National makes right decision over Waterview

Transport Minister Steven Joyce has made a good decision, he has rejected the greenplating of the last section of Auckland's Western Ring Route, in favour of a trenched surface motorway.

About time, I was alone in saying this in July 2008!

In other words, the Waterview extension will be just like every other segment that has been built or is under construction now. Look today at the other segments:
- Greenhithe deviation (built trenched surface motorway)
- Upper Harbour bridge duplication (built as bridge not a tunnel)
- Hobsonville deviation (to be built as trenched surface motorway)
- Manukau extension (under construction as trenched surface motorway)
- Manukau Harbour crossing (duplicate Mangere Bridge, with widening of existing trenched surface motorway)
- Mt Roskill extension (recently complete trenched surface motorway).

Why was Mt Albert special other than it was in the former Prime Minister's electorate?

More importantly, why should the taxpayer subsidise this?

So he also saves the taxpayer from having to subsidise the motorway. It can now be fully funded from the National Land Transport Fund, which itself is funded from road user charges, all fuel taxes and motor vehicle registration and licensing fees. This is distinctly unlike the electrification of the Auckland rail network, which Auckland rail passengers aren't paying a cent towards, in fact they don't even pay half the cost of providing the existing trains.

Of course the property owners along the route will be upset, and rightly so. Labour was willing to pillage taxpayers to drill under their homes, will National force homeowners to sell? The better approach will be to offer to buy the route on commercial terms, rather like the French do. The French offer to pay well above market rates for land, so they have a range of route options - French motorway are mostly tollways admittedly so even paying a lot for the land can still mean a profitable route. Tolling this small segment isn't viable (the whole route may have made more sense, but has already been ruled out because Labour committed money to the other segments), but still a business-like approach could speed up route acquisition and get the road built. However, nobody should be forced to sell.

So now we have National making an economically rational decision. Labour wanting to borrow over a billion dollars to build an undersized motorway and put it in a tunnel to bribe an electorate (anyone want to shout pork really loudly?) and the Greens worshipping trains, which would not relieve congestion, provide an alternative for 99% of the freight that would use the motorway and no evidence that a rail line could be remotely economically viable. Although the Green's own transport plan includes a busway along this corridor - hmmmm?

Well done, I did say for the Nats to do this before.

MY PAST COVERAGE OF WATERVIEW:

In February 2008, Labour wanted to make the route a PPP, which would require heavy taxpayer subsidy, supported by Peter Dunne when he was whoring on the left side of the house.

In July 2008, Labour announced $5.5 million to further investigate the Waterview tunnel, and I commented then on how it could have been a surface motorway, before others did.

In October 2008, the Greens launched a transport plan that included a busway along a motorway between Waterview and Mt Roskill see the map here.

In January 2009 I advised Steven Joyce to spend another 6 months reviewing the Waterview extension, which he promptly did.

In February 2009, the MOT released the business case information about the Waterview extension. I noted the main reason the project is expensive is because the designation for the route was abandoned in the early 1970s by local government.

In May 2009 I noted that as an election issue it really shouldn't be that important, as only a National MP could ever make a difference.

Of course now, it wont make any difference at all. Neither a Green, Labour, National or ALCP MP will change this decision. So perhaps Labour can stop promising to spend money that isn't theirs, and the Greens can stop claiming they can make a difference, and the people of Mt. Albert can choose someone based on character and philosophy, not a pork barrel issue?

Keep politicians away from roads

The nonsense of Auckland City Councillors arguing about whether a barely used bus lane should be allowed to have wider usage speaks volumes about why politicians are profoundly incompetent at running what is essentially a utility service.

It's very simple. The NZ Herald reports that the Auckland City transport committee has decided to allow the Tamaki Drive bus lane to be open to any vehicles with 2 or more occupants, largely because the lane lies empty every 7.5 minutes at peak times, whilst parallel lanes are congested. An intelligent decision, although it could be better (as there is no reason why all heavy vehicles couldn't use it, since they pay more than any other vehicles to use the roads anyway, and have no reasonable alternative.

However, the leftwing halfwits at City Vision disagree. They would rather a precious scarce resource (road space) remain empty, whilst cars, taxis and trucks sit held up, wasting more fuel (and emitting more pollution and CO2) than would otherwise be the case. They baulk at money for the conversion coming from the "public transport fund", which of course is a little precious.

It's a quasi-Soviet central planner attitude that people using cars are "bad" and should be punished (presumably also trucks, because freight should go on rail), but public transport is "good" and everyone else should be forced to subsidise it.

Auckland's local roads should be given over to a new council controlled organisation, at arms length from all politicians, with a board, and a mandate to operate the road network to encourage free flow of people and goods and make a profit doing so. It would get money from kerbside parking (which it would run to maximise profits), any tolling, rates (as a transitional measure) and bidding funds from the National Land Transport Fund (as councils do at present). It should also be allowed to hand over local streets to body corporates of adjoining property owners if they so wish, and build new roads (tolling them if it sees fit).

Then you might get roads for those who pay for them, with the highest priority going to those who pay the most - at the moment truck owners and private cars.

So do that along with amalgamating Auckland councils (and getting rid of the power of general competence), and you might help address Auckland transport far more than an electric train set.

Three bills on Auckland mega city

The NZ Herald reports there are to be three bills setting up the new Auckland uber stadt rat, one to set it up as a legal entity and establish transition boards, a second dealing with representation issues and a third "detailing structure, functions, roles and powers of super Auckland council and local boards".

Maybe we'll get answers about what the new council is meant to do?

Maybe that's the time to demand that the power of general competence be abolished, as is ACT policy (and which National opposed when the Local Government Bill was being put through Parliament).

Let's take the report of the Local Government and Environment Committee in 2002 and what National said then:

"National members of the Local Government and Environment Select Committee strongly disagree with the process, policy, and detail of this bill.

National believes it will result in increased duplication of services and inefficiencies, and, when things go wrong, a lack of accountability and buck-passing. National believes Parliament should clearly define the role and function of local and regional councils.

Councils will have a freer hand to invest in particular activities but not divest in areas such as ports, housing, and water systems. This introduces a structured bias towards expanding councils and their playing an ever-increasing role in our economy and citizens’ lives. National believes that increasing the size and involvement of local government will only make harder the ambition to return New Zealand to the top half of the OECD."

Quite! So what are you going to do about it?

Hard left against Auckland uber city?

Well there is a website against it, and frankly if what it is saying about the supercity is true, I might be far more relaxed about it.

Sadly, I think not.

It suggests "Water, Transport, Waste management, Parks etc will
become Council Controlled Organisations (CCO’s)" so would be at arms length, run professionally to deliver good service and recover costs from those willing to pay for the services, and wouldn't be subject to politicians pillaging ratepayers or manipulating the provision of services to meet narrow interests.

It suggests "We the public will pay for services we already own outright." You know, because it costs nothing to supply water, roads or collect rubbish. Once you own something you never have to pay to use it ever again, or maintain it. What mindless drivel

Then "Our Public assets will be Commercialised, Corporatised and then Privatised. Metrowater is a perfect example of profiteering from essential public services. The intention is to set up one giant metrowater and spread user pays for waste water across the entire Auckland region." If only! Food is a perfect example of profiteering from essential public services. So is clothing. Why the fear? England has fully privatised water, and nobody has dehydrated as a result. Why shouldn't users pay, unless of course you use a lot and think others should pay for you by force.

The inane errors in the arguments conclude with the ideal "Originally Auckland was run by the Auckland Regional Authority (ARA) and Borough Councils, this model was dismantled in the 1980’s under Rogernomics so private companies could profit from public services. The destruction of this system was called amalgamation."

Yes the ARA presided over an uninterrupted continuous plummet in bus patronage as it ran its starved bus monopoly into the ground, underinvesting, with no bus priority systems and no transfer ticketing. Well done. Auckland's water, wastewater and stormwater starved too, so much so there is a huge backlog of stormwater work still being done. It grossly underinvested in Auckland airport so much that Air NZ spent its own money upgrading the domestic terminal, the then Ansett built its own terminal, and the international terminal could barely handle growing demand. Oh and road investment in Auckland was starved so much that designated corridors to complete the South Western Motorway, Henderson and Central motorways were abandoned.

Oh it was dismantled so that ratepayers could get better services at lower cost than council run monopolies that arrogantly didn't give a damn about customers. It has partly worked.

This campaign is being led by Penny Bright of the Marxist "Water Pressure Group", who think water is a "right" so nobody should have to pay for it, which begs the question how you maintain the system and operate it. The rabid mob don't care as long as the users don't have to (force anyone but the users to pay). It has support from leftwing rag "The Aucklander" and cheekily links to an Owen McShane article damning the super city for very different reasons.

The rhetoric is all about democracy, which of course means pillaging a minority to pay for what a minority say is good for the majority.

So it's kind of funny. The hard left think the supercity is about privatising Auckland by stealth, libertarians think it is plain old amalgamation while keeping the left's vision of fully empowered intrusive local government.

Who is right?

Sorry Rodney, it doesn't answer the question

Rodney Hide attempts to answer concerns about the Auckland super-city in the NZ Herald.

He makes a minor mistake:

"Instead of .... eight local transport entities.... there will be one of each." No Rodney, there will be three core transport infrastructure agencies, Ontrack and the NZ Transport Agency will both be responsible for the railway and the motorway networks. ARTA is the single local transport entity that is meant to co-ordinate local road network development. So no material change here.

However, more fundamentally he evades the core issue.

What should be the role of local government in Auckland?

The government's answer appears to be "whatever local government wants it to be".

ACT's policy appears quite contrary to this.

It states:

• Local government will be required to shed its commercial activity, thereby eliminating the need to separate regulatory and commercial functions between local and regional councils.
• Roads and piped water will be supplied on a fully commercial basis.
• Abolish the local government power of general competency.
• Require councils to focus on their core functions.
• Ensure there is much greater scrutiny of regulations that undermine property rights.
• Promote contracting out of many council services.
• Lower the cost of complying with the Resource Management Act and other regulatory regimes.
• Review the two-tier structure of local government.

It's a lot less than I'd want, but it's a start, but all we are seeing is the last point.

So why is Rodney Hide doing next to nothing to implement ACT policy on local government?

It isn't good enough.

If an ACT Minister of Local Government is just going to maintain the Labour/Alliance/Green policy - then what was the point?

Auckland's new motorway

9 May will give Aucklanders a chance to walk and bike for the first and last time on a piece of transport infrastructure paid for motorists that motorists can use, and which will deliver significant benefits in reduced journey times and vehicle operating costs, whilst also improving the local environment.

The Mt Roskill extension to State Highway 20 (SH20) will be open for cyclists and pedestrians to have a look around before it is opened for all traffic.

It has long been a worthwhile project, delayed by a group that wanted to save the volcanic cones along the route, and latterly by the Greens, it cost NZ$201 million and will greatly speed travel between west Auckland (Avondale, New Lynn, Blockhouse Bay and Glen Eden), the airport and Manukau City. It also widens the section from Queenstown Road to Hillsborough Road to 3 lanes each way.

What is effectively now the South-Western Motorway will now run from Puhinui/Wiri in the south (where it currently terminates at Roscommon Road) to Owairaka. It will also mean both Dominion Road and Sandringham Road will be connected more directly to the airport, relieving Mt Albert Road of congestion and providing alternative routes from central Auckland to the airport.

The Greens opposed it, pushed for it to be delayed by the government (which it was, briefly), supported protecting the volcanoes and wanted a rail line instead. Keith Locke even claimed that "SH 20 is a waste of public money at a time when climate change, local air pollution and oil depletion will all be much worse by the time it is opened".

Give Labour credit, this is one project that your fuel taxes have been spent wisely on.

Judge for yourselves. The 4.5 km extension will start opening for road users between 15 May and early June.

Already under construction is the next phase of SH20, linking the southern end to the Southern Motorway, then there will be a fast, efficient route from west Auckland to the south.

Funnily enough, whilst there is debate about having a megacity for Auckland, Auckland City Council seems to have stuffed up its small related projects. The foot and cycle path is incomplete because of a 66% cost blowout, and Auckland City Council hasn't prioritised widening Tiverton and Wolverton Roads (which link the motorway to New Lynn) so those routes are likely to remain congested.

Auckland City appears far more interested in My Fair Lady than paying its share to complete roads linking to a new motorway. Having said that, the contract for the motorway was signed at $168.9 million and is finishing at $201 million - nice bit of contract management there :/

While the Mt. Albert by-election proceeds you might ask the Labour candidate (whoever that turns out to be, Labour doesn't seem to care) why it wants to spend $2.9 billion on the final section of this motorway entirely in a bored tunnel when it is a similar length to the section just completed for $201 million? Why is Mt. Albert special?

Anyway, more detail on the exact design of the motorway extension is here and the overall project.

Referendum on mega city for Auckland?

Don't make me laugh. There wasn't one for the 1989 local body amalgamation. There wasn't one for the Local Government Bill 2001 (now LGA 2002) which fundamentally changed local government from being prescribed specific powers to having a "power of general competence".

There certainly wouldn't have been one had the Royal Commission recommendations been adopted in full, by a Labour Government, which instituted the Royal Commission in the first place.

If I had a vote, I'd vote no in a referendum. For the reasons outlined succinctly by Not PC.

However, for the likes of Jordan Carter, Idiot Savant and the Standard to lobby for a referendum smacks of stinking hypocrisy. These promoters of big local government didn't even raise a peep when Labour, the Alliance and the Greens let local government off the leash in 2002.

More fundamentally

If the Opposition's only concern about the mega city are:
1. It should have race based political representation (saying that non raced based representation "shuts Maori out";
2. It should be subject to a referendum.

and if National and ACT are happy to create a mega city with the power of general competence (power to do anything).

Who the hell is against the mega city and wanting LESS local government for Auckland?

It all comes back to Libertarianz. Read the Libertarianz detailed policy on local government - after all, it's the only policy around that is substantially different from the Labour/National/United Future/ NZ First/ ACT/ Maori Party/ Progressive idea of a mega city for Auckland (as these are the parties which support the current government and supported the last one for calling for a Royal Commission).

What do you want councils to do then?

Given this news

You might ask why National and ACT are doing nothing to constrain the powers of the new Auckland mega city.

You want the new mega city to get involved in promoting shows with your money?

Well National and ACT don't care if it does.

So if the council will do what it likes
Wont reduce rates
It wont fix transport

What's the point? Especially when it makes some on the left get excited about the possibilities.

Single Auckland council wont fix transport

"There will be an integrated single authority for Auckland's roads and public transport"

Wrong.

There will be three.

Megacouncil will look after local roads and contracting public transport, kind of like ARTA is meant to do now, but doesn't do a good job of local roads. You might reflect on why that is.

NZ Transport Agency will continue to look after the state highways. Ministers don't trust the Auckland Megacouncil to do that. Who would blame them? So the busiest most strategically important roads in Auckland wont be a matter of the Megacouncil.

Ontrack will continue to look after the rail network. Ministers also don't trust the Auckland Megacouncil to do that. Again, key routes for freight (set aside the unprofitable low frequency low density passenger services) are too important to leave to a local authority.

If you want to see how poorly a local authority can perform on transport planning and management you need only look at Auckland's past, which is littered with several planning screw ups. Here are a couple.

1. SH20: Land was designated for the so-called "South Western Motorway" in the 1960s, to link the Southern Motorway to the North Western Motorway. The land was empty at the time, so placing a designation on it meant anyone using the land would know it would one day be acquired for a motorway, so short term leases were the order of the day. However, the ARA and Auckland City Council decided in 1974 that the route beyond Richardson Road to the northwest was not well defined, and so the designation should be dropped from there. As a result the designation only comprises the sections now being built - from the Southern Motorway to Mt Roskill. The Waterview Extension debate is purely because previous Auckland councils decided the South Western Motorway need end at Mt Roskill. Well done. Cost of that decision now runs at least to $1 billion.

2. South Eastern Arterial: Auckland City Council decided in the 1980s that there were inadequate connections between Pakuranga, Mt Wellington and the Southdown areas so decided to revive plans for the "South Eastern Motorway" to link Church St to Mt Wellington Highway and the Pakuranga Motorway, with on and off ramps to the Southern Motorway. It did so on the cheap. The resulting road has few shoulders to accommodate breakdowns, and traffic lights on multiple busy intersections when it should be a proper motorway with flyovers. Ultimately this will need perhaps $100 million of improvements to bring it up to standard to relieve the bottlenecks on this important road.

The Auckland mega council wont change that - and in fact the government doesn't even trust it to manage its own networks.

So let's stop hearing arguments that a single council will be good for transport in Auckland - when there isn't any evidence for that.

Rudman gets much wrong on transport, again!

Oh dear, after doing quite well lately, Brian Rudman has it badly wrong.

On Auckland he claims "That Aucklanders were willing to pay an extra regional fuel tax on top of the fuel tax the rest of the country paid".

Um Brian, the government that passed the legislation for this tax was voted out, rather comprehensively, by Aucklanders as well as the rest of the country. I wouldn't have thought that meant "Aucklanders were willing to pay".

Then he says...

"It's not that Auckland wants special treatment. It just wants an equitable share of the budgetary cake.

In the past I have given examples of how Auckland was for years ripped off by the state road builder Transit New Zealand when it came to the distribution of road-user levies."

Brian has an interesting view of "equitable" being that Auckland gets money taken from road users, but he wants it spent on public transport. He doesn't mind road users being pillaged to pay for public transport, but don't let fuel tax paid in Auckland get spend on roads in Southland. Equity for Brian is geographical, but not modal.

Moreover, he doesn't even understand that Transit New Zealand (which doesn't exist now) hasn't been responsible for distributing road taxes since 1996. Not good for a man who writes so frequently about transport to not even understand the funding framework. Transit used to bid for funds, it did not distribute them - and in fact the public transport projects Brian likes never went far for so long because they have such poor returns - Labour had to change the funding framework to allow poor value projects to proceed.

Then he quotes the Green Party Transport Research Unit!! Wonderful stuff, people who evade facts that there is little difference between trucks and trains in environmental impact, people who lie about the nature of road projects (witness the nonsense about the Basin Reserve flyover in Wellington). The Greens claim Auckland got 40% of what it paid in road taxes. Now I don't know the basis for that (Brian doesn't publish the documents so we can actually determine if mistakes have been made), as it could simply be the fact that the majority of fuel tax until this year went to the Crown anyway.

Then he makes the fantastic non-sequiter "Imagine the wonderful rapid rail system, complete with spur lines to the airport, Aucklanders could be enjoying now if that money had already been spent here." Yes imagine Brian, because until Labour got re-elected, the rapid rail system would NEVER have been funded because it has always been an inefficient project. The money would have gone on roads.

Furthermore, Brian avoids confronting you with the truth that IF such a system existed, Auckland ratepayers would have had to pay 40% of the capital costs and the ongoing operating subsidies. Road users don't pay all of the subsidies paid out by the ARC, nor should they.

Finally he says "Over the last couple of years, the progress was there for all to see. Double tracking of the rail lines was under way, Spaghetti Junction was expanded, the Northern Connection was completed." Yes, the double tracking was funded by former Infrastructure Auckland money. Spaghetti Junction expansion came from road users and was accelerated at the cost of the "Northern Connection" (I guess he means the Northern Gateway toll road).

Sorry Brian - you can't claim it is inequitable to spend Auckland motoring taxes outside Auckland, but somehow fair that economically questionable rail projects get subsidised by those who don't use them (and don't pretend it makes a jot of difference to congestion).

Moreover, don't pretend that if motorists were pillaged to pay their "share" of the costs of a rapid rail system that Auckland ratepayers would pay "their share". It's a nonsense, Aucklanders have proven they don't want to pay - stop trying to find non-users to pay for your expensive rail fetish, when there is no evidence that it will do anything besides gold plate the commutes of maybe 5% of Aucklanders.

It IS about race

Merata Kawharu’s column in the NZ Herald this morning is an attempt to justify separate Maori political representation on the Auckland mega stadt rat.

She claims “Maori deserve their own voice”, well who doesn't? Nobody is seeking to stop it - the issue is whether Maori voting themselves is generating a voice, or whether it should be guaranteed, but others get no guaranteed voice. Moreover it implies that Maori have one voice - as if all the individuals of a race have one opinion. A rather nonsensical and sinister notion.

Quite how New Zealand got through local body restructuring in 1989, the Local Government Act 2002 without “honouring existing agreements” is beyond me – I didn’t notice Hikois then, so this “agreement” must be recent.

She then lies about what has happened “The abolition of Maori seats on the governing Auckland body must rank among the greatest challenges. It is, in short, premature and flawed.” There has been no abolition, as there are no such seats. The idea is new. You can’t abolish something that doesn’t exist.

She repeats Metiria’s call for mana whenua which she says includes “offering protection where relevant to those who may visit or live within the tribe's traditional domain.”. Hold on, protection where? On the tribe’s land, it need not have anything to do with local government. Elsewhere, it is the role of the state to offer protect from the initiation of force – the tribe is not excluded from that as all of its members have equal participation rights.

So she talks of a long history of Ngati Whatua wanting participation in governance of Auckland, but largely ignoring that for around three generations it didn’t have any special role.

However, how does she respond to the point that mana whenua IS about race? After all, Ngati Whatua is a tribe of people of one race. Maori representation is about Maori voters, Maori candidates and Maori representation. It is not about other races.

She doesn’t. She said it isn’t about race – but then talks about it being exactly about – not race, but a subgroup of a race.

Saying it isn’t about race, doesn’t change the fact that it is. It doesn’t change the fact that Maori have as much right to representation in local government as anyone else – nobody blocks it or restricts it. I am not represented just because someone of my race is elected (whatever that truly means), and I can be represented by people of other races.

Oh, and if you think belonging to a tribe should give you special privileges in government over others, then you haven’t learnt that nepotism is a dirty word in government in the civilised world. Setting aside any political representation on a basis that excludes people because of who their parents are is simply wrong.

If Maori seats are not about race, they would be seats open to anyone to get representation by whoever wishes to stand - which of course, they are not.

So if it isn't about race... then what Metiria?

Metiria Turei claims on her Twitter account that the call for dedicated separate Maori seats on the Uber Alles Auckland Stadrat is NOT about race.

"Not about race. Its about being tangata whenua and manawhenua. The Treaty creates the right to structures for representation." she said at 9:14 AM Apr 15th from txt.

Is this just Orwellian doublespeak? I wanted to get to the bottom of it. After all, the Treaty doesn't say there should be parallel political structures, each one reserved by race. However, there are clearly two very distinct views of what is going on here, and I want to know why some Maori think this is not about race, when to everyone else it so clearly is.

Tangata whenua is literally “people of the land” which is a mystical concept based on the idea that “land is regarded as a mother to the people”. Some people believe this, but it is hardly helpful for an objective definition to be based on whether you believe in something supernatural. That would be ridiculous surely.

So what makes someone a “person of the land”. I was born in New Zealand, which surely makes me a “person of the land”, why wouldn’t I be? Well, apparently I am not. In fact nobody who does not claim "Maori identity" can be "tangata whenua". Am I wrong?

I can never be tangata whenua, neither can my offspring or their offspring. It IS about race. Race DEFINES “tangata whenua”. Metiria Turei IS engaging in Orwellian doublespeak to justify a race based definition of political separatism – it’s just HER race that benefits.

What about manawhenua then?

According to TPK it means “the exercise of traditional authority over an area of land [whenua]”. So what is “traditional authority”? If you own land, or are part of a collective that owns land (which is Iwi or Hapu owned Maori land), then of course you should authority over it. That is about property rights, and is protected by the Treaty of Waitangi, as are the property rights of others. However, you don’t need special representation on a local authority to do this.

Maori should have traditional authority over their land, but then so should we all over our own land. Local authorities should not be a tool for Maori to have special representation to also exercise control over other people’s property. Unless, of course, you believe that YOUR property rights are subject to mana whenua by "Maori".

Is that what you expect from the Green Party or the Maori Party, that you should have consent from Maori politicians for what you do on your land?

Metiria presumably believes that local authorities should have authority over everyone’s property, it is, after all, Green policy to use the RMA to control land use. However, she also believes that ethnic Maori have some special right to be guaranteed to be part of that political control.

How can this NOT be about race? Well, if you believe you can inherit rights over others because of who your parents are then what she says is legitimate - but hold a second, isn't that very concept wrong? Why SHOULD anyone have different civil and political rights because of their parentage?

That IS what this is about. It IS the source of the difference. If I am born in New Zealand, and own land in New Zealand, why is it that my neighbour, who has some ancestors of different racial origin gets different political representation and rights from me? Why is HE special? Why should HE assume that because most councillors look like they are of a similar race to me, that they somehow "represent my interests", when they vote to increase my rates, regulate my land use and have contrary political views to me?

It's because those advocating for separate Maori representation identify race with political power. It is the idea that there is a "Maori world view", you know like there is a "Serb world view" to Serb nationalists. I have a world view, you have yours, we only share one if you give your express consent for it. Race does not give you a "world view". Your brain does. It is an individual choice.

Conclusion

So when Metiria says it is not about race, but about tangata whenua and manawhenua what is she saying?

She is saying it is about “people of the land”, which doesn’t mean people born locally, but people who have a “spiritual connection” to the land – and the only ones she recognises as doing so ares Maori. She is saying it is about “exercising traditional authority over land”, she means Maori being guaranteed representation at council level to have authority over everyone’s land.

So if the only people who can be “people of the land” (a concept not unlike how virtually all racist-nationalist groups see themselves) are one race, and if they have a right to guaranteed political representation so they can exercise control over land that isn’t there’s, then what is it if it isn’t about race?

Nobody I have seen who opposes race based local government representation wants to deny Maori any political rights, none want to deny Maori political candidates being successful if they can convince sufficient voters to select them. They particularly reject being called "racist" because they want all political institutions to be non-racial.

If the Green Party, Maori Party and others want race based representation for Maori, then they should first be honest about it, secondly admit that in granting race based political privilege, it is racist, but then justify it on objective terms. Not having enough Maori in councils is not a reason, because there are probably not enough people of a vast range of backgrounds, in some councils women, in others Pacific Islanders or Chinese. The list can go on and on about types of identity not represented.

Individualists want race to be irrevelant and unimportant in politics, for it to be something personal, private and a matter of voluntary association, rather than have anything to do with the state. Why should it be any other way?

Free pools aren't free

John Walker is worried the megacity will see the end of Manukau's own little pork project, which is to take money from ratepayers to provide free access to baths pools in Manukau.

The NZ Herald reports "Since 1974, Manukau City Council has provided free public access to all pools, putting up to $7 million of ratepayers' money towards running the facilities each year."

It isn't providing anything - it is taking money from those who don't swim to subsidise those who do. Children wont lose access if their parents bother paying for it, instead of expecting everyone else to provide something to nothing.

The usual excuse is given that if you don't give kids something to do, they'll be criminals - which isn't a reason to blackmail ratepayers. "it's giving them something to do - take it away and they're on the streets, bored and [with] nothing to do - leading to trouble." says Walker.

I'm sorry, when I was bored as a kid, i didn't go round robbing people, or beating people up or vandalising buildings. Providing free pools because kids are feral is a copout out of ensuring that they have some respect for others, and get over "being bored". If the poor bubbas of Manukau can't cope with being bored now, then wait till have to work (or have to do stuff while on welfare).

Of course John Walker and other supporters could raise funds themselves to help pay for children from low income families to have access to the pools. However, that would require convincing people to pay for others, and why should you do that when you can force them to pay for what you want?

What Maori can do about representation

Read Blair Mulholland's latest post. It's pretty much on the ball.

Unlike the racist victim promoters in the Green Party and the Maori Party he says:

"No need to worry about rednecks like Harawira and Hawke, you have a right to vote and stand and be elected for the new Council just like everybody else. All you need to do is put it into action and stand!

Good luck in 2010. I hope to see some of you on the hustings, and some of you at the table when it is all over."

A hikoi or protest will deliver nothing in comparison.

Auckland megacity - what does it mean for transport?

According to the "Great" Auckland website, it means a council controlled organisation responsible for "all local and regional transport". However, it says little more. So let's explore that a bit further.

The key responsibilities in transport today are:
- The territorial authorities are responsible for their own local road network. They all raise rates to pay for between 40 and 60% of the cost of maintaining and improving the network, while bidding to the NZTA for the rest (which comes from fuel tax, road user charges etc). This is by far the most important function;
- ARTA, an ARC subsidiary, is responsible for contracting any subsidised public transport services, and registering commercially provided ones (which it has been discouraging through various contracting arrangements). It leads the rail project.

Note that all state highways in Auckland are the responsibility of the NZ Transport Agency, Transit's successor. Whether these will be handed over to the mega city is unclear. Hopefully not.

The megacity will no doubt take a view that the biggest problem with Auckland transport is not that it doesn't manage local roads well, doesn't build capacity when it is urgently needed and doesn't price the network to reflect costs, but rather there are too many cars.

It will want to use your money to subsidise those who don't drive, and penalise those who do. It wont be content with running the roads as a business, whereby anyone wanting property access pays an access fee, and motorists pay for what they use. It may neglect roads significantly, rather like Transport for London which has an appalling record in badly maintaining signs, and making next to no investment in improving capacity.

You see the megacity will own trains, and want those trains to grow. It wont own the private bus fleets so wont care so much about them It wont own trucks or cars, so they wont even be on the radar screen.

Most importantly, it wont own the motorways or be likely to build major new roads.

So the megacity wont do much, other than encourage more cross subsidisation of roads, and public transport dominating transport thinking across the region, even though it carries a tiny minority of trips.

A better solution would be to spin off the roads completely into arms length companies, responsible for providing access to properties and road space for motorists, and charging appropriately for both.

However, politicians wouldn't have control, and it wouldn't be democratic - which of course, is how everything should be - up to a vote.

Say no to big local government!

So according to the NZ Herald the government is going to support a modified mega city. A proposal born of the Labour inspired Royal Commission, has support from the National/ACT/Maori/Dunne government.

I already have blogged about what I think should be done with the proposal - it would make a good doorstop. How local government needs to be constrained. How a super mayor will end up being some less than competent personality with more control over your life. Owen McShane described it as fascist.

Without a cap on rates, Auckland property owners will be forced to pay more and more as the megacity grows its functions like a cancer on the life of Aucklanders.

So are Aucklanders going to put up with this? The "strengthening of democracy" only counts heads, not what's in them.

If ACT goes through with it, without a rates cap, without severely constraining the power of local government, it will prove ACT can't even drive policy when its leader is a Minister.

It is time to give the government a strong message if you're fed up with rates increases well above inflation year after year, fed up with central planning local government, fed up with petty fascist politicians and bureaucrats who think they know how to spend your money and regulate what you do with your property.

Say NO to big local government, it's time to put it on a diet, and repeal the power of general competence.

UPDATE: Not PC is eloquently making the same point in a different way.

No More Rates hits the nail on the head

No More Rates suggests that megacity could be disastrous for Auckland. Why?

"The Royal Commission report could well almost certainly lead not only to higher council rates all round, but also a massive redistribution of wealth right across the region"

Now No More Rates isn't a ginger group for user pays or for cutting councils, but its concern is valid.

Local government reform must be driven by the curtailment of the grand centralised planning ideas of politicians and bureaucrats. Those who want local government to do more don't want to pay for it themselves, they want others to be forced to pay.

It is time to fight the socialist's wet dream - the megacity with a power of general competence.

It is time for a review on the role and extent of local government - governed by basic principles of protecting property rights, individual freedoms and promoting economic efficiency.

It is time to end local government being the boot camp for future leftwing MPs.

What I fear about One Auckland

At Not PC Owen McShane characterises the proposal for a single megacity for Auckland as fascist.

Now, while this risks derision by the mere use of the word fascist, it is worth noting only the differences between TRUE fascism and what is being described for Auckland.

Yes, you will be able to leave Auckland, you will be able to criticise the megacity with the same free speech rights as now, you wont face more censorship, you wont be conscripted into an army to invade Ethiopia.

However, you will face more co-ordinated attacks on your private property rights, you might face the megacity regulating your business, or even competing with you. The megacity will have a substantial budget for propaganda publicity, and with one grand plan you'll know what is expected of you, your land use decisions and your property in the future. You are likely to face ever growing demands for money from your pocket, through rates. A megacity after all can increase rates by a small amount and get so much from it. Besides, few of you objected with relatively large ARC rates increases, so that can continue right?

A megacity will dilute your influence. By this I don't mean that there should be more democracy. That will simply mean those with the greatest lobbying strength (either by numbers or money) will use a megacity to regulate, tax and subsidise as they see fit. The left fears this ends up being business, the right fears it ends up being leftwing activist groups - both are right - Auckland does not need governance by lobbyist.

However, what will happen is just that. Loud lobbyists will work full time to lobby a megacity, and a megacity will have an army of planners out to ensure land use, transport use, energy use and indeed almost all aspects of day to day life are monitored and regulated if they can be legally empowered to do so.

In fact, I expect one of the first things a megacity will ask for is a review of local authority regulatory powers and tax raising powers, which were not substantially changed in the 2002 Local Government Act. The megacity will complain it isn't sufficiently empowered (to have power over you), or can't make you pay enough for it to do what it want otherwise known as raise revenue.

Auckland is over governed as it is.

The Royal Commission on Auckland report should be treated as follows by the government:

- Thank you, very interesting;
- Raises some important issues about current problems with local government in Auckland;
- Royal Commission operated under a mandate determined by the previous government so did not address some fundamental issues about the role of local government that this government has;
- We believe there are more fundamental issues to the performance of Auckland based on local authorities going far beyond certain core principles that should limit want councils do;
- As such we will be undertaking a more fundamental review of local government across the country, and will take into account Auckland as part of that review;
- (Thanks for the doorstop, the Royal Commission on Social Policy documents were getting a bit yellow).

Time to consider what the hell local government ought to be doing.

Time for those who say "not very much" to make their voices heard loud and clear, before the Nat/Act/Maori/Dunne government takes what Labour has done on local government (give it an almost unlimited mandate), and make it much much worse.

Otherwise, Rodney Hide's position as Minister of Local Government will have been for nothing.

Will National support racist local government?

Now once John Key signed a confidence and supply agreement with the Maori Party we all knew the Maori seats in Parliament wouldn't be going anywhere. Not a particularly big deal, after all they already exist.

However, race based seats for local government ARE new, and National opposed them vehemently whilst in Opposition.

The NZ Herald is reporting that the government is considering Maori based seats as part of a mega Auckland council. John Key was non-committal about it, but Pita Sharples expressed support for the concept in principle, although he had issue with the detail.

Do you want local government representation to be based on your race, or just your political views? Is it appropriate in the 21st century for psychologically based identities (for ethnicity is in the mind, not a matter of fact) to be legally entrenched in political representation, or for it to be based on one person one vote, and for representatives to be based on political views not the legend of ethnicity?

It would be nice if the Minister of Local Government - Rodney Hide - made it abundantly clear that race based local government representation will not be allowed under this government.

Paul Goldsmith, Auckland City Councillor, agrees.

Yet another reason for Auckland not to be a supercity

Gary Taylor likes the idea.

He likes it because it can strengthen planning of where and how development can take place. He likes it because it can push his vision of "sustainable urban form" retaining urban growth limits. Given he says it is good for the environment, you can see where this is heading. Greater Auckland City will be a behemoth of a planning monster.

The debate, of course, should be what is the role of local government?

Until you answer that question, the form it would take is pointless to discuss.