Why get local government out of transport?

Well the NZ Herald gives a great example:

"Chris Darby, North Shore City's representative on the Regional Transport Committee, acknowledged that a 34 per cent Government increase in highway construction funding over the next three years may give the country a short-term economic development boost."

You might ask what a Regional Transport Committee is needed for, before the last government it was nearly impotent.

Mr Darby condemned the (new government funding) policy statement, which Auckland Regional Council officers have estimated will require 76 per cent of land transport funds to be spent on roads, as "an absolute time warp to the 1950s."

A time warp - even though easily 40% of funds are always spent on maintenance as it is, is it that unreasonably to spend three quarters on road maintenance and upgrades? The rest of the world is building roads, but Mr Darby is a local government planner, and he wants to throw other people's money at modes he thinks Aucklanders ought to be using, rather than letting Aucklanders choose, after paying real prices for using roads and public transport.

ARTA itself admits that 86% of commutes in Auckland are undertaken by car, but only 7% by public transport (most of which is NOT rail) and 5% by walking and cycling. So it is hardly unreasonable for central government to expect 76% of Auckland transport funding to go to roads, roads move over 90% of Auckland commuters, railways move less than 2% and the rest go by ferry or footpath.

"He said it failed to provide against dwindling oil supplies and risked leaving future Aucklanders with redundant roading infrastructure and inadequate public transport to make do with less fuel.

"It will be a long-time liability - what we are seeing here really lacks imagination and I am convinced it lacks examination," he said."

Apparently Aucklanders will move by some other means, and Mr Darby is another commodity speculator who doesn't actually risk his own money on the assertion that oil prices will go sky high. If they don't use roads, will they fly? Railways couldn't physically move more than maybe 9% of Auckland commuters even if almost all those who live near them used them! So who lacks imagination?

What sort of imbecile is Mr Darby if he thinks there will be LESS fuel, not DIFFERENT fuel? Why will roads, the most flexible transport infrastructure there is, be redundant? HE is the person without examination of his assertion, they are the sort of rants of Green politicians, not anything from a transport professional.

So why should he have any say at all? He doesn't represent users, he doesn't represent producers, he represents planners.

What's wrong will letting those who maintain and build roads spend the money raised from taxing those using them. If there is less road use (as there is), there is less money and less road building. If there is more road use, then there is more money, and at peak times roads might cost a lot more (and a lot less at off peak times).

Similarly if there is more public transport use, there is more money to spend on services - oh yes, don't forget that Auckland local government has spent the last few years subsidising rail services and undermining commercial (unsubsidised) bus services, so more fare revenue doesn't mean more services, as it doesn't generate enough money for more.

So isn't it time that local government had its hands taken off one of the most essential sets of infrastructure in the country?

Does Rodney have a secret agenda?

I can only hope.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who is excluding Maori?

I note the image from this post on the Standard the specious claim that the new Auckland supercity (which I oppose) excludes Maori.

Not having preferential guaranteed representation based on race, when you have the same voting rights, same rights to stand candidates and be elected as everyone else, doesn't exclude - it simply means you are being treated the same.

No matter how some Maori paint it, any other option IS race based preference, it IS racism, and it is not what New Zealand in the 21st century should be embracing.

The matter of who your ancestors are should not give you privilege in government, and the idea that Maori need Maori to represent them is no more specious than to claim I need a brown haired blue eyed half Scottish, half English descent 30 something male who was adopted, with a double degree, mixed state and integrated Anglican education and is atheist, to represent me. Otherwise you think that political ideas are inherently dependent on race, which is a concept I'd rather was left back in history, like the Germans did in 1945.

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.

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.

David Farrar gets it but...

Yes on Kiwiblog he posts about "The Stalinist Wellington City Council" because WCC does not want new town centres and shopping malls to compete with existing shopping districts.

He is decidedly libertarian saying "So the Council has decided Kilbirnie and Miramar can get big shops, but Rongotai and Seatoun can not? I’ve got a better solution - let every business decide where they want to be located, and let the public decide if they will shop there."

Yes exactly David of course.

Now in the comments he gets some flack for saying Stalinist, given WCC doesn't run gulags, suppress free speech or have gun toting secret Police. Of course it is a hyperbole, but it is one with a core underlying point. Stalinists were central planners, those who thought they knew what was best for everybody and everything, and believed human beings could be moulded according to what was best for them, nor for their surroundings to be moulded into what human beings wanted.

That you see is the problem - planners want people to fit a plan, not for plans to fit people.

The comments are well worth a read, with Owen McShane, PhilBest and Paul Walker making perhaps the best.

Take this from Owen:

"Stalinist planning is planning from the top down based on the notion that central planners have superiour skills and knowledge and have the authority to direct and control the economy and of course the use of land. Stalinist planning refuses to acknowledge the efficiency of market led allocation of resources and the resulting spontaneous order..

We used to have a Town and Country Planning Act which gave councils the authority to direct and control the use of land and to manage the local economy. The RMA was supposed to have reversed this Stalinist approach by removing that authority and replacing it with the mandate to focus on adverse effects on the environment. Of course the central planners did not like this at all and soon persuaded the courts that you could not manage environmental effects without directing and controlling the use of land.

Climate change alarmism has now provided all the excuses they need."

The market "failures" are actually government failures to use the market, roads being the classic example.

Now what I'd like to know is why David persists with the National Party when it seems to positively embrace this in the RMA, and is doing nothing to change it, whilst promoting a mega-city that will enable Auckland to do one "Stalinist" plan for the whole region?

Why is Libertarianz now the only party that is fighting is?

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.

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.

Conflict of the commons... again

That is how to explain the conflict reported in Sunday News between street prostitutes and “The Papatoetoe Community Patrol”. It is as simple as that.

You see, the streets are owned by Manukau City Council, paid for by all ratepayers and by motorists. "The Papatoetoe Community Patrol" does not own them, neither do the street prostitutes, so whilst the streets and footpaths remain in “public ownership”, neither has any less right to be there.

From the perspective of private property rights, I do not have a problem with the street prostitutes plying their trade, but also not "The Papatoetoe Community Patrol" using persuasion to discourage people from being customers or sex workers. As long as no violence or threats of violence, against people or property as used, then let it be.

Now I find taking number plates to make use of the lack of privacy in the Motor Vehicle Registry to send letters to customers is rather nasty, a nosy finger pointing judgmentalism that some people don’t live their lives the way a “holier than thou” group does – or thinks it does. After all, far too often are groups of judgmental people populated by those with their own embarrassing secrets. It smacks of the Stasi in East Germany, snooping who pry on everything everyone does, but it can go both ways – prostitutes and their customers could always take photos of the patrol, or find ways to thwart them. Each to their own of course.

Nevertheless my point is simple. Privately owned footpaths would offer the opportunity to resolve this. For example, if you owned the footpath outside your property you could ban or allow any legal activity. A body corporate owning a whole street could do the same.

However, whilst it remains “public”, this sort of problem will remain. Different members of the public want to do different things in public places that do not involve initiation of force.

You can be certain that an extrem großen stadt for Auckland wouldn’t dare think of allowing property owners to take responsibility for their footpaths, in exchange for a reduction in rates. If all of the footpaths of a shopping district were owned by a body corporate they could happily ban street prostitution, or allow it. However, given what little interest this government has shown so far in protecting private property rights, I don't hold great hope for any significant change.

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.

A rates cap is not enough

A comment by Nick on one of my posts about the Auckland supercity said:

"Rodney Hide has said the LGA will be amended and this will include a cap on Rates to inflation + population growth. That cap will get rid of these quangos overnight even if the power of general competence remains."

Blair Mulholland thinks that:

"The point of the reforms was not to reduce the size of local government, although it may yet do that. The point was not to reduce rates, although it may yet do that. The point was always to destroy the vice-like grip of socialists and busybodies over our fair region."

Blair essentially thinks that the political demographic of the supercity will lean towards the centre-right, which is nonsense. He says "The Left will lose out in such a contest, not because they have less money (as they will inevitably whine) but because they are simply less organised in Auckland."

Blair is naive. The ARC has been centre-left dominated since its inception, it resisted selling the Yellow Bus Company when National last reformed local government, so had to be forced to do so by legislation because it could not fairly be a subsidiser of public transport through competitive tendering, and compete with the private sector in those tenders. The proposals create a grand ARC. It will NOT stop the vice like grip of busybodies over Auckland - not by a long shot.

Nick's more interesting point that a cap on rates (well after inflation and population growth) will be an effective constraint also misses certain key points. Such a cap does NOT restrict the regulatory powers of local authorities, it does NOT restrict the powers of local authorities to borrow and start up public sector businesses. Given the growth of local government in recent years, it does nothing more than slow down future growth.

Like I said before, a supercity for Auckland does nothing to address the core question - what should be the role of local government?

New Zealand is NOT a federal constitutional democracy. Local government has powers purely because central government lets it. Local government currently has unlimited powers because the Labour/Alliance coalition, with Green party support, granted it such powers.

A rates cap should be introduced quickly as an interim step, but a fundamental review of the powers and purpose of local government is needed - now - before super unitary authorities are to be created.

I'd hedge a bet that as long as people are confident their footpaths and roads would be maintained, rubbish collected, water/sewage systems function, and private property rights are protected from encroachment or torts (e.g. nuisance), most would want nothing more from local government.

Moreover, I struggle to find a single useful activity local government undertakes that can't simply be user pays in one capacity or another, or isn't just a matter of delineation of what ought to be property rights.

What do you want local government to do?

Well under the Local Government Act 2002, which National and ACT are willing to continue with, for the Auckland megacity, a council can do the following:

Open restaurants
Establish independent and integrated schools.
Open hospitals
Establish welfare benefits
Set up its own bus company
Run its own taxi company
Start its own plumbing business
Open a chain of hairdressing salons
Establish massage therapy centres
Establish bookshops
Open a supermarket
Set up a telecommunications company
Set up a courier and postal operation
Open a florist
Establish an architecture firm
Promote tourism
Open its own hotel
Start a tour service
Start an airline
Open shoe shops
Establish a radio station
Establish a tv channel
Establish a newspaper
Open a bar
Publish local literature
Set up a comedy troupe
Fund any Auckland sports teams
Sell Christmas Trees
Run a harbour cruise company
Establish a bakery
Establish crèches
Set rules on what colours your property must be
Open a clock factory
Subsidise software sales
Buy out a magazine
Buy SkyCity
Establish a museum of erotica
Establish a museum of racism and homophobia
Establish a museum of religion
Establish a museum of socialism
Establish its own trucking company
Establish a water bottling company
Open a chain of stationery stores
Develop its own Wikipedia
Provide gardening advice to home owners
Organise raffles
Establish language schools
Set up a national political party
Start a fish farm
Start a dairy farm
Start a sheep farm
Buy out a deer farm
Buy out a vineyard
Subsidise motor mechanics
Subsidise braille classes
Subsidise home water collection systems
Celebrate Hannukah with a parade
Celebrate Buy Nothing Day with a parade
Celebrate Margaret Thatcher's birthday with a parade
Celebrate the Queen's Birthday with fireworks
Publish recipe books of Auckland recipes
etc etc etc.

Do you want this? or do you want your council to be able to do the bare minimum of planning under whatever happens to the RMA, look after footpaths and parks, let rubbish collection, water and sewerage become utilities, and manage the stormwater network under roads as long as it looks after local streets?

You see, it seems that the power of general competence that Labour, the Alliance (with Jim Anderton then) and the Greens passed, now has the tacit approval of Peter Dunne, the Maori Party, National and ACT - despite the latter two parties voting against it.

Is this what you voted for? Shouldn't you be letting John Key and Rodney Hide know loud and clear if you disagree?

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.