You're arguing around in circles. Entrenching public ownership isn't going to guarantee access to affordable water supply, or that people won't get sick or die from polluted water. Whether or not water should be in public or private hands is a policy ...
"Are you saying that these are not the treaty entities set up to negotiate the claims on behalf of the iwi or the" The 'elites' are not entities at all. They are individuals who control resources across iwi, collective and ropu groupings, and use that ...
Not all of the iwi have settled their treaty claims.
"Are you sure it is several Iwi and not large Hapu groups? The Tāmaki Collective is 13 iwi/hapu, grouped into 3 ropu. "I think Auckland has areas where there are overlapping claimant groups." Oh yes, and some are very uncomfortable bedfellows. The ...
"The FRR is made to the treaty entity, not to any individual or corporate group." In the Tāmaki Collective, the FRR operates on a carousel. Of the 14 iwi participating, many cannot afford to participate. The wealthier iwi cut the poorer iwi out, and so the...
"I was always told that the iwi groupings, were conceived and determined at the request of the Crown. It was too difficult dealing with all the smaller hapu groupings, and as bigger entities, it was an administrative efficiency to be able to deal with ...
I can't speak for others, but in my experience the term 'Māori elites' is used synonymously with 'corporate' Māori and is most commonly used by Māori of other Māori. There is a lot of concern in Tāmaki at the moment about corporate Māori benefitting from ...
Yep, that’s where I’m coming from too. This sets out some of the issues. https://castalia-advisors.com/five-big-problems-with-three-waters/
Do you think it’s a good idea to add thousands of employees, create a huge and expensive centralised organisation and incur substantial debt if the case is not compelling?
Muttonbird...your post just confirms my point.
"Still waiting for someone to explain the compelling case 3 Waters can provide that secure water supply." There is no compelling case. 3Waters is a flawed model that will ultimately fail.
"Everyone loves excuses don't they." And the excuses we'll get when 3waters doesn't solve these issues will come with a much higher price tag.
"Rose tinted or on the ground experience? " All good. As I've said before, I respect your experience, even if we disagree. Have a great day.
You appear to have a profoundly rose tinted view of iwi politics and how it is manipulated by the crown. "I do not know enough about the Auckland situation to comment and I suspect you do not either." I am close to the situation in Auckland, and I happen ...
"Why do you believe this is a problem? " Because this is precisely how powerful tribal interests overpower weaker ones. It's happening across Tāmaki Makaurau right now, and it is divisive and damaging to all people. "Do you have the same concerns when new ...
I agree. But isn’t that a real problem with 3Waters? Ngati Porou have their own tikanga, their own principles. They have brought that to the management of natural resources like the Waiapu river, but as BFOW says, in their 3 Waters entity, won’t their ...
"Who would you trust long term to keep water assets locally owned?" No-one, really. But the best way to at least beat the odds is to have the decisions made by those closest to democratic accountability, which is certainly not the new water entities. "Who ...
Four years could work. It would give extra time for meaningful but well managed reform.
Can you provide a link to the Ngati Porou submission please.
Apologies...was using my cell phone in combination with fat fingers.
I don't disagree with your comments at all, but here's another angle. Any government wishing to achieve meaningful reform is constrained by a three year parliamentary term, which abbreviates consultation, the crafting of laws and the passage of those laws ...
Yep, but why choose a more effective solution when you can spend billions on something completely unnecessary?
Meh, governments have always done sneaky stuff like that. Bad law making to effect bad policy (3Waters generally). [you made a typo in your e-mail address that triggered Auto-Moderation. Please be more careful next time - Incognito]
You’re right, it just seems silly, that’s all. We don’t own the berms, yet we have to maintain them, and when people plant them out and someone complains AT respond faster than they fill in pot holes🙂🙂
Fair call, it is in response to complaints. But as Cricklewoid says below, when AT get a complaint, there tends to be only one outcome.
Unfortunately in Auckland they attract the attention of Auckland Transport, who insist you remove them.
Mr Brown seems quite happy: "Wayne Brown is pleased the Government is asking Aucklanders for their opinion on the Waitematā Harbour crossing. Following the announcement, Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown said he is "encouraged" by the Government's decision to ...
"He had access to Council financial documents during the campaign ..." Not really. "Councillor Josephine Bartley wanted to know how confident the finance team was in their forecasts, seeing as the gap between the council’s projected income and expenditure ...
Great comment. Your final paragraph is particularly powerful.
It's not the same thing. At least some of the huts were in use, and not all need replacing immediately. On top of that, "we don’t know how many structures will be built in their place or the expected timeline for the rebuild".
Thanks Molly. I still can't quite understand why they can't build new huts before they remove the old ones?
Recent Comments