Posts by Gareth Ward
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Why does Auckland City buy the water from Watercare at 'Wholesale' prices, and then mark it up to a 'retail' price before providing it to me?
Metrowater (being Auckland City's water retailer) have a network as well - they own, manage and maintain all the pipes from the local reservoirs (e.g. end of Ponse Rd, the one on Kyber Pass) to the home. I'm not 100% on where the wastewater demarcations lie between Watercare and the retailers.
So they do incur cost delivering it to you (and cost in billing you for it).And under the new Supercity structure will I be able to 'buy' it from Waitakere if their price is cheaper?
The current model proposed gets rid of different retailers and has Watercare running everything from dam to house and back to wastewater treatment. There may be regional pricing but I wouldn't think so.
Any profits (they call it "return on public investment") made by these water companies go back to councils as revenue - so they should lower rates by that amount. I think there is an argument as to why we use water delivery as a revenue centre for the council, but it probably does encourage lower usage than having it a free for all with the cost buried in rates.
-
Sofie, all for your transparency call but not sure what you meant by this:
At a glance the ex to be Watercare guy was the one that privatised it
Watercare is not privatised. It's owned by all the existing Auckland councils.
-
Yes.... but to the extent that Father What'isname is performing a role mandated by the state, then he needs to perform that role in respect of any couples / trios / quartets etc. who come his way and ask him to to the job.
OK, I follow the point now. An interesting one too.
I wasn't really viewing a celebrant-type person as being an agent of the state. Rather, just someone who was considered able to appropriately "witness" the contract. That person could chose to undertake that task as they wanted, but I see your point.
Another argument for doing away altogether with any state-approved overseer IMO :> -
we still needed a celebrant, and apparently a witnessed ceremonial declaration of intent
It's another hang over from religious marriage IMO. The state can only allow people that "really mean it in some illdefined and clearly inaccurate way" to marry. That was the priest, the celebrant is the "secular" alternative.
I see no real need for either - so what if it's a "sham" marriage? -
open two disused railway tunnels
That looks very cool, and the link to the Gorge Train and Central's Rail Trail sounds great
-
Should he, by virtue of being a mechanic, be able to grant me a civil marriage? No
Well I kinda think he can :>
I don't see why my mechanic couldn't be the guy "up the front" at a wedding - presuming that the only state recognition of marriage is an official form signed by both partners with appropriate witnesses. I don't see the need for anyone to be a state-sanctioned guest at a wedding.Alternatively, if you do want to have marriages overseen by an authenticated person, then the registration process to become a marriage celebrant should have ZERO reference to religion. At which point Father Whosawhatsit would be free to apply for one and use it as he sees fit. As could my mechanic (who, actually, would make a GREAT celebrant!)
-
Should he, by virtue of being a mechanic, be able to grant me a civil marriage? No
Well I kinda think he can :>
I don't see why my mechanic couldn't be the guy "up the front" at a wedding - presuming that the only state recognition of marriage is an official form signed by both partners with appropriate witnesses. I don't see the need for anyone to be a state-sanctioned guest at a wedding.Alternatively, if you do want to have marriages overseen by an authenticated person, then the registration process to become a marriage celebrant should have ZERO reference to religion. At which point Father Whosawhatsit would be free to apply for one and use it as he sees fit. As could my mechanic (who, actually, would make a GREAT celebrant!)
-
sorry, article BY Colin, from Lyndon
-
An interesting article Colin - but it may still be slightly overstated. The only reason they can "dictate" spending is that English has decided that the only important thing is our credit rating and so is doing everything to maintain that. You can certainly argue that he should perhaps be considering a few other things, but our sovereign rating is at least one thing the MoF should consider.
I share a feeling of disquiet that they are getting an early look though - that's just taking the obsession way to far.Oram's article in the SST was interesting too - our sovereign rating should be based on much more than just Govt fiscal position and S&P seems to be the only one that cares so exclusively about that. If they actually provide "investment" spending that encourages R&D, export development, savings etc then that spending would work to reduce our private deficits and would strengthen our rating position in the medium term
-
That gives that person a particular standing within the state. That is, it gives religion a particular standing within the state. I'm agin that.
Fair enough, but for me that's crossing the line from acceptance of "marry whoever and however the f*ck you want" to actively dictating how someone should (or shouldn't) get marriage because you dislike their religion.
The point of the state should simply be "sign the contracty bit and give it to us". I see no need for anyone to have to manage that process - if you choose to have Father Whosawhatsit do it then all power to you.I don't share the level of... can I say dislike?... for all proponents of the modern church that some here do though. I do share the dislike of that group defining how individuals interact with the state though.