This is a legacy of the John Key years - when Connor English helpedNot a single scientific reference, not one. And the mention of Greenpeace, that barely disguised terrorist organisation, just about removes all credibility from the article.
lead the attack on democracy when ECANZ was effectively sacked by the >government. At that time it was known that water pollution was causing >problems for new borns in country towns in Canterbury, and requiring >significant extra expense for Christchurch in water treatment. Now we
know it was much worse . . .
https://www.vice.com/en/article/4a3n3n/new-zealand-cows-nitrates-climate-change
This is a legacy of the John Key years - when Connor English helped
lead the attack on democracy when ECANZ was effectively sacked by the government. At that time it was known that water pollution was causing problems for new borns in country towns in Canterbury, and requiring significant extra expense for Christchurch in water treatment. Now we
know it was much worse . . .
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 03:07:52 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>https://www.vice.com/en/article/4a3n3n/new-zealand-cows-nitrates-climate-change
Not a single scientific reference, not one. And the mention of Greenpeace, that
This is a legacy of the John Key years - when Connor English helped
lead the attack on democracy when ECANZ was effectively sacked by the >>>government. At that time it was known that water pollution was causing >>>problems for new borns in country towns in Canterbury, and requiring >>>significant extra expense for Christchurch in water treatment. Now we >>>know it was much worse . . .
barely disguised terrorist organisation, just about removes all credibility >>from the article.
Your conclusions however are even worse - there is no suggestion that anybody >>in government did anything wrong - do find another straw.
So why not just look it up for yourself?
See for example: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34740625/
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 03:07:52 -0000 (UTC), TonyIt's your thread, your nonsense. Why would I want to follow up on something that is patently absurd?
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>https://www.vice.com/en/article/4a3n3n/new-zealand-cows-nitrates-climate-change
Not a single scientific reference, not one. And the mention of Greenpeace, >>that
This is a legacy of the John Key years - when Connor English helped
lead the attack on democracy when ECANZ was effectively sacked by the >>>government. At that time it was known that water pollution was causing >>>problems for new borns in country towns in Canterbury, and requiring >>>significant extra expense for Christchurch in water treatment. Now we >>>know it was much worse . . .
barely disguised terrorist organisation, just about removes all credibility >>from the article.
Your conclusions however are even worse - there is no suggestion that anybody >>in government did anything wrong - do find another straw.
So why not just look it up for yourself?
See for example: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34740625/
https://www.vice.com/en/article/4a3n3n/new-zealand-cows-nitrates-climate-change
This is a legacy of the John Key years - when Connor English helped
lead the attack on democracy when ECANZ was effectively sacked by the >government. At that time it was known that water pollution was causing >problems for new borns in country towns in Canterbury, and requiring >significant extra expense for Christchurch in water treatment. Now we
know it was much worse . . .
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>https://www.vice.com/en/article/4a3n3n/new-zealand-cows-nitrates-climate-change
Not a single scientific reference, not one. And the mention of Greenpeace, that
This is a legacy of the John Key years - when Connor English helped
lead the attack on democracy when ECANZ was effectively sacked by the >>government. At that time it was known that water pollution was causing >>problems for new borns in country towns in Canterbury, and requiring >>significant extra expense for Christchurch in water treatment. Now we
know it was much worse . . .
barely disguised terrorist organisation, just about removes all credibility >from the article.
Your conclusions however are even worse - there is no suggestion that anybody >in government did anything wrong - do find another straw.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/4a3n3n/new-zealand-cows-nitrates-climate-change
This is a legacy of the John Key years - when Connor English helped
lead the attack on democracy when ECANZ was effectively sacked by the >government. At that time it was known that water pollution was causing >problems for new borns in country towns in Canterbury, and requiring >significant extra expense for Christchurch in water treatment. Now we
know it was much worse . . .
https://www.vice.com/en/article/4a3n3n/new-zealand-cows-nitrates-climate-change
This is a legacy of the John Key years - when Connor English helped
lead the attack on democracy when ECANZ was effectively sacked by the government. At that time it was known that water pollution was causing problems for new borns in country towns in Canterbury, and requiring significant extra expense for Christchurch in water treatment. Now we
know it was much worse . . .
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 15:36:48 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 03:07:52 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>https://www.vice.com/en/article/4a3n3n/new-zealand-cows-nitrates-climate-change
Not a single scientific reference, not one. And the mention of Greenpeace, that
This is a legacy of the John Key years - when Connor English helped >>>>lead the attack on democracy when ECANZ was effectively sacked by the >>>>government. At that time it was known that water pollution was causing >>>>problems for new borns in country towns in Canterbury, and requiring >>>>significant extra expense for Christchurch in water treatment. Now we >>>>know it was much worse . . .
barely disguised terrorist organisation, just about removes all credibility >>>from the article.
Your conclusions however are even worse - there is no suggestion that anybody
in government did anything wrong - do find another straw.
So why not just look it up for yourself?
See for example: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34740625/
Not a recent article Rich and unless you can cite otherwise the
current government has done nothing about it. Are you outraged about
this?
I am sure that if you brought this to the attention of PM Hipkins he
would take time out from far more pressing current issues to promise a >Commission of Inquiry into this important issue if re-elected.
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 16:09:18 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 15:36:48 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 03:07:52 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>https://www.vice.com/en/article/4a3n3n/new-zealand-cows-nitrates-climate-change
Not a single scientific reference, not one. And the mention of Greenpeace, that
This is a legacy of the John Key years - when Connor English helped >>>>>lead the attack on democracy when ECANZ was effectively sacked by the >>>>>government. At that time it was known that water pollution was causing >>>>>problems for new borns in country towns in Canterbury, and requiring >>>>>significant extra expense for Christchurch in water treatment. Now we >>>>>know it was much worse . . .
barely disguised terrorist organisation, just about removes all credibility >>>>from the article.
Your conclusions however are even worse - there is no suggestion that anybody
in government did anything wrong - do find another straw.
So why not just look it up for yourself?
See for example: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34740625/
Not a recent article Rich and unless you can cite otherwise the
current government has done nothing about it. Are you outraged about
this?
I am sure that if you brought this to the attention of PM Hipkins he
would take time out from far more pressing current issues to promise a >>Commission of Inquiry into this important issue if re-elected.
It is certainly not a simple task - and it does appear that Opposition >Parties don't want a bar of fixing it.
This is one of the major
reasons behind the 3 Waters proposals - fixing the problem of local >authorities inheriting shit from upstream and not being able to do
anything about it except try to pass as much on to the next downstream >authority without making their people too sick.
A broader approach is
required to ensure that responsibilities fix problems rather than
passing them on, that governance is broad enough to cope with regional
issues not just very local issues, that funding is possible without
fights between neighbouring local authorities to keep rates low by
passing problems on. 3 Waters is about enabling water standards to be
met, with adequate funding, and while also working through the issues
of supply so that excessive use by one area does not mean inadequate
supply downstream.
So what do ACT and National propose to do about ensuring adequate
quantity and quality of water supply to all New Zealanders, Crash? Or
will they just deliver more bowel cancer?
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 09:30:39 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>The article was about problems in and around Gore; right at the bottom
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 16:09:18 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 15:36:48 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 03:07:52 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>https://www.vice.com/en/article/4a3n3n/new-zealand-cows-nitrates-climate-change
Not a single scientific reference, not one. And the mention of Greenpeace, that
This is a legacy of the John Key years - when Connor English helped >>>>>>lead the attack on democracy when ECANZ was effectively sacked by the >>>>>>government. At that time it was known that water pollution was causing >>>>>>problems for new borns in country towns in Canterbury, and requiring >>>>>>significant extra expense for Christchurch in water treatment. Now we >>>>>>know it was much worse . . .
barely disguised terrorist organisation, just about removes all credibility
from the article.
Your conclusions however are even worse - there is no suggestion that anybody
in government did anything wrong - do find another straw.
So why not just look it up for yourself?
See for example: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34740625/
Not a recent article Rich and unless you can cite otherwise the
current government has done nothing about it. Are you outraged about >>>this?
I am sure that if you brought this to the attention of PM Hipkins he >>>would take time out from far more pressing current issues to promise a >>>Commission of Inquiry into this important issue if re-elected.
It is certainly not a simple task - and it does appear that Opposition >>Parties don't want a bar of fixing it.
Neither does the current Government. The issue is longstanding and
after 6 years you have not identified any action they have taken.
This is one of the major
reasons behind the 3 Waters proposals - fixing the problem of local >>authorities inheriting shit from upstream and not being able to do
anything about it except try to pass as much on to the next downstream >>authority without making their people too sick.
The Water Entities cover a geographic area that is not defined by the
water sources each one uses. For example, Water Entity A sources some
water from Lake Taupo via the Waikato River. Your claim that the
water reforms will fix this is a deliberate lie.
No, I thank you for giving confirmation that agreements are neededA broader approach is
required to ensure that responsibilities fix problems rather than
passing them on, that governance is broad enough to cope with regional >>issues not just very local issues, that funding is possible without
fights between neighbouring local authorities to keep rates low by
passing problems on. 3 Waters is about enabling water standards to be
met, with adequate funding, and while also working through the issues
of supply so that excessive use by one area does not mean inadequate
supply downstream.
Irrelevant - see above.
That does not answer the question I raised in relation to the articleI take it you have come to accept that National/ACT will form the next >government because if this is not the case your concerns are
So what do ACT and National propose to do about ensuring adequate
quantity and quality of water supply to all New Zealanders, Crash? Or
will they just deliver more bowel cancer?
redundant.
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 11:27:18 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 09:30:39 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:The article was about problems in and around Gore; right at the bottom
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 16:09:18 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 15:36:48 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 03:07:52 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>https://www.vice.com/en/article/4a3n3n/new-zealand-cows-nitrates-climate-change
Not a single scientific reference, not one. And the mention of >>>>>>Greenpeace, that
This is a legacy of the John Key years - when Connor English helped >>>>>>>lead the attack on democracy when ECANZ was effectively sacked by the >>>>>>>government. At that time it was known that water pollution was causing >>>>>>>problems for new borns in country towns in Canterbury, and requiring >>>>>>>significant extra expense for Christchurch in water treatment. Now we >>>>>>>know it was much worse . . .
barely disguised terrorist organisation, just about removes all >>>>>>credibility
from the article.
Your conclusions however are even worse - there is no suggestion that >>>>>>anybody
in government did anything wrong - do find another straw.
So why not just look it up for yourself?
See for example: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34740625/
Not a recent article Rich and unless you can cite otherwise the
current government has done nothing about it. Are you outraged about >>>>this?
I am sure that if you brought this to the attention of PM Hipkins he >>>>would take time out from far more pressing current issues to promise a >>>>Commission of Inquiry into this important issue if re-elected.
It is certainly not a simple task - and it does appear that Opposition >>>Parties don't want a bar of fixing it.
Neither does the current Government. The issue is longstanding and
after 6 years you have not identified any action they have taken.
This is one of the major
reasons behind the 3 Waters proposals - fixing the problem of local >>>authorities inheriting shit from upstream and not being able to do >>>anything about it except try to pass as much on to the next downstream >>>authority without making their people too sick.
The Water Entities cover a geographic area that is not defined by the
water sources each one uses. For example, Water Entity A sources some >>water from Lake Taupo via the Waikato River. Your claim that the
water reforms will fix this is a deliberate lie.
of the South Island. But the contractual arrangements that relate to
water being taken from the Waikato to serve the needs of the Auckland
Region may well be examples of the sort of agreements needed in the
South Island - there are good governance arrangements relating to
water coming into Lake Taupo and out from it to meet the needs of
different communities (including flows to for example the Wanganui
River, and hydro plants in the region) that may well cover avoiding
the pollution of dairy into water taken to meet Auckland needs;
although I suspect further water treatment is required after water is
taken from the Waikato . . .
No, I thank you for giving confirmation that agreements are needed
A broader approach is
required to ensure that responsibilities fix problems rather than
passing them on, that governance is broad enough to cope with regional >>>issues not just very local issues, that funding is possible without >>>fights between neighbouring local authorities to keep rates low by >>>passing problems on. 3 Waters is about enabling water standards to be >>>met, with adequate funding, and while also working through the issues
of supply so that excessive use by one area does not mean inadequate >>>supply downstream.
Irrelevant - see above.
both within and between different entities involved in water supply
and appropriate treatment around New Zealand - some of the lessons
from the Waikato and Auckland Regions will have informed the 3 Water >proposals
There have never been any previous 3 waters type of arrangements in New Zealand. So clearly we do not know that any have worked.That does not answer the question I raised in relation to the articleI take it you have come to accept that National/ACT will form the next >>government because if this is not the case your concerns are
So what do ACT and National propose to do about ensuring adequate >>>quantity and quality of water supply to all New Zealanders, Crash? Or >>>will they just deliver more bowel cancer?
redundant.
about problems with water in Gore. I understand that the arrangements
made in relation to water in the Taupo region were made over a period
of time involving both the previous Labour and National governments,
with Chris Finlayson in his role relating to Treaty Settlements
encouraging and facilitating good representation of a range of views
from interested parties; resulting in cooperative structures that
became a good example of co-governance. Regardless of who wins the
next election the problems raised in the article about the effect of
nitrates from cows affecting water supplies will need to be resolved.
We know that 3 Waters type arrangements have worked in the past, and
in particular in the Taupo region that you have highlighted.
There
have however been suggestions that National has changed policies with
regards to such matters; all I am asking is what ACT and National are >proposing, as part of their election campaign, regarding this issue
which is clearly important to all New Zealanders, but perhaps
particularly at present those in Gore . . .
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 02:10:59 -0000 (UTC), TonyDon't try your bullshit on me.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 11:27:18 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:There have never been any previous 3 waters type of arrangements in New >>Zealand. So clearly we do not know that any have worked.
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 09:30:39 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:The article was about problems in and around Gore; right at the bottom
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 16:09:18 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 15:36:48 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 03:07:52 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>https://www.vice.com/en/article/4a3n3n/new-zealand-cows-nitrates-climate-change
Not a single scientific reference, not one. And the mention of >>>>>>>>Greenpeace, that
This is a legacy of the John Key years - when Connor English helped >>>>>>>>>lead the attack on democracy when ECANZ was effectively sacked by the >>>>>>>>>government. At that time it was known that water pollution was causing >>>>>>>>>problems for new borns in country towns in Canterbury, and requiring >>>>>>>>>significant extra expense for Christchurch in water treatment. Now we >>>>>>>>>know it was much worse . . .
barely disguised terrorist organisation, just about removes all >>>>>>>>credibility
from the article.
Your conclusions however are even worse - there is no suggestion that >>>>>>>>anybody
in government did anything wrong - do find another straw.
So why not just look it up for yourself?
See for example: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34740625/
Not a recent article Rich and unless you can cite otherwise the >>>>>>current government has done nothing about it. Are you outraged about >>>>>>this?
I am sure that if you brought this to the attention of PM Hipkins he >>>>>>would take time out from far more pressing current issues to promise a >>>>>>Commission of Inquiry into this important issue if re-elected.
It is certainly not a simple task - and it does appear that Opposition >>>>>Parties don't want a bar of fixing it.
Neither does the current Government. The issue is longstanding and >>>>after 6 years you have not identified any action they have taken.
This is one of the major
reasons behind the 3 Waters proposals - fixing the problem of local >>>>>authorities inheriting shit from upstream and not being able to do >>>>>anything about it except try to pass as much on to the next downstream >>>>>authority without making their people too sick.
The Water Entities cover a geographic area that is not defined by the >>>>water sources each one uses. For example, Water Entity A sources some >>>>water from Lake Taupo via the Waikato River. Your claim that the
water reforms will fix this is a deliberate lie.
of the South Island. But the contractual arrangements that relate to >>>water being taken from the Waikato to serve the needs of the Auckland >>>Region may well be examples of the sort of agreements needed in the
South Island - there are good governance arrangements relating to
water coming into Lake Taupo and out from it to meet the needs of >>>different communities (including flows to for example the Wanganui
River, and hydro plants in the region) that may well cover avoiding
the pollution of dairy into water taken to meet Auckland needs;
although I suspect further water treatment is required after water is >>>taken from the Waikato . . .
No, I thank you for giving confirmation that agreements are needed
A broader approach is
required to ensure that responsibilities fix problems rather than >>>>>passing them on, that governance is broad enough to cope with regional >>>>>issues not just very local issues, that funding is possible without >>>>>fights between neighbouring local authorities to keep rates low by >>>>>passing problems on. 3 Waters is about enabling water standards to be >>>>>met, with adequate funding, and while also working through the issues >>>>>of supply so that excessive use by one area does not mean inadequate >>>>>supply downstream.
Irrelevant - see above.
both within and between different entities involved in water supply
and appropriate treatment around New Zealand - some of the lessons
from the Waikato and Auckland Regions will have informed the 3 Water >>>proposals
That does not answer the question I raised in relation to the article >>>about problems with water in Gore. I understand that the arrangements >>>made in relation to water in the Taupo region were made over a periodI take it you have come to accept that National/ACT will form the next >>>>government because if this is not the case your concerns are
So what do ACT and National propose to do about ensuring adequate >>>>>quantity and quality of water supply to all New Zealanders, Crash? Or >>>>>will they just deliver more bowel cancer?
redundant.
of time involving both the previous Labour and National governments,
with Chris Finlayson in his role relating to Treaty Settlements >>>encouraging and facilitating good representation of a range of views
from interested parties; resulting in cooperative structures that
became a good example of co-governance. Regardless of who wins the
next election the problems raised in the article about the effect of >>>nitrates from cows affecting water supplies will need to be resolved.
We know that 3 Waters type arrangements have worked in the past, and
in particular in the Taupo region that you have highlighted.
In what way have the co governance arrangements relating to water
being diverted for hydro power relating to Turangi hydro and the
Wanganui River; and the arrangements for water use around Lake Taupo
and the talking of water from the Waikato for water supply not worked.
Tony? Are you calling the co-governance arrangements enthusiastically >supported by the National party a failure?
There
have however been suggestions that National has changed policies with >>>regards to such matters; all I am asking is what ACT and National are >>>proposing, as part of their election campaign, regarding this issue
which is clearly important to all New Zealanders, but perhaps >>>particularly at present those in Gore . . .
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 11:27:18 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:There have never been any previous 3 waters type of arrangements in New >Zealand. So clearly we do not know that any have worked.
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 09:30:39 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:The article was about problems in and around Gore; right at the bottom
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 16:09:18 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 15:36:48 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 03:07:52 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>https://www.vice.com/en/article/4a3n3n/new-zealand-cows-nitrates-climate-change
Not a single scientific reference, not one. And the mention of >>>>>>>Greenpeace, that
This is a legacy of the John Key years - when Connor English helped >>>>>>>>lead the attack on democracy when ECANZ was effectively sacked by the >>>>>>>>government. At that time it was known that water pollution was causing >>>>>>>>problems for new borns in country towns in Canterbury, and requiring >>>>>>>>significant extra expense for Christchurch in water treatment. Now we >>>>>>>>know it was much worse . . .
barely disguised terrorist organisation, just about removes all >>>>>>>credibility
from the article.
Your conclusions however are even worse - there is no suggestion that >>>>>>>anybody
in government did anything wrong - do find another straw.
So why not just look it up for yourself?
See for example: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34740625/
Not a recent article Rich and unless you can cite otherwise the >>>>>current government has done nothing about it. Are you outraged about >>>>>this?
I am sure that if you brought this to the attention of PM Hipkins he >>>>>would take time out from far more pressing current issues to promise a >>>>>Commission of Inquiry into this important issue if re-elected.
It is certainly not a simple task - and it does appear that Opposition >>>>Parties don't want a bar of fixing it.
Neither does the current Government. The issue is longstanding and
after 6 years you have not identified any action they have taken.
This is one of the major
reasons behind the 3 Waters proposals - fixing the problem of local >>>>authorities inheriting shit from upstream and not being able to do >>>>anything about it except try to pass as much on to the next downstream >>>>authority without making their people too sick.
The Water Entities cover a geographic area that is not defined by the >>>water sources each one uses. For example, Water Entity A sources some >>>water from Lake Taupo via the Waikato River. Your claim that the
water reforms will fix this is a deliberate lie.
of the South Island. But the contractual arrangements that relate to
water being taken from the Waikato to serve the needs of the Auckland >>Region may well be examples of the sort of agreements needed in the
South Island - there are good governance arrangements relating to
water coming into Lake Taupo and out from it to meet the needs of
different communities (including flows to for example the Wanganui
River, and hydro plants in the region) that may well cover avoiding
the pollution of dairy into water taken to meet Auckland needs;
although I suspect further water treatment is required after water is
taken from the Waikato . . .
No, I thank you for giving confirmation that agreements are needed
A broader approach is
required to ensure that responsibilities fix problems rather than >>>>passing them on, that governance is broad enough to cope with regional >>>>issues not just very local issues, that funding is possible without >>>>fights between neighbouring local authorities to keep rates low by >>>>passing problems on. 3 Waters is about enabling water standards to be >>>>met, with adequate funding, and while also working through the issues >>>>of supply so that excessive use by one area does not mean inadequate >>>>supply downstream.
Irrelevant - see above.
both within and between different entities involved in water supply
and appropriate treatment around New Zealand - some of the lessons
from the Waikato and Auckland Regions will have informed the 3 Water >>proposals
That does not answer the question I raised in relation to the articleI take it you have come to accept that National/ACT will form the next >>>government because if this is not the case your concerns are
So what do ACT and National propose to do about ensuring adequate >>>>quantity and quality of water supply to all New Zealanders, Crash? Or >>>>will they just deliver more bowel cancer?
redundant.
about problems with water in Gore. I understand that the arrangements
made in relation to water in the Taupo region were made over a period
of time involving both the previous Labour and National governments,
with Chris Finlayson in his role relating to Treaty Settlements
encouraging and facilitating good representation of a range of views
from interested parties; resulting in cooperative structures that
became a good example of co-governance. Regardless of who wins the
next election the problems raised in the article about the effect of >>nitrates from cows affecting water supplies will need to be resolved.
We know that 3 Waters type arrangements have worked in the past, and
in particular in the Taupo region that you have highlighted.
There
have however been suggestions that National has changed policies with >>regards to such matters; all I am asking is what ACT and National are >>proposing, as part of their election campaign, regarding this issue
which is clearly important to all New Zealanders, but perhaps
particularly at present those in Gore . . .
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Whatever you want to call them (and Finlayson has referred to them as co-governance in the past), are you claiming that the arrangements
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 02:10:59 -0000 (UTC), TonyDon't try your bullshit on me.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 11:27:18 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:There have never been any previous 3 waters type of arrangements in New >>>Zealand. So clearly we do not know that any have worked.
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 09:30:39 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:The article was about problems in and around Gore; right at the bottom >>>>of the South Island. But the contractual arrangements that relate to >>>>water being taken from the Waikato to serve the needs of the Auckland >>>>Region may well be examples of the sort of agreements needed in the >>>>South Island - there are good governance arrangements relating to
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 16:09:18 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 15:36:48 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 03:07:52 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>https://www.vice.com/en/article/4a3n3n/new-zealand-cows-nitrates-climate-change
Not a single scientific reference, not one. And the mention of >>>>>>>>>Greenpeace, that
This is a legacy of the John Key years - when Connor English helped >>>>>>>>>>lead the attack on democracy when ECANZ was effectively sacked by the >>>>>>>>>>government. At that time it was known that water pollution was causing
problems for new borns in country towns in Canterbury, and requiring >>>>>>>>>>significant extra expense for Christchurch in water treatment. Now we >>>>>>>>>>know it was much worse . . .
barely disguised terrorist organisation, just about removes all >>>>>>>>>credibility
from the article.
Your conclusions however are even worse - there is no suggestion that >>>>>>>>>anybody
in government did anything wrong - do find another straw.
So why not just look it up for yourself?
See for example: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34740625/
Not a recent article Rich and unless you can cite otherwise the >>>>>>>current government has done nothing about it. Are you outraged about >>>>>>>this?
I am sure that if you brought this to the attention of PM Hipkins he >>>>>>>would take time out from far more pressing current issues to promise a >>>>>>>Commission of Inquiry into this important issue if re-elected.
It is certainly not a simple task - and it does appear that Opposition >>>>>>Parties don't want a bar of fixing it.
Neither does the current Government. The issue is longstanding and >>>>>after 6 years you have not identified any action they have taken.
This is one of the major
reasons behind the 3 Waters proposals - fixing the problem of local >>>>>>authorities inheriting shit from upstream and not being able to do >>>>>>anything about it except try to pass as much on to the next downstream >>>>>>authority without making their people too sick.
The Water Entities cover a geographic area that is not defined by the >>>>>water sources each one uses. For example, Water Entity A sources some >>>>>water from Lake Taupo via the Waikato River. Your claim that the >>>>>water reforms will fix this is a deliberate lie.
water coming into Lake Taupo and out from it to meet the needs of >>>>different communities (including flows to for example the Wanganui >>>>River, and hydro plants in the region) that may well cover avoiding
the pollution of dairy into water taken to meet Auckland needs; >>>>although I suspect further water treatment is required after water is >>>>taken from the Waikato . . .
No, I thank you for giving confirmation that agreements are needed
A broader approach is
required to ensure that responsibilities fix problems rather than >>>>>>passing them on, that governance is broad enough to cope with regional >>>>>>issues not just very local issues, that funding is possible without >>>>>>fights between neighbouring local authorities to keep rates low by >>>>>>passing problems on. 3 Waters is about enabling water standards to be >>>>>>met, with adequate funding, and while also working through the issues >>>>>>of supply so that excessive use by one area does not mean inadequate >>>>>>supply downstream.
Irrelevant - see above.
both within and between different entities involved in water supply
and appropriate treatment around New Zealand - some of the lessons
from the Waikato and Auckland Regions will have informed the 3 Water >>>>proposals
That does not answer the question I raised in relation to the article >>>>about problems with water in Gore. I understand that the arrangements >>>>made in relation to water in the Taupo region were made over a period >>>>of time involving both the previous Labour and National governments, >>>>with Chris Finlayson in his role relating to Treaty Settlements >>>>encouraging and facilitating good representation of a range of views >>>>from interested parties; resulting in cooperative structures that >>>>became a good example of co-governance. Regardless of who wins theI take it you have come to accept that National/ACT will form the next >>>>>government because if this is not the case your concerns are >>>>>redundant.
So what do ACT and National propose to do about ensuring adequate >>>>>>quantity and quality of water supply to all New Zealanders, Crash? Or >>>>>>will they just deliver more bowel cancer?
next election the problems raised in the article about the effect of >>>>nitrates from cows affecting water supplies will need to be resolved. >>>>We know that 3 Waters type arrangements have worked in the past, and
in particular in the Taupo region that you have highlighted.
In what way have the co governance arrangements relating to water
being diverted for hydro power relating to Turangi hydro and the
Wanganui River; and the arrangements for water use around Lake Taupo
and the talking of water from the Waikato for water supply not worked. >>Tony? Are you calling the co-governance arrangements enthusiastically >>supported by the National party a failure?
Those were not co-governance, they were co-management at best or more likely >just co-operation. There have never been any co-governance arrangements >supoported by any other government. Name one or clear off.
There
have however been suggestions that National has changed policies with >>>>regards to such matters; all I am asking is what ACT and National are >>>>proposing, as part of their election campaign, regarding this issue >>>>which is clearly important to all New Zealanders, but perhaps >>>>particularly at present those in Gore . . .
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Can you give one example of that happening? Are you referring to the
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 02:37:55 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou can spin as much as you like but the real bottom line (unlike your lies) is
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Whatever you want to call them (and Finlayson has referred to them as >>co-governance in the past), are you claiming that the arrangements >>regarding water that I described above, that were supported by the
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 02:10:59 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Don't try your bullshit on me.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 11:27:18 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>wrote:There have never been any previous 3 waters type of arrangements in New >>>>>Zealand. So clearly we do not know that any have worked.
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 09:30:39 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:The article was about problems in and around Gore; right at the bottom >>>>>>of the South Island. But the contractual arrangements that relate to >>>>>>water being taken from the Waikato to serve the needs of the Auckland >>>>>>Region may well be examples of the sort of agreements needed in the >>>>>>South Island - there are good governance arrangements relating to >>>>>>water coming into Lake Taupo and out from it to meet the needs of >>>>>>different communities (including flows to for example the Wanganui >>>>>>River, and hydro plants in the region) that may well cover avoiding >>>>>>the pollution of dairy into water taken to meet Auckland needs; >>>>>>although I suspect further water treatment is required after water is >>>>>>taken from the Waikato . . .
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 16:09:18 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 15:36:48 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>wrote:It is certainly not a simple task - and it does appear that Opposition >>>>>>>>Parties don't want a bar of fixing it.
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 03:07:52 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.vice.com/en/article/4a3n3n/new-zealand-cows-nitrates-climate-change
Not a single scientific reference, not one. And the mention of >>>>>>>>>>>Greenpeace, that
This is a legacy of the John Key years - when Connor English helped >>>>>>>>>>>>lead the attack on democracy when ECANZ was effectively sacked by the
government. At that time it was known that water pollution was >>>>>>>>>>>>causing
problems for new borns in country towns in Canterbury, and requiring
significant extra expense for Christchurch in water treatment. Now we
know it was much worse . . .
barely disguised terrorist organisation, just about removes all >>>>>>>>>>>credibility
from the article.
Your conclusions however are even worse - there is no suggestion that
anybody
in government did anything wrong - do find another straw.
So why not just look it up for yourself?
See for example: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34740625/
Not a recent article Rich and unless you can cite otherwise the >>>>>>>>>current government has done nothing about it. Are you outraged about >>>>>>>>>this?
I am sure that if you brought this to the attention of PM Hipkins he >>>>>>>>>would take time out from far more pressing current issues to promise a >>>>>>>>>Commission of Inquiry into this important issue if re-elected. >>>>>>>>
Neither does the current Government. The issue is longstanding and >>>>>>>after 6 years you have not identified any action they have taken. >>>>>>>
This is one of the major
reasons behind the 3 Waters proposals - fixing the problem of local >>>>>>>>authorities inheriting shit from upstream and not being able to do >>>>>>>>anything about it except try to pass as much on to the next downstream >>>>>>>>authority without making their people too sick.
The Water Entities cover a geographic area that is not defined by the >>>>>>>water sources each one uses. For example, Water Entity A sources some >>>>>>>water from Lake Taupo via the Waikato River. Your claim that the >>>>>>>water reforms will fix this is a deliberate lie.
No, I thank you for giving confirmation that agreements are needed >>>>>>both within and between different entities involved in water supply >>>>>>and appropriate treatment around New Zealand - some of the lessons >>>>>>from the Waikato and Auckland Regions will have informed the 3 Water >>>>>>proposals
A broader approach is
required to ensure that responsibilities fix problems rather than >>>>>>>>passing them on, that governance is broad enough to cope with regional >>>>>>>>issues not just very local issues, that funding is possible without >>>>>>>>fights between neighbouring local authorities to keep rates low by >>>>>>>>passing problems on. 3 Waters is about enabling water standards to be >>>>>>>>met, with adequate funding, and while also working through the issues >>>>>>>>of supply so that excessive use by one area does not mean inadequate >>>>>>>>supply downstream.
Irrelevant - see above.
That does not answer the question I raised in relation to the article >>>>>>about problems with water in Gore. I understand that the arrangements >>>>>>made in relation to water in the Taupo region were made over a period >>>>>>of time involving both the previous Labour and National governments, >>>>>>with Chris Finlayson in his role relating to Treaty Settlements >>>>>>encouraging and facilitating good representation of a range of views >>>>>>from interested parties; resulting in cooperative structures that >>>>>>became a good example of co-governance. Regardless of who wins the >>>>>>next election the problems raised in the article about the effect of >>>>>>nitrates from cows affecting water supplies will need to be resolved. >>>>>>We know that 3 Waters type arrangements have worked in the past, and >>>>>>in particular in the Taupo region that you have highlighted.I take it you have come to accept that National/ACT will form the next >>>>>>>government because if this is not the case your concerns are >>>>>>>redundant.
So what do ACT and National propose to do about ensuring adequate >>>>>>>>quantity and quality of water supply to all New Zealanders, Crash? Or >>>>>>>>will they just deliver more bowel cancer?
In what way have the co governance arrangements relating to water
being diverted for hydro power relating to Turangi hydro and the >>>>Wanganui River; and the arrangements for water use around Lake Taupo >>>>and the talking of water from the Waikato for water supply not worked. >>>>Tony? Are you calling the co-governance arrangements enthusiastically >>>>supported by the National party a failure?
Those were not co-governance, they were co-management at best or more likely >>>just co-operation. There have never been any co-governance arrangements >>>supoported by any other government. Name one or clear off.
National Party, are a failure?
The bottom line is that the news article talking about nitrates from
cattle in water giving rise to health problems - resolving those
problems requires change, and that may well need a structure to either
gain agreement or to monitor issues subsequent to agreement on
actions. Both National and Labour have in the past encouraged
participation by those involved in both finding solutions and
monitoring results - and with respect to water, Labour envisages
structures that are large enough to give sufficient expertise and
economies of scale, but otherwise relatively local throughout the
country. ACT and National are now critical of those proposals but not >>offering any alternative solutions.
that there has never been any co-governance in this country until this >government decided that it is OK to appoint people to tell elected >representatives what to do.
Oh and by the way, your repetitive lies about Finlayson have been destroyed >several times in the past. He confirmed that he suppoerted co-management and >not co-governance.Cite? He has certainly proudly referred to his support for
There
have however been suggestions that National has changed policies with >>>>>>regards to such matters; all I am asking is what ACT and National are >>>>>>proposing, as part of their election campaign, regarding this issue >>>>>>which is clearly important to all New Zealanders, but perhaps >>>>>>particularly at present those in Gore . . .
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 02:37:55 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou can spin as much as you like but the real bottom line (unlike your lies) is that there has never been any co-governance in this country until this government decided that it is OK to appoint people to tell elected representatives what to do.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Whatever you want to call them (and Finlayson has referred to them as >co-governance in the past), are you claiming that the arrangements
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 02:10:59 -0000 (UTC), TonyDon't try your bullshit on me.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 11:27:18 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:There have never been any previous 3 waters type of arrangements in New >>>>Zealand. So clearly we do not know that any have worked.
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 09:30:39 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:The article was about problems in and around Gore; right at the bottom >>>>>of the South Island. But the contractual arrangements that relate to >>>>>water being taken from the Waikato to serve the needs of the Auckland >>>>>Region may well be examples of the sort of agreements needed in the >>>>>South Island - there are good governance arrangements relating to >>>>>water coming into Lake Taupo and out from it to meet the needs of >>>>>different communities (including flows to for example the Wanganui >>>>>River, and hydro plants in the region) that may well cover avoiding >>>>>the pollution of dairy into water taken to meet Auckland needs; >>>>>although I suspect further water treatment is required after water is >>>>>taken from the Waikato . . .
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 16:09:18 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 15:36:48 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 03:07:52 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>https://www.vice.com/en/article/4a3n3n/new-zealand-cows-nitrates-climate-change
Not a single scientific reference, not one. And the mention of >>>>>>>>>>Greenpeace, that
This is a legacy of the John Key years - when Connor English helped >>>>>>>>>>>lead the attack on democracy when ECANZ was effectively sacked by the
government. At that time it was known that water pollution was >>>>>>>>>>>causing
problems for new borns in country towns in Canterbury, and requiring >>>>>>>>>>>significant extra expense for Christchurch in water treatment. Now we
know it was much worse . . .
barely disguised terrorist organisation, just about removes all >>>>>>>>>>credibility
from the article.
Your conclusions however are even worse - there is no suggestion that >>>>>>>>>>anybody
in government did anything wrong - do find another straw.
So why not just look it up for yourself?
See for example: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34740625/
Not a recent article Rich and unless you can cite otherwise the >>>>>>>>current government has done nothing about it. Are you outraged about >>>>>>>>this?
I am sure that if you brought this to the attention of PM Hipkins he >>>>>>>>would take time out from far more pressing current issues to promise a >>>>>>>>Commission of Inquiry into this important issue if re-elected.
It is certainly not a simple task - and it does appear that Opposition >>>>>>>Parties don't want a bar of fixing it.
Neither does the current Government. The issue is longstanding and >>>>>>after 6 years you have not identified any action they have taken.
This is one of the major
reasons behind the 3 Waters proposals - fixing the problem of local >>>>>>>authorities inheriting shit from upstream and not being able to do >>>>>>>anything about it except try to pass as much on to the next downstream >>>>>>>authority without making their people too sick.
The Water Entities cover a geographic area that is not defined by the >>>>>>water sources each one uses. For example, Water Entity A sources some >>>>>>water from Lake Taupo via the Waikato River. Your claim that the >>>>>>water reforms will fix this is a deliberate lie.
No, I thank you for giving confirmation that agreements are needed >>>>>both within and between different entities involved in water supply >>>>>and appropriate treatment around New Zealand - some of the lessons >>>>>from the Waikato and Auckland Regions will have informed the 3 Water >>>>>proposals
A broader approach is
required to ensure that responsibilities fix problems rather than >>>>>>>passing them on, that governance is broad enough to cope with regional >>>>>>>issues not just very local issues, that funding is possible without >>>>>>>fights between neighbouring local authorities to keep rates low by >>>>>>>passing problems on. 3 Waters is about enabling water standards to be >>>>>>>met, with adequate funding, and while also working through the issues >>>>>>>of supply so that excessive use by one area does not mean inadequate >>>>>>>supply downstream.
Irrelevant - see above.
That does not answer the question I raised in relation to the article >>>>>about problems with water in Gore. I understand that the arrangements >>>>>made in relation to water in the Taupo region were made over a period >>>>>of time involving both the previous Labour and National governments, >>>>>with Chris Finlayson in his role relating to Treaty Settlements >>>>>encouraging and facilitating good representation of a range of views >>>>>from interested parties; resulting in cooperative structures that >>>>>became a good example of co-governance. Regardless of who wins the >>>>>next election the problems raised in the article about the effect of >>>>>nitrates from cows affecting water supplies will need to be resolved. >>>>>We know that 3 Waters type arrangements have worked in the past, and >>>>>in particular in the Taupo region that you have highlighted.I take it you have come to accept that National/ACT will form the next >>>>>>government because if this is not the case your concerns are >>>>>>redundant.
So what do ACT and National propose to do about ensuring adequate >>>>>>>quantity and quality of water supply to all New Zealanders, Crash? Or >>>>>>>will they just deliver more bowel cancer?
In what way have the co governance arrangements relating to water
being diverted for hydro power relating to Turangi hydro and the
Wanganui River; and the arrangements for water use around Lake Taupo
and the talking of water from the Waikato for water supply not worked. >>>Tony? Are you calling the co-governance arrangements enthusiastically >>>supported by the National party a failure?
Those were not co-governance, they were co-management at best or more likely >>just co-operation. There have never been any co-governance arrangements >>supoported by any other government. Name one or clear off.
regarding water that I described above, that were supported by the
National Party, are a failure?
The bottom line is that the news article talking about nitrates from
cattle in water giving rise to health problems - resolving those
problems requires change, and that may well need a structure to either
gain agreement or to monitor issues subsequent to agreement on
actions. Both National and Labour have in the past encouraged
participation by those involved in both finding solutions and
monitoring results - and with respect to water, Labour envisages
structures that are large enough to give sufficient expertise and
economies of scale, but otherwise relatively local throughout the
country. ACT and National are now critical of those proposals but not >offering any alternative solutions.
There
have however been suggestions that National has changed policies with >>>>>regards to such matters; all I am asking is what ACT and National are >>>>>proposing, as part of their election campaign, regarding this issue >>>>>which is clearly important to all New Zealanders, but perhaps >>>>>particularly at present those in Gore . . .
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 04:56:39 -0000 (UTC), TonyThat is exactly what co-governance is about. Unelected people telling elected people what to do. It is racism. That is what your government want to do. It has to be removed.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Can you give one example of that happening? Are you referring to the
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 02:37:55 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou can spin as much as you like but the real bottom line (unlike your lies) >>is
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Whatever you want to call them (and Finlayson has referred to them as >>>co-governance in the past), are you claiming that the arrangements >>>regarding water that I described above, that were supported by the >>>National Party, are a failure?
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 02:10:59 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Don't try your bullshit on me.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 11:27:18 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>wrote:There have never been any previous 3 waters type of arrangements in New >>>>>>Zealand. So clearly we do not know that any have worked.
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 09:30:39 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>wrote:The article was about problems in and around Gore; right at the bottom >>>>>>>of the South Island. But the contractual arrangements that relate to >>>>>>>water being taken from the Waikato to serve the needs of the Auckland >>>>>>>Region may well be examples of the sort of agreements needed in the >>>>>>>South Island - there are good governance arrangements relating to >>>>>>>water coming into Lake Taupo and out from it to meet the needs of >>>>>>>different communities (including flows to for example the Wanganui >>>>>>>River, and hydro plants in the region) that may well cover avoiding >>>>>>>the pollution of dairy into water taken to meet Auckland needs; >>>>>>>although I suspect further water treatment is required after water is >>>>>>>taken from the Waikato . . .
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 16:09:18 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>>wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 15:36:48 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>wrote:It is certainly not a simple task - and it does appear that Opposition >>>>>>>>>Parties don't want a bar of fixing it.
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 03:07:52 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Not a recent article Rich and unless you can cite otherwise the >>>>>>>>>>current government has done nothing about it. Are you outraged about >>>>>>>>>>this?
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.vice.com/en/article/4a3n3n/new-zealand-cows-nitrates-climate-changeSo why not just look it up for yourself?
Not a single scientific reference, not one. And the mention of >>>>>>>>>>>>Greenpeace, that
This is a legacy of the John Key years - when Connor English helped
lead the attack on democracy when ECANZ was effectively sacked by >>>>>>>>>>>>>the
government. At that time it was known that water pollution was >>>>>>>>>>>>>causing
problems for new borns in country towns in Canterbury, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>requiring
significant extra expense for Christchurch in water treatment. Now >>>>>>>>>>>>>we
know it was much worse . . .
barely disguised terrorist organisation, just about removes all >>>>>>>>>>>>credibility
from the article.
Your conclusions however are even worse - there is no suggestion >>>>>>>>>>>>that
anybody
in government did anything wrong - do find another straw. >>>>>>>>>>>
See for example: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34740625/ >>>>>>>>>>
I am sure that if you brought this to the attention of PM Hipkins he >>>>>>>>>>would take time out from far more pressing current issues to promise a
Commission of Inquiry into this important issue if re-elected. >>>>>>>>>
Neither does the current Government. The issue is longstanding and >>>>>>>>after 6 years you have not identified any action they have taken. >>>>>>>>
This is one of the major
reasons behind the 3 Waters proposals - fixing the problem of local >>>>>>>>>authorities inheriting shit from upstream and not being able to do >>>>>>>>>anything about it except try to pass as much on to the next downstream >>>>>>>>>authority without making their people too sick.
The Water Entities cover a geographic area that is not defined by the >>>>>>>>water sources each one uses. For example, Water Entity A sources some >>>>>>>>water from Lake Taupo via the Waikato River. Your claim that the >>>>>>>>water reforms will fix this is a deliberate lie.
No, I thank you for giving confirmation that agreements are needed >>>>>>>both within and between different entities involved in water supply >>>>>>>and appropriate treatment around New Zealand - some of the lessons >>>>>>>from the Waikato and Auckland Regions will have informed the 3 Water >>>>>>>proposals
A broader approach is
required to ensure that responsibilities fix problems rather than >>>>>>>>>passing them on, that governance is broad enough to cope with regional >>>>>>>>>issues not just very local issues, that funding is possible without >>>>>>>>>fights between neighbouring local authorities to keep rates low by >>>>>>>>>passing problems on. 3 Waters is about enabling water standards to be >>>>>>>>>met, with adequate funding, and while also working through the issues >>>>>>>>>of supply so that excessive use by one area does not mean inadequate >>>>>>>>>supply downstream.
Irrelevant - see above.
That does not answer the question I raised in relation to the article >>>>>>>about problems with water in Gore. I understand that the arrangements >>>>>>>made in relation to water in the Taupo region were made over a period >>>>>>>of time involving both the previous Labour and National governments, >>>>>>>with Chris Finlayson in his role relating to Treaty Settlements >>>>>>>encouraging and facilitating good representation of a range of views >>>>>>>from interested parties; resulting in cooperative structures that >>>>>>>became a good example of co-governance. Regardless of who wins the >>>>>>>next election the problems raised in the article about the effect of >>>>>>>nitrates from cows affecting water supplies will need to be resolved. >>>>>>>We know that 3 Waters type arrangements have worked in the past, and >>>>>>>in particular in the Taupo region that you have highlighted.I take it you have come to accept that National/ACT will form the next >>>>>>>>government because if this is not the case your concerns are >>>>>>>>redundant.
So what do ACT and National propose to do about ensuring adequate >>>>>>>>>quantity and quality of water supply to all New Zealanders, Crash? Or >>>>>>>>>will they just deliver more bowel cancer?
In what way have the co governance arrangements relating to water >>>>>being diverted for hydro power relating to Turangi hydro and the >>>>>Wanganui River; and the arrangements for water use around Lake Taupo >>>>>and the talking of water from the Waikato for water supply not worked. >>>>>Tony? Are you calling the co-governance arrangements enthusiastically >>>>>supported by the National party a failure?
Those were not co-governance, they were co-management at best or more >>>>likely
just co-operation. There have never been any co-governance arrangements >>>>supoported by any other government. Name one or clear off.
The bottom line is that the news article talking about nitrates from >>>cattle in water giving rise to health problems - resolving those
problems requires change, and that may well need a structure to either >>>gain agreement or to monitor issues subsequent to agreement on
actions. Both National and Labour have in the past encouraged >>>participation by those involved in both finding solutions and
monitoring results - and with respect to water, Labour envisages >>>structures that are large enough to give sufficient expertise and >>>economies of scale, but otherwise relatively local throughout the >>>country. ACT and National are now critical of those proposals but not >>>offering any alternative solutions.
that there has never been any co-governance in this country until this >>government decided that it is OK to appoint people to tell elected >>representatives what to do.
Mayor of Auckland not having to follow decisions of Council?
Parliament may have to pass a law to thwart a local council but I am
not aware of that happening very often (and yes National did force a
number of amalgamations, but I believe that is different. As far as I
am aware no current or proposed co-governance arrangements are able to
ignore or act contrary to laws of the land, whether those laws be from
a local Council or from Parliament.
No he has not. He made it clear that he was talking about co-management. The difference is profound.Oh and by the way, your repetitive lies about Finlayson have been destroyed >>several times in the past. He confirmed that he suppoerted co-management and >>not co-governance.Cite? He has certainly proudly referred to his support for
co-governance, in the same sense as that term is used by Labour, often >enough. I gave you a lot of cites for that.
There
have however been suggestions that National has changed policies with >>>>>>>regards to such matters; all I am asking is what ACT and National are >>>>>>>proposing, as part of their election campaign, regarding this issue >>>>>>>which is clearly important to all New Zealanders, but perhaps >>>>>>>particularly at present those in Gore . . .
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Hard to remove something that does not exist. You have it wrong again,
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 04:56:39 -0000 (UTC), TonyThat is exactly what co-governance is about. Unelected people telling elected >people what to do. It is racism. That is what your government want to do. It >has to be removed.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Can you give one example of that happening? Are you referring to the
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 02:37:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You can spin as much as you like but the real bottom line (unlike your lies) >>>is
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Whatever you want to call them (and Finlayson has referred to them as >>>>co-governance in the past), are you claiming that the arrangements >>>>regarding water that I described above, that were supported by the >>>>National Party, are a failure?
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 02:10:59 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Don't try your bullshit on me.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 11:27:18 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 09:30:39 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>wrote:The article was about problems in and around Gore; right at the bottom >>>>>>>>of the South Island. But the contractual arrangements that relate to >>>>>>>>water being taken from the Waikato to serve the needs of the Auckland >>>>>>>>Region may well be examples of the sort of agreements needed in the >>>>>>>>South Island - there are good governance arrangements relating to >>>>>>>>water coming into Lake Taupo and out from it to meet the needs of >>>>>>>>different communities (including flows to for example the Wanganui >>>>>>>>River, and hydro plants in the region) that may well cover avoiding >>>>>>>>the pollution of dairy into water taken to meet Auckland needs; >>>>>>>>although I suspect further water treatment is required after water is >>>>>>>>taken from the Waikato . . .
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 16:09:18 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 15:36:48 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>It is certainly not a simple task - and it does appear that Opposition
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 03:07:52 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Not a recent article Rich and unless you can cite otherwise the >>>>>>>>>>>current government has done nothing about it. Are you outraged about
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.vice.com/en/article/4a3n3n/new-zealand-cows-nitrates-climate-changeSo why not just look it up for yourself?
Not a single scientific reference, not one. And the mention of >>>>>>>>>>>>>Greenpeace, that
This is a legacy of the John Key years - when Connor English helped
lead the attack on democracy when ECANZ was effectively sacked by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>the
government. At that time it was known that water pollution was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>causing
problems for new borns in country towns in Canterbury, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>requiring
significant extra expense for Christchurch in water treatment. Now
we
know it was much worse . . .
barely disguised terrorist organisation, just about removes all >>>>>>>>>>>>>credibility
from the article.
Your conclusions however are even worse - there is no suggestion >>>>>>>>>>>>>that
anybody
in government did anything wrong - do find another straw. >>>>>>>>>>>>
See for example: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34740625/ >>>>>>>>>>>
this?
I am sure that if you brought this to the attention of PM Hipkins he >>>>>>>>>>>would take time out from far more pressing current issues to promise a
Commission of Inquiry into this important issue if re-elected. >>>>>>>>>>
Parties don't want a bar of fixing it.
Neither does the current Government. The issue is longstanding and >>>>>>>>>after 6 years you have not identified any action they have taken. >>>>>>>>>
This is one of the major
reasons behind the 3 Waters proposals - fixing the problem of local >>>>>>>>>>authorities inheriting shit from upstream and not being able to do >>>>>>>>>>anything about it except try to pass as much on to the next downstream
authority without making their people too sick.
The Water Entities cover a geographic area that is not defined by the >>>>>>>>>water sources each one uses. For example, Water Entity A sources some >>>>>>>>>water from Lake Taupo via the Waikato River. Your claim that the >>>>>>>>>water reforms will fix this is a deliberate lie.
No, I thank you for giving confirmation that agreements are needed >>>>>>>>both within and between different entities involved in water supply >>>>>>>>and appropriate treatment around New Zealand - some of the lessons >>>>>>>>from the Waikato and Auckland Regions will have informed the 3 Water >>>>>>>>proposals
A broader approach is
required to ensure that responsibilities fix problems rather than >>>>>>>>>>passing them on, that governance is broad enough to cope with regional
issues not just very local issues, that funding is possible without >>>>>>>>>>fights between neighbouring local authorities to keep rates low by >>>>>>>>>>passing problems on. 3 Waters is about enabling water standards to be >>>>>>>>>>met, with adequate funding, and while also working through the issues >>>>>>>>>>of supply so that excessive use by one area does not mean inadequate >>>>>>>>>>supply downstream.
Irrelevant - see above.
That does not answer the question I raised in relation to the article >>>>>>>>about problems with water in Gore. I understand that the arrangements >>>>>>>>made in relation to water in the Taupo region were made over a period >>>>>>>>of time involving both the previous Labour and National governments, >>>>>>>>with Chris Finlayson in his role relating to Treaty Settlements >>>>>>>>encouraging and facilitating good representation of a range of views >>>>>>>>from interested parties; resulting in cooperative structures that >>>>>>>>became a good example of co-governance. Regardless of who wins the >>>>>>>>next election the problems raised in the article about the effect of >>>>>>>>nitrates from cows affecting water supplies will need to be resolved. >>>>>>>>We know that 3 Waters type arrangements have worked in the past, and >>>>>>>>in particular in the Taupo region that you have highlighted. >>>>>>>There have never been any previous 3 waters type of arrangements in New >>>>>>>Zealand. So clearly we do not know that any have worked.I take it you have come to accept that National/ACT will form the next >>>>>>>>>government because if this is not the case your concerns are >>>>>>>>>redundant.
So what do ACT and National propose to do about ensuring adequate >>>>>>>>>>quantity and quality of water supply to all New Zealanders, Crash? Or
will they just deliver more bowel cancer?
In what way have the co governance arrangements relating to water >>>>>>being diverted for hydro power relating to Turangi hydro and the >>>>>>Wanganui River; and the arrangements for water use around Lake Taupo >>>>>>and the talking of water from the Waikato for water supply not worked. >>>>>>Tony? Are you calling the co-governance arrangements enthusiastically >>>>>>supported by the National party a failure?
Those were not co-governance, they were co-management at best or more >>>>>likely
just co-operation. There have never been any co-governance arrangements >>>>>supoported by any other government. Name one or clear off.
The bottom line is that the news article talking about nitrates from >>>>cattle in water giving rise to health problems - resolving those >>>>problems requires change, and that may well need a structure to either >>>>gain agreement or to monitor issues subsequent to agreement on
actions. Both National and Labour have in the past encouraged >>>>participation by those involved in both finding solutions and >>>>monitoring results - and with respect to water, Labour envisages >>>>structures that are large enough to give sufficient expertise and >>>>economies of scale, but otherwise relatively local throughout the >>>>country. ACT and National are now critical of those proposals but not >>>>offering any alternative solutions.
that there has never been any co-governance in this country until this >>>government decided that it is OK to appoint people to tell elected >>>representatives what to do.
Mayor of Auckland not having to follow decisions of Council?
Parliament may have to pass a law to thwart a local council but I am
not aware of that happening very often (and yes National did force a
number of amalgamations, but I believe that is different. As far as I
am aware no current or proposed co-governance arrangements are able to >>ignore or act contrary to laws of the land, whether those laws be from
a local Council or from Parliament.
Cite?No he has not. He made it clear that he was talking about co-management. The >difference is profound.
Oh and by the way, your repetitive lies about Finlayson have been destroyed >>>several times in the past. He confirmed that he suppoerted co-management and >>>not co-governance.Cite? He has certainly proudly referred to his support for
co-governance, in the same sense as that term is used by Labour, often >>enough. I gave you a lot of cites for that.
There
have however been suggestions that National has changed policies with >>>>>>>>regards to such matters; all I am asking is what ACT and National are >>>>>>>>proposing, as part of their election campaign, regarding this issue >>>>>>>>which is clearly important to all New Zealanders, but perhaps >>>>>>>>particularly at present those in Gore . . .
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 06:29:37 -0000 (UTC), TonyBut the legislation does exist. It needs to be removed. So I got it exactly correct again.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Hard to remove something that does not exist. You have it wrong again,
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 04:56:39 -0000 (UTC), TonyThat is exactly what co-governance is about. Unelected people telling elected >>people what to do. It is racism. That is what your government want to do. It >>has to be removed.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Can you give one example of that happening? Are you referring to the >>>Mayor of Auckland not having to follow decisions of Council?
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 02:37:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You can spin as much as you like but the real bottom line (unlike your >>>>lies)
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Whatever you want to call them (and Finlayson has referred to them as >>>>>co-governance in the past), are you claiming that the arrangements >>>>>regarding water that I described above, that were supported by the >>>>>National Party, are a failure?
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 02:10:59 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Don't try your bullshit on me.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 11:27:18 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>>wrote:Zealand. So clearly we do not know that any have worked.
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 09:30:39 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>wrote:The article was about problems in and around Gore; right at the bottom >>>>>>>>>of the South Island. But the contractual arrangements that relate to >>>>>>>>>water being taken from the Waikato to serve the needs of the Auckland >>>>>>>>>Region may well be examples of the sort of agreements needed in the >>>>>>>>>South Island - there are good governance arrangements relating to >>>>>>>>>water coming into Lake Taupo and out from it to meet the needs of >>>>>>>>>different communities (including flows to for example the Wanganui >>>>>>>>>River, and hydro plants in the region) that may well cover avoiding >>>>>>>>>the pollution of dairy into water taken to meet Auckland needs; >>>>>>>>>although I suspect further water treatment is required after water is >>>>>>>>>taken from the Waikato . . .
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 16:09:18 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 15:36:48 +1200, Rich80105 >>>>>>>>>>>><Rich80105@hotmail.com>It is certainly not a simple task - and it does appear that >>>>>>>>>>>Opposition
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 03:07:52 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Not a recent article Rich and unless you can cite otherwise the >>>>>>>>>>>>current government has done nothing about it. Are you outraged >>>>>>>>>>>>about
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.vice.com/en/article/4a3n3n/new-zealand-cows-nitrates-climate-changeSo why not just look it up for yourself?
Not a single scientific reference, not one. And the mention of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Greenpeace, that
This is a legacy of the John Key years - when Connor English >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>helped
lead the attack on democracy when ECANZ was effectively sacked >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>by
the
government. At that time it was known that water pollution was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>causing
problems for new borns in country towns in Canterbury, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>requiring
significant extra expense for Christchurch in water treatment. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Now
we
know it was much worse . . .
barely disguised terrorist organisation, just about removes all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>credibility
from the article.
Your conclusions however are even worse - there is no suggestion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>that
anybody
in government did anything wrong - do find another straw. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
See for example: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34740625/ >>>>>>>>>>>>
this?
I am sure that if you brought this to the attention of PM Hipkins he
would take time out from far more pressing current issues to >>>>>>>>>>>>promise a
Commission of Inquiry into this important issue if re-elected. >>>>>>>>>>>
Parties don't want a bar of fixing it.
Neither does the current Government. The issue is longstanding and >>>>>>>>>>after 6 years you have not identified any action they have taken. >>>>>>>>>>
This is one of the major
reasons behind the 3 Waters proposals - fixing the problem of local >>>>>>>>>>>authorities inheriting shit from upstream and not being able to do >>>>>>>>>>>anything about it except try to pass as much on to the next >>>>>>>>>>>downstream
authority without making their people too sick.
The Water Entities cover a geographic area that is not defined by the >>>>>>>>>>water sources each one uses. For example, Water Entity A sources some
water from Lake Taupo via the Waikato River. Your claim that the >>>>>>>>>>water reforms will fix this is a deliberate lie.
No, I thank you for giving confirmation that agreements are needed >>>>>>>>>both within and between different entities involved in water supply >>>>>>>>>and appropriate treatment around New Zealand - some of the lessons >>>>>>>>>from the Waikato and Auckland Regions will have informed the 3 Water >>>>>>>>>proposals
A broader approach is
required to ensure that responsibilities fix problems rather than >>>>>>>>>>>passing them on, that governance is broad enough to cope with >>>>>>>>>>>regional
issues not just very local issues, that funding is possible without >>>>>>>>>>>fights between neighbouring local authorities to keep rates low by >>>>>>>>>>>passing problems on. 3 Waters is about enabling water standards to be
met, with adequate funding, and while also working through the issues
of supply so that excessive use by one area does not mean inadequate >>>>>>>>>>>supply downstream.
Irrelevant - see above.
That does not answer the question I raised in relation to the article >>>>>>>>>about problems with water in Gore. I understand that the arrangements >>>>>>>>>made in relation to water in the Taupo region were made over a period >>>>>>>>>of time involving both the previous Labour and National governments, >>>>>>>>>with Chris Finlayson in his role relating to Treaty Settlements >>>>>>>>>encouraging and facilitating good representation of a range of views >>>>>>>>>from interested parties; resulting in cooperative structures that >>>>>>>>>became a good example of co-governance. Regardless of who wins the >>>>>>>>>next election the problems raised in the article about the effect of >>>>>>>>>nitrates from cows affecting water supplies will need to be resolved. >>>>>>>>>We know that 3 Waters type arrangements have worked in the past, and >>>>>>>>>in particular in the Taupo region that you have highlighted. >>>>>>>>There have never been any previous 3 waters type of arrangements in >>>>>>>>NewI take it you have come to accept that National/ACT will form the next
So what do ACT and National propose to do about ensuring adequate >>>>>>>>>>>quantity and quality of water supply to all New Zealanders, Crash? >>>>>>>>>>>Or
will they just deliver more bowel cancer?
government because if this is not the case your concerns are >>>>>>>>>>redundant.
In what way have the co governance arrangements relating to water >>>>>>>being diverted for hydro power relating to Turangi hydro and the >>>>>>>Wanganui River; and the arrangements for water use around Lake Taupo >>>>>>>and the talking of water from the Waikato for water supply not worked. >>>>>>>Tony? Are you calling the co-governance arrangements enthusiastically >>>>>>>supported by the National party a failure?
Those were not co-governance, they were co-management at best or more >>>>>>likely
just co-operation. There have never been any co-governance arrangements >>>>>>supoported by any other government. Name one or clear off.
The bottom line is that the news article talking about nitrates from >>>>>cattle in water giving rise to health problems - resolving those >>>>>problems requires change, and that may well need a structure to either >>>>>gain agreement or to monitor issues subsequent to agreement on >>>>>actions. Both National and Labour have in the past encouraged >>>>>participation by those involved in both finding solutions and >>>>>monitoring results - and with respect to water, Labour envisages >>>>>structures that are large enough to give sufficient expertise and >>>>>economies of scale, but otherwise relatively local throughout the >>>>>country. ACT and National are now critical of those proposals but not >>>>>offering any alternative solutions.
is
that there has never been any co-governance in this country until this >>>>government decided that it is OK to appoint people to tell elected >>>>representatives what to do.
Parliament may have to pass a law to thwart a local council but I am
not aware of that happening very often (and yes National did force a >>>number of amalgamations, but I believe that is different. As far as I
am aware no current or proposed co-governance arrangements are able to >>>ignore or act contrary to laws of the land, whether those laws be from
a local Council or from Parliament.
Tony.
Cite?No he has not. He made it clear that he was talking about co-management. The >>difference is profound.
Oh and by the way, your repetitive lies about Finlayson have been destroyed >>>>several times in the past. He confirmed that he suppoerted co-management >>>>andCite? He has certainly proudly referred to his support for
not co-governance.
co-governance, in the same sense as that term is used by Labour, often >>>enough. I gave you a lot of cites for that.
There
have however been suggestions that National has changed policies with >>>>>>>>>regards to such matters; all I am asking is what ACT and National are >>>>>>>>>proposing, as part of their election campaign, regarding this issue >>>>>>>>>which is clearly important to all New Zealanders, but perhaps >>>>>>>>>particularly at present those in Gore . . .
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Funny how it was Labour that presided over the loss of so many lives because they took so long to respond to covid. A fact Rich in his usual lying way refuses to accept!
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 06:29:37 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
But the legislation does exist. It needs to be removed. So I got it exactly correct again.Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Hard to remove something that does not exist. You have it wrong again, >Tony.
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 04:56:39 -0000 (UTC), TonyThat is exactly what co-governance is about. Unelected people telling elected
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Can you give one example of that happening? Are you referring to the >>>Mayor of Auckland not having to follow decisions of Council? >>>Parliament may have to pass a law to thwart a local council but I am >>>not aware of that happening very often (and yes National did force a >>>number of amalgamations, but I believe that is different. As far as I >>>am aware no current or proposed co-governance arrangements are able to >>>ignore or act contrary to laws of the land, whether those laws be from >>>a local Council or from Parliament.
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 02:37:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You can spin as much as you like but the real bottom line (unlike your >>>>lies)
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 02:10:59 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Don't try your bullshit on me.
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 11:27:18 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>Zealand. So clearly we do not know that any have worked.
wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 09:30:39 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>The article was about problems in and around Gore; right at the bottom
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 16:09:18 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 15:36:48 +1200, Rich80105 >>>>>>>>>>>><Rich...@hotmail.com>It is certainly not a simple task - and it does appear that >>>>>>>>>>>Opposition
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 03:07:52 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Not a recent article Rich and unless you can cite otherwise the >>>>>>>>>>>>current government has done nothing about it. Are you outraged >>>>>>>>>>>>about
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.vice.com/en/article/4a3n3n/new-zealand-cows-nitrates-climate-changeSo why not just look it up for yourself?
Not a single scientific reference, not one. And the mention of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Greenpeace, that
This is a legacy of the John Key years - when Connor English >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>helped
lead the attack on democracy when ECANZ was effectively sacked
by
the
government. At that time it was known that water pollution was
causing
problems for new borns in country towns in Canterbury, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>requiring
significant extra expense for Christchurch in water treatment.
Now
we
know it was much worse . . .
barely disguised terrorist organisation, just about removes all
credibility
from the article.
Your conclusions however are even worse - there is no suggestion
that
anybody
in government did anything wrong - do find another straw. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
See for example: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34740625/ >>>>>>>>>>>>
this?
I am sure that if you brought this to the attention of PM Hipkins he
would take time out from far more pressing current issues to >>>>>>>>>>>>promise a
Commission of Inquiry into this important issue if re-elected. >>>>>>>>>>>
Parties don't want a bar of fixing it.
Neither does the current Government. The issue is longstanding and >>>>>>>>>>after 6 years you have not identified any action they have taken. >>>>>>>>>>
This is one of the major
reasons behind the 3 Waters proposals - fixing the problem of local
authorities inheriting shit from upstream and not being able to do
anything about it except try to pass as much on to the next >>>>>>>>>>>downstream
authority without making their people too sick.
The Water Entities cover a geographic area that is not defined by the
water sources each one uses. For example, Water Entity A sources some
water from Lake Taupo via the Waikato River. Your claim that the >>>>>>>>>>water reforms will fix this is a deliberate lie.
of the South Island. But the contractual arrangements that relate to
water being taken from the Waikato to serve the needs of the Auckland
Region may well be examples of the sort of agreements needed in the >>>>>>>>>South Island - there are good governance arrangements relating to >>>>>>>>>water coming into Lake Taupo and out from it to meet the needs of >>>>>>>>>different communities (including flows to for example the Wanganui >>>>>>>>>River, and hydro plants in the region) that may well cover avoiding >>>>>>>>>the pollution of dairy into water taken to meet Auckland needs; >>>>>>>>>although I suspect further water treatment is required after water is
taken from the Waikato . . .
No, I thank you for giving confirmation that agreements are needed >>>>>>>>>both within and between different entities involved in water supply >>>>>>>>>and appropriate treatment around New Zealand - some of the lessons >>>>>>>>>from the Waikato and Auckland Regions will have informed the 3 Water
A broader approach is
required to ensure that responsibilities fix problems rather than >>>>>>>>>>>passing them on, that governance is broad enough to cope with >>>>>>>>>>>regional
issues not just very local issues, that funding is possible without
fights between neighbouring local authorities to keep rates low by
passing problems on. 3 Waters is about enabling water standards to be
met, with adequate funding, and while also working through the issues
of supply so that excessive use by one area does not mean inadequate
supply downstream.
Irrelevant - see above.
proposals
That does not answer the question I raised in relation to the articleI take it you have come to accept that National/ACT will form the next
So what do ACT and National propose to do about ensuring adequate >>>>>>>>>>>quantity and quality of water supply to all New Zealanders, Crash?
Or
will they just deliver more bowel cancer?
government because if this is not the case your concerns are >>>>>>>>>>redundant.
about problems with water in Gore. I understand that the arrangements
made in relation to water in the Taupo region were made over a period
of time involving both the previous Labour and National governments,
with Chris Finlayson in his role relating to Treaty Settlements >>>>>>>>>encouraging and facilitating good representation of a range of views
from interested parties; resulting in cooperative structures that >>>>>>>>>became a good example of co-governance. Regardless of who wins the >>>>>>>>>next election the problems raised in the article about the effect of
nitrates from cows affecting water supplies will need to be resolved.
We know that 3 Waters type arrangements have worked in the past, and
in particular in the Taupo region that you have highlighted. >>>>>>>>There have never been any previous 3 waters type of arrangements in >>>>>>>>New
In what way have the co governance arrangements relating to water >>>>>>>being diverted for hydro power relating to Turangi hydro and the >>>>>>>Wanganui River; and the arrangements for water use around Lake Taupo >>>>>>>and the talking of water from the Waikato for water supply not worked.
Tony? Are you calling the co-governance arrangements enthusiastically >>>>>>>supported by the National party a failure?
Those were not co-governance, they were co-management at best or more >>>>>>likely
just co-operation. There have never been any co-governance arrangements
supoported by any other government. Name one or clear off. >>>>>Whatever you want to call them (and Finlayson has referred to them as >>>>>co-governance in the past), are you claiming that the arrangements >>>>>regarding water that I described above, that were supported by the >>>>>National Party, are a failure?
The bottom line is that the news article talking about nitrates from >>>>>cattle in water giving rise to health problems - resolving those >>>>>problems requires change, and that may well need a structure to either >>>>>gain agreement or to monitor issues subsequent to agreement on >>>>>actions. Both National and Labour have in the past encouraged >>>>>participation by those involved in both finding solutions and >>>>>monitoring results - and with respect to water, Labour envisages >>>>>structures that are large enough to give sufficient expertise and >>>>>economies of scale, but otherwise relatively local throughout the >>>>>country. ACT and National are now critical of those proposals but not >>>>>offering any alternative solutions.
is
that there has never been any co-governance in this country until this >>>>government decided that it is OK to appoint people to tell elected >>>>representatives what to do.
people what to do. It is racism. That is what your government want to do. It
has to be removed.
You on the other hand just spin.
Cite?No he has not. He made it clear that he was talking about co-management. The
Oh and by the way, your repetitive lies about Finlayson have been destroyedCite? He has certainly proudly referred to his support for >>>co-governance, in the same sense as that term is used by Labour, often >>>enough. I gave you a lot of cites for that.
several times in the past. He confirmed that he suppoerted co-management >>>>and
not co-governance.
difference is profound.
There
have however been suggestions that National has changed policies with
regards to such matters; all I am asking is what ACT and National are
proposing, as part of their election campaign, regarding this issue >>>>>>>>>which is clearly important to all New Zealanders, but perhaps >>>>>>>>>particularly at present those in Gore . . .
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:What legislation are you talking about, Tony? No legislation was
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 06:29:37 -0000 (UTC), TonyBut the legislation does exist. It needs to be removed. So I got it exactly >correct again.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Hard to remove something that does not exist. You have it wrong again, >>Tony.
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 04:56:39 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:That is exactly what co-governance is about. Unelected people telling elected
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Can you give one example of that happening? Are you referring to the >>>>Mayor of Auckland not having to follow decisions of Council?
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 02:37:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You can spin as much as you like but the real bottom line (unlike your >>>>>lies)
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 02:10:59 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Don't try your bullshit on me.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 11:27:18 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>wrote:Zealand. So clearly we do not know that any have worked.
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 09:30:39 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>The article was about problems in and around Gore; right at the bottom
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 16:09:18 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 15:36:48 +1200, Rich80105 >>>>>>>>>>>>><Rich80105@hotmail.com>It is certainly not a simple task - and it does appear that >>>>>>>>>>>>Opposition
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 03:07:52 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Not a recent article Rich and unless you can cite otherwise the >>>>>>>>>>>>>current government has done nothing about it. Are you outraged >>>>>>>>>>>>>about
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.vice.com/en/article/4a3n3n/new-zealand-cows-nitrates-climate-changeSo why not just look it up for yourself?
Not a single scientific reference, not one. And the mention of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Greenpeace, that
This is a legacy of the John Key years - when Connor English >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>helped
lead the attack on democracy when ECANZ was effectively sacked >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>by
the
government. At that time it was known that water pollution was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>causing
problems for new borns in country towns in Canterbury, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>requiring
significant extra expense for Christchurch in water treatment. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Now
we
know it was much worse . . .
barely disguised terrorist organisation, just about removes all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>credibility
from the article.
Your conclusions however are even worse - there is no suggestion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>that
anybody
in government did anything wrong - do find another straw. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
See for example: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34740625/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>
this?
I am sure that if you brought this to the attention of PM Hipkins he
would take time out from far more pressing current issues to >>>>>>>>>>>>>promise a
Commission of Inquiry into this important issue if re-elected. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Parties don't want a bar of fixing it.
Neither does the current Government. The issue is longstanding and >>>>>>>>>>>after 6 years you have not identified any action they have taken. >>>>>>>>>>>
This is one of the major
reasons behind the 3 Waters proposals - fixing the problem of local >>>>>>>>>>>>authorities inheriting shit from upstream and not being able to do >>>>>>>>>>>>anything about it except try to pass as much on to the next >>>>>>>>>>>>downstream
authority without making their people too sick.
The Water Entities cover a geographic area that is not defined by the
water sources each one uses. For example, Water Entity A sources some
water from Lake Taupo via the Waikato River. Your claim that the >>>>>>>>>>>water reforms will fix this is a deliberate lie.
of the South Island. But the contractual arrangements that relate to >>>>>>>>>>water being taken from the Waikato to serve the needs of the Auckland >>>>>>>>>>Region may well be examples of the sort of agreements needed in the >>>>>>>>>>South Island - there are good governance arrangements relating to >>>>>>>>>>water coming into Lake Taupo and out from it to meet the needs of >>>>>>>>>>different communities (including flows to for example the Wanganui >>>>>>>>>>River, and hydro plants in the region) that may well cover avoiding >>>>>>>>>>the pollution of dairy into water taken to meet Auckland needs; >>>>>>>>>>although I suspect further water treatment is required after water is >>>>>>>>>>taken from the Waikato . . .
No, I thank you for giving confirmation that agreements are needed >>>>>>>>>>both within and between different entities involved in water supply >>>>>>>>>>and appropriate treatment around New Zealand - some of the lessons >>>>>>>>>>from the Waikato and Auckland Regions will have informed the 3 Water >>>>>>>>>>proposals
A broader approach is
required to ensure that responsibilities fix problems rather than >>>>>>>>>>>>passing them on, that governance is broad enough to cope with >>>>>>>>>>>>regional
issues not just very local issues, that funding is possible without >>>>>>>>>>>>fights between neighbouring local authorities to keep rates low by >>>>>>>>>>>>passing problems on. 3 Waters is about enabling water standards to be
met, with adequate funding, and while also working through the issues
of supply so that excessive use by one area does not mean inadequate
supply downstream.
Irrelevant - see above.
That does not answer the question I raised in relation to the article >>>>>>>>>>about problems with water in Gore. I understand that the arrangements >>>>>>>>>>made in relation to water in the Taupo region were made over a period >>>>>>>>>>of time involving both the previous Labour and National governments, >>>>>>>>>>with Chris Finlayson in his role relating to Treaty Settlements >>>>>>>>>>encouraging and facilitating good representation of a range of views >>>>>>>>>>from interested parties; resulting in cooperative structures that >>>>>>>>>>became a good example of co-governance. Regardless of who wins the >>>>>>>>>>next election the problems raised in the article about the effect of >>>>>>>>>>nitrates from cows affecting water supplies will need to be resolved. >>>>>>>>>>We know that 3 Waters type arrangements have worked in the past, and >>>>>>>>>>in particular in the Taupo region that you have highlighted. >>>>>>>>>There have never been any previous 3 waters type of arrangements in >>>>>>>>>NewI take it you have come to accept that National/ACT will form the next
So what do ACT and National propose to do about ensuring adequate >>>>>>>>>>>>quantity and quality of water supply to all New Zealanders, Crash? >>>>>>>>>>>>Or
will they just deliver more bowel cancer?
government because if this is not the case your concerns are >>>>>>>>>>>redundant.
In what way have the co governance arrangements relating to water >>>>>>>>being diverted for hydro power relating to Turangi hydro and the >>>>>>>>Wanganui River; and the arrangements for water use around Lake Taupo >>>>>>>>and the talking of water from the Waikato for water supply not worked. >>>>>>>>Tony? Are you calling the co-governance arrangements enthusiastically >>>>>>>>supported by the National party a failure?
Those were not co-governance, they were co-management at best or more >>>>>>>likely
just co-operation. There have never been any co-governance arrangements >>>>>>>supoported by any other government. Name one or clear off. >>>>>>Whatever you want to call them (and Finlayson has referred to them as >>>>>>co-governance in the past), are you claiming that the arrangements >>>>>>regarding water that I described above, that were supported by the >>>>>>National Party, are a failure?
The bottom line is that the news article talking about nitrates from >>>>>>cattle in water giving rise to health problems - resolving those >>>>>>problems requires change, and that may well need a structure to either >>>>>>gain agreement or to monitor issues subsequent to agreement on >>>>>>actions. Both National and Labour have in the past encouraged >>>>>>participation by those involved in both finding solutions and >>>>>>monitoring results - and with respect to water, Labour envisages >>>>>>structures that are large enough to give sufficient expertise and >>>>>>economies of scale, but otherwise relatively local throughout the >>>>>>country. ACT and National are now critical of those proposals but not >>>>>>offering any alternative solutions.
is
that there has never been any co-governance in this country until this >>>>>government decided that it is OK to appoint people to tell elected >>>>>representatives what to do.
Parliament may have to pass a law to thwart a local council but I am >>>>not aware of that happening very often (and yes National did force a >>>>number of amalgamations, but I believe that is different. As far as I >>>>am aware no current or proposed co-governance arrangements are able to >>>>ignore or act contrary to laws of the land, whether those laws be from >>>>a local Council or from Parliament.
people what to do. It is racism. That is what your government want to do. It >>>has to be removed.
You on the other hand just spin.You are just tiresome . . .
Cite?No he has not. He made it clear that he was talking about co-management. The >>>difference is profound.
Oh and by the way, your repetitive lies about Finlayson have been destroyedCite? He has certainly proudly referred to his support for >>>>co-governance, in the same sense as that term is used by Labour, often >>>>enough. I gave you a lot of cites for that.
several times in the past. He confirmed that he suppoerted co-management >>>>>and
not co-governance.
There
have however been suggestions that National has changed policies with >>>>>>>>>>regards to such matters; all I am asking is what ACT and National are >>>>>>>>>>proposing, as part of their election campaign, regarding this issue >>>>>>>>>>which is clearly important to all New Zealanders, but perhaps >>>>>>>>>>particularly at present those in Gore . . .
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 21:03:00 -0000 (UTC), TonyReally? How about 3 waters and the replacement for the RMA - both are co-governance and both are in motion to be enabled .
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:What legislation are you talking about, Tony?
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 06:29:37 -0000 (UTC), TonyBut the legislation does exist. It needs to be removed. So I got it exactly >>correct again.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Hard to remove something that does not exist. You have it wrong again, >>>Tony.
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 04:56:39 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:That is exactly what co-governance is about. Unelected people telling >>>>elected
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Can you give one example of that happening? Are you referring to the >>>>>Mayor of Auckland not having to follow decisions of Council? >>>>>Parliament may have to pass a law to thwart a local council but I am >>>>>not aware of that happening very often (and yes National did force a >>>>>number of amalgamations, but I believe that is different. As far as I >>>>>am aware no current or proposed co-governance arrangements are able to >>>>>ignore or act contrary to laws of the land, whether those laws be from >>>>>a local Council or from Parliament.
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 02:37:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You can spin as much as you like but the real bottom line (unlike your >>>>>>lies)
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 02:10:59 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Don't try your bullshit on me.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 11:27:18 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>Zealand. So clearly we do not know that any have worked.
wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 09:30:39 +1200, Rich80105 >>>>>>>>>>>><Rich80105@hotmail.com>The article was about problems in and around Gore; right at the >>>>>>>>>>>bottom
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 16:09:18 +1200, Crash >>>>>>>>>>>>><nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 15:36:48 +1200, Rich80105 >>>>>>>>>>>>>><Rich80105@hotmail.com>It is certainly not a simple task - and it does appear that >>>>>>>>>>>>>Opposition
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 03:07:52 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Not a recent article Rich and unless you can cite otherwise the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>current government has done nothing about it. Are you outraged >>>>>>>>>>>>>>about
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.vice.com/en/article/4a3n3n/new-zealand-cows-nitrates-climate-changeSo why not just look it up for yourself?
Not a single scientific reference, not one. And the mention of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Greenpeace, that
This is a legacy of the John Key years - when Connor English >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>helped
lead the attack on democracy when ECANZ was effectively sacked >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>by
the
government. At that time it was known that water pollution was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>causing
problems for new borns in country towns in Canterbury, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>requiring
significant extra expense for Christchurch in water treatment. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Now
we
know it was much worse . . .
barely disguised terrorist organisation, just about removes all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>credibility
from the article.
Your conclusions however are even worse - there is no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>suggestion
that
anybody
in government did anything wrong - do find another straw. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
See for example: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34740625/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
this?
I am sure that if you brought this to the attention of PM Hipkins >>>>>>>>>>>>>>he
would take time out from far more pressing current issues to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>promise a
Commission of Inquiry into this important issue if re-elected. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Parties don't want a bar of fixing it.
Neither does the current Government. The issue is longstanding and >>>>>>>>>>>>after 6 years you have not identified any action they have taken. >>>>>>>>>>>>
This is one of the major
reasons behind the 3 Waters proposals - fixing the problem of local
authorities inheriting shit from upstream and not being able to do >>>>>>>>>>>>>anything about it except try to pass as much on to the next >>>>>>>>>>>>>downstream
authority without making their people too sick.
The Water Entities cover a geographic area that is not defined by >>>>>>>>>>>>the
water sources each one uses. For example, Water Entity A sources >>>>>>>>>>>>some
water from Lake Taupo via the Waikato River. Your claim that the >>>>>>>>>>>>water reforms will fix this is a deliberate lie.
of the South Island. But the contractual arrangements that relate to >>>>>>>>>>>water being taken from the Waikato to serve the needs of the Auckland
Region may well be examples of the sort of agreements needed in the >>>>>>>>>>>South Island - there are good governance arrangements relating to >>>>>>>>>>>water coming into Lake Taupo and out from it to meet the needs of >>>>>>>>>>>different communities (including flows to for example the Wanganui >>>>>>>>>>>River, and hydro plants in the region) that may well cover avoiding >>>>>>>>>>>the pollution of dairy into water taken to meet Auckland needs; >>>>>>>>>>>although I suspect further water treatment is required after water is
taken from the Waikato . . .
No, I thank you for giving confirmation that agreements are needed >>>>>>>>>>>both within and between different entities involved in water supply >>>>>>>>>>>and appropriate treatment around New Zealand - some of the lessons >>>>>>>>>>>from the Waikato and Auckland Regions will have informed the 3 Water >>>>>>>>>>>proposals
A broader approach is
required to ensure that responsibilities fix problems rather than >>>>>>>>>>>>>passing them on, that governance is broad enough to cope with >>>>>>>>>>>>>regional
issues not just very local issues, that funding is possible without
fights between neighbouring local authorities to keep rates low by >>>>>>>>>>>>>passing problems on. 3 Waters is about enabling water standards to >>>>>>>>>>>>>be
met, with adequate funding, and while also working through the >>>>>>>>>>>>>issues
of supply so that excessive use by one area does not mean >>>>>>>>>>>>>inadequate
supply downstream.
Irrelevant - see above.
That does not answer the question I raised in relation to the articleI take it you have come to accept that National/ACT will form the >>>>>>>>>>>>next
So what do ACT and National propose to do about ensuring adequate >>>>>>>>>>>>>quantity and quality of water supply to all New Zealanders, Crash? >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Or
will they just deliver more bowel cancer?
government because if this is not the case your concerns are >>>>>>>>>>>>redundant.
about problems with water in Gore. I understand that the arrangements
made in relation to water in the Taupo region were made over a period
of time involving both the previous Labour and National governments, >>>>>>>>>>>with Chris Finlayson in his role relating to Treaty Settlements >>>>>>>>>>>encouraging and facilitating good representation of a range of views >>>>>>>>>>>from interested parties; resulting in cooperative structures that >>>>>>>>>>>became a good example of co-governance. Regardless of who wins the >>>>>>>>>>>next election the problems raised in the article about the effect of >>>>>>>>>>>nitrates from cows affecting water supplies will need to be resolved.
We know that 3 Waters type arrangements have worked in the past, and >>>>>>>>>>>in particular in the Taupo region that you have highlighted. >>>>>>>>>>There have never been any previous 3 waters type of arrangements in >>>>>>>>>>New
In what way have the co governance arrangements relating to water >>>>>>>>>being diverted for hydro power relating to Turangi hydro and the >>>>>>>>>Wanganui River; and the arrangements for water use around Lake Taupo >>>>>>>>>and the talking of water from the Waikato for water supply not worked. >>>>>>>>>Tony? Are you calling the co-governance arrangements enthusiastically >>>>>>>>>supported by the National party a failure?
Those were not co-governance, they were co-management at best or more >>>>>>>>likely
just co-operation. There have never been any co-governance arrangements >>>>>>>>supoported by any other government. Name one or clear off. >>>>>>>Whatever you want to call them (and Finlayson has referred to them as >>>>>>>co-governance in the past), are you claiming that the arrangements >>>>>>>regarding water that I described above, that were supported by the >>>>>>>National Party, are a failure?
The bottom line is that the news article talking about nitrates from >>>>>>>cattle in water giving rise to health problems - resolving those >>>>>>>problems requires change, and that may well need a structure to either >>>>>>>gain agreement or to monitor issues subsequent to agreement on >>>>>>>actions. Both National and Labour have in the past encouraged >>>>>>>participation by those involved in both finding solutions and >>>>>>>monitoring results - and with respect to water, Labour envisages >>>>>>>structures that are large enough to give sufficient expertise and >>>>>>>economies of scale, but otherwise relatively local throughout the >>>>>>>country. ACT and National are now critical of those proposals but not >>>>>>>offering any alternative solutions.
is
that there has never been any co-governance in this country until this >>>>>>government decided that it is OK to appoint people to tell elected >>>>>>representatives what to do.
people what to do. It is racism. That is what your government want to do. >>>>It
has to be removed.
No legislation wasNational never put any co-govetrnment legislatiuon in place.
needed for the co-governance arrangements agreed to and arranged by
the National Party.
Even if there is some legislation you areAs I said - "it needs to be removed"
concerned about, it could be amended or removed by a future
government.
No just truthful, you are truly tiresome with your lies, nastiness and appalling use of sarcasm as a weapon.You on the other hand just spin.You are just tiresome . . .
Cite?No he has not. He made it clear that he was talking about co-management. >>>>The
Oh and by the way, your repetitive lies about Finlayson have been >>>>>>destroyedCite? He has certainly proudly referred to his support for >>>>>co-governance, in the same sense as that term is used by Labour, often >>>>>enough. I gave you a lot of cites for that.
several times in the past. He confirmed that he suppoerted co-management >>>>>>and
not co-governance.
difference is profound.
I notice that you are unable to support your assertions again, Tony.
There
have however been suggestions that National has changed policies with
regards to such matters; all I am asking is what ACT and National are
proposing, as part of their election campaign, regarding this issue >>>>>>>>>>>which is clearly important to all New Zealanders, but perhaps >>>>>>>>>>>particularly at present those in Gore . . .
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:That legislation does not yet exist then; but in any case it could be
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 21:03:00 -0000 (UTC), TonyReally? How about 3 waters and the replacement for the RMA - both are >co-governance and both are in motion to be enabled .
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:What legislation are you talking about, Tony?
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 06:29:37 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:But the legislation does exist. It needs to be removed. So I got it exactly >>>correct again.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Hard to remove something that does not exist. You have it wrong again, >>>>Tony.
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 04:56:39 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:That is exactly what co-governance is about. Unelected people telling >>>>>elected
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Can you give one example of that happening? Are you referring to the >>>>>>Mayor of Auckland not having to follow decisions of Council? >>>>>>Parliament may have to pass a law to thwart a local council but I am >>>>>>not aware of that happening very often (and yes National did force a >>>>>>number of amalgamations, but I believe that is different. As far as I >>>>>>am aware no current or proposed co-governance arrangements are able to >>>>>>ignore or act contrary to laws of the land, whether those laws be from >>>>>>a local Council or from Parliament.
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 02:37:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You can spin as much as you like but the real bottom line (unlike your >>>>>>>lies)
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 02:10:59 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Don't try your bullshit on me.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 11:27:18 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>Zealand. So clearly we do not know that any have worked.
wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 09:30:39 +1200, Rich80105 >>>>>>>>>>>>><Rich80105@hotmail.com>The article was about problems in and around Gore; right at the >>>>>>>>>>>>bottom
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 16:09:18 +1200, Crash >>>>>>>>>>>>>><nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 15:36:48 +1200, Rich80105 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>><Rich80105@hotmail.com>It is certainly not a simple task - and it does appear that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Opposition
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 03:07:52 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Not a recent article Rich and unless you can cite otherwise the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>current government has done nothing about it. Are you outraged >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>about
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.vice.com/en/article/4a3n3n/new-zealand-cows-nitrates-climate-changeSo why not just look it up for yourself?
Not a single scientific reference, not one. And the mention of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Greenpeace, that
This is a legacy of the John Key years - when Connor English >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>helped
lead the attack on democracy when ECANZ was effectively sacked
by
the
government. At that time it was known that water pollution was
causing
problems for new borns in country towns in Canterbury, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>requiring
significant extra expense for Christchurch in water treatment.
Now
we
know it was much worse . . .
barely disguised terrorist organisation, just about removes all
credibility
from the article.
Your conclusions however are even worse - there is no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>suggestion
that
anybody
in government did anything wrong - do find another straw. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
See for example: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34740625/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
this?
I am sure that if you brought this to the attention of PM Hipkins
he
would take time out from far more pressing current issues to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>promise a
Commission of Inquiry into this important issue if re-elected. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Parties don't want a bar of fixing it.
Neither does the current Government. The issue is longstanding and
after 6 years you have not identified any action they have taken. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
This is one of the major
reasons behind the 3 Waters proposals - fixing the problem of local
authorities inheriting shit from upstream and not being able to do
anything about it except try to pass as much on to the next >>>>>>>>>>>>>>downstream
authority without making their people too sick.
The Water Entities cover a geographic area that is not defined by >>>>>>>>>>>>>the
water sources each one uses. For example, Water Entity A sources >>>>>>>>>>>>>some
water from Lake Taupo via the Waikato River. Your claim that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>water reforms will fix this is a deliberate lie.
of the South Island. But the contractual arrangements that relate to
water being taken from the Waikato to serve the needs of the Auckland
Region may well be examples of the sort of agreements needed in the >>>>>>>>>>>>South Island - there are good governance arrangements relating to >>>>>>>>>>>>water coming into Lake Taupo and out from it to meet the needs of >>>>>>>>>>>>different communities (including flows to for example the Wanganui >>>>>>>>>>>>River, and hydro plants in the region) that may well cover avoiding >>>>>>>>>>>>the pollution of dairy into water taken to meet Auckland needs; >>>>>>>>>>>>although I suspect further water treatment is required after water is
taken from the Waikato . . .
No, I thank you for giving confirmation that agreements are needed >>>>>>>>>>>>both within and between different entities involved in water supply >>>>>>>>>>>>and appropriate treatment around New Zealand - some of the lessons >>>>>>>>>>>>from the Waikato and Auckland Regions will have informed the 3 Water
A broader approach is
required to ensure that responsibilities fix problems rather than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>passing them on, that governance is broad enough to cope with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>regional
issues not just very local issues, that funding is possible without
fights between neighbouring local authorities to keep rates low by
passing problems on. 3 Waters is about enabling water standards to
be
met, with adequate funding, and while also working through the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>issues
of supply so that excessive use by one area does not mean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>inadequate
supply downstream.
Irrelevant - see above.
proposals
That does not answer the question I raised in relation to the articleI take it you have come to accept that National/ACT will form the >>>>>>>>>>>>>next
So what do ACT and National propose to do about ensuring adequate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>quantity and quality of water supply to all New Zealanders, Crash?
Or
will they just deliver more bowel cancer?
government because if this is not the case your concerns are >>>>>>>>>>>>>redundant.
about problems with water in Gore. I understand that the arrangements
made in relation to water in the Taupo region were made over a period
of time involving both the previous Labour and National governments,
with Chris Finlayson in his role relating to Treaty Settlements >>>>>>>>>>>>encouraging and facilitating good representation of a range of views
from interested parties; resulting in cooperative structures that >>>>>>>>>>>>became a good example of co-governance. Regardless of who wins the >>>>>>>>>>>>next election the problems raised in the article about the effect of
nitrates from cows affecting water supplies will need to be resolved.
We know that 3 Waters type arrangements have worked in the past, and
in particular in the Taupo region that you have highlighted. >>>>>>>>>>>There have never been any previous 3 waters type of arrangements in >>>>>>>>>>>New
In what way have the co governance arrangements relating to water >>>>>>>>>>being diverted for hydro power relating to Turangi hydro and the >>>>>>>>>>Wanganui River; and the arrangements for water use around Lake Taupo >>>>>>>>>>and the talking of water from the Waikato for water supply not worked.
Tony? Are you calling the co-governance arrangements enthusiastically >>>>>>>>>>supported by the National party a failure?
Those were not co-governance, they were co-management at best or more >>>>>>>>>likely
just co-operation. There have never been any co-governance arrangements
supoported by any other government. Name one or clear off. >>>>>>>>Whatever you want to call them (and Finlayson has referred to them as >>>>>>>>co-governance in the past), are you claiming that the arrangements >>>>>>>>regarding water that I described above, that were supported by the >>>>>>>>National Party, are a failure?
The bottom line is that the news article talking about nitrates from >>>>>>>>cattle in water giving rise to health problems - resolving those >>>>>>>>problems requires change, and that may well need a structure to either >>>>>>>>gain agreement or to monitor issues subsequent to agreement on >>>>>>>>actions. Both National and Labour have in the past encouraged >>>>>>>>participation by those involved in both finding solutions and >>>>>>>>monitoring results - and with respect to water, Labour envisages >>>>>>>>structures that are large enough to give sufficient expertise and >>>>>>>>economies of scale, but otherwise relatively local throughout the >>>>>>>>country. ACT and National are now critical of those proposals but not >>>>>>>>offering any alternative solutions.
is
that there has never been any co-governance in this country until this >>>>>>>government decided that it is OK to appoint people to tell elected >>>>>>>representatives what to do.
people what to do. It is racism. That is what your government want to do. >>>>>It
has to be removed.
Indeed it was not necessary for the co-governance arrangements thatNo legislation wasNational never put any co-govetrnment legislatiuon in place.
needed for the co-governance arrangements agreed to and arranged by
the National Party.
And of course that is your opinion - without identifying anyEven if there is some legislation you areAs I said - "it needs to be removed"
concerned about, it could be amended or removed by a future
government.
Asking you to justify your unsupported statements is hardlyNo just truthful, you are truly tiresome with your lies, nastiness and >appalling use of sarcasm as a weapon.You on the other hand just spin.You are just tiresome . . .
And of course you will ignore what you find too hard to answer . . .
Cite?No he has not. He made it clear that he was talking about co-management. >>>>>The
Oh and by the way, your repetitive lies about Finlayson have been >>>>>>>destroyedCite? He has certainly proudly referred to his support for >>>>>>co-governance, in the same sense as that term is used by Labour, often >>>>>>enough. I gave you a lot of cites for that.
several times in the past. He confirmed that he suppoerted co-management >>>>>>>and
not co-governance.
difference is profound.
I notice that you are unable to support your assertions again, Tony.
There
have however been suggestions that National has changed policies with
regards to such matters; all I am asking is what ACT and National are
proposing, as part of their election campaign, regarding this issue >>>>>>>>>>>>which is clearly important to all New Zealanders, but perhaps >>>>>>>>>>>>particularly at present those in Gore . . .
On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 03:01:29 -0000 (UTC), TonyNational have promised to repeal 3 waters and you know that.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:That legislation does not yet exist then; but in any case it could be >reversed by a future government. Are you able to refer to any
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 21:03:00 -0000 (UTC), TonyReally? How about 3 waters and the replacement for the RMA - both are >>co-governance and both are in motion to be enabled .
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:What legislation are you talking about, Tony?
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 06:29:37 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:But the legislation does exist. It needs to be removed. So I got it exactly >>>>correct again.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Hard to remove something that does not exist. You have it wrong again, >>>>>Tony.
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 04:56:39 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:That is exactly what co-governance is about. Unelected people telling >>>>>>elected
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Can you give one example of that happening? Are you referring to the >>>>>>>Mayor of Auckland not having to follow decisions of Council? >>>>>>>Parliament may have to pass a law to thwart a local council but I am >>>>>>>not aware of that happening very often (and yes National did force a >>>>>>>number of amalgamations, but I believe that is different. As far as I >>>>>>>am aware no current or proposed co-governance arrangements are able to >>>>>>>ignore or act contrary to laws of the land, whether those laws be from >>>>>>>a local Council or from Parliament.
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 02:37:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You can spin as much as you like but the real bottom line (unlike your >>>>>>>>lies)
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 02:10:59 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Don't try your bullshit on me.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:In what way have the co governance arrangements relating to water >>>>>>>>>>>being diverted for hydro power relating to Turangi hydro and the >>>>>>>>>>>Wanganui River; and the arrangements for water use around Lake Taupo >>>>>>>>>>>and the talking of water from the Waikato for water supply not >>>>>>>>>>>worked.
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 11:27:18 +1200, Crash >>>>>>>>>>>>><nogood@dontbother.invalid>New
wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 09:30:39 +1200, Rich80105 >>>>>>>>>>>>>><Rich80105@hotmail.com>The article was about problems in and around Gore; right at the >>>>>>>>>>>>>bottom
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 16:09:18 +1200, Crash >>>>>>>>>>>>>>><nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 15:36:48 +1200, Rich80105 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><Rich80105@hotmail.com>It is certainly not a simple task - and it does appear that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Opposition
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 03:07:52 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Not a recent article Rich and unless you can cite otherwise the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>current government has done nothing about it. Are you outraged >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>about
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.vice.com/en/article/4a3n3n/new-zealand-cows-nitrates-climate-changeSo why not just look it up for yourself?
Not a single scientific reference, not one. And the mention >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>of
This is a legacy of the John Key years - when Connor English >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>helped
lead the attack on democracy when ECANZ was effectively >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>sacked
by
the
government. At that time it was known that water pollution >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>was
causing
problems for new borns in country towns in Canterbury, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>requiring
significant extra expense for Christchurch in water >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>treatment.
Now
we
know it was much worse . . .
Greenpeace, that
barely disguised terrorist organisation, just about removes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>all
credibility
from the article.
Your conclusions however are even worse - there is no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>suggestion
that
anybody
in government did anything wrong - do find another straw. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
See for example: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34740625/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
this?
I am sure that if you brought this to the attention of PM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hipkins
he
would take time out from far more pressing current issues to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>promise a
Commission of Inquiry into this important issue if re-elected. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Parties don't want a bar of fixing it.
Neither does the current Government. The issue is longstanding >>>>>>>>>>>>>>and
after 6 years you have not identified any action they have taken. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This is one of the major
reasons behind the 3 Waters proposals - fixing the problem of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>local
authorities inheriting shit from upstream and not being able to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>do
anything about it except try to pass as much on to the next >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>downstream
authority without making their people too sick.
The Water Entities cover a geographic area that is not defined by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>the
water sources each one uses. For example, Water Entity A sources >>>>>>>>>>>>>>some
water from Lake Taupo via the Waikato River. Your claim that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>water reforms will fix this is a deliberate lie.
of the South Island. But the contractual arrangements that relate >>>>>>>>>>>>>to
water being taken from the Waikato to serve the needs of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>Auckland
Region may well be examples of the sort of agreements needed in the
South Island - there are good governance arrangements relating to >>>>>>>>>>>>>water coming into Lake Taupo and out from it to meet the needs of >>>>>>>>>>>>>different communities (including flows to for example the Wanganui >>>>>>>>>>>>>River, and hydro plants in the region) that may well cover avoiding
the pollution of dairy into water taken to meet Auckland needs; >>>>>>>>>>>>>although I suspect further water treatment is required after water >>>>>>>>>>>>>is
taken from the Waikato . . .
No, I thank you for giving confirmation that agreements are needed >>>>>>>>>>>>>both within and between different entities involved in water supply
A broader approach is
required to ensure that responsibilities fix problems rather than
passing them on, that governance is broad enough to cope with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>regional
issues not just very local issues, that funding is possible >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>without
fights between neighbouring local authorities to keep rates low >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>by
passing problems on. 3 Waters is about enabling water standards >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>to
be
met, with adequate funding, and while also working through the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>issues
of supply so that excessive use by one area does not mean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>inadequate
supply downstream.
Irrelevant - see above.
and appropriate treatment around New Zealand - some of the lessons >>>>>>>>>>>>>from the Waikato and Auckland Regions will have informed the 3 >>>>>>>>>>>>>Water
proposals
That does not answer the question I raised in relation to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>articleI take it you have come to accept that National/ACT will form the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>next
So what do ACT and National propose to do about ensuring adequate
quantity and quality of water supply to all New Zealanders, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Crash?
Or
will they just deliver more bowel cancer?
government because if this is not the case your concerns are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>redundant.
about problems with water in Gore. I understand that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>arrangements
made in relation to water in the Taupo region were made over a >>>>>>>>>>>>>period
of time involving both the previous Labour and National >>>>>>>>>>>>>governments,
with Chris Finlayson in his role relating to Treaty Settlements >>>>>>>>>>>>>encouraging and facilitating good representation of a range of >>>>>>>>>>>>>views
from interested parties; resulting in cooperative structures that >>>>>>>>>>>>>became a good example of co-governance. Regardless of who wins the >>>>>>>>>>>>>next election the problems raised in the article about the effect >>>>>>>>>>>>>of
nitrates from cows affecting water supplies will need to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>resolved.
We know that 3 Waters type arrangements have worked in the past, >>>>>>>>>>>>>and
in particular in the Taupo region that you have highlighted. >>>>>>>>>>>>There have never been any previous 3 waters type of arrangements >>>>>>>>>>>>in
Zealand. So clearly we do not know that any have worked. >>>>>>>>>>>
Tony? Are you calling the co-governance arrangements enthusiastically
supported by the National party a failure?
Those were not co-governance, they were co-management at best or more >>>>>>>>>>likely
just co-operation. There have never been any co-governance >>>>>>>>>>arrangements
supoported by any other government. Name one or clear off. >>>>>>>>>Whatever you want to call them (and Finlayson has referred to them as >>>>>>>>>co-governance in the past), are you claiming that the arrangements >>>>>>>>>regarding water that I described above, that were supported by the >>>>>>>>>National Party, are a failure?
The bottom line is that the news article talking about nitrates from >>>>>>>>>cattle in water giving rise to health problems - resolving those >>>>>>>>>problems requires change, and that may well need a structure to either >>>>>>>>>gain agreement or to monitor issues subsequent to agreement on >>>>>>>>>actions. Both National and Labour have in the past encouraged >>>>>>>>>participation by those involved in both finding solutions and >>>>>>>>>monitoring results - and with respect to water, Labour envisages >>>>>>>>>structures that are large enough to give sufficient expertise and >>>>>>>>>economies of scale, but otherwise relatively local throughout the >>>>>>>>>country. ACT and National are now critical of those proposals but not >>>>>>>>>offering any alternative solutions.
is
that there has never been any co-governance in this country until this >>>>>>>>government decided that it is OK to appoint people to tell elected >>>>>>>>representatives what to do.
people what to do. It is racism. That is what your government want to do. >>>>>>It
has to be removed.
provisions relating to co-governance that have been objected to by ACT
or National - or whether they are promising to repeal that
legislation?
They agreed to non such thing and you know that.Indeed it was not necessary for the co-governance arrangements thatNo legislation wasNational never put any co-govetrnment legislatiuon in place.
needed for the co-governance arrangements agreed to and arranged by
the National Party.
they agreed to . . .
I said that well before you did. But obviously I disagree with the removal of democracy, you clearly want to see it removed.And of course that is your opinion - without identifying anyEven if there is some legislation you areAs I said - "it needs to be removed"
concerned about, it could be amended or removed by a future
government.
particular provisions that you disagree with - but you confirm my
point that it can be reversed by a future government, should such a >government be elected. . .
No verbal abuse at all. What verbal abuse have I used against you? When did that happen? Do tell!Asking you to justify your unsupported statements is hardlyNo just truthful, you are truly tiresome with your lies, nastiness and >>appalling use of sarcasm as a weapon.You on the other hand just spin.You are just tiresome . . .
unreasonable - I have not responded to your verbal abuse, just your
lack of evidence or logical argument.
No it is simply true that it was co-management and that has been explained to you ad nauseum.And of course you will ignore what you find too hard to answer . . .
Cite?No he has not. He made it clear that he was talking about co-management. >>>>>>The
Oh and by the way, your repetitive lies about Finlayson have been >>>>>>>>destroyedCite? He has certainly proudly referred to his support for >>>>>>>co-governance, in the same sense as that term is used by Labour, often >>>>>>>enough. I gave you a lot of cites for that.
several times in the past. He confirmed that he suppoerted >>>>>>>>co-management
and
not co-governance.
difference is profound.
I notice that you are unable to support your assertions again, Tony.
There
have however been suggestions that National has changed policies >>>>>>>>>>>>>with
regards to such matters; all I am asking is what ACT and National >>>>>>>>>>>>>are
proposing, as part of their election campaign, regarding this issue
which is clearly important to all New Zealanders, but perhaps >>>>>>>>>>>>>particularly at present those in Gore . . .
On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 03:01:29 -0000 (UTC), TonySo why do you persist in posting with lack of evidence or logical answers Rich. Instead you persist in refusing to practice what you preach. So typical of lying bastards like you and your left whinge mates!
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:That legislation does not yet exist then; but in any case it could be reversed by a future government. Are you able to refer to any
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 21:03:00 -0000 (UTC), TonyReally? How about 3 waters and the replacement for the RMA - both are >co-governance and both are in motion to be enabled .
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:What legislation are you talking about, Tony?
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 06:29:37 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:But the legislation does exist. It needs to be removed. So I got it exactly
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Hard to remove something that does not exist. You have it wrong again, >>>>Tony.
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 04:56:39 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:That is exactly what co-governance is about. Unelected people telling >>>>>elected
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Can you give one example of that happening? Are you referring to the >>>>>>Mayor of Auckland not having to follow decisions of Council? >>>>>>Parliament may have to pass a law to thwart a local council but I am >>>>>>not aware of that happening very often (and yes National did force a >>>>>>number of amalgamations, but I believe that is different. As far as I >>>>>>am aware no current or proposed co-governance arrangements are able to >>>>>>ignore or act contrary to laws of the land, whether those laws be from >>>>>>a local Council or from Parliament.
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 02:37:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You can spin as much as you like but the real bottom line (unlike your
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:co-governance in the past), are you claiming that the arrangements >>>>>>>>regarding water that I described above, that were supported by the >>>>>>>>National Party, are a failure?
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 02:10:59 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Don't try your bullshit on me.
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:In what way have the co governance arrangements relating to water >>>>>>>>>>being diverted for hydro power relating to Turangi hydro and the >>>>>>>>>>Wanganui River; and the arrangements for water use around Lake Taupo
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 11:27:18 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>New
wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 09:30:39 +1200, Rich80105 >>>>>>>>>>>>><Rich...@hotmail.com>of the South Island. But the contractual arrangements that relate to
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 16:09:18 +1200, Crash >>>>>>>>>>>>>><nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 15:36:48 +1200, Rich80105 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>><Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 03:07:52 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Not a recent article Rich and unless you can cite otherwise the
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.vice.com/en/article/4a3n3n/new-zealand-cows-nitrates-climate-changeSo why not just look it up for yourself?
Not a single scientific reference, not one. And the mention of
This is a legacy of the John Key years - when Connor English
helped
lead the attack on democracy when ECANZ was effectively sacked
by
the
government. At that time it was known that water pollution was
causing
problems for new borns in country towns in Canterbury, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>requiring
significant extra expense for Christchurch in water treatment.
Now
we
know it was much worse . . .
Greenpeace, that
barely disguised terrorist organisation, just about removes all
credibility
from the article.
Your conclusions however are even worse - there is no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>suggestion
that
anybody
in government did anything wrong - do find another straw. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
See for example: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34740625/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
current government has done nothing about it. Are you outraged
about
this?
I am sure that if you brought this to the attention of PM Hipkins
he
would take time out from far more pressing current issues to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>promise a
Commission of Inquiry into this important issue if re-elected.
It is certainly not a simple task - and it does appear that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Opposition
Parties don't want a bar of fixing it.
Neither does the current Government. The issue is longstanding and
after 6 years you have not identified any action they have taken.
This is one of the major
reasons behind the 3 Waters proposals - fixing the problem of local
authorities inheriting shit from upstream and not being able to do
anything about it except try to pass as much on to the next >>>>>>>>>>>>>>downstream
authority without making their people too sick.
The Water Entities cover a geographic area that is not defined by
the
water sources each one uses. For example, Water Entity A sources
some
water from Lake Taupo via the Waikato River. Your claim that the
water reforms will fix this is a deliberate lie. >>>>>>>>>>>>The article was about problems in and around Gore; right at the >>>>>>>>>>>>bottom
water being taken from the Waikato to serve the needs of the Auckland
Region may well be examples of the sort of agreements needed in the
South Island - there are good governance arrangements relating to
water coming into Lake Taupo and out from it to meet the needs of
different communities (including flows to for example the Wanganui
River, and hydro plants in the region) that may well cover avoiding
the pollution of dairy into water taken to meet Auckland needs; >>>>>>>>>>>>although I suspect further water treatment is required after water is
taken from the Waikato . . .
No, I thank you for giving confirmation that agreements are needed
A broader approach is
required to ensure that responsibilities fix problems rather than
passing them on, that governance is broad enough to cope with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>regional
issues not just very local issues, that funding is possible without
fights between neighbouring local authorities to keep rates low by
passing problems on. 3 Waters is about enabling water standards to
be
met, with adequate funding, and while also working through the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>issues
of supply so that excessive use by one area does not mean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>inadequate
supply downstream.
Irrelevant - see above.
both within and between different entities involved in water supply
and appropriate treatment around New Zealand - some of the lessons
from the Waikato and Auckland Regions will have informed the 3 Water
proposals
That does not answer the question I raised in relation to the articleI take it you have come to accept that National/ACT will form the
So what do ACT and National propose to do about ensuring adequate
quantity and quality of water supply to all New Zealanders, Crash?
Or
will they just deliver more bowel cancer?
next
government because if this is not the case your concerns are >>>>>>>>>>>>>redundant.
about problems with water in Gore. I understand that the arrangements
made in relation to water in the Taupo region were made over a period
of time involving both the previous Labour and National governments,
with Chris Finlayson in his role relating to Treaty Settlements >>>>>>>>>>>>encouraging and facilitating good representation of a range of views
from interested parties; resulting in cooperative structures that
became a good example of co-governance. Regardless of who wins the
next election the problems raised in the article about the effect of
nitrates from cows affecting water supplies will need to be resolved.
We know that 3 Waters type arrangements have worked in the past, and
in particular in the Taupo region that you have highlighted. >>>>>>>>>>>There have never been any previous 3 waters type of arrangements in
Zealand. So clearly we do not know that any have worked. >>>>>>>>>>
and the talking of water from the Waikato for water supply not worked.
Tony? Are you calling the co-governance arrangements enthusiastically
supported by the National party a failure?
Those were not co-governance, they were co-management at best or more
likely
just co-operation. There have never been any co-governance arrangements
supoported by any other government. Name one or clear off. >>>>>>>>Whatever you want to call them (and Finlayson has referred to them as
The bottom line is that the news article talking about nitrates from >>>>>>>>cattle in water giving rise to health problems - resolving those >>>>>>>>problems requires change, and that may well need a structure to either
gain agreement or to monitor issues subsequent to agreement on >>>>>>>>actions. Both National and Labour have in the past encouraged >>>>>>>>participation by those involved in both finding solutions and >>>>>>>>monitoring results - and with respect to water, Labour envisages >>>>>>>>structures that are large enough to give sufficient expertise and >>>>>>>>economies of scale, but otherwise relatively local throughout the >>>>>>>>country. ACT and National are now critical of those proposals but not
offering any alternative solutions.
lies)
is
that there has never been any co-governance in this country until this
government decided that it is OK to appoint people to tell elected >>>>>>>representatives what to do.
people what to do. It is racism. That is what your government want to do.
It
has to be removed.
correct again.
provisions relating to co-governance that have been objected to by ACT
or National - or whether they are promising to repeal that
legislation?
Indeed it was not necessary for the co-governance arrangements thatNo legislation wasNational never put any co-govetrnment legislatiuon in place.
needed for the co-governance arrangements agreed to and arranged by
the National Party.
they agreed to . . .
And of course that is your opinion - without identifying anyEven if there is some legislation you areAs I said - "it needs to be removed"
concerned about, it could be amended or removed by a future
government.
particular provisions that you disagree with - but you confirm my
point that it can be reversed by a future government, should such a government be elected. . .
Asking you to justify your unsupported statements is hardlyNo just truthful, you are truly tiresome with your lies, nastiness and >appalling use of sarcasm as a weapon.You on the other hand just spin.You are just tiresome . . .
unreasonable - I have not responded to your verbal abuse, just your
lack of evidence or logical argument.
So what's your excuse for avoiding any question Rich? Are you a true lying left supporter and incapable of coming up with an answer that doesn't leave you looking like a gaslighting Labour MP?!And of course you will ignore what you find too hard to answer . . .
Cite?No he has not. He made it clear that he was talking about co-management.
Oh and by the way, your repetitive lies about Finlayson have been >>>>>>>destroyedCite? He has certainly proudly referred to his support for >>>>>>co-governance, in the same sense as that term is used by Labour, often >>>>>>enough. I gave you a lot of cites for that.
several times in the past. He confirmed that he suppoerted co-management
and
not co-governance.
The
difference is profound.
I notice that you are unable to support your assertions again, Tony.
There
have however been suggestions that National has changed policies with
regards to such matters; all I am asking is what ACT and National are
proposing, as part of their election campaign, regarding this issue
which is clearly important to all New Zealanders, but perhaps >>>>>>>>>>>>particularly at present those in Gore . . .
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Your inability to justify your actions is typical of the sort of
On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 03:01:29 -0000 (UTC), TonyNational have promised to repeal 3 waters and you know that.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:That legislation does not yet exist then; but in any case it could be >>reversed by a future government. Are you able to refer to any
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 21:03:00 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Really? How about 3 waters and the replacement for the RMA - both are >>>co-governance and both are in motion to be enabled .
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:What legislation are you talking about, Tony?
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 06:29:37 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:But the legislation does exist. It needs to be removed. So I got it exactly
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Hard to remove something that does not exist. You have it wrong again, >>>>>>Tony.
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 04:56:39 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:That is exactly what co-governance is about. Unelected people telling >>>>>>>elected
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Can you give one example of that happening? Are you referring to the >>>>>>>>Mayor of Auckland not having to follow decisions of Council? >>>>>>>>Parliament may have to pass a law to thwart a local council but I am >>>>>>>>not aware of that happening very often (and yes National did force a >>>>>>>>number of amalgamations, but I believe that is different. As far as I >>>>>>>>am aware no current or proposed co-governance arrangements are able to >>>>>>>>ignore or act contrary to laws of the land, whether those laws be from >>>>>>>>a local Council or from Parliament.
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 02:37:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You can spin as much as you like but the real bottom line (unlike your >>>>>>>>>lies)
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 02:10:59 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Don't try your bullshit on me.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:In what way have the co governance arrangements relating to water >>>>>>>>>>>>being diverted for hydro power relating to Turangi hydro and the >>>>>>>>>>>>Wanganui River; and the arrangements for water use around Lake Taupo
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 11:27:18 +1200, Crash >>>>>>>>>>>>>><nogood@dontbother.invalid>New
wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 09:30:39 +1200, Rich80105 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>><Rich80105@hotmail.com>of the South Island. But the contractual arrangements that relate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>to
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 16:09:18 +1200, Crash >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 15:36:48 +1200, Rich80105 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><Rich80105@hotmail.com>It is certainly not a simple task - and it does appear that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Opposition
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 03:07:52 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Not a recent article Rich and unless you can cite otherwise the
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.vice.com/en/article/4a3n3n/new-zealand-cows-nitrates-climate-changeSo why not just look it up for yourself? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>See for example: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34740625/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not a single scientific reference, not one. And the mention >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>of
This is a legacy of the John Key years - when Connor English
helped
lead the attack on democracy when ECANZ was effectively >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>sacked
by
the
government. At that time it was known that water pollution >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>was
causing
problems for new borns in country towns in Canterbury, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>requiring
significant extra expense for Christchurch in water >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>treatment.
Now
we
know it was much worse . . .
Greenpeace, that
barely disguised terrorist organisation, just about removes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>all
credibility
from the article.
Your conclusions however are even worse - there is no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>suggestion
that
anybody
in government did anything wrong - do find another straw. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
current government has done nothing about it. Are you outraged
about
this?
I am sure that if you brought this to the attention of PM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hipkins
he
would take time out from far more pressing current issues to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>promise a
Commission of Inquiry into this important issue if re-elected. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Parties don't want a bar of fixing it.
Neither does the current Government. The issue is longstanding >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>and
after 6 years you have not identified any action they have taken.
This is one of the major
reasons behind the 3 Waters proposals - fixing the problem of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>local
authorities inheriting shit from upstream and not being able to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>do
anything about it except try to pass as much on to the next >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>downstream
authority without making their people too sick.
The Water Entities cover a geographic area that is not defined by
the
water sources each one uses. For example, Water Entity A sources
some
water from Lake Taupo via the Waikato River. Your claim that the
water reforms will fix this is a deliberate lie. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>The article was about problems in and around Gore; right at the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>bottom
water being taken from the Waikato to serve the needs of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Auckland
Region may well be examples of the sort of agreements needed in the
South Island - there are good governance arrangements relating to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>water coming into Lake Taupo and out from it to meet the needs of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>different communities (including flows to for example the Wanganui
River, and hydro plants in the region) that may well cover avoiding
the pollution of dairy into water taken to meet Auckland needs; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>although I suspect further water treatment is required after water
is
taken from the Waikato . . .
No, I thank you for giving confirmation that agreements are needed
A broader approach is
required to ensure that responsibilities fix problems rather than
passing them on, that governance is broad enough to cope with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>regional
issues not just very local issues, that funding is possible >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>without
fights between neighbouring local authorities to keep rates low >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>by
passing problems on. 3 Waters is about enabling water standards >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>to
be
met, with adequate funding, and while also working through the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>issues
of supply so that excessive use by one area does not mean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>inadequate
supply downstream.
Irrelevant - see above.
both within and between different entities involved in water supply
and appropriate treatment around New Zealand - some of the lessons
from the Waikato and Auckland Regions will have informed the 3 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Water
proposals
That does not answer the question I raised in relation to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>articleI take it you have come to accept that National/ACT will form the
So what do ACT and National propose to do about ensuring adequate
quantity and quality of water supply to all New Zealanders, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Crash?
Or
will they just deliver more bowel cancer?
next
government because if this is not the case your concerns are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>redundant.
about problems with water in Gore. I understand that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>arrangements
made in relation to water in the Taupo region were made over a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>period
of time involving both the previous Labour and National >>>>>>>>>>>>>>governments,
with Chris Finlayson in his role relating to Treaty Settlements >>>>>>>>>>>>>>encouraging and facilitating good representation of a range of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>views
from interested parties; resulting in cooperative structures that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>became a good example of co-governance. Regardless of who wins the
next election the problems raised in the article about the effect >>>>>>>>>>>>>>of
nitrates from cows affecting water supplies will need to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>resolved.
We know that 3 Waters type arrangements have worked in the past, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>and
in particular in the Taupo region that you have highlighted. >>>>>>>>>>>>>There have never been any previous 3 waters type of arrangements >>>>>>>>>>>>>in
Zealand. So clearly we do not know that any have worked. >>>>>>>>>>>>
and the talking of water from the Waikato for water supply not >>>>>>>>>>>>worked.
Tony? Are you calling the co-governance arrangements enthusiastically
supported by the National party a failure?
Those were not co-governance, they were co-management at best or more
likely
just co-operation. There have never been any co-governance >>>>>>>>>>>arrangements
supoported by any other government. Name one or clear off. >>>>>>>>>>Whatever you want to call them (and Finlayson has referred to them as >>>>>>>>>>co-governance in the past), are you claiming that the arrangements >>>>>>>>>>regarding water that I described above, that were supported by the >>>>>>>>>>National Party, are a failure?
The bottom line is that the news article talking about nitrates from >>>>>>>>>>cattle in water giving rise to health problems - resolving those >>>>>>>>>>problems requires change, and that may well need a structure to either
gain agreement or to monitor issues subsequent to agreement on >>>>>>>>>>actions. Both National and Labour have in the past encouraged >>>>>>>>>>participation by those involved in both finding solutions and >>>>>>>>>>monitoring results - and with respect to water, Labour envisages >>>>>>>>>>structures that are large enough to give sufficient expertise and >>>>>>>>>>economies of scale, but otherwise relatively local throughout the >>>>>>>>>>country. ACT and National are now critical of those proposals but not >>>>>>>>>>offering any alternative solutions.
is
that there has never been any co-governance in this country until this >>>>>>>>>government decided that it is OK to appoint people to tell elected >>>>>>>>>representatives what to do.
people what to do. It is racism. That is what your government want to do.
It
has to be removed.
correct again.
provisions relating to co-governance that have been objected to by ACT
or National - or whether they are promising to repeal that
legislation?
They agreed to non such thing and you know that.
Indeed it was not necessary for the co-governance arrangements thatNo legislation wasNational never put any co-govetrnment legislatiuon in place.
needed for the co-governance arrangements agreed to and arranged by
the National Party.
they agreed to . . .
I said that well before you did. But obviously I disagree with the removal of >democracy, you clearly want to see it removed.
And of course that is your opinion - without identifying anyEven if there is some legislation you areAs I said - "it needs to be removed"
concerned about, it could be amended or removed by a future
government.
particular provisions that you disagree with - but you confirm my
point that it can be reversed by a future government, should such a >>government be elected. . .
No verbal abuse at all. What verbal abuse have I used against you? When did >that happen? Do tell!
Asking you to justify your unsupported statements is hardlyNo just truthful, you are truly tiresome with your lies, nastiness and >>>appalling use of sarcasm as a weapon.You on the other hand just spin.You are just tiresome . . .
unreasonable - I have not responded to your verbal abuse, just your
lack of evidence or logical argument.
You have given no explanations, just unsupported personal opinions.No it is simply true that it was co-management and that has been explained to >you ad nauseum.
And of course you will ignore what you find too hard to answer . . .
Cite?No he has not. He made it clear that he was talking about co-management. >>>>>>>The
Oh and by the way, your repetitive lies about Finlayson have been >>>>>>>>>destroyedCite? He has certainly proudly referred to his support for >>>>>>>>co-governance, in the same sense as that term is used by Labour, often >>>>>>>>enough. I gave you a lot of cites for that.
several times in the past. He confirmed that he suppoerted >>>>>>>>>co-management
and
not co-governance.
difference is profound.
I notice that you are unable to support your assertions again, Tony.
There
have however been suggestions that National has changed policies >>>>>>>>>>>>>>with
regards to such matters; all I am asking is what ACT and National >>>>>>>>>>>>>>are
proposing, as part of their election campaign, regarding this issue
which is clearly important to all New Zealanders, but perhaps >>>>>>>>>>>>>>particularly at present those in Gore . . .
On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 3:12:46?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 03:01:29 -0000 (UTC), TonySo why do you persist in posting with lack of evidence or logical answers Rich. Instead you persist in refusing to practice what you preach. So typical of lying bastards like you and your left whinge mates!
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:That legislation does not yet exist then; but in any case it could be
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 21:03:00 -0000 (UTC), TonyReally? How about 3 waters and the replacement for the RMA - both are
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:What legislation are you talking about, Tony?
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 06:29:37 -0000 (UTC), TonyBut the legislation does exist. It needs to be removed. So I got it exactly
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Hard to remove something that does not exist. You have it wrong again, >> >>>>Tony.
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 04:56:39 -0000 (UTC), TonyThat is exactly what co-governance is about. Unelected people telling >> >>>>>elected
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Can you give one example of that happening? Are you referring to the >> >>>>>>Mayor of Auckland not having to follow decisions of Council?
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 02:37:55 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou can spin as much as you like but the real bottom line (unlike your
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Whatever you want to call them (and Finlayson has referred to them as
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 02:10:59 -0000 (UTC), TonyDon't try your bullshit on me.
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 11:27:18 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>There have never been any previous 3 waters type of arrangements in
wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 09:30:39 +1200, Rich80105The article was about problems in and around Gore; right at the >> >>>>>>>>>>>>bottom
<Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 16:09:18 +1200, Crash
<nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 15:36:48 +1200, Rich80105
<Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 03:07:52 -0000 (UTC), TonyNot a recent article Rich and unless you can cite otherwise the
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:So why not just look it up for yourself?
https://www.vice.com/en/article/4a3n3n/new-zealand-cows-nitrates-climate-changeNot a single scientific reference, not one. And the mention of
This is a legacy of the John Key years - when Connor English
helped
lead the attack on democracy when ECANZ was effectively sacked
by
the
government. At that time it was known that water pollution was
causing
problems for new borns in country towns in Canterbury, and >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>requiring
significant extra expense for Christchurch in water treatment.
Now
we
know it was much worse . . .
Greenpeace, that
barely disguised terrorist organisation, just about removes all
credibility
from the article.
Your conclusions however are even worse - there is no
suggestion
that
anybody
in government did anything wrong - do find another straw. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
See for example: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34740625/ >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
current government has done nothing about it. Are you outraged
about
this?
I am sure that if you brought this to the attention of PM Hipkins
he
would take time out from far more pressing current issues to >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>promise a
Commission of Inquiry into this important issue if re-elected.
It is certainly not a simple task - and it does appear that
Opposition
Parties don't want a bar of fixing it.
Neither does the current Government. The issue is longstanding and
after 6 years you have not identified any action they have taken.
This is one of the major
reasons behind the 3 Waters proposals - fixing the problem of local
authorities inheriting shit from upstream and not being able to do
anything about it except try to pass as much on to the next
downstream
authority without making their people too sick.
The Water Entities cover a geographic area that is not defined by
the
water sources each one uses. For example, Water Entity A sources
some
water from Lake Taupo via the Waikato River. Your claim that the
water reforms will fix this is a deliberate lie.
of the South Island. But the contractual arrangements that relate to
water being taken from the Waikato to serve the needs of the Auckland
Region may well be examples of the sort of agreements needed in the
South Island - there are good governance arrangements relating to
water coming into Lake Taupo and out from it to meet the needs of
different communities (including flows to for example the Wanganui
River, and hydro plants in the region) that may well cover avoiding
the pollution of dairy into water taken to meet Auckland needs; >> >>>>>>>>>>>>although I suspect further water treatment is required after water is
taken from the Waikato . . .
No, I thank you for giving confirmation that agreements are needed
A broader approach is
required to ensure that responsibilities fix problems rather than
passing them on, that governance is broad enough to cope with >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>regional
issues not just very local issues, that funding is possible without
fights between neighbouring local authorities to keep rates low by
passing problems on. 3 Waters is about enabling water standards to
be
met, with adequate funding, and while also working through the >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>issues
of supply so that excessive use by one area does not mean
inadequate
supply downstream.
Irrelevant - see above.
both within and between different entities involved in water supply
and appropriate treatment around New Zealand - some of the lessons
from the Waikato and Auckland Regions will have informed the 3 Water
proposals
That does not answer the question I raised in relation to the articleI take it you have come to accept that National/ACT will form the
So what do ACT and National propose to do about ensuring adequate
quantity and quality of water supply to all New Zealanders, Crash?
Or
will they just deliver more bowel cancer?
next
government because if this is not the case your concerns are
redundant.
about problems with water in Gore. I understand that the arrangements
made in relation to water in the Taupo region were made over a period
of time involving both the previous Labour and National governments,
with Chris Finlayson in his role relating to Treaty Settlements >> >>>>>>>>>>>>encouraging and facilitating good representation of a range of views
from interested parties; resulting in cooperative structures that
became a good example of co-governance. Regardless of who wins the
next election the problems raised in the article about the effect of
nitrates from cows affecting water supplies will need to be resolved.
We know that 3 Waters type arrangements have worked in the past, and
in particular in the Taupo region that you have highlighted.
New
Zealand. So clearly we do not know that any have worked.
In what way have the co governance arrangements relating to water >> >>>>>>>>>>being diverted for hydro power relating to Turangi hydro and the >> >>>>>>>>>>Wanganui River; and the arrangements for water use around Lake Taupo
and the talking of water from the Waikato for water supply not worked.
Tony? Are you calling the co-governance arrangements enthusiastically
supported by the National party a failure?
Those were not co-governance, they were co-management at best or more
likely
just co-operation. There have never been any co-governance arrangements
supoported by any other government. Name one or clear off.
co-governance in the past), are you claiming that the arrangements >> >>>>>>>>regarding water that I described above, that were supported by the >> >>>>>>>>National Party, are a failure?
The bottom line is that the news article talking about nitrates from >> >>>>>>>>cattle in water giving rise to health problems - resolving those
problems requires change, and that may well need a structure to either
gain agreement or to monitor issues subsequent to agreement on
actions. Both National and Labour have in the past encouraged
participation by those involved in both finding solutions and
monitoring results - and with respect to water, Labour envisages
structures that are large enough to give sufficient expertise and
economies of scale, but otherwise relatively local throughout the
country. ACT and National are now critical of those proposals but not
offering any alternative solutions.
lies)
is
that there has never been any co-governance in this country until this
government decided that it is OK to appoint people to tell elected
representatives what to do.
Parliament may have to pass a law to thwart a local council but I am >> >>>>>>not aware of that happening very often (and yes National did force a >> >>>>>>number of amalgamations, but I believe that is different. As far as I >> >>>>>>am aware no current or proposed co-governance arrangements are able to >> >>>>>>ignore or act contrary to laws of the land, whether those laws be from >> >>>>>>a local Council or from Parliament.
people what to do. It is racism. That is what your government want to do.
It
has to be removed.
correct again.
co-governance and both are in motion to be enabled .
reversed by a future government. Are you able to refer to any
provisions relating to co-governance that have been objected to by ACT
or National - or whether they are promising to repeal that
legislation?
Indeed it was not necessary for the co-governance arrangements thatNo legislation wasNational never put any co-govetrnment legislatiuon in place.
needed for the co-governance arrangements agreed to and arranged by
the National Party.
they agreed to . . .
And of course that is your opinion - without identifying anyEven if there is some legislation you areAs I said - "it needs to be removed"
concerned about, it could be amended or removed by a future
government.
particular provisions that you disagree with - but you confirm my
point that it can be reversed by a future government, should such a
government be elected. . .
Asking you to justify your unsupported statements is hardlyNo just truthful, you are truly tiresome with your lies, nastiness andYou on the other hand just spin.You are just tiresome . . .
appalling use of sarcasm as a weapon.
unreasonable - I have not responded to your verbal abuse, just your
lack of evidence or logical argument.
You're incapable of being reasonable and in most cases comprehensable!
So what's your excuse for avoiding any question Rich? Are you a true lying left supporter and incapable of coming up with an answer that doesn't leave you looking like a gaslighting Labour MP?!And of course you will ignore what you find too hard to answer . . .
Cite?No he has not. He made it clear that he was talking about co-management.
Oh and by the way, your repetitive lies about Finlayson have beenCite? He has certainly proudly referred to his support for
destroyed
several times in the past. He confirmed that he suppoerted co-management
and
not co-governance.
co-governance, in the same sense as that term is used by Labour, often >> >>>>>>enough. I gave you a lot of cites for that.
The
difference is profound.
I notice that you are unable to support your assertions again, Tony.
There
have however been suggestions that National has changed policies with
regards to such matters; all I am asking is what ACT and National are
proposing, as part of their election campaign, regarding this issue
which is clearly important to all New Zealanders, but perhaps
particularly at present those in Gore . . .
On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 04:26:06 -0000 (UTC), TonyDon't change the subject.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Your inability to justify your actions is typical of the sort of
On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 03:01:29 -0000 (UTC), TonyNational have promised to repeal 3 waters and you know that.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:That legislation does not yet exist then; but in any case it could be >>>reversed by a future government. Are you able to refer to any
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 21:03:00 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Really? How about 3 waters and the replacement for the RMA - both are >>>>co-governance and both are in motion to be enabled .
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:What legislation are you talking about, Tony?
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 06:29:37 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:But the legislation does exist. It needs to be removed. So I got it >>>>>>exactly
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Hard to remove something that does not exist. You have it wrong again, >>>>>>>Tony.
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 04:56:39 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:That is exactly what co-governance is about. Unelected people telling >>>>>>>>elected
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Can you give one example of that happening? Are you referring to the >>>>>>>>>Mayor of Auckland not having to follow decisions of Council? >>>>>>>>>Parliament may have to pass a law to thwart a local council but I am >>>>>>>>>not aware of that happening very often (and yes National did force a >>>>>>>>>number of amalgamations, but I believe that is different. As far as I >>>>>>>>>am aware no current or proposed co-governance arrangements are able to >>>>>>>>>ignore or act contrary to laws of the land, whether those laws be from >>>>>>>>>a local Council or from Parliament.
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 02:37:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You can spin as much as you like but the real bottom line (unlike >>>>>>>>>>your
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:co-governance in the past), are you claiming that the arrangements >>>>>>>>>>>regarding water that I described above, that were supported by the >>>>>>>>>>>National Party, are a failure?
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 02:10:59 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Don't try your bullshit on me.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:In what way have the co governance arrangements relating to water >>>>>>>>>>>>>being diverted for hydro power relating to Turangi hydro and the >>>>>>>>>>>>>Wanganui River; and the arrangements for water use around Lake >>>>>>>>>>>>>Taupo
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 11:27:18 +1200, Crash >>>>>>>>>>>>>>><nogood@dontbother.invalid>New
wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 09:30:39 +1200, Rich80105 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><Rich80105@hotmail.com>of the South Island. But the contractual arrangements that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>relate
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 16:09:18 +1200, Crash >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 15:36:48 +1200, Rich80105 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 03:07:52 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Not a recent article Rich and unless you can cite otherwise >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.vice.com/en/article/4a3n3n/new-zealand-cows-nitrates-climate-changeSo why not just look it up for yourself? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>See for example: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34740625/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not a single scientific reference, not one. And the mention >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>of
This is a legacy of the John Key years - when Connor >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>English
helped
lead the attack on democracy when ECANZ was effectively >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>sacked
by
the
government. At that time it was known that water pollution >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>was
causing
problems for new borns in country towns in Canterbury, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>requiring
significant extra expense for Christchurch in water >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>treatment.
Now
we
know it was much worse . . .
Greenpeace, that
barely disguised terrorist organisation, just about removes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>all
credibility
from the article.
Your conclusions however are even worse - there is no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>suggestion
that
anybody
in government did anything wrong - do find another straw. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
current government has done nothing about it. Are you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>outraged
about
this?
I am sure that if you brought this to the attention of PM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hipkins
he
would take time out from far more pressing current issues to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>promise a
Commission of Inquiry into this important issue if re-elected.
It is certainly not a simple task - and it does appear that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Opposition
Parties don't want a bar of fixing it.
Neither does the current Government. The issue is longstanding >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>and
after 6 years you have not identified any action they have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>taken.
This is one of the majorThe Water Entities cover a geographic area that is not defined >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>by
reasons behind the 3 Waters proposals - fixing the problem of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>local
authorities inheriting shit from upstream and not being able >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>to
do
anything about it except try to pass as much on to the next >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>downstream
authority without making their people too sick. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
the
water sources each one uses. For example, Water Entity A >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>sources
some
water from Lake Taupo via the Waikato River. Your claim that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the
water reforms will fix this is a deliberate lie. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The article was about problems in and around Gore; right at the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>bottom
to
water being taken from the Waikato to serve the needs of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Auckland
Region may well be examples of the sort of agreements needed in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the
South Island - there are good governance arrangements relating to
water coming into Lake Taupo and out from it to meet the needs of
different communities (including flows to for example the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Wanganui
River, and hydro plants in the region) that may well cover >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>avoiding
the pollution of dairy into water taken to meet Auckland needs; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>although I suspect further water treatment is required after >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>water
is
taken from the Waikato . . .
No, I thank you for giving confirmation that agreements are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>needed
A broader approach is
required to ensure that responsibilities fix problems rather >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>than
passing them on, that governance is broad enough to cope with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>regional
issues not just very local issues, that funding is possible >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>without
fights between neighbouring local authorities to keep rates >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>low
by
passing problems on. 3 Waters is about enabling water >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>standards
to
be
met, with adequate funding, and while also working through the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>issues
of supply so that excessive use by one area does not mean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>inadequate
supply downstream.
Irrelevant - see above.
both within and between different entities involved in water >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>supply
and appropriate treatment around New Zealand - some of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>lessons
from the Waikato and Auckland Regions will have informed the 3 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Water
proposals
That does not answer the question I raised in relation to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>articleI take it you have come to accept that National/ACT will form >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the
So what do ACT and National propose to do about ensuring >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>adequate
quantity and quality of water supply to all New Zealanders, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Crash?
Or
will they just deliver more bowel cancer?
next
government because if this is not the case your concerns are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>redundant.
about problems with water in Gore. I understand that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>arrangements
made in relation to water in the Taupo region were made over a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>period
of time involving both the previous Labour and National >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>governments,
with Chris Finlayson in his role relating to Treaty Settlements >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>encouraging and facilitating good representation of a range of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>views
from interested parties; resulting in cooperative structures that
became a good example of co-governance. Regardless of who wins >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the
next election the problems raised in the article about the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>effect
of
nitrates from cows affecting water supplies will need to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>resolved.
We know that 3 Waters type arrangements have worked in the past, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>and
in particular in the Taupo region that you have highlighted. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>There have never been any previous 3 waters type of arrangements >>>>>>>>>>>>>>in
Zealand. So clearly we do not know that any have worked. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
and the talking of water from the Waikato for water supply not >>>>>>>>>>>>>worked.
Tony? Are you calling the co-governance arrangements >>>>>>>>>>>>>enthusiastically
supported by the National party a failure?
Those were not co-governance, they were co-management at best or >>>>>>>>>>>>more
likely
just co-operation. There have never been any co-governance >>>>>>>>>>>>arrangements
supoported by any other government. Name one or clear off. >>>>>>>>>>>Whatever you want to call them (and Finlayson has referred to them as
The bottom line is that the news article talking about nitrates from >>>>>>>>>>>cattle in water giving rise to health problems - resolving those >>>>>>>>>>>problems requires change, and that may well need a structure to >>>>>>>>>>>either
gain agreement or to monitor issues subsequent to agreement on >>>>>>>>>>>actions. Both National and Labour have in the past encouraged >>>>>>>>>>>participation by those involved in both finding solutions and >>>>>>>>>>>monitoring results - and with respect to water, Labour envisages >>>>>>>>>>>structures that are large enough to give sufficient expertise and >>>>>>>>>>>economies of scale, but otherwise relatively local throughout the >>>>>>>>>>>country. ACT and National are now critical of those proposals but not
offering any alternative solutions.
lies)
is
that there has never been any co-governance in this country until >>>>>>>>>>this
government decided that it is OK to appoint people to tell elected >>>>>>>>>>representatives what to do.
people what to do. It is racism. That is what your government want to >>>>>>>>do.
It
has to be removed.
correct again.
provisions relating to co-governance that have been objected to by ACT
or National - or whether they are promising to repeal that
legislation?
They agreed to non such thing and you know that.
Indeed it was not necessary for the co-governance arrangements thatNo legislation wasNational never put any co-govetrnment legislatiuon in place.
needed for the co-governance arrangements agreed to and arranged by >>>>>the National Party.
they agreed to . . .
I said that well before you did. But obviously I disagree with the removal of >>democracy, you clearly want to see it removed.
And of course that is your opinion - without identifying anyEven if there is some legislation you areAs I said - "it needs to be removed"
concerned about, it could be amended or removed by a future >>>>>government.
particular provisions that you disagree with - but you confirm my
point that it can be reversed by a future government, should such a >>>government be elected. . .
No verbal abuse at all. What verbal abuse have I used against you? When did >>that happen? Do tell!
Asking you to justify your unsupported statements is hardlyNo just truthful, you are truly tiresome with your lies, nastiness and >>>>appalling use of sarcasm as a weapon.You on the other hand just spin.You are just tiresome . . .
unreasonable - I have not responded to your verbal abuse, just your
lack of evidence or logical argument.
person that would write your recent posts. To you, anonymity appears
to give you a belief that honesty, respect and reasoned rational
argument are of no value to you, and that your belief that you are
personally infallible should be taken at face value by others.
You have had it explained before and personal opinions are fine, you express them daily. Why do you think nobody else should?You have given no explanations, just unsupported personal opinions.No it is simply true that it was co-management and that has been explained to >>you ad nauseum.
Cite?No he has not. He made it clear that he was talking about >>>>>>>>co-management.
Oh and by the way, your repetitive lies about Finlayson have been >>>>>>>>>>destroyedCite? He has certainly proudly referred to his support for >>>>>>>>>co-governance, in the same sense as that term is used by Labour, often >>>>>>>>>enough. I gave you a lot of cites for that.
several times in the past. He confirmed that he suppoerted >>>>>>>>>>co-management
and
not co-governance.
The
difference is profound.
I notice that you are unable to support your assertions again, Tony. >>>And of course you will ignore what you find too hard to answer . . .
There
have however been suggestions that National has changed policies >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>with
regards to such matters; all I am asking is what ACT and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>National
are
proposing, as part of their election campaign, regarding this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>issue
which is clearly important to all New Zealanders, but perhaps >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>particularly at present those in Gore . . .
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 21:47:25 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 3:12:46?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:Read: https://www.vice.com/en/article/4a3n3n/new-zealand-cows-nitrates-climate-change
On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 03:01:29 -0000 (UTC), TonySo why do you persist in posting with lack of evidence or logical answers Rich. Instead you persist in refusing to practice what you preach. So typical of lying bastards like you and your left whinge mates!
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:That legislation does not yet exist then; but in any case it could be
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 21:03:00 -0000 (UTC), TonyReally? How about 3 waters and the replacement for the RMA - both are
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:What legislation are you talking about, Tony?
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 06:29:37 -0000 (UTC), TonyBut the legislation does exist. It needs to be removed. So I got it exactly
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Hard to remove something that does not exist. You have it wrong again,
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 04:56:39 -0000 (UTC), TonyThat is exactly what co-governance is about. Unelected people telling
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Can you give one example of that happening? Are you referring to the
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 02:37:55 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou can spin as much as you like but the real bottom line (unlike your
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Whatever you want to call them (and Finlayson has referred to them as
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 02:10:59 -0000 (UTC), TonyDon't try your bullshit on me.
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 11:27:18 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>New
wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 09:30:39 +1200, Rich80105The article was about problems in and around Gore; right at the
<Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 16:09:18 +1200, Crash
<nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 15:36:48 +1200, Rich80105
<Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 03:07:52 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/4a3n3n/new-zealand-cows-nitrates-climate-changeNot a single scientific reference, not one. And the mention of
This is a legacy of the John Key years - when Connor English
helped
lead the attack on democracy when ECANZ was effectively sacked
by
the
government. At that time it was known that water pollution was
causing
problems for new borns in country towns in Canterbury, and
requiring
significant extra expense for Christchurch in water treatment.
Now
we
know it was much worse . . .
Greenpeace, that
barely disguised terrorist organisation, just about removes all
credibility
from the article.
Your conclusions however are even worse - there is no
suggestion
that
anybody
in government did anything wrong - do find another straw.
So why not just look it up for yourself?
See for example: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34740625/
Not a recent article Rich and unless you can cite otherwise the
current government has done nothing about it. Are you outraged
about
this?
I am sure that if you brought this to the attention of PM Hipkins
he
would take time out from far more pressing current issues to
promise a
Commission of Inquiry into this important issue if re-elected.
It is certainly not a simple task - and it does appear that >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Opposition
Parties don't want a bar of fixing it.
Neither does the current Government. The issue is longstanding and
after 6 years you have not identified any action they have taken.
This is one of the major
reasons behind the 3 Waters proposals - fixing the problem of local
authorities inheriting shit from upstream and not being able to do
anything about it except try to pass as much on to the next >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>downstream
authority without making their people too sick.
The Water Entities cover a geographic area that is not defined by
the
water sources each one uses. For example, Water Entity A sources
some
water from Lake Taupo via the Waikato River. Your claim that the
water reforms will fix this is a deliberate lie.
bottom
of the South Island. But the contractual arrangements that relate to
water being taken from the Waikato to serve the needs of the Auckland
Region may well be examples of the sort of agreements needed in the
South Island - there are good governance arrangements relating to
water coming into Lake Taupo and out from it to meet the needs of
different communities (including flows to for example the Wanganui
River, and hydro plants in the region) that may well cover avoiding
the pollution of dairy into water taken to meet Auckland needs;
although I suspect further water treatment is required after water is
taken from the Waikato . . .
No, I thank you for giving confirmation that agreements are needed
A broader approach is
required to ensure that responsibilities fix problems rather than
passing them on, that governance is broad enough to cope with
regional
issues not just very local issues, that funding is possible without
fights between neighbouring local authorities to keep rates low by
passing problems on. 3 Waters is about enabling water standards to
be
met, with adequate funding, and while also working through the
issues
of supply so that excessive use by one area does not mean >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>inadequate
supply downstream.
Irrelevant - see above.
both within and between different entities involved in water supply
and appropriate treatment around New Zealand - some of the lessons
from the Waikato and Auckland Regions will have informed the 3 Water
proposals
That does not answer the question I raised in relation to the articleI take it you have come to accept that National/ACT will form the
So what do ACT and National propose to do about ensuring adequate
quantity and quality of water supply to all New Zealanders, Crash?
Or
will they just deliver more bowel cancer?
next
government because if this is not the case your concerns are >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>redundant.
about problems with water in Gore. I understand that the arrangements
made in relation to water in the Taupo region were made over a period
of time involving both the previous Labour and National governments,
with Chris Finlayson in his role relating to Treaty Settlements
encouraging and facilitating good representation of a range of views
from interested parties; resulting in cooperative structures that
became a good example of co-governance. Regardless of who wins the
next election the problems raised in the article about the effect of
nitrates from cows affecting water supplies will need to be resolved.
We know that 3 Waters type arrangements have worked in the past, and
in particular in the Taupo region that you have highlighted. >> >>>>>>>>>>>There have never been any previous 3 waters type of arrangements in
Zealand. So clearly we do not know that any have worked.
In what way have the co governance arrangements relating to water
being diverted for hydro power relating to Turangi hydro and the
Wanganui River; and the arrangements for water use around Lake Taupo
and the talking of water from the Waikato for water supply not worked.
Tony? Are you calling the co-governance arrangements enthusiastically
supported by the National party a failure?
Those were not co-governance, they were co-management at best or more
likely
just co-operation. There have never been any co-governance arrangements
supoported by any other government. Name one or clear off.
co-governance in the past), are you claiming that the arrangements
regarding water that I described above, that were supported by the
National Party, are a failure?
The bottom line is that the news article talking about nitrates from
cattle in water giving rise to health problems - resolving those >> >>>>>>>>problems requires change, and that may well need a structure to either
gain agreement or to monitor issues subsequent to agreement on
actions. Both National and Labour have in the past encouraged
participation by those involved in both finding solutions and
monitoring results - and with respect to water, Labour envisages >> >>>>>>>>structures that are large enough to give sufficient expertise and >> >>>>>>>>economies of scale, but otherwise relatively local throughout the >> >>>>>>>>country. ACT and National are now critical of those proposals but not
offering any alternative solutions.
lies)
is
that there has never been any co-governance in this country until this
government decided that it is OK to appoint people to tell elected >> >>>>>>>representatives what to do.
Mayor of Auckland not having to follow decisions of Council?
Parliament may have to pass a law to thwart a local council but I am
not aware of that happening very often (and yes National did force a
number of amalgamations, but I believe that is different. As far as I
am aware no current or proposed co-governance arrangements are able to
ignore or act contrary to laws of the land, whether those laws be from
a local Council or from Parliament.
elected
people what to do. It is racism. That is what your government want to do.
It
has to be removed.
Tony.
correct again.
co-governance and both are in motion to be enabled .
reversed by a future government. Are you able to refer to any
provisions relating to co-governance that have been objected to by ACT
or National - or whether they are promising to repeal that
legislation?
Indeed it was not necessary for the co-governance arrangements thatNo legislation wasNational never put any co-govetrnment legislatiuon in place.
needed for the co-governance arrangements agreed to and arranged by
the National Party.
they agreed to . . .
And of course that is your opinion - without identifying anyEven if there is some legislation you areAs I said - "it needs to be removed"
concerned about, it could be amended or removed by a future
government.
particular provisions that you disagree with - but you confirm my
point that it can be reversed by a future government, should such a
government be elected. . .
Asking you to justify your unsupported statements is hardlyNo just truthful, you are truly tiresome with your lies, nastiness and >> >appalling use of sarcasm as a weapon.You on the other hand just spin.You are just tiresome . . .
unreasonable - I have not responded to your verbal abuse, just your
lack of evidence or logical argument.
You're incapable of being reasonable and in most cases comprehensable!
So what's your excuse for avoiding any question Rich? Are you a true lying left supporter and incapable of coming up with an answer that doesn't leave you looking like a gaslighting Labour MP?!And of course you will ignore what you find too hard to answer . . .
Cite?No he has not. He made it clear that he was talking about co-management.
Oh and by the way, your repetitive lies about Finlayson have been >> >>>>>>>destroyedCite? He has certainly proudly referred to his support for
several times in the past. He confirmed that he suppoerted co-management
and
not co-governance.
co-governance, in the same sense as that term is used by Labour, often
enough. I gave you a lot of cites for that.
The
difference is profound.
I notice that you are unable to support your assertions again, Tony.
And then explain why the then National Government avoided the danger
to life from cattle effluent - they put profit before lives. I am
fortunate to live in a location which generally has high quality water
- I am able to drink water from the tap, but that does not mean I am
not concerned that others are living in parts of New Zealand where
there is an unnecessary increased risk to diseases such as bowel
cancer.
That is the subject of the thread which some posters are very keen to
avoid addressing.
There
have however been suggestions that National has changed policies with
regards to such matters; all I am asking is what ACT and National are
proposing, as part of their election campaign, regarding this issue
which is clearly important to all New Zealanders, but perhaps >> >>>>>>>>>>>>particularly at present those in Gore . . .
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 04:26:06 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Don't change the subject.Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Your inability to justify your actions is typical of the sort of
On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 03:01:29 -0000 (UTC), TonyNational have promised to repeal 3 waters and you know that.
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:That legislation does not yet exist then; but in any case it could be >>>reversed by a future government. Are you able to refer to any >>>provisions relating to co-governance that have been objected to by ACT >>>or National - or whether they are promising to repeal that >>>legislation?
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 21:03:00 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Really? How about 3 waters and the replacement for the RMA - both are >>>>co-governance and both are in motion to be enabled .
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:What legislation are you talking about, Tony?
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 06:29:37 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:But the legislation does exist. It needs to be removed. So I got it >>>>>>exactly
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Hard to remove something that does not exist. You have it wrong again,
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 04:56:39 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:That is exactly what co-governance is about. Unelected people telling
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Can you give one example of that happening? Are you referring to the
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 02:37:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You can spin as much as you like but the real bottom line (unlike >>>>>>>>>>your
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:co-governance in the past), are you claiming that the arrangements
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 02:10:59 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Don't try your bullshit on me.
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:In what way have the co governance arrangements relating to water
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 11:27:18 +1200, Crash >>>>>>>>>>>>>>><nog...@dontbother.invalid>in
wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 09:30:39 +1200, Rich80105 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><Rich...@hotmail.com>bottom
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 16:09:18 +1200, Crash >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 15:36:48 +1200, Rich80105 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 03:07:52 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.vice.com/en/article/4a3n3n/new-zealand-cows-nitrates-climate-change
Not a single scientific reference, not one. And the mention
This is a legacy of the John Key years - when Connor >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>English
helped
lead the attack on democracy when ECANZ was effectively >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>sacked
by
the
government. At that time it was known that water pollution
was
causing
problems for new borns in country towns in Canterbury, and
requiring
significant extra expense for Christchurch in water >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>treatment.
Now
we
know it was much worse . . .
of
Greenpeace, that
barely disguised terrorist organisation, just about removes
all
credibility
from the article.
Your conclusions however are even worse - there is no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>suggestion
that
anybody
in government did anything wrong - do find another straw.
So why not just look it up for yourself? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>See for example: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34740625/
Not a recent article Rich and unless you can cite otherwise
the
current government has done nothing about it. Are you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>outraged
about
this?
I am sure that if you brought this to the attention of PM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hipkins
he
would take time out from far more pressing current issues to
promise a
Commission of Inquiry into this important issue if re-elected.
It is certainly not a simple task - and it does appear that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Opposition
Parties don't want a bar of fixing it.
Neither does the current Government. The issue is longstanding
and
after 6 years you have not identified any action they have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>taken.
This is one of the majorThe Water Entities cover a geographic area that is not defined
reasons behind the 3 Waters proposals - fixing the problem of
local
authorities inheriting shit from upstream and not being able
to
do
anything about it except try to pass as much on to the next >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>downstream
authority without making their people too sick. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
by
the
water sources each one uses. For example, Water Entity A >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>sources
some
water from Lake Taupo via the Waikato River. Your claim that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the
water reforms will fix this is a deliberate lie. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The article was about problems in and around Gore; right at the
of the South Island. But the contractual arrangements that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>relate
to
water being taken from the Waikato to serve the needs of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Auckland
Region may well be examples of the sort of agreements needed in
the
South Island - there are good governance arrangements relating to
water coming into Lake Taupo and out from it to meet the needs of
different communities (including flows to for example the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Wanganui
River, and hydro plants in the region) that may well cover >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>avoiding
the pollution of dairy into water taken to meet Auckland needs;
although I suspect further water treatment is required after >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>water
is
taken from the Waikato . . .
No, I thank you for giving confirmation that agreements are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>needed
A broader approach is
required to ensure that responsibilities fix problems rather
than
passing them on, that governance is broad enough to cope with
regional
issues not just very local issues, that funding is possible >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>without
fights between neighbouring local authorities to keep rates >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>low
by
passing problems on. 3 Waters is about enabling water >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>standards
to
be
met, with adequate funding, and while also working through the
issues
of supply so that excessive use by one area does not mean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>inadequate
supply downstream.
Irrelevant - see above.
both within and between different entities involved in water >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>supply
and appropriate treatment around New Zealand - some of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>lessons
from the Waikato and Auckland Regions will have informed the 3
Water
proposals
That does not answer the question I raised in relation to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>articleI take it you have come to accept that National/ACT will form
So what do ACT and National propose to do about ensuring >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>adequate
quantity and quality of water supply to all New Zealanders, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Crash?
Or
will they just deliver more bowel cancer?
the
next
government because if this is not the case your concerns are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>redundant.
about problems with water in Gore. I understand that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>arrangements
made in relation to water in the Taupo region were made over a
period
of time involving both the previous Labour and National >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>governments,
with Chris Finlayson in his role relating to Treaty Settlements
encouraging and facilitating good representation of a range of
views
from interested parties; resulting in cooperative structures that
became a good example of co-governance. Regardless of who wins
the
next election the problems raised in the article about the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>effect
of
nitrates from cows affecting water supplies will need to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>resolved.
We know that 3 Waters type arrangements have worked in the past,
and
in particular in the Taupo region that you have highlighted. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>There have never been any previous 3 waters type of arrangements
New
Zealand. So clearly we do not know that any have worked. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
being diverted for hydro power relating to Turangi hydro and the
Wanganui River; and the arrangements for water use around Lake >>>>>>>>>>>>>Taupo
and the talking of water from the Waikato for water supply not >>>>>>>>>>>>>worked.
Tony? Are you calling the co-governance arrangements >>>>>>>>>>>>>enthusiastically
supported by the National party a failure?
Those were not co-governance, they were co-management at best or >>>>>>>>>>>>more
likely
just co-operation. There have never been any co-governance >>>>>>>>>>>>arrangements
supoported by any other government. Name one or clear off. >>>>>>>>>>>Whatever you want to call them (and Finlayson has referred to them as
regarding water that I described above, that were supported by the
National Party, are a failure?
The bottom line is that the news article talking about nitrates from
cattle in water giving rise to health problems - resolving those >>>>>>>>>>>problems requires change, and that may well need a structure to >>>>>>>>>>>either
gain agreement or to monitor issues subsequent to agreement on >>>>>>>>>>>actions. Both National and Labour have in the past encouraged >>>>>>>>>>>participation by those involved in both finding solutions and >>>>>>>>>>>monitoring results - and with respect to water, Labour envisages >>>>>>>>>>>structures that are large enough to give sufficient expertise and >>>>>>>>>>>economies of scale, but otherwise relatively local throughout the >>>>>>>>>>>country. ACT and National are now critical of those proposals but not
offering any alternative solutions.
lies)
is
that there has never been any co-governance in this country until >>>>>>>>>>this
government decided that it is OK to appoint people to tell elected >>>>>>>>>>representatives what to do.
Mayor of Auckland not having to follow decisions of Council? >>>>>>>>>Parliament may have to pass a law to thwart a local council but I am
not aware of that happening very often (and yes National did force a
number of amalgamations, but I believe that is different. As far as I
am aware no current or proposed co-governance arrangements are able to
ignore or act contrary to laws of the land, whether those laws be from
a local Council or from Parliament.
elected
people what to do. It is racism. That is what your government want to
do.
It
has to be removed.
Tony.
correct again.
They agreed to non such thing and you know that.
Indeed it was not necessary for the co-governance arrangements that >>>they agreed to . . .No legislation wasNational never put any co-govetrnment legislatiuon in place.
needed for the co-governance arrangements agreed to and arranged by >>>>>the National Party.
I said that well before you did. But obviously I disagree with the removal of
And of course that is your opinion - without identifying any >>>particular provisions that you disagree with - but you confirm my >>>point that it can be reversed by a future government, should such a >>>government be elected. . .Even if there is some legislation you areAs I said - "it needs to be removed"
concerned about, it could be amended or removed by a future >>>>>government.
democracy, you clearly want to see it removed.
No verbal abuse at all. What verbal abuse have I used against you? When did
Asking you to justify your unsupported statements is hardly >>>unreasonable - I have not responded to your verbal abuse, just your >>>lack of evidence or logical argument.No just truthful, you are truly tiresome with your lies, nastiness and >>>>appalling use of sarcasm as a weapon.You on the other hand just spin.You are just tiresome . . .
that happen? Do tell!
person that would write your recent posts. To you, anonymity appears
to give you a belief that honesty, respect and reasoned rational
argument are of no value to you, and that your belief that you are >personally infallible should be taken at face value by others.
What verbal abuse have I used against you? Answer that or be seen as a liar, again!
You have had it explained before and personal opinions are fine, you express them daily. Why do you think nobody else should?You have given no explanations, just unsupported personal opinions.No it is simply true that it was co-management and that has been explained to
Cite?No he has not. He made it clear that he was talking about >>>>>>>>co-management.
Oh and by the way, your repetitive lies about Finlayson have been >>>>>>>>>>destroyedCite? He has certainly proudly referred to his support for >>>>>>>>>co-governance, in the same sense as that term is used by Labour, often
several times in the past. He confirmed that he suppoerted >>>>>>>>>>co-management
and
not co-governance.
enough. I gave you a lot of cites for that.
The
difference is profound.
I notice that you are unable to support your assertions again, Tony. >>>And of course you will ignore what you find too hard to answer . . .
you ad nauseum.
There
have however been suggestions that National has changed policies
with
regards to such matters; all I am asking is what ACT and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>National
are
proposing, as part of their election campaign, regarding this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>issue
which is clearly important to all New Zealanders, but perhaps >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>particularly at present those in Gore . . .
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 343 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 31:11:51 |
| Calls: | 7,557 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,733 |
| Messages: | 5,655,711 |