All things Covid and Political discussion .........Be Kind

[pete]

This government also looks in a terminal decline. They've lost the populace. There is so much anger out there it's unbelievable.

Your princess is looking like a pauper Hesi.

[Hesi]

17 minutes ago, pete said:

This government also looks in a terminal decline. They've lost the populace. There is so much anger out there it's unbelievable.

Your princess is looking like a pauper Hesi.

We'll see what the next polls look like.  The Nats have no solutions, and Collins is struggling to get any traction at all

[Globederby19]

52 minutes ago, Hesi said:

with under investment in waste and storm water,

Under investment in just about everything, and not only this Govt. Our infrastructure for power supply groaning at the seams, water reticulation is stretched, and yet here in the Wairarapa the amount of subdivisions going in in Masterton,  Carterton, Greytown, Martinborough beggars belief . They just keep giving out resource consents and clipping the ticket. It costs around 50k to go through the process on an average size section  surveyors, lawyers ,services, and council fees.

[Globederby19]

3 minutes ago, Hesi said:

The Nats have no solutions

And Labour do ?. I stated before that those responsible for the problem are in charge of the solution. Good luck with that. 

[Hesi]

1 minute ago, Globederby19 said:

Under investment in just about everything, and not only this Govt. Our infrastructure for power supply groaning at the seams, water reticulation is stretched, and yet here in the Wairarapa the amount of subdivisions going in in Masterton,  Carterton, Greytown, Martinborough beggars belief . They just keep giving out resource consents and clipping the ticket. It costs around 50k to go through the process on an average size section  surveyors, lawyers ,services, and council fees.

I suspect many councils are in the same boat, and using the development contribution on each new property and the huge increase in numbers paying rates, to catch up, as opposed to investment in the new infrastructure needed

[mardigras]

29 minutes ago, pete said:

I think the 50% iwi element may be a real problem for most people.

 

Can you share the detail on that Pete? As i say, the implementation may be an issue, but the overall idea is something I see as pretty close to necessary. It could become quite a situation when infrastructure breaks down in large quantities - and rate payers get all up in arms under the current model. It's started in Wellington and will only get a lot worse.

[Globederby19]

2 minutes ago, Hesi said:

I suspect many councils are in the same boat, and using the development contribution on each new property and the huge increase in numbers paying rates, to catch up, as opposed to investment in the new infrastructure needed

Correct. I know what the outcome is going to be. It wont be pretty

[Hesi]

Analogous to racing, where top heavy and seat warming admin, has sucked too much money out of where it should be going, back into grassroots racing

[Hesi]

1 minute ago, Hesi said:

Analogous to racing, where top heavy and seat warming admin, has sucked too much money out of where it should be going, back into grassroots racing

Actually, it is very similar in analogy to racing.  Too much protecting their own patch

[pete]

22 minutes ago, Hesi said:

We'll see what the next polls look like.  The Nats have no solutions, and Collins is struggling to get any traction at all

Polls aren't going to save them mate. If you can't see that the tide had turned you're not paying attention.

I honestly believe she'll bail out early next year (Ardern) and Collins will be replaced as well.

You really need to take the blinkers off. The anger out there is palpable.

[pete]

19 minutes ago, mardigras said:

Can you share the detail on that Pete? As i say, the implementation may be an issue, but the overall idea is something I see as pretty close to necessary. It could become quite a situation when infrastructure breaks down in large quantities - and rate payers get all up in arms under the current model. It's started in Wellington and will only get a lot worse.

The following is only someone's opinion but pretty close to the mark.

The Three Waters Plan centralizes national water management while indulging iwi demands for ownership of water, according to businessman Gary Judd QC.

Under Three Waters, all 67 city, district, and territorial councils' drinking, waste and storm water assets would be absorbed by four large regional entities, each of which would be governed by a board consisting of six council representatives and six iwi appointees.

In a piece titled "Three Waters: Ideological government indulging sectional political constituency", Judd said:

• A Cabinet paper titled “Protecting and Promoting iwi/Maori rights and Interests in the New Zealand Three Waters Service Delivery Model: Paper Three” (see Three Waters Cabinet decisions) shows a clear intention to establish a system dominated by the “rights and interests of iwi/Maori”
• The plan is designed to give iwi/Maori the predominating governance influence.
• Only iwi/Maori will have ownership rights. Local authorities will have none.
• Legislation that will require new water entities to conduct themselves in accordance with Treaty principles and be a good Treaty partner will open the entities to litigation by iwi.

Judd wrote that “it is certain that if one has no rights in relation to a thing — e.g., no right to use it, to enjoy it, to gain a return from it, to dispose of it, to destroy it, to control it or to control its use — one does not own the thing”.

“The Government whilst claiming that the new entities would be publicly owned did not say how. Under pressure, by the end of June the [Local Government] Minister, Nanaia Mahuta, was saying they would be owned by local authorities, by being listed as owners in the legislation.

“As the proposal deprives local authorities of all the rights of ownership, this “ownership” is a fiction. It is “spin” on a grand scale. Listing in the legislation does not confer ownership if it does not confer ownership rights,” he wrote.

In the Cabinet paper cited above, Mahuta said “my reforms of the three waters system provide the opportunity for a step change in the way iwi/Maori rights and interests are recognised throughout the system.”

Judd wrote: “The first item in Appendix B [of Cabinet paper 3] notes an Article two Treaty right to make decisions over resources and taonga which Maori wish to retain and assumes, without proof, that this applies to Council services.

“Council services were created by councils using ratepayer funds.

“Maori cannot ‘retain’ something Maori never had. This is a confidence trick. It is not retention of rights; what the Minister proposed, and Cabinet agreed to, was acquisition of rights,” he wrote.

Mahuta refuses to rule out changing the law to force councils to sign up to the Three Waters Plan. Initially, councils could opt out of the proposal. (See Mahuta won't rule out forcing councils)

[mardigras]

19 minutes ago, Hesi said:

I suspect many councils are in the same boat, and using the development contribution on each new property and the huge increase in numbers paying rates, to catch up, as opposed to investment in the new infrastructure needed

They won't be catching up with development contributions. And not all new development is subject to development contributions - council I work with hasn't even had any development contributions for quite a few years.

The money required is simply not there - and which of the ratepayers are going to be happy paying double rates because water systems are in need of replacement.

And the bit I love the most - grabbing of 'our' assets. Whilst the assets may belong to the council (and therefore by extension, the ratepayers), they still are not really your assets. You can't sell them. Why not ask what the council will pay you if you move off waste water systems because you're putting your own in. Surely you could give 'your' assets back and the council would pay you for them. Tui ad.

[craigos1]

6 minutes ago, pete said:

Polls aren't going to save them mate. If you can't see that the tide had turned you're not paying attention.

I honestly believe she'll bail out early next year (Ardern) and Collins will be replaced as well.

You really need to take the blinkers off. The anger out there is palpable.

I agree with 33% of what you say Pete!

[mardigras]

1 minute ago, pete said:

The following is only someone's opinion but pretty close to the mark.

The Three Waters Plan centralizes national water management while indulging iwi demands for ownership of water, according to businessman Gary Judd QC.

Under Three Waters, all 67 city, district, and territorial councils' drinking, waste and storm water assets would be absorbed by four large regional entities, each of which would be governed by a board consisting of six council representatives and six iwi appointees.

In a piece titled "Three Waters: Ideological government indulging sectional political constituency", Judd said:

• A Cabinet paper titled “Protecting and Promoting iwi/Maori rights and Interests in the New Zealand Three Waters Service Delivery Model: Paper Three” (see Three Waters Cabinet decisions) shows a clear intention to establish a system dominated by the “rights and interests of iwi/Maori”
• The plan is designed to give iwi/Maori the predominating governance influence.
• Only iwi/Maori will have ownership rights. Local authorities will have none.
• Legislation that will require new water entities to conduct themselves in accordance with Treaty principles and be a good Treaty partner will open the entities to litigation by iwi.

Judd wrote that “it is certain that if one has no rights in relation to a thing — e.g., no right to use it, to enjoy it, to gain a return from it, to dispose of it, to destroy it, to control it or to control its use — one does not own the thing”.

“The Government whilst claiming that the new entities would be publicly owned did not say how. Under pressure, by the end of June the [Local Government] Minister, Nanaia Mahuta, was saying they would be owned by local authorities, by being listed as owners in the legislation.

“As the proposal deprives local authorities of all the rights of ownership, this “ownership” is a fiction. It is “spin” on a grand scale. Listing in the legislation does not confer ownership if it does not confer ownership rights,” he wrote.

In the Cabinet paper cited above, Mahuta said “my reforms of the three waters system provide the opportunity for a step change in the way iwi/Maori rights and interests are recognised throughout the system.”

Judd wrote: “The first item in Appendix B [of Cabinet paper 3] notes an Article two Treaty right to make decisions over resources and taonga which Maori wish to retain and assumes, without proof, that this applies to Council services.

“Council services were created by councils using ratepayer funds.

“Maori cannot ‘retain’ something Maori never had. This is a confidence trick. It is not retention of rights; what the Minister proposed, and Cabinet agreed to, was acquisition of rights,” he wrote.

Mahuta refuses to rule out changing the law to force councils to sign up to the Three Waters Plan. Initially, councils could opt out of the proposal. (See Mahuta won't rule out forcing councils)

Pretty sure Iwi are consulted anyway. They are where I work as part if the building of relationships. This may just be a formalising of that relationship.

The ownership issue is a red-herring. 

[Maximus]

2 hours ago, mardigras said:

And I'm not a supporter of Labour.

Point 3 - 3 waters. What do you think is the issue around a centralised approach to dealing with the 3 Waters assets. The biggest issue I see facing 3 Waters is that elected officials seem incapable of making the hard decisions during their tenure. Ultimately that leads to a pass the buck scenario when things fall apart - which they are. A lot of NZ infrastructure was put in at a similar time - that infrastructure is largely at or past its life expectancy. Councils can't afford to fix it, because a) they don't know where it is broken, and b) they can't increase rates sufficiently to cover it.

Instead, they do a good imitation of an ostrich.

mate, my issue with 3W is that centralised control of water as proposed by Mahuta et al will not work in a country of low popn density. Reform is required and urgent but not by centralisation to this extent. IMO the solution is to empower the district councils/territorial authorities by handing over the $$ they need. For too long councils have had their ability to reform infrastructure by having only one major mechanIsm to do so -RATES RISES.

Give more control by releasing money to local/regional authorities so they can fund the improvements in a manner, time and process that directly responds to their needs, rather than tie the whole thing up in 4 (only) areas spread over thousands of kms. We are not Singapore or New York or Hong Kong or London.

Of course this does not work with socialist/communist/Nanny State-ism. They want to increase central control by controlling the flow of money for essential uses - a pandemic is a godsend to such an ideology ("You must do what we say, for your own good and your whanau bla ba bla." They WANT SMEs to fail, cos what replaces them when they go under? Dependence on the State.)

MM

[pete]

Just now, craigos1 said:

I agree with 33% of what you say Pete!

Blinkers off Craig. Blinkers off 😎.

I think the sky would fall in before you ever believed Labour could do any wrong.

No problem you're quite entitled to your opinion 😉.

[pete]

1 minute ago, mardigras said:

Pretty sure Iwi are consulted anyway. They are where I work as part if the building of relationships. This may just be a formalising of that relationship.

The ownership issue is a red-herring. 

Maybe so, maybe not. Seems totally undemocratic to me. But so are a lot of other things in this country.

[mardigras]

1 minute ago, Maximus said:

mate, my issue with 3W is that centralised control of water as proposed by Mahuta et al will not work in a country of low popn density. Reform is required and urgent but not by centralisation to this extent. IMO the solution is to empower the district councils/territorial authorities by handing over the $$ they need. For too long councils have had their ability to reform infrastructure by having only one major mechanIsm to do so -RATES RISES.

Give more control by releasing money to local/regional authorities so they can fund the improvements in a manner, time and process that directly responds to their needs, rather than tie the whole thing up in 4 (only) areas spread over thousands of kms. We are not Singapore or New York or Hong Kong or London.

Wow. You must have some faith in the abilities of these councils. I work for one, and without saying too much, I am astounded you would have that view. (And my role there is to provide them with the information they use to make their decisions).

The issue is, the councils don't even know the extent of their own problems - so how can they fix them?

If the authorities could address the situation themselves (with the money), why aren't they doing it? They have annual/multi year/20+ year plans. These items would have been presented through those plans and they would have sought the money from their ratepayers to make these things happen as a priority. Yet you think they would suddenly be able to sort things if the money magically appeared. 

As I say, wow.

[craigos1]

3 minutes ago, pete said:

Blinkers off Craig. Blinkers off 😎.

I think the sky would fall in before you ever believed Labour could do any wrong.

No problem you're quite entitled to your opinion 😉.

Talking of sky falling in and completely off subject

We had the most amazing Aurora Australis down here last night

 

[pete]

5 minutes ago, craigos1 said:

Talking of sky falling in and completely off subject

We had the most amazing Aurora Australis down here last night

 

Fantastic. Apparently it could be seen right up to Auckland. Obviously not as spectacular as you had down south.

[Maximus]

8 hours ago, Hesi said:

He does make good points, but he should have quoted Craig Spencer, as a good analogy.  He has clearly plagiarised the original author

no he hasnt!

[Hesi]

40 minutes ago, pete said:

Polls aren't going to save them mate. If you can't see that the tide had turned you're not paying attention.

I honestly believe she'll bail out early next year (Ardern) and Collins will be replaced as well.

You really need to take the blinkers off. The anger out there is palpable.

Wouldn't you,  accused of everything from the devil incarnate to ........

Doesn't say much about the character of people making such accusations.......does it?

Anyway polls will give a more accurate picture of the mood of the nation, as opposed to individuals perceptions

[Hesi]

8 minutes ago, Maximus said:

no he hasnt!

He was worried enough to delete it

[Maximus]

50 minutes ago, pete said:

Polls aren't going to save them mate. If you can't see that the tide had turned you're not paying attention.

I honestly believe she'll bail out early next year (Ardern) and Collins will be replaced as well.

You really need to take the blinkers off. The anger out there is palpable.

tend to agree Pete..Ardern is not committed to NZ, she has global ambitions and the UN is calling.

My prediction is that Ardern will release the pressure valve on Auckland effective 1 December latest; IMO it has already been decided but announcing it early Nov will slow down vax rates so they will keep everyone guessing til the last moment (IMO 20 Nov latest); by that time vax certificates will be ready online and the gummit will try to take the credit for saving your summer holidays while keeping us all 'safe'.. bla bla bla.

If that does not happen - the 1 December 'release' - Labour are gone in 2023.

As an aside, Max also predicts that the Three Waters legislation will be advanced under urgency in Parlt in December, when most people are not looking (incl mainstream media). It'll be 'law' before you know it! 
If National has  any brains, they will tell Judith to hand over to someone else - anyone else, Bridges or Luxon or both as a 'team for the future' (with her full support, of course). If that doesn't happen by the end of the summer, Max will be very surprised.
 

Edited November 5, 2021 by Maximus

[Maximus]

35 minutes ago, mardigras said:

Wow. You must have some faith in the abilities of these councils. I work for one, and without saying too much, I am astounded you would have that view. (And my role there is to provide them with the information they use to make their decisions).

The issue is, the councils don't even know the extent of their own problems - so how can they fix them?

If the authorities could address the situation themselves (with the money), why aren't they doing it? They have annual/multi year/20+ year plans. These items would have been presented through those plans and they would have sought the money from their ratepayers to make these things happen as a priority. Yet you think they would suddenly be able to sort things if the money magically appeared. 

As I say, wow.

The issue is, the councils don't even know the extent of their own problems - so how can they fix them?

And you think handing over control of these vital services from local/regional to centralised authority is going to HELP? Laughable. Councils simply need the FINACIAL RESOURC E to solve their own problems, but are stymied. Not enough money to do what needs doing. Water reform is VITAL, no question, but a bureaucratic entity in (say) Wellington aint going to deal effectively with (say) Wairoa water issues cos it'll take forever to get a DECISION.

IMO 4 entities is nonsense. Reform is good; central control is bad for a nation of 5M spread across two islands with very low population density apart from Auckland. IMO we need about 6-10 regional entities 
Say..AUCKLAND/BOP/WAIKATO/CENTRAL N I / MANAWATU/WELLINGTON /MARLBOROUGH/WEST COAST/ CANTERBURY OTAGO/SOUTHLAND...

You gave to be able to respond reasonably quickly to this stuff (Norovirus, campylobacter or whatever). Preventing it is better; so you upgrade the infrastructure efficiently, not by slowing things down with 'red tape'. Empower regional water authorities by FUNDING THEM instead of centralising everything or leaving it to District councils with small popn bases to raise rates.

MM