Brash and cannabis UPDATED

I voted for ACT, once, in 2006.  It has disappointed me consistently since.

In 2006 I suggested to Rodney Hide to invite Don Brash to stand in 2008.  Well Don is standing now, without Rodney.

In 2005 I suggested Rodney Hide campaign in that election on legalising cannabis.  I was ignored.  Now Don is doing it.

The arguments in favour of it then are still valid now:

"ACT needs to be more than the party of Business Roundtable economics - sound though that is.

It needs to sell freedom...

Why?

Because there is nothing more fundamentally liberal, than asserting that adults own their own bodies, and have the right to ingest a substance on their own private property without the state criminalising them for it...

The Economist called for this two years ago - hardly a newspaper of the lunatic fringe."

As I said then, this move changes the political landscape.  A position monopolised by leftwing authoritarians (the Greens) is now taken by a party that has long purported to believe in freedom.   ACT can advocate for a change in cannabis laws based on principle as well as pragmatism.

It may risk a loss of conservative votes, but they will go to National anyway.  Brash can minimise it by being himself.  Hardly a dope-head, he can argue, convincingly, that the status quo has failed and that the problems of cannabis are better addressed by:

- Employers retaining the right to require testing under employment contracts;

- Drug testing as part of road safety legislation;

- Strict enforcement of laws against supplying to minors;

- Encouragement of educational and health measures warning of the health risks.

Don Brash in recent weeks has come out in favour of replacing the RMA with a property rights based approach, including putting such rights in the Bill of Right, ending Auckland's experiment with US style "new-urbanism", which is about restricting the supply of housing that people want, to encourage people to buy the housing the planners want, to use the transport they are making everyone else pay for.

These are great leaps forward for ACT in terms of being a party that believes in individual rights and individual freedoms.   I look forward to more!

UPDATED:  Unsurprisingly, ACT's replacement for Rodney Hide -John Banks - is having none of it.  It raises the obvious point, that for ACT to return to Parliament and actually be in favour of freedom, it is far better for North Shore voters to elect Don Brash and for Epsom voters to not vote for John Banks.   If ACT is going to have a purge of its anti-freedom factors then the man who left Auckland with huge public debt, and who voted against the legalising of consensual adult homosexual acts is hardly going to be any help.

My birthday rant

I've been extremely busy, so have had little chance to rant.  So here are my two cents on the events that have provoked me:

Mladic the thug:  Few events were more shameful for Europe (and the United States and New Zealand as a member of the UN Security Council at the time), in my view, that the brutal neo-nazi style genocide inflicted in the Balkans in the 1990s.  It is astonishing that if a civilian kidnaps children and then massacres them en masse, that there is more horror than when a "general" is given endorsement by politicians to do the same, that there is craven appeasement to it all.   UN peacekeepers sat by and did nothing whilst Srebrenica - a town declared a "safe haven" (for whom!) by the UN Security Council, was "ethnically cleansed" by Mladic and his knuckle dragging fascists, all happily appeased by the Serbian Orthodox Church as well.  The role call of dishonour and shame at the time is long and disgraceful.  It took Slobodan Milosevic's attempt to do the same to Kosovo for serious action to be taken, by then thousands of men and boys had been slaughtered in a style reminiscent of the Nazi death squads that rounded up and annihilated Jews in Lithuania.   The other victims, the women and girls (don't think too long about the cutoff age because there really wasn't one) who were raped, not only as conquests by the semi-literate Serb brutes, but also to breed little half-Serbs as part of a deliberate "race" driven policy.   However, as blatant and disgusting as was the Serbian ethno-fascism, one shouldn't forget Croatia was led by men who were not much better.  Visit the Krajina region of Croatia today, and try to find the Serbs who still live there, after Croatia's military terrorised the Serb population and chased them from their homes and farms, families with roots there for generations.  It is a primary reason why Croatia should not be allowed to join the European Union - for it must fully face up to its past.

The arrest, trial and condemnation of Mladic should provide an opportunity to remind us all of this period in history and how easy it is to provoke poorly educated, semi-literate young men to perform atrocities with the endorsement of politicians and religious leaders.  It should also remind Muslims that the Western interventions in this case were to save Muslims (albeit moderate or even nominal ones).   It should also provoke at least some consideration from the self-styled "peace movement" about what should have been done, since the left was divided about humanitarian intervention in this case. 

Brash ACT:  Don Brash's takeover of ACT is a lifeline, and also notable among libertarian circles is Lindsay Perigo's employment related to ACT.  I'm cautiously optimistic.  The greatest weakness Don Brash faced in 2005 under National became those in National who sought to spin and populise messages in ways that backfired.  His willingness to address state activities that granted differential treatment of Maori was not portrayed well with "Iwi, Kiwi" which implied something it should not have.   However, Brash is both economically and socially liberal.  He has the intelligence and the ability to take ACT down a path of being consistently in favour of less government and being tough on crime that involves victims.  He is no libertarian, but if this is a chance to shake up the next National government and wean it off of the statist racists in the Maori Party, then it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.  I'm going to be watching this space very closely.  It is clear I have always been affiliated with Libertarianz and remain so, but Brash's leadership could cause me to think carefully about who to vote for this year.  

Auckland rail boondoggle hog-tied:  The Ministry of Transport and Treasury have reviewed the Auckland underground rail loop business case and found it wanting. It is hardly surprising.  Auckland rail has been a faith-based initiative from the start, primarily because the enormous cost premium to move people by rail, compared to bus is not justified by the change in behaviour it provokes.   Auckland rail advocates think because it is attracting lots of passengers (all of whom pay less in fares than the cost of operating the service, let alone the cost of capital) it is a good thing, but scrutiny about where those users are coming from indicates some pretty clear home truths.

First, around half of all trips into central Auckland in the morning peak are by public transport today.  This mode share is high by the standards of any new world city, and most of them are travelling by bus.  Trying to increase this in the absence of any form of congestion pricing is difficult, as the current strategy is to take money from all motorists to subsidise a minority of trip.  The number of trips by public transport has increased by 50% in ten years.  However, 40% of that increase has been by rail, 33% by the Northern Busway alone (bear in mind this is one route that has cost around a tenth of the cost of the rail network which has 2.5 lines) and the remainder by conventional bus and ferry services.   Rail has been important, but for the money spent on it, has not delivered compared to the other modes.  

The notable figure is the 15% decline in car trips, which are partly a function of increased fuel prices.  This will have had an effect on reducing congestion, although not as much as the figure may suggest.

Given only 11% of employment in Auckland is in the CBD, this modeshift is minor in the scheme of transport in Auckland.  However, the officials and politicians involved are totally CBD focused.  In short, the impact of more trips to the CBD by bus and rail is very low on congestion.  

Furthermore, the scope for significant increases in public transport usage is limited, most new world cities would be thrilled to have this sort of CBD mode share.  

However, there is something else the rail enthusiasts ignore.  There is already a NZ$2 billion taxpayer funded commitment to electrify Auckland's rail network with projections of a doubling in rail patronage.  However, these forecasts are not realistic because, as the MoT/Treasury report states:

Much of the future patronage growth forecast for the rail network comes from areas where significant intensified residential land use in growth nodes has been assumed in the model. Future rail patronage growth, including from the electrified do minimum, is therefore likely to rely, in part, on the realization of these land use assumptions.

In other words, it will come only if Aucklanders choose to live in medium to high density housing near railway stations AND work in the CBD AND choose to commute by rail.  A bold assumption, that is not exactly plausible.  It is part of the planners' wet dream that Aucklanders are gagging to live in London, Paris or New York style apartment conditions near railway stations in the suburbs.  Yes, apartment living has appeal for some, by only typically for living near the city so one can walk.  Quite why people in Auckland would want to live in such housing in the suburbs is unclear.

In essence, a fortune is being spent upgrading Auckland's rail network based on patronage forecasts that are fanciful and difficult to believe.  If they prove to be correct, then the network will be constrained without an underground loop (although the constraint will only be in the morning and evening peak - a few billion dollars for a few hours a day).  If wrong, then not only will an inner city underground loop be a destruction of wealth, but so will the electrification.

What is most damning is this statement from the review:

Significant parts of the Business Case assessment were not compliant with the procedures outlined in the NZTA‘s EEM for calculating transport benefits.

In other words, Auckland Council gerrymandered its assessment to suit its own needs.   That isn't even counting the gross exaggeration of wider economic benefits on a scale not seen on comparable projects in other countries.

The Green Party of course went along with this, at the same time as it damned the government for supporting road projects that - analysed correctly - had negative benefit/cost ratios.   

In short, the underground rail loop in central Auckland is a boondoggle. A complete waste of money that ranks alongside the grandious highway projects the government is funding north of Puhoi and north of Wellington.   Those who damn one should damn the other and vice versa.   For the government to embrace negative BCR "roads of National significance" but not the railway, is partly hypocritical.  Partly, because roads are funded from road users, railways are NEVER funded from rail users.  However, for the Greens, the Auckland Council and the railevangelists to damn the roads, but bow down to the altar of the railway is at least as hypocritical.  It is time for the railevangelists to be honest - their belief in rail is no more than that - a non-evidence based feeling that trains are good, better than buses and that whatever it takes to build railways is justifiable.  One need only read the Auckland transport blog regularly to see the evangelical enthusiasm for spending other people's money on new rail lines all over the place.  None of it is linked to demand forecasting, willingness to pay or economic evaluation - it is just a rail enthusiasts build-fest. 

Oh and the same should apply to road building too.

Want growth? Get a spatial plan

Yes that's what the Green/ACT government thinks.

The headline is "Spatial Plan will ensure economic growth for Auckland".

The main space I can find is between the ears of the press secretaries of Nick Smith and Rodney Hide that have let such empty nonsense escape their offices.  It plunges new shallows of vapidity, reaches new epic heights of failure and demonstrates once again that this government is devoid of philosophical challenge to the leftwing, planning obsessed arrogance of the past.

The press release is so empty that you could drive a train through it, and it shows once and for all that Nick Smith, the Green Party member in Cabinet, is driving policy.

There is more substance between an electron and the nucleus of an atom than this piece of pontificating waffle

"One of the most important roles of the Auckland Council will be to articulate the 20-30 year vision for Auckland through the spatial plan"

Really?  What happens if it doesn't happen? Will there not be economic growth?  Indeed when has ANY local government successfully forecast economic activity by sector, location and the like ever?  Did the local government plans of 20 years ago talk about the internet and online economy?  Of course not.  Did the local government plans of 40 years ago talk about an economy driven by services and tourism from China and India?  Hardly.  So why is it important?  

Take this piece of Sir Humphreyism.. "Cabinet agreed the spatial plan is the key vehicle for developing an integrated approach to managing Auckland’s urban growth."

Why manage it?  Why must there be an integrated approach? Who told you this (the Ministry for the Environment Smart Growth control freaks no doubt)?  

Oh the faith... "The spatial plan will illustrate how Auckland will develop in the future. It will show where and when growth will occur in transport, housing, energy, water, recreation, education and health infrastructure and services"

Will it Nick? Will it, bollocks!  Unless you live in an authoritarian nanny state where you stifle the private sector growing anything that is not in zee plan.  How do you know Auckland will develop like that, and most of all, how do you know it is right?

Oh and he knows what Aucklanders like "Aucklanders will be looking to see that the spatial plan sets out their aspirations for their city – all those that are affordable and feasible – and which supports efficient and effective resource allocation"

No they wont, they will be looking to see how best to live their own lives peacefully, with their family and friends, minding their own business.  Most of them are not busybodies who want to tell other people where to live, how to move and what businesses they should run and where. 

Imagine Auckland without a spatial plan.  It isn't hard. 

Auckland hasn't had one up till now.  However, you voted for National or ACT to make sure there was one didn't you?

National-ACT fails Auckland

Clap - clap - clap.

Margaret Thatcher once commented about how horrified she was in the 1970s when a senior Conservative MP expressed the view that socialism was "inevitable" and the Conservatives existed to slow it down and moderate it. In other words, when the Tories would get elected, it was to tinker, but by and large whatever Labour did in government would not be overturned.

One wonders if the current National minority government in New Zealand has the same profound inspiration - to preserve the legacy of Helengrad and tinker.

When I now see the results of the local government policy of that government then all i can say is well done. Because it passes the test of the Tories before Thatcher - maintain and continue with the policies of your opponents.

Auckland, all of Auckland, now has a Mayor - more empowered than ever before, to lead a council with the wide ranging powers granted to it by Sandra Lee and Judith Tizard in the height of the Labour-Alliance government that was Helen Clark's first term.

Why? Because Rodney Hide and ACT, cheered on and fully supported by John Key and the Nats, facilitated it.

In 2008 when Labour was kicked out, there was hope from some that it would mean that the local government policy of Labour, that National and ACT opposed, would be rejected.  The hope being that local government would no longer have a "power of general competence" - which Labour and the Alliance (supported by the Greens) gave councils, allowing them to enter into ANY activity they wish, which of course means they can grow (what councils will shrink?).  Even with a change of government, local authorities could subsidise anything, enter into any business activity, enter into any form of social activity (schools, healthcare, housing and welfare even) and government could not stop them, without a change in the law.

With Rodney Hide appointed as Minister of Local Government, there was some hope that this would be wound back - that rates might not be increased unhindered, and councils could not engage in ever more new activities, crowding out private business, private non-commercial activities, and ever imposing higher financial and regulatory demands on the people they claim to serve.

To be fair he briefly tried in 2009 to change the powers of local government, but failed because National decided to keep the Local Government Act 2002.  

However more importantly he failed to answer the question "What should be the role of local government"?  

The answer implicitly given is the same as Sandra Lee, except she answered with conviction:

"Whatever elected local politicians want to do".

In parallel he inherited the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance commissioned by the Clark, Peters, Dunne regime.   He could have, rightly, decided to treat it as curious but out of step with the objectives of the new government.

No.  He embraced it.  With the exception of the blatantly racist pandering of the proposed Maori only seats (as New Zealand remains increasingly alone in ascribing credibility to the patronising fiction of democracy being racist), it was as if the government had not changed at all.  Same policies, different people implementing them.

So the "super city council" (let's not pretend Auckland as a city changes because the petty control freaks who seek to govern it have only one place to rule it from) was created.  Not only was one council created out of eight, but the role of Mayor shifted from being cheerleader and chairman of the council, to having power over money and private property.   

So the biggest local authority in Australasia has been formed, by parties ostensibly committed to free enterprise.

Some ACT supporters thought it was a cunning plan, believing that a bigger council would be dominated by the "centre-right" (which you should be glad for. "Better than the socialists" right?).  

The victory of Len Brown does not exactly demonstrate that.   He has already stated his priority is joining the railevangelists in making ratepayers (and the government) pay for three rail lines.  Projects that are not economically viable in their own right, none of which will generate enough in fare revenue to pay for their operating costs let alone the capital that will be destroyed in building them.

So John Key and Rodney Hide have created a powerful local government entity and Mayoral position that is unfettered, and now a cargo cult loving, "think big" socialist has been elected as Mayor.   Not only that, but this Mayor is talking about a referendum on having apartheid Maori seats. 

Well done.  I don't know quite what Labour can say to this - as I can't imagine it would have been substantively different if it was still in power.

Hide says it is "good for Auckland".   Well given he let it all happen, and endorsed letting voters choose a council that can do what it wants to Aucklanders, he can hardly complain.

It's politics not values after all.

So, if you're unhappy about all of this, will you be voting National and ACT next year?

UPDATE:  It is telling that Idiot Savant thinks this is an epic fail for Rodney Hide.  He's right you know.

So what now kiwi lovers of less government?

Some voted for National in 2008 to get rid of the big government "the state is sovereign" leadership of Helen Clark. Labour openly preached what it saw as the benefits of government spending more on health, education, welfare, housing and subsidising business. It also created new bureaucracies, gave local government almost unlimited powers to do what it wished with ratepayers' money and sought to tell people how they should live, for their own good.

Labour unashamedly embraced big government, a partnership where the iron fist of state regulation, tax and subsidy would direct the economy, and all major areas of social policy.

National was thought, by many, to offer something different, a change in direction, suspicion of the state, belief in less taxes, less state intervention in the economy, and being more open about choice in education, health care and superannuation.

After all, National offered part of this in 2005, and to a limited extent went in that direction (haphazardly and inconsistently) between 1990 and 1999. Isn't it fair to assume a change in government is a change in direction?

Well no. You see this National government runs deficits, doesn't reduce the size of government, spends more on state health and education, maintains the national superannuation ponzi scheme and has continued to subsidise and interfere with the economy. Property rights are no better off. National is being what it is used to being - a conservative party that keeps what Labour did before and tinkers.

To be fair to National, John Key didn't offer too much more than that in the first place. So some thought it was right to vote ACT.

Bringing Sir Roger Douglas back into the fold gave some hope that a Nat-Act coalition could see one of NZ's two bravest former Finance Ministers having a key role in Cabinet. After all, if Labour scaremongered over Douglas, it wouldn't be hard to ask why Clark, Cullen, Goff and King would complain about a man being in Cabinet who THEY all shared Cabinet with. However, John Key (and the National Party) are political invertebrates.

So ACT got Rodney Hide as Minister of Local Government. Well that was something. Time to reverse the Labour/Alliance "powers of general competence" granted to local government, time to at least cap rates to inflation, time to have local government protect rather than abuse property rights.

No. Not only did it mean none of that, but the Nats took Labour's Royal Commission of Inquiry into Auckland Governance, and implemented almost all of its recommendations. A new big Auckland council, with almost unlimited powers to do as it wishes.

Is that what ACT voters wanted? Bigger, stronger local government?

No. Same with the dabbling with the "hang 'em high" crowd represented by David Garrett.

ACT had potential, it did believe in less government once, it did have senior leaders who would talk the good talk. As flawed as Rodney Hide is, and Sir Roger Douglas, there were more than a few occasions when one could say "bravo".

However, ACT's first real chance at power (it wasn't part of the 1996-1999 National led governments) hasn't just been disappointing, it has even seemed counter-productive.

So what now?

The obvious answer I would give is to offer Libertarianz, although some may say it is still a small party, and many have harbour hesitation whether those within it have the capability or the interest in stepping up to be a serious electoral option for the next election.

So I might suggest this, from afar. It is time for those within ACT and National, who do want less government, less tax, the shrinking of the state consistently, to contact Libertarianz. To attend at least one meeting, and talk about how to move forward.

You don't need to agree with all of the policies, but to believe in the principle of much less government.

No one else is going to do it.

So would ACT bring down the government?

With the Nats now backing away from previous statements that a rise in GST is "not on the agenda" and is "not our policy", it appears the two parties the Nats need to govern need to make clear what their policies are.

According to Stuff:

National ally the Maori Party is nervous, however. MP Rahui Katene said the party was retaining the option of walking away from its confidence and supply agreement with National over a GST rise.

Good for the Maori Party. It knows only too well that a rise in GST will hit everyone, not just those who might get an income tax cut. Being seen to support an increase in the price of everything to offset tax cuts that may be seen to be for those on higher incomes could cost the Maori Party dearly.

However what about ACT?

Jane Clifton reports Rodney Hide saying:

"The new fiscal programme had only been made possible because of ACT, he said, and he would therefore like to thank all ACT's supporters, his fellow MPs and the members of other caucuses with whom ACT had worked so tirelessly to bring about much-needed reform."

Roger Douglas has rightly said "The spending cuts must come first. Once we have cut spending, then we can cut taxes. If we want to make the tax system more efficient, we need constitutional restraints against excessive levels of Government expenditure. It is only when we have stopped the Government from exploiting the taxpayer that we can aim for efficiency"

So it's view is clear then...?!?!

ACT either makes it clear it votes against this, and tells the Nats a flat no, or the government is brought down.

Or ACT votes for it, and risks splitting asunder.

The test is simple - is ACT a party that people voted for so that government could cut one tax but increase another?

More language misrepresentation

Except this time it is the NZ Herald, simply getting things wrong.

The government is removing a restriction on councils that will allow them to freely choose to privatise water or to contract out the construction, operation, financing and management of water supplies to the private sector.

So why have a headline "Should water and wastewater services be opened up to private competition?"

You see there are no statutory restrictions on providing competing water or wastewater services, although councils would no doubt use the RMA to make it difficult. So this isn't about competition, it is about allowing councils to choose privatisation.

So like the ACC issue, privatisation and competition are being mixed up.

To be fair, it is unlikely that there would be competition in reticulated water supplies or waste water. That's not to mean there aren't potential alternatives.

People can, of course, buy bottled water, establish rain water collection systems, or could establish businesses to buy water in tanks. Waste water need not be carried away in pipe, but could be collected in sumps that can be emptied. Indeed, many people in rural areas and small towns do just that.

However, again, this is besides the point. All that is happening is councils will be able to use their "power of general competence" to privatise to a greater or lesser extent.

The very same people who wanted councils to be empowered, don't trust them to decide what to do with water and waste water services - funny that.

Rodney Hide's going to harm you!

That's effectively what Sue Kedgley is saying about Rodney Hide's announcement of very modest (tinkering) changes to the Local Government Act to put water on a similar footing to other local government activities (whereas before private sector involvement was severely constrained).

She said:

"This has the potential to be hugely harmful to the public,"

How Sue? Will private managers pour poison into the supply? Will they use it to drug the population en masse? Will they turn off the supply and sell the water to (spit) foreigners? Will there be no water left??

Then she said: "This theft of the public's assets is alarming and dangerous."

Hold on, so letting COUNCILS decide what to do with the assets they control, under the principle of the power of general competence that YOU support, is alarming and dangerous? Presumably because you actually want to force councils to hold onto assets because of your own hysterical belief in government ownership.

Kedgley twists and manipulates the truth saying "That would give private interests free reign over the whole water management process and effectively wrest control from local councils". No, councils could grant control TO private companies. It doesn't wrest control at ALL, but gives councils freedom to offer it.

Who is it a danger to? Who is thieving what exactly?

Yet Sue has a rival, with the inane pronouncement from the hysterical Penny Bright that "water services should never be run to make a profit. Affordable water was a basic human right."

What's food then you silly bint? Should councils supply that too? Should we all just stop paying for water and say "it's a human right, bring me it"?

The Water Pressure Group's website hasn't been updated in 7 years, which tells you a little about what an incompetent little group of Marxist mediocrities it is. Penny Bright opposes commercialisation and privatisation of water supplies, despite England managing rather well with it, but this issue, like ACC, is being treated by the left as a beat up.

In the UK, of course, water was privatised in England and the World Bank wrote a report on it here. The result being that while prices went up, there was an 83% increase in capital spending to fix decaying infrastructure which meant all water companies became compliant with drinking water standards. It has also meant more prudent use of water, as many pay for what they use - better use of resources being something the Greens care about, until it clashes with their Marxist bias.

Rodney should, of course, force all councils to separate out their water activities into companies and divest them, either by sale or giving shares to ratepayers. Then water can be treated like other utilities, those who use the most will pay appropriately, the capital cost of infrastructure can be spread over the life of the assets, and it probably will be good for the environment too.

However, since when have the Greens put the environment ahead of ideology?

Roger Douglas damns Nats on ACC

ACC is a pyramid scheme. Who says? Sir Roger Douglas

He says of the government's ACC bill:

Nothing in this Bill deals with the fact that, from its inception, ACC was a flawed pyramid scheme. In the beginning, it operated on a pay-as-you-go basis. That meant that for many years, it seemed cheap, as the full cost was not apparent – all of those with long term injuries were not yet making claims. Unfortunately, those years of low cost also saw the entitlements expand – so that by the time the system had absorbed all those with long term injuries, and covered the expanded entitlements, it suddenly seemed to cost an awful lot.

These problems are set to get worse. We have an aging society. An aging society implies not only more payouts, but also a lower proportion of people paying levies to cover the Non-Work Account. Because it is a Ponzi scheme, it will require ever-expanding numbers of people working to pay the levies.

So you can see how it has gone wrong, as it progresses, more and more claim it, stay on it for extended periods, making it progressively more expensive. Concepts completely alien to the economically illiterate left.

He says Labour knew this, and sought ACC to become fully funded by 2014, but it also expanded "entitlements" effectively setting it up for bankruptcy. The nonsense spread by the left that ACC is in fine shape because it receives more than it pays out, ignores the unfunded liabilities it has:

If any private insurance company had the books that ACC has, they would be declared bankrupt. The only reason that ACC is still solvent is that it has the capacity to increase levies. In essence, it is solvent because it can force people to cover its costs.

In other words, it is solvent because it has a state monopoly - it is solvent because you are forced to pay for it.

He suggests competition "The only viable way to ensure that ACC delivers results for reasonable prices is if it is open to competition. If people can get cheaper rates elsewhere, they should be allowed to leave. If that means risky workplaces start paying higher premiums, so be it – it will encourage them to improve workplace safety"

He makes the same classic arguments about competition, including one I have repeated:

"Currently, ACC sets a flat rate levy based on the risk in an industry. Those employers which have safe environments subsidise those who have unsafe environments. There is little commercial incentive to create safer workplaces.

By keeping ACC as a monopoly, and not properly allowing risk pricing to emerge, we are in fact increasing the number of workplace accidents. In the private market we have insurance excesses, we have no claims bonuses, we have risk-based premiums. The private market is all about mitigating risk. ACC, on the other hand, is about forcing the good employers to subsidise the bad ones."

The ACC monopoly is classic socialism - all employers pay for the collective risk, the good employers subsidise the bad ones, but who cares, it's all warm fuzzy shared and we all feel good about it, don't we?

After all you hear the left saying privately provided accident insurance will include a profit component, increasing costs, which of course implies that profit should be eliminated, and everything provided by the state, because profit increases costs. Classic Marxism.

All the lies of the left about "privatisation" completely ignore the real debate - why the state monopolises a compulsory accident insurance scheme that means the careful and prudent subsidise the reckless and imprudent? So now, of course, National cuts back ACC coverage to try to fit the budget - meaning all complain about the monopoly delivering less than what people want.

The advocates of state monopoly don't have very good arguments against competition, except use of a Labour commissioned PWC report that had terms of reference to effectively justify the status quo (a classic case of commissioning a study to tell you what you want to hear).

No other country runs this sort of pyramid monopoly scheme for accident cover, it is time to dismantle it and move on. Opening the whole damned lot up to competition is the FIRST step.

Then it's time to look at the next Ponzi scheme - National Superannuation.

National adopts Alliance local government policy

With the NZ Herald reporting Local Government Minister Rodney Hide unable to get National Party support to constrain the powers of local authorities, and unwilling to push it further, it seems like New Zealand is now stuck with a policy on local government driven by Sandra Lee when she was Minister of Local Government in 2001.

In the Local Government Act 2002, pushed by Lee and supported by Labour, local authorities were given the "power of general competence" to pursue the "economic, social, environmental and cultural well-being" of their communities. In other words, they not only could do whatever they wished, within the bounds of other laws, but they had a "duty" to consider those four "dimensions" of community development. It implied that councils not only could, but should be involved in economic development, promoting arts and culture and having a social welfare role of sorts.

National and ACT voted against this when it was in Parliament, but just to show "Plus ça change", it means nothing. The concerns expressed at the time have evaporated.

National has effectively adopted the local government policy promulgated by Labour and the Alliance. None of ACT's local government policy looks like coming to pass.

What does this mean for the supercity? Well my warnings that the supercity does not look constrained are right.

Auckland will have a mega city, with mega powers, and no constraints on its power. Even Rodney Hide now believes the majority can pillage the minority by saying:

"If a community want something and are prepared to pay for it, that's fine".

Rodney, if the community are so willing to pay for it, why the hell is the council making them pay? What does local government have to do with choice?

Mildly tinkering with transparency doesn't ratchet things back.

No. On local government the left has won, the ACT enthusiasts who think an Auckland mega city will vote to the "right" and constrain council spending (presumably with downtown railway tunnel enthusiast John Banks as Mayor), are deluding themselves. They have at least surrendered the rest of the country for their rose coloured view of the mega city. Frankly, it's a view that I could understand from National, which is as embedded in local government as the Labour Party, but that's it.

Rodney Hide and John Key are essentially adopting a legal framework and policy of the Alliance and Labour parties on local government.

Is this what you voted for?

Treasury still has some thinkers

Flat tax was put forward to Bill English as an option according to the NBR.

Pearls before swine some may think, as Bill English could never have the gumption to argue for a flat tax. He has none of the backbone needed to argue that just because people earn more, does not mean they should pay an ever higher proportion of their income to the state. You do not consume more of what the state spends its money on just because you earn more. Too many of the envy brigade on the left would say it is "giving money to the rich" when in fact it is letting people keep more of THEIR money.

Flat taxes are common in former communist countries like Albania, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Russia and Slovakia. Indeed even former Yugoslav republics of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Bosnia Hercegovina have adopted it. Hong Kong has close to a flat tax system.

So moving towards a flat tax IS good policy, it isn't extreme, it isn't uncommon, it is a sensible way to show New Zealand as a low tax small government economy, and it would help attract people. It does mean getting rid of the two top income tax rates, and that means some proper culling of the state. Not the limp wristed "efficiency gains" that haven't delivered.

It means abolishing agencies and functions.

It means saying the government needs to do less.

You'd think a government with ACT in it, might start to do something about it. Wouldn't you?

Police accountability

I'm astonished that I'm going to agree with both David Garrett and Idiot Savant, but maybe there is a bit a belief in individual rights that can be nurtured?

Garrett describes a case as follows "Last month, while attending a call-out in Khandallah, police used force against a teenager they mistook for a gatecrasher at an out-of-control party. During the incident, the teenager suffered broken vertebrae in his neck after being struck with a baton. When he asked for the officer's badge number, he was told to 'eff off' – in direct contradiction of long-standing and established police guidelines"

Idiot Savant, beyond some cheap nastiness about Garrett caring about "rich kids", agrees. The question I would have is whether both men can ever possibly be consistent on this. Garrett after all has little history about caring about individual rights, Idiot Savant of course thoroughly embraces the thieving leviathan of a socialist state.

The fundamental problem with the Police, as I have described before, is that the separation of powers between the law enforcement, judiciary and legislative arms of the state means that the Police believe themselves to BE the law, and not accountable to those who pay for them, but most of all that their attitude to civilians - you're a suspect until we're satisfied otherwise- just wont do. The Police attitude to criminal justice policy is telling.

The Police exist as an extension of our own rights to self defence, they are paid for that purpose. When they turn on people without warning they are going completely against that.

Both myself and Trevor Loudon have presented options for Police reform. It would be good if some government would consider them.

Get rid of the colon in this headline

I don't think providing a training ground for future candidates and Labour MPs is a benefit everyone else should be forced to pay for. Do you?

Give Maryan Street a laugh with this line though "The problem with voluntary membership was that those benefits were not apparent to students attending university for the first time and they may not believe they provided value."

But we'll take their money, make them join and tell the world that we represent the views of students anyway. All for one and one for all right?

If the Nats fail to take this to where it should go, it will show how utterly bereft of any principle the National Party is, that it will keep privileging organisations that support National's opponents. For that is what student unions are - training grounds for the left. Training grounds for those who want to keep National out of power. If you can't put them on the basis that students wont be forced to join them or pay for them, then what can you possibly call yourself?

Money to be wasted on a road?

with the ridiculously expensive Weiti Crossing bridge for the Whangaparaoa peninsula according to the NZ Herald.

The road would cost $217 million, of which $125.6 million is sought from your fuel taxes and road user charges, when it isn't even a very good project. Yes the remainder comes from tolls and levies on properties that will see improved values, but frankly unless the project ranks well sa being a good investment for other road users, why should it be progressed?

An appropriate assessment would be to estimate the fuel tax and road user charges that would be paid by those using the road. This is called "shadow tolling", where the money collected through motoring taxes is calculated and dedicated to the project. If that revenue can't be committed to the road, and the private sector borrow to build it based on that, the tolls and the property levy, then the road is a waste of money, and is being subsidised by others.

Lockwood Smith, the local MP, says "it has to go ahead".

Rodney Mayor and former ACT MP Penny Webster said Steven Joyce "promised" it would go ahead.

So, if tolls wont be enough, along with a property levy, and "shadow tolls" wont be enough, then it proves those who want it aren't prepared to pay for it - so it shouldn't be built.

Sadly it appear more than one National and ACT politicians are unwilling to apply user pays, when it is something they like.

Rodney stopped something bad getting worse

No race based seats in the Auckland supercity so says the NZ Herald.

The reasons given?

- Inconsistent with National Party policy on the parliamentary Maori seats (remember that? Remember when National believed the state should be colourblind?)
- It would be wrong to have such seats "just in Auckland" (slightly concerning point, but he hasn't announced spreading them nationwide);
- 2 Maori seats wouldn't give Maori an effective voice (one could argue it discourages Maori from standing in general seats and would only attract those of a certain political persuasion).

So a board will be set up to consult. Apparently the consultation processes that already exist for everyone else aren't enough, and of course the fact Maori can vote for everyone else on the council means they are no more shut out of it than anyone else.

However, nevertheless, it is a minor victory for commonsense. Yet don't get too excited Rodney. You stopped something being worse than what it is. The supercity still remains a bad idea. The only point to a supercity for me is if it has drastically reduced powers and responsibilities. What's the odds of that then?

Herald on Sunday's patronising racism

How much nonsense can be packed into an editorial?

"Rodney Hide, who has vowed to resign as Local Government Minister if National agrees to Maori representation on the Super-City Auckland Council. He believes an advisory board should provide the voice for Maori, and says he intends to stand by that"

No. It isn't for the government to decide on Maori representation, it is for voters. Voters in a liberal democracy decide who they want to represent them, they choose councillors. It isn't and shouldn't be for the government to decide that some of them must be of one certain race. Hide doesn't believe an advisory board should provide the voice for Maori, he isn't taking away the votes of Maori. Who represents non-Maori if they don't have advisory boards?

"Ever since the rush-of-blood decision to exclude Maori, Mr Key has, quite correctly, been seeking to fashion a compromise."

How are Maori excluded by having one person one vote and candidacy open to all? Are Maori less likely to vote, are Aucklanders (your customers) racist and wont vote for Maori councillors? The government is not planning to exclude Maori from the council, they aren't excluded now.

"Mr Hide's absence would allow a more reasoned analysis, notably of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance's recommendation in favour of Maori seats. Maori, a community of distinctive character and interest, should be represented on the Auckland Council."

The Royal Commission was called by a government that was voted out. Are Samoans of a distinctive character and interest? Are gay and lesbian Aucklanders? How about the young? How about the elderly? How about entrepreneurs? How about Chinese Aucklanders? Do you believe in liberal democracy or in collectivised sectarian democracy? Do Maori share the same view on politics? Noticed they all vote for what party? Reasoned analysis? Oh please.

"Dedicated seats, preferably two in number and elected by Auckland residents on the rolls of the Maori parliamentary electorates covering the Super City, are the obvious means of ensuring this." Because Maori wont vote for Maori councillors, but most of all neither will Aucklanders - apparently you think without some 19th century era patronising, Aucklanders wont elect Maori. Indeed, if they don't think Maori representation is important, you want to legislate over them.

So the Herald believes Maori are more important as a group, than anyone else in Auckland, more importantly, that Aucklanders are too racist to elect any Maori councillors (or that if they don't do so, the judgment of voters that the Maori candidates are not good enough should be overriden by reserving seats).

The supercity is a dog of an idea, conceived by a Royal Commission born of a government that believes local government should do whatever councillors think it should. The almost complete absence of any policy from this government on the role of local government is the real damning indictment of the supercity.

If Maori seats are created for Auckland, what's to stop the Maori political gravytrain seekers wanting the same for all councils?

Not your's to spend Phil!

Phil Twyford, who is being touted by Brian Rudman as Labour’s big leftwing challenge in Auckland, is damning Rodney Hide’s local government policy for Auckland, with a “Not Yours to Sell” campaign regarding Auckland local government “assets”.

The campaign is to stop the government allowing the new Auckland council to sell whatever it wishes on the same basis that it currently can buy whatever it wishes. In other words, it levels the playing field ideologically between more and less government, as far as you can do. The “people’s assets” of course are anything but, since if they ever generate a financial return, the money is typically spent for local government to do more, not to reduce the burden of rates. Similarly, whenever they are a liability, few on the left are keen to let them go.

Rodney Hide’s call for a cap on rates which basically means that rates can’t increase beyond inflation, is barely a cap at all. Rates have long gone up as property values increased beyond inflation, as has the roles and activities councils have sought to pursue.

I have a simple message to Phil Twyford. Ratepayers' money is not your's to spend, or councillors. It's not your damned money! Twyford says Labour believes in "trong communities" which is code for "strong councils". Sorry Phil, communities don't exist because councils make them so, people fund raise, establish businesses and help each other out without some mediocre left wing loud mouth like Richard Northey having his hand in their wallets.

However, Twyford is of the school of thinking that government exists for the good of everyone, and if it decides to spend your money, you should gladly surrender it for the greater good (and the likes of Twyford to get a living while he spends your money).

In an age when people are scrimping and saving, and the private sector cutting back, it’s time for local government to do so as well. Rodney Hide's proposals wont decimate local government, at best they'll just stop things getting worse. What is needed at the very least is for councils to be told what they can do - and be given the next two years to get out of everything else they do.

Does Rodney have a secret agenda?

I can only hope.

I was thrilled to read a Green press release that there is apparently a Cabinet Paper to reduce the powers of local government "This Cabinet paper wants to implement ACT Party policy by narrowing the powers of local government and making it easier to sell Auckland's $23 billion in public assets. The paper proposes to do this without public consultation" says an exasperated Russel Norman.

Russel is upset that Rodney Hide wants to remove special requirements to consult when contracting out council services or privatising, special requirements that don't apply when councils want to grow their activities - which of course, Russel wholeheartedly welcomes, as the Greens pretty much just love government growing.

Although Sue Kedgley hysterically waxes on that "This paper reveals Act's secret agenda to castrate local democracy. He is trying to reduce local government's powers to the point where they are unable to deliver social and environmental services, which are surely their core business." she has often been the mistress of hyperbole. I can only dream she is right.

For the Greens to believe local government's core business is delivering social and environmental services, when most people would say it is roads, footpaths, rubbish collection and perhaps libraries and handling complaints of nuisance, is nonsensical.

It exposes the Green's agenda for local government which is for "democracy" to mean whenever someone wants local government to interfere in something, it should. For Kedgley to claim cutting local government down drastically is "extremely dangerous" shows she isn't taking her pills. However, Sue thinks burgers, cellphones, foreign TV programmes, cars and most things imported are bad.

It begs the question though - if Rodney DOES have a secret agenda for the new Auckland mega city to have drastically curtailed powers, wouldn't it be helpful if he told us? How many ratepayers would welcome with open arms councils no longer able to set up businesses, subsidise businesses, set up hospitals, schools or radio stations?

His press release is a teaser for more "Cabinet has authorised a review of the Local Government Act 2002 to improve the transparency, accountability and fiscal management of local government. I want the Act reviewed to ensure ratepayers and citizens have better tools for controlling council costs, rates and activities. I will be looking at ways of ensuring local government operates within a defined budget and focuses on core activities"

Here's a start Rodney - get local authorities to send you a list of all of the activities they do, and then sit down for a day and cross off those that are unnecessary and absurd - then whatever is left should be what is statutorily defined as what local authorities can do.

Anything else councils do will have to be undertaken by companies that councillors themselves, and willing citizens (or anyone) have shares in by voluntary contribution. You see that would be truly democratic - on the one hand, small tightly constrained councils, and on the other hand the power (which has always existed) for those who want more to be done, to do it themselves and pursuade others to pay for it.

Somehow, I don't think the Greens (or Labour for that matter), really believe in democracy that is about voting with your own money, rather than voting to pilfer someone else's.

What did you really expect?

From Bill English? The man who brought National to its worst ever electoral result in 2002, the man who couldn't make political capital from Labour increasing taxes, returning ACC's statutory monopoly, pushing away foreign investment so that it could nationalise Air NZ, wasting enormous amounts of money on health for little gain.

After all in this budget he said "We have continued to invest in rail. Budget 2009 includes $115 million to fund Kiwirail’s purchase of 20 new locomotives and to provide it with access to working capital. In Budget 2009 we are announcing an additional $90 million of operating support for KiwiRail."

Invest? Who would trust a man who regards pouring bad money after bad down a plughole to be an investment? Operating support? It's a fucking loss. Tell it like it is - you've been lumbered with an entity that bleeds red, and you either need to keep it limping along till it is sold, or start cutting off the limbs that bleed.

No tax cuts, but there is $290 million to subsidise those who like watching Youtube, Xtube, Sextube or whatever - because they needed support didn't they? (maybe it's also why the censorship office is getting a massive boost, when it might have been easier to tightly focus it on material involving real crimes, not drawings, painting and written matter).

Of course there is more money to pour down the health black hole - which most of you tend to support, and which seems to do sweet nothing for health outcomes. More money for education, propping up a system that continues to not want accountability for teachers' pay or choice for parents.

A lot of money to subsidise people to insulate their homes - something the Greens like - rewarding people for doing what they like, by penalising those who already did it, or never want to.

Some trinkets for Maori - $42 million of specific spending - obviously enough to keep the Maori Party happy (though Maori "benefit" from health, education and law and order spending of course).

It's obvious Working for Families should have been abolished, in favour of retaining the tax cuts.

Another obvious step would be to prohibit people on welfare from claiming extra if they have more children, or for those convicted of violent offences to be ineligible from claiming welfare, but no.

Dr Cullen has delivered a budget where more is spent, when there was a real need to trim back the profligacy of the past, and which defers giving people back more of their own money.

Oh this time ACT voted for it too. Although you'd think Sir Roger Douglas reckons he is still in Opposition with this wonderful stuff:

"The tax cuts that have been shelved cost under $1 billion. Government spending in the 09/10 year is over $65 billion. In other words, the Government needed to find just 1.5 percent of waste to deliver their tax cuts. This is against a backdrop where Government spending is, in real terms, $18 billion dollars higher than it was nine years ago."

In other words, it would have taken little real effort to deliver cuts

"Health spending in nominal terms is set to increase by over eight percent. Nothing is being done about the incentives in the system, which under Labour saw spending increase by 50 percent, but productivity for doctors and nurses dive 15 and 11 percent respectively."

Yes - not the slightest willingness to confront the failures of the status quo.

Finally, the lack of courage to confront the deficit is appalling:

"The current level of Government deficit is one third what it was in 1984. Back in 1984, we managed to get the books back into the black within 3 years. Today, with a deficit one third of the size it was then, it is going to take 11 years to get back to surplus."

Now if you really want something different, try the Libz alternative budget, giving most of you an income tax free income (ACT once stood for that).

Let's be clear, if National relied on Libz for confidence and supply at the moment, there would be tax cuts.

So in Mt. Albert if you supported ACT, and supported National for tax cuts, you really only have one choice - Julian Pistorius. If Julian became the first Libz MP, then you'd have far more confidence at the next election that a vote for Libertarianz would hold the next government accountable. After all, what has ACT got to show for its efforts in this budget?

ACT's first serious (partial) let down?

A law on what people wear in public in one district.

After all, couldn't pubs, clubs and restaurants just enforce private property rights and set their own rules?

Good on Heather Roy and Sir Roger Douglas for being principled opponents, shame on Rodney, David Garrett and John Boscawen. You cannot pretend to be for less government or the liberal party by supporting the criminalisation of what people wear in public in one district.

It is not just authoritarian, but ludicrous that there is now a separate criminal law (not bylaw) for a distinct local authority district.

It is one thing for ACT's policy to disappoint me as a libertarian, but to actively machinate to support a new - victimless - criminal law, is appalling. The issue of course is that it isn't party policy, but for individual MPs - of whom only Rodney Hide is directly voted (and without whom none of the others would be there).

So I'll leave it to Bernard Darnton, Lindsay Mitchell and Blair Mulholland to conclude. Garrett and Boscawen appear to believe it, but Rodney Hide? He always talked differently - now with this, and the mega city, he looks like the others, it's a pity. I always hoped I would be wrong about ACT in government. This appears to be its first active support for MORE government not less. Shame.