Fidel está muerto

So there is a reason to cheer, the death of Fidel Castro, should be a cause of celebration and reflection for everyone who believes in individual freedom, world peace, human rights and has both liberal and conservative values.  For the regime he founded continues to be one marked by violence, intimidation, intolerance and denial.

Castro interrogating a farmer as private property rights get abolished

Castro was a thug, a murderer and a warmongerer.  He urged Khrushchev to attack the US with nuclear weapons, which would have triggered World War Three.  

He incarcerated political opponents, labelling anyone who opposed the regime as "mentally ill" so they could be locked up indefinitely for not realising how lucky they are to be under socialism.  

He imprisoned Cubans who had HIV, he ran a prison state that saw Cubans flee at their own risk by boat to the United States.  Americans didn't flee to Cuba to embrace socialism.

Cuba under Castro was propped up by the USSR, in effect, poor Russians helped keep Castro's revolution alive.  A policy that ended with the collapse of the USSR, but from then on Cuba's rhetoric was that it was poor because the US embargo hindered it.  How a socialist state can claim that its prosperity is dependent on trading with a capitalist liberal democracy remains a mystery.

Cuba's joke is the large numbers of vintage American cars roaming the streets, only recently supplemented by Chinese vehicles.  This is seen as quaint, but is reflects poverty. 

One of the great claims about Cuba's "successes" is statistics around education and healthcare, because it claims low levels of child poverty and life expectancy that is high compared to other Latin American countries.  Yet the source of these statistics is entirely the Cuban one-party state, which imprisons its critics, so has to be at least treated with a high degree of scepticism.   Whenever foreigners inspect the Cuban healthcare system, they get to see what the regime wants them to see.   The UN may take the reported statistics from all member states on face value, but that's naive and absurd.  Only once Cuba is free will the veracity of these claims be clear, for now it is at best opaque. 

Of course, the usual suspects have come out singing paeans over Cuba.  Red Ken Livingstone couldn't help himself on BBC Radio 4 today saying that Cuba was "open and relaxed", even though it is a criminal offence for anyone other than the state to publish or broadcast, and when confronted with the regime's intolerance he said that in the UK anyone supporting Hitler was imprisoned. Odious little worm.

Leader of the Opposition Jeremy Corbyn said he was a "champion of social justice" and dismissed imprisonment of dissenters and continued authoritarianism as saying "there are problems of excesses by all regimes",  confirming the man is a moral relativistic sympathiser with dictatorship.

Vladimir Putin said he made his country free, well maybe by his standards..

President of the EU, Jean Claude Juncker said Castro was a "hero to many", which indicates the quisling relativist tolerance of a man and an organisation that ought to be celebrating the end of a man, whose regime provided support and succour for brutal regimes that impoverished and denied the human rights of citizens of 12 current EU Member States.  

Canadian Prime Minister, the illiberal Justin Trudeau lionised him as having "deep and lasting affection" for the Cuban people, including those he killed for opposing him.

Sinn Fein, which until recently lionised terrorism as a legitimate technique to change minds and power, is commemorating him as a hero.

The position people take on Castro should be your litmus test for their morality.

Castro used violence against those who opposed him.  He criminalise anyone who published or broadcast any criticism of his regime, so he was intolerant and authoritarian.   Dismissing any politicians whose core strategy is to do violence to his opponents is appeasement of dictatorship, rejection of any liberal values whatsoever, and places his supporters in the same mould as fascist apologists.  

To claim that "well he gave them education and healthcare" justifies a system of terror for anyone criticising the government or any of its policies or any of those with the privileges and trappings of power, is the justification of a fascist.   For "he" gave them nothing.  He ran a prison slave state which forced teachers and doctors to do the bidding of the party, he used his comrades of another slave state - the USSR- to supply the equipment, technology and training - to deliver a system that could have been delivered under liberal democracy.   Indeed, Chile's post-Pinochet success demonstrates that a liberal free-market democratic government can deliver the prosperity, including high standards of education and healthcare, without pointing guns at its citizens for criticising the regime.  

The best that can be said of Castro is he replaced another vile dictatorship - the Batista regime - and that he could have been worse.  However, pardon me if I don't think reaching the abominable barbarities of Kim Il Sung, Enver Hoxha or Nicolae Ceaucescu is an "achievement".

So to hell with Castro.  Some of the people who claimed with Donald Trump being elected, he is the "new Hitler" are mourning the loss of a man who was much closer to Hitler than Trump is ever likely to be.  

If someone is an apologist for Castro, or says he "made mistakes" or " his human rights were dreadful but", then they are excusing the blood spilt, the poverty, the propaganda, the utter denial of human liberty, and the politics of fear, terror and the jackboot, over the politics of debate, diversity and tolerance.

Treat the apologists of Castro accordingly.  The people in Miami celebrating his death lived under him, or have relatives who do.  The people elsewhere mourning are exercising the freedoms that Castro never tolerated and Cuba doesn't tolerate today.

Let's hope Mugabe doesn't see out the year as well.

Let's hope Cubans in the New Year gain the freedom to speak openly and honestly about the past 55 years of their country, even though thousands of so-called "liberals" in the West couldn't really care less.

UPDATE:  In 2008 I wrote the Top Ten Reasons Castro should be hated.

In 2010 I wrote on how the Green Party of NZ appeased the Cuban dictatorship

Read Katherine Hirschfeld's critical review of Cuba's healthcare system, including how much of it is "informal" and how it is illegal to refuse any healthcare including abortions. 

Libertarianz and a new liberal party?

Unfortunately I can't attend the Libertarianz conference this weekend, not the least because I left NZ seven years ago and haven't looked back.  Unfortunately because it promises to be the best ever, largely because the political environment for a political party that explicitly believes in less government and a smaller state has changed, dramatically.

You see the primary political debate today, as it has been throughout the last century, is the role of the state.  Leaders of major parties try to evade this, because politics has become, to a large part, an exercise in show business, slogans, imagery and trivia.  Rare is there in depth discussion about policy, philosophy or principles, but often is then commentary about politicians' backgrounds, their empathy, how they speak, look and whether they care.

With the rise of television, a medium primarily of entertainment, politics has become the dark science of the sound bite, of imagery.

However, it isn't just about that.  The internet has opened up the opportunity for anyone to comment on politics, to write or talk about it.  That has started to change political discourse, so that what people see and read is not just what the mainstream media wants them to see.

For those of us who seek to advance a consistent stand for less government, both in economics and in people's private lives, politics in NZ is at a turning point.

ACT has shrunk to a rump that is unlikely to be sustainable, and is led by John Banks, a man from the past, with a past that is simply not credible in advancing smaller government on both economic and social matters.  As Peter Cresswell said, its principles are sound, but its policies and strategies have failed to come close to sustaining a party that builds a core support of those who do not want the automatic answer of a politician to any issue of the day to be "I'll pass a new law" "I'll spend some more of other people's money".

Libertarianz has never managed to pass an electoral threshold to make it more than a dedicated club of people who simply couldn't stomach compromising their principles.  Both the presence of ACT, and the very low probability of electoral success, saw Libertarianz largely ignored, perpetuating that lack of success.  Indeed, the two most successful outlets for libertarian ideas and policies have not been the party, but the radio shows hosted by Lindsay Perigo in the 1990s and most recently Peter Cresswell's excellent blog.

So what now?

Maybe this is what I would say if I had a chance to talk to the conference this weekend...

NZ politics is dominated by political parties that share one philosophy - statism - the belief that the state should intervene, should spend other people's money, should borrow on their behalf, should pass new laws and regulations, and that there is no principled reason why it shouldn't do so.

The mainstream media echoes this.  All too often journalists ask politicians what they would "do", not "do you think the government should do something about this" or "should the government get out of the way"?  The education system is dominated by statists, nurtured by leftwing unions and academics, who all sign up to a carbon copy set of beliefs.  At best capitalism is seen as a necessary evil, but along with that are the post-modernist identity politics, the neo-Marxist belief that people are defined by their race and sex, and most recently even religion and body size.  

The legitimate concerns over pollution have been transformed into an all-encompassing religion of environmentalism, where evidence is skewed to suit a particular monologue - that man is a disease, pollution is ever increasing, that key words like "nuclear" "genetic engineering" "fossil fuels" are all placed in a basket of horror.  Where legitimate concerns are exaggerated, where evidence contrary to the monologue is ignored and the message is given that without massive state intervention in the economy and people's private lives, the environment will be destroyed and so will humanity.   

Have no doubt, environmentalism is the hijacking of universal opposition to pollution and appreciation of nature, to embrace an almost misanthropic desire to control, to attack capitalism, to grow a paternalistic, regulated state that tells people what to do, what not to do and takes their money to penalise what they don't like (e.g. flying) and support what they do like (windfarms and railways).

The Greens, of course, the ones carrying the banner for this.

Never is there a problem that doesn't demand a new law, or for more money to be spent on it. 

Behind the smiling faces of bright eyed bushy tailed people who claim to be speaking for what is clean, what is good, what is right and to help the poor, are people who sometimes tout xenophobia (if you doubt me, see how they talk about foreign investors, and how that parallels communist parodies of capitalists), who claim to use science and evidence, but peddle scaremongering.  I remember in 1999 Jeanette Fitzsimons said it was the last Christmas when we could trust a potato.  The genetic engineering armageddon hasn't happened, more than a couple are only wishing the global warming one does.   Most recently has been scaremongering about mobile phone transmitters, purely on perception. 

 

They believe in big government, with the small exceptions of scepticism about unlimited state surveillance powers and drugs, it is a party that thinks the state is people.  It sees children as not the parents' responsibility, but everyone's.  It sees people not as individuals, but as races, as sexes, as sexualities, as classes, as labels.  A party of Marxists, nationalists and even misanthropes.  People who believe the way to help people is to give them more of money taken from other people.  People whose contradictions are endless.   

I'll take one favourite of mine.  CO2 emissions should be cut, they say, but foreign ships carrying freight to and from NZ, that visit several ports along the NZ coast, shouldn't be allowed to carry freight between NZ ports.   Even though a ship that is travelling anyway emits hardly any more pollution carrying some freight from say Lyttelton to Auckland, it shouldn't be allowed.  Why?  Because the Greens sympathise with the workers on board those ships, as they aren't paid as much as NZ seafarers.  So the Greens, who say they believe in the environment, and believe in jobs and say they aren't racist, would rather have more pollution to shift freight, would rather deny Filipino seafarers jobs that are, rationally, better than others they have, all to protect their well above average salary (i.e. rich by their measure) union mates.

It doesn't take long to get down to what they really believe.  The Greens want more and more laws, more and more of your money and to spend more and more of it on their pet projects.  Precious little of it is about freedom, and for them the state is your friend, even when it is telling you what to do, spending your money on what you don't want and frightening your children with talk of Armageddon. 

Of course Labour has done a lot of that as well, for much longer.  Between the Greens and Labour it's purely a matter of degree, but I recall when Helen Clark said "the state is sovereign".  She didn't think there was anything that should stop government and politicians from doing as they think is best.  It simply made me realise what drives Labour politicians today - the desire to tell people what to do, to change society by passing laws, by spending other people's money, but most of all the cold, humourless, finger pointing oppression of the suppression of free speech.  The willingness to call anyone racist, who dares question special treatment on the basis of race, or sexist, anyone who doesn't want to introduce quotas for women on boards, has infiltrated our universities, our media and the state sector, and has been a method to deny debate and to debase argument, whilst smearing those who question in like a Red Guard from Maoist China.  Phrases like "cultural safety" have spread a climate of fear in some institutions.   A belief that people should never be offended, never be upset and that the state should police this has been one of the more insidious developments in the last twenty or so years.  It parallels the demand for faux respect of young thugs who gleefully lash out violently at those who look at them the wrong way, as if everyone should be ultra-vigilant about their behaviour and language to not offend these empty esteem-less flowers.

Being able to be open, honest and unafraid of offending people is the hallmark of a liberal society.  Labour has cultivated a culture that has eroded that.  Dare criticise Islam without being labelled an Islamophobe.  Dare criticise Maori organisations or Maori specific initiatives without being labelled as racist.  Dare criticise calls for laws to enforce quotas for women on corporate boards, or to challenge the DPB, and be called sexist.   It's not just intellectually lazy, it's aggressive, confrontational and authoritarian.  Name calling is not an argument.  The left do it all the time, we must resist doing so, unless the facts speak for themselves.

Labour's saving grace is to have courage of its convictions, meaning that almost every Labour government makes changes that endure.   It is a point those of us who want to advance freedom should grasp.   However, for the good that Labour has achieved - and most of us may look back at some of the dramatic changes pushed through in the 1980s - it has also given birth to a welfare state that has promoted and sustained intergenerational dependency, it took the just cause of redress against historic state racism and property theft to create a new taxpayer funded Maori elite, to which it is blasphemy to challenge or to hold accountable.

Labour is driven by the desire for state intervention, by the desire to change people through government, and has been responsible for so much corrosion of individual responsibility, of pride in individual success, of promotion of moral relativism and envy, that it is simply the Greens diluted.

How about National then?  What a relief so many of us felt when it was 2008 and finally we said farewell to Helen Clark, as she was about to embark on a new job, in New York, ending world poverty, on a US$500,000 a year tax free salary, travelling first class and staying in five star hotels.

However, the euphoria didn't take long to end.

The National Party, like ACT, has founding principles that I can largely agree with, but in reality it is a party with one single purpose - to be in power.  With the exception of three years when Ruth Richardson saved the country from bankruptcy, National's legacy has been at best to slow Labour, at worst to preside over a mammoth growth in the state that would make any socialist blush in the form of Think Big.  Right now it is, once again, the party of fiscal incontinence, with a new Think Big focused on building roads and a state broadband network.  National brought us the Resource Management Act, and sees reform of it largely to allow it to embark on its Think Big programme.  National sees the criminal justice system as going only one way, with new laws to allow stop and search of anyone, to allow search of property without a warrant.   National can sometimes throw us a tax cut, can sometimes ever so courageously try to sell a minority stake in a power company, it might even reverse the powers given to local government.

However, for all that, there is little sign National will advance real reforms to liberate planning laws by supporting private property rights, luke warm interest in opening up education to choice and liberating it from centralised command, control and rent seeking from teaching unions.  National is building, once again, the corporatist state, with fervent state intervention and investment in telecommunications.  It wont dare touch the Maori corporatist state or the race based electorates.   Beyond all that National offers absolutely nothing on personal freedom.   It wont even contemplate questioning the war on drugs, despite such radical forces as The Economist calling for an end to it.   It's behaviour on law and order says all you need to know - little respect for the presumption of innocence, little respect for due process.   To National, the people the police question or arrest are not "their" people, they are probably guilty anyway, so aren't really deserving of sympathy.

For a party that's meant to be about aspiration, individual achievement and respect of freedom and private property, this is contemptible.

Beyond all that, we have two race based parties, born from the belief that Maori, as a people, must have parties that mean the state specifically looks after them.   Parties that embrace the corporatist Maori elite, parties that believe that it is racist to have a colourblind state, that it is racist for an election to mean one person one vote, that it isn't possible for Maori to be individuals, and to not want Maori statist politicians to represent them.

No other party offers anything that consistently supports less government, less tax, more freedom, and a presumption that the answer to policy issues is not for government to do more.  

That's why we should.

ACT failed because it sold out principles for populism, for bending as the wind blew and so being a party like every other, slippery, slimy and more interested in power than principle and policies.  It is as good as finished.

Libertarianz failed because it has been unable to gather momentum for ideas, for principles and sell a convincing message about less government.   Quite simply not enough NZers believe in a future without the welfare state, without universal basic education and healthcare, and they aren't convinced that capitalism, free markets and most of all, individual initiative, can be an effective as well as a moral substitute for government.

There are good people in the National Party, people who do believe in less government.   They may mean that, in the long term, there is some hope.   However, they are in a party that exists to straddle the mainstream.  They face opponents who embrace the state, who talk of "investing" other people's money and passing new laws, and of being modern and "reinventing" politics, when virtually all of them are just rehashing statism, again and again.

Those good people in National are our allies, but National will not and cannot be a sufficient platform in itself for disseminating liberalism.   

So what do I mean by liberalism?

It isn't the leftwing definition, whereby it means being liberal with other people's money or being a moral relativist about crime.  It doesn't mean letting murderers and rapists out of prison in a handful of years because it wasn't really "their" fault.  I am using it as a synonym of libertarianism, classical liberalism or whatever you want to call it.  

I mean belief in less government.  The belief that government can't and shouldn't pick winners in the economy.  The belief that the state sector's role in the economy exists primarily to protect law and order, enforce contracts and protect property rights.  The belief that state welfare should not incentivise its usage as a choice, rather as a last resort and that those who wish to help those less fortunate should be encouraged to do so, with their own money.  The belief that the state shouldn't dominate the education system, but allow it to flourish with diversity, variety and choice, so parents choose and their choices are reflected in where the money goes in the system.  The belief that healthcare policy is not a choice between a paternalistic centralised state system or the broken US corporatist/state system.   Finally, the belief that pensions and retirement cannot be guaranteed by a ponzi like state scheme.   I do not fear foreign investment, but embrace the idea that state owned enterprises should be privatised, perhaps by handing out shares to taxpayers as well as sales to cornerstone investors.

I also think that the basis for a free, secure society is rule of law, which means reviewing all criminal laws, to decriminalise or abolish victimless crimes, including reviewing drugs policy.  A point that needs to work with welfare, education, health and even ACC policies.   The Libertarianz policy of legalising drugs needs to answer real concerns from parents that it will mean schools are awash with brain damaging substances - one of the answers is to look at Portugal.

It means that the rule based RMA, driven by local planners who just think they know best how your property should "fit in" to their grand ideas, is replaced by a property rights based framework, so that what you do and don't do with your property is based on how it affects the rights of others to do the same with theirs.

I also think that monetary policy's role in the recent financial crisis needs to be investigated and the fundamentals of monetary policy reviewed.

A new party needs to come up with some clear messages.  It needs to defend capitalism without shame, it needs to take on every attempt to create a new law, a new regulation and a new tax, with arguments based on principle, experience and reason.   It needs to harness the natural scepticism most people have of politicians and bureaucracy.  

After all, would people really expect their MPs to buy their groceries, their clothes, their holidays?  Why should they trust them to buy them homes, their healthcare, their pensions and their kids' education?

Why should the future of Maori be defined not by what they themselves achieve as individuals, as employees, employers, entrepreneurs, parents, as people - but by what the government gives them in money, jobs or "rights"?

The new party will not have the policies of Libertarianz, not because they are wrong, but because they are unrealistic in a Parliamentary term for a small party.  What we need is a clear statement that the new party will vote consistently for steps to reduce the size of the state in its non-core functions, that it will support fiscal responsibility, so that a tax cut means a spending cut, that it will support property rights and enforcement of real crimes, but not creating new crimes just on the whim of the latest outrage.  It means rejecting Think Big whether it be roads or railways, broadband or solar energy.  It means supporting steps towards individuals having more choice in health and education, and weaning people off of welfare, by making it easier to start up and sustain business without the state wanting its share from day one.

It means changing the terms of the debate. 

It means arguing for less state, not more, for the state to do what it is meant to do well, and to leave everything else to businesses, voluntary groups and individuals.

and to do so proudly.

Taking from the poor to give to the rich

Yes that's what Labour's David Cunliffe and the Green Party's resident vulgarian, Russel Norman are advocating.

Peter Cresswell gave some clear reasons why it is delusional as economic policy, I'd like to make it a lot simpler.

Devaluing the New Zealand dollar would be the government stealing from the poor to give to the rich.

How?  Because those who win are exporters and those who lose are people who save cash in the bank.

Those with modest savings, without stocks or shares, without the means or wherewithal to shift their money into foreign currencies, equities, gold or property, are the losers in any devaluation.

It debases the cash they hold, whether it be in banknotes or bank accounts.  It takes away from their ability to consume, to buy what they want if it comes from overseas or is dependent on imports as a major factor of production.

It means the poor will less be able to afford an overseas holiday.

It means the poor will less be able to buy a laptop or a games console or a new TV, or books that aren't printed in NZ.

It means the poor will have to drive less (not that the Greens give a damn about that)

The winners are farmers, vintners, hoteliers and moteliers, in essence those who own export oriented businesses (or in the tourism sector) who suddenly find they can undercut competitors in other countries (or in the case of tourism attract visitors).

That of course makes for another group of winners.  Foreign consumers of NZ goods and services.

Devaluation discounts the prices they pay, which of course is the opposite of what happens to the goods and services NZers buy from them.

So there you have it.  The Labour and Green Parties want to reward those who sell goods and services overseas and their foreign customers, by taking wealth directly from New Zealanders who import goods and services from overseas, and who undertake foreign travel.

If you have enough money, you can open foreign currency accounts, you can shift your depreciating NZ dollar into other assets or commodities, and protect yourself from this government endorsed theft by stealth.

However, if you're relatively poor, with savings largely sitting in a bank, you've had it.

That's from the parties who, like attention seeking poseurs, are pretending to live like poor people to highlight how tough poverty is. 

They want to take from the poor to give to the relatively well off. Why?  

Because their entire philosophy is to intervene, to do something, because they know better than the millions of people making individual decisions about what to buy and sell and at what prices, because they are uniquely blessed with greater knowledge, so they can debase the wealth of some to better others, so they look like they've done something good.

They're not.  They are ready to steal by stealth.  Don't let them.

Labour's part privatisation would have been ok, but not National's

Meanwhile, the Labour Party can't reconcile its opposition to part privatisation of SOEs with its own attempt to part privatise Air New Zealand to its biggest foreign competitor.  Apparently because it was once renationalised, this is ok.  However, almost all SOEs are the result of previous nationalisations, and by that measure the Nats selling part of Kiwirail to whoever wanted it, would be fine.

It all started with Sue Moroney insinuating that John Key visiting Australia is all about a sales pitch for the partial privatisation of SOEs, as seen by this Twitter from Sue Moroney

Sue Moroney ‏@suemoroney -Really interesting that the trolling Nats won't deny that John Key is over in Aus flogging off our assets.

Sue Moroney ‏@suemoroney - John Key is in Australia flogging our assets off to them. Dumped Oz PM John Howard says its a great idea. #whatAsuprise!

Of course Labour had no problem with that in its last term, when it sought to sell 22.5% of its renationalised Air New Zealand to the airline's biggest competitor - Qantas.   

I said:

libertyscott ‏@libertyscott @suemoroney Yet Dr Cullen positively favoured selling 20% of Air New Zealand to Qantas, what's changed?

She said:

Sue Moroney ‏@suemoroney @libertyscott Labour bought AirNZ back - that's the difference. It was privatised and we got 80% of it back. Nats selling what we own.

Hold on, but when the state buys something doesn't that mean "we own it"??  

So I confronted that and made the point again.  Labour was ok with selling part of a state asset to a foreign company (and indeed competitor).

libertyscott ‏@libertyscott @suemoroney Wrong you got 86.5% back and sought to sell 22.5% to Qantas, its main competitor. Cullen press release here http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/govt-approves-air-nz-qantas-proposal-proceeding-commerce-commission

She said:

Sue Moroney ‏@suemoroney @libertyscott So you see the difference now?

 I said:

libertyscott ‏@libertyscott @suemoroney You'd support National selling down 22.5% of Air NZ to a foreign competing airline? But not power companies or a coal mining co?

No response.  The contradictions of the Labour Party remain astonishing.  At least the Greens have always had a one way view of state ownership - the more the state owns = good, the less it owns = bad.

Kiwirail's asset revaluation - because Labour concealed the truth with accounting: UPDATED

Regular readers will remember that I’ve been long critical of the bizarre Treasury valuations of the social policy/heritage/commodity sector subsidy project called Kiwirail. So the latest report that this “asset” is to be revalued hardly surprises me. However, I am enormously dismayed at the unprofessional politically driven basis for valuation of this business which was instigated by the previous Labour government. It is one thing to throw taxpayers’ money at buying it back, another to hide what a real dud it is on the government accounts. Let’s bear in mind that neither Labour, nor the church of the Holy gRailway the Greens, have any interest in really showing what it’s worth.

So let’s start with the latest announcement. What does it mean?

The short version is “I told you so… again”. What was reported before has finally happened.

The land assets will remain under the NZRC, which has in fact been the case since 1 April 1982 when it was created. There was always a peppercorn rental of NZ$1 paid for use of the land under the rail corridor, which given that the Crown isn’t paid for the land under the road network, has always seemed an easy compromise in dealing with the thorny issue of valuing strips of land with little alternative use (especially roads, given land without access to roads has greatly diminished value). This should not be controversial, but let’s be honest about what the valuation of that asset should be – the market value of the land if sold. A study commissioned by the MoT valued it, in 2001, at NZ$462 million. This could be indexed to today’s values and priced, but I doubt it would top NZ$1 billion. Bear in mind this was never privatised in the first place, because every time TranzRail closed a rail line (which was rare), the corridor would, ultimately, be able to be sold by the Crown.  So the valuation was done professionally based on assumptions of the value of neighbouring land being applied, in most instances, to a narrow inaccessible corridor.

Yet the Annual Report 2011-2010 indicates land is valued at just over NZ$6 billion. This is quite absurd, so is the asset write down going to address this? Let’s continue.

The transfer of the other assets to a separate SOE is exactly what happened before the last privatisation, when NZ Rail Ltd was set up. The logic of this is clear, as the issues around rail land and its use are complex. Partly because of Treaty of Waitangi claims over Crown land, partly because the confiscation of past land under the Public Works Act means that if the land isn’t to be used for rail purposes, the previous owners or their successors must be offered the land back.

So the new SOE will be responsible for everything, other than the land, just like before. This is already raising the spectre of a new privatisation among those who treasure Kiwirail because they think it will be the saviour in the event oil prices and climate change suddenly decimate the viability of road transport.

Bill English states the total assets are being written down from NZ$13.4 billion to NZ$6.7 billion, this being both the land and the operations business. A simple halving of value, indicating a lot of in depth work was not done into this at all. The Kiwirail press release explains this further by saying that the non-land business will carry a valuation of up to NZ$1.3 billion “reflecting the revenue generated by it” rather than the current NZ$7.8 billion.  That's helpful in analysing this further.

The land component of the valuation seems to retain most of its book value, as it will be worth around NZ$5.4 billion, yet wont be expected to make a return on most of that asset (given the land under the roads isn’t expected to either). A small writedown of around NZ$600 million, but not nearly enough. Has the land under the rail network really shot up in value by a factor of 11 since 2001?  Kiwirail's Annual Report indicates that a professional valuation was done, no doubt in good faith. However, does that really reflect the market value of this land? If a railway line across a field, or behind some warehouses or houses is sold, are there really any other likely buyers beyond the neighbouring property owners? The discrepancy between valuations seems extraordinary, and I doubt whether valuations of railway corridors are done frequently enough in New Zealand to enable it to be equated to other such valuations.  

Setting that to one side, the valuation of NZ$1.3 billion for the operating business still seems wildly excessive. It was bought for NZ$665 million. How has it suddenly become worth double that since 2008? Is it revenue? Well no.

In 2011 it had gross revenue of NZ$667 million. It also got nearly NZ$345 million from taxpayers (yes you’ve spent more than a billion on this one and counting). However, its operating costs were NZ$567 million. Cool NZ$100 million profit before government right? No. Once you remove roughly NZ$60 million in subsidies for operating Auckland and Wellington passenger rail services, you’re down to about NZ$40 million. Not so good then.

Bearing in mind that the NZ$345 million from taxpayers is a capital grant to replace and renew some assets, you’ll also see it’s clear this isn’t a sustainable business able to renew its capital.  Otherwise it would take out debt that would be repaid over the depreciated life of those assets, which of course is not going to happen (but Treasury of course has taken out debt to pay for the nationalisation and all of the capital grants).  Bear in mind also that the market valuation when Toll Rail was nationalised was only NZ$435 million. Has the government really trebled the value of this business even though it has never paid a dividend yet? 

One guess as to why Opposition Finance spokespeople haven't asked that - because they fully supported this destruction of taxpayer wealth.

So the valuation continues to be generous in market terms. Kiwirail, if sold, would not go for the sort of money on its accounts, even if it continued to get hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies and grants every year.

The use of replacement cost as an asset valuation gives a false impression of the value of an asset if it to be sold, simply because it does not generate sufficient revenue to justify ever replacing the asset on the scale (and in the same way) as it was originally acquired.

My previous post on this was right.

Kiwirail is not an “investment” in its current form, but rather an emotionally laden piece of heritage that mixes some commercial elements, some local public policy elements with a lot of hyperbole and wishful thinking.

Debates about pouring taxpayers money into it need to be based on some market based accounts, accounts that might actually show it can generate a reasonable rate of return based on what it could be sold for – but which wouldn’t ever justify the money poured into it so far.

For that reason, given both National and Labour have thrown over a billion into this taxpayer owned bonfire, and the Greens are just gagging to throw billions more at it, means that having debates based on reasoned balanced analysis are absent when most of those involved prefer conspiracy theories around corruption, hyperbolic evangelism about rail “saving the economy” and economic illiteracy.

Most of my past posts on this subject are summarised in this one, on what it would take to make the railway a viable business.

It includes the following ones:

-  The Greens posted a link to a great presentation on Kiwirail, which actually destroys most of their own self-generated myths about the business.  I link to it here.

-  Where is the rail network viable?

-  Bill English admits the rail network is virtually worthless

Another good read is this from Ross Clark which explains that the "failure" of rail privatisation is because there are some serious questions about the viability of rail at all.

UPDATE:  I know this article has been linked to by a couple of forums.  Please read the articles at the bottom and indeed the presentation I linked to here. You can romanticise as much as you like, and I have a stack of Rails magazines from the 1980s and 1990s, and the NZ Railway Observer as well, so I am a rail enthusiast at a personal, emotional level, but the hard economic facts are that rail is an expensive way to move goods given the high capital costs of the bespoke equipment and infrastructure.  Only when volumes are high, frequent and over long distances do the fuel and personnel advantages start to offset this.  It's about economics.  In the US, rail freight succeeds in spite of serious undercharging of trucks on untolled interstate highways, in NZ Road User Charges contribute to a very different picture.

No Asset Purchases without a referendum

If the parties that lost the last election can demand that the Government seek an additional electoral mandate to implement the policies National stood on in its 2011 manifesto, then surely the same applies in reverse.

Every time the state buys something with taxpayers' money, it should ask permission.

Labour should have held a referendum on buying buy Air New Zealand, buying the Auckland railway network then buying the national rail network then buying TranzRail. 

If the state should gain permission when it sells assets, it should also seek it when it buys them.

Somehow, I doubt the idea will gain traction with Labour and the Greens, because to them when they spend taxpayers money, acquire property for the state - it is "good" for it is for "everyone".

In other words, the state can always accumulate more and more property with your money, but it daren't dispose of any of it.   However, none of that is really a surprise is it?

New Zealand election 2011 electorate voting guide

Ah yes, I've done the hard work for you, it has taken hours, but I've gone through every electorate candidate list.  My test is simple, is there someone to positively endorse who is more freedom loving than the status quo? If so, vote for him or her.  If not, is there someone positively evil and anti-freedom worthy to oppose, if so vote for whoever will remove him or her. Remember, in most seats this is the vote that doesn't count much, but in a few it is critical as it is a lifeline to some minor parties, and it also helps replace someone on the party list

So...

Auckland Central – David Seymour - ACT

Having removed Judith Tizard swiftly, Nikki Kaye gets some serious kudos for lifting the standard of Parliament across several dimensions.  It looks like a two woman race between Kaye and the Labour list MP Jacinda Ardern.  Now given I endorsed Kaye last time, and Ardern is of the Helen Clark school of wanting to tell people what to do, it would seem an easy choice this time.  Yet, last time removing Judith Tizard was a purposeful mission, now Kaye looks more like the wily political operator than any real defender of freedom and property rights.  She’s supportive of the mega city, thinks the environment is the greatest gift given to New Zealand (people should leave then) and she wants to “help progress” the inner city rail loop and a tram line.  None of that helps reduce the size and influence of government.  As such, you can’t really vote for her for positive reasons other than to disappoint Ardern and the Labour Party.  In any case, Ardern is number 13 on the Labour list and Kaye is 33 on the National list, which means both are likely to be elected anyway.  As a result, I much prefer David Seymour, the ACT candidate.  He has a solid background in electrical engineering and pushing for less government through a think tank.  Help David Seymour get his deposit back by voting for him.

Bay of Plenty – abstain/spoil your ballot

Anthony Boyd Williams Ryall still has this seat in the bag. His 17,604 majority is fairly unassailable, but can you really vote for the Minister of Health who has little apparent interest in serious reform? He doesn’t need your vote. The Labour alternative has no chance and appears to be on the left and there is no ACT, ALCP or Libertarianz candidate.  Brian Carter of United Future has no profile on that party’s website.  Ray Dolman of NZ First is phobic about privatisation.  Peter Redman of the Conservatives is an ex. cop who wants to nationalise the foreshore and seabed and raise the drinking age (although abolishing ETS gets a tick).  Sharon Stevens of Mana is a hardened unionist.  Now you might think I’d say hold your nose and vote for Ryall, but really that wont do.  He is a shoo in, he has a high list position.  He doesn’t need your positive endorsement to keep being a senior Cabinet Minister in a government that confiscates property rights.

Forget about the electorate vote here, or spoil your ballot.

Botany – Jami-Lee Ross - National

Botany was Pansy Wong’s, until she misused her Parliamentary travel perks and so it is now Jami-Lee Ross. (I said Kenneth Wang from ACT last time).  I was damning of him for simply having been a professional politician with no private sector achievements.  Yet Motella noted his maiden speech quoted Thatcher and Reagan, and Whale Oil also noted him approvingly.  He did say “the problem with this approach and the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money to spend. The problem with trying to spend your way towards closing the gap between rich and poor is that eventually we all collectively become poorer.” I was wrong about him, and to be fair his name is a little disconcerting.  He’s head and shoulders above most Nat MPs in my book and while ACT’s Lyn Murphy is a perfectly acceptable alternative, I think that given Ross has only been in Parliament for less than a year, it’s worth giving him a tick.

Christchurch Central – Toni Severin - ACT

Brendon Burns is the Labour MP, with a narrow majority.  As I said last time, he was Labour’s chief spin doctor in the Beehive, and was well up the Clark hierarchy.  Burns is once again ranked fairly low on the Labour list (number 29).  It’s easy to vote against him.  Yet the National candidate is, once again, Nicky Wagner, the list MP.  The debacle that has been the government’s handling of the earthquake is an absolute scandal.  No supporter of business and private property rights can vote for a National candidate in Christchurch Central, particularly one who is an MP in any case.   Whilst Burns was an evil spin doctor, what he did is nothing compared to how National has destroyed businesses and harmed the lives of the productive in this city. Luke Chandler, independent, has incoherent policies and has literacy issues, and so while Toni Severin of ACT is unremarkable and has little chance, she is your best option

Christchurch East – Michael Britnell – Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party

Lianne Dalziel still has this one cornered, with National’s Aaron Gilmore having little chance. Although I endorsed him last time, the government’s response to the earthquake should have forced him to resign because of the gross violations of private property rights and as such, the principles of the National Party.  The only candidate you can trust to be pro-freedom, at least on one issue, is Michael Britnell of the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party.

Clutha Southland – Don Nicolson - ACT

Bill English is a shoo in, and really can you think of a good reason to vote for him?  Don Nicolson is number 3 on the ACT list, and has ending the ETS as a priority.  As a former Federated Farmers’ President, he will do nicely to send a message to Bill not to take the locals for granted.  Don’t be seduced by Tony Corbett of the unregistered New Zealand Sovereignty Party, he’s anti-privatisation.  Give Don Nicolson a positive endorsement.

Coromandel – Jay Fitton – Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party

Sandra Goudie is retiring, so it is an open contest, although she had a majority of over 14,000 so it is likely to be Scott Simpson’s to lose.  He is inoffensive, but unimpressive.  Not a good reason to support Labour’s Hugh Kininmouth.  Crazy woman Catherine Delahunty is standing for the Greens, but she isn’t a threat.  Jay Fitton of the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party is at least standing for freedom on one issue.  Give him a tick to remind the Greens and National of the importance of that issue in this electorate at least.

Dunedin North – Guy McCallum - ACT

With Pete Hodgson’s retirement, Labour is putting forward David Clark for a seat that Hodgson won with a majority of just over 7,000.  Clark is a fairly predictable moderate leftwing Labour candidate, who lists “fairness” as his first issue – which actually means promoting wealth transfers, he is proud of helping create the ETS and likes the anti-nuclear policy.  Clark needs to win this seat to get elected, as he has a low list position.  The National candidate is list MP Michael Woodhouse.  Although his maiden speech was unremarkable, his speech on the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill was forthright in supporting voluntary student union membership.  However, why vote for Woodhouse when ACT’s Guy McCallum is more convincing.  He is young, keen on reducing the size of government and government spending.   On top of that, Metiria Turei is standing for the Greens and any vote for Guy will annoy her.

Dunedin South – Joanne Hayes - National

Clare Curran is the MP, with nearly 6,500 vote majority.  As I said in 2008, she’s a vile little PR hack who is seeking to portray National as enemies of the people.  She has also played silly politics by campaigning for Auckland’s new trains to be made in Dunedin, even though the new Wellington trains, ordered when Labour was in power, are being made in South Korea.  It’s better to tick Joanne Hayes, the National candidate. Kimberly Hannah, the ACT candidate, doesn’t have enough information on her profile for me to give her a recommendation over Hates.  Hayes is unremarkable, but Curran deals in dirt and deserves to be made to worry a little.

East Coast – John Norvill – ACT (if you must vote)

Censorship enthusiast Anne Tolley holds this seat, with a majority of around 6,400.  She is no friend of freedom, as her support for a major crackdown on any material that discusses sexuality among young people demonstrated.   Moana Mackey, the Labour candidate, isn’t either as she is leftwing, she likes unions, compulsory Maori language and bleats on about the 1990s being a horrible time.  John Norvill, the ACT candidate, is a business owner, although he wears his religion on his sleeve and there is nothing on his profile about reducing the size of the state (he wants to “stop the rot” whatever that means).  On balance, if you have to, you might give him the benefit of the doubt, given a history of owning small businesses, but don’t feel guilty if you don’t vote for any of them.

East Coast Bays – abstain, spoil your ballot

Murray McCully is a shoo in, so doesn’t need your vote and frankly doesn’t deserve it either.  ACT candidate Toby Hutton has a three line profile which is completely uninspiring, so isn't deserving either. Labour candidate Vivienne Goldsmith is a teachers’ unionist so should be avoided.  Conservative Simonne Dyer is, well, conservative, and was once deputy leader of the Kiwi Party, not a friend of freedom.  McCully is not the worst Cabinet Minister, but I can’t positively endorse him.  He wont bring more freedom to government.

Epsom – abstain/spoil your ballot

Rodney Hide had a huge majority, nearly 12,900, when he won it last time, with an absolute majority.  This time you know the score.  National’s Paul Goldsmith at number 39 on the list, will probably get in on the list anyway.  He’s a historian and public affairs consultant, but rather inoffensive.  John Banks, well you all know his record of fiscal imprudence and social conservatism.   Independent candidate Matthew Goode has some merits, but these are cancelled out by his policies to ban mining, introduce some new taxes to replace others, ban guns, pay mothers a living wage and a belief in fighting global warming by penalising car use.   So you can’t avoid the obvious choice.  Do you tick Banks knowing he is the passport to getting Brash and Isaac elected, holding your nose? Or do you tick Goldsmith?  There is no good reason to tick Goldsmith and he doesn’t need it.  The question for you is can you live with yourself having endorsed John Banks for three years, knowing ACT depends on him, and his decidedly authoritarian views on personal freedom?  If you accept that ACT could get 2-3% of the vote and bring in Brash and Isaac, then you could justify voting for Banks, even though you’ll need to shower afterwards.  Yet I couldn’t do it.  I couldn’t vote for the man who as Mayor led an overspending council, who voted to keep criminalising consenting adult homosexuals, who has absolutely no interest in the idea that there are victimless crimes.  Consider this, do you honestly think John Banks, fan of Rob Muldoon, will vote for MORE freedom than John Key?  Really?  Now of course you're being told that the entire Key government depends on John Banks.  Think about this.  


Who fought the reforms of the 1980s? John Banks.  
Who didn't resign in sympathy with Ruth Richardson being demoted?  John Banks
Who pushed for a supercity as long ago as 2001?  John Banks


When National next pushes to increase search and surveillance powers, when National next ramps up the war on drugs, when National next moves to deny Christchurch downtown property owners the rights to enter their property and recover it, do you really think John Banks will be crying out for individual rights and property rights?  Do you really think he wont have the upper hand in the ACT caucus? John Banks and ACT have five days to prove me wrong and change my view.

Hamilton East – Garry Mallett - ACT

David Bennett is the National MP for this seat, with a respectable majority of 8,820, but he is likely to win again and has been unremarkable.  Labour candidate is the former Student Union President, the easy on the eye, but frightfully politically correct Sehai Orgad.  Former ACT President Garry Mallett is a perfectly respectable candidate to endorse, as an entrepreneur and a man who has supported ACT being about less government.  Give Garry a tick.

Hamilton West - Tim Wikiriwhi – Independent

National’s Tim Macindoe narrowly pushed Labour’s Martin Gallagher out of Parliament.   Yet he led Arts Waikato, and seems to be into environmentalism (Sustainable Business Network).   He’s not really worth endorsing, even though he is up against the awful Sue Moroney, who wants a subsidised passenger train service to Auckland (that would be slower than a bus), and wants to force “pay equity” and longer compulsory paid parental leave.  Moroney is number 10 on the Labour list so is a sure thing, Macindoe is 49 on the National list so may not make it if he loses here, but then that isn’t a real loss for those who believe in less government.  Yet there IS a candidate who does passionately believe in freedom and less government.   Although he has chosen not to stand for Libertarianz this time, he is still worthy of my support.  Vote for a man who has turned his life around, and who is passionate about what he does, and works very hard to get across his message.  He is his own man, true to himself through and through, and while you may not always agree with him, he deserves your vote – Vote Tim Wikiriwhi.  If he got in, Parliament wouldn't know what’s hit it.

Hauraki-Waikato - Nanaia Mahuta - Labour

Princess Mahuta won this narrowly last time, against Angeline Greensill for the Maori Party.  The hard leftwing Greensill has slid over to Mana, so Tau Bruce Mataki is representing the Maori Party.  Princess is no hero, but it makes sense to vote for her to keep Maori and Mana from having an overhang, and to keep a Labour list candidate out.

Helensville – Nick Kearney - ACT

John Key doesn’t need your vote, he is in on the list and with a majority of over 20,000 he is at no risk from Jeremy Greenbook-Held from Labour, who himself is quite pathetic (Whaleoil revealed that) and a great believer in more government spending.   I don’t have strong reasons to support Nick Kearney, the ACT candidate, but he deserves your vote more than the others and sends a small sign to John Key that he isn't the bearer of all Helensville votes on the right.

Hunua – Ian Cummings - ACT

The awful patronising prick Paul Hutchison (I am speaking from experience here) is the National MP with a majority of just over 15,800.   Young Labour candidate Richard Hills is predictable demanding higher incomes and hates privatisation, and then implies ACT is sexist, racist and homophobic, so he should just STFU.  Quite a few wacky candidates here, but you could do worse than vote for Ian Cummings from ACT.  He says “I strongly believe that people should be able to keep what they earn and to invest, save and meet their needs as they see fit. So, for the most part, the best thing government can do is to simply extract itself from its citizens’ lives to the fullest possible extent”.  That’s a man you can vote for.

Hutt South – Alex Speirs - ACT

Trevor Mallard doesn’t need your vote here, and why would you give it to him with his majority of 4,000 (and a high list position).  National is throwing up Paul Quinn again, who is a reasonably respectable National list MP, who at 54 may or may not make it through.   ACT candidate Alex Speirs says he “is a passionate advocate of freedom, both social and economic, and individual choice”. Speirs deserves your vote in his own right, but you could do worse than Quinn as a Nat MP.

Ikaroa-Rawhiti - Parekura Horomia - Labour

Parekura should hold this with his 7,540 majority.  The alternatives are Mana candidate Tawhai McClutchie and Maori candidate Na Raihania (no Derek Fox) and the rather odd Maurice Wairau.  Hold your nose and vote for the big man Parekura Horomia – he will be in anyway on the list, but this is about reducing the Maori and Mana Party potential overhangs.

Ilam – John Parsons - Labour

Gerry Brownlee will slide into this easily, with his majority of nearly 11,900.  He does not deserve your vote as he has been the Cabinet Minister responsible for the response to the Christchurch earthquake.  So while it would be easy to support ACT candidate Gareth Veale (number 20 on the list, not 3 as the ACT profile suggests) as he “describes himself as a classical liberal, believing in smaller effective government in all spheres of life - social and economic freedom”, Brownlee has been such a disgrace that it is worth considering voting for Labour candidate John Parsons to deprive Brownlee of his electorate (although he’ll be in on the list), National’s only Christchurch electorate (which is a reason given for his role in the earthquake reconstruction).   So do so, hold your nose and vote John Parsons to shrink Brownlee’s majority – he can’t be any worse, as Parsons has long been a businessman, and was once Dominion/Air New Zealand businessperson of the year

Invercargill - Shane Pleasance - Libertarianz

National MP Eric Roy should manage to keep Labour's Lesley Soper out of Parliament (she’s just another braindead unionist), and Roy is just one of the mediocre middle ground of National. So give Shane Pleasance your electorate vote, he’s the Libertarianz candidate, Director of the Southland Chamber of Commerce and he believes in Invercargill, freedom and personal responsibility.  He definitely deserves it.

Kaikoura – Ian Hayes - Libertarianz

National’s Colin King is comfortable here against Labour’s Liz Collyns with a majority of over 11,000.  However, Libertarianz give you an alternative.  Ian Hayes believes in freedom, so give him your vote in this safe National seat.

Mana - Richard Goode – Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party

Labour’s Kris Faafoi took this in the by-election last year and Whaleoil revealed the rather appalling tactics that were used there.   Yet the awful “Pakeha owe Maori loads” public sector consultant/list MP Hekia Parata of National is simply vile - from personal experience. You wont get a colourblind state sector with her.  Richard Goode, standing for the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party is mild mannered and one of the most rational speakers on liberalising drug laws in New Zealand today.  He has decided not to stand for Libertarianz this year, but he is still libertarian. Vote for Goode.

Mangere – Claudette Hauiti - National

Labour's Sua Sio won this last time and has a fairly unassailable majority of over 7,000, but now Philip Field has been removed, there is no good reason to support Sio – who is singing the usual Labour song of promoting a Capital Gains Tax and more state intervention.   National is putting up Claudette Hauiti, a lesbian Maori businesswoman who used to be Labour affiliated.  Lindsay Mitchell rates her well, as she talks of less government and more personal responsibility.  So give Sio a bit of a wake up, by ticking Hauiti.  Casey Costello of ACT is an ex. Cop and ex. Police unionist, which isn’t enough for me to think she is more deserving.

Manukau East - Kanwal Bakshi – National or Jono MacFarlane ACT

Ross Robertson is one of the Labour MPs I dislike least, and he isn’t on the party list, which means if he wins, it helps keep the likes of Steve Chadwick out of Parliament. However, he is pretty much guaranteed to get elected with his majority of over 12,000. Kanwal Bakshi of National is a businessman who set up a voluntary organisation to help teenagers. Jono MacFarlane of ACT is a Christian Conservative who does not believe government is the solution.  Either man is worthy of your vote, I would lean towards Kanwal because he has a better chance of narrowing Labour’s majority, but don’t let Jono’s Christian background put you off him. 

Manurewa – David Peterson - ACT

With George Hawkins retiring, Labour is putting up Louisa Wall who needs to win here as she has no list position.  Hawkins had a majority of around 6,700, so Wall is likely to win.  She doesn’t deserve to though, she says “A measure of this leadership is how we distribute society's resources”, so your property is everyone’s in her book.  Given last election she talked about how she used to “advance the needs and aspirations of Maori working within public bureaucracies as a Maori specific representative”.  So, as a Maori lesbian, her identity matters for you.    Dr Cam Calder is National’s candidate, and a list MP at number 50 (which on current polling means he is probably ok) but he is no libertarian.  He has a health background, and is a Blue-Green.  He mentioned freedom once in his maiden speech, but has simply been a loyal lieutenant in the government, so really it makes little difference if he keeps Louisa Wall out or not.  ACT’s David Peterson is proudly libertarian, believes in Austrian school economics and says “I support letting peaceful people live their lives how they like, even if they're making personal choices radically different to those I would make as freedom is universally for all not just those I agree with”.  He deserves your vote.

Maungakiekie - Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga - National

This was a surprise win for National after Mark Gosche’s retirement in 2008, and Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga has a majority of nearly 2,000 in a seat Labour believes should be its own.

The vile Carol Beaumont of Labour is vying for this seat. She’s a proud unionist and thinks Labour has benefited democracy, and that asset sales will raise prices.  Although at 22 on the list, she has a good chance of getting in anyway.  Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga has been a good local MP, and has a strong business background, and believes in lower taxes and less bureaucracy.  There are no other candidates that come close to this, so you can vote for him positively to try to keep the Marxist Beaumont out of Parliament.

Mount Albert – Steven Boyle - ACT

Helen Clark won this with a majority of over 10,000, and David Shearer took it for Labour again with a slightly lower majority in the 2009 by-election.  He doesn’t talk about his pro-mercenary background nowadays, preferring to focus on “social justice” (the euphemism for fiscal transfers).  Yet he voted against Voluntary Student Union membership and was sarcastic about it.   National is putting up Melissa Lee, list MP who is number 34 on the list (so is fairly certain to get elected).   She’s notable for being the first Korean woman to be an MP outside Korea, but also for her comments on crime, race and the new motorway.  She’s not exactly a great success, and there is no sign she is a great supporter of less government.  Steven Boyle is ACT’s candidate, he’s a civil engineer and more deserving than Lee.

Mount Roskill – Jasmin Hewlett – Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party

Phil Goff gained a majority of 6,400 last time, and I DID endorse him because I figured he’d pull Labour back from the Helengrad left, and he has – a little.    National list MP Jackie Blue is standing here, and at 46 on the list is reasonably likely to get elected.   However she is keen on the war on drugs, so you can’t give her support.  Pratima Nand is ACT’s candidate, but her profile shows no sign of an interest in less government.  Jasmin Hewlett of the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party shows a passionate belief in addressing the injustice of peaceful people imprisoned for using cannabis.  She deserves your vote, especially to send a message to Jackie Blue.  Goff, after all, will be history in a few months.

Napier – John Ormond - ACT

Chris Tremain is the successful businessman who is now the local MP, a Nat, and his 9,000 vote majority in what was once a safe Labour seat is notable.  Labour list MP Stuart Nash is standing, and at number 27 is fairly comfortably in anyway.  Nash is not one of the worst Labour MPs, but then again Tremain as a local businessman has lots of “plans for Napier” which isn’t exactly consistent with less government.   John Ormond is ACT’s candidate is a strong opponent of ETS, so deserves your vote.  Tremain should be safe in any case at 22 on the list.

Nelson - Maryan Street - Labour

Maryan Street is one of Labour’s best and smartest candidates. Yes she is Labour left through and through, but she isn’t Nick Smith. Nick Smith is the most loathsome of National MPs, a little control freak, who doesn’t believe in private property rights, who embraces the RMA. Nick Smith is a major reason why National looks a lot like Labour.  So vote Street, because for all she is, she is better than Smith.  Smith has a majority of nearly 8,500, and ACT’s Paul Hufflett has no profile.  Smith is number 6 on National’s list and Street is number 7 on Labour’s so both are guaranteed in, but Smith deserves a bloodied nose for simply being completely uninterested in private property rights.  Hold your nose and tick Street, at least she is honest about what she stands for,  but if you can’t handle that, you can vote for the unknown Hufflett knowing it wont make a difference.

New Lynn - Tim Groser - National

Local MP Silent T is a vile nasty character, whose intelligence belies a cold instinct to love power and step on those who get in his way.  He has proven his vileness even more this time with his sexist comment about Judith Collins.  He has the knife out for Phil Goff assuming Labour loses in this election.  Silent T has a 4,000 vote majority, which isn’t unbeatable. National’s Tim Groser is a list MP at number 12, so is a shoo in, silent T at number 3 is as well.  Barbara Steinijans is the ACT candidate who strongly supports free markets and is critical of the welfare state.  You may choose to vote for her, but I’d prefer a vote for Groser, to give Silent T a kick where it hurts.  He is, after all, one of those vying to be a future leader, and his political career is worthy of cauterising.

New Plymouth – Jamie Dombroski – Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party

Jonathan Young of National slipped past Harry Duynhoven in 2008, with a razor thin majority of 105.  Jonathan Young opposed allowing Easter shop trading, and as Venn Young’s son, he isn’t exactly a great friend of freedom.  ACT has stepped to one side to ensure Young fights Labour’s Andrew Little, a long standing unionist, but that's hardly consistent with more freedom and less government.  Little is number 15 on the Labour list, so is in anyway, Young is number 45 on National’s so is probably in too.  The only candidate supporting freedom is Jamie Dombroski of the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party, so give him a tick. 

North Shore – Don Brash - ACT

With Wayne Mapp’s retirement, National is putting forward Maggie Barry, who is unlikely to get elected on the list at number 57.  Barry has nothing serious to offer in terms of fighting for less government.  She doesn’t deserve your vote and is an insult to thinking voters who believe in less government.  Labour's Ben Clark writes on The Standard, which demonstrates a love of gutter politics, so should be ignored.   However, there is one candidate who deserves your vote above all other.  Don Brash winning North Shore would do two things, it would shake National from its complacency in selecting a celebrity over an achiever, but it would also mean ACT would have a presence in Parliament that is NOT reliant on Banks.   As much as Michael Murphy, the Libertarianz candidate is a fine chap and unrelenting defender of freedom, Brash deserves your vote here.  This is ACT’s last chance to be the party committed to individual freedom, and so is by far the most important electorate vote for freedom lovers.   Most of all, it would free ACT from being dependent on Epsom and indeed is a natural constituency for that party.  Vote Brash, remembering that many of you did in 2005 anyway.

Northcote - Peter Linton - Libertarianz

Dr Jonathan Coleman is the Nat MP. He’s a clever chap but at 16 on the list he’s in anyway and has a 9,300 or so majority, so is at no real risk. Pick Peter Linton of Libertarianz because he'll send a signal about belief in small government.  He’ll stir them up and be a strong advocate for your self defence and your right to decide on your health care and education.  You can vote for Peter positively.

Northland – Lynette Stewart - Labour

Hone Carter’s retired so Mike Sabin is National’s candidate.  Carter held the seat with a 10,000 vote majority, so Sabin should be in, but does he deserve it?  Well no.  His profile is impressive, but his big thing is drugs.  He has a long history in drug law enforcement and in reducing drug use.  Now I can empathise with wanting to reduce drug use, but none of what I saw indicated an interest in considering an alternative approach to criminalisation.  Sabin is no friend of freedom.  

Labour’s Lynette Stewart believes in the government “resetting the economic environment” to increase wages and jobs, without really knowing how, so she wont be any help.  At number 39 on the Labour list, she might make it anyway.  Sabin is 60 on the National list, so he needs to win Northland.  Barry Brill of ACT has a long history in politics, having once been a solid National MP, and is now an opponent of ETS.   Now Stewart may not be any help, but she is better than Sabin.  Parliament has enough people who are narrow minded about drug laws and who don’t have any time for hating drugs, but respecting the right of adults to choose what they put into their own bodies.  So, I’d advise a vote for Lynette Stewart purely to stop Sabin getting elected.  If you can’t stomach that, then Brill is certainly deserving of your vote.

Ohariu – Sean Fitzpatrick - Libertarianz

Ahh yes a very important seat. It’s simple. Dunne has to go. This man has voted to keep Labour in power for two terms and to grow bureaucracy, and now he is Minister of Revenue.  The one thing you can be sure of is he will support whatever government is in power.  He lost his socially liberal credentials years ago when he merged with the Christian Democrats, and how can you back the man whose greatest recent achievement is creating the Family Commission - a new bureaucracy?  Dunne’s majority last time was only 1,000, with Labour’s Charles Chauvel and National’s Katrina Shanks closely behind.   Yet you can't back Chauvel.    Chauvel is 11 on the Labour list and is a fairly typical centre-left MP, he isn't going to help shrink the state.  Shanks is ok, but been an uneventful Nat MP.  However, Libertarianz Deputy Leader Sean Fitzpatrick is far more interesting.  He runs a successful martial arts school in Wellington, and a more honest candidate you couldn’t find.  Eschew mediocrity and focus group driven candidates, and proudly give Fitzpatrick your vote.   Bear in mind a few will confuse him with someone else!

Otaki - Peter McCaffrey - ACT

National MP Nathan Guy won this off of Darren Hughes, but he is into Transmission Gully, his maiden speech used the word “free” once and he talked favourably about how important Nandor’s “Waste Minimisation Bill” is. You can’t seriously vote for this guy, and his 1354 majority makes him vulnerable.  Labour’s Peter Foster talks about people paying a `’fair share of tax” and “core state assets”, so is far too leftwing to deserve a tick.  Nathan Guy may be a bit vacant, but he’s not so evil to remove with such a character.  Peter McCaffrey of ACT led ACT on Campus Wellington, and was instrumental behind pushing for voluntary student union membership.  He soundly deserves your support.

Pakuranga – Chris Simmons - ACT

Maurice Williamson’s seat. Maurice is one of National’s better MPs, being an opponent of the awful move to the left of English in 2002, and supporting Brash in 2005. Key had stomped on Maurice, but then he found the “leaky homes” issue a bit of a challenge.  Maurice’s majority is nearly 14,000 and he is 19 on the list, so he will be in anyway and having been emasculated why bother? Vote Chris Simmons of ACT, just to put ACT ahead of the Greens, again.

Palmerston North – Leonie Hapeta - National

Labour candidate Iain Lees-Galloway holds this seat with a thin 1117 majority. This man is just vile, being anti-individualism and a unionist. Vote to keep him out, he is 37 on the list so may not make it if Labour does badly.  Leonie Hapeta is National’s candidate, she is unremarkable (mispelt “safety” on her website), but Lees-Galloway would be good to remove and one can always hope that any new talent for National will help, at 65 on the list she needs to win this seat to get elected.

Papakura – John Thompson - ACT

Judith Collins holds the seat with a majority of over 10,000.  Labour’s Jerome Mika is a unionist and not deserving.  Give John Thompson of ACT your vote, as Collins is number 7 on the list, and is at no risk of being removed, it will remind her a little that some people want less government than John Key offers.

Port Hills - Geoff Russell - ACT

Dyson is awful, and National is putting up David Carter, list MP to challenge her. Dyson is number 5 on the list anyway, Carter is 10, so both will be in anyway.  Dyson’s 3452 majority is likely to keep her safe, but this seat deserves a shake up.  Vote ACT’s Geoff Russell to make Carter think about those who want less government.

Rangitata – Tom Corbett - ACT

Jo Goodhew is the Nat MP, she has a majority of just over 8,000 and at 23 on the list is safe.  She described herself in her maiden speech as one who “juggle work and family, who scorn political correctness, who value self-reliance and believe that working hard should bring personal benefits, not increased taxation”. Not great, but not bad, yet of course she is part of the government.  I backed her last time, but this time give her a little clip around the ears, vote Tom Corbett of ACT.

Rangitikei – Hayden Fitzgerald - ACT

Simon Power is standing down, so National has put forward Ian McKelvie.  He ought to win easily, as he has been Mayor of Manawatu and has a 12,000 vote majority to inherit.  ACT’s Hayden Fitzgerald says he is a libertarian, so is a far better bet for freedom than the unremarkable McKelvie.

Rimutaka – Alwyn Courtenay - ACT

Labour’s Chris Hipkins barely won this seat in 2008 with a majority of only 753.  National has chosen Jonathan Fletcher as candidate, with no list position, so he needs to be considered.  He says “At the age of 20, a visit to the United Nations inspired me with the vision that I could contribute to our country through politics.”  Hmm, not promising, especially since he has absolutely nothing on his campaign website saying what he stands for and what he wants to achieve.  I can’t endorse an open book, because someone else will write what he will do and think.  Especially given Hipkins is 30 on the Labour list so likely to get in anyway.  Annoy Fletcher by voting for Alwyn Courtenay of ACT.

Rodney – Beth Houlbrooke - ACT

Lockwood Smith is retiring, but he leaves a 15635 majority for National candidate Mark Mitchell who has a long career in the Police, as a hostage negotiator and built a business from scratch.  He will almost certainly win, but a better bet for freedom is Beth Houlbrooke from ACT.

Rongotai – Joel Latimer - ACT

Annette King is hardly threatened by Chris Finlayson, with a 9,000 vote majority and being number 2 on the list, although he is one of the better Nat candidates, that isn’t a high threshold to cross.  Vote ACT’s Joel Latimer, as the best option to make a small stand for less government.

Rotorua – Abstain, spoil your ballot

Todd McClay is the National MP with a 5,000 vote majority and he is no friend of free markets and small government.  The empty headed Steve Chadwick is running for Labour so no better.   You really can’t do anything here, so abstain or spoil your ballot.  McClay isn’t worth saving.

Selwyn – Jo McLean - Labour

Amy Adams of National is the MP with a majority of around 11,000.   However, she has been supportive of the response to the Christchurch earthquake.  Labour’s Jo McLean has no chance of being elected, she is not on the list, Adams is 28 on the Nat list so is likely to be elected anyway.  Tick McLean to give Adams a bit of a fright, but if you can’t, just abstain or spoil your ballot.

Tamaki – Stephen Berry -  Independent

Sadly Allan Peachey passed away recently, so National selected Simon O’Connor to succeed him.  However, one candidate stands out above the others.  Stephen Berry is a libertarian and fighting tooth and nail for freedom in this electorate. This is one candidate you can soundly tick for and know he believes in less government.

Tamaki-Makaurau - Pita Sharples - Maori Party

Pita Sharples is the MP with a majority of nearly 8,000.  Shane Jones is Labour’s challenge, and although he is a list MP who will be in at number 18, he is really just a professional bureaucrat.  For all his faults, Sharples is the only Maori Party MP worth supporting.   It’s a tough call.  After all, eliminating the Maori Party removes a barrier to eliminating the Maori seats, but Sharples will probably make this his last term.  He’s a better man than Shane Jones, so he should – just, deserve support.

Taranaki-King Country – Shane Ardern - National

Shane Ardern, yawn. Yep, what a star.  A majority of over 15,000 so he is a sure thing, and is 27 on the list.   Labour’s Rick Barker is having a shot, but doesn’t deserve your vote, as he is number 25 on the list so fairly secure.  You could vote Victoria Rogers of United Future, but there is no good reason to do so.  Tick Ardern because he is inoffensive and because he will be in anyway, and is likely to question ETS at caucus.

Taupo – Roseanne Jollands - ACT

Louise Upston is the MP, with a majority of around 6,400.  The quote attributed to her “The police are good. The criminals are bad. It's that simple” doesn’t bode well for freedom.  Labour’s Frances Campbell isn’t worth your vote on freedom grounds.  ACT’s Roseanne Jollands would give Upston a small message, but her profile is hardly inspiring either.

Tauranga - Simon Bridges - National

Simon Bridges helped keep Winston out in 2008 and gained a majority of over 11,000.  You could consider Kath McCabe from ACT, but she is an environmental lawyer.  Could you trust her to replace the RMA with private property rights?  I’d give Bridges another go, just because he deserves it for having helped keep out Winston.

Te Atatu - Tau Henare - National

Labour is putting Phil Twyford up to replace Chris Carter.  Twyford is a scaremongering socialist who reminds me somewhat of Sue Kedgley.   At 33 on the Labour list he is likely to get in anyway.  I’m going to endorse Tau Henare, if only because Twyford needs to be avoided.  Henare gives the Nats a bit of a shake up, which is actually worth something.

Te Tai Hauauru – Soraya Peke Mason - Labour

You can’t vote for Tariana Turia, she’s mad as can be. Tick Soraya Peke Mason of Labour, to remove her, and replace a Labour list candidate whilst reducing the overhang caused by the Maori Party winning more seats than it is entitled to get with party votes.

Te Tai Tokerau – Kelvin Davis - Labour

The loathsome Marxist Hone Harawira doesn’t deserve your vote.  Tick Kelvin Davis of Labour, he is the best bet to remove him, and at 23 on Labour’s list, you wont feel guilty about voting for him, as he is in anyway.  However, removing the Mana Party is a worthy mission like removing a cancerous growth on liberty.

Te Tai Tonga – Rino Tirikatene - Labour

Removing Maori Party MPs will remove the overhang and reduce a barrier to eliminating the Maori seats.  Vote Rino Tirikatene for a Labour MP who replaces someone from the list (who is typically worse) and to send these seats back to a party that thinks wider than race based policies.

Tukituki – Romana Manning – Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party

Yes well Craig Foss is the Nat MP, with a majority of 7800.  He is also unremarkable. ACT’s Robert Burnside doesn’t have a profile that mentions freedom in any form, so how can he be endorsed.  Vote Romana Manning of ALCP, as you know what she thinks on one issue, and she wears a Police outfit on her profile - which is intriguing.

Waiariki – Louis Te Kani - Labour

Remove the Maori Party’s Te Ururoa Flavell by voting Louis Te Kani of Labour.  Bear in mind that this is also about rejecting the evil cheerleader of 9/11, Annette Sykes.  Again, returning this to Labour replaces a Labour list MP and helps eliminate the overhang.

Waikato – Robin Boom - ACT

Lindsay Tisch hasn’t been a star but with a majority of nearly 13,000 has this covered.  Kate Sutton isn’t the worst Labour candidate, but at number 35, she might be in on the list, so don’t give her a second thought. Robin Boom of ACT rejects the ETS and Tisch needs that message, so give him a tick for that, though not much else.

Waimakariri - Clayton Cosgrove - Labour

Keeping Clayton Cosgrove around will annoy the Labour left and Kate Wilkinson of National doesn’t deserve to win because of National’s performance over the earthquake (and is number 19 on the list so will be in anyway).  Tick Cosgrove as a protest against National in Christchurch and because he is a moderating influence in the Labour caucus.

Wairarapa - Richard McGrath - Libertarianz

Vote for NZ’s most freedom loving GP – Dr Richard McGrath for Libertarianz. He’s a fine man, and has a good profile in the electorate.  You don’t need to think twice about this.   National’s John Hayes will probably win given his comfortable majority of around 6,700, but I strongly endorse McGrath politically and personally as the one candidate of all I most would like to see elected, across the country.  He would shake up healthcare, the war on drugs and would always take a balanced and measured approach, that adds up to whether any government measure reduces freedom and individual rights or increases it.  Vote McGrath with pride.

Waitakere – Peter Osborne - Libertarianz

Paula Bennett of National has a tiny majority here of 632, and faces a real challenge from Carmel Sepuloni of Labour.  Bennett is number 14 on the list though, so she isn’t going to be out.  Sepuloni is 24 on the Labour list, so is also likely to be in as well.  However, you have a real freedom loving candidate here, Peter Osborne of Libertarianz deserves your vote more than Bennett.  After all, it’s not like either the major candidates face getting ejected.

Waitaki – Colin Nicholls - ACT

Jacqui Dean is the current MP and an enemy of freedom, voting against her is like voting against Jim Anderton.  She wanted to ban party pills and is a Blue Green.  Labour’s Barry Monks has NO profile on the party website, so I can't even start to consider him.  Jacqui Dean’s 11000 majority is unassailable, even with her number 41 list placing which is likely to be good enough.  ACT’s Colin Nicholls supports lower taxes, abolishing ETS, one law for all and privatisation.  That is the best deal you can get here, and better than Dean.

Wellington Central – Reagan Cutting - Libertarianz

Labour’s Grant Robertson has a majority of 1904 here, so National has a chance here with Paul Foster-Bell (his number 56 list placing is too low to be likely).  Yet while he claims to be classically liberal, he also claims to be a Blue Green.  Stephen Whittington of ACT is quite the libertarian candidate, but why vote for him when you can choose the real thing with Reagan Cutting.   After all it is better for him to beat the Alliance, Conservative Party and NZ First and show that Wellington Central isn't just bureaucrats voting to feather their nests.

West Coast-Tasman – Steven Wilkinson – Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party

Chris Auchinvole is the Nat MP who ousted Damien O’Connor and gained a narrow 971 majority.  O’Connor is standing for the seat only, not the list.  He is better than any on the Labour list.  However, O’Connor is not exactly a freedom fighter, so no point ousting Auchinvole for O’Connor.  Auchinvole has list position 43 so is probably safe anyway.  You might consider Allan Birchfield of ACT, who is anti RMA but he thinks there is a carbon tax.  So on that basis, better choosing Steven Wilkinson of the ALCP for the obvious reason.

Whanganui - Alan Davidson - ACT

Chester Borrows is the Nat MP here, he thinks all children are ours and like Sue Bradford says “I want to live in a country that claims all children as their own and accepts the glory and the responsibility of that”. The Labour candidate isn’t worth ticking, as he was grateful for the welfare state even though he is decidedly middle class.  He also volunteered for John Kerry’s Presidential campaign!  ACT is standing Alan Davidson again, a man who strongly believes in personal freedom, so give him a tick.

Whangarei - Helen Hughes - Libertarianz

Phil Heatley is another shoo in here, so you can safely vote for someone who does passionately believe in individual freedom. Vote Helen Hughes for Libertarianz, with pride. She’s more charismatic and better looking than Heatley any day, and she'll mean more for freedom than he ever will.

Wigram – Geoff McTague – Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party

Jim Anderton is retiring and his party is gone, so Labour expects to win this with Megan Woods, a former Andertonian.  It might be tempting to vote for National’s Sam Collins, but this is Christchurch and he is supportive of what the government has done.  You can’t endorse this.  Geoff McTague of the ALCP is your only choice for freedom.

It total this adds up to:


26 ACT
8 Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party
2 Independents
11 Labour
8 Libertarianz
9 National 
1 Maori Party
4 Abstain

P.S.  If any candidate thinks I have unfairly ignored her or him, then feel free to plead your case for being a positive vote for more freedom and less government.  Social creditors, xenophobes and believers in theocracy need not apply.