowing. Exactly >> >> >> what, how and when the infrastructure deficit will be tackled is not >> >> >> in sight and not likely to be for at least a year or 2, given they
commence operation on July 1 2024.
My interest here is that Labour have legislated a fundamentally flawed >> >> >> solution to water infrastructure deficits in some local bodies driven >> >> >> by the hidden agenda that is the He Puapua report advocating
co-governance amongst other things. I do not support National in
general - but in this case they have promised to tackle this problem >> >> >> with a vastly more acceptable solution.
The Water reforms legislated by Labour will be almost entirely
repealed (only the Water Services Regulator remains). National's plan >> >> >> is that 3-waters will remain owned and operated by local bodies but
with Government oversight in the form of the (existing) Water Services >> >> >> Regulator (which sets water standards that must be met) and a new
Water Infrastructure Regulator that monitors each local body operation >> >> >> of water services - ensuring plant and equipment is fit-for-purpose
and properly maintained.
Where either regulator finds that any one local body is unable to meet >> >> >> their regulatory obligations enforcement action will be taken and this >> >> >> may require financial assistance to be given if the impost on
ratepayers is not sustainable. This is a vastly superior plan that
comes with no hidden agendas other than regulation and possible
taxpayer assistance where required.
Details are here (including a downloadable pdf document for detail): >> >> >>
https://www.national.org.nz/local_water_done_well
pledge to do away with it.
National has motars loaded, it now is just a matter of watching Labour dive
for cover and the whole party implodes as the polls dive.
New Zealand we can do this!
will wait and see if or how Labour respond. He is usually very quick
to respond with his anti-National rhetoric.
Rich had the good sense to start his own thread on it Crash. It's just the usual mindless left wing political nonsense and lies :)
Newsroom have responded with an editorial claiming that what National
have announced is not new and has resulted in the current issues of
failure. My response to that is that the new Water Infrastructure
Regulator should have the power to recommend to the Local Government
Minister that the elected Council be replaced with Commissioners in
the event of wilful failure to maintain water assets as required.
--
Crash McBash
On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 14:04:00 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 9:01:03?AM UTC+13, Crash wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 21:09:33 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 5:18:23?PM UTC+13, Tony wrote:Interesting that Rich has yet to engage in this thread. Perhaps he
Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Labour persisting with the highly unpopular and stupid 3 waters can only help Labours chances of coming third later this year :)
On 2023-02-25, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:Yes we can and I believe we must.
First a reminder of where we are with Labour's policy. They have setWell, this is ecouraging. A detailed plan which reaks of common sense and a
up four new Water Entities that each will acquire and operate all >> >> >> water assets in their area. There is no local input and each will be
co-governed with Maori interests. These Water Entities are in the >> >> >> throes of establishment so clearly their first focus is to take over
existing assets and operational staff to keep water flowing. Exactly
what, how and when the infrastructure deficit will be tackled is not
in sight and not likely to be for at least a year or 2, given they >> >> >> commence operation on July 1 2024.
My interest here is that Labour have legislated a fundamentally flawed
solution to water infrastructure deficits in some local bodies driven
by the hidden agenda that is the He Puapua report advocating
co-governance amongst other things. I do not support National in
general - but in this case they have promised to tackle this problem
with a vastly more acceptable solution.
The Water reforms legislated by Labour will be almost entirely
repealed (only the Water Services Regulator remains). National's plan
is that 3-waters will remain owned and operated by local bodies but >> >> >> with Government oversight in the form of the (existing) Water Services
Regulator (which sets water standards that must be met) and a new >> >> >> Water Infrastructure Regulator that monitors each local body operation
of water services - ensuring plant and equipment is fit-for-purpose >> >> >> and properly maintained.
Where either regulator finds that any one local body is unable to meet
their regulatory obligations enforcement action will be taken and this
may require financial assistance to be given if the impost on
ratepayers is not sustainable. This is a vastly superior plan that >> >> >> comes with no hidden agendas other than regulation and possible
taxpayer assistance where required.
Details are here (including a downloadable pdf document for detail):
https://www.national.org.nz/local_water_done_well
pledge to do away with it.
National has motars loaded, it now is just a matter of watching Labour dive
for cover and the whole party implodes as the polls dive.
New Zealand we can do this!
will wait and see if or how Labour respond. He is usually very quick
to respond with his anti-National rhetoric.
Rich had the good sense to start his own thread on it Crash. It's just the usual mindless left wing political nonsense and lies :)
I covered that in my post earlier today - the government did just that
Newsroom have responded with an editorial claiming that what National
have announced is not new and has resulted in the current issues of
failure. My response to that is that the new Water Infrastructure
Regulator should have the power to recommend to the Local Government
Minister that the elected Council be replaced with Commissioners in
the event of wilful failure to maintain water assets as required.
for the Kaipara Council when they ran up debt they could not service.
But on the news this morning was an assurance from National that rates
would not increase under National as they would be arranging long tem finance. Most people know that if you borrow then both the interest
and capital do need to be repaid - perhaps the National spokesperson
has a bit more explaining to do . . .
--
Crash McBash
On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 21:09:33 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
<bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 5:18:23?PM UTC+13, Tony wrote:
Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Labour persisting with the highly unpopular and stupid 3 waters can only help Labours chances of coming third later this year :)
On 2023-02-25, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:Yes we can and I believe we must.
First a reminder of where we are with Labour's policy. They have setWell, this is ecouraging. A detailed plan which reaks of common sense and a
up four new Water Entities that each will acquire and operate all
water assets in their area. There is no local input and each will be
co-governed with Maori interests. These Water Entities are in the
throes of establishment so clearly their first focus is to take over
existing assets and operational staff to keep water flowing. Exactly
what, how and when the infrastructure deficit will be tackled is not
in sight and not likely to be for at least a year or 2, given they
commence operation on July 1 2024.
My interest here is that Labour have legislated a fundamentally flawed >>> >> solution to water infrastructure deficits in some local bodies driven >>> >> by the hidden agenda that is the He Puapua report advocating
co-governance amongst other things. I do not support National in
general - but in this case they have promised to tackle this problem
with a vastly more acceptable solution.
The Water reforms legislated by Labour will be almost entirely
repealed (only the Water Services Regulator remains). National's plan >>> >> is that 3-waters will remain owned and operated by local bodies but
with Government oversight in the form of the (existing) Water Services >>> >> Regulator (which sets water standards that must be met) and a new
Water Infrastructure Regulator that monitors each local body operation >>> >> of water services - ensuring plant and equipment is fit-for-purpose
and properly maintained.
Where either regulator finds that any one local body is unable to meet >>> >> their regulatory obligations enforcement action will be taken and this >>> >> may require financial assistance to be given if the impost on
ratepayers is not sustainable. This is a vastly superior plan that
comes with no hidden agendas other than regulation and possible
taxpayer assistance where required.
Details are here (including a downloadable pdf document for detail):
https://www.national.org.nz/local_water_done_well
pledge to do away with it.
National has motars loaded, it now is just a matter of watching Labour dive
for cover and the whole party implodes as the polls dive.
New Zealand we can do this!
Interesting that Rich has yet to engage in this thread. Perhaps he
will wait and see if or how Labour respond. He is usually very quick
to respond with his anti-National rhetoric.
Newsroom have responded with an editorial claiming that what National
have announced is not new and has resulted in the current issues of
failure. My response to that is that the new Water Infrastructure
Regulator should have the power to recommend to the Local Government
Minister that the elected Council be replaced with Commissioners in
the event of wilful failure to maintain water assets as required.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 14:04:00 -0800 (PST), John Bowes >><bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:And perhaps the same amount of money would have to be raised by any government
On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 9:01:03?AM UTC+13, Crash wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 21:09:33 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 5:18:23?PM UTC+13, Tony wrote:Interesting that Rich has yet to engage in this thread. Perhaps he
Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Labour persisting with the highly unpopular and stupid 3 waters can only >>>> >help Labours chances of coming third later this year :)
On 2023-02-25, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:Yes we can and I believe we must.
First a reminder of where we are with Labour's policy. They have set >>>> >> >> up four new Water Entities that each will acquire and operate all >>>> >> >> water assets in their area. There is no local input and each will be >>>> >> >> co-governed with Maori interests. These Water Entities are in the >>>> >> >> throes of establishment so clearly their first focus is to take over >>>> >> >> existing assets and operational staff to keep water flowing. Exactly >>>> >> >> what, how and when the infrastructure deficit will be tackled is not >>>> >> >> in sight and not likely to be for at least a year or 2, given they >>>> >> >> commence operation on July 1 2024.Well, this is ecouraging. A detailed plan which reaks of common sense >>>> >> >and a
My interest here is that Labour have legislated a fundamentally
flawed
solution to water infrastructure deficits in some local bodies driven
by the hidden agenda that is the He Puapua report advocating
co-governance amongst other things. I do not support National in >>>> >> >> general - but in this case they have promised to tackle this problem >>>> >> >> with a vastly more acceptable solution.
The Water reforms legislated by Labour will be almost entirely
repealed (only the Water Services Regulator remains). National's plan
is that 3-waters will remain owned and operated by local bodies but >>>> >> >> with Government oversight in the form of the (existing) Water
Services
Regulator (which sets water standards that must be met) and a new >>>> >> >> Water Infrastructure Regulator that monitors each local body
operation
of water services - ensuring plant and equipment is fit-for-purpose >>>> >> >> and properly maintained.
Where either regulator finds that any one local body is unable to >>>> >> >>meet
their regulatory obligations enforcement action will be taken and >>>> >> >>this
may require financial assistance to be given if the impost on
ratepayers is not sustainable. This is a vastly superior plan that >>>> >> >> comes with no hidden agendas other than regulation and possible
taxpayer assistance where required.
Details are here (including a downloadable pdf document for detail): >>>> >> >>
https://www.national.org.nz/local_water_done_well
pledge to do away with it.
National has motars loaded, it now is just a matter of watching Labour >>>> >> >dive
for cover and the whole party implodes as the polls dive.
New Zealand we can do this!
will wait and see if or how Labour respond. He is usually very quick
to respond with his anti-National rhetoric.
Rich had the good sense to start his own thread on it Crash. It's just the >>>usual mindless left wing political nonsense and lies :)
Newsroom have responded with an editorial claiming that what National
have announced is not new and has resulted in the current issues of
failure. My response to that is that the new Water Infrastructure
Regulator should have the power to recommend to the Local Government
Minister that the elected Council be replaced with Commissioners in
the event of wilful failure to maintain water assets as required.
I covered that in my post earlier today - the government did just that
for the Kaipara Council when they ran up debt they could not service.
But on the news this morning was an assurance from National that rates >>would not increase under National as they would be arranging long tem >>finance. Most people know that if you borrow then both the interest
and capital do need to be repaid - perhaps the National spokesperson
has a bit more explaining to do . . .
- the alternatives are too obvious.
So the method of raising the money is irrelevant because it has to be paid for
either from taxes or from taxes!
Many dirfferentiate between tax and rates and fair enough, but they all come from New Zealanders.
On 2023-02-26, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 14:04:00 -0800 (PST), John Bowes >>><bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:And perhaps the same amount of money would have to be raised by any government
On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 9:01:03?AM UTC+13, Crash wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 21:09:33 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 5:18:23?PM UTC+13, Tony wrote:Interesting that Rich has yet to engage in this thread. Perhaps he
Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Labour persisting with the highly unpopular and stupid 3 waters can only >>>>> >help Labours chances of coming third later this year :)
On 2023-02-25, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:Yes we can and I believe we must.
First a reminder of where we are with Labour's policy. They have setWell, this is ecouraging. A detailed plan which reaks of common sense >>>>> >> >and a
up four new Water Entities that each will acquire and operate all >>>>> >> >> water assets in their area. There is no local input and each will be
co-governed with Maori interests. These Water Entities are in the >>>>> >> >> throes of establishment so clearly their first focus is to take over
existing assets and operational staff to keep water flowing. Exactly
what, how and when the infrastructure deficit will be tackled is not
in sight and not likely to be for at least a year or 2, given they >>>>> >> >> commence operation on July 1 2024.
My interest here is that Labour have legislated a fundamentally >>>>> >> >>flawed
solution to water infrastructure deficits in some local bodies driven
by the hidden agenda that is the He Puapua report advocating
co-governance amongst other things. I do not support National in >>>>> >> >> general - but in this case they have promised to tackle this problem
with a vastly more acceptable solution.
The Water reforms legislated by Labour will be almost entirely >>>>> >> >> repealed (only the Water Services Regulator remains). National's plan
is that 3-waters will remain owned and operated by local bodies but >>>>> >> >> with Government oversight in the form of the (existing) Water
Services
Regulator (which sets water standards that must be met) and a new >>>>> >> >> Water Infrastructure Regulator that monitors each local body
operation
of water services - ensuring plant and equipment is fit-for-purpose >>>>> >> >> and properly maintained.
Where either regulator finds that any one local body is unable to >>>>> >> >>meet
their regulatory obligations enforcement action will be taken and >>>>> >> >>this
may require financial assistance to be given if the impost on
ratepayers is not sustainable. This is a vastly superior plan that >>>>> >> >> comes with no hidden agendas other than regulation and possible >>>>> >> >> taxpayer assistance where required.
Details are here (including a downloadable pdf document for detail):
https://www.national.org.nz/local_water_done_well
pledge to do away with it.
National has motars loaded, it now is just a matter of watching Labour
dive
for cover and the whole party implodes as the polls dive.
New Zealand we can do this!
will wait and see if or how Labour respond. He is usually very quick >>>>> to respond with his anti-National rhetoric.
Rich had the good sense to start his own thread on it Crash. It's just the >>>>usual mindless left wing political nonsense and lies :)
Newsroom have responded with an editorial claiming that what National >>>>> have announced is not new and has resulted in the current issues of
failure. My response to that is that the new Water Infrastructure
Regulator should have the power to recommend to the Local Government >>>>> Minister that the elected Council be replaced with Commissioners in
the event of wilful failure to maintain water assets as required.
I covered that in my post earlier today - the government did just that >>>for the Kaipara Council when they ran up debt they could not service.
But on the news this morning was an assurance from National that rates >>>would not increase under National as they would be arranging long tem >>>finance. Most people know that if you borrow then both the interest
and capital do need to be repaid - perhaps the National spokesperson
has a bit more explaining to do . . .
- the alternatives are too obvious.
So the method of raising the money is irrelevant because it has to be paid for
either from taxes or from taxes!
Many dirfferentiate between tax and rates and fair enough, but they all come >> from New Zealanders.
The other point is that the Rates are paid to the Local Council, not some >government in Auckland. Local people understand local issues.
The extra amount required might be small, in which case some adjust could be >done easily.
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2023-02-26, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:There is no reason to believe that the amount needed will be any different >under the Labour or National plans.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 14:04:00 -0800 (PST), John Bowes >>>><bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:And perhaps the same amount of money would have to be raised by any >>>government
On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 9:01:03?AM UTC+13, Crash wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 21:09:33 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 5:18:23?PM UTC+13, Tony wrote:Interesting that Rich has yet to engage in this thread. Perhaps he >>>>>> will wait and see if or how Labour respond. He is usually very quick >>>>>> to respond with his anti-National rhetoric.
Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Labour persisting with the highly unpopular and stupid 3 waters can only
On 2023-02-25, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:Yes we can and I believe we must.
First a reminder of where we are with Labour's policy. They have >>>>>> >> >>setWell, this is ecouraging. A detailed plan which reaks of common sense
up four new Water Entities that each will acquire and operate all >>>>>> >> >> water assets in their area. There is no local input and each will >>>>>> >> >>be
co-governed with Maori interests. These Water Entities are in the >>>>>> >> >> throes of establishment so clearly their first focus is to take >>>>>> >> >>over
existing assets and operational staff to keep water flowing. >>>>>> >> >>Exactly
what, how and when the infrastructure deficit will be tackled is >>>>>> >> >>not
in sight and not likely to be for at least a year or 2, given they >>>>>> >> >> commence operation on July 1 2024.
My interest here is that Labour have legislated a fundamentally >>>>>> >> >>flawed
solution to water infrastructure deficits in some local bodies >>>>>> >> >>driven
by the hidden agenda that is the He Puapua report advocating >>>>>> >> >> co-governance amongst other things. I do not support National in >>>>>> >> >> general - but in this case they have promised to tackle this >>>>>> >> >>problem
with a vastly more acceptable solution.
The Water reforms legislated by Labour will be almost entirely >>>>>> >> >> repealed (only the Water Services Regulator remains). National's >>>>>> >> >>plan
is that 3-waters will remain owned and operated by local bodies but
with Government oversight in the form of the (existing) Water >>>>>> >> >>Services
Regulator (which sets water standards that must be met) and a new >>>>>> >> >> Water Infrastructure Regulator that monitors each local body >>>>>> >> >>operation
of water services - ensuring plant and equipment is fit-for-purpose
and properly maintained.
Where either regulator finds that any one local body is unable to >>>>>> >> >>meet
their regulatory obligations enforcement action will be taken and >>>>>> >> >>this
may require financial assistance to be given if the impost on >>>>>> >> >> ratepayers is not sustainable. This is a vastly superior plan that >>>>>> >> >> comes with no hidden agendas other than regulation and possible >>>>>> >> >> taxpayer assistance where required.
Details are here (including a downloadable pdf document for
detail):
https://www.national.org.nz/local_water_done_well
and a
pledge to do away with it.
National has motars loaded, it now is just a matter of watching >>>>>> >> >Labour
dive
for cover and the whole party implodes as the polls dive.
New Zealand we can do this!
help Labours chances of coming third later this year :)
Rich had the good sense to start his own thread on it Crash. It's just the >>>>>usual mindless left wing political nonsense and lies :)
Newsroom have responded with an editorial claiming that what National >>>>>> have announced is not new and has resulted in the current issues of >>>>>> failure. My response to that is that the new Water Infrastructure
Regulator should have the power to recommend to the Local Government >>>>>> Minister that the elected Council be replaced with Commissioners in >>>>>> the event of wilful failure to maintain water assets as required.
I covered that in my post earlier today - the government did just that >>>>for the Kaipara Council when they ran up debt they could not service.
But on the news this morning was an assurance from National that rates >>>>would not increase under National as they would be arranging long tem >>>>finance. Most people know that if you borrow then both the interest
and capital do need to be repaid - perhaps the National spokesperson >>>>has a bit more explaining to do . . .
- the alternatives are too obvious.
So the method of raising the money is irrelevant because it has to be paid >>>for
either from taxes or from taxes!
Many dirfferentiate between tax and rates and fair enough, but they all come
from New Zealanders.
The other point is that the Rates are paid to the Local Council, not some >>government in Auckland. Local people understand local issues.
The extra amount required might be small, in which case some adjust could be >>done easily.
On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 03:25:39 -0000 (UTC), TonyWhat nonsense - that is a diversion (of course, what else would we expect?).
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2023-02-26, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:There is no reason to believe that the amount needed will be any different >>under the Labour or National plans.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 14:04:00 -0800 (PST), John Bowes >>>>><bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:And perhaps the same amount of money would have to be raised by any >>>>government
On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 9:01:03?AM UTC+13, Crash wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 21:09:33 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 5:18:23?PM UTC+13, Tony wrote: >>>>>>> >> Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Interesting that Rich has yet to engage in this thread. Perhaps he >>>>>>> will wait and see if or how Labour respond. He is usually very quick >>>>>>> to respond with his anti-National rhetoric.
Labour persisting with the highly unpopular and stupid 3 waters can >>>>>>> >onlyOn 2023-02-25, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:Yes we can and I believe we must.
First a reminder of where we are with Labour's policy. They have >>>>>>> >> >>setWell, this is ecouraging. A detailed plan which reaks of common >>>>>>> >> >sense
up four new Water Entities that each will acquire and operate all >>>>>>> >> >> water assets in their area. There is no local input and each will >>>>>>> >> >>be
co-governed with Maori interests. These Water Entities are in the >>>>>>> >> >> throes of establishment so clearly their first focus is to take >>>>>>> >> >>over
existing assets and operational staff to keep water flowing. >>>>>>> >> >>Exactly
what, how and when the infrastructure deficit will be tackled is >>>>>>> >> >>not
in sight and not likely to be for at least a year or 2, given >>>>>>> >> >>they
commence operation on July 1 2024.
My interest here is that Labour have legislated a fundamentally >>>>>>> >> >>flawed
solution to water infrastructure deficits in some local bodies >>>>>>> >> >>driven
by the hidden agenda that is the He Puapua report advocating >>>>>>> >> >> co-governance amongst other things. I do not support National in >>>>>>> >> >> general - but in this case they have promised to tackle this >>>>>>> >> >>problem
with a vastly more acceptable solution.
The Water reforms legislated by Labour will be almost entirely >>>>>>> >> >> repealed (only the Water Services Regulator remains). National's >>>>>>> >> >>plan
is that 3-waters will remain owned and operated by local bodies >>>>>>> >> >>but
with Government oversight in the form of the (existing) Water >>>>>>> >> >>Services
Regulator (which sets water standards that must be met) and a new >>>>>>> >> >> Water Infrastructure Regulator that monitors each local body >>>>>>> >> >>operation
of water services - ensuring plant and equipment is
fit-for-purpose
and properly maintained.
Where either regulator finds that any one local body is unable to >>>>>>> >> >>meet
their regulatory obligations enforcement action will be taken and >>>>>>> >> >>this
may require financial assistance to be given if the impost on >>>>>>> >> >> ratepayers is not sustainable. This is a vastly superior plan >>>>>>> >> >>that
comes with no hidden agendas other than regulation and possible >>>>>>> >> >> taxpayer assistance where required.
Details are here (including a downloadable pdf document for >>>>>>> >> >>detail):
https://www.national.org.nz/local_water_done_well
and a
pledge to do away with it.
National has motars loaded, it now is just a matter of watching >>>>>>> >> >Labour
dive
for cover and the whole party implodes as the polls dive.
New Zealand we can do this!
help Labours chances of coming third later this year :)
Rich had the good sense to start his own thread on it Crash. It's just >>>>>>the
usual mindless left wing political nonsense and lies :)
Newsroom have responded with an editorial claiming that what National >>>>>>> have announced is not new and has resulted in the current issues of >>>>>>> failure. My response to that is that the new Water Infrastructure >>>>>>> Regulator should have the power to recommend to the Local Government >>>>>>> Minister that the elected Council be replaced with Commissioners in >>>>>>> the event of wilful failure to maintain water assets as required.
I covered that in my post earlier today - the government did just that >>>>>for the Kaipara Council when they ran up debt they could not service. >>>>>
But on the news this morning was an assurance from National that rates >>>>>would not increase under National as they would be arranging long tem >>>>>finance. Most people know that if you borrow then both the interest >>>>>and capital do need to be repaid - perhaps the National spokesperson >>>>>has a bit more explaining to do . . .
- the alternatives are too obvious.
So the method of raising the money is irrelevant because it has to be paid >>>>for
either from taxes or from taxes!
Many dirfferentiate between tax and rates and fair enough, but they all >>>>come
from New Zealanders.
The other point is that the Rates are paid to the Local Council, not some >>>government in Auckland. Local people understand local issues.
The extra amount required might be small, in which case some adjust could be >>>done easily.
National have said that they will assist Councils to raise money
through borrowing, but that rates will not increase. It is not clear
whether they are saying the government will meet replayments or
whether Councils will use water rates to pay for the developments.
I agree with you that, leaving aside economies of scale through
Labour's approach, similar quality of systems should be achieved; at
this stage estimates of total costs for recovery from the weather
events are a wide range; there will be additional costs for water
issues in other areas.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 03:25:39 -0000 (UTC), TonyWhat nonsense - that is a diversion (of course, what else would we expect?). >It does not make an iota of difference whether the councils or the central >government fund any work. the same total costs will apply and will be paid by >us all.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2023-02-26, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:There is no reason to believe that the amount needed will be any different >>>under the Labour or National plans.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 14:04:00 -0800 (PST), John Bowes >>>>>><bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:And perhaps the same amount of money would have to be raised by any >>>>>government
On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 9:01:03?AM UTC+13, Crash wrote:I covered that in my post earlier today - the government did just that >>>>>>for the Kaipara Council when they ran up debt they could not service. >>>>>>
On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 21:09:33 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 5:18:23?PM UTC+13, Tony wrote: >>>>>>>> >> Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Interesting that Rich has yet to engage in this thread. Perhaps he >>>>>>>> will wait and see if or how Labour respond. He is usually very quick >>>>>>>> to respond with his anti-National rhetoric.
Labour persisting with the highly unpopular and stupid 3 waters can >>>>>>>> >onlyOn 2023-02-25, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:Yes we can and I believe we must.
First a reminder of where we are with Labour's policy. They have >>>>>>>> >> >>setWell, this is ecouraging. A detailed plan which reaks of common >>>>>>>> >> >sense
up four new Water Entities that each will acquire and operate all
water assets in their area. There is no local input and each will
be
co-governed with Maori interests. These Water Entities are in the
throes of establishment so clearly their first focus is to take >>>>>>>> >> >>over
existing assets and operational staff to keep water flowing. >>>>>>>> >> >>Exactly
what, how and when the infrastructure deficit will be tackled is >>>>>>>> >> >>not
in sight and not likely to be for at least a year or 2, given >>>>>>>> >> >>they
commence operation on July 1 2024.
My interest here is that Labour have legislated a fundamentally >>>>>>>> >> >>flawed
solution to water infrastructure deficits in some local bodies >>>>>>>> >> >>driven
by the hidden agenda that is the He Puapua report advocating >>>>>>>> >> >> co-governance amongst other things. I do not support National in >>>>>>>> >> >> general - but in this case they have promised to tackle this >>>>>>>> >> >>problem
with a vastly more acceptable solution.
The Water reforms legislated by Labour will be almost entirely >>>>>>>> >> >> repealed (only the Water Services Regulator remains). National's >>>>>>>> >> >>plan
is that 3-waters will remain owned and operated by local bodies >>>>>>>> >> >>but
with Government oversight in the form of the (existing) Water >>>>>>>> >> >>Services
Regulator (which sets water standards that must be met) and a new
Water Infrastructure Regulator that monitors each local body >>>>>>>> >> >>operation
of water services - ensuring plant and equipment is
fit-for-purpose
and properly maintained.
Where either regulator finds that any one local body is unable to
meet
their regulatory obligations enforcement action will be taken and
this
may require financial assistance to be given if the impost on >>>>>>>> >> >> ratepayers is not sustainable. This is a vastly superior plan >>>>>>>> >> >>that
comes with no hidden agendas other than regulation and possible >>>>>>>> >> >> taxpayer assistance where required.
Details are here (including a downloadable pdf document for >>>>>>>> >> >>detail):
https://www.national.org.nz/local_water_done_well
and a
pledge to do away with it.
National has motars loaded, it now is just a matter of watching >>>>>>>> >> >Labour
dive
for cover and the whole party implodes as the polls dive.
New Zealand we can do this!
help Labours chances of coming third later this year :)
Rich had the good sense to start his own thread on it Crash. It's just >>>>>>>the
usual mindless left wing political nonsense and lies :)
Newsroom have responded with an editorial claiming that what National >>>>>>>> have announced is not new and has resulted in the current issues of >>>>>>>> failure. My response to that is that the new Water Infrastructure >>>>>>>> Regulator should have the power to recommend to the Local Government >>>>>>>> Minister that the elected Council be replaced with Commissioners in >>>>>>>> the event of wilful failure to maintain water assets as required. >>>>>>
But on the news this morning was an assurance from National that rates >>>>>>would not increase under National as they would be arranging long tem >>>>>>finance. Most people know that if you borrow then both the interest >>>>>>and capital do need to be repaid - perhaps the National spokesperson >>>>>>has a bit more explaining to do . . .
- the alternatives are too obvious.
So the method of raising the money is irrelevant because it has to be paid
for
either from taxes or from taxes!
Many dirfferentiate between tax and rates and fair enough, but they all >>>>>come
from New Zealanders.
The other point is that the Rates are paid to the Local Council, not some >>>>government in Auckland. Local people understand local issues.
The extra amount required might be small, in which case some adjust could be
done easily.
National have said that they will assist Councils to raise money
through borrowing, but that rates will not increase. It is not clear >>whether they are saying the government will meet replayments or
whether Councils will use water rates to pay for the developments.
I agree with you that, leaving aside economies of scale through
Labour's approach, similar quality of systems should be achieved; at
this stage estimates of total costs for recovery from the weather
events are a wide range; there will be additional costs for water
issues in other areas.
Bloody obvious.
On 2023-02-26, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:There is no reason to believe that the amount needed will be any different under the Labour or National plans.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 14:04:00 -0800 (PST), John Bowes >>><bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:And perhaps the same amount of money would have to be raised by any >>government
On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 9:01:03?AM UTC+13, Crash wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 21:09:33 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 5:18:23?PM UTC+13, Tony wrote:Interesting that Rich has yet to engage in this thread. Perhaps he
Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Labour persisting with the highly unpopular and stupid 3 waters can only >>>>> >help Labours chances of coming third later this year :)
On 2023-02-25, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:Yes we can and I believe we must.
First a reminder of where we are with Labour's policy. They have >>>>> >> >>setWell, this is ecouraging. A detailed plan which reaks of common sense >>>>> >> >and a
up four new Water Entities that each will acquire and operate all >>>>> >> >> water assets in their area. There is no local input and each will >>>>> >> >>be
co-governed with Maori interests. These Water Entities are in the >>>>> >> >> throes of establishment so clearly their first focus is to take >>>>> >> >>over
existing assets and operational staff to keep water flowing.
Exactly
what, how and when the infrastructure deficit will be tackled is >>>>> >> >>not
in sight and not likely to be for at least a year or 2, given they >>>>> >> >> commence operation on July 1 2024.
My interest here is that Labour have legislated a fundamentally >>>>> >> >>flawed
solution to water infrastructure deficits in some local bodies >>>>> >> >>driven
by the hidden agenda that is the He Puapua report advocating
co-governance amongst other things. I do not support National in >>>>> >> >> general - but in this case they have promised to tackle this
problem
with a vastly more acceptable solution.
The Water reforms legislated by Labour will be almost entirely >>>>> >> >> repealed (only the Water Services Regulator remains). National's >>>>> >> >>plan
is that 3-waters will remain owned and operated by local bodies but >>>>> >> >> with Government oversight in the form of the (existing) Water
Services
Regulator (which sets water standards that must be met) and a new >>>>> >> >> Water Infrastructure Regulator that monitors each local body
operation
of water services - ensuring plant and equipment is fit-for-purpose >>>>> >> >> and properly maintained.
Where either regulator finds that any one local body is unable to >>>>> >> >>meet
their regulatory obligations enforcement action will be taken and >>>>> >> >>this
may require financial assistance to be given if the impost on
ratepayers is not sustainable. This is a vastly superior plan that >>>>> >> >> comes with no hidden agendas other than regulation and possible >>>>> >> >> taxpayer assistance where required.
Details are here (including a downloadable pdf document for
detail):
https://www.national.org.nz/local_water_done_well
pledge to do away with it.
National has motars loaded, it now is just a matter of watching
Labour
dive
for cover and the whole party implodes as the polls dive.
New Zealand we can do this!
will wait and see if or how Labour respond. He is usually very quick >>>>> to respond with his anti-National rhetoric.
Rich had the good sense to start his own thread on it Crash. It's just the >>>>usual mindless left wing political nonsense and lies :)
Newsroom have responded with an editorial claiming that what National >>>>> have announced is not new and has resulted in the current issues of
failure. My response to that is that the new Water Infrastructure
Regulator should have the power to recommend to the Local Government >>>>> Minister that the elected Council be replaced with Commissioners in
the event of wilful failure to maintain water assets as required.
I covered that in my post earlier today - the government did just that >>>for the Kaipara Council when they ran up debt they could not service.
But on the news this morning was an assurance from National that rates >>>would not increase under National as they would be arranging long tem >>>finance. Most people know that if you borrow then both the interest
and capital do need to be repaid - perhaps the National spokesperson
has a bit more explaining to do . . .
- the alternatives are too obvious.
So the method of raising the money is irrelevant because it has to be paid >>for
either from taxes or from taxes!
Many dirfferentiate between tax and rates and fair enough, but they all come >> from New Zealanders.
The other point is that the Rates are paid to the Local Council, not some >government in Auckland. Local people understand local issues.
The extra amount required might be small, in which case some adjust could be >done easily.
On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 03:37:52 -0000 (UTC), TonyI dismissed nothing. Your mathematical skills are without doubt aligned with your integrity.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 03:25:39 -0000 (UTC), TonyWhat nonsense - that is a diversion (of course, what else would we expect?). >>It does not make an iota of difference whether the councils or the central >>government fund any work. the same total costs will apply and will be paid by >>us all.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2023-02-26, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:There is no reason to believe that the amount needed will be any different >>>>under the Labour or National plans.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 14:04:00 -0800 (PST), John Bowes >>>>>>><bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:And perhaps the same amount of money would have to be raised by any >>>>>>government
On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 9:01:03?AM UTC+13, Crash wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 21:09:33 -0800 (PST), John BowesI covered that in my post earlier today - the government did just that >>>>>>>for the Kaipara Council when they ran up debt they could not service. >>>>>>>
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 5:18:23?PM UTC+13, Tony wrote: >>>>>>>>> >> Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Interesting that Rich has yet to engage in this thread. Perhaps he >>>>>>>>> will wait and see if or how Labour respond. He is usually very quick >>>>>>>>> to respond with his anti-National rhetoric.
Labour persisting with the highly unpopular and stupid 3 waters can >>>>>>>>> >onlyOn 2023-02-25, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:Yes we can and I believe we must.
First a reminder of where we are with Labour's policy. They >>>>>>>>> >> >>haveWell, this is ecouraging. A detailed plan which reaks of common >>>>>>>>> >> >sense
set
up four new Water Entities that each will acquire and operate >>>>>>>>> >> >>all
water assets in their area. There is no local input and each >>>>>>>>> >> >>will
be
co-governed with Maori interests. These Water Entities are in >>>>>>>>> >> >>the
throes of establishment so clearly their first focus is to take >>>>>>>>> >> >>over
existing assets and operational staff to keep water flowing. >>>>>>>>> >> >>Exactly
what, how and when the infrastructure deficit will be tackled >>>>>>>>> >> >>is
not
in sight and not likely to be for at least a year or 2, given >>>>>>>>> >> >>they
commence operation on July 1 2024.
My interest here is that Labour have legislated a fundamentally >>>>>>>>> >> >>flawed
solution to water infrastructure deficits in some local bodies >>>>>>>>> >> >>driven
by the hidden agenda that is the He Puapua report advocating >>>>>>>>> >> >> co-governance amongst other things. I do not support National >>>>>>>>> >> >>in
general - but in this case they have promised to tackle this >>>>>>>>> >> >>problem
with a vastly more acceptable solution.
The Water reforms legislated by Labour will be almost entirely >>>>>>>>> >> >> repealed (only the Water Services Regulator remains).
National's
plan
is that 3-waters will remain owned and operated by local bodies >>>>>>>>> >> >>but
with Government oversight in the form of the (existing) Water >>>>>>>>> >> >>Services
Regulator (which sets water standards that must be met) and a >>>>>>>>> >> >>new
Water Infrastructure Regulator that monitors each local body >>>>>>>>> >> >>operation
of water services - ensuring plant and equipment is
fit-for-purpose
and properly maintained.
Where either regulator finds that any one local body is unable >>>>>>>>> >> >>to
meet
their regulatory obligations enforcement action will be taken >>>>>>>>> >> >>and
this
may require financial assistance to be given if the impost on >>>>>>>>> >> >> ratepayers is not sustainable. This is a vastly superior plan >>>>>>>>> >> >>that
comes with no hidden agendas other than regulation and possible >>>>>>>>> >> >> taxpayer assistance where required.
Details are here (including a downloadable pdf document for >>>>>>>>> >> >>detail):
https://www.national.org.nz/local_water_done_well
and a
pledge to do away with it.
National has motars loaded, it now is just a matter of watching >>>>>>>>> >> >Labour
dive
for cover and the whole party implodes as the polls dive. >>>>>>>>> >> >
New Zealand we can do this!
help Labours chances of coming third later this year :)
Rich had the good sense to start his own thread on it Crash. It's just >>>>>>>>the
usual mindless left wing political nonsense and lies :)
Newsroom have responded with an editorial claiming that what National >>>>>>>>> have announced is not new and has resulted in the current issues of >>>>>>>>> failure. My response to that is that the new Water Infrastructure >>>>>>>>> Regulator should have the power to recommend to the Local Government >>>>>>>>> Minister that the elected Council be replaced with Commissioners in >>>>>>>>> the event of wilful failure to maintain water assets as required. >>>>>>>
But on the news this morning was an assurance from National that rates >>>>>>>would not increase under National as they would be arranging long tem >>>>>>>finance. Most people know that if you borrow then both the interest >>>>>>>and capital do need to be repaid - perhaps the National spokesperson >>>>>>>has a bit more explaining to do . . .
- the alternatives are too obvious.
So the method of raising the money is irrelevant because it has to be >>>>>>paid
for
either from taxes or from taxes!
Many dirfferentiate between tax and rates and fair enough, but they all >>>>>>come
from New Zealanders.
The other point is that the Rates are paid to the Local Council, not some >>>>>government in Auckland. Local people understand local issues.
The extra amount required might be small, in which case some adjust could >>>>>be
done easily.
National have said that they will assist Councils to raise money
through borrowing, but that rates will not increase. It is not clear >>>whether they are saying the government will meet replayments or
whether Councils will use water rates to pay for the developments.
I agree with you that, leaving aside economies of scale through
Labour's approach, similar quality of systems should be achieved; at
this stage estimates of total costs for recovery from the weather
events are a wide range; there will be additional costs for water
issues in other areas.
Bloody obvious.
There are efficiencies through larger groupings as I noted, but they
are difficult to estimate. I do not dismiss as readily as you
National's statements that the Councils will repay the loans but that
rates will not increase; doubtless it will be clarified soon.
On 27 Feb 2023 02:56:20 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2023-02-26, Tony <lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 14:04:00 -0800 (PST), John Bowes >>><bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:And perhaps the same amount of money would have to be raised by any government
On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 9:01:03?AM UTC+13, Crash wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 21:09:33 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 5:18:23?PM UTC+13, Tony wrote: >>>>> >> Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Interesting that Rich has yet to engage in this thread. Perhaps he >>>>> will wait and see if or how Labour respond. He is usually very quick >>>>> to respond with his anti-National rhetoric.
Labour persisting with the highly unpopular and stupid 3 waters can onlyOn 2023-02-25, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:Yes we can and I believe we must.
First a reminder of where we are with Labour's policy. They have setWell, this is ecouraging. A detailed plan which reaks of common sense
up four new Water Entities that each will acquire and operate all
water assets in their area. There is no local input and each will be
co-governed with Maori interests. These Water Entities are in the
throes of establishment so clearly their first focus is to take over
existing assets and operational staff to keep water flowing. Exactly
what, how and when the infrastructure deficit will be tackled is not
in sight and not likely to be for at least a year or 2, given they
commence operation on July 1 2024.
My interest here is that Labour have legislated a fundamentally >>>>> >> >>flawed
solution to water infrastructure deficits in some local bodies driven
by the hidden agenda that is the He Puapua report advocating >>>>> >> >> co-governance amongst other things. I do not support National in >>>>> >> >> general - but in this case they have promised to tackle this problem
with a vastly more acceptable solution.
The Water reforms legislated by Labour will be almost entirely >>>>> >> >> repealed (only the Water Services Regulator remains). National's plan
is that 3-waters will remain owned and operated by local bodies but
with Government oversight in the form of the (existing) Water >>>>> >> >>Services
Regulator (which sets water standards that must be met) and a new
Water Infrastructure Regulator that monitors each local body >>>>> >> >>operation
of water services - ensuring plant and equipment is fit-for-purpose
and properly maintained.
Where either regulator finds that any one local body is unable to
meet
their regulatory obligations enforcement action will be taken and
this
may require financial assistance to be given if the impost on >>>>> >> >> ratepayers is not sustainable. This is a vastly superior plan that
comes with no hidden agendas other than regulation and possible >>>>> >> >> taxpayer assistance where required.
Details are here (including a downloadable pdf document for detail):
https://www.national.org.nz/local_water_done_well
and a
pledge to do away with it.
National has motars loaded, it now is just a matter of watching Labour
dive
for cover and the whole party implodes as the polls dive.
New Zealand we can do this!
help Labours chances of coming third later this year :)
Rich had the good sense to start his own thread on it Crash. It's just the
usual mindless left wing political nonsense and lies :)
Newsroom have responded with an editorial claiming that what National >>>>> have announced is not new and has resulted in the current issues of >>>>> failure. My response to that is that the new Water Infrastructure >>>>> Regulator should have the power to recommend to the Local Government >>>>> Minister that the elected Council be replaced with Commissioners in >>>>> the event of wilful failure to maintain water assets as required.
I covered that in my post earlier today - the government did just that >>>for the Kaipara Council when they ran up debt they could not service.
But on the news this morning was an assurance from National that rates >>>would not increase under National as they would be arranging long tem >>>finance. Most people know that if you borrow then both the interest >>>and capital do need to be repaid - perhaps the National spokesperson >>>has a bit more explaining to do . . .
- the alternatives are too obvious.
So the method of raising the money is irrelevant because it has to be paid for
either from taxes or from taxes!
Many dirfferentiate between tax and rates and fair enough, but they all come
from New Zealanders.
The other point is that the Rates are paid to the Local Council, not some >government in Auckland. Local people understand local issues.
The extra amount required might be small, in which case some adjust could beFor the Kaipara Council, the extra amount was too high for ratepayers
done easily.
- they took the council to court which is why the then National
Government had to sack the Council. Some off the water schemes that
will now have to be put in place will be more expensive than that
small development - to have them paid through rates would cause large increases; but National is apparently saying that the Councils will
have to pay but rates will not increase . . .
On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 03:37:52 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 03:25:39 -0000 (UTC), TonyWhat nonsense - that is a diversion (of course, what else would we expect?). >>It does not make an iota of difference whether the councils or the central >>government fund any work. the same total costs will apply and will be paid by >>us all.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2023-02-26, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:There is no reason to believe that the amount needed will be any different >>>>under the Labour or National plans.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 14:04:00 -0800 (PST), John Bowes >>>>>>><bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:And perhaps the same amount of money would have to be raised by any >>>>>>government
On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 9:01:03?AM UTC+13, Crash wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 21:09:33 -0800 (PST), John BowesI covered that in my post earlier today - the government did just that >>>>>>>for the Kaipara Council when they ran up debt they could not service. >>>>>>>
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 5:18:23?PM UTC+13, Tony wrote: >>>>>>>>> >> Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Interesting that Rich has yet to engage in this thread. Perhaps he >>>>>>>>> will wait and see if or how Labour respond. He is usually very quick >>>>>>>>> to respond with his anti-National rhetoric.
Labour persisting with the highly unpopular and stupid 3 waters can >>>>>>>>> >onlyOn 2023-02-25, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:Yes we can and I believe we must.
First a reminder of where we are with Labour's policy. They haveWell, this is ecouraging. A detailed plan which reaks of common >>>>>>>>> >> >sense
set
up four new Water Entities that each will acquire and operate all
water assets in their area. There is no local input and each will
be
co-governed with Maori interests. These Water Entities are in the
throes of establishment so clearly their first focus is to take >>>>>>>>> >> >>over
existing assets and operational staff to keep water flowing. >>>>>>>>> >> >>Exactly
what, how and when the infrastructure deficit will be tackled is
not
in sight and not likely to be for at least a year or 2, given >>>>>>>>> >> >>they
commence operation on July 1 2024.
My interest here is that Labour have legislated a fundamentally >>>>>>>>> >> >>flawed
solution to water infrastructure deficits in some local bodies >>>>>>>>> >> >>driven
by the hidden agenda that is the He Puapua report advocating >>>>>>>>> >> >> co-governance amongst other things. I do not support National in
general - but in this case they have promised to tackle this >>>>>>>>> >> >>problem
with a vastly more acceptable solution.
The Water reforms legislated by Labour will be almost entirely >>>>>>>>> >> >> repealed (only the Water Services Regulator remains). National's
plan
is that 3-waters will remain owned and operated by local bodies >>>>>>>>> >> >>but
with Government oversight in the form of the (existing) Water >>>>>>>>> >> >>Services
Regulator (which sets water standards that must be met) and a new
Water Infrastructure Regulator that monitors each local body >>>>>>>>> >> >>operation
of water services - ensuring plant and equipment is
fit-for-purpose
and properly maintained.
Where either regulator finds that any one local body is unable to
meet
their regulatory obligations enforcement action will be taken and
this
may require financial assistance to be given if the impost on >>>>>>>>> >> >> ratepayers is not sustainable. This is a vastly superior plan >>>>>>>>> >> >>that
comes with no hidden agendas other than regulation and possible >>>>>>>>> >> >> taxpayer assistance where required.
Details are here (including a downloadable pdf document for >>>>>>>>> >> >>detail):
https://www.national.org.nz/local_water_done_well
and a
pledge to do away with it.
National has motars loaded, it now is just a matter of watching >>>>>>>>> >> >Labour
dive
for cover and the whole party implodes as the polls dive. >>>>>>>>> >> >
New Zealand we can do this!
help Labours chances of coming third later this year :)
Rich had the good sense to start his own thread on it Crash. It's just >>>>>>>>the
usual mindless left wing political nonsense and lies :)
Newsroom have responded with an editorial claiming that what National >>>>>>>>> have announced is not new and has resulted in the current issues of >>>>>>>>> failure. My response to that is that the new Water Infrastructure >>>>>>>>> Regulator should have the power to recommend to the Local Government >>>>>>>>> Minister that the elected Council be replaced with Commissioners in >>>>>>>>> the event of wilful failure to maintain water assets as required. >>>>>>>
But on the news this morning was an assurance from National that rates >>>>>>>would not increase under National as they would be arranging long tem >>>>>>>finance. Most people know that if you borrow then both the interest >>>>>>>and capital do need to be repaid - perhaps the National spokesperson >>>>>>>has a bit more explaining to do . . .
- the alternatives are too obvious.
So the method of raising the money is irrelevant because it has to be paid
for
either from taxes or from taxes!
Many dirfferentiate between tax and rates and fair enough, but they all >>>>>>come
from New Zealanders.
The other point is that the Rates are paid to the Local Council, not some >>>>>government in Auckland. Local people understand local issues.
The extra amount required might be small, in which case some adjust could be
done easily.
National have said that they will assist Councils to raise money
through borrowing, but that rates will not increase. It is not clear >>>whether they are saying the government will meet replayments or
whether Councils will use water rates to pay for the developments.
I agree with you that, leaving aside economies of scale through
Labour's approach, similar quality of systems should be achieved; at
this stage estimates of total costs for recovery from the weather
events are a wide range; there will be additional costs for water
issues in other areas.
Bloody obvious.
There are efficiencies through larger groupings as I noted, but they
are difficult to estimate. I do not dismiss as readily as you
National's statements that the Councils will repay the loans but that
rates will not increase; doubtless it will be clarified soon.
On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 4:24:51?PM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:the 2016 local elections and full self-management was granted from the 2019 local elections onwards.[5] "
On 27 Feb 2023 02:56:20 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2023-02-26, Tony <lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:For the Kaipara Council, the extra amount was too high for ratepayers
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 14:04:00 -0800 (PST), John BowesAnd perhaps the same amount of money would have to be raised by any government
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 9:01:03?AM UTC+13, Crash wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 21:09:33 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 5:18:23?PM UTC+13, Tony wrote:Interesting that Rich has yet to engage in this thread. Perhaps he
Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Labour persisting with the highly unpopular and stupid 3 waters can only
On 2023-02-25, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:Yes we can and I believe we must.
First a reminder of where we are with Labour's policy. They have setWell, this is ecouraging. A detailed plan which reaks of common sense
up four new Water Entities that each will acquire and operate all
water assets in their area. There is no local input and each will be
co-governed with Maori interests. These Water Entities are in the
throes of establishment so clearly their first focus is to take over
existing assets and operational staff to keep water flowing. Exactly
what, how and when the infrastructure deficit will be tackled is not
in sight and not likely to be for at least a year or 2, given they
commence operation on July 1 2024.
My interest here is that Labour have legislated a fundamentally >> >>>>> >> >>flawed
solution to water infrastructure deficits in some local bodies driven
by the hidden agenda that is the He Puapua report advocating
co-governance amongst other things. I do not support National in >> >>>>> >> >> general - but in this case they have promised to tackle this problem
with a vastly more acceptable solution.
The Water reforms legislated by Labour will be almost entirely >> >>>>> >> >> repealed (only the Water Services Regulator remains). National's plan
is that 3-waters will remain owned and operated by local bodies but
with Government oversight in the form of the (existing) Water
Services
Regulator (which sets water standards that must be met) and a new
Water Infrastructure Regulator that monitors each local body
operation
of water services - ensuring plant and equipment is fit-for-purpose
and properly maintained.
Where either regulator finds that any one local body is unable to
meet
their regulatory obligations enforcement action will be taken and
this
may require financial assistance to be given if the impost on
ratepayers is not sustainable. This is a vastly superior plan that
comes with no hidden agendas other than regulation and possible >> >>>>> >> >> taxpayer assistance where required.
Details are here (including a downloadable pdf document for detail):
https://www.national.org.nz/local_water_done_well
and a
pledge to do away with it.
National has motars loaded, it now is just a matter of watching Labour
dive
for cover and the whole party implodes as the polls dive.
New Zealand we can do this!
help Labours chances of coming third later this year :)
will wait and see if or how Labour respond. He is usually very quick >> >>>>> to respond with his anti-National rhetoric.
Rich had the good sense to start his own thread on it Crash. It's just the
usual mindless left wing political nonsense and lies :)
Newsroom have responded with an editorial claiming that what National >> >>>>> have announced is not new and has resulted in the current issues of
failure. My response to that is that the new Water Infrastructure
Regulator should have the power to recommend to the Local Government >> >>>>> Minister that the elected Council be replaced with Commissioners in
the event of wilful failure to maintain water assets as required.
I covered that in my post earlier today - the government did just that
for the Kaipara Council when they ran up debt they could not service.
But on the news this morning was an assurance from National that rates
would not increase under National as they would be arranging long tem
finance. Most people know that if you borrow then both the interest
and capital do need to be repaid - perhaps the National spokesperson
has a bit more explaining to do . . .
- the alternatives are too obvious.
So the method of raising the money is irrelevant because it has to be paid for
either from taxes or from taxes!
Many dirfferentiate between tax and rates and fair enough, but they all come
from New Zealanders.
The other point is that the Rates are paid to the Local Council, not some >> >government in Auckland. Local people understand local issues.
The extra amount required might be small, in which case some adjust could be
done easily.
- they took the council to court which is why the then National
Government had to sack the Council. Some off the water schemes that
will now have to be put in place will be more expensive than that
small development - to have them paid through rates would cause large
increases; but National is apparently saying that the Councils will
have to pay but rates will not increase . . .
You talking about this Rich? Because it doesn't seem to match the story you're telling. Not surprising considering who's telling it...
"Graeme Ramsey was Mayor from 1998 to 2004.[3][4]
In 2012, the district council was sacked by the government and replaced with commissioners over a proposed 31 per cent increase in rates to cover the costs of the Mangawhai Community Wastewater Scheme. Some component of local democracy was restored for
btw here's the link in case you're interested in the facts! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayor_of_Kaipara
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:If by "we" you mean the government, the Council, ratepayers and
On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 03:37:52 -0000 (UTC), TonyI dismissed nothing. Your mathematical skills are without doubt aligned with >your integrity.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 03:25:39 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:What nonsense - that is a diversion (of course, what else would we expect?). >>>It does not make an iota of difference whether the councils or the central >>>government fund any work. the same total costs will apply and will be paid by
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2023-02-26, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:There is no reason to believe that the amount needed will be any different >>>>>under the Labour or National plans.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 14:04:00 -0800 (PST), John Bowes >>>>>>>><bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:And perhaps the same amount of money would have to be raised by any >>>>>>>government
On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 9:01:03?AM UTC+13, Crash wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 21:09:33 -0800 (PST), John BowesI covered that in my post earlier today - the government did just that >>>>>>>>for the Kaipara Council when they ran up debt they could not service. >>>>>>>>
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 5:18:23?PM UTC+13, Tony wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >> Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Interesting that Rich has yet to engage in this thread. Perhaps he >>>>>>>>>> will wait and see if or how Labour respond. He is usually very quick >>>>>>>>>> to respond with his anti-National rhetoric.
Labour persisting with the highly unpopular and stupid 3 waters can >>>>>>>>>> >onlyOn 2023-02-25, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >> >> First a reminder of where we are with Labour's policy. They >>>>>>>>>> >> >>haveYes we can and I believe we must.
setWell, this is ecouraging. A detailed plan which reaks of common >>>>>>>>>> >> >sense
up four new Water Entities that each will acquire and operate >>>>>>>>>> >> >>all
water assets in their area. There is no local input and each >>>>>>>>>> >> >>will
be
co-governed with Maori interests. These Water Entities are in >>>>>>>>>> >> >>the
throes of establishment so clearly their first focus is to take
over
existing assets and operational staff to keep water flowing. >>>>>>>>>> >> >>Exactly
what, how and when the infrastructure deficit will be tackled >>>>>>>>>> >> >>is
not
in sight and not likely to be for at least a year or 2, given >>>>>>>>>> >> >>they
commence operation on July 1 2024.
My interest here is that Labour have legislated a fundamentally
flawed
solution to water infrastructure deficits in some local bodies >>>>>>>>>> >> >>driven
by the hidden agenda that is the He Puapua report advocating >>>>>>>>>> >> >> co-governance amongst other things. I do not support National >>>>>>>>>> >> >>in
general - but in this case they have promised to tackle this >>>>>>>>>> >> >>problem
with a vastly more acceptable solution.
The Water reforms legislated by Labour will be almost entirely >>>>>>>>>> >> >> repealed (only the Water Services Regulator remains). >>>>>>>>>> >> >>National's
plan
is that 3-waters will remain owned and operated by local bodies
but
with Government oversight in the form of the (existing) Water >>>>>>>>>> >> >>Services
Regulator (which sets water standards that must be met) and a >>>>>>>>>> >> >>new
Water Infrastructure Regulator that monitors each local body >>>>>>>>>> >> >>operation
of water services - ensuring plant and equipment is
fit-for-purpose
and properly maintained.
Where either regulator finds that any one local body is unable >>>>>>>>>> >> >>to
meet
their regulatory obligations enforcement action will be taken >>>>>>>>>> >> >>and
this
may require financial assistance to be given if the impost on >>>>>>>>>> >> >> ratepayers is not sustainable. This is a vastly superior plan >>>>>>>>>> >> >>that
comes with no hidden agendas other than regulation and possible
taxpayer assistance where required.
Details are here (including a downloadable pdf document for >>>>>>>>>> >> >>detail):
https://www.national.org.nz/local_water_done_well
and a
pledge to do away with it.
National has motars loaded, it now is just a matter of watching >>>>>>>>>> >> >Labour
dive
for cover and the whole party implodes as the polls dive. >>>>>>>>>> >> >
New Zealand we can do this!
help Labours chances of coming third later this year :)
Rich had the good sense to start his own thread on it Crash. It's just >>>>>>>>>the
usual mindless left wing political nonsense and lies :)
Newsroom have responded with an editorial claiming that what National
have announced is not new and has resulted in the current issues of >>>>>>>>>> failure. My response to that is that the new Water Infrastructure >>>>>>>>>> Regulator should have the power to recommend to the Local Government >>>>>>>>>> Minister that the elected Council be replaced with Commissioners in >>>>>>>>>> the event of wilful failure to maintain water assets as required. >>>>>>>>
But on the news this morning was an assurance from National that rates >>>>>>>>would not increase under National as they would be arranging long tem >>>>>>>>finance. Most people know that if you borrow then both the interest >>>>>>>>and capital do need to be repaid - perhaps the National spokesperson >>>>>>>>has a bit more explaining to do . . .
- the alternatives are too obvious.
So the method of raising the money is irrelevant because it has to be >>>>>>>paid
for
either from taxes or from taxes!
Many dirfferentiate between tax and rates and fair enough, but they all >>>>>>>come
from New Zealanders.
The other point is that the Rates are paid to the Local Council, not some >>>>>>government in Auckland. Local people understand local issues.
The extra amount required might be small, in which case some adjust could >>>>>>be
done easily.
National have said that they will assist Councils to raise money >>>>through borrowing, but that rates will not increase. It is not clear >>>>whether they are saying the government will meet replayments or
whether Councils will use water rates to pay for the developments.
I agree with you that, leaving aside economies of scale through >>>>Labour's approach, similar quality of systems should be achieved; at >>>>this stage estimates of total costs for recovery from the weather >>>>events are a wide range; there will be additional costs for water >>>>issues in other areas.
us all.
Bloody obvious.
There are efficiencies through larger groupings as I noted, but they
are difficult to estimate. I do not dismiss as readily as you
National's statements that the Councils will repay the loans but that
rates will not increase; doubtless it will be clarified soon.
The maths are simple - the cost will be X, we will have to collectively pay X. >Where X is the cost of repair, refurbishment and ongoing maintenance.
On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 20:35:19 -0800 (PST), John Bowesfor the 2016 local elections and full self-management was granted from the 2019 local elections onwards.[5] "
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 4:24:51?PM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On 27 Feb 2023 02:56:20 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2023-02-26, Tony <lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:For the Kaipara Council, the extra amount was too high for ratepayers
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 14:04:00 -0800 (PST), John BowesAnd perhaps the same amount of money would have to be raised by any government
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 9:01:03?AM UTC+13, Crash wrote:I covered that in my post earlier today - the government did just that >> >>>for the Kaipara Council when they ran up debt they could not service. >> >>>
On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 21:09:33 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 5:18:23?PM UTC+13, Tony wrote: >> >>>>> >> Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Interesting that Rich has yet to engage in this thread. Perhaps he >> >>>>> will wait and see if or how Labour respond. He is usually very quick
Labour persisting with the highly unpopular and stupid 3 waters can onlyOn 2023-02-25, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:Yes we can and I believe we must.
First a reminder of where we are with Labour's policy. They have setWell, this is ecouraging. A detailed plan which reaks of common sense
up four new Water Entities that each will acquire and operate all
water assets in their area. There is no local input and each will be
co-governed with Maori interests. These Water Entities are in the
throes of establishment so clearly their first focus is to take over
existing assets and operational staff to keep water flowing. Exactly
what, how and when the infrastructure deficit will be tackled is not
in sight and not likely to be for at least a year or 2, given they
commence operation on July 1 2024.
My interest here is that Labour have legislated a fundamentally
flawed
solution to water infrastructure deficits in some local bodies driven
by the hidden agenda that is the He Puapua report advocating >> >>>>> >> >> co-governance amongst other things. I do not support National in
general - but in this case they have promised to tackle this problem
with a vastly more acceptable solution.
The Water reforms legislated by Labour will be almost entirely
repealed (only the Water Services Regulator remains). National's plan
is that 3-waters will remain owned and operated by local bodies but
with Government oversight in the form of the (existing) Water >> >>>>> >> >>Services
Regulator (which sets water standards that must be met) and a new
Water Infrastructure Regulator that monitors each local body >> >>>>> >> >>operation
of water services - ensuring plant and equipment is fit-for-purpose
and properly maintained.
Where either regulator finds that any one local body is unable to
meet
their regulatory obligations enforcement action will be taken and
this
may require financial assistance to be given if the impost on >> >>>>> >> >> ratepayers is not sustainable. This is a vastly superior plan that
comes with no hidden agendas other than regulation and possible
taxpayer assistance where required.
Details are here (including a downloadable pdf document for detail):
https://www.national.org.nz/local_water_done_well
and a
pledge to do away with it.
National has motars loaded, it now is just a matter of watching Labour
dive
for cover and the whole party implodes as the polls dive.
New Zealand we can do this!
help Labours chances of coming third later this year :)
to respond with his anti-National rhetoric.
Rich had the good sense to start his own thread on it Crash. It's just the
usual mindless left wing political nonsense and lies :)
Newsroom have responded with an editorial claiming that what National
have announced is not new and has resulted in the current issues of >> >>>>> failure. My response to that is that the new Water Infrastructure >> >>>>> Regulator should have the power to recommend to the Local Government
Minister that the elected Council be replaced with Commissioners in >> >>>>> the event of wilful failure to maintain water assets as required. >> >>>
But on the news this morning was an assurance from National that rates >> >>>would not increase under National as they would be arranging long tem >> >>>finance. Most people know that if you borrow then both the interest
and capital do need to be repaid - perhaps the National spokesperson >> >>>has a bit more explaining to do . . .
- the alternatives are too obvious.
So the method of raising the money is irrelevant because it has to be paid for
either from taxes or from taxes!
Many dirfferentiate between tax and rates and fair enough, but they all come
from New Zealanders.
The other point is that the Rates are paid to the Local Council, not some
government in Auckland. Local people understand local issues.
The extra amount required might be small, in which case some adjust could be
done easily.
- they took the council to court which is why the then National
Government had to sack the Council. Some off the water schemes that
will now have to be put in place will be more expensive than that
small development - to have them paid through rates would cause large
increases; but National is apparently saying that the Councils will
have to pay but rates will not increase . . .
You talking about this Rich? Because it doesn't seem to match the story you're telling. Not surprising considering who's telling it...
"Graeme Ramsey was Mayor from 1998 to 2004.[3][4]
In 2012, the district council was sacked by the government and replaced with commissioners over a proposed 31 per cent increase in rates to cover the costs of the Mangawhai Community Wastewater Scheme. Some component of local democracy was restored
So what? Your original comment was far from the truth Rich. This link doesn't mean a thing! Pretty typical of you Rich...btw here's the link in case you're interested in the facts! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayor_of_KaiparaHere is another which gives some information not in your link https://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-advocate/news/kaipara-district-council-gets-vote-of-confidence-from-crown-manager/ERDAHJ7RHOYDHXQA2XYI2FGD74/
On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 04:44:35 -0000 (UTC), TonySo you agree that the cost of ensuring the supply of potable water will be the same to the tax and ratepayers regardless of whether the Labour power grab is in place or not. Tax and ratepayers are the only source of income. Council and government spend, they don't earn much at all.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:If by "we" you mean the government, the Council, ratepayers and
On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 03:37:52 -0000 (UTC), TonyI dismissed nothing. Your mathematical skills are without doubt aligned with >>your integrity.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 03:25:39 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:What nonsense - that is a diversion (of course, what else would we expect?).
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2023-02-26, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:There is no reason to believe that the amount needed will be any >>>>>>different
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 14:04:00 -0800 (PST), John Bowes >>>>>>>>><bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:And perhaps the same amount of money would have to be raised by any >>>>>>>>government
On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 9:01:03?AM UTC+13, Crash wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 21:09:33 -0800 (PST), John BowesI covered that in my post earlier today - the government did just that >>>>>>>>>for the Kaipara Council when they ran up debt they could not service. >>>>>>>>>
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 5:18:23?PM UTC+13, Tony wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >> Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:to respond with his anti-National rhetoric.
Labour persisting with the highly unpopular and stupid 3 waters >>>>>>>>>>> >canOn 2023-02-25, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> First a reminder of where we are with Labour's policy. They >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>haveYes we can and I believe we must.
setWell, this is ecouraging. A detailed plan which reaks of common >>>>>>>>>>> >> >sense
up four new Water Entities that each will acquire and operate >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>all
water assets in their area. There is no local input and each >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>will
be
co-governed with Maori interests. These Water Entities are in >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>the
throes of establishment so clearly their first focus is to >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>take
over
existing assets and operational staff to keep water flowing. >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>Exactly
what, how and when the infrastructure deficit will be tackled >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>is
not
in sight and not likely to be for at least a year or 2, given >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>they
commence operation on July 1 2024.
My interest here is that Labour have legislated a
fundamentally
flawed
solution to water infrastructure deficits in some local >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>bodies
driven
by the hidden agenda that is the He Puapua report advocating >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> co-governance amongst other things. I do not support National >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>in
general - but in this case they have promised to tackle this >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>problem
with a vastly more acceptable solution.
The Water reforms legislated by Labour will be almost >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>entirely
repealed (only the Water Services Regulator remains). >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>National's
plan
is that 3-waters will remain owned and operated by local >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>bodies
but
with Government oversight in the form of the (existing) Water >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>Services
Regulator (which sets water standards that must be met) and a >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>new
Water Infrastructure Regulator that monitors each local body >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>operation
of water services - ensuring plant and equipment is >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>fit-for-purpose
and properly maintained.
Where either regulator finds that any one local body is >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>unable
to
meet
their regulatory obligations enforcement action will be taken >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>and
this
may require financial assistance to be given if the impost on >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> ratepayers is not sustainable. This is a vastly superior plan >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>that
comes with no hidden agendas other than regulation and >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>possible
taxpayer assistance where required.
Details are here (including a downloadable pdf document for >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>detail):
https://www.national.org.nz/local_water_done_well
and a
pledge to do away with it.
National has motars loaded, it now is just a matter of watching >>>>>>>>>>> >> >Labour
dive
for cover and the whole party implodes as the polls dive. >>>>>>>>>>> >> >
New Zealand we can do this!
only
help Labours chances of coming third later this year :) >>>>>>>>>>> Interesting that Rich has yet to engage in this thread. Perhaps he >>>>>>>>>>> will wait and see if or how Labour respond. He is usually very >>>>>>>>>>>quick
Rich had the good sense to start his own thread on it Crash. It's >>>>>>>>>>just
the
usual mindless left wing political nonsense and lies :)
Newsroom have responded with an editorial claiming that what >>>>>>>>>>>National
have announced is not new and has resulted in the current issues of >>>>>>>>>>> failure. My response to that is that the new Water Infrastructure >>>>>>>>>>> Regulator should have the power to recommend to the Local >>>>>>>>>>>Government
Minister that the elected Council be replaced with Commissioners in >>>>>>>>>>> the event of wilful failure to maintain water assets as required. >>>>>>>>>
But on the news this morning was an assurance from National that rates >>>>>>>>>would not increase under National as they would be arranging long tem >>>>>>>>>finance. Most people know that if you borrow then both the interest >>>>>>>>>and capital do need to be repaid - perhaps the National spokesperson >>>>>>>>>has a bit more explaining to do . . .
- the alternatives are too obvious.
So the method of raising the money is irrelevant because it has to be >>>>>>>>paid
for
either from taxes or from taxes!
Many dirfferentiate between tax and rates and fair enough, but they >>>>>>>>all
come
from New Zealanders.
The other point is that the Rates are paid to the Local Council, not some
government in Auckland. Local people understand local issues.
The extra amount required might be small, in which case some adjust >>>>>>>could
be
done easily.
under the Labour or National plans.
National have said that they will assist Councils to raise money >>>>>through borrowing, but that rates will not increase. It is not clear >>>>>whether they are saying the government will meet replayments or >>>>>whether Councils will use water rates to pay for the developments.
I agree with you that, leaving aside economies of scale through >>>>>Labour's approach, similar quality of systems should be achieved; at >>>>>this stage estimates of total costs for recovery from the weather >>>>>events are a wide range; there will be additional costs for water >>>>>issues in other areas.
It does not make an iota of difference whether the councils or the central >>>>government fund any work. the same total costs will apply and will be paid >>>>by
us all.
Bloody obvious.
There are efficiencies through larger groupings as I noted, but they
are difficult to estimate. I do not dismiss as readily as you
National's statements that the Councils will repay the loans but that >>>rates will not increase; doubtless it will be clarified soon.
The maths are simple - the cost will be X, we will have to collectively pay >>X.
Where X is the cost of repair, refurbishment and ongoing maintenance.
taxpayers, then you are correct.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 125:54:39 |
| Calls: | 6,663 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,212 |
| Messages: | 5,334,951 |