Local loop unbundling and subsidies for telecommunications

I said a week or so ago that I would read InternetNZ’s submission on telecommunications reform. I know Colin Jackson (President of InternetNZ) and David Farrar are smart men, having read their work before, and I also know they aren’t just bleeting for the own self-interest, there is a genuine interest in producing the best policy for NZ telecommunications. I also know that neither have a specific anti-Telecom agenda - so this is not about politics, but about outcomes. The Greens on the other hand, are simply anti-big business, Telstra Clear is conversely out to screw its competitor - Telecom.

.

InternetNZ is a private organisation which has evolved over the years to be an excellent example of the government NOT needing to be involved to ensure an industry can co-ordinate co-operatively and effectively when it is appropriate. For that alone, when InternetNZ speaks it should be listened to and carefully considered. Note that Grant Forsyth, Manager of Industry and Regulatory Affairs Telstra Clear is a councillor of InternetNZ and Deputy Chair of its Public Policy Committee- that interest is declared, and I don’t believe David Farrar (as Chair) would let that interest dictate policy (although if Telecom was in such a role and InternetNZ opposed local loop unbundling, there would no doubt be howls of indignation).

So I thought I’d go through the media release, which summarises the submission, and consider all of the points. If I was being truly libertarian I would reject competition law and this would be easier, and I wouldn't care about outcomes - but I accept that Telecom's privatisation was done with the owners (and subsequent owners) agreeing to it being regulated under the Commerce Act in order that Telecom provide cost oriented, fair interconnection with its competitors. This is a bare minimum for telecommunications, so I will take that as read. So here are the points from the press release in italics and my response in bold:

Our key message is that there is no 'silver bullet' in telecommunications reform - a multi-pronged strategy is required to deliver a more competitive market in telecommunications. The debate is not just about whether to unbundle the local loop or not. That will not be enough by itself. It will be a very useful step forward but needs to be followed by separating Telecom's wholesale business from its retail business.

Hmm not convinced, and some of its wholesale business faces enormous competition from the likes of BCL and Vodafone. Nowhere in the world has this been done. It is an enormous intervention in the business of a major company, and the last time it was done in New Zealand (electricity) it was against officials’ advice and didn’t deliver.

"Our submission contains proposals in two areas. The first series of proposals deals with increasing competition on the key economic bottleneck in the telecommunications market - the local loop. The second series of proposals deals with the development of other areas of Internet infrastructure.

"On local loop matters, InternetNZ proposes three inter-related steps:

Development of stronger wholesale service options for resellers of Telecom's services, starting with an unconstrained UBS (unbundled bitstream service). Such a service would allow bitstream provision at the maximum feasible line speed, with adequate network provisioning to make such services useful.

Talk to Telecom about it - ask why it wont do it, or whether it will do it if you pay. If Telecom wont do it, it may be because it wouldn’t be profitable, in which case why should it be forced to do so? I'd like a straight answer from Telecom.

Local loop unbundling, allowing service providers to install their own equipment in or near Telecom's local exchanges and cabinets. Growing international experience indicates this allows the development of very high-speed Internet services due to the stronger competitive environment resulting.

How about at the very least, amending the RMA so that telecommunications network operators have the right to lay cables along public corridors wherever other operators have cables, including power companies. This will end the abuse of the RMA by local authorities banning overhead cables where Telecom and power companies already have them. How about explaining why Telecom’s competitors wont pay a price to install equipment near its exchanges? Given the Commerce Act exists and was substantially strengthened by Labour, why have no competitors taken legal action claiming Telecom is acting anti-competitively? Is it possible that infrastructure based competition is not occurring also because competitors would much prefer a free ride with Telecom's infrastructure?

A split of Telecom's wholesale business from its retail business - the only way to ensure fair treatment for all competitors on Telecom's local loop network is to ensure the company faces incentives to deliver this. Only by including Telecom's wholesale business in a separate firewalled division - or a separate company - can one be certain that it will treat all access seekers on an equivalent basis to Telecom's retail division.

Hold on, the entire wholesale business? Including in Wellington and Christchurch and Kapiti where there IS infrastructure based competition? Including the CBDs? Including the toll bypass and international networks? There is no “natural monopoly” outside the provincial and rural local loops, and no justification for splitting the lot - competition on national and international calls is vigorous. Local competition now exists nationwide on Telecom’s network, and cellular is increasingly an option for people who do not want a fixed line. However, using information disclosure regulations along with the Commerce Act should be enough protection against “anti competitive behaviour”. It requires a case to be proven, but when you are talking about interfering with property rights the proof required should be high.

.

"InternetNZ has also proposed several other reforms that do not focus on the local loop. While we regard the local loop as the key site where competition is lacking today, there are other interventions the government can make to roll out better Internet for New Zealanders.
"In these other areas our proposals include the following:

An additional $60m for the Broadband Challenge, to ensure it can deliver meaningful fibre infrastructure to local communities. We understand that the fund, established under the Digital Strategy with a $24m limit, is fully subscribed. Expanding the fund is a simple way to show government commitment to the development of open alternative network infrastructure.

Nice try, but bugger off and look for your subsidies elsewhere! You have no more right to taxpayer’s money to subsidise your industry than farmers, tyre manufacturers, travel agents, shoe repairers or architects. Give that one a rest. If telecommunications companies don’t find it economic to expand infrastructure to certain communities (though I thought you wanted to piggy back off Telecom), then why should businesses, workers, pensioners and others pay for it? What is this about a government funded alternative network infrastructure? Why can’t Telstra Clear or an alliance of Telecom’s competitors do this? Why can’t you? This is no different to asking for Kiwibank, petrol stations or anything else that socialists ask for. Rural roads are paid for by road users and local landowners paying rates - why should telecommunications be different?

Review of state network building - a large number of Crown organisations have network capacity installed around the country, including the developing GSN, Advanced Research Network, SOEs like BCL Ltd and Transpower, and others. It is important their networks are well-coordinated, and that any potential gains they can bring to making the national Internet backbone network more robust and more competitive are fully realised.

Why not require state owned entities to onsell excess capacity, before privatising it?

Review of spectrum allocation policies, to allow better development of community wireless broadband. Current spectrum allocation policies allow the hoarding of spectrum by market participants. These should be reviewed to ensure that communities can easily roll out non-profit wireless broadband services.

Spectrum should be sold, those “hoarding it” value it more than the so called “communities”. Communities are either bunches of people with ideas (which they should pay for) or councils who want to force people to pay for their ideas. If someone buys spectrum and doesn’t use it, it is just like buying land and letting it go fallow - it isn’t your business, as long as the government has sold all of the available spectrum.

Develop a national strategy to roll out fibre-to-the-home services. Most of the best-placed OECD countries are already moving towards very high-speed Internet service rollouts. Copper technology imposes speed limits that don't exist with fibre. A national strategy to get fibre to the home - sooner rather than later - is a vital element in bringing New Zealand up to speed for the digital future.

Hold on, I thought competing infrastructure to Telecom’s network was uneconomic, which is why you want to attack its property rights. NOW you are saying copper is essentially becoming obsolete and the government needs to develop a strategy to replace it. Why? The government did not develop a strategy to roll out the internet in the first place, or a strategy for cellular phone networks, or a strategy for pay television, or a strategy for rollout of PCs in business and homes. Get councils out of the way in planning terms, and get taxes down and let network providers hold their property rights. Very high speed internet service rollouts are not being undertaken as government central planning, outside China and one or two others. Why are you choosing technology? HFC was the technology of the future in 1995, then it became xDSL, now you are claiming fibre to the home - the costs of getting this wrong are potentially enormous. Let Telecom, Telstra Clear, Vodafone and any other entrants invest, without feeling like they need to pull government strings for funding, or for access to each others property - beyond what was agreed at Telecom’s privatisation.

Taken together, this second series of proposals would push the boundaries around Internet service provision, leading to alternative options for those not well served by incumbent providers, far faster Internet access for communities with fibre infrastructure, and concrete plans to bring New Zealand to world class standing for very high speed Internet services over fibre," said Colin Jackson.

You either rely on the incumbent or rely on new entrants to roll out competing networks, you can’t have incentives for both.

"In Australia, it is possible for businesses and householders to buy packages that deliver ADSL2 services with 24mbps downlink speed and 6mbps uplink speed, without data caps, for AUD39.95. Such services are close to 40 times faster than the majority of 'broadband' services available under the current regime.

Not in most of Australia. This has a limited rollout. Why not ask why no one else is providing it, including Telecom.

"The current policy framework and resulting market structure cannot deliver outcomes to match Australia's, because they do not provide competition on the local loop. By far the best way to deliver higher quality, more innovative services is to create a level playing field where competition forces better services at lower prices.

Telecom’s owners bought a network, its competitors didn’t and haven’t offered to buy it from Telecom - it’s a level playing field when you each own the property you bought. What is stopping Telstra Clear from building an alternative network? Its owner is many times the size of Telecom.

"No matter what promises are made by incumbent providers, the fact is that progress in New Zealand will continue to lag behind the OECD, behind Australia - behind any country we might compare ourselves with - until competition is a fact of life, rather than allowed now and then by grace and favour of incumbents.

It’s not grace and favour, it is the right you have through ownership - a right you can get by building your own network or buying it from Telecom.

I’m not convinced - InternetNZ has shown it is either in favour of forcing Telecom to be split, so that its competitors (which in some cases are bigger than Telecom) can use its property, and ALSO it wants subsidies and central planning for competing networks, wireless and fibre, that will bypass Telecom’s network. This is fundamentally inconsistent, unless you simply believe in competition at any cost - including the cost of property rights, and the cost of taxpayers who may or may not ever use high speed internet services.

Telecom’s competitors have two avenues open to them to compete:

1. Build their own networks - lobby to remove restrictions on doing so, but build. If there is going to be demand for fibre to the home, then someone has to build it, and Telecom hasn’t. If it isn’t economic to do so, then don’t ask the government to pay for it.

2. Negotiate with Telecom. I mean seriously, not just to buy access but to buy the entire local loop business into a company owned jointly by Telecom and its competitors. Make Telecom’s shareholders an offer, assuming you believe you can grow this business better than Telecom alone - if you think there should be structural separation, make a serious proposal with money. It may cost a lot of money, it may be cheaper to build your own network in places, but if it costs a lot of money you will only buy it if the benefits are worth it. If not, then Telecom's shareholders have something of more value than what you want. I think all of the Telecom's competitors could form a company to buy 50% of the local loop from Telecom and agree on a way forward for the local copper loop - (although Telecom might want similar access to Telstra Clear's local networks in Wellington and Christchurch). It is too easy to ask the government to give you access to something someone else owns - it is more creative and entrepreneurial to make the owner an offer it can't refuse!

.

3. Make a takeover offer. That means buy shares. Either you get to influence Telecom's business decisions (but you aren't allowed, nor would you want to make it go under) or you gain a return on its dividends. If it isn't a good investment, then presumably Telecom isn't ripping you or New Zealand consumers off (otherwise you would want to share in the profits). If it is a good investment, you wouldn't be averse to enjoying a share in it. Yes, you need to watch the Commerce Act. Vodafone couldn't do it, but then again Vodafone is silent on all of this. Why? Because it took option 1 - it bought a network built from scratch, expanded it and it is now nationwide. Done in the early to mid 1990s, when councils were still finding their trigger fingers for using the RMA.

.

and don't even START thinking councils should spend ratepayers money on telecommunications infrastructure, if councils are doing it, it either is a very stupid idea or something that telcos would be doing anyway if councils weren't making it difficult to do!

Politics and roads don't mix

The political reaction to the Hearings Committee report on Transmission Gully is not unexpected. The media has failed miserably to note that the Committee was a consultation exercise, not a project evaluation, just as the politicians have. I raised some doubts about the project in my post yesterday already.

The Greens aren’t happy because they don’t like motorways or cars. They would rather spend your money on a very expensive rail option. The Hearings Committee supports a cheaper rail option (although delaying a much needed upgrade of Porirua station – the second busiest in Wellington so money can be spent on the Gully), which is probably the most that is worth doing for rail. The Greens should acknowledge that there should be roading improvements along the corridor.

The Nats, local Labour MPs and United Future are all ecstatic, since they panned the last officials reports, and agree with this one. All are claiming that no more needs to be done, just Transit should “build it” and the money should somehow just appear to do this. The NBR quotes Dunne wanting the private sector to build the road - ummm Peter, Transit has no bulldozers, everything is contracted out, has been since 1989 when you voted to set up the organisation with your Labour colleagues.

All of them are anxious to spend your money, bugger the consequences, it’s popular so it must be done. It doesn’t matter WHOSE money it is – it is just taxes after all, and politicians are elected to spend them, so as long as people want it, it’s ok. Democracy is ok, isn’t it?

Well the Greens do have a point in that Transmission Gully will encourage urban sprawl – fine, I say. If people want to live on Kapiti Coast and pay for the cost of commuting, I wont object – but they wont be. Transmission Gully is proposed without a toll, and that means the money for it either comes from general taxation or by diverting funds from other projects in the Wellington region. In other words, Kapiti commuters will only be paying a fraction of the cost of commuting by car. If there was a toll of around $15 each way, then you’d be talking, but funnily enough none of the advocates for Transmission Gully would pay that, I doubt if most of the property owners along the existing route would pay either (Porirua City Council was unwilling to rate them for it).

That is my first fundamental point – I’d support Transmission Gully, wholeheartedly, if the people who will use it would be willing to pay for it. They wont though, and neither National nor United Future believe in user pays for roads. Arguments about diversion of petrol tax don’t wash either: Wellington contributes about $68 million a year in petrol tax to the Crown account (the petrol tax and road user charges to the National Land Transport Fund are already committed to road maintenance, some modest construction and maintaining public transport subsidies). Labour has already pledged $885 million of Crown account money towards Wellington transport in the next 12 years – MORE than the $68 million a year, not taking into account the $800 million of Crown account money going on projects funded from national allocations, not taking into account money for rail infrastructure!

In short, Wellington transport is already being subsidised by the rest of New Zealand. Just because several thousand Wellingtonians think that it should be, doesn’t make it right – and the National Party should know better.

Secondly, the cost of Transmission Gully is far from certain. Let’s be real here, the road wont be able to start to be built for around 4 years, as it has to go through detailed investigation, design and remaining properties have to be purchased. The cost of major roading projects around the country has gone up enormously, over 100% in some cases, as contractors demand higher prices to upsize their capacity. In the case of Transmission Gully, it is a one-off enormous project – so contractors will have little use for the equipment after it is built – this adds a premium to it. The Avondale extension of SH20 went from $600 million to $800 million to $1.1 billion within 3 years. Transmission Gully faces the same risk. This project has been rated as having very high risks of cost escalation – so talking about the money is very important – the figures the Hearings Committee put together don’t add up, because they don’t take into account inflation. This is why Transit’s latest draft State Highway forecast has less projects that previously envisaged. It’s not politics – it’s the market!

Thirdly, Transmission Gully remains inefficient and one of the worst investments in roading that could be undertaken in the Wellington region. Transmission Gully will make any upgrade of the rail link pointless, as the road will be faster, knocking around 15 minutes off of the car commute time – until you get to Ngauranga, or the Terrace Tunnel. You see it isn’t politically popular to call for a proper bypass of Wellington city – with a second Terrace Tunnel, second Mt Victoria Tunnel and a cut and cover 4-lane arterial bypass (the original Wellington motorway plan abandoned in the early 90s) – it would cost $450 million, have more than double the benefits of Transmission Gully and make a huge difference to inner city Wellington. It would take cars out of Te Aro and remove one-third of the traffic from the waterfront – enabling Jervois Quay to be narrowed to a 4-lane boulevard as has been proposed.

So why? It is politics. Politicians like Peter Dunne, Jenny Brash, Chris Turver, Mark Blumsky, Marian Hobbs, Chris Finlayson, Darren Hughes – deciding on the basis of what pushes people’s buttons. They are not concerned about who pays, as long as it isn’t the people whose votes they are clamouring for. They are not concerned about whether it will deliver net benefits, they want net votes. It’s called porkbarrelling, and if the government agrees to Transmission Gully getting taxpayers funds – it will be the biggest slice of transport pork handled down to Wellington in decades.

The biggest disgrace is that the National Party has hopped on this bandwagon. Politically, it would because it gets the party votes and because voters have short memories. You see Labour is in a position little different to the one National was in when it was in power – a decision on a popular but very poor quality project - objectively speaking, if you had to choose between spending taxpayers money on Transmission Gully or on other projects, you’d choose the other projects almost without fail.

The Nats have abandoned user pays and economic efficiency. Have the Nats also abandoned using statutorily independent boards to weigh up the best way to spend road users money? Let’s use politicians because they know best, after all Mark Blumsky and Chris Finlayson have extensive backgrounds in road engineering, traffic modelling and transport economics…. Not.

In fact, Land Transport New Zealand is required to make decisions on funding projects outside the realm of politics – so that important but unsexy activities like maintenance, widening intersections and bridge replacement get funded because they are worth doing, instead of big politically important projects that aren’t really worth it. Guess who set up that independent funder originally? National. National established Transfund to ensure road user funds were spent on the best projects first, so that, unlike the USA and the UK, road maintenance would come first, followed by small high value projects, then by large projects ranked according to their net returns (measured by benefits) to road users. Those benefits are time savings, fuel savings, reduced accidents, vehicle wear and tear etc.

National did not progress Transmission Gully when it was in government, because it didn’t stack up as a worthwhile project to fund. National supported a major change in the funding system for roads, that would have changed Transit into an SOE – and had the then Transfund buy services on behalf of road users from Transit. Transfund would use petrol tax and road user charges to reflect what motorists were willing to pay for, and Transit could institute tolls or means by which motorists could opt out of petrol tax, and pay for road use directly. Transit would also have been allowed to borrow to build new roads and pay off the cost over time using direct charging. National’s policy was that Transmission Gully would stand or fall on its merits under that system.

Now the National Party believes that roads should be funded on a pork-barrel basis – now don’t get me wrong, Labour’s special funding for Auckland, Bay of Plenty and Wellington transport isn’t that much different.

So what SHOULD politicians say? Well, in the short term, let Transit and Land Transport NZ get on with their jobs. The best solution will never be determined politically, and will not be determined by consultation. Imagine if you ran Air New Zealand politically – well, don’t imagine, think about the late 70s, early 80s. Imagine if you ran Air New Zealand on the basis of public consultation, it would go bankrupt with all of the bright sparks wanting flights from Wellington to LA, or wanting business class seats for everyone on long flights or whatever.

It is, as Hayek said, the fatal conceit. Politicians don’t know any better than consumers, and consumers aren’t deciding this because all you are hearing is noise from people who don’t want to pay for a very large construction project.

How about this comparison? You have three options for $1 billion (lets assume inflation is covered):

1. Build Transmission Gully; or

2. Build a cut and cover tunnel bypass from the Terrace Tunnel (with a second one for 2 lanes southbound) to Mt Victoria Tunnel (also with a second one) and 4 lanes to the airport, plus upgrade Rimutaka Hill Road to a 70km/h standard highway with a continuous passing lane up each side, plus flyovers to eliminate every traffic light controlled intersection on SH2 from Petone to Upper Hutt, and an underpass for Paekakariki and bypass for Pukerua Bay (with a median barrier along the length of the coastal stretch of SH1); or

3. 30,000 more cardio-thoracic operations per year nationwide; or

4. $11 a week tax cut for every employed Wellingtonian (including public servants).

Which one would you like? Remember the fourth options allows you to choose any of the others as well, if you think about it.

.

UPDATE: Dominion Post misreports yet again. "It found the proposed four-lane inland motorway would cost $96 million less than the original $1.1 billion estimate". Ok so that makes it $1.04 billion, not $955 million like it says at the top. In fact $955 million is what is in the report, but there is easily a 10% risk premium on any project - the key is that it still costs $300 million more than upgrading the coast. What ELSE do newspapers report inaccurately that only people who have been closely involved know about?

.

"Land Transport NZ chief executive Wayne Donnelly said four years was the longest funding period for a new road project in the past, but nothing legally constrained funding projects over 20 years. ".

.

Indeed, although if done you would have to wonder how much the Board of Land Transport NZ would be willing to fund any other major new projects in Wellington over that time. That is what councils in the Hutt, Kapiti, Wellington and Wairarapa ought to be thinking - does it mean that there will be little new roading work in those cities? Is Wellington stuck with Mt Victoria Tunnel/Basin Reserve congestion getting ever worse?

.

"United Future leader and Ohariu-Belmont MP Peter Dunne said the decision to go with Transmission Gully had been made and it was time for Ms Prendergast to move on. "I think it's all over frankly. This was the step that was needed . . . the rest is all procedure." "

.

Sorry Peter, only Land Transport NZ can make the decision to fund it, and Transit to proceed with submitting a funding proposal for the project. The Inner City Bypass was approved by Wellington City Council in 1993, and didn't start work until 2004 - following the Environment Court, High Court, Historic Places Trust, Transfund peer review, Major Projects Review, Transit Board, Transfund Board.

.

One other minor point - once four lanes of motorway reaches the Raumati straight, then what? The Hearings Committee is "funding" Transmission Gully by not proceeding with a bypass of Paraparaumu, despite Kapiti congestion being the fastest growing in the region. Never mind, all hail the God of Transmission Gully - fixer of all congestion, solution to all our woes - all bow down to the cargo cult.

.

UPDATE TWO: ACT's Heather Roy is cheerleading Transmission Gully on too - surely Roger Douglas doesn't believe in inefficient public expenditure? Vapid nonsense like ""Until Transmission Gully is built, Wellington remains without a second main access route in the event of bad weather or a natural disaster." The current road was closed once due to flooding from rainfall which saw a culvert overflow - so let's spend $955 million +? In a natural disaster, Transmission Gully is only slightly less vulnerable, and um, why would I want to take a drive out to the coast in any case? By the way, Auckland's North Shore doesn't have a second main access route either - care to volunteer $3 billion of other people's money to help them out?

.

"Wellingtonians know that something needs to be done about road access into the region." So if taxes were cut to 25% and 15%, you really think you could afford this Heather? Road users aren't going to pay for it.

Transmission Gully proposed by Hearings Committee

So the Western Corridor Hearings Committee has come out in favour of Transmission Gully. That doesn’t mean it will go ahead, but it is definitely something for Transmission Gully proponents to cheer about. I have read the Hearings Committee report executive summary, and will consume the rest in the next few days. However, before the Transmission Gully Think Big crowd pop their corks, they need to sober up and consider the following:

1. 
   These are recommendations, following consultation and the development of a view on the work done to date. They are only a reflection of the results of consultation and amending the plan due to that. The public has had its say, or rather the public that is agitated about it. The recommendations are not binding, and the final decision on the Western Corridor Plan will be made by the Regional Land Transport Committee. EVEN then, Transit’s board does not need to follow what the RLTC says. The Land Transport Act 1998 Section 181(1) states that Transit must ensure that it “takes into account any current regional land transport strategies”. Transit wont proceed with something that is unaffordable.
2. 
   Transmission Gully has become cheaper, now it is around $955 million, when it has been up to $1.1 billion on some estimates. It still remain unaffordable though, the money for it simply does not exist, unless it is taken from other projects or people. National's answer of using all of the petrol tax money does not wash - through three tranches of funding promised by Labour, Wellington is already getting all of its petrol tax share.
3. 
   The Hearings Committee assumes that, somehow, there will be funds to cover the gap in cost between the coastal and the Transmission Gully options – some of it is made up by NOT proceeding with valuable projects that need to happen anyway. If anyone thinks the Paekakariki intersection can be tidied up for $1 million, they are kidding themselves. Doing so would probably breach the Land Transport Management Act in itself. Similarly, the Whitford Brown Interchange is a high benefit/cost project that is about access between Porirua and its northern suburbs that the Hearings Committee wants dropped. The savings from the dropped projects are only one-third of the cost difference between Transmission Gully and the coastal option.
4. 
   Statements such as “ It appears to the Subcommittee that the case for NLTF funding being made available for the completion of the TGM is at least equally as strong as the case for funding to be made available for the Mana Bypass or the Northern Expressway” are not backed up by analysis. The Northern Expressway (which is about a 4-lane highway bypassing Paraparaumu and Waikanae) has a good benefit/cost ratio, and a Mana Bypass is likely to have a reasonable one, compared to Transmission Gully, which has benefits half of the costs. The Northern expressway and Mana Bypass projects are cheaper, with higher benefits – Land Transport NZ tends to fund projects on this basis!
5. 
   The Hearings Committee has considered evidence claiming Transmission Gully would have a benefit/cost ratio of 1:1, by changing the discount rate and counting the multiplier effect on the economy etc (which is to some extent double counting). The truth is that by taking the same approach to the coastal route you’d get a BCR of nearly 2:1 and there are many many other projects of higher value that get really good BCRs. BCR is first and foremost a ranking tool, and Transmission Gully ranks very poorly. If the Hearings Committee is not better placed than Land Transport NZ and Transit to change the BCR formula. Land Transport NZ spends nearly $2 billion a year of road user's funds partly based on that analysis, the Hearings Committee is hardly a comprehensive review of funding policy.
6. It makes some weird assumptions about funding, getting Porirua City Council to fund the Porirua bus/rail interchange (which is outside its mandate) and delaying it, it recommends an extra $25 million on public transport that doesn’t exist!

It wouldn’t toll Transmission Gully, because tolls would not produce enough income to pay for the cost of tolling! However, an untolled subsidized Transmission Gully would generate enormous demand for growth on Kapiti Coast, and encourage commuters to live on the coast and drive to central Wellington. This is what happens when politicians build uneconomic roads! It subsidises the transport of people to and from Kapiti - something I would have thought the Greens would be less than happy about.

So the committee has proposed a very poor project, that ranks as one of the worst in the country, which does not have funding, as the preferred option.

It has analysis in the report as vapid as:

The Sub-committee notes that TGM provides approximately 108 new lane kilometres (27 kilometres of four-lane highway) whilst retaining the existing Coastal Route as a local road and scenic highway. In contrast, the Coastal Route Upgrade provides approximately 44 new lane kilometres on the existing alignment (10 kilometres of new two-lane Coastal Expressway, 2 kilometres of four new lanes through Pukerua Bay, and 4 kilometres of new four-lane Mana Bypass). The Sub-committee therefore agrees with many of the submitters that TGM appears to provide much better value-for-money.

Except it costs a lot more and has a far lower benefit to cost ratio!

How about the great finding that:

“A number of young adults, children and the elderly submitted that their independence would be destroyed.”

By a road? How about your independence interfered with by taxes taken to build roads you don’t use?

Then there is the analysis behind why Transmission Gully benefits GDP:

“The contribution to GDP from transport savings is very much the same for the two scenarios ....The contribution to GDP arising from construction costs is greater for TGM.

– because YOUR taxes are being used to build it – the GDP benefit is purely a transfer to the construction sector. Since when is taxing people to pay construction companies for a poorer net benefit project a contribution to GDP?

So where to now? Well the Regional Land Transport Committee, Regional Council and Transit are in an invidious position. The Hearings Committee has recommended a bunch of proposals for which there is no funding – Transmission Gully and Grenada-Gracefield (or Tawa-Gracefield, they haven’t made their minds up).

If I were them – I’d defer it, not bother about Transmission Gully or the coastal route 4-laning, but proceed with a Paekakariki interchange and Pukerua Bay Bypass.

You see this is what happens when central planning goes wrong. Bureaucrats argue about how to spend other people's money, and nothing gets done. Politicians interfered with a rational funding allocation process, dedicating special money for Wellington and then special money for the Western Corridor - when it should have simply been left to Land Transport NZ to spend all road users' funds efficiently.

The timeline is like this:
- Up till early 90s – coastal upgrade preferred and designated option.
- Early 90s – locals want Transmission Gully (nimbyism) and bureaucrat agrees (Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment)
- early 90s- Different bureaucrats disagree, not enough revenue from road users to pay for it, other projects deliver better returns.
- mid 90s – agreed that Transmission Gully be long term option, but unaffordable for many years
- 2004 – Transmission Gully investigated properly, suddenly trebles in cost – unaffordable, look again at coastal upgrade
2005- coastal upgrade cheaper, even when mitigated and built to high standard - funding made available for it – bureaucrats agree it is best value for money
2006- -NIMBYISM comes out again, and another bunch of bureaucrats disagree and recommend to 2 other sets of bureaucrats to change their mind.

Alternative?

Roads run by profit oriented company – receives revenue directly from charging road users. Figures out best way to expand capacity, negotiates with land owners to buy land to widen road or build new road, negotiates with local road owners (company, co-operative or whatever) to interconnect with their roads – builds best option.

In the short term, I'd spend road user funds on the best projects in the region - by economic efficiency - and then I'd sell Transit New Zealand, abolish the RMA and the Public Works Act, and let Transit figure it out. You see the majority of French motorways are privately owned and operated, and France is hardly a bastion of free market liberalism.

The Hearings Committe has reflected the noise of public opinion, largely based on people living near a highway that has existed for over 70 years, who want someone else to pay for a new road to take the traffic away from their homes. They do not care who pays, as long as it is not them, so that their property values can be increased thanks to taxpayers.

Read the full report of the Hearings Committee here - Hearing SubCommittee report

Read the proposed Western Corridor plan here - Western Corridor consultation document

See the proposed Western Corridor plan costs here - Western Corridor costs diagram

Review of comparative costs of Coastal Highway and Transmission Gully

The original 2004 report which blew the cost of Transmission Gully up to $830 million from $255 million - Beca Carter report on Transmission Gully cost executive summary

See Minister's decisions and officials reports to Ministers on the Western Corridor - Officials report on Western Corridor

See how the Mana upgrade has already reduced congestion at minimal cost.

See my history of Transmission Gully blogging:

Part One

Part Two

Part Three

Part Four

Part Five

UPDATE: Stuff reports Hearing's Committee result incorrectly. Kim Ruscoe and Adam Ray haven't been reading the report that thoroughly.

"A new inland motorway through Transmission Gully can be built without charging tolls or using ratepayers' money – and for less than the original $1.1 billion estimate. That is the finding of a Transit-Greater Wellington regional council committee set up to study the best way to fix the region's chronic traffic problems. "

No, the Hearings Committee was set up to undertake public consultation and make recommendations based on that consultation. It had no mandate to "study the best way to fix the region's chronic traffic problems", it was the Western Corridor Plan consultation process, not about the Hutt or access to the airport or roads south of Ngauranga Gorge. Read the terms of reference!

Try this quote "The committee has also found that the original estimated $1.1 billion cost of building the Gully route was too high. Government road builder Transit New Zealand has admitted it over-estimated the Gully route's cost by $98 million. Further savings could be made by removing $18 million for outdated toll booths and axing some projects planned for the existing coastal highway, which would not be needed when it became a local road."

Hold on a second. There is a $465 million gap, this saves $116 million - you don't save money on Transmission Gully by not building some improvements on the existing route which would NOT be a local road. Knocking out the projects as listed by the Committee, saves only another $205 million - so there is still a gap. The existing route will still carry 40% of its current traffic, in other words, what it carried in the late 1970s, hardly a local road - it will be the main road north for Porirua, still.

Then Kim Ruscoe and Adam Ray say "The Government has offered a one-off $500 million cash injection for the region's roads. " Really? When? Look at my link above to find the papers, there is NO mention of $500 million. The figure is $405 million for the Western Corridor roading, with $255 million for other Western Corridor roading, public transport and transport demand management. The $255 million is to cover projects that should go ahead regardless of whether Transmission Gully or the coastal route is chosen.

The NZ Herald report is more accurate here, and TVNZ reports that "Funding for the gully route is a major concern but Sir Brian Ellwood from the Western Plan Hearing Subcommittee doesn't believe the public should foot the bill." Then proceeds to say the government should pay - huh? TVNZ then says "The pressure is now on the government to come up with the funding." Um no, the report needs to be considered by Transit and the Regional Land Transport Committee, the government already has offered more money for Wellington roading than has been seen in over 35 years in real terms.

So who wants to pay more taxes for Wellington to get an uneconomic road, while the rest of the country gets told to ignore its Think Big wishlists?

Helen Clark is always her own person says Germaine Greer

That's what Germaine Greer said in the Sydney Morning Herald as follows:

"Professor Greer's ideal female leader was New Zealand's Prime Minister, Helen Clark. "She's always her own person," she said."

Oh sure, absolutely, no doubt about that AT all - complete integrity there. Of course, then again which MPs are always their own person?

Why drugs matter?

Some comments on the DPF blog have accused me and Libertarianz of going against the cause of overthrowing socialism because we want ACT to support legalisation of cannabis. This arises from Richard Worth’s rather pathetic attempt to attack Rodney Hide for being a supporter of legalising drugs (where, to be fair, it is never clear whether he is or isn’t). I think Worth is completely misguided, there are far bigger fish to fry for National in terms of attacking Labour – but he can’t get past Hide winning the seat off of him. It is petty, vindictive and utterly useless for National to attack ACT, since it virtually cannabilised most of its vote at the election anyway.

.

However, I did say that Hide brought it on himself by not expressing a clear view one way or the other on this. I want Rodney to support legalising cannabis, even if, for a start, for medical use on prescription. I think, deep down, this is what he truly believes. He wont even say that. It is critical to being a liberal party to believe adults have the right to decide what they do with their own bodies – The Economist two years ago advocated legalising drugs – so it is far from being a radical non-mainstream view.

However, this is what I got in return…

“You're a lefty pretending to be something else. Have to be. Nothing would make Helen Klark happier and be more likely to ensure her e-election than advocation of drug legalisation by ACT or the Nats. From a strategic point of view, its just an incredibly dumb idea. Success in politics and most things is down to timing.”

Well really? How would the Greens react? How many young urban voters would think ACT or National are perhaps no longer the reactionary party of conservatism? So politics are just about what the voters want, rather than challenging the status quo and questioning why the status quo doesn’t work?

.

Russell Brown got it in one though:

“Seems like a fairly standard National tactic: try and scare the horses by accusing your opponent of being soft on (a) drugs, (b) crime, (c) whatever. What I find a bit odd is the belief that Act conducts itself according to the principles of classical liberalism anyway. It would be a much more interesting party if it did.”

.

Indeed it would be. I would support ACT if it was consistent on freedom and liberty. This is not a matter of degree, whether tax is 10% or 20%, but whether or not adults own their own bodies and can control what they ingest. No freedom is more important than that.

You can get your taxes back, run your business how you want, but get arrested for taking a puff of cannabis. ACT would probably gain support if it came out in favour of legalising cannabis - Lindsay Perigo did get several thousand votes in Epsom when he stood in 1996 - on that platform. National wont run with it, but it could be supported by an ACT party that took votes from the liberal left to the liberal right.

That, of course, is not as important as the debate - why does the state own your body?

The Evil Empire

Yes, today is the day President Ronald Reagan called a spade a spade, and said in 1983:
.
“Let us be aware that while they preach the supremacy of the state, declare its omnipotence over individual man, predict its eventual domination of all peoples of the Earth, they are the focus of evil in the modern world.”
.
He was right, of course, Reagan also put the boot into moral relativists in saying:
.
“I urge you to beware the temptation of pride - the temptation of blithely declaring yourselves above it all and label both sides equally at fault, to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire, to simply call the arms race a giant misunderstanding and thereby remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong and good and evil.”
.
Why was he right? Unfortunately too many nowadays need reminding of a system that prohibited you from leaving the country, that prohibited any publications not approved by the state, prohibited meetings not approved by the state, suppressed information that could be seen as critical of the system (e.g. the Chernobyl accident) and aided and abetted satellite regimes that were equally as brutal in suppressing dissent. The Soviet Union was an empire bent on dishonesty, bent on denial and built on the ever present violence of state totalitarianism. A cold brutal corrupt bureaucracy acting on whim, acting on command to push people about, deport, arrest, execute and bully. It lost because it could not compete materially or ethically – and it was only two years before Mikhail Gorbachev opened up the USSR, and reformed it to its ultimate disintegration.

.

and why is it relevant? Well check out Not PC's post. Why don't you spend $1 million of YOUR money, seeking permission to build with your own property and your own money, a marina - go through the legal system, take FOURTEEN BLOODY YEARS to get permission from the courts - and a tinpot little wanker called Chris Carter - who never EARNT $1 million from productive activity in his life - says "fuck off, you've pissed all your time and money down a hole". The people of Te Atatu elected a little despot.

.

The founders of the Soviet Union hated initiative, entrepreneurship and money. To quote Ayn Rand:

.

"Money is the barometer of a society's virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion—when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing—when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors—when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you—when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice—you may know that your society is doomed. Money is so noble a medium that is does not compete with guns and it does not make terms with brutality."

.
Chris Carter produces nothing - even if you accept the nonsense of spending a decade and a half and $1 million to just get permission - he vetoed a court decision, and our own Union of Soviet Socialist Fascists are cheering him on. I sincerely hope the Whangamata Marina Society gets a judicial review of this decision. I hope the society wins and wipes their arses on the faces of the smug little power-lusting vermin who would make Brezhnev proud!

Waikato wants more roads money

Well of course it does - you see moving from a benefit/cost funding approach for roads to a more "strategic" or politically defined funding framework has meant Auckland has gained and Waikato has lost. Many Waikato projects are relatively low cost compared to Auckland projects, and have quite high benefits, but the government decided votes were in Auckland - and granted $900 million of Crown funding for Auckland transport over 10 years. Wellington has been granted $480 million so far, with another $405 to come if there is agreement on the Western Corridor roading option.
.
The answer? Well the Nats have half of it - instead of granting sums of taxpayers money to fund regional transport on an adhoc basis, shift petrol tax from the Crown account to the National Land Transport Fund, and insist that Land Transport NZ fund projects on a benefit/cost priority basis, with no projects below a threshold of 2.0. Shifting 9c/l immediately would have no net fiscal effect if you use it to replace the special Crown funding for transport in Auckland, Wellington, Bay of Plenty and for state highways. The remaining 9.8c/l could be moved over in a four year period, to avoid fueling more inflation.

.

and some Waikato projects aren't worth doing in the next ten years - a Hamilton eastern bypass? There already is a western one, which the region wants around $250 million spent on (and it is worthwhile)- the benefit/cost ratio of the eastern one is no higher than 1:1 at best. It is time to stop this Think Big approach to roads - most of the projects worth doing are relatively small and fix blackspots and pinchpoints. They don't get much publicity, but every year they save more lives and reduce delays for far more bang for your buck than most really big projects.

John Cleese upsets Palmerston North

The Sydney Morning Herald reports that John Cleese has upset some people in Palmy by calling it New Zealand’s “suicide capital”.
.
He said:
.
"If you wish to kill yourself but lack the courage to, I think a visit to Palmerston North will do the trick,"
.
The full story is here. Of course the Mayor is upset and the local tourism office reckons he didn’t spent enough time there. Oh come on!! I’ve spent two nights in Palmy, and well, it really is just a place where people get drunk, shag and race cars down the four main streets.
.
It isn’t the suicide capital of New Zealand though, I think that there are plenty more nominations for that, such as Tokoroa, Kaikohe and Levin. Of course, this is the best publicity Palmy has had in ages and according to the Manawatu Evening Standard the local Chamber of Commerce agrees and wants to exploit it!

.

Shannon isn't on the list because it has Owlcatraz, which is up for sale.

Ignore the census - defend the right to NOT speak

Today is apparently census day - I know I can ignore it because I'm not in New Zealand, but I ignored the last two - didn't fill them out and nothing happened. Forms were left for me and I threw them away. A few years ago a contractor at the Ministry of Economic Development had his contract terminated because he sent a joke email around about filling out religion with "Jedi" (which was circulating at the time) - MED staff were warned about joking about such a serious activity because the Ministry so badly needed the information strong-armed out of citizens. Public servants be warned - Helen and her drones don't like you joking about the Census, consider it as destructive as a cartoon about Mohammed!

.

The principle is very simple - there should not be an offence of failing to fill out a questionnaire. The state does not have a right to force you to answer questions in this case, any more than it does if you are arrested for murder.

.

Statistics could ask, you could fill it in because you think it is a good thing to do. However, this is an initiation of force. The excuse given for compulsion on the census website is nonsense:

.

"The reason for making the census compulsory is simple. It is the only way we can be sure that information about the total population has been obtained and we have an accurate overview of New Zealand society every five years. The census is the key source of information about the people living in our cities, towns, suburbs and rural communities. As everyone takes part, we can get a full picture of what’s really happening in our country. If the census was voluntary, we would never know whether those who filled in the census forms were truly representative of the population or not. The statistics produced would be very unreliable. "

.

Well no they can't - because people object and people lie on their forms. You cannot possibly be that omniscient and by the time the data has been collected, it will have changed. You can't know whether people filling it out have filled out other people's forms. Besides, there are companies that risk millions of dollars of their OWN money investing in New Zealand gathering information they require through surveys and observation - by voluntary means, and it seems to work for them.

.

The ends do NOT justify the means - it might be good for everyone if they were put on a special healthy diet for every day, but it would not justify forcing people to only eat what was approved by the state. NOT because it would be inefficient, but because it is immoral.

.

So ignore it, tell Statistics you are saying no. Not PC gives you ways of doing so. If you don't want to confront them, then hide from them - don't answer the door when they come knocking, and just live your life in peace. A small point? Petty even? No - if I went to your front door and demanded you answer questions about your household and life, and would arrest you if you failed, how would you feel? Why do you think it is ok for the government to do it then?

.

UPDATE: Libertarianz have organised a protest at the Wellington Sound Shell, with a fire breather to burn census forms. The press release states:

.

"Libertarianz leader, Bernard Darnton, announced the event today, saying that "the census is a blatant example of Government intrusion intopeople's private lives and should not be tolerated."The fire-breather will be performing on the Sound Shell Lawn in theWellington Botanic Gardens at 8.30pm on census night and everyone who opposes the compulsory collection of personal information is welcome. Libertarianz members in other parts of the country will also be barbecuingtheir census forms.

.

The press release also notes that Germany doesn't have censuses, and the sky hasn't fallen in. Maybe it learnt from its less than free recent history? Go join them in the Sound Shell tonight, at least to watch the spectacle and support another dimension of free speech - the right not to be FORCED to speak.

Minor revamp

Hi all, I've done a minor refurbishment of this place so that the sidebar works, added a number of new blogs and other links, and done some other bits and pieces. Some more changes coming soon.

Greens call for more bans

.

Sue Kedgley can't help herself! Remember PC's post recently on how much the Greens want to ban things (Reading the Bans)? Well add two to the list:

.

- Ads for prescription medicines; and

- Cancer linked pesticides.

.

You see because only NZ and the US allow direct to consumer advertising of medications (which I actually doubt) it must be evil, we know, after all, how many people want to leave the USA and how evil and awful it is to live there. Sue doesn't like people learning about new medications, because you're too stupid to know whether it is worth asking your doctor about them, and he is too inept to say no to your demands to get prescriptions of unlimited viagra or flixotide or whatever else upsets Sue. She presents NO evidence of the freedom of advertising having ill effects, she just hates pharmaceutical companies being able to advertise their heavily regulated products (but she likes vitamins, minerals and all sorts of natural snake oil being advertised).

.

"I am calling on the Government to ban this dangerous practice immediately, and to instead set up an independent medicine and health information service that is free of commercial interests"

.

Well Sue, they are prescription medicines and you can't control people who get controlled drugs from abusing them, except you probably want to ban people from ingesting drugs without direct medical supervision - from a union, state approved culturally safe doctor. So we should be forced to pay for bureaucrats who will be lobbied by pharmaceutical manufacturers to make our decisions for us? Thanks Auntie Sue, don't know how I survived so long without your whip keeping me in line!

.

Then, she wants some pesticides banned because they are clearly killing us all - without evidence beyond saying "Endosulfan has been banned in 20 countries because of its link with breast cancer, its persistence in the environment and because it disrupts the endocrine system." She then is anti-bureaucrat by saying "The food safety authority seems to have a well-rehearsed public relations strategy to deal with any food safety scare other than microbial contamination – namely to downplay the issue, seek to pacify consumers and deny there is any public health risk. "

.

Gee well Sue, maybe there isn't one? Have you any evidence of its harm to people in New Zealand or do you remain the perennial princess of scaremongering?

Unite should fuck off - go McDonalds!

.

Sue Bradford this time, and her solidarity with the Marxist Unite Union, getting upset at McDonald's employees who don't want to join the union.

.

McDonald's has taken the principled and entirely laudable stand as reported by the Green's press release that “As advised at the last meeting, it is likely McDonald’s will decide not to pay the above increases to UNITE members. That is simply because franchisees and McDonald’s are concerned that UNITE’s industrial tactics have the objective and/or effect of damaging the McDonald’s brand and their business and they don’t see any merit in rewarding that behaviour with a pay increase.”

.

Nor should it!! Who wants employees that belong to an organisation out to destroy your business? Franchisees own McDonalds restaurants, putting their OWN MONEY (think hard about the concept Sue) at risk, employeeing people and providing a service. Would Unite employ people who complain about how useless the union is and are anti-union?

.

What is more funny is Sue's outrage saying "McDonald's is attempting to undermine union negotiations for better wages by negotiating directly with non-union staff" . I guess none of the union staff are looking for other jobs regularly are they? Besides why SHOULDN'T McDonalds negotiate directly with non-union staff - the union doesn't represent them because it is (think this one through carefully Sue) their CHOICE not to belong to a union. Choice!! Something you and your commie colleagues opposed when National TWICE introduced it, in 1983 and 1991. You hate people who negotiate directly with the employer, because you don't think those people can look after their best interests - well Unite is arrogant, militant and fortunately employees are not forced by the state to belong to it. There is nothing more democratic than the market - and the market says Unite is not wanted by many McDonald's employees.

.

Sue says:

.

"In the meantime, McDonalds should stop its anti-union tactics, withdraw the meagre offer it has made to non-union staff, and begin genuine negotiations with the union with a view to paying staff realistic wages,"

.

I would say Unite should stop its anti-business tactics, negotiate in good faith to pay employees according to performance and work with McDonalds to improve the success of the whole business. If people working there don't like it, they can go find someone else who has risked their own money to create jobs. If Unite doesn't like it, they can fuck off and so can Sue - let employers and employees negotiate with whoever they want, and are contractually obliged to.

.

Unite is a communist union, on its supersizemypay forum, it has a definition of capitalism that could have come out of North Korea, it is utter drivel. However, go to that forum and post contrary views to the commies - it's good to piss them off.

.

I once worked at McDonalds, I'm not regretting having been fired from it by a lousy boss who was exploitative - nobody has to work there, and nobody has to buy their products. .

.

It's called freedom!

Rachealle Namana - evil bitch

.

There are every so often, entities who make me angry enough to almost support the death penalty - except I don't think it is good enough for them.

.

Rachealle Namana - child killer - is one.

.

Setting aside the four years she spent in prison for ending the life of a baby girl, time she spent partying, taking drugs, downloading porn - because it is "impossible to keep contraband out", much like it is at hotels. You see we can screen people getting on flights, but not people meeting prisoners - but I digress.

.

Namana was pregnant with her 5th child (which, of course, she had no responsibility for) and was "taking out her frustrations" on 18 month old baby girl Hinewaoriki Karaitiana-Matiaha, known as Lillybing (pictured). Of course, her stepsister Terina Matiaha (Lillybing's "mother") would leave Lillybing with Namana repeatedly for long periods - so there is another unaccountable bitch. The existence Lillybing experienced, of a mother who didn't give a damn, and an auntie who abused her were clearly not the whole story. Lillybing had been delivered to Namana on 20 July 2000, without nappies - so Namana attempted to toilet train her by creating steps to the adult toilet, and smacking Lillybing's legs to make her go up. The next day Namana and her sister noticed a bloody discharge from her vagina but decided not to report it to the doctor - obviously fearing either one of them, or another of the extended family could be held accountable for abusing a baby girl.

.

"The toddler fell many times during the day and on one occasion sustained a large lump on her forehead. Following this she lost consciousness at least twice. Both sisters being trained in first aid, they applied an ice pack to the wound. This was followed with the application of a cloth soaked in boiling water, which burnt a layer of skin from below her eyes to the top of her forehead". Stupidity? or torture? Plain fucking evil letting a child be ill, lose conscious and then burn its forehead.

.

That night Namana and her sister spent some time at the local pub - hey, may as well have some fun while a child has been tortured.

.

"When Lillybing woke, the lump she had received the day before had become dark and the burn on her face was likened to a drying grass burn. She was unable to stop falling over and complained a lot." Namana got angry at Lillybing because she was crying a great deal and shook her violently, causing a brain haemmorhage that ended her life. She had a hematoma on her forehead, severe scald burns to her entire forehead, the top of her head, cheeks and eyelids, bruising to her chin, mouth, and loose teeth, cuts on her legs and thighs. It remains a mystery as to why Lillybing has suffered severe abdominal bruising and vaginal injuries, it doesn't really bear thinking about what vile entity is responsible for that.

.

So there you have it, Namana smacked her about, applied boiling water to her head, left her alone while going to the pub, ignored her vaginal injuries and shook her about because the poor baby girl was in agony and crying. Had Namana sold cannabis, or had this been a man who abducted Lillybing and tortured her, it would have been a different story - but Namana is a woman who killed a baby girl. Not intentionally, but recklessly and she couldn't really have given a damn.

.

So when a Labour Cabinet Minister tells you that this government is tough on crime - look at Namana, she got four years, enjoyed her time in prison and has no regrets. She didn't commit a sexual offence so there is no pressure to register her, or have her name and address notified - yet she is as abusive as any child molester or rapist - and should never be allowed near children ever again - but she is. Instead, Labour banned men who when 16 had consensual underage sex with their 15yo girlfriends from being bus drivers - because it is universally outrageous that men sexually abuse children - unfortunately, women physically abusing children is not seen as so serious.

.

Women's prisons are a joke if what Namana said is endemic, and one only wonders how Tania Witika, who is many times more evil than Namana, enjoys prison life.

.

So do you want the state to protect children from the likes of Namana and stop her from ever being a parent? I do - her sentence should have included a permanent ban on custody of children - as it should for all child abusers.

.

Lillybing's case

Nanny's ever creeping hand.... while she allows scum to party at our expense

.

The oppression of adult smokers continues with Julian Pistorius blogging about a proposal in New South Wales to ban smoking in cars!! Your own private property, your own space – well, given so many acquiesce to it being banned in businesses you own, its only natural that the anti-liberty brigade would choose cars next. Not exactly rocket science to figure out what is next. The idea, you see, is to protect children. Now this is easy to understand by motive – see I have asthma and both my parents smoked at home until my late teens – something they both regret now. It would be preferable if parents didn’t smoke around their children. It would be preferable if parents did lots of things and didn't do others - the things is there are laws to prohibit parents neglecting, physically and sexually abusing their children. They do little to stop it happening, but it does mean they are brought to account.

.

Now you know my opinion on smoking, I hate it personally, but believe it is up to adults to decide what they put into their own bodies, and whether or not they allow smoking on their property. That was explained in my post on the forthcoming ban in England.

.

This call for banning smoking in cars - to protect children - is far more insidious. The road to hell is paved with good intentions - and the means to this end are terrifying indeed. How is this going to be enforced? Are you going to be fined and stopped by cops for smoking in your own car? Remember the odds are that if your car is stolen it will get next to no police attention, but ohhhhh smoke in it - then you're in trouble, breaking Nanny State's Parenting Laws.

.

This can't be the end though - you see, if parents are to be controlled according to what is harmful to their children, what next will it be? After all, the harm caused by exposure to tobacco smoke in cars would be minor. Banning smoking everywhere must be next. Then limits on alcohol storage and consumption by parents? Regulations on storing poisons and knives? Regulations to prohibit male parents being alone with their children (sex abuse). How about a daily diet ration for children so parents don’t feed them too little, too much or the wrong food? How about banning books that are suitable only for adults in parents' houses? After all - it is for children - what's more important than protecting children from negligent or harmful parents?
.
Oh I forgot to say, the Bill to ban smoking in cars covers ALL cars, whether you're a parent or not - after all, can't be TOO careful when we are protecting people from themselves?

.

So who wants to do this? Political correct socialists? No. The Reverend Fred Niles, well known NSW evangelist MP who leads the Christian Democrats and hates homosexuals and wants to ban Muslim clothing. Fred clearly thinks that the state should regulate parenting.

.

Of course we know the Maori Party would condone this – being the fascist bullies who want to ban smoking. Lindsay Mitchell and ZealandWhinge both blogged on this. The Maori Party wants to "protect children" by taking away the rights of adults - seeing the state as parents of Maori who it does not think can make their own minds up themselves.

.

So think, if you're a non-smoker - what does banning smoking in cars mean? What does it mean that there are people wanting to expand the justice system's role into prosecuting smokers - when at the same time, a woman can kill a baby girl and get four years of prison she describes as "It's not as hard as people make out". The Sunday Star Times reports how she enjoyed drugs, porn and partied in prison - if the Maori Party can't get viscerally outraged by the entity that killed Lillybing like it gets outraged by smoking, then it can't even pretend to have any interest in the issues that truly hurt Maori people.

.

and you might think about where state priorities should be.... smoking, or child killers?

Gee the market is working - people consuming less sugar

.

The Daily Telegraph reports that, surprise surprise, demand for sugar filled soft drinks in the UK is declining! Sale of chocolate, potato chips and other snacks are also down as people watch what they eat. People are preferring water and juice to sugar based soft drinks, and apparently the UK is one of the few countries where artificially sweetened soft drinks outsell conventional ones.

.

As the head of Pepsico in the UK is quoted as saying:

.

"The calorie intake of Britain has been falling over the last few decades, according to the Government's own figures... There's a massive demand for a stage villain and the food industry has stumbled into the role."

.

Exactly - personal responsibility is the key issue, and it is clear more and more people are thinking about what they eat and drink - because it is in their interests to do so. The slobbering big statists like the Greens, want to boss you about and take more of your money to make you be good, because you can't figure it out for yourself - you idiot!! Sue Kedgley can run your life and spend your money better than you can. A government campaign or a tax or regulations wont work, they'll just be seen as big nanny "telling you off for being naughty" as pathetic little petty-fascists rub their hands with glee in bossing others about.

Death of Harry Browne - former US Libertarian Party Presidential candidate

.

Harry Browne was the US Libertarian Party's Presidential candidate in 1996 and 2000, and he died on 1 March 2006, aged 72, after suffering for some months from Lou Gehrig's disease. In 1996 he got around 485 000 votes (0.5%) for President, doing only slightly worse in 2000 with 0.4%, coming 5th both times (after the 2 main party candidates, Ralph Nader and in 1996 Ross Perot and in 2000 Pat Buchanan).

.

Browne's greatest successes was arguably his books "Why Government Doesn't Work", and How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World. he would appear on radio and TV shows across the states, though typically on smaller independent stations, as the major networks have little interest in minor party candidates until they get around 20% poll support - and to some extent that is "chicken and egg" with media coverage being necessary to get it. However, Harry didn't want the government to make people give him publicity - he believed unequivocably in freedom. He was controversial though - opposing the war in Iraq, and believing very much in the US taking a more isolationist foreign policy. He was also involved in a scandal involving a Libertarian Party worker assisting him with his primary campaign before he was selected as the 1996 presidential candidate, as this was seen as a conflict of interest that caused much infighting with the US Libertarian Party.

.

He was an articulate and interesting speaker, who came across very well on television when given the chance - one of the best advocates for liberty the US has had in recent history. I saw him on C-SPAN debates in the 1996 campaign, and he could have battled with the big two candidates any day. James Babb has a great letter from Harry Browne to his daughter on his blog- for Christmas, which says a great deal about his philosophy. He also had an article of his published in The Free Radical.

.

Egocentricity has republished one of his articles. One of the better quotes is:

.

"You don't control government. It's easy to think of the perfect law that will stop the bad guys while leaving the good guys unhindered. But no law will be written the way you have in mind, it won't be administered the way you have in mind, and it won't be adjudicated the way you have in mind."

.

Several sites are commemorating Harry's life including Downsize DC blog from the Downsize DC organisation he helped follow, Hammer of Truth and the US Libertarian Party website. Others include:
.
Kolehardfacts
Third Party Watch
Chrislib
Atavist
Spelunking through the chaos
.
So RIP Harry Browne - you will be missed.

The entrepreneurial second-hander

.

Annette Presley likes the limelight, a bit like Sir Richard Branson. However, unlike Branson she doesn't always produce products or services with her own property, she also likes using the property of others - sometimes for nothing.

.

You see her protest for her ISP, Slingshot, besides being a clever marketing stunt, is part of her one woman campaign to appear to be on behalf of the consumer - when she is as interested in making a profit as Telecom is. "What's wrong with that" I hear you say, well she has a record of wanting to use Telecom's network to compete with it, and complaining to the government about when Telecom wont give her what she wants on her terms.

.

The page on Slingshot's website "The Battle to Unbundlle" (sic!) has a lot of links about her complaining about the regulatory environment. She calls for a "level playing field" which, of course, largely exists - just she isn't prepared to put her own money into a local access network (far better to make your competitor do it, at prices that are forced upon it). To her credit she has been at the forefront of a company cutting call charges, despite how "unfair" the system is. Unlike Telstra Clear, Slingshot does compete.

.

However, Annette is no friend of the free market, check out this comment from her letter to the Minister of Communications, David Cun liffe:

.

"Telecom does represent 20% of the New Zealand share market and as Telecom is 75% overseas owned these profits go offshore. 􀂃 Since the government sale of Telecom, more than $8 billion has been remitted overseas to their foreign share holders, and they still have an unrealized capital gain of more than $5 billion. 􀂃 One would question why is the government propping up a foreign owned monopoly and supporting its control of the NZ market."

.

Of course, unlike Telstra Clear which is 99% non-NZ owned. More importantly, who cares if the owners of a company have gained dividends on their investment? Annette doesn't live the lifestyle of the poor. Telecom is also NOT a monopoly (after all Slingshot competes with it in the national call, international call and ISP markets), it is not propped up by government (its customers pay for it) and the extent of its control of the NZ market is due to others not setting up in competition, and it having customers that continue to use it. (Besides that, the letter is plagued with grammatical errors!).

.

Annette is pleading socialism - a private company can't pay dividends to its shareholders and can't operate in a free and open market, because SHE wants to be propped up by the government granting HER property rights over another company.

.

Remember a few years ago she bleated on about her free ISP - i4free - which has disappeared since Telecom renegotiated the interconnection agreement that was funding the company. i4free boasted about giving free dialup internet access - of course it wasn't really free, Telecom was paying for it. You see i4free would get a Clear local line, and Clear would get paid, per minute, the interconnection fee Telecom would have to paid for calls from a Telecom local line to a Clear line. Now those interconnection rates were meant to cover voice calls, but the internet meant that many people would spend hours online and so Telecom was paying well over the cost for Clear to terminate the calls - so Clear would use the money to share with i4free, to basically pay for the free internet access. Telecom couldn't charge this to the user because of the KiwiShare, so there was a dispute as Telecom introduced the 0870 numbering scheme to bypass the interconnection agreement.

.

Annette screamed on and on about how unfair it was that Telecom was changing its numbers for ISPs and it was jeoparding free Internet when, in fact, TELECOM was paying for her company to operate - almost all i4free revenue would have come from interconnection fees, because, despite her bleatings, i4free free internet disappeared once the interconnection agreement had been renegotiated. She claimed:

.

"i4free will earn its keep from what she describes as a "next-generation" consumer marketing and shopping network model that has been successful overseas. Advertising will play a small part."

.

Yeah right!

.

Annette Presley runs a good ISP with a national/international call service that is competitive - she built up a business based on reselling the services of other operators, which is fine if she negotiated such resale agreements on a voluntary basis - but she needs to learn that it is immoral in business to force people to do business with you, to use the government to grant you property rights in the business of others. She should get on with doing business, with those who choose to do business with her, and tell the government to leave it alone - unfortunately, she has a record of doing the exact opposite. Being an entrepreneur means producing or selling something you made or bought freely on the market - not selling something someone was forced to sell you.

Pope assassination attempt was Soviet plot

.

Associated Press is reporting that an Italian parliamentary commission has concluded that the USSR was behind the 1981 attempt to assassinate Pope John Paul II given his role in supporting the Solidarity movement in Poland - which, naturally, was seen as a challenge to communist rule and Soviet hegemony over eastern Europe. The report details the draft report from the commission into the involvement of the KGB in Italy during the Cold War.
.

Has Keith Locke apologised to the people of eastern Europe for supporting the Soviet Union in the 70s and 80s?

Republic of Black Mountain

.

The Parliament of the republic of Montenegro has agreed to the conducting of a referendum on whether or not to secede from Serbia-Montenegro. If the referendum carries a yes vote, this will be the final part of Yugoslavia breaking away. Since Slovenia and Croatia declared independence in 1991, Bosnia-Hercegovina in 1992 and subsequently Macedonia (no Greeks flaming me about the name, I KNOW your issue), at last Montenegro (literally black mountain) may unshackle itself from Belgrade (Kosovo has status yet to be finalised).
.
This wont please the large Serb minority, or Serbia itself which loses access to the Adriatic – but given that both Serbia and Montenegro are more interested in joining the EU, it hopefully wont fuel tensions among angry nationalists. The last opinion poll showed 43% in favour of independence, with 31% against, the remainder undecided.
.
Europe has had a plethora of breakaway states in the last 15 years, plus one unification (Germany). Since 1991 the following countries have established recognised independent governments:
.
Latvia (now EU)
Lithuania (now EU)
Estonia (now EU)
Belarus (Stalinist outpost)
Ukraine
Moldova
Slovakia / Czech Republic (both EU)
Slovenia (now EU)
Croatia
Macedonia (formerly, “former Yugoslav republic of”)
Bosnia-Hercegovina
.
And that doesn’t include Russia, assuming it succeeded the USSR. The greater Serbia that Slobodan Milosevic murdered for is slipping away, if Montenegro goes, Kosovo will be next!

Riots in South Africa spell end of ANC honeymoon

.

Well not entirely, the ANC will still win most of the local body elections, but the riots in Khutsong township bear witness to disappointment over the ANC gravy train – the party that keeps winning election after election doesn’t feel like it needs to deliver, and has also been dominated by socialists with little inkling about economic rationality. Corruption and a creeping lack of transparency and accountability are becoming the hallmark of the ANC – after all it is lead by a sympathiser of Murderer Mugabe. Check out the writings of the ANC on local government, it has all the rhetoric of a Marxist-Leninist party, which it just about is:

.

We also urge all our cadres and members to sustain their interaction with the masses of our people to encourage them to exercise their democratic right to vote, and thus select municipal legislatures and governments of their choice.
.
However, the ANC will remain in charge of most local authorities, although the Democratic Alliance, (the heirs to the Democratic Party – the only legal party during the apartheid era that for decades spoke out against apartheid) hopes to take Cape Town.
.
Having said that, South Africa is enjoying good economic growth, 6% last year, partly because the government has abandoned pursuing socialist policies extensively. It can’t afford to, literally. As long as it pursues reasonable economic orthodoxy it will continue to look better than its neighbours, but the growing arrogance of the ANC is a worry – few in South Africa look longingly at Harare and what has become of that former economic performer.

Lib Dem leadership race or who gives a ....

The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity. We champion the freedom, dignity and well-being of individuals, we acknowledge and respect their right to freedom of conscience and their right to develop their talents to the full. We aim to disperse power, to foster diversity and to nurture creativity. We believe that the role of the state is to enable all citizens to attain these ideals, to contribute fully to their communities and to take part in the decisions which affect their lives.
.
*empties the sick bag* – the leftie values of the Liberal Democrats from the website, who are having the most boring leadership contest in the UK right now.
.
Oh YAWN! Which politician with no aspiration to do anything beyond be in Opposition (or having delusions of grandeur) wants to lead the socially liberal economically conservative democrats? What DOES being Liberal Democrat mean anyway? What sort of stupid name for a party is “democrat”? (this applies to the US, Australian, NZ and all the other stupid “Democrat” parties, are any of them any good?) It’s not as if democracy is up for the vote is it now? In Zimbabwe, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) makes sense, because Zimbabwe is hardly a fair democracy. The LibDems could be pro-MMP, but neither major party is stupid enough to go for that (look at NZ!). However, do the Liberal Democrats want everything to be by popular vote? In which case why bother? The majority rules, you don’t need principles. How about the word “Liberal”? Yes there is room for a liberal party in the UK, Labour is sometimes liberal socially, other times is all for state surveillance and nannying everyone. The Tories are, well, Conservative and David Cameron is hardly liberal when he doesn’t want to rock the status quo NHS disaster or cut taxes.
.
So I don’t care!! let the LibDems to have the least competent leader possible, after eviscerating Charles Kennedy, who, albeit as a leftie, saw the LibDems get their best result ever, because the uptight bastards didn’t like him being alcoholic. The LibDems only deliver value when they are concerned about civil liberties, the rest of the time they are high tax socialist opportunists, who deserve to go the way of Michael Foot's Labour Party.

.

The UK has the socialist LibDems, the civil liberty hating nanny stating, but sometimes sensible Labour Party and the somewhat liberal, but slitheringly left leaning new Tories - nice to see how statists have so much choice here!.

.

and no, I wont tell you who the contenders are and what they stand for - you have better things to worry about.

Airline leg room varies...

.

I'm not tall, but I'm not short - I'm 5'10" - and long haul flights in economy class, with tight leg room don't please me, in fact I think it is uncivilised to sit upright for hours on end cooped up in an aluminium tube with dry air and sitting nearly on top of other people.

.

That's why a few years ago I learnt that airlines have different seat pitch - that is, the distance they place each row of seats from the other. The pitch is the measurement from one point of the seat to the exact same point in the next seat - so airlines with deep/thick cushioned seats might have great pitch, but little legroom, whereas thin, but modern contoured seats can give you more legroom with less pitch - got it?

.

So, while you might choose your airlines on the basis of fares, service, entertainment system and schedule, for me one important factor is room - I like space, and so I've done a bit of research into airline seat pitch, in economy, for airlines flying to and from New Zealand. The worst seat width is Emirates, it squeezes in a 10th seat per row on its 777s, whereas Singapore Airlines and Air NZ only have 9 seats. So here is the list, if I missed any I apologise, but these are only those flying to NZ:

.

AIRLINE SEAT PITCH

.

Air NZ Boeing 747 34"

Singapore Boeing 777 34"

Thai A340/747 34"

Malaysian 747/777 34"

Aerolinea Argentinas 34"

Emirates 777 33-34" (but only 17" seat width)

Garuda 33"

Korean 33"

Air NZ Airbus A320 32" (17.9" seat width)

Air NZ Boeing 777 32" (but 17.8" seat width)

Air NZ Boeing 767 32" (17.5" seat width)

Singapore Boeing 747 32" (17.5" seat width)

Cathay Pacific 32" (17.5" seat width)

Royal Brunei 32"

Lan (Chile) 32"

Air Pacific 32"

Air Tahiti Nui 32"

Air Calin 32"

Polynesian blue 32"

Emirates Airbus A340 31" (17.5" seat width)

Qantas 31" (17.2" seat width)

Pacific Blue 30-31"

.

So there you have NZ is one of the better ones with its 747, Qantas one of the worst. However, Qantas is there with other big airlines, like British Airways, Virgin Atlantic (which sometimes has as low as 29" seat pitch, but is standardising at 31"), United and Lufthansa - most of them are cheap on space in economy. Frankly 31" is an insult for a 12 hour flight, especially since Air NZ's domestic 737s has the same pitch for its domestic Saab 340s and ATR 72s!! It shows how little people travelling care about legroom!

.

Given that I've booked a trip back to NZ for April - in Air NZ's new premium economy class. Cost about $600 more above a flexible economy ticket to get 6 inches more legroom, and a slightly wider seat, and more recline, which is all I really wanted - the better drinks service and sitting upstairs are bonuses. There were only 3 seats left in premium economy, proving it is popular - as more people don't want to fly for 24 hours sitting in classic "scum class" as a dear drunken friend of mine once declared as she walked into economy on a flight to Singapore a few years ago. I'll let you all know what it is like once I've done it - remember airfares in nominal terms have not changed in 20 years - it still costs around NZ$2000 to fly return to the UK in economy class, as it did in 1985, it still costs NZ$7000 and NZ$12000 to fly business or first class (though only Emirates and Singapore Airlines fly the whole way first class now). So I'm not too fussed about paying a bit more for a bit more comfort, plus premium economy class is pretty much the standard (of seating) as business class used to be when it was introduced.

.

If you want more info about airline seating, go to Seat Guru and Airline Quality websites, they are unaffiliated with airlines and have reasonably up to date info about their seating.

Stick brainstorming up your....

.

PC has a great post about how brainstorming is a waste of time. It is part of the school of office psychobabble that has brought us all plenty of mindless exercises like:

.

- open plan offices (a bit like saying 40 person chauffeur driven car - it's not a frigging office!) guaranteed to at best disturb you with background noise, nose picking, eating and general lack of privacy, at worst you get idiot interrupting you blathering on about whatever they want to talk about and people flirting endlessly with the hot members of staff they like (my work only has the noise);

.

- planning days - when an enormous amount of labour sits largely idle while one person is paid to talk to them, encourage them all to participate, yet less than 50% do and, at worst, play games of trust, give praise or positive criticism. Perfect for paving over the real issues;

.

- meetings to share information - basically for people who can't be arsed reading and those who can't be arsed writing about it. These can be useful, in small quantities - but meetings day in day out are a big waste of time;

.

- any use of democracy at work - counting heads, not what's in them. Useful for "where shall we go for annual team lunch", but not much else. Useless for asking for bright ideas, even more useless when asking if people are more likely to stay if they are paid more - well duh! If most people are happy at work, it will show by them staying - if not, the turnover rate is high. It is pretty simple. There need to be ways of dealing with dissatisfaction, which boils down to talking to managers or having someone else to talk to if the manager is the problem;

.

Brainstorming has weaknesses when anyone involved fears the opinion of others, or if it isn't chaired properly and it has to be seen to be a better use of time that people working independently. You see most people have most of the same ideas most of the time in most fields. It is a bit like asking - how should we fix the health system? The ideas would be spend more, spend less, privatise, nationalise, decentralise, recentralise - and that's really it. Far better for someone to produce a paper with options and circulate it for comment, than to sit around having a ....

The full report PC's post referred to is here.