We now have the Auditor-General reporting on various projects that
date back to 2020:
http://tinyurl.com/y23j6bud
Note that this is a Herald Premium article, the actual report can be >accessed here:
https://oag.parliament.nz/2023/infrastructure-decisions
It is clearly the view of the AG that these projects were prematurely >announced (in respect of funding certainty) and subsequent spending
was not properly recorded.
So here is the evidence of a government quick to announce projects for >political purposes despite advice at the time that announcement was >premature. This is an example of how taxpayer money has been spend
without regard to value or deliverable benefits.
On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 08:37:09 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
We now have the Auditor-General reporting on various projects that
date back to 2020:
http://tinyurl.com/y23j6bud
Note that this is a Herald Premium article, the actual report can be >>accessed here:
https://oag.parliament.nz/2023/infrastructure-decisions
It is clearly the view of the AG that these projects were prematurely >>announced (in respect of funding certainty) and subsequent spending
was not properly recorded.
So here is the evidence of a government quick to announce projects for >>political purposes despite advice at the time that announcement was >>premature. This is an example of how taxpayer money has been spend
without regard to value or deliverable benefits.
Thanks Crash.
Yes, a lot of the support for business did not have a long enough
period for preparation and review, but it did have a positive effect
in keeping more of our businesses working; our economic recovery was
faster than most other economies, and the resulting increases in
taxation did reduce the level of debt that resulted from the expenses
of Covid itself.
The opening paragraph on the direct link is a good sentiment:
"A lack of transparency and documentation about how and why
decision-makers made significant decisions can also create the
perception that processes lack integrity. In a country that prides
itself on the integrity of its public sector, we should all be
concerned about this matter."
Current concerns are here directly relevant - the new Government is
doing exactly what is described by not have regulatory impact
statements presented for many - or possibly all? - of the "100 days" >decisions. In some cases the public service will be able to provide
some information quite quickly - the analysis of the reversal of smoke
free policies is probably substantially there now, but the nature of
the statements has meant that some believe this is a deliberate
decision to keep the expected impact and results of decisions from the >public. It is certainly true that many of those protesting against
that decision believe that "processes lack integrity." The process
being used appears directly contrary to the ACT policy agreed by the >coalition of robust processes to achieve better quality regulations.
The impetus for government announcements as a response to Covid was
clearly a general economic response to keep businesses afloat; and was
based in part of economic advice. The reason for the current pushing
through of legislation without assessment of economic impact appears
to be solely to justify a selective cut to the top income tax rate,
and unless they are making that effective earlier than normal, there
would appear to be room to take a little longer and include an
assessment of regulatory impact before the legislation is finalised.
On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 11:40:12 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 08:37:09 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:
We now have the Auditor-General reporting on various projects that
date back to 2020:
http://tinyurl.com/y23j6bud
Note that this is a Herald Premium article, the actual report can be >>>accessed here:
https://oag.parliament.nz/2023/infrastructure-decisions
It is clearly the view of the AG that these projects were prematurely >>>announced (in respect of funding certainty) and subsequent spending
was not properly recorded.
So here is the evidence of a government quick to announce projects for >>>political purposes despite advice at the time that announcement was >>>premature. This is an example of how taxpayer money has been spend >>>without regard to value or deliverable benefits.
Thanks Crash.
Yes, a lot of the support for business did not have a long enough
period for preparation and review, but it did have a positive effect
in keeping more of our businesses working; our economic recovery was
faster than most other economies, and the resulting increases in
taxation did reduce the level of debt that resulted from the expenses
of Covid itself.
The opening paragraph on the direct link is a good sentiment:
"A lack of transparency and documentation about how and why
decision-makers made significant decisions can also create the
perception that processes lack integrity. In a country that prides
itself on the integrity of its public sector, we should all be
concerned about this matter."
Current concerns are here directly relevant - the new Government is
doing exactly what is described by not have regulatory impact
statements presented for many - or possibly all? - of the "100 days" >>decisions. In some cases the public service will be able to provide
some information quite quickly - the analysis of the reversal of smoke
free policies is probably substantially there now, but the nature of
the statements has meant that some believe this is a deliberate
decision to keep the expected impact and results of decisions from the >>public. It is certainly true that many of those protesting against
that decision believe that "processes lack integrity." The process
being used appears directly contrary to the ACT policy agreed by the >>coalition of robust processes to achieve better quality regulations.
The impetus for government announcements as a response to Covid was
clearly a general economic response to keep businesses afloat; and was >>based in part of economic advice. The reason for the current pushing >>through of legislation without assessment of economic impact appears
to be solely to justify a selective cut to the top income tax rate,
and unless they are making that effective earlier than normal, there
would appear to be room to take a little longer and include an
assessment of regulatory impact before the legislation is finalised.
None of this is related to what I posted (being the Auditor-General's
reports to Parliament on the New Zealand Upgrade Program (NZUP) and
the Shovel-Ready Program (SRP)). While Covid measures were mentioned
in the report, the substance is the way announcements of projects were
made against advice and poor financial management - and my post
identified elements of this.
Yet again you respond with political rhetoric unrelated to the subject matter.
On 2023-12-13, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:It is the behaviour of a sociopath, someone who does not even begin to comprehend honesty in communication. Life for him is so simple - do as he is told and never, under any circumstances question the directives.
On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 11:40:12 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>And yet again he will continue to do so. Diversion and show how good this
wrote:
On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 08:37:09 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:
We now have the Auditor-General reporting on various projects that
date back to 2020:
http://tinyurl.com/y23j6bud
Note that this is a Herald Premium article, the actual report can be >>>>accessed here:
https://oag.parliament.nz/2023/infrastructure-decisions
It is clearly the view of the AG that these projects were prematurely >>>>announced (in respect of funding certainty) and subsequent spending
was not properly recorded.
So here is the evidence of a government quick to announce projects for >>>>political purposes despite advice at the time that announcement was >>>>premature. This is an example of how taxpayer money has been spend >>>>without regard to value or deliverable benefits.
Thanks Crash.
Yes, a lot of the support for business did not have a long enough
period for preparation and review, but it did have a positive effect
in keeping more of our businesses working; our economic recovery was >>>faster than most other economies, and the resulting increases in
taxation did reduce the level of debt that resulted from the expenses
of Covid itself.
The opening paragraph on the direct link is a good sentiment:
"A lack of transparency and documentation about how and why >>>decision-makers made significant decisions can also create the
perception that processes lack integrity. In a country that prides
itself on the integrity of its public sector, we should all be
concerned about this matter."
Current concerns are here directly relevant - the new Government is
doing exactly what is described by not have regulatory impact
statements presented for many - or possibly all? - of the "100 days" >>>decisions. In some cases the public service will be able to provide
some information quite quickly - the analysis of the reversal of smoke >>>free policies is probably substantially there now, but the nature of
the statements has meant that some believe this is a deliberate
decision to keep the expected impact and results of decisions from the >>>public. It is certainly true that many of those protesting against
that decision believe that "processes lack integrity." The process
being used appears directly contrary to the ACT policy agreed by the >>>coalition of robust processes to achieve better quality regulations.
The impetus for government announcements as a response to Covid was >>>clearly a general economic response to keep businesses afloat; and was >>>based in part of economic advice. The reason for the current pushing >>>through of legislation without assessment of economic impact appears
to be solely to justify a selective cut to the top income tax rate,
and unless they are making that effective earlier than normal, there >>>would appear to be room to take a little longer and include an
assessment of regulatory impact before the legislation is finalised.
None of this is related to what I posted (being the Auditor-General's
reports to Parliament on the New Zealand Upgrade Program (NZUP) and
the Shovel-Ready Program (SRP)). While Covid measures were mentioned
in the report, the substance is the way announcements of projects were
made against advice and poor financial management - and my post
identified elements of this.
Yet again you respond with political rhetoric unrelated to the subject
matter.
are because of the diversion. which has nothing, or little to do with the >OP/previous posters points.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 121:36:54 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,212 |
| Messages: | 5,334,491 |