NZ's Russian sanctions a step forward, but it's far too constrained

The Russia Sanctions Bill is welcome, but one big questions has to be asked. 

Why only have sanctions that can be applied to Russia including those backing Russia (like Belarus)? Why can it not be generic to enable sanctions against any state that egregiously invades another that is either a Permanent Member of the UN Security Council or an ally of it? The People's Republic of China is the obvious example, but it is entirely possible that China or Russia might veto sanctions against the DPRK, or Iran, or Syria. 

Sure, it is complicating that the People's Republic of China has quite a free trade agreement with New Zealand, but is the Ardern Government that enamoured with the UN Security Council that it wont empower itself to impose sanctions at little notice in the event of a similarly attack elsewhere.

Is it not more powerful to have an autonomous sanctions bill that can be applied as required? 

Hopefully this legislation will get passed quickly and NZ can join the rest of the civilised world in sanctioning the Russian state, Russian politicians and businesses.  However, the entire performance over this shows how weak willed and morally unsure the Ardern Government is when facing real aggressive war, especially when it tries to show off how much it wants "disarmament" with Minister Twyford.

Nearly a year ago he made a speech about disarmament.  It's so utterly full of vapid platitudes that are almost sickening:

It would be comforting to think that, thanks to our rebelliousness in the 80s, and our relentless global advocacy ever since, nuclear weapons were no longer a threat to everything we hold dear.

Do you seriously think that NZ's anti-nuclear policy has had a remote impact at all on reducing the threats of nuclear war? 

How about this:

Youth are the ones whose futures are stolen by the countless billions of dollars spent on weapons every year that could be invested in health, education, and environmental protection if we had a more peaceful world.  

Well I think there are millions of youth in Ukraine who right now wish that much MORE was spent on their defence. Do serious people think defence spending occurs in a vacuum? Most of Europe has benign relations with war unthinkable, but that wasn't achieved by peace activism, it was achieved by having a continent of open free liberal democracies with mutual interests.

The rest of it is nice hippie like platitudes, but that is all. It's utterly without value, and offers nothing to confront those who regard human life as expendable. The value of peace is very little if you don't value freedom and the autonomy of people to be free from aggression.

and NZ does next to nothing to deter aggression, anywhere.

 

 

Three Waters Reform: The left opposed water reform in the 90s, why trust them now?

You might have noticed the childlike cartoons the Government has chosen to communicate to you about one of the most radical infrastructure policy reforms proposed for over twenty years – the Three Waters Reforms. Those cartoons might have put you off, but they shouldn’t. For all of the fluff government is involved in, one of the most important activities it unfortunately is responsible for is the supply of reticulated water and the collection of wastewater and stormwater. Forget Covid19, because if the water systems fail you really ARE in for a public health crisis. Millions of people worldwide don’t have access to clean drinking water and don’t have safe sewage collection and disposal, and it costs lives. This is important, too important to have those who use and pay for it talked down to like primary school children, and too important for you to ignore.  Bear with me, this is complicated...

What’s the problem?

The current system of managing water infrastructure is, in many parts of the country, a failure. Who could miss the regular reports out of Wellington, the capital, which has systematically failed to put enough ratepayers’ money into the water and sewage systems? Stories of drinking water from Hawke’s Bay to Otago being infected or tainted. So the case for reform is overwhelming. The Government’s own papers indicate 40,000 people lived under temporary or permanent “boil water” notices for their reticulated supply in the year 2018-2019. Four people died and over a third of the population in Havelock North became ill because Hastings District Council didn’t effectively manage the town’s water supply. An earlier study indicated 35,000 people get ill annually because of the quality of drinking water.

The Government’s own report estimates there is at least a $120 billion gap in capital spending on water infrastructure. Another stat is it is estimated that 21% of water is lost in reticulation – 1 in 5 litres of water that Councils collect to reticulate to homes and businesses is wasted in the distribution. That is frankly outrageous.  Local authorities are often reminding us all to look after the environment and not to waste water, but their own ineptitude results in enormous waste.  It is notable that there are limited statistics about the state of stormwater infrastructure, because local authorities just don't know. If your home or business has ever flooded due to rainfall, then you might care, because stormwater infrastructure is what helps protect your property.

Why has this happened?

The Government claims the problem is a matter of:

· Lack of economies of scale: 67 local authority entities supply water infrastructure (there are small private operations as well) without the capacity and capability to address issues. Career paths for those in the sector are limited with multiple small entities and small scale capital spending generates insufficient competition in the contracting sector to put price pressure on those costs. It claims water entities need customer bases in the high hundreds of thousands to be viable.  There is definitely merit in this.

· Unaffordability of needed investment: Under the current approach, the money ratepayers would need to be forced to spend to remedy historic underspending is enormous. Government estimates increases of 300-1500% in spending are needed over the next thirty years compared to current levels. This is quite credible, indicating a desperate need for both new capital and for ways to obtain efficiencies to reduce these costs over time.  However, it would be dishonest to pretend that those who use water shouldn't pay for this, albeit over many years. 

· Poor incentives and lack of effective oversight:  This is where the Government lays bear what’s REALLY wrong. It is that the model of “democratic control” of the provision of water services, and the “power of general competence” of local government in overseeing that control is a failure.  It is worth remembering that "democratic control" is a touchstone of leftwing political philosophy.  

To quote from the Government’s own report:

Local authority service providers operate in a political environment, in which investment decisions are made by elected representatives who have a duty to consider broader community interests (for example, other investment priorities and affordability of rates increases) and a constrained financial environment, in which the main funding and financing  mechanisms are via ratepayers and council borrowing. These factors combine to limit the level of three waters investment.

In short, local politicians prefer spending rates money on other stuff and prefer not to raise rates to pay for water infrastructure. It talks of misaligned incentives, which is surely a euphemism for politicians care most about being elected, second most about getting attention for shiny stuff they made ratepayers pay for, third most about other stuff they can get credit for in three years. How many local politicians campaign on fixing the pipes, especially when such work can literally take years to complete, is largely only visible as a disruption and the end result is… continuity of what you had before?

These failures are a legacy of opposition to water reform in the 1990s

Electricity, gas, telecommunications, aviation, ports, road transport, public transport, all were subject to significant reforms in the 1980s or 1990s, but water was largely left alone. With the sole exception of Auckland, with the creation of Watercare Services in 1991, all other water provision was left in the hands of territorial authorities. Water is a legacy of the Muldoon era and beyond, with the exception of some local authorities consolidating and in some cases implementing water metering, not a lot happened.

Some Aucklanders might remember the Water Pressure Group, led by the late, conspiracy theorist, Penny Bright.  One of the cause célèbre of the hard left was opposition to the commercialisation of water in Auckland seen in the creation of Watercare Services, which supplies water and wastewater (not stormwater) services in the city. The New Labour Party, later the Alliance (when it included the Greens) were loudly opposed to what they saw as the bogey of privatisation (which never happened).  As the Alliance was on the ascendancy, after the 1993 General Election, National pursued little in reform of the water sector, and as Labour went back to the left under Helen Clark, the idea of reforming water was parked.  After MMP, there was no majority for any serious reforms in the sector, and from 1999-2008 the Clark Government proceeded, with support from the Alliance and the Greens (who had now left the Alliance) to pass the Local Government Act 2002 to grant local government a "power of general competence".  In short, the left trusted local government to get on with the job. Of course the Key/English Government from 2008 until 2017 did nothing either to reverse it.

The power of general competence and community empowerment have been a failure

The implementation of the power of general competence was to usher in a new era.  Then Local Government Minister Sandra Lee said "It is both a reaffirmation of the place that local government has within our democracy, and of the rights of local people in their communities to exercise controls over their aspirations, their decisions, and the democracy that affects them."   

So communities were "empowered" which of course is code for empowering local politicians. Sandra Lee even made it clear that water privatisation was to be prevented. "We are not going to agree to allow councils to sell what is not a commodity--the access to clean water--but a fundamental human right."  I'm not sure how the people who died in Havelock North had their "fundamental human right" protected, and how asserting that right works if the Council has let the local infrastructure fall into disrepair.  Indeed then Associate Local Government Minister Judith Tizard later claimed credit for having including "cultural wellbeing" in the objectives of local government.  Not much culture if you're sick because the Council supplied water is contaminated.

Backed wholeheartedly by the Greens, the reforms were to usher in a new era of “local democratic accountability” with more powers to deliver what “the community wants”. Indeed, it is the heart of the mantra of the economic left that justice is achieved by more “democratic control” of resources. Well we’ve seen how democratic control of water has been going, and the results are in – it's been a failure.

 What needs to be fixed?

Users, in many cases, don’t pay for what they use. With the cost of water infrastructure for many hidden in rates bill, there are no incentives to manage water use, and those who need water face rationing alongside those who waste the resource. Furthermore, those who benefit from stormwater infrastructure don't necessarily pay rates reflecting the protection of property value they obtain from it (nor do insurance costs reflect that adequately).

Local authorities get paid rates regardless of how much water is used or wasted. So they have poor incentives to stop wasting 21% of the water collected and distributed, to plug leaks so that they can sell the water they collect. 

Local authorities aren't required to spend money on water infrastructure so they may levy water rates, or pay for water from general rates, but they have a "power of general competence" and they are accountable to you every three years at the ballot box.  They spend money how they like, and your power to change that is tiny.

Politicians are no better able to decide how best to spend money on water infrastructure than they are on electricity (which they don’t) or telecommunications (which they don’t) or on farms. Bear in mind local politicians are primarily responsible for housing shortages because they are the controllers of permission to build housing and to allow land to be used for housing. Expect them to make similar quality decisions around provision of essential infrastructure.

Imagine if your local power company spent the money raised from your power bill on a convention centre. The reason that, by and large, electricity and telecommunications infrastructure work is because you pay for its use and the providers spend the money on maintaining and providing the service. It’s capitalism working, because those companies borrow money based on future earnings and invest in the network to continue providing reliable service.

Given that the Ardern Government is the most leftwing government in New Zealand in nearly 40 years, you might think that with reality confronting ideology, they might actually think that this is a failure due to their own philosophy not working empirically. You see if the Douglas/Richardson reforms had NOT progressed, you’d be seeing the same malinvestment in electricity (which was beset with blackouts in the 70s and 80s before reforms), and telecommunications (which famously, before the mobile phone era, saw it take weeks to get a phone line installed).

What is proposed?

It’s curious that the Government has relied somewhat on Scotland as a source of advice for how to implement water, especially when its own report indicated much better performance in England (see above)– which DID famously reform water by privatising the lot in the 1980s. It notes that privatisation of water in England  improved productivity by 2.1% per annum over 24 years (64% all up) after adjusting for quality of service improvements. Achieving a net saving of 64% in cost over such a period has to be tempting.

That is, of course, the right answer.

It isn’t proposing that, because you see, the Ardern Government is in many ways, continuity Alliance,

It is proposing:

· A water regulator to set standards for water quality, with powers to direct water providers to act to meet its directives;

· Consolidating 67 entities into 4;

· The new entities will be owned by local government

· Two boards will govern the new entities. A professional independent board, akin to boards supplying other infrastructure (a semi corporate board) and a regional representative board, which is to be split 50/50 between local government and Iwi.

· The Regional Representative Board will appoint members to the independent selection panel to select the Board, which will then select the board. In effect local authorities and Iwi will indirectly appoint the board.

· Setting of charges must be done transparently, with no changes to how people are charged in “the initial years”. The new entities will have powers to borrow.

· Protections against privatisation, mostly by local government and Iwi having to have a 75% majority in favour of it.

· The entities be statutorily required to uphold “the principles” of Te Tiriti, with the board needing to have competence in Te Tiriti, Tikanga, Matauranga and Te Ao Maori;

· The entities must direct water users funds towards the capacity and capabilities of mana whenua to support delivery of water services

· To throw taxpayers’ money at the entities to lure in local government to agree.

So it is resisting commercialising the delivery of water, preferring to largely aggregate water into entities similar to what governs water in some parts of the country already. They will be, in effect, very large Non-Commercial Council Controlled Organisations with co-governance with Iwi.

What other options were considered?

Well not commercialisation or privatisation.

The report indicates that three other options were considered:

· Local government led reform: This of course would be consistent with the Government’s philosophy, but has no merit because there are few incentives to make it work.

· A National Water Fund, akin to how land transport funding operates. Except there are no fees charged for water use nationally, and it wouldn’t really fix anything other than enable consumers in places which have well managed water systems to subsidise those in areas that don’t.

· Regulatory reform only, in other words introducing a regulator without structural reform. This would not achieve efficiencies and achieve only limited accountability.

So privatisation wasn’t considered, but the Government should be transparent as to why – which is ideology and politics. Why wasn’t commercialisation considered, by creating genuine arms-length council owned water companies, similar to Watercare services? Why not vest those companies in shares held by ratepayers (noting that it is property owners that primarily benefit from stormwater infrastructure, which protects their property from damage) or even just citizens and permanent residents as consumers? After all, the success in England in holding companies to account for quality of service, levels of investment and addressing systemic underinvestment is considerable. Why does the Ardern Government acknowledge that success then steer down another path? It seems like it is purely ideological.

What's good about the proposals?

Large entities will be able to be more professional, achieve significant capacity building and attain economies of scale. There is no doubt that there are far too many local water entities. Having borrowing powers and the ability to levy charges on consumers is also critical, but these powers largely exist now within local government.  Regulatory oversight ought to result in better outcomes than just leaving it to local government and iwi to manage, and more money will ease the pain, but that's transferring a burden from ratepayers and water consumers to general taxpayers, with no sense of the distributional impacts of that.  

What's wrong about the proposals?

The new entities wont be companies, wont be required to make a return on capital or to pay tax, meaning it will be less transparent as to whether they are operating as efficiently as they could be, or maximising the utility of their assets. As a much larger version of the current model, there isn’t so much incentive to treat those who consume water and use wastewater and stormwater services as customers. Having a customer, provider relationship more directly would provide much more input into consumer preferences than by having an advisory board.  What's fundamentally wrong with considering water similar to electricity?

Local government will still own the entities, although this ownership effectively diluted because governance is now shared with iwi, who own none of the infrastructure, nor are accountable to ratepayers.

There are probably too few entities proposed and Watercare Services, which has fewer problems compared to many other water entities, will be required to be decommercialised and merged with Northland water provision, which may mean Aucklanders cross subsidising water infrastructure in Northland. There is no need to dis-establish Watercare Services and no options given as to the number or geography of the proposed entities. Local authorities that are successful ought not to be forced to be subsumed by entities of those that are not, noting that the three waters are NOT an integrated network like energy, telecommunications and roads. There is little need for disjointed networks to be managed together, except to achieve economies of scale and professional capacity for competency.

Governance remains highly political. With local government half responsible for appointing the panel that then selects the board, the incentives are there to offer positions to those they know and trust, in short local authority nepotism. With four entities, headquartered and dominated by Auckland, Hamilton, Wellington and Christchurch, expect the local authorities of those cities to take charge.

The introduction of iwi governance is a vast increase in power for iwi over core infrastructure that has no precedent in other industries, and which assumes that Maori as both consumers or voters is insufficient in protecting and promoting their interests, although it might certainly promote iwi interests. The iwi role will be to share oversight with local government, which already has a growing mandatory iwi co-governance role in any case. Iwi have the same incentives as local government in appointing people to select a board to govern water. The outcomes expected from this are extremely vague such as enabling mana whenua to express kaitiakitanga, but what will this achieve in terms of outcomes such as water quality, quality of investment and accountability? Embedding Te Mana o Te Wai is harmless enough, but this is hardly unique, because Te Mana o Te Wai is universal to humanity. More fundamentally, the Government is effectively proposing a transfer of 50% of the power around the water sector to iwi, with neither the responsibility of ownership, or accountability to consumers or the owners of that infrastructure. It is a significant uplift from current obligations around consultation with Iwi, to hand over an equal share of governance, with no indication of outcomes or what it means for other sectors such as electricity, gas or telecommunications. It is a form of privatisation of governance, to iwi. I

Now there IS a valuable point in “iwi/Māori have roles within the current three waters service delivery system that will need to be acknowledged. They are suppliers and/or recipients of water services (particularly to rural marae, papakāinga, and rural communities).” As suppliers, they should be subject to the same oversight as other suppliers, but as recipients they are little different from anyone else. They receive a mix of good and poor service, but it is unclear why their role as consumers is more special than anyone else. Sure, water is a taonga, but it is to all humanity. It’s ludicrous to claim that it is more special to iwi than it is to any other.

However, this is more fundamentally about the Government’s interest in what is, in effect, creeping constitutional reform, by redefining the Te Tiriti partnership of Crown and Iwi, into one that goes beyond meaningful consultation and engagement, to sharing powers over assets that do not belong to iwi (the three Waters are about infrastructure, not lakes, rivers and streams after all). There IS a role for consulting iwi about the use of property they own or control, but to privatise half of the control over ratepayer owned infrastructure, to iwi deserves to be justified in terms of outcomes, when the reforms themselves are based on addressing serious problems with the status quo. Should this really be used as an opportunity to facilitate more iwi control?

What should happen?

Reforms are badly needed, primarily because many local authorities have proven themselves utterly inept in managing and funding water infrastructure. However, the Government is proposing to consolidate existing water entities, including successful ones, into four entities which largely resemble Council Controlled Organisations and share governance with iwi. Yes, having professional large water utility entities will be a step forward, but continuing to have significant local authority governance, which has proven to fail, and using the reforms to implement iwi co-governance, with no sense as to what improvements to outcomes this could deliver, is missing an opportunity.

Government should be bold, it should transfer the water assets of local government into a handful of specialist water companies, and issue shares in them all to all property owners connected to their networks and float the companies on the share market (and as a sop to fear over foreign takeover, you could even cap foreign ownership at 49%). Let the water companies meter or flat fee property owners for their services, and force councils to drop rates proportionately and NOT increase them by more than inflation. Given their quasi-monopoly status, central government should oversee the water companies in terms of drinking water quality, but by having popular share ownership concerns over water companies gouging consumers can be ameliorated.  If the Government did this, I'd accept the value of an independent regulator, to monitor and report on performance.

 It’s time to take the three waters out of the hands of politicians and put it in the hands of consumers as shareholders, and run it like a business. You have no more reason to trust this Labour Government with water reform than you would Jim Anderton, who opposed competition and privatisation of telecommunications, electricity, aviation etc etc.

We've seen the results of having a utility sector entirely at the behest of democratic accountability to the community under local government. It's been a failure.  The water sector needs reforming, it needs bold moves resembling what happened and succeeded in England in the 1980s. Shame the Government is willfully ignorant and unwilling to even consider that model as an option.

The Government claims significant benefits from their reforms, over thirty years. This may well be credible, but is based on many assumptions around efficiency savings seen in Scotland with consolidation, and that these efficiencies wont be lost in a strange new co-governance model.  However, since the Government didn't even look at the option of following England  - even without privatising the companies - we wont know if it chose the best option, as the options analysis has clearly been politically cauterised, by people whose political ideology has so demonstrably failed in this instance.

Why would anyone trust them to get this right now?  

Local authorities are currently consulting on whether communities support the Three Waters Reforms, and many oppose it, not least because local government never likes losing power and influence.  You should let them know that you oppose the proposals, but not because it takes powers away from local communities (whatever that is), but because it puts power in the hands of people who are NOT primarily interested in delivering efficient, high quality services to consumers.

So tell your territorial authority AND tell your local MP what you think of these reforms.  Be grateful also that electricity and telecommunications aren't being run by your local authority.  Imagine the blackouts.

Are the hate speech proposals anything more than ineptitude?

Jacinda Ardern has demonstrated since the last election that she isn’t a “do nothing” Prime Minister, she wants to be transformative. She has been elevated by the predominantly left-leaning media domestically and internationally as a political superstar, quite something for someone who led a party that came a fairly distant second in 2017 and only gained powered with the support of two other parties (and until the Christchurch terror attack was looking lacklustre in the polls).  She has capacity for emotional empathy, rather than hard-nosed policy, and it is the former that drives her to reform laws on hate speech.  It’s clear she despises, like any right-thinking people, the ideology that drove the shooter to commit mass murder on the basis of religious belief. The idea that there are people who speak, shout, type, write or otherwise express hatred to others is a mystery to her, and her philosophy of the purportedly kind, caring, maternalistic state runs through so much of what she does and says.

So, she thinks, it is entirely consistent with her vision of the big mother state that people be prohibited from being mean to others.  The original issue around the Human Rights Act is that the two key provisions, S.61 and S.131, only apply to “colour, race, ethnic and national origins”, but of course an attack on Muslims isn’t readily defined by this, as Muslims can be from any racial or ethnic background, with majority Muslim countries ranging from Bosnia-Hercegovina through to Indonesia geographically.  However, it’s not so simple to simply amend the law to add “religious belief” because the law as it stands is absurdly worded.

The current provisions prohibit expressions that are “threatening, abusive, or insulting” (S.61) or “with intent to excite hostility or ill-will against, or bring into contempt or ridicule” (S.131).  Few would argue with the term threatening, but insulting is awfully close to prohibiting calling people names. Whereas bringing into contempt or ridicule looks exactly like a ban on criticism or certain forms of humour.  Allowing a law change to prohibit intentionally ridiculing people because of their religion is almost a law against blasphemy.  Sure it’s not nice to ridicule people’s religion, but the right to ridicule religion came from the Enlightenment.

So Ardern’s proposals (one can’t assume that the empty headed Kris Faafoi had much agency over these proposals) are to replace “threatening, abusive or insulting” and “with intent to excite hostility or ill-will against, or bring into contempt or ridicule” with a much more simple provision: 

intentionally incite/stir up, maintain or normalise hatred… of protected groups… through threatening, abusive or insulting communications, including inciting violence

Working backwards I know no one who disagrees with laws against inciting violence, so clarifying this alone would be welcome, but why restrict it to protected groups?  Inciting violence against ANY group of people (with a defence of self defence to cover situations when a group might attack someone or their property) should be a crime.  Why would it not be? However the rest deserves very close scrutiny indeed.

The proposal seeks to prohibit certain actions being “threatening, abusive or insulting communications”, with certain intent “to incite/stir up, maintain or normalise hatred” of the listed protected groups.  The key word here is “hatred”.  What is hatred?

For hatred to be “incited” or “stirred up” it must already exist somewhat, and certainly “maintain” and “normalise” are for emotions that already exist, “normalise” implies that there is hatred that exists that the “bad person” wants to say is valid.

Ardern doesn’t think hatred should exist, at least not towards the protected groups.

Going back to the actions that are sought to be prohibited, few would argue against threats, but what about abuse or insults? The most confusing element of these proposals is exactly what the terms mean, how a judge or the Police will interpret them in practice, and to help inform that it is useful to understand exactly what Ardern and her acolytes (including the Greens) think is action that is insulting and abusive, or even threatening, and how they interpret hatred.  You see it is the jurisprudence of today and the intentions of Parliament and how that percolates into the Police and the judiciary that matters.

And we all know what that culture is.  It’s the culture that is seen in trans-activism, that deems feminists who are concerned about self-identified trans-women with penises convicted of sexual assault entering womens’ prisons, as TERFS and spreading hatred.  There’s no nuance, the feminists are directly accused of inciting hatred, rather than engaging in a debate about a sensitive issue.  

It’s the culture seen in race-activism, that declares an organisation or system “racist” if the outcomes are not proportionate to inputs by race, always according to the race or races the race-activists are concerned about (they blank out other minorities performing much better).  It’s racist to be focused on the correct answer in mathematics according to some race activists in the United States, so would insisting that students not pass unless they get problems solved correctly “stirring up hatred”? Is ridiculing such people seen as threatening? 

It’s the culture of sex-activism. The lack of equal proportions of women on company boards or the so-called “gender wage gap” if challenged is seen as sexist, because equality of opportunity is not the goal.  Unless outcomes are equal, the system is one with entrenched misogyny, although the lack of men in primary school teaching is not seen otherwise. Is questioning the gender wage gap “normalising hatred”? Is this seen as insulting communications?

It’s the culture promoting permanent welfare dependency. Some on the left promote a guaranteed minimum income or perpetual increases in welfare benefits for those who don’t find work that they want. Is claiming that someone who has been on welfare for years is lazy or that the welfare state is parasitical inciting hatred against people on welfare?  Why is receiving taxpayer money seen as being deserving of protection, but having money taken from you by the government not?  

Finally, it’s the culture of blasphemy.  Charlie Hebdo has produced many magazine covers grotesquely insulting of religious figures.  There is little doubt that many adherents of those religions regard them to be insulting or even abusive and would argue that they are intended to incite hatred.  Could the law even be turned on itself by arguing that the likes of Charlie Hebdo are inciting hatred from Muslims against them as a provocation?  The same can be said of the Life of Brian, which some Christians may interpret as inciting hatred against them, through ridicule and insults to their religion.  It’s not hard to tell which of these is more likely to be seen as falling foul of the law.

One of Charlie Hebdo's highly offensive covers

And that’s just some of the protected categories.  Most of them are ridiculous.  What should be by far the biggest concern is that the very idea of including these protected categories got not only past officials, but past Ministers and the Prime Minister.

What mindset thinks it is ok to make hatred of groups according to political or ethical opinion illegal?  

There can be only two possible conclusions, mind-numbing stupidity or a sinister and disturbing set of beliefs about the limits of a free society.  With this government both are entirely plausible.  There is no shortage of very poor quality policy initiatives, whether it be the Climate Change Commission, housing, He Puapua, Fair Pay Agreements or the mess around large scale managed isolation vacancies whilst foreigners, and much much more.  

So it is quite likely that the Ministry of Justice lacks institutional capability to actually remove political and ethical beliefs from this discussion paper, but it must have gone through senior managers.  By what logical contortion can anyone defend criminalising hatred against Nazis?  This is what professional civil servants are meant to do, protect Ministers from doing anything stupid.

Because it’s abundantly clear neither Kris Faafoi nor his own Chief of Staff and advisors are capable of it.  He’s most certainly well out of his depth as Minister of Justice, it being utterly laughable that he is expected to lead a major legal reform.  Which then comes to the Prime Minister.  How could DPMC let this go through, how could Ardern and her advisors think it was right to criminalise hatred against people who think (for example), that sex between adults and children should be encouraged (e.g, groups like NAMBLA), or that human beings should progressively wipe themselves out (the voluntary human extinction movement), or the Khmer Rouge (a political group)?  Are they inept letting this get through, or just a bunch of woke morons who discuss and debate issues like some sort of mutually reinforcing circle of intellectual onanism?  Is it new age stupidity that thinks hatred is always wrong?

I’d like to think it isn’t sinister.  If Ardern et al genuinely think it might be a good idea to ban hatred by political group, they want to sanitise all political and ethical discussion to abolish “hatred” of ANY opinion.  It’s classic moral relativism, that all ideas are equally valid and ok, and nobody should “hate” people for having opinions that offend them.  This seems unlikely, not least because the dominant philosophical thread of this government and indeed the political mainstream is to not think all ideas are equally valid and ok, but rather a culture of wanting to suppress opinions that cause offence. I suspect Ardern doesn’t want to criminalise hatred against feminists against trans-gender radicalism (it’s not radicalism, it’s mainstream), but she does want to criminalise feminists hating trans-gender radicalism.  I suspect she doesn’t want to criminalise hating Nazis, but she does want to criminalise hating the Labour Party.  

The proposals should be scrapped, and much more simple reforms be instituted.  It should be abundantly clear that threatening behaviour whether communications or actions should be illegal, and that threatening behaviour should be towards individuals or ANY group of individuals defined by the person threatening.  They should not be defined by category.  Threatening Muslims, Green Party members, real estate agents, golfers, buskers or redheads should all be illegal, enough with the identitarian slicing and splicing people by categories.  Threats should include abuse that is threatening.

Creating a new law against hatred should be abandoned.  Ardern should sack Faafoi and appoint someone competent to be Minister of Justice, and that Minister should send shivers through the Ministry of justice that it dared propose such authoritarian rubbish that is seen in this discussion document.

You have under four weeks to make a submission - you should do it here.  

New laws on hate speech: An honest attempt to protect people or a sinister effort to erode free speech?

As a libertarian my instincts are for the highest levels of freedom of speech. However as with all freedoms its limits lie where they infringe on the rights of others. Libertarians aren’t anarchists, you can’t “do what you want” when it initiates force or fraud against another. As your rights are to be free from violence against you or your property (and your property includes intellectual property and your reputation), then the appropriate limits on freedom of speech are those that violate the rights of another. There are laws on these violations already.

That includes threats of violence, it includes inciting others to inflict violence (including property damage) and includes recording a crime as an accessory to that crime (this covers child pornography and filming rape or someone being assaulted “for fun”). One claim is that the law doesn’t cover threats of violence against groups, but a group is a collection of individuals, and if this is true then a simple amendment of the Crimes Act can be made, with S.174 adding to “person” the words “or group of persons”. S.306-308 also contain provisions around threats that are relevant, so they idea that somehow there is some yawning gap in the law that allows people to threaten others with violence is simply false. 

Is expressing hatred of someone a violation of that person’s rights, or more generally is expressing hatred for a group or class of people a violation of their rights? In and of itself no it isn’t. Hatred has come to be an emotion that the “kindness” state of Jacinda Ardern wants banned, but it is not an emotion without merit. In the right context, it is not only appropriate, but almost a moral imperative. Why would any decent person not hate Fred and Rosemary West, or “Dr” Mengele, or Saddam Hussein? If a defined class of people are waging violence against you or your loved ones, or even complete strangers why should you not hate them? Actual Nazis, the Khmer Rouge, ISIS, Al Qaeda, the Stasi, Japan’s wartime Imperial Army, a mafia family, a criminal gang.  

You don’t have a right to be protected from someone hating you as an individual or a member of a group. Indeed, this is a position held by many people across the political spectrum. Religious zealots hate non-believers, communists hate the bourgeoisie, trans-activists hate those they call TERFs, socialists hate “neo-liberals”, environmentalists hate fossil fuel producers and buyers of large utes, crime victims hate criminals, etc etc. You see hatred of others is a normal reaction to a passionate set of beliefs or a passionate belief in injustice. The issue is when such hatred is expressed as a threat, whether it be a direct threat to imminent violence or an implicit threat of violence or other action to prevent someone going about their lives peacefully. The fear generated by those expressing such threats, and by those touting bigoted views is palpable and contrary to the values of a rational, moral and liberal society.  The question is how to address such threats. Criminal law should protect people from threats of violence, but I’m very cautious about how far to take that. 

So there is hate speech law now, but the Ardern Government wants to go further. The stated purpose is to help prevent a repeat of the Christchurch Mosque Attack, but this hypothesis is questionable at best. Let’s look at the direct purpose of the proposed changes from the discussion document:

The proposals target the types of communication that seek to spread and entrench feelings of intolerance, prejudice, and hatred against groups in our society. All people are equal, and our society is made up of people with many different aspects to their identities. The incitement of hatred against a group based on a shared characteristic, such as ethnicity, religion, or sexuality, is an attack on our values of inclusiveness and diversity. Such incitement is intolerable and has no place in our society.

The idea that inciting hatred against a group based on a shared characteristic that is inherent to those people is certainly an attack on the values of a free liberal society and should have no place in a free society. However, if a shared characteristic is simply sharing an opinion, there that is a whole different situation. You can’t help race, sex or sexuality, but you can help what you think, and what some people think does not entitle them to be immune from hatred.

So the proposal is not about threats of violence, but about communications that are intended (intent matters after all) to spread and entrench (i.e., sustain) “feelings of tolerance, prejudice and hatred”. Now it’s easy to work out what these might be, the problem is what some might think these are. 

Is the column by Karl Du Fresne in the Spectator that talks of “Maorification” one that “entrenches” feelings of prejudice, or is it legitimate political commentary?

How about when Debbie Ngarewa-Packer describes in the NZ Herald NZers as either being tangata whenua, recovering racists and racists? Does that seek to spread feelings of intolerance against non-Maori?

Clearly there is no point asking Kris Faafoi, who doesn’t have a clue as the least qualified Minister of Justice for 13 years. The man's an idiot. Furthermore,  Jacinda Ardern thinks she shouldn’t be responsible for explaining what Cabinet’s decisions on new laws should mean in practice.  The nodding dogs of the Labour left and the Greens are all filing in behind her, so it is better to just read the proposals.  So in this post, I'll look at just one.

Proposal One: Change the language in the incitement provisions in the Human Rights Act 1993 so that they protect more groups that are targeted by hateful speech. Under this proposal, more groups would be protected by the law if hatred was incited against them due to a characteristic that they have.

This is about Sections 61 and 131 of the Human Rights Act. Section 61 prohibits publishing or distributing written matter, or using words in a public place that are “threatening, abusive, or insulting” on the grounds of colour, race, ethnic and national origins. Section 131 prohibits “with intent to excite hostility or ill-will against, or bring into contempt or ridicule, any group of persons in New Zealand on the ground of the colour, race, or ethnic or national origins”. 

The Government wants to expand the groups this law “protects” from “insults” or from “contempt or ridicule” far beyond race and nationality. Consider the categories it wants to include:

• Sex (so no jokes about men, or women)

• Gender (no jokes about men who self-identify as women and look absurd)

• Marital status

• Religious belief (so yes that IS Life of Brian. Don’t intend to ridicule religion)

• Ethical belief (so don’t be ridiculing people who think abortion is murder, or who think pornography is good or evil, or that smacking is good practice, or etc etc)

• Disability (including carrying an infection)

• Age (don’t ridicule stupid young or old people)

• Political opinion (don’t bring communists or libertarians into contempt or else)

• Employment status (don’t bring into contempt people who are receiving taxpayers money)

• Family status (which includes “being a relative of a particular person” so you can’t ridicule a husband/wife/partner of a psychopath?)

• Sexual orientation.

Some of these are less objectionable than others, but the idea that there should be a prohibition on bringing into contempt or ridicule people because of their opinions is entirely outrageous.

Intending to bring into contempt any group of people on the grounds of their religious belief will be banned. That’s frankly outrageous. Fundamentalists of any religion should not be immune from insults or being brought into contempt because their beliefs are worthy of contempt.  This is blasphemy law through the back door. It goes further, you can’t ridicule entire groups because of their ethical belief (i.e., blood transfusions are evil, or vaccinating children is evil), nor can you ridicule people for their political beliefs.

This is frankly extraordinary. 

Given the Christchurch shooting was entirely motivated by religious hatred, if the law were to be about change to cover this, it would be simple enough to only prohibit threatening language regardless of the basis because nobody should be threatened.

This proposal alone should cause anyone who believes in liberal democracy and freedom of expression to go cold and simply reject this nonsense. 

To add insult to this, the discussion document assumes that there isn’t a legitimate point of view that outright opposes this proposal. It’s proposed questions are:

Do you agree that broadening the incitement provisions in this way will better protect these groups?

o Why or why not?

- In your opinion, which groups should be protected by this change?

- Do you think that there are any groups that experience hateful speech that would not be protected by this change?

The first question begs the question “protection from what”? From being ridiculed? Is the question ever asked why some groups should be protected from ridicule?

The second question is just “what groups” should this apply to.

The third question is “who else can we protect from being laughed at”?  I can see some saying “fat people, thin people, redheads, blondes, short people, people wearing revealing clothing, people wearing hats, types of occupation, types of recreational activity”.  I mean the list of groups is ENDLESS.

To hell with this Orwellian social-engineering philosophy to “protecting” people based on their opinions. There is a shred of value in asking why sex, disability and sexual orientation are not included in the current law, because those are characteristics that are essentially immutable, but almost every other element listed is a conscious characteristic.  At the very least this proposal will have a chilling effect on humour, but at worst it will make it illegal for me to say communists are either morons or psychopaths, or that Salafist Muslims are stone-age cretins, or that the Green Party are a bunch of loony leftie authoritarian control freaks.

And that’s just Proposal One….

It alone should cause you to make a submission before 6 August (see here for details).

By the way, good on both David Seymour and Judith Collins for taking this on, and also on the left, for Martyn Bradbury, who I scarcely agree with on anything, but he's right on this one.

Don't fear Winston

I am wholly relaxed about a government of which Winston Peters is a part, not just for the reasons outlined by Peter Cresswell, but because his bite is actually rather small when compared to many of those who despise him.

For a long time, Winston Peters was the second coming of Robert Muldoon, except of course when it came down to it, Winston wasn't that interested in turning back the clock of the reforms of Roger Douglas and Ruth Richardson (except that he wasn't keen on privatisation).  Despite his rhetoric, after all, central government privatised its shareholding in Auckland Airport in 1998 while Winston was in government.  

He isn't an acolyte of environmentalism, in that he doesn't believe in sacrificing prosperity and wealth to engage in what is virtually nothing besides virtue signalling about climate change.  In that sense, he is much less toxic than the Greens, who combine welfarism with environmentalism and the glorification of identity politics.  Winston has NONE of this (although his willingness to buy votes with the elderly could be described as a form of welfarism).

So the so-called rightwing commentators who think a National-Green coalition is a good idea are demonstrating how utterly beguiled they are with the image of the Greens and ignoring the substance.  Either a National-Green coalition would kneecap the Greens on principles and policies, causing them to splinter and disintegrate below the 5% threshold, or (more likely) a National-Green coalition would be led by the Greens pushing climate change, getting the baubles of railways and tramways that will cost hundreds of millions of dollars a year for many years to come in losses and continuing the slide towards identity politics that National has done nothing to reverse.  Furthermore, it will encourage more welfarism.

After all, it is the National Party that is willing to sell out its principles for power (Muldoon 1975-1984 being the most egregious case study).  The Greens are a party of principles and policy (the wrong ones in my view, but still).

That's why I'll be more comfortable with Winston calling the shots over National or Labour.  National doesn't lead the fight against leftwing ideas or concepts touted by Labour and the Greens and their supporters, it just plays personalities and fear.  

Winston may contain the growth of identity politics, he wont sign up to mindless environmentalism (even though he has policies that might feed into it) and he wont embrace welfarism on a grand scale.   OR he may just get a Cabinet post and go away.

In either case it is better than the Greens driving public policy.

NZ election result: winners, losers

First the biggest loser:  

You, that's assuming you're not seeking to extract other people's money from the state.  

You, if you believe that freedom of speech matters, and that there shouldn't be a Harmful Digital Communications Act.

You, if you believe that you own your body and shouldn't be criminalised for what you put in it.

You, if you believe that government should stick to justice, law and order and defence, and should not be involved in the delivery of health and education, that it should not seek to be parent to everyone and should not respond to all of the calls to impose "social justice" (a euphemism for "take money from people we don't like and give it to people we do").

The news from overseas sources makes New Zealand seem like it still basks in the age of the reforms of Roger Douglas and Ruth Richardson.  However, that's only because if you look at subsidies, protectionism and regulatory rent-seeking, NZ looks better than Australia and the US.  If you look at taxation, NZ is much simpler than most economies.  Yet, that relative position doesn't make NZ a free-market haven, and certainly not on personal freedoms.  

So what about the parties?

National, optimistic but too soon to tell will think it won, and to be fair Bill English did shake off his reputation as the biggest loser as a party leader in generations.  He did it by being evasive, by focusing attention on his rival's spending plans, even though his own plans are not fundamentally different.  It is on form, as a party that doesn't really reform anything.  Riding on the back of an economy that gains from the reforms of the 80s and 90s, on high commodity food prices and the spending power of new migrants, its approach to most issues is not to change much.   At best it does seek to cut taxes, but at worst it rolls back virtually nothing Labour does.  The middle class welfare package instituted by the previous Labour Government was kept.  Yet, in an MMP environment the Nats did successfully frighten people into turning out and voting for it.  It deterred ACT supporters from voting ACT (and indeed some NZF supporters too).  Being in a position to get a fourth term is an achievement historically, but you have to ask for what?  Does National exist primarily to stop Labour et al from doing stuff?  The number of National supporters keen on governing with the Greens tells you exactly that.  Principles don't matter, the role of the state doesn't matter, nor is there interest in pushing back against a culture of dependency and statism.  National exists to stop Labour, this time we'll see if it worked.

Labour disappointed but too soon to tell  thinks it has won, because it could conceivably lead government with the Greens and Winston Peters.  Yet it did so mainly by consolidating the vote on the left.  It decimated the Maori Party strategically, it presented a leftwing manifesto and took the Greens back to its core.  Yet the widespread "Jacinda-mania" star status proved to be for little effect.  Few National voters were convinced that a young woman who has never had a job in the private sector, and has never even been a Cabinet Minister could be Prime Minister.  Labour did win the media narrative (along with the Greens) about relative child poverty and river pollution, all without much scrutiny about the statistics (or the causes or better yet, the solutions).  It has a chance at power, but has a long way to go to attract votes from groups other than public servants, beneficiaries, students,  Maori and Pacific Island voters and unionised workers.  It hasn't broken through in most regional towns and cities, nor significant parts of Auckland.  Yes Jacinda has almost done it, but if she does become PM, she'll be getting wagged by the tail of James Shaw and Winston Peters, and that is NOT a winning position to be in.  

Winston Peters won (I mean really, he runs it, it is his) lost seats, but is the master of political positioning.   Seriously, he has won, whilst Bill and Jacinda slut around him for the next few weeks.

 He puts himself in the centre, whilst being a populist who embraces the left (more money for pensioners and opposition to privatisation) and the right (sceptical about immigration, sceptical about higher taxes and opposition to identity politics by race if not nationality).   He leads the only truly fungible MMP party, in that he could support either main party and no longer would he really upset his base of supporters (like he did in 1996, but only because he broke up from the Nats to oppose them, and misjudged that his supporters cared about policy - when they are largely driven by gut emotion).  He'll get a good job and do little with it, he'll give a bunch of ne'er do wells (most of whom couldn't hope to get a job as "highly paid" as an MP) employment, and he'll one or two totemic legacies.  One might be the economically ridiculous idea of relocating the Ports of Auckland to Marsden Point, better would be a referendum on the Maori seats.   Winston won and why are you surprised?  He knows MMP better than anyone else, and no other politician is willing or able to replicate him.

Greens never really lose and were hit fairly hard, not least because it showed itself to be the party of welfare cheats.  Jacinda-mania attracted the airheads back to Labour, but it showed itself to still be a ginger-group of hard-left finger-waggers whose main instincts are to tell people off, tax what they don't like, subsidise what they like and virtue signal.  The good news for the Greens is that they still get an easy ride on most of their policy positions, particularly the constant false claims that "action on climate change" will save lives, the war on fossil fuels and their obsession with identity politics.  The media still loves them, even given the Metiria scandal (which actually exposed their fundamental belief that everyone owes everyone else a living).  Yes the Green Party has never actually been in a coalition, but it is very very influential and relies on new cohorts of optimistic state worshippers being recruited year on year.  

ACT lost badly in part due to the Nats successfully scaring voters on the right to voting National, but also because David Seymour moved too far away from having a coherent position on issues.  He was seen as backing National, but whether it was too hard for him to get traction on multiple issues or he lacked ground support to campaign, the only policy that got a lot of publicity was in increasing teacher pay.  ACT once had a coherent less government, lower tax position that promoted more competition in public services, was tough on law and order and rejected identity politics.  Yet Seymour couldn't break through with such a message.  The brand is mixed, he made statements about abortion which would alienate some, but he tried hard.  ACT needs to work out who it is targeting and what message it is giving.   There is a gap on the right, one that will open up large when a certain Maori ex. National MP finally retires.  ACT can't fill much of that gap, but it sure can grab some of it.

Maori Party is nearly finished as Labour branded it as National's patsies, which was unfair.  Maori are smarter than identity politics warriors fighting "colonialism" as Marama Fox implied. It will probably remain for some time, but looks like it is slipping back to be another Mana Motuhake.  It would have a chance if Labour gets power,  with the Greens, as it could position itself as the Opposition for Maori again.  However,  its real future is threatened by a referendum on the Maori seats, which if it includes Maori who choose to be on the general roll, could completely render the Maori Party obsolete.  

TOP did well for being led by a vulgarian.  For all of the rhetoric, TOP had policies based on a philosophical position, not simply "evidence led".  The philosophy was to penalise asset ownership as a solution to a market failure, rather than address the supply side element.  Everything else it stood for was a redistributionist/environmentalist agenda that competed with the Greens and Labour.  Gareth Morgan got the party attention, but also turned off many.  He topped it off by blaming voters for being selfish and stupid.  What more is there to say?

United Future has no future

The youth didn't turn out in the magical numbers to vote for the left, and if they did turn out they were not a single bloc (who is?).  After all the left is the mainstream.  Besides housing (which has become a problem because of the enviro-left approach to planning, through the RMA and the application of new urbanism to city boundaries in Auckland and Wellington), the narrative about child poverty was from the left (Beth Houlbrooke from ACT was hounded down when she suggested people on low incomes should not have children they expect taxpayers to pay for), the narrative around the environment was partially a banal question around "should there be fewer dairy cows" (the sort of nonsense seen in adolescent level policy debate).

What now?

Winston will make his choice, either Bill English will get to have three years of do little, conservative (literally) government.  Otherwise Jacinda Ardern will suddenly find she has gone from MP to PM without even having sat in on a Cabinet meeting, with Winston wagging her dog and the Greens on the sidelines providing confidence and supply.  I am uncomfortable with the latter, primarily because culturally the bent of Jacinda will be to support more identity politics based on race and sex, less freedom of speech and fewer private property rights.  Not that the Nats are practically better, but Labour and the Greens actually believe in state power and collectivising people over individual rights and individual responsibility.

ACT needs to refocus

For those who think government does too much, who think individuals alone or with others should have more power and responsibility to find solutions to the problems of today, there is little to offer.   The best hope might be for ACT to be in Opposition, regardless.  To campaign more clearly on principles, which should be around private property rights, everyone being equal under the law (including the abolition of Maori-only political representation), opening up education to choice and diversity, tackling the culture of welfare dependency, opposing state subsidies for business, more taxation and more state ownership.  ACT should firmly come down on limiting the scope and powers   of local government, on ridding central government of wasteful politically-correct bureaucracies and taking on identity politics.   Yes it should support other parties when it comes to victimless crimes, but there should not be a unified view on abortion.  It should be tough on real crime, tough on parental responsibility, but also take on measures that governments have done that increase the cost of living.  This includes the constraining of housing supply, and immigration policies that mean new migrants utilise the capital of taxpayer funded infrastructure, without actually paying for it.

What Winston does as his possible swan song is of minor interest, what matters is there being a party that stands up for something different.  For now, only ACT can do that.

Harmful Digital Communications Act indeed

Turn away for long enough and I find the NZ government does something outrageous to curtail freedom and to expand Nanny State, sure enough it has with the Orwellian sounding "Harmful Digital Communications Act".  Even if I supported it, if I was a Minister getting that title passed over my desk by a Ministry of Justice manager, I'd have tore a strip off of her or him for having had a complete lack of any education in either literature or history to give ANY legislation such a title.

The purpose of the Act as well has shades of Big Brother:

"to deter, prevent, and mitigate harm caused to individuals by digital communications; and

provide victims of harmful digital communications with a quick and efficient means of redress"

It's a curious post-modernist trend for laws to be created not to protect rights based on well worn principles of individual rights and freedoms, property rights, contracts and torts, but to "prevent harm" - to have laws to sanitise life so that "everyone" is protected.

However, the term "harm" doesn't mean physical harm.  There is no need for new laws covering an actual infringement of your body (although the digital dimension does justify ensuring laws protect your property and covers contracts and torts), for such laws exist - in abundance - including ones to protect you from yourself.  The harm being covered is, what "The Flight of the Conchords" would say are "hurt feelings".

Being offended, is to be harmed.  To be distressed by what someone else has said, is to harmed.  This goes beyond defamation, which is - indeed - damage to one's property in the form of your reputation. It's an almost childlike drive to make everything structured and inoffensive.  In the UK, it came out in its most absurd form a few months ago with the National Union of Students Women's Conference saying:

"Some delegates are requesting that we move to jazz hands rather than clapping, as it's triggering anxiety. Please be mindful"

I didn't make that up.  If someone is a little bit upset, then everyone else must conform to avoid upsetting that person.  It's the radical so-called "progressive" identity politics champions being manufactured by post-modernist university departments out of air headed students raised on this form of Newspeak. 

So the Harmful Digital Communications Act is about "serious emotional distress".  It is now a crime in New Zealand to make someone else upset, digitally (now now!).  I know I did that when I separated from my wife, thankfully I didn't do it by text message today, or I might be in trouble.

However, let's see how you might get into trouble, because Amy Adams, the National Party, the Labour Party, the Maori Party, NZ First and much of the Green Party thinks your freedom of speech should be curtailed, in case it distresses someone.  Kudos to ACT's David Seymour for standing up to it, and indeed Russel Norman, Gareth Hughes, Julie-Anne Genter and Steffan Browning for having thought about it.  

I know this legislation has had much coverage online for what's bad about it, but it deserves constant attention, and every single MP who voted for it needs to be exposed for their moronic endorsement of it.  It's a disgrace to all who voted for it, and if anything indicates clearly how utterly incompetent they are in being able to apply principle and concepts to problems and issues, it is this law.

I encourage all to push the boundaries of this law to expose this incompetence.

Fighting against ISIS

In the past few days reports have come out about British citizens, some of whom are of Kurdish extraction, others not, travelling to Syria explicitly to fight ISIS.  They make it clear they are not being paid, in part for legal reasons, but their decision to take on ISIS directly, and bravely, has confused the Home Office.

One report involves two British men who have allegedly gone to defend the Syrian town of Kobani from ISIS, another involves a teenage girl of Kurdish descent and yet another of a group of retired soldiers who have gone to fight.

The reason for the confusion is the moral equivalency that has been granted between ISIS and its Kurdish opponents, although David Cameron has confidence that the UK Border Agency can tell the difference.

I don't share his confidence, particularly when it comes to Kurds who wish to fight, who may be assumed to be aligned to the Marxist-Leninist PKK separatist group based in Turkey.  Given there has been absolutely no terrorist activity in the UK aligned to Kurds, they ought to simply be left alone.

In New Zealand of course, you can't go off as a mercenary to fight ISIS, because the Clark Government, encouraged by the Greens, and also supported by Jim Anderton and Peter Dunne. National and NZ First opposed the legislation and you can read here the banal background as to why it was supported, though it is telling that the only member of the Select Committee who is still an MP is Peter Dunne.

Commuter rail for Christchurch? Cheaper buying them each a Porsche

I'm being a little tongue in cheek here, but the proposal from the Labour Party to spend $100 million to give Christchurch a commuter rail service is so utterly ludicrous that it deserves ridicule.

Anytime a politician says he will "invest" your money, you know that you'd never see it again, and that's exactly what would happen to the $100 million David Cunliffe wants to waste on giving Christchurch a transport service that it neither needs nor is willing to pay for.  In the USA it would be called a boondoggle, a political driven project that has little basis on market demand or economic benefit.

The policy is described here, and then here and here, showing how much effort has gone into something that isn't even important.

I nearly wrote a lengthy post pulling it apart bit by bit, but it's much easier to list what's wrong in a few bullet points.

- Christchurch last had the remnant of a local rail service in 1976 when a once daily, yes once daily, service between Rangiora and Christchurch was scrapped because of lack of patronage.  The last regular service (as in all day service like in Wellington) was between Lyttelton and Christchurch, which ended when the road tunnel was opened in 1972 (the rail service only had an advantage over driving over the Port Hills).  Before that, other services were discontinued during the 1960s as bus services proved more cost effective and car ownership rose.  Christchurch's population grew by over 50% in the period between the end of these services and the earthquake, indicating it was hardly constrained by a lack of passenger rail services.

-  It wont unclog Christchurch's roads.  The Press report says Labour intends the system to accommodate 10% of commuters from the north to central Christchurch.  Phil Twyford says there are 5000 - yes 5000 commuters making this trip (10,000 trips), so it is $100 million for 500 commuters.  That comes to $200,000 per commuter, before any operating subsidies are considered.  In other words, the price of a Porsche 911 for each commuter.  Taking about 400 cars off of Christchurch's roads every morning isn't going to "unclog" them,  it hardly makes a difference, even if it did happen.

- However, what it might do is encourage more people to live further away from the surrounding suburbs closer to the city, because it subsidises living well outside Christchurch.  That's hardly conducive to reducing congestion, nor environmentally sustainable.  It would be far more preferable to focus on finishing renewing the local road network including marking out cycle lanes, than to incentivise living well out of the city.

- A commuter rail service to central Christchurch can't even go there, as the station is 4km from Cathedral Square, in Addington.

- The $100 million is to double track the line to Rangiora, and rebuild some railways stations, but not a new central station (which can't be anymore "central" than the old one on Moorhouse Avenue), nor new trains, although the ex. Auckland ones could be relocated, if a depot could be built, and sidings to put them on were rebuilt as well.

- The rail service would replace commercially viable and some subsidised bus services, but politicians don't find buses sexy.

- The service would lose money, a 1000 trip a day railway service is a joke.  Proper commuter trains in major cities carry that number on one train.  

- If there really is demand for more public transport from the northern suburbs, it could come from commercial bus services.  Clearways could be used for bus lanes and the hard shoulder of the existing and future extended Northern Motorway could be used for peak bus lanes too, if needed.  Trains only make sense if buses are incapable of handling the volumes of demand, and that clearly isn't the case.

- Christchurch was the first major city in NZ to scrap trams, because the grid pattern street network and low density of the city meant there were few major transport corridors to support high density public transport systems, like trams (and commuter rail).  It was also the first of the big four cities to scrap commuter rail altogether (even Dunedin had commuter rail services until 1982 to Mosgiel).   In short, the geography of Christchurch is as poorly suited to commuter rail as it is well suited to cycling.

So when David Cunliffe says "The long delayed recovery of Christchurch hinges on a modern commuter system for the city"  you have to wonder what he's been smoking.

  

Really David? Really?? Not entrepreneurs investing in businesses creating jobs, and so attracting people who want to live there?  

No, David Cunliffe wants a toy, something he can point to and say "I did that", with money taken from motorists (as he wants to divert money collected from motoring taxes from roads to this pet project).  He has no real interest in reviving Christchurch by letting business do business, but to spend up on shiny projects that polish his ego - at your expense.

UPDATE: and the Green Party idea of creating a new bureaucracy called Canterbury Transport is equally ludicrous, because there isn't a governance problem.  Christchurch City Council is responsible for all roads except the State Highways, in the city (and no central government would rightfully surrender national corridors to local politics). It isn't broken up into multiple districts or cities like Auckland was.  Environment Canterbury, like all regional councils, is responsible for contracting subsidised public transport across the region, and planning urban public transport services.  Again, there is no division here.  It's far from clear what such an entity would do that is different from this.

Unless,. of course, you hark back to the "good old days" of council owned bus companies having monopolies and getting endless ratepayer subsidies. A model that saw the near continuous decline in urban bus patronage across NZ for 30 years.  You see at the moment bus services in Christchurch are operated mostly by two companies, one owned by Christchurch City Council, another by a private firm.  They typically compete for contracts for subsidised services, helping keep costs down and providing a check on performance.  The Greens are awfully fond of state owned monopolies, because you can trust politicians and public servants to be incentivised to look after customers and taxpayers' money far better than the private sector competing for both, can't you?

After Helen (and Phil, and David)

From 2006

Whether it limps along to 2008 or not, Helen Clark will not be leader of the Labour Party within three years. Caucus must be looking at each other and considering who the successor could be... so I thought I'd go through some of them:

- Michael Cullen. Well he could, but he's part of the same tired generation, ex. Cabinet Ministers..

Update

and that's where it ended.  Phil Goff of course succeeded and did an admirable job of ensuring Labour couldn't move beyond its core.  David Shearer has repeated this, despite being a rather decent chap, and now it is Silent T.

Labour's problem is quite fundamental.  Nowadays it touts class warfare and mild xenophobic rhetoric in the hope it can win support from the neo-Marxist Greens and the fear-mongering NZ First, but none of this is new.

Until it can be innovative, and seek to advocate more than just the usual formula of more government spending and regulation, it faces being outdone on that front by the Greens, and being seen as relatively uninteresting.   Meanwhile, the Nats can always say it is risky to vote for Labour because you'll get whacky Green policies with it - and despite the lack of serious scrutiny of the Greens, most voters run a mile from their politics.

National meanwhile is playing the semi-Muldoonist "safe pair of hands" approach, so that a plurality of voters are happy not to rock the boat.

So Labour looks like getting relatively nowhere in the 2014 general election, hoping only that the Nats might have to get into bed with Winston Peters, which ought to poison the Nats enough to give Labour a reasonable run at power in 2017 or sooner.

It's hardly an inspiring strategy.

The pathology of being young and wanting to be a politician

Having seen the oh so earnest and enthusiastic tweets from those attending the Young Labour conference in New Zealand, some thoughts came to mind.

Why would anyone ever aspire to being a leftwing politician in a modern liberal democratic state?

What sort of psychological profile inspires someone young to want to lead others?

I remember years ago Bob Jones noted how he had been asked to speak at some event for "young leaders" of the future, of what it takes to be a good leader.  His response was that this was the last thing that young people should be encouraged to do and that, at the time, the country's main problem were due to a certain chap who was only too keen to "lead others" (Rob Muldoon).  

I have some sympathy for this.  The key focus for anyone young should be to pursue their own ambitions and aspirations to achieve, not to aspire to push others about (have no bones about it, that's exactly what joining a statist political party is all about) or to aspire to take more money from those who have achieved and to spend it, as if you're somehow entitled to spend other people's money.

I understand the interest in politics and wanting to "change the world" around them.    However, it is one thing to invent, to establish a business, to raise money or work for a charity, it is another to aspire to pass new laws, to take more money from people and spend it because you know better than they how best to do so.

That is precisely what all the delegates at a Young Labour conference are saying.   

It is a pernicious belief that not only do you have confidence in yourself to live your own life, but that you know best how to run those of others.  It's a patronising belief that those less fortunate than you will only be better off if you give them more money that you've taken from others, that you organise the world by telling business, with threat of force, how they should contract with others, how they should price and sell products they make or purchase.  

It is swallowing an entire belief system that is negative about the ability of people to make their own decisions, it is suspicious of entrepreneurs, it is the belief that other people's property is everyone's and that a small group of selected adults can know best how to mould society and individuals.

It is, despite their professed belief they are supporting the disenfranchised and disadvantaged, a belief in elitism, not in the sense of being best, but in believing in the right to rule others.

At a time in life when the primary concerns should be what education to pursue, to advance a career that one gets passionate in, and to explore the world, meet people, find those who complement who you are and your passions, the idea that a key goal has to be to align with people whose main goal is to tell others what to do, is pernicious and pathological.

If you want to lead, lead yourself.  Take a risk, create something, make a business out of nothing and use your confidence to convince people to spend their money on what you sell, or on the charity you advance.

Only when you've done that, faced up to dozens upon dozens of naysayers, had to deal with the laws and the bureaucracies that enforce them, had to give up part of what you've worked hard for in tax, will you then have some perspective on those who think they know best how to run the lives of others.

While you're at it, ask yourself how many 16 and 17 year olds have done any of that, and whether you still think that counting their heads, rather than what's in them, is really going to make things any better for anyone - except the politicians who think they can sell their own brand of snakeoil most readily to that group.

Meanwhile, go into your political party seminar and advance a counter-argument to the usual predictable monologues you hear there, and see how liberal, open-minded and intellectual they really are...

oh and Young Nats?  Don't think you're that much different, given the historical record of how your leaders turn out when they get the handles of power - for they are barely distinguishable from those on the other side.