Rodney stopped something bad getting worse

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

The reasons given?

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

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

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

Government moves transport funding towards state highways

The government released its policy statement on land transport funding which details what was previously outlined by Transport Minister Steven Joyce. National is moving from the heavy levels of subsidy of public transport advanced by the last government, and is using revenue from road users to spend on - roads. This has understandably upset the Green Party, which more often than not is a measure that the policy has some merit.

However, when you strip out the politics and get into the facts, the story is a lot more complicated

The statement outlines some useful facts:
- 84% of commuters travel by car, truck or motorcycle (no the rest do not all go by public transport, many walk);
- 70% of freight tonne kms move by road.

So in other words, let's not pretend that cars and trucks can be replaced by other modes, they are by far the most dominant means of transporting people and goods around the country.

What has the Minister decided?

NZ$258 million worth of improvements to the Wellington passenger rail system are no longer to be funded from the National Land Transport Fund (when road usage taxes go) but from general taxation. This should please the Greens as it means funding for railways coming from everyone, not just motorists, but it wont - because that means more money is available for roads. This is contractually committed spending, so can't be backtracked on, but where it comes from is changing, so everyone can now pay to subsidise the commuting of Wellingtonians.

We get a repeat of there being a National Infrastructure Plan being developed and Roads of National Significance, both utterly unnecessary, and smacking of central planning.

However, the real interest is what happens to the money.

What goes up?

Spending on state highways, local roads, road policing and public transport services. Yes, public transport service subsidies will be increasing (just less than under Labour), and road maintenance funding isn't decimated. Those are just utter lies spread by Labour.

State highway increases are understandable given state highways are where half the money generated for the National Land Transport Fund comes from. Funding of local road maintenance will grow far more slowly than state highways, suggesting the government sees room for efficiency there.

Local road governance needs serious reform though, I'd have local roads companies funded according to revenue generated from their networks (from road use taxes, parking fees and access fees for driveways). A single commercial Auckland road company I suspect would get enough money from fuel tax and road user charges that it could start upgrading many roads that need it. Sadly the "supercity" proposal is just going to make the current structure bigger.

What doesn't change?

In nominal terms walking, cycling, demand management, administration and transport planning funding do not change, which means they are cut in real terms. That will hurt bureaucrats and planners, and see a gradual reduction in spending on footpaths and cycleways. Not a bad thing.

What is cut?

Rail and sea freight subsidies are being phased out. Good. They never made sense in the first place.

Shift to economic efficiency

Another important shift is that economic efficiency will be of primary importance once again There will be an increased focus on economic efficiency.

"The NZTA’s evaluation processes will be adjusted to give projects with high benefit cost ratios (BCR) higher funding and programming priority and to give projects with low BCRs more scrutiny (high BCR is greater than four; low BCR is less than two). This change will place the onus on the organisations seeking funding from the NZTA to give priority to higher BCR projects unless there is good reason to do otherwise."

In other words, farewell to the days of Labour funding poor quality politically significant projects and delaying others that had high benefits but a lower profile. It does not bode well for Transmission Gully, or for large scale spending on public transport. Good.

All in all, no great surprises here. The Greens hate more money on roads, so think reducing the growth in spending on public transport is bad. Beyond that, the biggest win has to be the motorist, who will see higher proportions of their money spend on roads, and on projects that are to be primarily selected on economic efficiency grounds.

Don't forget the Nats have already promised three increases in fuel tax and road user charges during this term, so it doesn't come for nothing - at least the increases appear to all be going on roads.

It is still a cumbersome bureaucratic process, it still has little signs of commercial disciplines, I'd have flatlined public transport subsidies too at least. However, all money from road taxes is now being dedicated to the National Land Transport Fund (albeit a Labour initiative after the Nats campaigned on it in 2005), and the money will be spent more wisely.

and it is sadly, a lot better than funding arrangements in most other countries.

UPDATE: Darren Hughes is talking bollocks on transport again. His mistakes:
1. Of Steven Joyce "he failed to specify how much the Government was planning to strip from local roads and existing state highways and from road policing and public transport to fund spending on new motorways" Actually nothing is being stripped, but the forecasts have changed on the increases. All of those activity classes are increasing Darren, why don't you compare them the the forecast last year? It's not hard.
2. "Whenever public transport improvements are made, such as the Northern Busway, patronage increases sharply" Yep subsidies under Labour public transport subsidies increased fivefold but patronage increased nothing near that. Has patronage increased sharply in Hamilton Darren, for example? No.
3. "he plans to make roads less safe by removing $50 million from previously-budgeted spending on road policing" Actually Darren, spending more on state highways particularly north of Auckland, Waikato and the Bay of Plenty will save lives.
4. "he is stripping $75 million from local roads and $122 million from existing state highways" maybe Darren maintenance costs have declined because of the drop in fuel, cutting asphalt costs and the reduction in heavy vehicle traffic due to the recession? Oh yeah, evade that.
5. "Labour's approach to transport funding was also based on a multi-modal programme involving state highways, local roads, public transport, sea freight and rail. Sadly, Mr Joyce's fixated approach means that balance is now lost" Yep Darren, sea freight and rail have gone, all $8 million of it. Ridiculous spending when sea freight is commercially viable and the government already owns rail.

Yet ask Darren about Transmission Gully, a $1.1 billion road project largely unfunded (Labour only funded investigation and design, and allocated $405 million towards construction), and he'll slobberingly demand his own slab of pork for the electorate that rejected him in the election last year. Where was the money for that coming from Darren?

See for Labour, big motorway projects are just fine - as long as they are in the electorate of the former Prime Minister or the former electorate of the transport spokesboy.

UPDATE 2: The Greens use the word "force" to describe when other people are not forced to pay for their religion of public transport as much as they want them too. You see, because New Zealanders choose not to demand commercially viable public transport services, because motorists reasonably like their road taxes spent on roads, it is "forcing" them to drive. Yes, you were forced to buy a car, you hate driving, you hate cars, and you'd like nothing more than to ditch your own private space, with the stereo, air conditioning and being able to go from where you are directly to where you want to go, in favour of waiting for a vehicle, to share with strangers, having to use a MP3 player for music, while the vehicle meanders its way to somewhere within walking distance of where you want to go.

Jeanette Fitzsimons said "Today, Steven Joyce committed to widen that imbalance by spending at least $7 on roads for every $1 spent on a more sustainable alternative. From an environmental viewpoint, it's simply immoral". Actually Jeanette, since every dollar came from road users, isn't it immoral to steal from them to pay for what you want?

It remains utter bullshit to suggest that subsidising other modes makes a sizeable difference to traffic congestion. However, what is most ridiculous is the idea that people are "forced to drive". Perhaps Jeanette forgets that most of her own party's manifesto is about using force.

Bullshit about the Waterview Connection

There is so much so I thought I'd clear up some myths:

1. First the easy one to get out of the way, the one spread by some friends on the right - the route for this motorway has NOT been designated at ALL, the motorway designation for SH20 starts at Manukau and ended at Richardson Road. There is a gap thanks to Auckland local authorities dithering and abandoning the Avondale peninsula route option in the 1970s. So please don't believe private property rights for those on the route can be ignored - they did NOT buy land on a motorway route.

2. Idiot Savant says the announcement by the NZTA on the preferred route for the Waterview connection is “an affront to democracy”. Complete bollocks. When did people vote for the route of ANY road? It never happened for any other section of the Western Ring Route, nor the Northern Gateway, nor the Waikato Expressway, nor the Christchurch Southern Motorway. The system is designed to be a rational appraisal based on statutory criteria, not on counting the heads of the loudest. The USA has that, and you see bridges collapse due to lack of political interest. It is entirely within the role of NZTA to decide on its preferred route as the government wont be borrowing to pay for a greenplated route.

3. He also talks nonsense in claiming “the plan centres on using an existing rail designation for a motorway. So, Auckland won't be getting a proper rail-based public transport network because National will have already built a stinking great road there.” Funnily enough there remains room for the motorway there (the map he links to shows this) and even ARTA has no plans to built the Avondale-Southdown railway till 2030. The project isn’t worth it, so to claim Auckland “wont be getting a proper rail-based public transport network” because one line that would be barely used isn’t to be built, is extreme hyperbole.

4. Bomber at Tumeke thinks it is a conspiracy with National favouring its big business mates at Macquaries and hating public transport. For starters, Labour’s plans would have benefited Macquaries far more as it would have been a bigger scheme and a PPP. On top of that, the Waterview connection wont be tolled, nor will it be a PPP, Macquaries provides finance for PPP toll roads, it isn’t in the road construction business in New Zealand. The company can't benefit from this decision at all. So that makes this conspiracy theory totally fatuous. Tim Selwyn posts more intelligently on the issue to be fair.

5. The Standard tries to spin that the government is misleading on costs, something that NZTA clears up quite quickly. It also makes some of the same mistakes as others do.

All options require work at SH16 worth $242 million.

Labour wanted a four lane bored tunnel. $1.974 billion. National is now proposing a four lane mix of surface, bored tunnel and cut and cover tunnel at $1.165 billion, with provision for six laning built in (Labour’s option did not allow for that). That’s over $800 million difference. To put that in context, Transit’s total budget last year for ALL state highways activities was $1.2 billion. So National's proposal saves a lot of money, AND allows for future growth.

Labour had proposed a PPP for the motorway, so financing costs (interest) of $554 million had been included for its option. However, Labour had NO budgetary provision for the motorway at all. Financing costs are the costs of paying a PPP operator to borrow, build and operate the road. The money to pay the PPP operator would still need to come from somewhere

It did not know whether it would pay it back through general taxes or the National Land Transport Fund, or even some contribution from tolls. So the money for this motorway had to come from somewhere as yet unidentified. National is taking the money from road users, through the National Land Transport Fund. There isn’t enough revenue from road users to fund Labour’s proposal, so general taxpayers would have had to subsidise it.

In short, there was never money to build this motorway before (there was money for investigation and design), National has chosen one option (the most fair one, as it means road users pay for a road). Labour either would have to have chosen the same option, and take money from general taxation (from other spending like health), or take all the money from general taxation.

What National DOES need to answer is what the National Land Transport Programme looks like for the next few years. That will come out in June. Then we will all know how projects have been reprioritised to help fund this strategic section of motorway, although it will be a couple of years before construction can commence.

Finally, doesn’t this all show you how utterly inept arguments about things become when they are political? There is an alternative – it has been done in Australia – it means telling the private sector it can build, own and operate the road, and toll it, pick the route and do it all itself. It can even be paid a share of roading taxes collected from using the new road. Decisions like this should not be up to politicians – because they spend money like teenagers given dad’s credit card.

National makes right decision over Waterview

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

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

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

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

More importantly, why should the taxpayer subsidise this?

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

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

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

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

MY PAST COVERAGE OF WATERVIEW:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Road User Charges review sensible outcome

Transport Minister Steven Joyce has just released the results of the Independent Review into the Road User Charging system. Given that, with one exception, nobody else in the blogosphere knows this area more than I do, I thought I'd give it the once over.

Overall, most of its conclusions are wise. There is no case for diesel tax, as diesel tax would not be a charge for using the roads, but a tax on fuel. 36% of diesel is used off road, so those users would need to be refunded if a diesel tax were about road use. Diesel tax is easier for governments to siphon off for other purposes, but road user charges have always been dedicated to the land transport fund.

The economically rational idea of charging an access fee for road users was never going to fly, although I'd advocate getting rid of rates funding for local roads and for local road owners to charge access fees for driveways for adjacent properties.

Beyond that, the report recommends many tweaks to the system, including (finally) moving to buying RUC licences online, and the NZTA commit itself to improve service delivery. Frankly it needs to be open to competition from service providers, with NZTA wholesaling the activity.

Reviewing RUC annually would be helpful too, review meaning rates can go in BOTH directions.

A trial of an electronic system should be welcomed, but a far better approach would be to set the road operators free. The state highway network should be split from NZTA into a SOE, which could set its own charging system directly with road users if they wished. Council roads should be set up similarly, and all of these road companies would receive money based on usage, and would be able to raise and lower charges as they saw fit.

Funnily enough this was National Party policy until 1999, and is currently ACT policy. It's simple - bureaucrats cannot run an efficient customer service or pricing system that is responsiuve to demand and costs, and avoid politicians siphoning off the funds for other purposes. The sooner roads are commercialised, and then a trial of privatisation (the Auckland Harbour Bridge and its approaches are a good start), the better!

UPDATE: The Institute of Professional Engineers of NZ is supporting the outcome of the review. Given IPENZ understands highway construction and maintenance I am not surprised.

The Motor Industry Association is upset, because it supports a diesel tax (because it is simpler), and thinks that RUC is unfair because it doesn't recognise environmental advantages of diesel. Well, a system designed to pay for road maintenance wouldn't be, would it? Government doesn't pay environmental "costs", so you might ask why it should charge for them.

Tony Friedlander for the Road Transport Forum is pleased with the recommendations, no doubt focusing on introducing a new access fee that would mean RUC drops!

Mt Albert and that motorway

One issue that both Labour and the Greens are making a big deal for the by-election is the Waterview motorway extension to SH20, which will link the soon to be finished Mt Roskill extension to the North Western motorway, effectively completing the Western Ring Road.

The bottom line is this:

Labour wants to bore a tunnel for the route (it isn't through a hill). This would come to around $2.8 billion. Note all the other sections of the Western Ring Road are open cut trenched motorways, note the total cost for the other six sections that have been built since 2000 is less than half this. In other words, you might wonder why the motorway through the former PM's electorate was to be a goldplated (but narrow) tunnel, but the other sections were left to be open motorways?

National is reviewing the alternatives, including a cut and cover tunnel, or an open cut road, like the other sections, on the ground it could save between $0.5 and $0.8 billion. It doesn't have Helen Clark on the end of the phone demanding her precious ex.electorate be protected from the big bad road.

The Greens don't want the road built at all, they want a railway line to connect west to south Auckland, and presumably prefer the roads between the two motorways to be congested. I guess they hope think road transport will become hienously expensive, and so everyone will use trains shooting past empty road.

Of course the decision will be made by this government. So which candidate is likely to make a difference to this?

Not Russel Norman. The government will ignore a local MP who says no road. Besides the Greens should be happy, they are getting their big electric train set.

Not David Shearer. He can jump up and down as much as he likes, but he wont have access to the government. Besides, there isn't enough money in the National Land Transport Fund to pay for more greenplated tunnels that aren't going under hills (the Victoria Park Tunnel will take enough money as it is thank you).

Melissa Lee? Well yes she will have access to Bill English and Steven Joyce, who will decide on the availability of extra money to the New Zealand Transport Agency, which in effect will determine the option selected. She is best placed to influence it.

On my part, I think it should be built when the private sector thinks it will be worth it, or at least when it is a better spend than paying for all the other roads that can be funded from road taxes.

Of course, Mt Albert voters might want to make a different choice. A choice about whether they want to vote for more government or less government.

It might be better to just wait to see who all the candidates will be, before making a choice.

UPDATE: ACT candidate John Boscawen has sensibly argued that the Waterview extension should be a surface level motorway, he isn't wanting to pillage taxpayers to placate local interests. He says "no more Buy election" which is quite clever, and in fact making it a surface motorway (like all the other sections) will make it far more affordable. Good for him, by contrast Labour was rolling out the pork for Mt Albert on this issue before the general election, and is doing the same now. (and credit to Gooner for his comment as I was typing this!).

Plus ça change - government advisors aren't new

Idiot Savant damns the Nats for installing their own handpicked "purchase advisors" taxpayer paid, to provide advice that the Nats presumably don't think the state sector can.

It does not particularly surprise me, partly because I can't see any real shift from what Labour did.

Idiot Savant says:

"As for why English is doing this, it seems he trusts neither the public service, or his newer Ministers - so he's planting personal spies in their offices to micromanage them and ensure that they "[produce] outputs that align with government priorities".

Not surprising, neither did Helen Clark. Heather Simpson was her personal appointment as Chief of Staff, but was often referred to as the "Associate Prime Minister" as Cabinet papers would go through her first, as Helen's trusted sidekick. Ministers regularly got a roasting for not reflecting "government priorities" with their papers, and that was partly because after 15 years of a public sector advising governments from Lange to Shipley (which all had a free market bent), many departments were not trusted.

It went further, Ministers appointed their own political advisors, but had to get approval for this. Michael Cullen had more than one. These political advisors were on the Ministerial office payroll, but personally selected by Ministers, and would be the primary interface many departments would have with Ministers. It was helpful when senior Ministers had large or multiple portfolios, as it meant Ministers devolved workload to the political advisors, but it also kept Junior Ministers in check.

Political advisors would co-ordinate together, and would run cabinet papers past Heather Simpson, before the Minister concerned would submit the paper to cabinet committee. Few Ministers were brave enough to submit papers themselves without Heather's approval, only the most senior Ministers could do so (Cullen and Anderton are ones known to do it).

So for Idiot Savant to say "So under National, we'll have the public service, and a parallel bureaucracy of handpicked hacks overseeing them. And all at taxpayer expense, of course." I'd say, well, just like Labour then?

He is right though in saying "If this is what National calls a "cleanup", I'd hate to see what they think is a "problem"..." unless, of course, these "purchase advisors" are temporary, and a different approach to Cabinet is now apparent.

UPDATE: The Standard is adopting its usual "see no evil" view of the Labour Party saying what National is doing is unprecedented. Labour had its own political advisors, but The Standard is willfully blind when its own political allies do something it accuses the Nats of.

John Key questions more sin tax

Yes, what a shift from Nanny Helen!?!

According to Stuff, the Prime Minister John Key on NewsTalk ZB said:

"I think you've got to be very careful you don't get in a situation where you simply whack up the price of booze and everybody gets affected because some, particularly young people, are going out on benders," he said.

"Because they (the Labour government) did that with the sherry tax and all that did was stop grandma having a sherry at night as opposed to the real purpose. . . I am not saying we have a closed mind to this issue, we will look at solutions.

"It is a problem, alcohol abuse, but not everybody drinking is abusing alcohol."

Yes - don't punish everyone for the bad behaviour of a minority. We no longer have a Headmistress running the country, but someone who actually believes that it is ok that many people drink alcohol responsibly, and that it is NOT ok to just tax them more because some people behave criminally while drunk.

This will amazingly confuse many bureaucrats. It is OK some people drink alcohol? Not everyone who drinks should be punished for it? Who would've thought?

Electricity review might deliver useful answers

I tend to be sceptical of reviews, but the report in the NZ Herald of the government's announcement of a Ministerial review into the electricity sector is likely to look at how this state dominated generation and retail sector needs to be unshackled to allow competition to operate more freely.

Gerry Brownlee has indicated one issue is duplication of sector governance, which basically means too much bureaucracy. Energy security is important as Labour interfered considerably to try to guarantee supply (at high cost), and pricing given the government is the key market player is worth observing. The question being whether Labour milked the SOEs for dividends compared to investment in capacity.

The panel appointed includes some useful heavyweights. Brent Layton and Lewis Evans are excellent infrastructure sector economists who understand markets, Stephen Franks should add a reasonably sound legal perspective, and David Russell while on the left, becomes the consumer representative. Toby Stevenson knows the electricity sector intimately, and Miriam Dean is a competition lawyer.

Not a unionist, token ethnic representative or gender balance in sight, a review made up of intelligent, talented people.

However, will it be allowed to recommend privatisation of the sector? There is little sign that it will support the crazy Green agenda of recreating a single state owned monolith electricity generator.

So I am cautiously optimistic that it will unshackle the sector, and support more private sector investment (after all minority private investment wouldn't be full privatisation would it?).

More importantly, will a similar heavyweight team review the telecommunications sector?

Standard delivers good news

Cuts to the Ministry of the Environment. Which from my experience has a handful of very clever people and a lot of died in the wool statists who get very excited about planning other people's lives, and not too excited about benefit/cost analysis and justifying what they propose with evidence.

To think it didn't even exist before 1985. Now think about how we could return to those days by leaving the environment to private property rights.

Government cuts spending on broadband pork

Well, the NZ$340 million broadband subsidy that Labour proposed.

Because National has a bigger one, which I can only hope doesn't go anywhere. If the telecommunications industry could be certain of its private property rights, it would invest where it would see returns in providing broadband capacity.

Labour's Clare Curran (who I described as a vile little PR hack) is screeching saying it is "gut wrenching and wrong", presumably because delaying some people having subsidised access to swap music, download pirated videos, porn and do high end gaming is "wrong". Not that she knows right from wrong, as she actively tried to position National as "enemies of the people". You can just see what she'd have been doing had she lived in East Germany before 1989. She says it sends the industry tumbling backwards. Well any industry that needs shots of money taken from taxpayers shouldn't be our concern.

Broadband has become the new political pork of the 21st century. Those who want it aren't prepared to pay for it. Some suppliers are gagging for subsidies to expand their "businesses" and it has become the cargo cult "essential for the economy". Remarkable how something so essential doesn't get investors excited or the users willing to pay for what it costs.

However, I wont hold out hope that the government will keep its sticky fingers off this, restore private property rights to Telecom over its network and remove the ability of councils to block the roll out of new telecommunications networks through the RMA

Steven Joyce gets it right

He’s seen the light and has called for a review of the Greenplated Waterview extension project for SH20. Understandably so, as the previous PM pushed for it to be underground as a bored tunnel, the most expensive option, and only for four lanes. It would save hundreds of millions to make it a cut and cover tunnel, and save hundreds of millions more to make it a trenched route – and start recognising that it is not WORTH saving the local environment there. It is more important for people to be able to move freely around Auckland.

Meanwhile, the NZ Herald has called lobbyist Stephen Selwood, from the NZ Council for Infrastructure Development (NZCID), an infrastructure expert. Well yes, but what is the NZCID? It is a lobby group for road builders. He is there to promote more spending on roads, and that means more expensive options for them. He doesn’t want this “crucial” project delayed for rather obvious reasons, which the NZ Herald negligently forgot to note.

Well it isn’t “crucial”, it is desirable. Last time I saw a benefit/cost ratio for it, it was 1:1 and that was after some massaging and before the cost blowout. One way of looking at it is whether you’d rather have $2 billion spend on this single road, or on improving and widening other roads around Auckland (such as four laning SH1 from Puhoi to Warkworth), or you’d rather just pay less fuel tax and put up with delays. You see investigations on tolling indicated that if the road was tolled to try to recover a significant part of the costs, hardly anyone would pay it – which kind of proves how “crucial” Aucklanders think the road is. In short, they aren’t prepared to pay to use it to save 10 or so minutes, so perhaps it’s fine to have a motorway from Manukau to Mt Roskill.

Before you ask, no the private sector wont build it through its own accord. It’s far too expensive for the amount of likely users.

My expectation is that National can’t easily delay the project excessively, for political reasons, unless it could show transparently that it would be better spending the money elsewhere. Clarity may come when the Mt Roskill extension opens later this year, as we will see if queues develop between that stretch of motorway and the North Western Motorway at Waterview. That should then determine the priority for this project. However, in the big scheme of Auckland, I’d rather priority be given to upgrading Victoria Park Viaduct and the Newmarket Viaducts. They are choked parts of the motorway network that need addressing, but doesn’t this just show how poor politicians are at setting priorities?

John, learn from John

John Key could do worse than emulate the Auckland City Council under John Banks and Citizens & Ratepayers. Together they are slashing spending, containingAll with the intention of keeping rates under check.

The NZ Herald reports a significant scale back in spending just to hold rates to inflation. It shows a council prepared to turn the clock back on ever growing spending of other people's money. Of course what it raises is the spectre of people who want to know why they can't get what they thought they'd get, forgetting that other people were to be made to pay for it.

After all if you want "training lights on sports field", why do you raise money for it with the sports teams or people who play there? If you think land should be bought to create parks then what is stopping you, or others like you from setting up a trust and doing just that? If you want the footpath outside your home to be fixed, why not suggest to Auckland City Council that you'll buy it and look after it yourself, of better yet let your street do it with a body corporate? All sounds a bit complicated? Well the mafia finds it easier coercing people to do what it wants too, there is more strength (and morality) in being able to convince people of the merits of what you want.

Having said that I do wonder about stormwater spending, given the hoards of money sitting in Auckland Regional Holdings (formerly Infrastructure Auckland) which has come from Port of Auckland dividends and other sources which was meant in part to go to fix the stormwater infrastructure deficit. The ARC would, of course, rather spend this money on railways.

The simple answer to those City Vision councillors and others on the left upset that their pet projects are delayed or cancelled is this - raise the money yourselves. ASK people to pay for it, forget using force use persuasion, persuade people that they should spend money on what you want.

Meanwhile, John Key might want to talk to John Banks about how his ideas could be applied at central government level, but also local government. Wouldn't it be a nice start if all councils had to trim spending to keep rates from rising above inflation? Given this is ACT policy, I would hope that this shouldn't be an issue given the country's largest local authority by value, led by an ex. National Cabinet Minister, can implement it.

After all if many private citizens and businesses are having to retrench during a recession, why should local government expect it can demand more when it can do much much less?

(Oh and in case you think I've become a revisionist on local government, I think the long term case for local government isn't convincing, which means a permanent cap on rates in nominal terms so councils engage in a permanent process of privatisation - but not enough of you voted Libertarianz to enable that policy to be negotiated into government, so...)

Labour's hypocrisy on tolls continues

I like tolls, pricing the roads is user pays after all, and if the roads were properly priced then the ones people want would be properly funded, and the ones too many people wanted would be at a premium, and not gridlocked (and the scope would be there to build more capacity, or for public transport to emerge as competition).

National and Labour both like tolls too, though you wouldn't think so reading Labour's press releases and leftwing blogs which pretend tolls are something Labour know nothing about.

Following National’s pork for Waikato roads announcement, Labour is saying that it thinks National will do it by Public Private Partnerships with tolls, although National said nothing of the sort. (Frankly I’d happily tell the private sector if it wants to build some motorways, paying for it itself and charging tolls, go right ahead without any taxpayer money).

Labour is saying it doesn’t like Public Private Partnerships, despite introducing and passing legislation to allow them six years ago! On top of that Labour announced it would investigate using PPPs to finance the Waterview extension of State Highway 20! It then welcomed a report recommending this approach! In August 2008 Ms King said:

"It seems that Waterview, New Zealand’s largest ever roading project, could well be the first PPP, but the generic blueprint provided by the steering group report could, of course, lead to other examples in the future, such as a new Auckland harbour crossing or Transmission Gully in Wellington"

On top of that, Annette King says National isn’t to be trusted to not toll the remaining sections of the Waikato Expressway. This is hilarious, given that the former Transit New Zealand investigated where across the country tolling COULD be introduced, and one section of the Waikato Expressway came up as being a possibility. Labour has never ruled out tolling parts of the Waikato Expressway.

Indeed it approved tolling the next extension of Auckland's Northern Motorway, and the Transit former website identifies four more roads for tolling.

Then she creates conspiracies “Ms King said she believed the National Party's secret agenda "is to change the law so a free alternative route isn't required when a toll road is built". Why, Ms King, has Labour funded the first and second stages of the Auckland Road Pricing Evaluation Study, which is specifically about tolling existing roads in Auckland? Not that there is anything at all wrong with this, but Labour isn’t much different from National on this.

She then says “the National Party had opposed the potential increase in non-roading expenditure, like coastal shipping, and rail freight”. Maybe because National believes that taxes collected from road users ought to be spent on roads? What a radical concept! So unfair!

Labour is fighting against National because National talks about tolls – a policy Labour introduced, passed legislation to allow and approved for two toll roads(and surrendered one as the price to pay for NZ First support after the last election). Labour is criticising National because it talks about public private partnerships, a policy Labour introduced and passed legislation to allow.

Labour itself commissioned studies into introducing tolling on existing roads in Auckland. Paul Swain as Transport Minister, in 2003 said:

"Cordon tolls, zone tolling and congestion charging also offer significant potential as both a source of funds and a tool for traffic management."

Indeed, so why the desperate fuss to point the finger at National when you've been funding a project, using motoring taxes, to build a tolling system that will be scalable to more toll roads.

and what is a 10c/l regional fuel tax (12.5c if you include GST) if it isn't a sneaky toll, of around $5-$8 every time you fill your tank up.

Key cuts to bureaucracy?

Hmmm it swings all over the place doesn't it - National policy I mean. One week government spending cuts aren't going to happen, and now the NZ Herald states "National would ask state sector bosses to find savings in their departments" and John Key "would call state sector chief executives in to talk with him after the election and ask them for a "line by line" of their expenditure with an aim to make savings."It's very important that we get value for money because that's what New Zealanders are being forced to do around their kitchen tables every day,""

Great stuff! Just what is needed, in fact not dissimilar to what I recommended a while ago. Get every departmental head to justify its existence and budget, and cut projects.

You know it is good policy because one of the biggest advocates of making you pay for people who don't actually produce anything you want to pay for growing bureaucracy, the PSA, is bleeting utter nonsense "If people lose their jobs because of the crisis, they will need support from public services to ensure they can feed their families and to try and get them back into the workforce".

Excuse me? If you lose your job, it is important that we continue to tax you on what you earn, invested and buy so that we can give you help you weren't willing to pay for in the first place? Besides that - how many policy advisors help people feed their families?

No, the PSA should shut up and be accountable to the people who pay their wages - they are called taxpayers, and if they vote for a change in government one reason will be because they are fed up with the PSA thinking taxpayers can be milked endlessly to pay for their jobs.