Auckland road pricing

I know a bit about this, and have taken some time to figure out my response. This is lengthy so here goes...

.

PC has been the main commentator on this that I have seen in the blogosphere. I’ve been devouring the reports and have read some of it (and have been aware of much of it for some time), and it deserves some careful consideration.
.
You see on the one hand the concept of road pricing by time of day makes sense. This is because roads, like any other service, get congested when demand exceeds supply. In other industries, telecommunications, airlines, hotels, rental cars, vegetables, when demand is high the price goes up – meaning the provider does well with revenue (and can afford to cross subsidise the quiet times, make a profit or invest in more capacity to allow suppressed demand to be served), and when demand is low compared to supply, the price goes down (better to get some users than to have assets lying underutilised).
.
Roads are priced currently – but it does not really vary between vehicles. Yes you pay a bit more in congested traffic through petrol, but that barely has an effect on demand. Yes, heavier vehicles pay more per kilometre than lighter ones (road user charges work well in reflecting average maintenance costs), but that also does not affect times of peak demand.
.
The appropriate response is for current charges to be replaced with variable ones:

.
For example, instead of paying petrol tax, you’d pay a per kilometre charge. At peak times you’d pay a premium, like you do buying an airfare from Auckland to Wellington at 7.30am on a Monday morning – but just as you get a seat for that price on the plane, you’d get to drive in relatively free flowing traffic. In between peaks you might pay roughly what you pay now, but as you are paying directly for the road, you might think twice about your journeys distance, but you’d also demand good service from the road provider. On a quite Sunday morning you’d pay very little, as the roads are empty and the road provider would be encouraging demand – you’d pay much less than you do now.
.
Imagine if all airfares Wellington-Auckland were the same, the planes flying in the middle of the day and on Saturdays would be a lot quieter, because the fares would be double – and at 7.30am on a Monday, the airport would be jammed with businesspeople queuing up hoping for a seat, hoping someone didn’t turn up for their (relatively) cheap ticket. Sounds familiar?
.
With road pricing you wouldn’t pay rates for local roads, which should knock about 10-15% off your average Auckland rates bill – or 40-60% off your average rural rates bill. That would be paid for out of road pricing.
.
You wouldn’t subsidise public transport either – you see peak travel would cost more by car, making public transport inherently more competitive, and buses wouldn’t be caught in big traffic jams. People might start working different hours, or they might work at home once a day. You see it is a tremendous cost to build roads and railway lines and buses and trains that mostly only get used for short periods – unless the people using them pay for that cost, it is being subsidised.
.
OK, so what does that have to do with the proposals in the Ministry of Transport report?
.
A little. See the technology exists to do what I described, but the option was rejected in the report in favour of simpler technology that is well proven in Singapore, Stockholm and toll roads in many countries. The other point is that the proposed schemes in the report are designed to do two things:
.
1. Reduce congestion (through marginally pricing the road higher at the morning peak); and
2. Raise extra revenue for transport projects.
.
The first goal is laudable, but it does raise the question as to what should be done with the extra money. If it is to be spent on transport projects, it should be roads – and the $1 billion + Avondale extension of SH20 and the Victoria Park tunnel (widening of the northern motorway) should be at the top of the list, but much of what I have heard is all about rail. Efficient road pricing will make public transport more efficient and competitive, because it makes peak car commuting more expensive and frees the roads up for buses to operate more quickly.
.
However, it is just as legitimate to consider pricing to replace the current forms of pricing – petrol tax and council rates. I believe there probably is enough money available if all of the petrol tax revenue collected is dedicated to roading nationwide and allocated efficiently, and then replaced with road pricing collecting the same amount. Then as traffic grows road price revenue grows, if it declines, then so does revenue – as it should. Less traffic means less need to build new capacity, and less wear and tear (to a point).
.
The schemes proposed are a broad range:
.
Parking tax (the Greens wanted this, and it would be a regulatory nightmare. Imagine the council inspecting all private property to see who had a car park that should be taxed). Cheap to implement, not very effective and helps deter retail.
.
Motorway only tolls - shifts lots of traffic to local streets, making congestion worse. Transit might wonder if tolling the Western ring route will create similar problems.
.
Cordon/Area charges – creates boundary issues and many roads within the proposed cordon/area are not congested and shouldn’t be subject to additional tax.
.
You see, Auckland is not London, or Stockholm, or Rome or Singapore. It is a low density car oriented city with a rather weak CBD – around 12% of Auckland’s employment is in the CBD, far far less than those cities with cordon/area charges for congestion pricing. The risk for Auckland is it looks like the consultants have taken the overseas approaches and applied them to Auckland, instead of looking at Auckland’s problems and designed an approach to resolve them. The only cordon Auckland could conceivably have that might be fair is for the CBD only, boundary including Grafton Gully and SH1 – and I know that this wouldn’t reduce traffic enough to make it worthwhile, while helping kill off CBD based businesses even more.
.
Low density cities don’t need cordon charging, they don’t need high density public transport like rail and they don’t need to be forced by planners into being high density cities.
.
Auckland isn’t being eaten up by cars, they are its red blood cells. Less than 5% of Auckland trips are by public transport, although it comprises over 25% of trips to the central business district.
.
Unlike PC, I think road pricing is a solution – but not in the way it has been designed and not being operated by any central or local government agencies. There is a big risk that this report and its response will kill off serious consideration of road pricing in Auckland for many years, given the current central and local government politicians, that isn't such a bad thing - but they can both change.

.

Road pricing first and foremost should not be about collecting more money, but by charging for roads in a more efficient way than at present. Once you do that, the money gets spent on maintenance and road improvements that motorists want – it may or may not include a second harbour crossing (that will depend on whether people are prepared to pay for it), it may or may not include a Western ring road – and funnily enough, it wont include a more frequent train service to Henderson. The company running the trains would decide that based on fare revenue.
.
Perhaps the best submission I have seen so far on this is from the Business Roundtable. It is a pdf file here.
.
The Business Roundtable summarises the key points well:
.
“Congestion is a manifestation of the problem known as the tragedy of the
commons – the overuse of a public resource that arises from inadequately
defined property rights. The potential costs to a community of road congestion
are enormous. In the extreme form of gridlock, road congestion potentially
removes all the benefits a community might hope to derive from its past
investments in roads.”
.
“We consider that a serious impediment to the adoption of more efficient billing
technologies is motorists' justifiable suspicion of the motives of the revenue-raising
authorities. By putting revenue generation ahead of efficient pricing and proposing
such inefficient ways of spending this revenue, the ARPES will surely heighten this
resistance and thereby make it harder to introduce changes. The authorities
therefore also need to revisit governance issues in order to find better ways of
convincing motorists that their money will not be squandered for the benefit of
fringe or minority interests.”
.
“Subsidies for buses and trains create a conflict of interest for organisations that are
also making road capacity investment decisions. Congestion charges eliminate the
weak argument for subsidising buses and trains in order to ease congestion.
Instead ARPES proposes to use such charges to increase such subsidies. The
flaws in this thinking are also reflected in the Land Transport Management Act and
need to be remedied. Public transport can only make a small contribution to
Auckland passenger transport needs and a minimal one to the needs of the freight
industry. There is a risk of highly uneconomic public transport investments being
made, at a cost of wasted capital and lower regional and national economic growth.”

.

Road pricing is a solution, but as long as local authorities run local roads and Transit New Zealand acts as a bureaucracy to serve political whims, rather than to serve the demands of customers, then there is nobody competent to implement it. The ARPES report does not analyse where Auckland's congestion problems are and designs a solution, but takes possible solutions and models them on top of the network. What was done was what was asked - but if there is to be a next stage, it needs to be looked at the other way, and for there to be acknowledgement that it is far more complicated than just putting a cordon around a part of the isthmus.

Ahmadinejad writes to Bush

Well here it is, a great chance for peace no doubt. Iranian President Ahmadinejad has called for “"new solutions for getting out of international problems and current fragile situation of the world", according to The Times.

IRNA (Islamic Republic news agency) simply reports it without mentioning its content. The Guardian headline says Iran wants a way out of its nuclear problems, but then later clarifies that the nuclear issue is not mentioned.
.
Bush should respond. Iran can do four things to improve diplomatic relations with the West and get out of the current problem.
.
Iran can:
.
1. Renounce the possession and use of nuclear weapons and allow the IAEA full rights to inspect and monitor its nuclear facilities to that end;
2. Cease its support for terrorism in the Middle East and elsewhere, denouncing it;
3. Recognise Israel’s right to exist and cease rhetoric calling for it to be wiped off the map. Engage in the peace process;
4. Be a partner with the coalition forces in bringing peace to Iraq and respecting democracy in Iraq.

In return the US can:

1. Renew diplomatic contacts;
2. Remove sanctions; and
3. Commit to the non-use of military force against Iran.

So go on Iran – engage in direct talks with the US to do all that. Prove that Iran just wants to mind its own business and not threaten its neighbours and destroy Israel.
.
The problem is that, as Jonathan Freedland in the Guardian reports, Ahmadinejad continues to sabre rattle – saying Israel is a “rotten tree” that can be blown away with a single storm and the Israeli Jews should be resettled in Europe. I suspect the easiest solution is still a bullet to Ahmadinejad's head and for Iranians to be encouraged to get rid of this sick murderous regime in Tehran.

.

A polite letter calling for Iran to engage with the international community, cease supporting terrorism and cease pursuing nuclear weapons would be nice. The US does not want war with Iran, but cannot tolerate it threatening one of its most important allies.

Blair should stay

Following the disastrous local body election result for Labour here in the UK, some sniping leftists in the Labour caucus are trying to encourage Tony Blair to resign (and so is the Daily Telegraph ). This follows from his Cabinet reshuffle that promoted Blairites and demoted supporters of Gordon Brown. Blair is adament he is not setting down a timetable for him stepping down, because if he did it would give his opponents in Labour the chance to slow down reforms so that they don't happen before he goes.
.
It is clear that Tony Blair sees a handful of individuals, such as Prescott and Charles Clarke as being responsible for the general lack of confidence in Labour, and that he also sees Gordon Brown as gently undermining his premiership (as Brown wants as long a chance as possible to build up momentum for the next election), when he is now almost explicitly calling for Blair to step down. He promoted John Reid as new Home Secretary because he believes he could challenge Brown for the leadership closer to the election, and that needs time (although he vehemently denies wanting anyone other than Brown for that role).

.

It is also clear that the “New Labour” project is now unlikely to have a history of being implemented further beyond Tony Blair – old Labour is rumbling underneath and their slobbering fat dribbling tax keen socialist ways can’t wait to come back. Not for them choice in education, or confronting Islamist terror, but higher taxes and more money for union dominated state services.
.
The Daily Telegraph claims Blair hanging on will be a hindrance to completing his reforms – I think it is the only think left that will ensure they will happen. I don’t want to wait and hope that David Chameleon Cameron might win the next election and might have some spirit of free-market reform in him.
.
For all his faults, and Blair has many – he was elected in 2005 to be Prime Minister for an unprecedented third term, and has a greater mandate than Gordon Brown to remain so. Blair should hang on until around a year out from the next election, then he should announce his retirement and give the Labour Party a few months to get a new leader. The left can then clamour and try to get attention, and hopefully by then the Conservative Party will be something worth supporting.
.
Britain did not elect Gordon Brown to be PM, it elected Tony Blair – he ought to serve out his term and implement the reforms he sought to implement, not pander to the whimpering, simpering old leftists that kept the Labour Party in oblivion for eight years. Those vile socialists will have many years to contemplate life in the House of Commons when they help hand the Tories victory in 2009/2010.

.

There is a simpler reason for keeping Blair on - he is a lesser threat than Gordon Brown and the longer he stays in, the more likely the Labour left are to act like the fruitcakes they were in 1983 and lose next time around. A lot of Britons are socialists and would have been half contented had the UK fallen under the Warsaw Pact after WW2 - most socialism in the UK now comes out of local government.

.

oh and why is a libertarian concerned about keeping a Prime Minister who has helped ever erode civil liberties in the UK, and run a spin based government that covers up and obfuscates in ways that taught Helen Clark much of what she knows?

.

Two reasons:

1. Blair's education reforms, giving schools independence and being able to decide their own curriculum is the greatest hope British education has had for a very long time. It is a huge step forward that will be hard to reverse, and will help produce schools that compete, innovate and start to think about how best to meet the needs of students, not meet the needs of bureaucrats in London - and Britain badly needs that;

2. Blair understands the war on terror as I blogged about late last year following his speech at the Labour conference (which his Labour detractors might note that he won):

.

"He declared, in no uncertain terms, that the so called “grievances” of the terrorists have to be exposed for what they are – the use of 21st century technology to fight the religious wars of the dark ages – their attack on 9/11 was an attack on our way of life, on the values of modernism – it is NOT about Afghanistan or Palestine.

.

He cited how awful Afghanistan was under the Taliban, and how the terrorists and their supporters used Afghanistan and now use Iraq as excuses for waging their war of hatred on modern civilisation. He stated how the UK presence in Iraq is welcomed by the democratically elected Iraqi government, and the UN, and the UK could NOT sit back and let other countries carry the burden. He is unashamedly proud of the British role in overthrowing Saddam Hussein, and providing Iraq with a freer democratic government – and it is time to finish the job, confront those who want Iraq to become a terrorist run state and spread liberal democracy to Iraq.

.

This is light years ahead of the mealy mouthed pragmatism of Clark and Brash on this issue, Clark happily lets NZ free ride off of Australia and the US for defence – Brash knows better, but panders to the mindless anti-Americanism that braindead journalists and the Michael Moore sycophants adore.

.

You see, Blair does not give one inch of credit to Al Qaeda or any other terrorists for their behaviour. He does not surrender the fundamental morality of Western liberalism –a liberalism that protects individual rights (albeit inconsistently), that guarantees plurality of speech, guards against extreme abuses of power and welcomes reason, science and diversity as being the beauty of what humanity is. "

.

When Blair isn't good, he is cringeworthy, but when he is good, he is great. Labour will not produce another like him for some time, and Cameron pales in comparison with his slithering around the political spectrum collecting votes wherever he may find them. The war on terror is very very important, and while I do not support the growing risk of misuse of powers by the state to fight it - Blair understands why it is important - this alone, is why I believe he should stay, for now.

Brash wants evidence local loop unbundling will work

Finally National comes out with a press release on local loop unbundling. However, it isn't about property rights, but about economics. Brash wants to see a benefit/cost analysis about local loop unbundling. I would too - it needs some rigorous analysis, by someone with no particular barrow to push on this issue.

.

So if the economics don't stack up would National restore Telecom's property rights? No. Property rights are not even mentioned.

.

Yes I know it would be difficult to reverse, but if Telecom's property rights can be overriden and contracts with private ACC providers can be overriden, then so can contracts between Telecom and competing ISPs.

.

Labour gets the message, National doesn't repeal what it does. Like the 39% income tax rate, National opposed it, but wont repeal it.

.

Then half of the post is about the leak. Yawn – who cares. Don, people care about the substance of what the government does, not the nit-picking at a leak.

.

I guess I should be grateful that the Nats will oppose it - should I?

Wellingtonians: Ngauranga to Airport transport study

In case you didn't notice, there are bigger transport issues in Wellington than Transmission Gully. Transit is now consulting on a strategy for the most congested corridor in the region- Ngauranga-Airport. So if you are ever stuck entering this tunnel (Mt Victoria Tunnel) on a regular basis then you might give a damn about it.

.

This study will be developing a draft strategy for roads and public transport on the corridor and will - understandably - mainly be focused on access between the city and the airport, the region and the airport and access around the CBD.

.

Submission deadline is May 15 and the Transit papers on this are located here.

.

For my bit, I think the focus should be on:

.

- A flyover at the Basin Reserve as a priority, to take Mt Victoria Tunnel-Buckle St/Cambridge Tce traffic off of the Basin roundabout. The land is there for it and it is the next logical step once the inner city bypass is completed;

.

- A 2nd Mt Victoria Tunnel and 4-laning Ruahine St and the 2-lane stretch of Wellington Road. Access to the airport is critical for the whole region, and the economic of that work are likely to be far better than Transmission Gully;

.

- Longer term designating a preference for a covered trench motorway bypass tunnel from the Basin Reserve to the Terrace Tunnel, with a 2nd Terrace Tunnel. This is the original early 1990s motorway extension plan, and if built could cut a third of the traffic from Te Aro and the waterfront. In combination with road pricing, this could relieve the city of through traffic and revitalise the waterfront by enabling one-lane each way to be removed.

.

Public transport? Well once you have rationed the road space with pricing, buses will operate quicker and more economically through the city. The trains are already being refurbished or replaced (and don't say underground rail or light rail - they make no economic sense at all).

.

Another idea seriously under consideration is to 8-lane the motorway from Ngauranga Interchange to Aotea Quay, which will relieve congestion at the merges at peak times, but shift the traffic into the city - I'd be fine with extra lanes on the motorway, as long as they are funded by tolls - as is increasingly happening in the USA (such as the 91 express lanes in California)- so those who benefit from the extra lanes pay for them.

John Prescott and the unfortunate size

British tabloid, full of gutter journalists who are interested largely in creating scandal and destroying any semblance of dignity in order to titillate people who don't really give a damn about major social and economic issues - but would rather sell newspapers by pandering to thr worst of people. However, they can also be very amusing or just present you with imagery that you’d rather not know of. Like UK Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott’s allegedly tiny penis. David Farrar has blogged on this, and displayed the image the Sun published of his allegedly cocktail sausage size penis. Cactus Kate was right in her condemnation of Tracey Temple – no aesthetics at all, plus a penis a third of average length. Hasn't she got a battery powered friend?

.

On the other hand - Prescott probably gave hope to legions of old obese small dicked men who don't necessarily have to pay for it. After all Ron Jeremy did well from being ugly fat and well hung, John Prescott has power to replace his penis.
.
Prescott deserves all this of course, after having the state pay his council tax and gaining the title “Two Jags”. This followed his hypocrisy of promoting public transport but never using it, such as him and his wife going by car for 250 metres, because he was too lazy to walk and his wife needed to protect her hair. He also lied in 1998 claiming he was going to Hull by train, when after three miles he got off the train and hopped into his Jag for the rest of the trip. The 250 metres is just lazy, the Jag made sense – but not for a leftie Labour politician wanting everyone else to go by train. He has also left his Jag parked in a disabled spot. Charming.
.
On the other side, he gained kudos by punching a protestor who threw an egg at him. Any self respecting man would do the same.

.

So while his statist busybody nature means he tells others what to do, and then does what he likes is annoying for the hypocrisy, he also does have a rather laissez-faire attitude to life himself. That in itself is admirable - and for a man who spent his whole life with a tiny penis, and hasn't bothered to get it enhanced (even though he could undoubtedly afford to), such confidence is remarkable.

.

Although it is possible his penis retired in size due to atrophy, he quite probably spent his life growing up wondering why he was to be condemned by genetics for his paucity of phallus. Try not to imagine his first time, assuming the woman concerned had seen one before (if not, then so be it) - the nervousness. Or maybe he just punched anyone who hassled him about it. He grew above his ding-a-ling, or rather out and over it.

.

Hold on, he told the Police when he was 13 that he dad kissed another woman. Tell tale!

.

So if only he would retire, he can punch people, eat what he likes, shag whoever is willing and drive around in his Jag - then he'd leave us all alone.

.

Daily Mail tales of Prescott here and here

ACT on Campus on decriminalising marijuana

Hat tip to David Farrar for pointing me to this one. Helen Simpson (pictured) – relatively new ACT on Campus President shares the view of Libertarianz on this point on the ACT on Campus blog. Prohibition doesn’t work. Trevor Loudon, ACT Vice President has also blogged her post, without stating an opinion. . What a step forward it would be for ACT at least, if not National to talk more about this. Don’t be afraid – parts of Labour say it too, as my last post pointed out.
.
As I have stated before a couple of times, and Not PC as well – this all comes down to who owns your life, and who owns your body.
.
So when the President of ACT on Campus says it, and David Farrar says it – will it ever percolate upwards?

The tiny libertarian part of Labour

According to Kete Were:

"At the Auckland/Northland regional conference of the labour party tonight these motions were passed:

- That a system of voluntary euthanasia for the termanilly (sic) ill be legalised

- That labour in government decriminalise the personal use of marijuana so that it is deal with as a health and social issue rather than a law and order one."

Stone the crows - if only! (and if only the tax, welfare and economic policy was similarly enlightened).

Bring that part of Labour into ACT and maybe.... ?

Brash talks about nanny state... but

really, will he walk the walk, or will he even consistently talk the talk? Will his team? Sadly it is difficult to tell.

.

Speaking in Picton, Don Brash said Labour has been wasteful and poor managers of public services according to Stuff.

.

The whole Picton speech is here. Some of the notable points are:

.

"Our concern is for the thousands of Kiwi shareholders in our largest company who’ve lost out this week as a result of Labour’s inept handling of this issue. The Government’s bumbling has needlessly worsened the situation for investors, and shows the Government’s complete lack of understanding about how the economy and the capital markets work. "

.

So does that mean unbundling is bad or not? Hmmmm. He goes on about the leak, which Not PC points out isn't the point.

.

"It was Helen Clark, staring at the prospect of electoral defeat, who said it was okay to steal half a million dollars off the taxpayers of New Zealand, and spend it on her election campaign, knowing full well that in doing so she’d breach the legal spending cap – something our Electoral Act calls a corrupt practice. "

.

Indeed - National shouldn't let that one go at all.

.

"Helen Clark and Michael Cullen will be leaving behind a terrible legacy of poor incentives and dependency. They’ll leave a mess of poorly-thought-out and politically opportunistic tax and income support policy, which will unfortunately cost all New Zealanders dearly in the years ahead. "

.

Exactly, and if National can confront the welfare state it will have gone a long way towards attacking one of the biggest social failures in the past generation.

.

"Now of course I can’t tell you at this stage precisely what tax reductions National will propose for the next election – there’s too much water to go under the bridge to make that feasible. But you can be absolutely sure that lower taxes, and much improved work incentives for all Kiwis, will be central to our policy at the next election, and indeed in subsequent elections. Under National, you will pay lower taxes!"

.

No doubt better than nothing, but it would be helpful if he could promise cuts of a scale at least like that previously promised. While more and more taxpayers slip into the hardly rich $60,000 p.a. 39% tax bracket, it would be nice if that rate was simply dropped.

.

"the National Party is so focused on ensuring one law for all New Zealanders. That’s why we want to abolish separate electoral seats based on race. "

.

Good!

.

"The reality is that only National understands it’s the actions of individuals that cause the economy to grow. "

.

Not only National, but it is good he notices this.

.

Well - there is hope, Don Brash does believe in a lot of the right things, and when left to it, he does lean in the right direction. He still remains the National Party's best hope - if only he listened to himself more.

Kiwi FM - you didn't listen to it, so now you pay for it

Not long ago, Canwest decided to try a new radio station format - with 100% New Zealand music and called the network Kiwi FM (unrelated to the former Waikato contemporary hit radio station of around a decade ago). It broadcast in the three largest centres and was a commercial flop.

.

You see, most people don't want to listen to a radio station playing just NZ music - in fact, given that commercially viable radio stations in our highly competitive market need only about 5% of listenership to start being worthwhile, Kiwi FM couldn't even manage that.

.

So, in short, despite the pleadings of the taxpayer subsidised NZ music industry (they are in it for the culture - except they want to be paid for it) and the Labour government - virtually all of the public does not WANT to listen to NZ music because it is NZ music.

.

What a surprise - you choose music you like because of the melody, beat, lyrics, talent of the performer etc -not because it is from New Zealand. If being local mattered, you'd like nothing more than to listen to your next door neighbour on the guitar -or the band at the local pub. Nationalism over music is either marketing bullshit generated by the local music industry or some mind-numbingly stupid xenophobia in reverse, that makes something "special" because it is homegrown.

.

Steve Maharey appears to be both - he supports the local music industry, because somehow people who can't generate public support for their music are deserving of money taken from those who don't support them, through taxes. He also thinks there is some sort of nationalistic zeitgeist in local art and culture that needs supporting. It is important you pay for a radio station you don't listen to, because it help binds you to the rest of the New Zealand public - in only the way a politician and university academic knows how - inexplicably!

.

So, you see, Canwest - the latest state moocher - was going to close down Kiwi FM and replace it with The Breeze (yawn) in Auckland and no doubt other formats in Wellington and Christchurch. The frequencies that Canwest own can be put to better use broadcasting radio stations that people want to hear, not Kiwi FM. This upset Maharey and the noisy local music lobby, firmly with their snouts in the taxpayers' trough since Labour was elected - so three FM radio frequencies are being made available to Canwest to continue broadcasting Kiwi FM, for free.

.

The government has basically announced a package of pork to keep this unsuccessful station on air. Not only is it getting frequencies that should be sold off to the highest bidder, but it is getting taxpayer money for particular radio programmes - which, of course, wouldn't be needed if enough people wanted to listen. The intention is that the station should become "not for profit".

.

So you're going to be subsidising a privately owned commercial station to become a non-commercial station - with an audience share of not 5%, not 1%, but 0.5% of all radio listeners 10+ nationwide (0.9% in Wellington and 0.7% in Auckland). Less than most Maori stations, less than Concert FM.

.

Tune into it sometime to decide if you're happy about it, and then write to Maharey and complain, and think about whether getting government help to prop up your uneconomic radio stations is a good thing for Canwest to do. New Zealand music isn't special - some of it is good, some of it is awful - none of it has to do about what country it comes from.

.

UPDATE: I hate socialism blogs about why Kiwi FM isn't a success and shouldn't be propped up.

Lindsay Mitchell rightfully points out that what is worse is using Kiwi FM's high NZ airplay to bully other stations into playing more- although there is NO legal instrument to enforce a quota - it is all voluntary and as I pointed out here, the CER Agreement and WTO commitments of the government mean it MUST remain voluntary.

Telecom gets a hammering - no you don't own it, unless you have shares

This is my Friday rant.

.

$4.72 for Telecom, it was $5.70 a few weeks ago.

.

All the slobbering foaming at the mouth "it is ours anyway" mob will be downing their bottles of cask wine in excitement, stroking their moustaches and beer bellies, or their scrunched up envy ridden faces going on about how good it is that those foreign bastards are getting it at last. Ringing up talkback I bet to have a good old moan about the good old days and that bastard Douglas who sold Telecom (actually Clark and Cullen had the same amount of say at the time - Douglas had long been ousted as Finance Minister).

.

Simple message - you don't fucking own Telecom. The "you" you talk about, sold it - sold it because "you" owed a mountain of debt and needed the money to pay some back - "you" spent it on welfare and subsidies and the like. "You" didn't spent a cent on upgrading Telecom after that. If "you" didn't like it, then maybe "you" should have asked government to spend less in the 70s and 80s - but I doubt if "you" did.

.

Your bullshit argument that "we paid for it so it's ours" is complete nonsense - it is so mind numbingly stupid that it defies comprehension that people who know how to put clothes on can make the argument. This is about as relevant as going to the owner of a car or house you ONCE owned and claiming it is yours again -having sold it previously. You might have built the house, but you sold it and lost all rights to it - fair and square. "Oh but I opposed the sale" - well tough shit. In a liberal democracy your argument lost. The sale proceeded and no party has ever been elected to buy it back.

.

So frankly when it comes to Telecom, unless you own shares you can simply fuck off, buy some and then have your say at the AGM, vote on the directors etc.

.

Pay attention to something you own, and any contracts you have with Telecom - all your imaginary public good socialistic bullshit is just that - because when it comes down to it, I can't hold you or any of you lot accountable when your socialist bullshit does not deliver - such as with health care.

.

It is times like this that I wish that Theresa Gattung just announced that Telecom was pulling out, and I mean pulling out - it was giving notice of the termination of all service contracts, and would be dismantling its network and selling the wire and fibre optics for scrap. Now I know this makes no business sense - but Telecom is entitled to do this - just like you're entitled to destroy your own property (unless it is a special tree or a historic place). Imagine if it did that - then where would you be? No producer has an obligation to supply you with any good or service as of right - remember that. You get goods and services by contract. Just as you can decide to buy no more, so can the producer decide to sell no more.

.

Apologies for those who have shares - you do own it, and I'm sure you're feeling less than happy about how much the government has destroyed some of your wealth with cheerleaders across (most) of the political spectrum.

.

Sometimes I simply think it is time that consumers realised how lucky they are that producers even exist.

English local elections give Labour a fair beating

England (not the UK) had its local council elections yesterday and while I tend to avoid getting too excited about one side vs. the other (all being different version of Nanny State) I tend to feel the Conservatives are slightly less likely to tax and regulate than Labour or the LibDems.
.
Voting is done by ballot box, not postal as in New Zealand and was on a Thursday – so turnout is a derisory 36%. I remember when NZ had voting by ballot box for council elections and turnout average around 25-30% unsurprisingly.
.
Unlike New Zealand where, with the exception of perhaps Auckland and Christchurch, party politics are not strong (and even where they are, they have stupid deceptive names with words like now, future, citizens etc to hide them being left or rightwing blocs), in the UK local councils are strongly partisan – effectively being mini-versions of the House of Commons. All the parties see it as a test of overall popular support – and this time round, that would be a fair assumption.
.
It seems odd to punish local councillors for what central government politicians get up to. John Bank and the pro-Nat/ACT Citizens and Ratepayers Now bloc won in 2001 in Auckland City, a year before the Nats had their worst election result ever in the general election. A good council (whatever that is) should not suffer because its party is bad in central government and vice versa - but that is what happens in England.

.

Labour has suffered an enormous defeat – not helped by the scandals of John “how the hell did he get laid” Prescott, Charles “lets not deport the rapists” Clarke and the media pack anxious for Blair to step down. Labour is looking more and more like a lame duck, probably unfairly so – whereas the Tories, although with some cynicism, are operating in a united, cohesive fashion and David Cameron has injected some life (if not principle) into the party. The LibDems have been rescued from oblivion by Sir Menzies Campbell putting them on life support, so are holding their own.
.
Labour lost control of 18 councils and lost 254 councillors, the Tories gained 12 councils and 250 councillors, the LibDems gained 1 council and 18 councillors and 5 councils shifted to “no overall control”, with no single party winning a majority.
.
More disturbingly the “we’re not racist we just have lots of yobbos in our party who hate dark skinned people” BNP won 11 seats in the London borough of Barking and Dagenham – pity anyone not white living there. The BNP does well tapping into latent racism and fear of crime among working class white people, you know the sort you don’t want to be sharing a beach in Spain with. The BNP is an odd bunch, the core neo-Nazis who hate Jews (the word Zionist is used in the manifesto) and anyone not Aryan, a neo-conservative Christian core who are not that different from US protestant KKK groups and old fashioned socialists who believe the state should own and do a lot more than it does – national socialists you see? Although if you look at its manifesto, the BNP wants to look at the NZ experience in abolishing agricultural subsidies! I wont be moving to Barking and Dagenham (like I would anyway!).
.
I’m just thrilled my own council, Camden, for the first time in its history is no longer a Labour council. Might be nice to see some accountability in a council that is responsible for the monstrosities pictured above, although if the LibDems and Labour co-operate it will be a tax and spend council once more.
.
David Cameron should be pleased, Blair will be despondent, and the LibDems relieved. John Prescott will reportedly take the "blame" for the result - the real blame is that England is tired of New Labour spin, and has swung to the right. The poor have gone to the racist right and the middle and upper classes have gone to the Tories.

.

FULL ENGLAND COUNCIL ELECTION RESULTS on the BBC

Welcome everyone doing school projects on Transmission Gully

You've managed to sustain my hit rate over the three weeks I've said nothing on anything else. There must be around half a dozen classrooms doing this! (I have an invisible counter)

.

Just search Transmission Gully on my blog, you'll find tons that isn't pro-Gully, that isn't pro-rail, but is pro-efficiency.

.

Remember, it is a long way towards being built. The Transit NZ Board has to decide whether to support it as the long-term option, and then funding has to be found, and the project needs about two years of detailed investigation (easily worth $3-$5 million) first. Transmission Gully wont be a problem for this government, it will be a problem for the next one - it wont be affordable then either.

Bolivia adopts Alliance policy on energy

You don’t hear anything from the so-called “peace movement” about a government sending its military in to steal the assets of private companies – this being what is now happening in Bolivia, as President Evo Morales (pictured) – pinup boy of the left because he is indigenous (though they don’t regard Margaret Thatcher as a pinup because she is a woman, because she didn’t espouse their ideology) – confiscates what he calls “our natural resources”. This is the step beyond unbundling that the Alliance (they still around?) would approve of. Trevor Loudon warned us of Morales when he was elected and Morales links to Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro say it all.
.
The BBC reports that the Bolivian army has now taken over the Palmasola refinery, and Morales has demanded that gas companies “renegotiate” the terms of their contracts with the government, and they must “sell” 51% of their assets to the state – no doubt at a price the state demands. He demands that the Bolivian state take 60% of production from all gas fields except the two largest, which will have to give up 82%.
.
Soldiers have been sent to 56 locations, and Morales has said this is just the start. According to the BBC “Mr Morales said the gas fields were "just the beginning, because tomorrow it will be the mines, the forest resources and the land".
.
Fool.
.
Ironically, the left wing (but decidedly pragmatic) President of Brazil Lula da Silva and left wing Spanish government are both concerned – because two of the biggest investors in the Bolivian energy sector are Brazilian (Petrobras) and Spanish (Ripsol) companies respectively. On top of that, Brazil imports half of its gas from Bolivia. Gas isn’t a good commodity to transport in large quantities other than by pipeline, so substitute suppliers wont be easy to find.

.

Petrobras of Brazil has cancelled all plans to invest more in Brazil and Bloomberg reports that these moves are likely to increase prices in Brazil and Argentina.
.
The appropriate response by the companies is to demand that property be returned, otherwise they should use force in self defence. An alternative would be to exit and demolish the refinery, pipes and the rest, take their skills and run. Of course neither will happen – they will face the prospect of having half of their property stolen and negotiate to keep the rest. Ideally the Brazilian and Spanish government should threaten military action to protect their nationals – much as was threatened against Iran in the 1950s when it did the same to British and American oil companies.
.
I expect the left will be cheering this on – claiming that the gas “belongs to the people”. Well good on “the people” – let all the companies remove their expertise and see how well the average Bolivian peasant does in figuring out how to get the gas out of the ground, refine it and sell it. If it weren’t for foreign companies using THEIR knowledge and training people to access the gas, then the gas would be useless to Bolivians – much as radio spectrum was useless to Maori (and in fact everyone on the planet) in the 18th century, as nobody even knew it existed, let alone knew how to use it. Bolivian gas, like Venezuelan and Saudi oil only exists because of the application of the mind by scientists and entrepreneurs to the resource, which previously wasn’t even known to exist. The Brazilian, Spanish and other foreign companies accessing, refining and selling it paid substantial royalties to the government to do something the government could not do – now the companies should walk and take everything left of their’s with them.
.
The confiscation of property in Bolivia is utterly repulsive, and if Morales does the same to other property, then the people of Bolivia will get what they voted for – a wasteful socialist autocracy, whereby success gets confiscated by the state. I am sure Morales is hoping to make a fortune from high energy prices and redistribute the income – but he will have successfully killed off foreign investment from Bolivia. South America's poorest country will remain so.

.

By the way, there is parliamentary support for Evo Morales. Hone Harawira praised him in his inaugural speech, and Tariana Turia and Pita Sharples by press release. I guess because he is indigenous, it's ok to confiscate property and chase off tau iwi investment is it?

- Evo Morales profile on Wikipedia

National and ACT show some principle

Omigod! I'm astounded. Following Rodney Hide's excellent condemnation of the announcement to let anyone and everyone have access to Telecom's local line network, I listened online to Maurice Williamson doing the very same on Morning Report. Well done Maurice, making some of the points I have already made. PC has done a good summary of Telecom's share drop, 10% of value in a day and his updated post of much of the commentary.

.

Other responses are:

.

NZ First naturally supports it, as Winston has been one of the biggest Telecom-bashers in recent years, courting the "we paid for it" populist vote. Again Winston thinks "The Government must also ensure that this does not only deliver benefits to big city New Zealand, but that those same services reach all the way down to the country roads" so he wants you to subsidise farmer access to broadband - that isn't cheap, since the Kiwishare has forced Telecom to subsidise farmer access to local lines for ages from the line rentals of city businesses and residents.

.

Greens support it - as any chance to bash Telecom is welcome, although Nandor even said "Current prices aren’t bad" great chance to regulate then. Nandor reckons it will allow virtually free international calling. Well that hasn't happened anywhere, and in many countries it is due to loony protectionist governments maintained statutory telecommunications monopolies - you know, the sort that the left defended until Telecom was privatised.

.

Local Government New Zealand, representing 86 organisations specialising in thieving from the public (local government) supports the move. It thinks rural communities will benefit, which is astounding.

.

The Alliance retards foaming at the mouth are clamouring "it's not enough", wanting the government to renationalise Telecom and then service will be cheap and high quality - hmm like it was for decades under the Post Office. Keep taking the medicine guys.

.

TelstraClear's CEO is sitting thrilled that lobbying government has increased his company's value far more effectively than investing in infrastructure or winning customers over with better service and lower prices (which anyone who has been a user of Telstra Clear's local Wellington service in recent years will note has been declining significantly). Remember before LLU was seriously on the agenda, Telstra Clear was going to build a brand new local access network for all of residential metropolitan Auckland, Hamilton, Tauranga and Dunedin, and expand the Wellington network to Porirua. Cheaper to lobby to use other people's infrastructure than to build your own of course.

.

Russell Brown is thrilled because he believes Telecom is ripping him off, and believes attaching equipment to Telecom's exchanges under LLU is high quality "investment" in telecommunications - but then we always knew he was a leftie :)

.

IHUG, like other competitors says the handbrake is off - although it has provided a competitive satellite based and wireless based broadband service for some years. Again, no need to invest further in your own infrastructure.

.

Business New Zealand is wary, and is taking a wait and see approach.

.

Business Roundtable is damning of LLU, and makes the cogent point that the argument that "everyone else does it" is the same argument that other lobbies, like farming, once said about subsidies and protectionism. A great quote from the press release is:

.

“Measures like forced unbundling have been described as infrastructure socialism (“what’s yours is mine”, by government decree). By allowing competitors access to incumbents’ networks on non-commercial terms, the short-term competition they create is parasitical, not the dynamic competition we need from incentives to invest in new and enhanced infrastructure."

.

You see, those supporting LLU seem to be doing so for three differing reasons:

.

1. It is expected to deliver faster, cheaper broadband services because Telecom is refusing to provide those services, or resale the ability to provide those services to competitors (this I believe is the David Farrar reason);

.

2. Everyone else does it, so we should too (the sheeple reason);

.

3. Telecom are bastards who have been "ripping us off for years", capitalist scum, "we paid for it", put the boot in, rah rah rah keep the red flag flying (the Greens and I suspect the reason at least a good third of the public will support it).

.

The second argument is fatuous, if we took that approach, telecommunications in New Zealand would have been a regulated monopoly or duopoly until the late 1990s. Australia opened up its market in 1997, most of western Europe between 1998 and 2000, New Zealand in 1989. NZ has a completely open postal market, almost every other country (Sweden, Finland, Argentina and the UK excepted) grants a statutory monopoly to its state owned (and relatively inefficient) postal operator.

.

The third argument is facile - Telecom was sold by the elected government of the day (Helen Clark and Michael Cullen were Cabinet Ministers at the time), and the proceeds were used to pay off debt "that you borrowed" or to avoid borrowing more for services "that you wanted". You don't own Telecom unless you buy shares in it - get over it.

.

So what about the first? Is Telecom not providing faster broadband because there is insufficient demand? Is it not providing cheaper broadband because it is unprofitable? Are competitors not investing in infrastructure because the clear message from government is that Telecom's will be there to use instead? Has Telecom been acting anti-competitively and if so, why have no competitors taken it to court under the strengthened heavy handed Commerce Act?

.

When I was in telecommunications policy, one of the clearest messages was that setting up a regulator (which did not exist until 2000/2001) would change incentives in the industry from focusing energy on investment, innovation and commercial negotiation to lobbying and counterlobbying, with the regulator NEVER ever pleasing everyone. Lobbying is cheaper than investing in infrastructure - you just need to have half a dozen well paid suits willing to bang on at politicians, bureaucrats and the media about how hard done by your company is, and how mean old Telecom is ripping everyone off - but your company is the paragon of altruism and will save the day.

.

That has simply been proven right.

Theft of property rights to benefit overseas multinational

Well I'm back in the UK, and the NZ Herald and Stuff reports Clark, Cullen and Cunliffe have decided to effectively nationalise Telecom's local loop in order to benefit, primarily, the balance sheet for the majority Australian Federal Government owned Telstra Clear.

.

Of course it isn't nationalisation per se, more fascism - when you retain the semblance of private property, but the state dictates what you do with it to the extent that you don't have effective control over what you ostensibly earn. All those who wanted a cut of the pie and who didn't want to put their own money into Telecom will have won - assuming that the Greens (who despise private property unless it is the petty personal belongings North Korean type property) and either Winston First or Peter Dunne support the proposed legislation.

.

What is ridiculously bizarre is that the package claims to "encourage the development of alternative infrastructure". Why bother, when the government has forced Telecom to make it let you use its network? Well, Telstra Clear has an answer to that - NOBODY but Telstra Clear can use its network, and if you are a Telstra Clear local line phone customer, then woe betide you trying to get a better deal on national, international or landline to mobile calls with another company - Telstra Clear guards its property rights fiercely - even though it has around 30% of the Wellington market and over 50% of the Kapiti Coast market. Vodafone, no doubt, will be concerned - having spent many hundreds of millions on developing its competing network - it has become too successful to be beyond the beady eyes of a regulator.

.

Of course David Farrar is pleased - like any lobby group is pleased when the government rolls out the trough taken from someone else so they can dip their snouts in the booty of state interference - like farmers on SMPs or manufacturers under tariff protection - the internet community thinks:

.

1. It will do better from this deal than if companies were left to invest off their own back; and

2. It is moral to confiscate property rights when you are unwilling to pay for them.

.

I am particularly disappointed David never responded to my reply to the Internet NZ submission. On the one hand he promotes tax cuts , time and time again and a smaller state, on the other he is like other lobbyists, out to get what they can from the government. More tax money to force people to pay for broadband infrastructure is perhaps the most nauseating example. Why should non-users of broadband pay for infrastructure that, frankly, is mostly used by businesses and middle to higher income households? Ohh its the sacred internet - silly me, it's an exception.

.

Like I said, those who wanted to provide local high speed internet access had several options open to them:

.

1. Build their own networks (Telstra Clear, Walker Wireless, Vodafone all have done this to a greater and lesser extent);

2. Negotiate and pay Telecom (or another local access provider) to provide services on a resale basis;

3. Buy some shareholding in Telecom to share the "windfall profits" it apparently has been reaping from providing service that critics call inadequate and overpriced (wonder why people bothered using it);

4. Offer to buy the local loop from Telecom or enter into a deal to own it in partnership (yes it would cost money, but what's money when it is for the so called "good of the country").

.

David is getting some fisking from some on his blog about this and some of his responses don't stack up, such as:

.

"LLU is not exactly a socialist invention of the far left. It is near universal in the OECD and in fact the OECD itself (which is usally seen as quite right wing) backs unbundling and has been very critical of our telco environment."

.

You see, if rightwing governments implement socialist policies (and have no bones about it, forcing a private company to provide physical access to its network at a price determined by the state is socialist - there is nothing "free market" about it), then they are not socialist!! Maybe a bit like Rob Muldoon and Think Big or price freezes? Just because it is near universal in the OECD does not mean it is right - it is near universal in the OECD to fund roads on a purely political basis, but that isn't right either.

.

So, we wait and see how Telecom's share price responds - of course the Greens, Labour and David Farrar wont give a damn if 10% of the NZ sharemarket value is wiped out overnight - just those evil money grabbing Telecom shareholders with their fangs and horns, sucking the blood out of children (read broadband users) to pay for their lavish lifestyle (read retirement savings of elderly couples).

.

This is simple a government enforced transfer of wealth from Telecom shareholders to Telstra Clear shareholders (51% Australian government - yay!), IHUG, Slingshot and other wealthy competing telco shareholders. That is it.

.

Slingshot is owned by Annette Presley - an entrepreneurial second hander as I once described her in my post on her record in the telecommunications industry. The consumer's friend - the producer's enemy. Not PC has described her as the face of theft - he isn't wrong.

.

Rodney Hide has to his credit damned this move and Trevor Loudon agrees. I Hate Socialism likes socialism on this one, confusing invasive regulation with deregulation - he needs to do a bit of research. I bet the National Party is now debating about whether to criticise Labour's policy, because National policy when it was in government was to oppose regulation - or to support it, and look like it is the friend of the consumer. I am sure David Farrar is in the midst of all that too!

.

One thing to remember - Helen Clark, Michael Cullen and David Cunliffe create nothing - if you relied on them for telecommunications - you'd get nothing. They are politicians - they don't produce, they only regulate, take and redistribute.

.

So watch and see - maybe you'll get cheaper faster broadband, maybe you wont. Certainly Telecom will be worth less, as will the sharemarket overall - certainly hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders will lose asset value from this step, and a handful of investors in other companies will gain some, along with the Australian Federal Government.

.

This government helped another Australian company boost its asset value as well - Qantas - by not granting Singapore Airlines the right to buy 49% of Qantas's biggest competitor (the then privately owned Air NZ/Ansett) which meant Ansett went under and Air NZ was severely cauterised, and ready to collaborate rather than compete. So is the Clark/Cullen government a great friend of Australian shareholders?

Qantas and Air NZ to codeshare trans-tasman

As an opponent of anti-trust laws, I don't have a problem with privately owned airlines in an open market getting together. Although Air NZ and Qantas would not have done that had Dr Cullen let Air NZ be 49% owned by Singapore Airlines in the first place, that is now history. Unfortunately Air NZ is now predominantly state owned - and so it is at best, unclear, whether this collusion between Qantas (which so clearly has the political backing of the Australian Federal Government, as it shut out competition for Qantas on one of its most profitable routes) and the state carrier should be allowed.

However, I can laugh at one point - the claim by the airlines that this is good for consumers. Check these claims:

* Air New Zealand customers currently have the choice of 134 Tasman departures per week. Under the proposed codeshare with Qantas this would increase by 63% to 218 departures.

Well, actually customers can choose between all of the airlines. Nobody is forced to use one airline - at best the claim that you can earn frequent flyer points/airpoints dollars on more flights is true.

* Better schedule spread (access to 63 % more flights a week across the Tasman).

OK, there are less flights - are the remainder going to happen at hours that people don't want that much??

* Greater range of connecting options and enhanced seamlessness of service.

You both have deals with each other for connecting to each others' domestic networks already.

* Potential for new destinations and improved frequencies.

So the new route to Adelaide happened because?? You're reducing frequencies - so what is that about?

* Cost savings from extraction of capacity (removal of two aircraft from the Air New Zealand fleet and one from Qantas) will allow sustainability of low fares.

Yes, though there will be less low fares- you use those to try to fill all those half empty planes.

Oh well, as a libertarian I don't advocate the government stop it - but it isn't much good for consumers, particularly those flying from Wellington since only Air NZ and Qantas fly from Wellington to Australia. Meanwhile, remember that this wouldn't have happened had it NOT been for government interference in the first place- why should Dr Cullen have held up Singapore Airlines' investment in Air NZ in 2001?

In New Zealand

OK, I'm here. Can't comment on Air NZ's new Premium Economy Class because I used up my gold airpoints upgrade vouchers to go in the new business class mmmmm - duvets and pillows and flat beds. Rather nice entertainment system fully interactive - not the variety as in Singapore Airlines or Virgin Atlantic, but better than Qantas. Food was excellent and in greater quantities than last time, and I could sleep in the bed, although it was a little hard it compares well with BA's Club Class.

Ahh New Zealand, land of the parochial soooo:

Things I have missed

Family and friends
Empty clean beaches, countryside, roads
Cheap good fresh fruit and veges
Good edible bread easy to get
More fish than haddock and cod that is easy to get
Sun and blue skies
Relatively good service
Lack of crowds

Things i have not missed

Nauseatingly patriotic navel gazing provincialism, as if New Zealand as an entity is important - it just exists and people there have to do things good to be noticed. Just because it is NZ made means nothing unless it is good.
Nasal drawling accents (LA Air NZ lounge I sat beside a blonde woman with the worst accent I've heard in ages - loud, nasal and SO glad she didn't sit upstairs).
Boy racers.
High taxes on alcohol.
Anally retentive customs (you really think most illegal drugs used in NZ come through passengers at airports?)
Low value currency getting lower (good for me for now).
The preponderance of the stupid prickery using the roads (whereas in London they are homeless or riding buses).
Newspapers with large sections dedicated to parish pump pointlessness and bugger all analysis or incisive comment, and virtually no choice of newspapers.
Television virtually devoid of intelligence, unless it comes from foreign channels and awash with cultural cringe.
Radio largely devoid of intelligence (BBC World Service and BBC Radio 4, as leftwing as they are, are like undergraduate tutors compared to National Radio's adolescent students).
The subculture of welfare, drug addiction, crime, abuse and irresponsibility rampant in certain segments of society - and the political tolerance of it (yes I am very aware of it in the UK too, but it is a different but equally troublesome nature).
The perverse criminal justice system that puts a drug trafficker in jail for years, but lets women who beat up kids out in half the time.
The obsession with the road toll - but unwillingess to confront the cause - stupid driving.

OK that'll do, I don't enjoy sitting in front of a computer more than I have to :)

Transmission Gully needs more subsidies

That's right folks - not only was the Hearing's Committee (reported as if it was Godlike) wrong about there being enough money for this billion dollar boondoggle, not only does it have a benefit/cost ratio of less than 1.0 (meaning it produces less benefits that costs), not only does a toll only recover around 15% of the cost of the road (which means if the toll was high enough to pay for it, nobody would use it - showing how little users really want it), not only does Porirua City Council and Kapiti Coast District Council oppose rating the main beneficiaries of the road to pay for it, BUT

apparently (I say apparently because I don't trust the Dom Post much on these, since they got it wrong several times before as I described here and here) Dr Cullen has suggested a regional petrol tax to help pay for it.

This is a fundamentally flawed proposal, despite David Farrar's socialist faith in this think big project, for several reasons:

1. A regional petrol tax means ALL motorists from Masterton and Otaki to Miramar and Island Bay pay for a road that only SOME use. Wairarapa residents might ask why people in Levin don't have to pay, whereas more of them will use it than Wairarapa people.

2. A regional petrol tax means motorists that fill up north of Otaki or in the South Island don't pay to use the road as much as a grandmother driving in Island Bay to the shops.

3. A regional petrol tax means all trucks, buses and diesel and LPG cars don't contribute, since it doesn't apply to road user charges or LPG (and don't even try to apply it to them - RUC is often bought centrally by fleet operators and there is no way of knowing where kilometres bought in advance are being used, and 80% of LPG tax is refunded for non-road users - try having a regional tax on a tax that is mostly refunded)

4. There is no regional petrol tax at present, the last one, introduced by the 1990-1996 National Government was abolished because the oil companies found it administratively simpler to apply to ALL petrol sales nationwide, and hand the Auckland and Wellington Regional Councils the estimated revenue (so motorists in Invercargill paid a tax that was largely meant to apply to only Auckland and Wellington). The only way to change that would be a complicated administration system to account for petrol delivered within regional boundaries, and that means service stations close to boundaries either win or lose.

Now, the DomPost failed to report that the Wellington Regional Land Transport Committee has voted in favour of Transmission Gully - but, and it is a big but - there are still several hurdles left.

.

Transit's board has to agree to the appropriate approach, and may decide against Transmission Gully, or decide in favour, or decide in favour, but in the meantime cannot neglect the current route (which it can't). I think it will do the latter - retain its commitment to Transmission Gully as the long term solution, but apply for fundable economic projects on the current route. The median barrier along the coast is one, an interchange at Paekakariki is another - Pukerua Bay Bypass perhaps another. Even then, Land Transport New Zealand needs to approve funding - Transit doesn't do this - something that politicians that helped set up this system (Peter Dunne and Maurice Williamson) tend to ignore in the rhetoric and which most journalists can't be arsed thinking about (they only report anyway).

.

The simple point is - the money for Transmission Gully is not there - it does not stack up as a project of anything other than low national priority because it has bad economics, and the users are unwilling to pay, even the councils cheerleading it wont raise a dollar of their ratepayers' money to pay for it (meaning they wont risk their political lives on the issue - there is no risk in demanding others pay).

.

So why should you be forced to pay for a road that you aren't going to use or benefit from? and if you are going to use it or benefit from it, then why wont you agree to pay more towards it? Agree to pay the $24 toll that would be required, or go tell the grandmother driving in Island Bay to the shops why she should pay more in petrol so you can go on holiday to Taupo 10 minutes faster?

.

You might ask why supposed supporters of the free market like ACT and National, think this is ok. Even Maurice Williamson, who as Minister proudly refused to get involved in decisions on particular projects, because he believed projects should be decided on their merits by people able to weigh them all up objectively is now reported as guaranteeing the Penlink project in Rodney District will get funding approval if National is elected. Roll out the pork barrels.

Light blog

I’m off to New Zealand and Australia for the rest of the month, so will write here eratically during that time. The weekend in Switzerland was wonderful, Switzerland has the plus of being clean, polite, comfortable and efficient, and the minus of often being closed and rulebound.

I miss certain food, space, good tap water, family and friends - but I don't miss the tall poppy syndrome, the Kiwi navel gazing "thinking we're really important" and the insipid political correctness. Oh well, I wish you well and look forward to seeing a few of you in the next few weeks.

Tolling Transmission Gully

Well it had to happen - Transmission Gully could not be built as an untolled road, not because of cost, because it wont generate much revenue at all - but because if untolled it would be a subsidy for people commuting from Kapiti Coast and result in substantial amounts of housing development in Kapiti and Horowhenua because taxpayers - not road users and certainly not users of that road - would be paying for it. Tolling will mean two things - the users will be paying around 20% of the cost of the road (including fuel tax and road user charges), but at off peak times most people will use the existing road. Why pay if it wont save you time? BOTH routes should be tolled to pay for it - particularly since the main beneficiaries are those whingers who bought houses along the existing highway wanting a windfall increase in property values by taxpayers paying for a new road that wasn't even seriously considered until the 1990s.

.

The Dominion Post continues to fail to report accurately claiming that the Hearings Panel report on public consultation was generated by Transit and the Regional Council, which is nonsense.

.

The new regional plan proposes that Transmission Gully could be built for $955 million, in a decade. Of this, $412 million would come from already guaranteed funding, $428 million from special Government loans, and $115 million from loans to be covered by tolls. $955 million is a joke - seriously - this project will face overruns of around 10-20% if other state highway projects are anything to go by. Transmission Gully will cost around $1.1-$1.2 billion. The already guaranteed funding doesn't exist - that funding is actually $405 million and there is no such thing as a special Government loan - yet. A case could be put for it, but I wouldn't be lending money for a roading project which had lower benefits than cost - may as well build a gas to gasoline plant at Motunui.

.

So we will see. If Transmission Gully is to go ahead, it should FOLLOW the rail improvements already agreed, and a number of minor improvements to the current route (median barrier, interchange at Paekakariki and possibly bypass at Pukerua Bay) should proceed.

.

I still think there is every likelihood Transmission Gully wont proceed - because it is so hienously expensive. The next most expensive project in Wellington is $180 million and for the money spent on Transmission Gully, Wellington city could have a proper inner city bypass (4-lane cut and cover tunnel from Terrace Tunnel to Mt Victoria Tunnel, with both tunnels duplicated and 4-lanes to the airport) and a lot more besides. Such a project would transform the region by dramatically improving access to and from the airport and hospital, remove a third of the traffic from inner city streets - enable the waterfront route along the quays to have a lane removed in each direction, buses would flow far more freely through town.

.

Transmission Gully will just knock 5 minutes off the off-peak time from Wellington to Kapiti and perhaps 20 minutes off the peak journey, and remove 60% of the traffic from Pukerua Bay and Mana - both communities very used to through traffic. Transmission Gully wont fix Wellington city congestion.

.

Maybe a better approach is congestion pricing to pay for a proper city bypass and Transmission Gully? I simply think the region hasn't thought through its priorities sufficiently and too many are worshipping the cult of Transmission Gully - if they ever get it, they will be very disappointed.

Morality and telecommunications.... (unfinished business)

As I rarely forget anything I do remember that I have to respond further to AJ Chesswas's points about my post in response to his one (whew) and I have failed to meet up to what I said a month ago about posting on it. So here is my response. Allan's comments are in italics, with my response in bold.

.

Thanks for taking up the challenge Scott. There is a lot of good thinking in there, and as a right-leaning bloke there are a lot of things I empathise with. I agree an individual should be essentially free and encouraged to make his or her own judgments and decisions. However I have a couple of concerns witha purely libertarian/anarchist/individualistic understanding of society, namely;- People being socialised to think of themselves, and their own needs and desires, rather than entering into a bigger picture group consciousness that recognises their role and relationships within a community, as a contributor to and participant in the "happiness" of others.

.

I don't think people are socialised to think of themselves, I think it is a biological imperative as part of the instinct to survive. I also don't believe in group consciousness. There is no such thing as a collective brain. While people may share opinions and feelings, the idea of group consciousness is dangerous as it is claimed by those with power - who want to deny the validity or the argument of those who present alternative views. I don't believe that anyone has the right to tell anyone else within a community what their "role" is, besides not initiating force against anyone else. The contribution to and participation in the happiness of others is spontaneous, and is part of being a social being - but it isn't a "role". It is just as legitimate to be a hermit rather than being very gregarious and sociable. You see I think the selfish needs and desires of people are, in fact, the motivation to do everything, even if what you do benefits others. A clear example is trading. You trade to make a living, but as you exchange value for value it benefits those you trade with, and those you purchase goods and services from. You may make a living for yourself, but also your family and to socialise with friends. You may give gifts, buy a drink, play sports or do other things together - you do it because it is something you enjoy and benefit from.

.

If you didn't do it because you benefited from it, you'd be sacrificing yourself - and few people want others to sacrifice themself for them. Imagine a relationship which you didn't get anything from, but which you maintained because you thought you should.

.
The emphasis on euphoric happiness can result on people neglecting roles and vocations vital to the future and eproduction of a society, such parenting, mentoring and involvement in the voluntary sector and domestic spheres...resulting in the potential for collapse of a civilisation/people - ie The West meets Islam.

.

I don't think there is an emphasis on euphoric happiness, just happiness. I think parenting is something people enjoy, as is mentoring and voluntary work. Most people I know doing those things do it because they enjoy it and get satisfaction. I am not endorsing hedonistic self-destruction, but simply enjoying being alive. I think society has existed and progressed because people get satisfaction in producing and teaching and applying their minds and hearts to the world around them. Yes, some people are hedonists and don't give a damn, but experience of groups who have pursued that show that eventually most people give that up because they don't want to live in squalor, and need to work to earn money to get what they want. I don't think people have predetermined roles, but spontaneously, without any central planning - there are people to be doctors, teachers, taxi drivers, engineers, farmers, builders etc - it happens due to freedom, choice and the ambition of most people to live and pursue work they get some satisfaction from.

- People who do not think positively of themselves and their own needs, and as a result have given up a pursuit of happiness largely because of relational disappointments (as relationships are typically crucial to happiness). Such people can be instead prone to destructive behaviour which, because they have chosen it, we redefine as "a pursuit of happiness", discarding our moral apprehensions as a relativistic misunderstanding.

.

I agree, and it happens in more areas than you would believe. Alcohol and drugs are obvious, sex less obvious, over and undereating as well, reclusiveness, overshopping, overexercising and the rest. Unfortunately, you as an outside observer can never tell if someone engaging in any of the above is being seriously self destructive, going through a bad patch (e.g. post breakup or mourning a loss) or simply exploring different facets of life. Most people overdo something at some point in their life and learn from it, and nothing the state can do will stop it.

.- People who take advantage of the above people, being motivated by perverse and corrupt desires, whose deeds are discounted on the basis of the redefined nature of morality as discussed above.

.

Well I don't know what perverse and corrupt desires are, although I can guess. For me, it is perverse and corrupt to lie, steal, defraud or force someone to do something. If by perverse and corrupt you mean sexual practices you don't like or approve of, then that is a separate discussion. If two adults agree to enjoy their bodies together then it frankly does not matter to me, and I struggle why it matters to anyone else, unless either of them are in a relationship with another that they are not being honest about.

- The lack of structure and guidance in a less ordered society can pose challenges to maturing citizens looking for guidance and direction, and a meaningful role to play in their community. The sociologist Emile Durkheim discussed the condition of anomie which can result when a person's identity is challenged in this way. Furthermore, a poorly structured society is potentially less effective in responding to an emergency or sudden action (ie The West meets Islam).

I understand the point, but this is up to parents and a good start is to teach the first rule of no initiation of force or fraud. Being honest with people, respecting their bodies and property is a cornerstone of civilisation. Then to apply the mind, and reasoning to problems. A person develops identity as an individual and the more that it allowed to flourish, within the context of respecting others, the happier and better off society will be. I believe people will act and respond quickly in times of emergency, in those situations people are willing to give a hand or to fight if need be - they do so out of esteem and respect for the society of independent and free people. One that does not judge people for actions that are not an attack on others.

PC has also posted some salient points on this that I urge you to read.

also, David Farrar was to respond to my response to InternetNZ's submission calling for the government to remove some of Telecom's property rights over its local lines and for everyone else to be forced to pay for high speed internet infrastructure in certain locations. I await it with antici-pation.... But maybe the rain, isn't really to blame (snaps out of Franknfurter role).

Finland - a model for schools?

According to The Economist (pay edition or the 23 March print edition), education policy wonks could do worse than look at what Finland has done with primary and secondary education.
.
Finland changed its system from being centralised, with curriculum, schools, teacher pay run from Helsinki to deregulating it to schools and teachers. There is no national curriculum in Finland and few national exams. In essence, says the Economist, the formula was “about getting good teachers – and then giving them freedom”. So that means rewarding good teachers and allowing them to teach what they want, how they want.
.
Finland’s 15yos have the highest level of maths and science skills, and reading literacy of any rich industrialised country. In the 1960s it was one of the worst performers. Finland stands above most European countries, as most European countries are at or below the OECD average for mathematics, the top performers are Hong Kong, South Korea, Japan and Finland.

"Lazy frogs go back to work" says airline CEO

The Daily Telegraph reports Philip Meeson, chief executive of jet2.com, a low cost British airline based in Leeds, has called for the French air traffic controllers by asking“lazy frogs to get back to work” on the airline website. He has also complained about French police not clearing away students lying on the runway at Chambery.
.
He’s justifiably expressing anger at a monopoly (French air traffic controllers) holding others to ransom, and says they should get back to work or get another job if they don’t like it.
.
While disagreeing with the language, a Liberal Democrats MEP has said that France and Italy are in a headlong economic race to be the sick man of Europe. Quite right.
.
France is slowly stagnating under the enormous economic millstone of socialism, which means that companies cannot fire staff unless the company is losing money, will lose money for an ongoing period and there are no other positions for the people the company wants to fire. Imagine that – you can’t cut staff until you are unprofitable, so you could be losing money in several areas of your business, but since you are profitable overall you must cross-subsidise those other jobs.
.
One final note, noticed how few low-cost French airlines there are? There are none, compared to ten in the UK last time I counted. Fortunately the open internal European market means non-French EU airlines have the right to fly to and from France as they wish – fortunately for French consumers that is.

UN scum judge New Zealand

The UN Special Rapporteur for promoting racist socialism and hating capitalism – or rather on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, Rodolfo Stavenhagen has written a report justifying a socialist view of government in New Zealand particularly in relation to Maori. Trevor Loudon rightfully damns it as its writer is a Marxist and therefore "it is entirely predictable that the report supports the Marxist based "Maori Sovereignty" agenda that has done so much to damage race relations in this country".

.

It justifies racist pro-Maori policies, but interestingly also states:
.
“ return to the assimilationist model appears increasingly in public discourse, redirecting concern about collective rights and the place of Maori as a people within the wider society, to emphasis on the protection of the individual rights of all New Zealanders, including the rights to equal opportunity, due process of law and freedom from illegal discrimination on any grounds, including ethnicity or race.”
.
This implies that there are “models” for people treating Maori, instead of simply treating people as individuals. Once the state has no policy for Maori in particular, but treats everyone equally and gives equal respect to individuals of all cultural backgrounds, then all can get on.
.
However, as Louden explained Stavenhagen is a right socialist busybody. He recommends:
.
“The Treaty of Waitangi should be entrenched constitutionally in a form that
respects the pluralism of New Zealand society, creating positive recognition and
meaningful provision for Maori as a distinct people, possessing an alternative system of knowledge, philosophy and law.”
.
Besides being vacuous cultural relativism, what stops Maori using traditional knowledge (though most like using all knowledge at their disposal) and philosophy to act as they wish? As far as law is concerned, if laws are limited to those to protect people from each other and the state – then Maori can choose to sign up to any further provisions that they want socially – but they cannot be “laws” that apply to anyone else. Objective law is not something up for debate.
.
He also wants iwi and hapu to be able to claim legal aid, regardless presumably, of their wealth. Companies also ought to be able to claim it at this rate, for they are no different, as should incorporated societies. In fact, legal aid should be abolished except for individuals in criminal cases. He also wants more socialist education funding and an independent commission to monitor the media being non-racist – in other words, an attack on free speech.
.
So what is this all about, besides an insidious interference in New Zealand’s domestic politics?

.

Well, it comes from the Commission on Human Rights of ECOSOC, the UN Economic and Social Council - a body established originally. The Commission includes among its members China, Cuba, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe. A bit like having rapists and murderers coming round to your house and telling you that you should vacuum more and it would be nice if you dusted the mantelpiece.
.
Why should we listen to a body that is so morally bankrupt that it lets systematic violators of basic individual rights judge New Zealand on its race relations? Unlike many libertarians, I believe the UN should exist -but bodies like the ECOSOC Commission on Human Rights are virtually useless as long as they accept as legitimate members the vilest abusers of human rights in the world. Of course, cultural relativists like the Greens love the UN and think Marxists can teach us something, because the UN almost always supports a socialist state collectivist agenda.

Greens want more democracy for Maori only

Green MP Metiria Turei has called for the Maori electoral option to always be available for Maori voters. She said:
.
“A Maori voter might make the decision to move to the Maori roll might because they are unsatisfied with the representation they are getting from candidates on the general roll. Yet because the option only opens every five years, they are forced to stay on the general roll for the next election. This seriously undermines the democratic process and highlights the structural inequalities for Maori of the Westminster system we operate under.”
.
What? So you should be able to shift electoral rolls if you don't like your candidates. Wonderful stuff

.

The Greens regard Don Brash’s approach to the Maori seats as racist, but what the hell is Metiria on about? What happens if I am unsatisfied with the representation I get from candidates on the general roll?
.
I don’t have Maori ancestry (I think) so I’m not entitled to a second option according to Metiria. According to her, it’s just fine that 85% or so of New Zealanders can just put up and shut up if they don’t like representation, but Maori shouldn’t. Furthermore, what are the “structural inequalities” that mean that Maori get two electoral options but everyone else gets one? What sort of Orwellian doublespeak is Metiria going on about? It is unequal and unfair if one group (Maori) get a second option nobody else gets, but can only exercise it every five years?
.
What unadulterated racist nonsense. Democracy means one person one vote. To suggest that Maori deserve extra is elevating them and denigrating others, and to suggest they need it for democracy is suggesting Maori when they vote on the general roll don’t really count.
.
This demonstrates the Green Party view of democracy is not all votes counting equally. The Maori seats should go – debates about democracy when just over half of Maori are represented by Maori seats, with MPs who claim to speak for Maori, when Maori views are represented across several parties (and the Green Party is a poor performer in the Maori seat). Don Brash is right - the Maori Party after all, is over-represented in this Parliament because of the Maori seats.
.
It is not racist to call for separate representation to be abolished, it is the opposite. Don’t let any Orwellian post-modernist cultural relativist socialist convince you otherwise.

.

Libertarianz called for the Maori seats to go since 1996, ACT since 1999 and National since 2004.

Human Rights Act shows up its failings again

So there is an issue about a bar prohibiting people under 20 from entering it because it might breach the Human Rights Act. So the arguments about the drinking age become arguments about passing laws, rather than about people regulating their own behaviour. Such nonsense! Bars should be able to ban people of any age they like, indeed they should be able to stop anyone entering on any grounds - after all, bars are private property. If you don't want anyone entering your home you have the right to stop them, right?
.
I am opposed to the Human Rights Act applying to private activities. If a person wants to discriminate on the grounds of race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, disability, hair colour, musical tastes, politics or body odour it is nobody else's business. After all, it is a private contract between two adults. If I am an employer I should be able to choose the employee I want, similarly if if I am a landlord or a shopkeeper.
.
What? You're racist or sexist? No.

.

Just someone who believes in private property rights and that you can't force people to engage with others, regardless of how stupid their reasons to discriminate. You see we all discriminate all of the time in different areas of life - you judge people according to their clothes, their bodies, their hair and many other factors. You do so because you instinctively associate with those who you are more comfortable with - and all sorts of incidents in life leave you stereotyping people according to many factors, and often you are wrong.

.

However, does this mean people should be able to "get away with" being racist or sexist with everyone who is offended having no come back? No.

.

Freedom works both ways. If there was a shop that was owned by a racist shopkeeper, would you shop there? Would you tell your friends about the racism? Would you (if you sold good to the shop) not trade with the shop at all? Freedom to contract and freedom of speech are powerful tools. Someone who acts racist or sexist may deter some customers, and some of those customers may be prepared to publish the embarrassing fact of the bigotry. Consumer boycotts can be powerful.

.

Back to the drinking age. There is no need to do anything about this. Leave it at 18 (some countries have no drinking age and don't appear to be worse off than NZ in alcohol related conditions) and let the market decide what people want.