Transmission Gully - The Real Story - Part 4

In Part 3 I summarised the funding that Transmission Gully cost far more than previously estimated and how Transit and the Wellington Regional Council responded to that – by calling for a more comprehensive study into transport along the corridor. I also summarised the government’s additional funding for Wellington transport, without the Western Corridor. In this part I go through the key study findings and what it really means. As submissions on the draft Western Corridor Plan are due in by Friday 4 November, I thought I better accelerate these posts in case anyone wants to make a submission. Details on the study are available at the Greater Wellington Regional Council website for the project

The Western Corridor Transportation Study

The Western Corridor Transportation Study goes through the basic stages of public policy analysis:

- Problem definition;
- Option identification;
- Option analysis;
- Recommended packages.

The project has three phases:

- Initial consultation (identifying issues, priorities and options that the public wanted considering);
This stage screened out options that were not worthy of further consideration (including electrification of the rail line to Otaki and converting Akatarawa Road into a major highway) and provided the raw data for putting together packages of projects that were complementary.

- Scenario testing (development of different packages of projects and consultation on those).

- Development of draft corridor plan (a preferred package for consultation).

This package has been consulted on by Transit and the regional council, with submissions closing on Friday.

The purpose of the study is to reach a Western Corridor Plan to be adopted by Transit and the Greater Wellington Regional Council. Another part of this is that the findings about the best transport options would inform advice to Ministers about what level of additional taxpayer funding should be provided for the Western Corridor.

Key findings

In terms of problems along the corridor, the key findings are:

1. Ngauranga Gorge has the worst congestion by far.
2. Traffic growth is greatest through Paraparaumu/Waikanae.
3. Trip reliability is the biggest issue of public concern– not safety or regular consistent congestion.
4. Paremata/Mana will be eased by the current improvements, but congestion will be back to current levels within ten years.

Congestion is low between Plimmerton and Mackays Crossing. Yes I know sometimes you get delayed for a short period on some evenings there, but on average, the traffic flows relatively well. Congestion at Pukerua Bay is starting to emerge at peak times, but congestion between Pukerua Bay and Mackays Crossing wont be serious for a bout 10-15 years. The biggest issue for the public is the route remaining open. Congestion is far more serious south of Tawa and particularly south of Johnsonville.

In addition, the main safety concerns largely relate to intersections on the highway (particularly between Raumati and Peka Peka) and the coastal stretch of highway.

Solutions

The key findings in relation to options are as follows:

1. The main weaknesses in the rail link are the single track sections between Pukerua Bay and Raumati. Passenger rail service frequency can be increased to 15 minute intervals at peak times to Paraparaumu only if some double tracking is carried out from Mackays Crossing to Raumati ($40 million). Further double tracking from Pukerua Bay to Paekakariki would improve reliability (as the line would be at capacity) but would cost another $280 million more – this is hardly worth it.

2. Rail alone wont fix congestion, as rail improvements will shift 500 people a day from car to rail, but only remove 100 vehicles from Ngauranga Gorge at peak times. At best some low cost enhancements (bigger park and ride) and improvements that would happen anyway (new trains and more frequent services) may delay growth in congestion, but beyond that rail improvements are very expensive and will deliver little.

3. Completely free flowing road capacity between Kapiti and Wellington at peak times will reduce rail patronage by 10% and will probably increase congestion south of Ngauranga.

4. North of Mackays Crossing, the Kapiti Western Link Road would reduce congestion in Paraparaumu and Waikanae, and improve reliability by providing a second crossing of the Waikanae River. In the longer term, an expressway following much of the current highway would reduce crashes and further relieve congestion, including providing options to bypass central Paraparaumu and Waikanae townships. There is little debate about this and Transit has the Kapiti Western Link Road – Stage 1 – in its 10 year State Highway Plan.

5. South of Linden, the Petone-Grenada link road would improve linkages for freight between the Hutt and the north, and the Hutt and Porirua, as well as providing congestion relief for the most congested parts of the Western and Hutt Corridors (Ngauranga Gorge and Ngauranga-Petone respectively). Petone-Grenada was the MOST ECONOMICALLY EFFICIENT PROJECT evaluated in the study – it would generate the same level of benefits as Transmission Gully, but for only $180 million. Dr. Cullen and Peter Dunne might want to debate this, but it does show what value there is in politicians keeping out of the way – it is clear that the Petone-Grenada road is well worth building.

Now the real debate is between Linden and Mackays Crossing.

The BIG issue Gully vs Coast- same benefits, different cost

Some of the biggest myths need reiterating here. The best projects on the Western Corridor are NOT on this section. There are far greater benefits in building Petone-Grenada and a Kapiti expressway than either Transmission Gully or 4-laning the coast road. Simple as that. Why? Because the congestion at Ngauranga Gorge and between Hutt and Ngauranga is worse, the congestion in Kapiti is growing faster, and the crash rate in Kapiti is higher than along the coast road (plus the coastal crashes can largely be prevented by a median barrier).

Most roading projects in New Zealand proceed not because of politicians (hilarious seeing local MPs claiming credit for new roads – Winnie Laban and Darren Hughes had absolutely no influence at all on when the Mackays Crossing Overbridge proceeded), but proceed because they are fixing a problem that is worth fixing.

The much maligned Lindale underpass, unfortunately underscoped by Transit and above budget, was built because Lindale was the site of several fatal accidents, and with growth in that area would be the site of more – but Peter Dunne wouldn’t know that. One of the most treacherous sections of highway in Wellington used to be State Highway 2 outside Cornish St in Petone, until Transit resurfaced it with non-slip surfacing, which eliminated a blackspot – but Peter Dunne wouldn’t campaign for such a non-sexy project which actually saves lives for only a few hundred thousand dollars. Petone-Grenada would provide an alternative to the Hutt motorway for people going to the Hutt when that route is congested due to an accident – which happens several times a year – something I would have thought Hutt MPs would care about.

However, back to the central section of the Corridor. The issues are:

Safety: The coastal section head on collisions will be prevented by a median barrier (with some modest widening) which will cost around $16 million. Transit has design funding for this work, which will need resource consents as some of the existing walls and rock structures beside the highway need to be demolished – let's see if the Plimmerton and Paremata Residents’ Associations oppose this one. The other safety issues are intersections at Paekakariki and Airlie Road (Whenua Tapu cemetery), and the exposure to risk in Pukerua Bay and Mana. Paekakariki and Airlie Road are fixed with an overbridge ($25 million) and underpass (maybe $5 million) respectively – Transit is consulting separately on Paekakariki because it does not believe that it can continue with the current dangerous intersection regardless of whether or not Transmission Gully is built, and it is right. Transit also believes that a 2-lane bypass of Pukerua Bay ($50 million) is necessary, regardless of whether Transmission Gully is built – primarily because if it IS built (assuming untolled) 40% of traffic will remain on the current highway. So the main safety issues can be fixed for around $96 million – leaving Mana/Plimmerton still exposed (although safer as the traffic lights provide far safer traffic and pedestrian access for local residents). Transmission Gully would avoid the need for any further work at Mana, and possibly a Pukerua Bay Bypass.

Congestion: Congestion on this section will exist primarily at Mana/Plimmerton, within ten years of the latest improvements being completed, and the merge beyond the yet to be completed Mackays Crossing overbridge. Some modest congestion at Pukerua Bay is also likely where the 4-laning ends. The only way this can be resolved is by either 4-laning the entire route and a bypass at Mana, or Transmission Gully. However, lets get some perspective here. That congestion will be very much peak focused for relatively short periods, it wont be urgent at Mana/Plimmerton for some time, and a 2-lane Pukerua Bay Bypass will ease delays at that point. Congestion relief should not be a priority in the short term, but planning will need to be made to build extra capacity to relieve congestion in the medium to longer term.

Reliability: This is the issue that Transmission Gully proponents talk the most about – they want a third highway standard road into Wellington (there are already two – SH1 and SH2, and arguably Paekakariki Hill Road and Akatarawa Road both provide light traffic alternatives during closure). Another road would certainly improve reliability – but building in such a high level of redundancy for closures that happen only a few times a year, at such a high cost is something worth debating. The reliability problems of the current route are substantially reduced if a median barrier is installed, because it will significantly reduce the rate of crashes – which are the main reason the road gets closed. The crashes will also be located on one side of the road, meaning that traffic should still flow in the other direction.

Slips? These are rare, and the one event in the last year that closed the highway for a considerable period of time was unexpected, but is unlikely to happen again. This is when the option of 4-laning could make a significant difference. 4-laning the highway provides far more road space to undertake work to clear crashes and slips. It is relatively easy to clear a 4-lane highway of any incidents, so much so that the proposed “Reliability” package for the Western Corridor did NOT include Transmission Gully. In short, the reliability benefits of Transmission Gully (remembering it would be steep, with a viaduct along a fault line) are not worth it. Reliability is significantly improved by placing a median barrier along the coastal route and a flyover at Paekakariki, and would be adequate with 4-laning of the coastal route.

Cost

Now this is the critical one. According to the study, taking into account inflation and factoring in project risk, the comparison is as follows:


Transmission Gully $1.09 billion
Coastal upgrade $735 million (Comprised of Mana Bypass $220 million, Pukerua Bay Bypass $70 million, Coastal 4-laning $365 million, Paekakariki interchange 4-laning $20 million and Grays Road upgrade $60 million)

So there you have it. Since the study finding, a specific report was commissioned to confirm these costs and essentially, nothing bridges the $250-300 million gap in cost between these options. Both routes are about the same length, so no gain there. Both routes would enable 100 km/h travel between Mackays Crossing and Linden. The key difference is that Transmission Gully is a brand new 27km road built along a faultline in rural farmland vs selective upgrades to an existing road, with a couple of new segments along an established corridor and coastline, with some houses that will need to be moved or demolished.

Now note I have assumed a number of givens – that the median barrier along the coastal highway proceeds anyway, and a flyover (2-lane) at Paekakariki also proceeds anyway, but that the Pukerua Bay Bypass does not proceed regardless.

Transmission Gully’s benefit/cost ratio is now less than 0.5:1, it is a worst dog than ever before.

However, the coastal highway isn’t entirely the best project either. Parts of it are. A Mana Bypass is expected to be worthwhile within ten years, as traffic growth erodes the extra capacity benefits from the just completed upgrade. A Pukerua Bay Bypass is also expected to be worthwhile in saving travel time and significantly improving access around that community. However the coastal segment doesn’t generate many benefits and would struggle in itself to get a positive benefit/cost ratio (though is nowhere near as bad as Transmission Gully). The reason being that the only benefit in 4-laning the coastal section is really network reliability – safety benefits are minor and the congestion relief benefits are low as well, at least at current traffic volumes. The coastal section should be done last.

So what now?

Assuming silly arguments such as not doing Petone-Grenada are dismissed, along with refusing to do anything along the current route for safety reasons, there are three options:

1. Develop and build Transmission Gully. This would mean no pursuit of any coastal improvements after the median barrier is built and the Paekakariki flyover. Transmission Gully could probably be completed within 10-12 years.

2. Develop and build the coastal expressway upgrades progressively. The sequencing isn’t important, but would see the expressway completed within 10-15 years, although segments would be open in advance of that.

3. Build neither within the next ten years, but improve the existing highway to be a safe reliable 2-lane route until the economics of either of the above options improve.

Next: What my preferred option is and what funding the Labour government gave for the Western Corridor?

The Tory Party's chance to go forward

With the Tory Party race down to two horses - David Davis and David Cameron (and it all being up to party members now), it is timely to consider what this means for the party that once considered itself the natural party of government in the UK.

While much of the media is treating David Cameron as its darling child, David Davis has upped his campaign by wanting to reduce the size of the British government as a proportion of GDP to below 40%. He also has talked about flat tax, not too seriously mind you, but was floating it. Now the cynic in me says he just wants the votes that went to Liam Fox in the last round – trying to be the right wing candidate. He was never talking much like this before, and frankly I have seen enough conservative/libertarian mainstream party candidates before who disappointed. However, to his credit, he never used the drug issue to get at David Cameron, although it is unclear whether this was because it was more likely to backfire. Davis wouldn’t be bad, he has disowned the bad side of Blairism, the spin, the obfuscation of reality and the nanny statism that it still carries (the latest manifestation being a proposal to require sellers of houses to produce a certificate of fitness or similar so buyers don’t need to get the homes inspected – which, critics say, buyers wont trust anyway!).

Cameron, on the other hand, drips charisma, youth and enthusiasm. He has shown a disdain for mindless authority – his refusal to be drawn into whether or not he inhaled or snorted in his youth, shows some level of maturity. Many old fashioned Tories would have boo’ed him off the stage, before they paid some woman in black leather to dress them in a plaid skirt and stockings and tell them what a naughty girl they are. Cameron’s downside is that he is committed to increasing spending on public services as well as tax cuts – not exactly a trimming of the state, though his message appears to be one the public want to hear.

For me personally, it would be hard to pick between them. Ideologically, Davis is probably in favour of less government than Cameron – but critically, Cameron is more socially liberal than Davis. THAT is something the Tories desperately need. One solution promoted by Davis is for Cameron to be his deputy – there are worse options. Together they would represent a change, and balance each other out – and lets face it, the Tories have quite a majority to overturn to get elected in four to five years time. However, I doubt Davis can overturn it – he might cut it back substantially, but he hasn’t got the “X” factor that Cameron has.

So, reluctantly, I am still convinced David Cameron is the best hope the Tories have – to shed their old Conservative coat and to look less socially anal (and hypocritical). The Tories need to stop playing the closet race card of immigration – which, while a legitimate issue, is seen by too many non-Anglo Saxon migrants, as being racist – a way of tapping the likes who would otherwise support the ultranationalist British National Party. The Tories also need to stop treating homosexuals, single parents and anyone who doesn’t look like they are in a “born to rule” family, like not being worthy of their consideration.

Ironically, despite his Eton background, Cameron is the candidate most likely to do this. I believe with a consistent message, carefully disciplined, the Tories could waltz to victory, albeit a narrow one, at the next UK election. More and more Britons are tiring of Labour’s “tell us what to do” attitude, and Gordon Brown will creep Labour back towards old Labour, and the dynamism of reform that Blair has pursued will wither.

The Tories need this change, it is all they have, otherwise they will die. Blair at the Labour Party Conference this year said “never overestimate the LibDems and never underestimate the Tories” – now it is time for the Tory party membership to prove him right, I just hope that those that are still off their ventilators aren't still wondering why Winston Churchill isn't standing!

Transmission Gully - The Real Story - Part 3

In Part 2 I outlined the commitment Transit made to Transmission Gully, and the steps it took in the interim to ease the problems along the highway given limited funding. Transit also started to pursue Transmission Gully tentatively, gaining a land designation, buying properties and starting to plant trees on parts of the route needed for environmental mitigation. Part 3 looks at the blow out of costs that came from the first detailed investigation into the project, the response to that cost blow out and the start of the Western Corridor Transportation Study. This part also tracks increased funding for Wellington transport under the post-1999 Labour government, up till the Study.

Transmission Gully cost blow-out

Transit received the result of the detailed investigation into the Transmission Gully project in 2004. Instead of costing around $250-$270 million, it now cost around $830 million. Although there was an inflationary element, this would not account for a 350% discrepancy – the project had been underscoped. Building a four-lane motorway along this faultine, with steep gradients, soft earth with hard rock was far more expensive than previously considered. Remember Transmission Gully’s inclines would be as steep as Ngauranga Gorge, but three time as long. The benefit/cost ratio, dropped roughly speaking from 2.3:1 to, at best, around 0.8:1. Remember, 1:1 means the project breaks even. Treasury used to argue in the early to mid 1990s that it was worthwhile to proceed with all projects with a benefit/cost ratio of 2.5:1 or above. Until the late 1980s, projects with a benefit/cost ratio of 2:1 and above were routinely funded. However, Transmission Gully wasn’t just more expensive, it didn't generate any surplus benefits, its benefits didn't even cover its costs - it simply wasn’t worth building anymore.

Even taking into account the two increases in land transport funding committed by Labour (in 2002 and 2005), an $830 million Transmission Gully would be 30 years away. Arguably if nothing was done with the highway over 15-20 years, Transmission Gully would become a viable project, if only because delays would have become extreme - not the pathetic delays for traffic noticeable around Wellington, but the sort of delays London, Los Angeles and Paris encounter - such as 2 hour journey times from Wellington to Paraparaumu.

At $830 million, a toll would now recover less than 10% of the construction cost, and no private investor would want to touch it. While a few Opposition politicians and industry lobbyists argued the reason Transmission Gully wasn't being built was the Land Transport Management Act making Private/Public Partnerships and toll roads difficult to build - the truth was that Transmission Gully generated no serious interest from the private sector- unless central or local government were willing to cough up most of the cost. 90% taxpayer, 10% private sector is hardly a partnership - and no changes to legislation would change what a dog of a project Transmission Gully had become.

Of course the facts didn’t stop noisy commentators insisting that this didn’t matter – Peter Dunne didn’t care about cost. Like any MP seeking political capital, he was keen to spend other people’s money. Kapiti Wellington Regional Councillor Chris Turver argued naively that the cost increase was “Transit’s fault” and that the government should go out to tender and let someone else build it. He was completely ignorant that Transit doesn’t actually build roads, it DOES go to tender to get roads built (and had been doing so for over a decade). Having some responsibility for managing the state highway system, and contracting Wellington's rail system respectively, Transit and the Wellington Regional Council agreed that a more comprehensive analysis was needed of all of the options along the route.

This included reconsidering the coastal option, as it was not reasonable to simply assume that that route increased in cost proportionately. Also, given the Land Transport Management Act, Transit and councils were required to look more broadly than roads – and see what public transport and demand management measures could do. The Western Corridor Study was commissioned by Transit and the Wellington Regional Council - to study all of State Highway 1 from the Ngauranga Interchange to Peka Peka north of Waikanae, and the railway line. It was commissioned to determine:

1. The most serious problems along the corridor;
2. Options available to address those problems;
3. Develop packages of options;
4. Public opinion on the most serious problems and options.

The Study would eliminate options that had little or no merit (e.g. upgrading Akatarawa Road to a full highway or a rail link from Porirua to the Hutt), and soberly consider all of the issues. Despite media coverage to the contrary, it was the first comprehensive transport study of the corridor for decades.

A similar study had been carried out for the Hutt Corridor previously, which formed the basis for the Hutt Corridor Plan, which, broadly speaking, Transit and the local authorities were following.

Maunsell ( a respected consultant on transport infrastructure modelling and design) got the contract for the Western Corridor Transportation Study.

Meanwhile, Transit gained funding for the Mackays Crossing overbridge, at the northern extremity of Transmission Gully – and the part of state highway 1 that generates the most publicity. Another worthwhile project that will reduce congestion, and which would fit it well with either Transmissiom Gully or 4-laning of the existing highway towards Paekakariki.

Meanwhile – more funding

As mentioned in Part 1, Labour changed the funding framework for roading to move from benefit/cost ratios to a more strategic consideration of funding priorities and ultimately funding the objectives of the New Zealand Transport Strategy:

- economic development;
- safety and personal security;
- access and mobility;
- public health; and
- environmental sustainability.

In addition, economic efficiency was to be taken into account. In summary, it meant that while benefit/cost ratios were a useful tool to rank projects, they would not guarantee funding or necessarily stop funding of a project. While the higher the benefit/cost ratio the more likely (and lower the less likely) a project would be funded, the expected final cutoff would be 1:1. No project would be expected to proceed if its benefits did not, at least, equal costs – nor should it. Anyone would be mad to want anything funded that isn’t worth it.

While the funding framework had changed, the levels of funding were also addressed. In late 2003, the government announced a boost in land transport funding over ten years – largely to address Auckland congestion, but also providing funds for the whole country. Auckland would get $900 million of Crown funds, not funds from road users (although as road users nationwide contribute $600 million per annum to the Crown, it can be argued they did pay), over ten years for land transport projects. This meant roads and public transport. In addition, a 5c a litre increase in petrol tax (and similar increase in light road user charges) would provide more funds over that time. That petrol tax/RUC revenue would be allocated towards projects on a region by region basis, according to population – Auckland would get 35%, Wellington around 11% - the argument being that it would provide a pool of funds to accelerate projects in the regions where the petrol tax was being paid. In Wellington this meant around $220 million more over ten years (starting in 2005/06).

Both the Auckland Crown funding and the new regionally allocated funding would be allocated by Land Transport New Zealand (formerly Transfund), taking into account regional priorities. The funds would be available to Transit and local authorities for state highways, local roads and public transport projects. At the time of writing, Wellington councils had yet to fully prioritise where they wanted this funding to go – but this provide scope for more roads to be built. However, given the scale of Transmission Gully, this extra funding would do little to progress it. This is more a reflection of the sheer size of the Transmission Gully project – compare the approximate costs of projects as follows:

Transmission Gully $830 million (the 2004 estimate)
Inner City Bypass $39 million
Mackays Crossing overbridge $21 million
Kaitoke Hill realignment $16 million
Dowse to Petone upgrade $79 million


Wellington transport project

While accepting that there would be more funding forthcoming in 2005, thanks to the petrol tax increase (and a commitment to indexing petrol tax and light road user charges to inflation annually, and all that funding going to the National Land Transport Fund), there was still a major gap between funding and expectations in the Wellington region. This largely was due to desire to progress big roading projects such as Transmission Gully, and the Wellington rail project. The latter in particular had a gap of local funding – Land Transport NZ had effectively committed itself to funding its share (60%) of the basic Wellington rail upgrade package (carriage replacement and refurbishment, station upgrades, other infrastructure upgrades), but the Wellington Regional Council claimed it could not meet its share.

As a result, several Wellington Labour MPs (Swain, Hobbs, Mallard, King) lobbied then Transport Minister Pete Hodgson for a Crown injection of funding for Wellington transport similar to the $900 million provided for Auckland.

Officials of The Treasury, Ministry of Transport and local government worked for several months in a joint process, similar to that which preceded the Auckland package, and concluded in a report that recommended some additional funding primarily for roading and public transport, without specifying a precise amount (but giving a range of options). The Wellington transport project final report also concluded that perhaps $250 million more would have been usefully contributed by the Crown

Cabinet decided to contribute $225 million which would be spent on roading and public transport, including helping the Wellington Regional Council pay for the 40% share of the rail project. The Wellington Regional Council also had to raise rates to contribute – but in effect, this package meant that Wellington’s passenger rail system had secure funding for upgrades for the next ten years. Much of that will be seen in more reliable signaling, integrated ticketing, real time public transport information systems, a second refurbishment of the Ganz Mavag electric rail units and a replacement of the old Johnsonville/Melling line English Electric units in due course (an interim refurbishment is underway now).

The $225 million basically gave Wellington what it needed to maintain and enhance its public transport system reasonably over ten years, but also around $100 million of that was expected to go on roads. Projects such as the Melling interchange (getting rid of the congested set of lights at that bridge), a flyover at the Basin Reserve and advancing stages of the Kapiti Western Link Road were mooted as getting funding from that package – but it would be far from enough to progress Transmission Gully.

In essence, Labour was giving Wellington back about one-third of the petrol tax it took every year for the Crown account – for ten years- effectively 6.3c a litre for every Wellington motorist out of the 18.7c/l that goes to the Crown account. Pretty much a start that National – quantitatively – would find hard to argue against.

However, that $225 million was announced as only the first part of Crown funding for Wellington. That funding would be enough for Wellington, except the Western Corridor (although Western Corridor projects were recognised as benefiting from those funds – new trains would run to Paraparaumu, and some roading projects on the corridor could proceed) – the Minister of Transport said that a further tranch of funding could be made available once more information about what was needed on the Western Corridor existed. That information was to come from the study. Given that the Wellington transport project report recommended $250 million on top of that, it would be fair to say that the benchmark for an increased contribution was that – but until the Western Corridor Study was completed – nothing more could be said.

In two days time (I am away tomorrow): What did the study conclude? What further funding did the Government provide and under what conditions?

Transmission Gully - The Real Story - Part 2

In Part 1 I gave some basic history about the highway and the funding framework for roads in New Zealand, right up to the point when Transit in the mid 1990s had to decide what to do about worsening congestion and safety issues at Paremata. This part proceeds from that point to 2004, when Transit had commissioned a detailed investigation of the cost of Transmission Gully.

Commitment to Transmission Gully 1996-2004

Transit was stuck. As funding had shifted completely from itself to Transfund in 1996, it could no longer be accused of determining its own funding. If any projects were to proceed, it had to bid to Transfund for them and it knew all too well that there was little point punting up projects that fell well below the anticipated benefit/cost ratio cutoff. Even as that cutoff dropped as funding became available, there was an enormous backlog of projects across the country that had not progressed - all projects with far better returns to the country than Transmission Gully. In Wellington, projects like the Newlands interchange, the Kaitoke Hill realignment north of Upper Hutt, the Inner City Bypass and the Mackays Crossing flyover all had a higher priority, along with countless small projects to remove blackspots and the need for many more passing lanes on busy stretches of highway. Transit could either sit back for an unknown period of time and do nothing about Paremata-Kapiti (which many local residents supported, figuring if it got bad enough, the Gully would be funded), or do something fundable now to ease the problem. The problem with do nothing was that, at the time, for Transmission Gully to proceed, it would have meant that delays on the highway would have to have been about an hour each way, every weekday (that is an additional HOUR to travel from Kapiti to Porirua before the project would have been worthwhile). With delays comprising typically 10-20 minutes already, Transit saw that leaving the congestion to grow progressively worse over 10-15 years as being intolerable. It had to act, but it also had to send a signal about the longer term, so the Transit board made a strategic decision that would guide its funding applications to Transfund for several years.

Transit decided that the long term strategic corridor for State Highway 1 north of Wellington was along, a slightly amended (starting at Linden not the current Tawa interchange) Transmission Gully. This meant Transit would pursue a designation under the Resource Management Act for the route to be a motorway with the relevant local authorities, and would seek funding for the initial stages of the project (investigation, property purchases and any pre-construction work).

At the time, this seemed sensible, as the project had a positive benefit/cost ratio (although quite low), was not thought of at the time as being any cheaper than upgrading the current route. The estimates carried out in the 1990s tended to support this. This approach was supported by the Kapiti Coast District Council, Porirua City Council and Wellington Regional Council.

In hindsight, Transit may have been better to commission a detailed investigation of the options at that point, but that is history. The mistake was that the cost estimate at the time was superficial.

At the same time, the then National government's roading policy was to commercialise the management of the state highway network, and allow toll roads to be built. Although investigations showed that tolls would, at best, recover one-third of the cost of Transmission Gully, the idea got some momentum. The regional council in particular saw tolling the route as providing some demand management to restrict the growth in car commuting from Kapiti.

With Transit's strategic decision on Transmission Gully, based partly on an expectation that funding for road construction would not significantly increase in the foreseeable future, Transit proceeded with a strategy of interim improvements to the highway.

However, local residents associations in Plimmerton and Mana opposed all of them. They argued that any work on the existing road would reduce the net benefits of Transmission Gully, and delay that project. Of course there was some truth to that, although the difference between 15 years and 20 years delay for a project seems academic to daily users of the road. However, that strategy had consequences that the Plimmerton Residents' Association probably did not fully understand.

Plimmerton-Pukerua Bay

The highest priority project proposed by Transit was the 4-laning and realignment between the Plimmerton weigh station and Pukerua Bay to address the average 2 fatalities per year from head on collisions (and many more injury accidents).

This section of highway was the most dangerous stretch in the Wellington region. With bends not designed for 100km/h traffic, a camber (surface angle) that often led to vehicles being driven off the road or into each other, and no median barrier, this road needed attention. Transit's analysis showed that it would be a fundable project (a cost/benefit ratio between 4 and 6) and it was a priority, so it applied for resource consents to ease the sharp curves, widen the road to 4-lanes and install a median barrier.

However, the Plimmerton Residents' Association opposed the resource consent, and was prepared to take the case to the Environment Court, which threatened to delay the project by 12-18 months. The Association said the money should go to Transmission Gully. Of course this was nonsense. Funding is prioritised nationally, and the next priority project for funding was hardly going to be Transmission Gully, but probably some other realignment in another region (as it should be) that narrowly missed out on funding that year (but would get it the following year). There was no scope for Transfund to direct Transit to spend around $10 million on Transmission Gully. This wouldn't even have paid for starting construction on the road (property purchase, detailed design and geotechnical surveys are needed first).

The upgrade was delayed for a year, and yes, there was a fatal accident on the highway, which could have been prevented by the project, because the Plimmerton Residents' Association delayed the work. That stretch of highway is far safer today, although an underpass at Airlie Road would be a welcome next step to make that wide intersection safer (although it is far safer than it was before). Had that work not proceeded, perhaps around twelve more people would have been killed on accidents on that highway - even if Transmission Gully had miraculously been started at the time. Even if it was approved today, another 18 would die before the Gully was opened and on average 1 a year after it was opened.

Paremata congestion

After dealing with the most serious safety issue on the highway (Pukerua Bay to Paekakariki had NOT yet become the blackspot it would later be, although Transit undertook some minor works to improve safety there in 2001 including clearer lane and side fence/wall markers and the centre rumble strip), congestion at Paremata/Mana.

The result is the upgrade from Paremata roundabout to the Plimmerton weigh station which is about to be completed. The main congestion problem at Mana is the merge at the bridge (not the roundabout). However, it is also important to note the difficulty of access to and from the highway by local traffic and the effect of the highway traffic on the local community. Transit decided it was less risky to undertake some interim improvements in Mana/Plimmerton now than to do nothing. So it designed an upgrade to make better use of the existing road and improve access. The project was appealed by both the Paremata Residents' Association and Porirua City Council (with later withdrew its opposition) which delayed its progress for around 2 years. However, once the Environment Court dealt with the project, Transfund funded it (it had a benefit/cost ratio over 5:1, but by then Transfund was no longer solely considering benefit/cost ratios).

The upgrade provides a second bridge, a widened and upgraded roundabout at Paremata, 4-lanes from the weigh station to Mana, five sets of traffic lights to improve access to and from Mana/Plimmerton side streets and peak time clearways (not for single occupancy cars) along Mana Esplanade. Transit agreed that when Transmission Gully was fundable, it would remove the old bridge and the clearways.

This project cost around $24 million and will ease congestion, and significantly improve access in the community. However, it is, at best, a 10 year interim solution that makes best use of what already exists. Some would say it is a waste of money, but in 10 years it is estimated that the time, fuel, vehicle maintenance and safety benefits are worth double the cost.

Further progress

Having committed to Transmission Gully in the long term, Transit proceeded to do what was necessary to plan for Transmission Gully - it sought and gained land designation on the route, and started buying properties.

The designation was appealed by several groups, including some local landowners, but eventually was confirmed (one of the major issues was the connection at Linden with the existing motorway). The Wellington Regional Council did impose conditions for the route, including the need for seven years of planting to prevent runoff into the environmentally sensitive Pauatahunui Inlet. Transfund has funded tree planting along the route to meet that condition, although the conclusion of the Environment Court case against the designation saw that condition removed - as is appropriate. The runoff issue needs to be managed by planting, but as the Resource Management Act is effects based, Transit should be able to demonstrate in that it has adequately mitigated the risk rather than simply plant trees for seven years, as it could be done sooner. A report in the Dominion Post that the requirement for seven years planting has gone - as of 2002 - is true, but the requirement to mitigate the runoff from the proposed motorway has not.

Transit started buying properties along the route as they came onto the market. No compulsory purchases have been undertaken, largely because there has been no urgency (as there is no construction funding). It now owns perhaps half of the properties needed for the route, although it is unclear how much of the land area of the route is Transit Transit. Transit's priority has been to acquire the properties needed to undertake pre-construction work.

Transfund has every year funded Transit by several hundred thousand dollars to undertake the pre-construction work for the project, particularly the environmental planting along the route. This planting has now been underway for around three years - about another four years was needed before construction could start on Transmission Gully, even if funding was available immediately.

As a distraction, Peter Dunne in 2001 introduced a private members Bill into Parliament which was purely about building Transmission Gully. It would not have granted funding, or accelerated resource consents, but would appoint a commissioner to progress the project. National, ACT and NZ First all supported it, as opposition parties do, but Labour, the Alliance and the Greens opposed it (correctly) as single Bills to build roads that only create a bureaucratic position are worthless. Several politicians tried to milk this project, despite in almost all cases having voted in Parliament to oppose political interference in road funding decisions. However, with funding still relatively tight, progress on the Gully project was seen as still longer term.

In 2002, Labour introduced a 4.2c/l increase in petrol tax (and 30% increase in road user charges for lighter vehicles) to provide a boost to land transport funding. In effect, that ensured funding in real terms remained at levels similar to 1999/2000, primarily because of inflation and ongoing erosion of fuel tax revenue (because of increased vehicle fuel efficiency). That increased revenue allowed some progress on Wellington projects, particularly the Inner City Bypass, Kaitoke realignment and Mackays Crossing Overbridge, while funding for ongoing property purchases, tree planting and investigation work on Transmission Gully continued.

As part of its prudent management of the project, Transit recognised that there had not been a detailed investigation of the Transmission Gully project which would be a reliable costing for any future funding application. Given that the Labour government had decided to introduce the Land Transport Management Bill (allowing tolling for new roads and private/public partnerships for road financing), the possibility that tolling, private investment and some public investment could progress Transmission Gully was mooted. Political interest was strong, particularly following the 2002 election when United Future pledged Labour confidence and supply (Peter Dunne believed that the Land Transport Management Act would enable Transmission Gully to proceed - when it actually only allowed viable toll roads to proceed).

Transit knew it had to get a better handle on the scope and scale of the project if it was going to be progressed in the medium term. No projects anywhere near the cost of Transmission Gully had been commissioned by Transit before, certainly nothing of that scale had been built since the 1970s, so Transit commissioned consultants to undertake a detailed investigation of the project. This included some actual groundwork to check geological conditions along the route. Given Transmission Gully is a faultline, involves steep gradients and a large viaduct near the top of the route, it was critical to have greater certainty on costs.

However, the results of this study blew the cost of Transmission Gully out of the water. Transmission Gully was not around $250-270 million, nor $300-350 million, not $400 million - it would cost $830 million - and that was a midrange estimate. This changed the situation radically.

Tomorrow: What was the reaction to the blowout in costs? What options were available? How did the funding situation change?

Transmission Gully- The Real Story - Part 1

There has been an enormous amount of noise about this proposed project. This is primarily of interest to Wellingtonians and most of the noise is ill informed. I have been following this project for some years, and have been closely involved in this issue in the past. Unlike most commentators on this, I have read the mountains of paper done on this, and talked to those involved. It is important to have some background and history to see how we got to where we are. Before I do that, I should make it clear I have no vested interest in any outcome on this – I don’t own property anywhere in the Wellington region, or have any stake in any businesses that would gain or lose from the building of any road along this route.

The first installment is some basic history of the highway north of Wellington, how the Transmission Gully option came about and where things got to in the mid 1990s - then a description of the changes to land transport funding that occurred as part of the reforms of the 1980s/1990s, which Labour and National implemented. For those wanting to read the lot, you will find the rest if you search my blog for the other 5 parts.

Background

The concept for a motorway along the route called Transmission Gully had been mooted for decades before serious discussion on the option started in the late 1980s. State Highway 1 out of Wellington had, up till that point, been developed along the corridor known as the Centennial Highway (as it was opened in the 1930s), from the bottom of Ngauranga Gorge through to Paekakariki. The earthworks for both sections were considerable, until that time, the main highway out of Wellington comprised largely what is now Paekakariki Hill Road. It shouldn’t be forgotten that long before this, a track which developed into a highway, now known as State Highway 2 – Rimutaka Hill Road – had also been developed.

It had been developed over that time including the first motorway in New Zealand, from Johnsonville to Tawa, in the 1950s. By that time, Wellington’s rail electrification project had been extended to Paekakariki, with the main trunk line having been shifted from what is now the Johnsonville line, to the twin tunnels between Wellington and Tawa that now exist. The motorway was extended in the late 1950s to bypass Johnsonville and Tawa, and the highway in Ngauranga Gorge widened to 6-lanes in that time.

In the 1950s/1960s, there were grand projects developed by the then National Roads Board (part of the Ministry of Works) for motorway projects across the country. The Wellington-Foxton motorway was designated, essentially including an extension from Porirua towards Mana, a bypass to the east of Mana (behind what is now Camborne), converting the highway from Plimmerton to Pukerua Bay into a motorway, a motorway bypass of Pukerua Bay, widening centennial highway to 4-lanes, a motorway to the east of Paekakariki following the railway line. This would extend to a motorway bypass of Paraparaumu, Waikanae and eventually Otaki and Levin! The proposed Kapiti Western Link Road will largely follow the route set aside for that motorway.

This plan was the basis for developing SH1 out of Wellington from the 1950s until the mid 1990s. In that time, the main improvements to the route were:

- 4-laning (to motorway standard) between Porirua and Paremata in the 1970s;
- Linking Ngauranga Gorge to the Wellington Urban Motorway with the Ngauranga Interchange (1984);
- Installation of a roundabout at Paremata to significantly ease access to and from the highway at that point (1986);
- Replacing the traffic light controlled intersection at Mungavin Avenue Porirua with an interchange (1987);
- Replacing the old ramp bridge at Porirua and the traffic light controlled intersection with a flyover (1994).

With progress on the highway south of Paremata largely in hand, emphasis started to shift to the increasingly congested corridor from Paremata to Kapiti. Growth in Kapiti, encouraged partly by the extension of the rail electrification to Paraparaumu in 1983, had seen a significant increase in car commuters to Wellington from that district.

Neither safety, nor route closures were a significant issue at that time, but the National Roads Board was aware of congestion at Mackays Crossing and Paremata (essentially where 4-lane sections of highway ended) which needed addressing. The old plans for the Wellington-Foxton motorway were dusted off and reviewed, and significant parts were abandoned, particularly north of Waikanae. However, some of the priorities in the 1980s for the next ten years included what had become the Camborne Bypass and the Pukerua Bay bypass. These were seen as the next logical steps and the National Roads Board starting talking publicly about upgrading the existing State Highway 1. It was then that an old idea, that had not been talked about much for decades was revived.

The appearance of Transmission Gully

In the late 1980s, residents of Mana/Plimmerton and to a lesser extent Pukerua Bay started to get perturbed about the plans for large bypasses of their villages, and wanted a solution that had long been forgotten about – a motorway through Transmission Gully - a quiet rural gully that was named after the national grid electricity lines draped along much of its length. Partly due to the uproar about the proposed bypasses, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (PCE) undertook a brief study of the options for more road capacity between Paremata and Kapiti, although PCE has no specific role in making decisions, and came to two conclusions:

1. Before any major investment in roading is undertaken, public transport should be upgraded to reduce growth in commuter traffic and to provide a more environmentally friendly alternative; and
2. Only after those improvements are complete, should a new road be built – and it should be through Transmission Gully.

This started the large scale lobbying to shift planning from the coastal route to Transmission Gully - although most Transmission Gully advocates ignore the public transport recommendation. Some early investigations by Transit NZ in the early 1990s concluded that Transmission Gully was probably cheaper than upgrading the current highway. However, upgrading the current highway had the significant advantage that it could proceed in stages to address the most serious sections progressively. For example, much of Transmission Gully effectively duplicates the highway from Paremata to Tawa, and congestion is worst at Paremata. The big safety issue then were fatalities between Plimmerton and Pukerua Bay, where the death rate was several times the national average (Pukerua Bay to Paekakariki did not have a similar rate of accidents).

During the early-mid 1990s Transit NZ was stuck – as local authorities and local residents kept pushing for Transmission Gully –then estimated at around $250 million (very much a once over estimate as no big motorway projects had been built in New Zealand for many years). Porirua City Council withdrew the land designations for the Pukerua Bay and Mana Bypasses.

As Transmission Gully at that cost only had a benefit/cost ratio of 2.3:1 (compared to the funding threshold of 5:1), it would not proceed for many years. Transit regarded the congestion at Paremata to be unacceptable, and started consulting on options to alleviate it. There were three:

1. A 4-lane bypass following the railway line behind Mana with intersections at either end;
2. A 2-lane bypass similarly;
3. Widening Mana Esplanade to operate with an extra lane in one direction at peak times only, with traffic lights to improve local access.

All options were expected to be fundable, all would ease congestion, although the best option would have been a 4-lane bypass. That would remove traffic from Mana and relieve congestion. Local consultation saw loud opposition to doing anything that was affordable. People didn’t want any of the options – they wanted Transmission Gully – ignorant of where the money would come from, as it wasn’t available. They were told Transmission Gully would be 15-20 years away and that Transit was legally bound to not sit back and do nothing about Paremata/Mana in that time. Residents ignorantly asked for money that would be spent on the proposals be spent on Transmission Gully- with the proposals costing around $15-$25 million, and Transmission Gully (then) looking like it would cost over 10x that much, that would have been wasted money as well. Little point in part building a road – it would be a road to nowhere.

Transit was stuck - it either breaches its statutory requirement to maintain and build a safe and efficient highway network, or builds an option the local residents don't want. The Minister of Transport at the time said that the decisions were not for politicians but for (what was then) Transfund and Transit to sort out, with the available funding.

Change in funding framework

Given a lot of the discussion is around decisions on funding, it is worthwhile understanding what the funding framework is for roading.

Around the late 80s, some major changes to how roads were managed and funded were about to be implemented. Up until 1989, road funding in New Zealand was decided by the National Roads Board, chaired by the Minister of Works (who may or may not have also been the Minister of Transport). Lists of projects were developed by district roads councils, which included local politicians, and decisions as to what would proceed, while informed by some analysis, were often politically driven. For example, Taranaki gained many new projects in the late 70s, early 80s, to complement the Think Big projects. The use of roading to shore up votes in marginal electorates was not unknown.

The Transit New Zealand Act 1989 changed this – as part of the reforms of the fourth Labour government – responsibility for funding, planning and building roads was radically altered. This went through several further stages under the Bolger National government, but in general it saw:

- Funding decisions shift from a Ministerially chaired Board to a statutorily independent board (Transfund, now Land Transport New Zealand);
- Decisions on how to prioritise funding move from political whim to statutory criteria (efficiency and safety under National, now more complicated under Labour);
- Funding determined by annual budget shifted to a dedicated fund from road users (the National Land Transport Fund comprising all road user charges, all motor vehicle registration fee, all LPG and CNG tax and now around 22.5c/l of petrol tax – 18.7c goes to the Crown account);
- Planning and development of state highways determined by Transit New Zealand, local authorities bid for funding from Land Transport New Zealand for local roads and public transport;
- Actual construction and maintenance of roads carried out by contractors, as all work is contracted out by competitive tender (Ministry of Works was privatised).

In that framework, politics was more removed from road building than ever before. Road maintenance and emergency work to fix natural disasters was the priority, the all new road projects were ranked according to a formula of benefit/cost analysis to ensure the projects with the biggest bang for their buck (in terms of reducing delay, fuel/maintenance savings, accidents prevented) got funding priority. At the time, when funding was tight (Labour and then National were both trying to eliminate budget deficits and unwilling to let more petrol tax be dedicated to roading), projects only got funded if they had a benefit/cost ratio of 5:1. This effectively meant, very few big projects got funded. In Wellington, there was, on average, only one major project going on at any one time.

Over time, the funding was loosened. National in 1997 increased petrol tax and matched that with an increase in funds from petrol tax dedicated to the National Land Transport Fund. This meant projects with a benefit/cost ratio of 4:1 could proceed. Labour has since increased petrol tax for land transport twice and started dedicating funding directly from the Crown Account into land transport in particular regions. Auckland has been promised $900 million, Wellington $225 million (plus up to $660 for the Western Corridor), Bay of Plenty $150 million (all over 10 years, the Auckland money started in 2004/05). This is funding that could be said to come from general taxation or from the $660 million p.a. gathered from petrol tax for the Crown Account.

Labour also changed the funding framework with the Land Transport Management Act, but largely kept many of the fundamentals intact. Benefit/cost ratios are no longer the decider of funding, although projects should, at least, be efficient, so have a benefit/cost ratio clearly over 1:1. Most projects have benefit/cost ratios over 2.5:1, so are good projects.

Politicians don’t decide what roads proceed and what ones don’t proceed. Local politicians certainly decide what local road projects get punted up to Land Transport New Zealand for funding, and express priorities for Land Transport New Zealand to consider, but ultimately that Board makes the decisions and the Land Transport Management Act explicitly stops the Minister of Transport directing the Board of Land Transport New Zealand on what to fund or not fund. He can advise on priorities and determine how much money goes on groups of activities (i.e. state highway construction), although that has yet to happen, but he wont decide.

Peter Dunne should know this, he voted for the first legislation that made this law in 1988/1989.

National MPs should know this, National strengthened this in the mid 1990s. This is a good thing – politicians are not best placed to decide how to spend road users money on roads. Some of the least politically sexy projects are quite critical and save lives – for example, ten of millions are spent annually on small projects, like widening intersections, realignments, widening bridges, improved lighting, friction surfacing slippery sections of road – projects that in themselves would never be interesting to politicians, but which are critical to eliminating blackspots and improving safety of the network.

In addition, the Land Transport Management Act allowed toll roads to be built, and private investment in new roads – but the toll road has to stack up on its own merits. So far Cabinet has approved tolling of two new roads – the ALPURT B2 motorway extension north of Orewa and the Tauranga HarbourLink project.

Tomorrow: How did Transit respond to the call for Transmission Gully in the '90s? How did the local residents of Plimmerton/Mana stall upgrades to the current highway that would save lives?

Winston, Helen Clark and the long slow demise

Helen Clark had two options after the election, she has two parties to negotiate confidence and supply with, but neither party in itself could deliver the numbers. She had 51 seats including Anderton's, and had to choose between 6 seats and the Greens, or 7 seats and NZ First. Let's consider those choices. The Maori Party and United Future individually or together, do not deliver enough. She needed either NZ First or the Greens, with one of the others (or both). She chose Winston soooo what does this really mean?

1) The Greens will be fuming, Labour knows the Greens would never bring down a Labour Government if it meant National had a chance. The Greens have got some crumbs, but any deal with the Greens would have to have included the Maori Party, as it would have been nearly impossible for Winston to work with them. The Greens have been pushed to the sidelines - which means there is little hope for those on the left that a radical social agenda would be implemented - in fact it has been ruled out. The Greens would have wanted a coalition supported by the Maori party - that would have certainly fired up the left of Labour, but would almost certainly have led Labour to certain defeat in 2008. In addition, the bad blood between Labour and the Maori Party is still too fresh. Clark has moved to the centre.

2) The Maori Party is pleased enough that it did well out of the election, and can now perform as a parliamentary entity voting on a case by case basis. This will please its supporters who would have been incensed had it backed National, but also did not want to be Labour's walkovers. It has done ok - and can wait till 2008 to build a greater presence. Certainly Pita Sharples is an enormous asset compared to Tariana.

3) United Future must be relieved that it matters, a little bit, to Labour. However, it can hardly claim that it is a party of the centre now that it is keeping Labour in power for two terms in a row. Peter Dunne can only claim credit for stopping Labour doing a range of things he doesn't like, and then there is Transmission Gully - which is his own pet Wellington Think Big project which has a negative value to the nation, and worth very few votes.

4) NZ First has to be rather happy about its position. Winston has had Helen Clark surrender a big portfolio to him, albeit outside Cabinet, and some policy success. He will lose support from those who vote for him and hate Helen Clark, much like he would've had he backed Brash. His Treaty of Waitangi policy is nearly in tatters from supporting Labour, and he may well have ensured his political retirement in 2008 - not enough in Tauranga will support him for stopping tolls on the second Tauranga Harbour Bridge.

5) Labour must be relieved to be in government, but concerned about what it has got itself in for. Two parties that voted en masse against civil unions and prostitution law reform now keep Labour in power -foreign affairs is not an important enough portfolio to be in Cabinet, and Labour now looks to have been a bit too desperate to govern. Shades of 1996-1998 - except it was National then. Many Labour supporters, hopeful for a Green/Maori coalition will be disappointed and disgusted - very few people are ambivalent about Winston, and Labour will pay just like National did. The one card Labour has that is most useful is that it has four parties that it can seek support on legislation - which means it is NOT dependent entirely on NZ First and United Future, just rather hamstrung by them. However, it will be interesting to see how long that can be sustained.

6) National must be smiling, this government looks a bit of a joke and could prove to be the death knell for NZ First and strip more votes away from United Future, both of which will probably benefit National. Now National with a revitalised caucus can sit back and look like a government in waiting, and watch three or less years of Clark using Winston, Dunne and when she wants to - the Greens and Maori Party. National has been burnt by Winston's games before, and will now use every chance to show that he and Dunne are parties that support the status quo.

7) ACT? Well while still thrilled to still be around, ACT can laugh at the Winston games, while it goes through its own internal rumblings about where it is heading. It is still a party of conservatives and liberals, who differ on many issues - but once again, for the fourth MMP parliamentary term, it is not in government.

Helen Clark is a political prostitute willing to sell out to Winston Peters to remain in power, but I am sure the Nats would do the same, again - but now it is time to watch the games, and see how much NZ First brings down this government.

Violence against children isn't that serious

is it? Compared to sex crimes, the offences get less attention, far lower sentences and nobody wants a list of where people who beat up and torture children live. Avoid the next section if you are sensitive, none of this is pleasant.

The status quo, exemplified by the case I am about to explain, implies it is far more acceptable to beat a two year old child with an iron rod, kick him, burn him with a cigarette, put his hand on the stove element, hold down in the bath or anything of the sort - than to suck his penis or have him suck yours. However, you might get five years for any of the former, but 14 for the latter. In fact, just kick him you might get two years - maximum sentence - you might rupture his spleen, but hey, at least you're not sexually perverted!

Stuff has reported on the following case - it is still at court, so the guilt of those named has yet to be established - but this case is an example of something that happens all too often.

When you next notice the tax you pay, think about how you are paying for the likes of Harley Mac Wharewera, 19, and Kane Jeremy Tawa, 23, both unemployed, who have been charged with willfully ill treating a child and assaulting a child.

They are alleged to have tortured a boy aged 2 in a bedroom dubbed “the cell”:

- “Along with regular punching and kicking, they would pick the toddler up, throw him over their shoulders, and "body slam" him on to a mattress”
- “On one occasion, Wharewera allegedly jumped off a window sill and landed with the full force of his weight on the boy while Tawa held him down.
- Is alleged that Wharewera forced the boy to eat dog faeces after locking him in a small cupboard and threatening him with assault.

There is more, and the mother is alleged to have permitted it to happen.

The boy was admitted to the intensive care unit at Whakatane Hospital on September 21 suffering serious head injuries but has since been discharged.

Anyone who treats a child like that is beyond description, Dr Josef Mengele treated children with similar respect – and I doubt if most parents or people would think that any entities performing such acts upon a child deserve to live.

I don’t care if perpetrators were beaten up as children – that’s very sad – it excuses nothing. Most rape victims don’t pursue it themselves.

What is equally vile is when the mother sits back and lets it happen – but under the NZ criminal justice system that is barely punished. James Whakaruru’s mother, who handed her boyfriend the vacuum cleaner pipe which ultimately killed the boy, got a suspended sentence and I last read she had been studying in Auckland. If a parent who can be arsed fucking to create the child, and claim cash from everyone else to pay for it fails to defend their child from assault – they are little better than the assaulter.

However, I hear the whimpering simpering leftie liberal types saying – they are victims of unemployment or women not feeling empowered. Fuck off! Let them do that in front of you to a child – tell me then who the victim is.

The criminal justice system has two significant perversities. A parent can completely abrogate their responsibilities to protect their children, and get off lightly- when it should be their top priority. Secondly, violent assaults on children are treated lightly compared to sexual assault. If the men were being charged for sexual acts upon the child, they would face sentences of up to 14 years – assault of a child is 2 years and willfully mistreating is 5 years.

This is not to minimize sexual abuse which can be highly destructive and harmful and not to be condoned – but why is violent abuse worthy of such short sentences, when it can be as damaging or more damaging. Would paralyzing a child or permanently brain damaging him be not as serious as sexual assault? I suspect almost all kinds of sexual abuse are less serious than causing such permanent physical harm. While there are calls to have a register of sexual criminals so parents know when someone dodgy moves close to their house – there are creatures who perform equally and sometimes worse crimes on children, which are not sexual, who nobody bothers thinking about.

Violence against children doesn’t upset politicians as much as sexual abuse. Who knows why? Sex makes people more upset because the offender is getting perverse gratification, but the sadist also does – although I guess culturally violence is a more acceptable pleasure than sexual arousal.

This is a part of the other world out there that I am sure almost all readers are not a part of – it is a world where lazy useless lumps of scum, not content with utterly pointless existences where they live off of the earnings of others, torture children. This is utterly nothing more despicable than any adult deliberately engaging in and savouring the infliction of pain, humiliation and harm on a child – who at once is unable to respond and is dependent on the trust, thought and compassion of an adult to nurture him.

All those who have tortured or stood by and let torture of a child be undertaken are worthy of nothing less than getting knocked down by a truck and having their entrails washed away by the rain. If the people charged are found guilty may that happen to them – may they never be allowed to be near children again, or to breed – and maybe, just maybe, this government or the next bans those found guilty of such crimes from living on welfare.

I don’t see why any of us should be forced to fund entities who have as much value as flies.

Note also that if you failed to pay your taxes, you would be guilty till proven innocent - and be treated with far less respect than those alleged to have tortured children -see where the state's priorities are?

Moore on Australia and political correctness

Mike Moore seems to have made some valid points in his DomPost article . I’ve tended to think of Moore as being, on the one hand a bit of a lightweight, but also someone who found his feet outside politics – a valuable Chairman who had a single minded focus, and a man who – when he was convinced of arguments- was prepared to back them up. His career hit its apex being head of the WTO, not leading Labour to two election defeats and getting stabbed in the back by the leftwing fascist Labour feminocracy shortly thereafter.

Moore talked about the divergence in relationship between Australia and NZ. Australia has little interest in the relationship with New Zealand. While it is useful to have access to another market- effectively no bigger than Melbourne – it is hardly critical and the Aussies have it already. The US and Asia are far more important, and the New Zealand relationship with the US, while being friends is no more than that. The tradeoff for some is to say Aussie is at risk of a terror attack far more than NZ – which may be true – and that pleases the Green anti-nuclear mob, for whom the US can never do any good.

The old story of the tradeoff between the nuclear ban and trade is true – it is a truth the Greens don’t care about, because they are against trade growth (see transporting things hurts the environment!) although they are never against using the money from it to pay for state of the art healthcare or trains or whatever their fetish is this week. Labour wont dare admit to the trade off because the nuclear ban is something the student peaceniks in them are not prepared to give up. They have some fatuous belief that banning nuclear weapons, particularly those held by countries that share our values, will result in more peace. National wont confront the largely brainless mass of New Zealanders raised on Greenpeace propaganda, fed through our schools that anything nuclear is bad and hurts whales – the same mass who happily use nuclear power on holidays to Europe and the US.

Moore more importantly lamblasts the political correctness of today - something he said Latham has "as a good bullshit detector" - while noting in New Zealand there are publicly funded books calling modern health methods of stopping smoking, eating healthier and exercise as “white man’s racist answers to Maori problems”. He quotes vaccinations being considered a form of "colonialism", and cervical screenings "contradict cultural norms". We still have the despicable anti-science bullshit that originally came out with Anna Penn and the late Irihapeti Ramsden and nursing cultural safety – something Ken Mair defended at the time. Something the National Party was silent about at the time, but what do you expect from Jim Bolger?

Why didn’t National find this before the election? This sort of vile nonsense is beyond words and I would love to have seen Helen Clark and Annette King defending state funding of this mumbo-jumbo. Nazi Germany produced the same level of science in its propaganda, and does the Maori Party defend it? Given Ken Mair is one of the Maori Party’s chief negotiators with Labour – I wouldn’t be surprised.

It is also interesting that Mark Latham understands something the Greens don't - why protectionism hurt the people Labour is supposed to care about is telling – the Greens are xenophobically opposed to foreign made goods unless they are really special! The Greens would rather protect local manufacturers than ensure the poor get cheaper shoes for their kids – but they see it as protecting jobs, keeping jobs from those poor Chinese people who without the (relatively) low wage job would otherwise (without a welfare state) have to live cultivating a subsistence existence on a farm, rather than earn money and be able to better themselves. It is such economic nonsense that it is barely worth arguing against - it is the economics of adolescents.

UK Conservative Party leadership

David Farrar has been actually AT the conference and watched it all – and it is an exciting race to see who becomes the new leader – out of David Davis, David Cameron, Ken Clarke, Liam Fox and Malcolm Rifkind – all striving to rescue the party from its three in a row defeat, which in British terms (with 4-5 year electoral terms) is enormous. Michael Howard has stepped down with dignity, and can, at least, claim to have started moving the party from the old fashioned grey haired “born to rule” reputation it has had, and won some seats at the last election. However the party needs more, and this is why…

Labour has not only stolen the middle ground, it has moved over to the right on much economic and some social policy. Allowing private hospitals to provide NHS services, introducing tertiary education fees, bravely entering the war against Iraq, maintaining an agenda of more open markets and some reform of the EU – those are centre-right policies. The policies that half of the Tories would endorse, and their voters certainly have. All the Conservative Party has been playing with is scaremongering over immigration (pandering somewhat to latent racism), Euroskepticism, being tougher on crime and more choice in public services – in other words a bit more to the right than Labour. In an environment where the British economy is ticking over ok, particularly compared to sick western Europe, most Brits are reasonably content. There is no great mood for change – and Blair has won as a result.

The Conservative Party looks geriatric. It has been trying to move from that, but it is still largely seen as a party for high income, old, heterosexual white men and their wives – and I use those terms deliberately. Even the name – Conservative Party – implies that radical change are coming and they don’t want them, they want to keep things the way they have always been. It is difficult to see how the Party relates to young people other than those who are posh and driven to lead others. Equally, as much as it tries, ethnic minorities and gay people always seem like they are wanted for image – but not really wanted in the Party. Note this is public impressions – it is a party for well off powerful people who want to govern, not for all businesspeople, or people who want less government or people who are diverse.

It is like Don Brash’s ill calculated use of the term “mainstream New Zealand” – which was meant to appeal to the Christian right of which he is not a part, and meant to appeal to the bigotry of many – the problem is Brash doesn’t really believe in it, and it shows. He would hardly say that ethnic minorities (e.g. his wife!), gay and lesbian, Maori or others are not mainstream. Unfortunately the Tories have not got a good record on looking liberal on personal liberty matters – which is one reason the Liberal Party, forerunner of part of the Liberal Democrats, existed.

So can the Tories find a leader from the existing stable of contenders to modernise the party, through off this stuffy image AND establish a clear place on the political spectrum to appeal to British voters sufficiently to win the next election.

The problem is, I don’t think it can.

Liam Fox and Malcolm Rifkind are too far from the past and wont get very far

Ken Clarke can put on a performance, but is far too cozy with Europe to succeed. He is clearly the leftwing contender, and sees the main reason the Tories are losing are because they are not occupying the middle. I suspect Ken Clarke would be seen as a tired old has-been who could hold a Cabinet posting with some dignity, but that is that. Clarke did talk about individual choice and lower tax – though we are really only talking increments here.

The most publicity has been about the two Davids, with much been about comparing their ages and backgrounds. Davis is older, and has not gone to private school, and has shown himself to be slightly more socially conservative. Cameron has much more youth and vitality, and a survey of undecided voters undertaken by the BBC indicated that he had the edge, by looking vibrant, “not like a politician” and intelligent. His wealthy background did not influence most of them negatively.

I think David Cameron would be the most popular leader, with the electorate, of any of the contenders. His talk of a modern Conservative Party (compared with New Labour) which is younger looking and appears to be more socially liberal – would help win some people over - although it will look curiously like a new version of New Labour.

However, he will be hamstrung by not being able to offer British voters a compelling reason to vote Conservative. He wont offer serious tax cuts – so they wont be voting for their own money back. He wont offer substantially greater choice in health and education, he actually campaigns against allowing people to opt out of the NHS with their money to go private. He doesn’t want to attack Labour’s nanny state approach to everything from school lunches to health and safety, to its willingness to let local government do anything nutty it wants. In other words, he is going to campaign to win largely on the basis that Gordon Brown is tired old Labour with a new brand on it – and he can offer someone if not something fresh.

If it wins the election for the Conservative Party that is all they will care about – which is sad. This is a proud party which has done much for Britain, most recently the reforms of Thatcher that Blair implicitly endorses. If all it stands for it getting into government and not doing as much as Labour is doing - it will be repeating the events of every Tory government from the 1950s through to 1979- conserving! Doing very little. A party that believes in being in power and nothing much else.

Labour and the Liberal Democrats both believe in philosophies, although the Lib Dems are split on theirs! The Conservative Party should believe in individual freedom, and government getting out of the way of businesses and people’s private lives, unless it is necessary to defend their rights.

I’d join it if it did!

Nobel Peace Prize

Mohamed Elbaradei has won the Nobel Peace Prize, along with the International Atomic Energy Agency which he heads – that isn’t a bad result at all, far better than the nomination of Bob Geldof and Bono. Greenpeace expressed reservations, because the IAEA is committed to the continual peaceful use of nuclear power – good!

Greenpeace more than any other international organisation has been responsible for scaremongering a generation about nuclear power – when it is safely used in many countries around the world (outside the former Soviet bloc where it was used with little regard for safety).

Elbaradei has focused efforts on Iran and previously Iraq (and before it withdrew from the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, North Korea) not acquiring nuclear weapons – and has performed his job with some dignity. There is little doubt that preventing other countries from acquiring nuclear weapons contributes to peace between countries. There are reports the IAEA wants to pursue Israel – which it can’t as it is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty – nor should it be! He also deserves it far more than past winners Jimmy Carter and Kofi Annan – it is hard to forgive Carter for taking the eye off the ball in the Cold War, and Kofi Annan has not been extraordinary as Security General of the UN.

Labour-Greens-Maori

So the Otago Daily Times is claiming that a coalition- confidence/supply agreement looks imminent that basically involves at least a Labour-Anderton coalition (no surprise) with the Greens and the Maori Party. Nobody else is needed. Pita Sharples claims that the Maori Party will support Labour on confidence and supply, and repeal of the Foreshore and Seabed Act will not be a condition of that support. More specifically, the Maori Party would not bring the government down on that point.

Coalition with the Greens is more likely now, simply because United Future is irrelevant unless the numbers add up some way to make UF relevant for a particular Bill (only likely if the Greens and Maori Party oppose a Bill that UF and NZF support). The resignation of Hobbs, Hawkins and Swain for various reasons (I am guessing competence for the first two, and Swain's new child and his young wife for the third -which is a perfectly respectable reason) leaves some room, although the Clark Cabinet always seemed too big. See if Tizard retains any portfolios outside Cabinet as well - and counts down to retirement from central government.

Of course, NZ First will be key for passing any legislation that the Maori Party opposes, but it was instrumental in passing the Foreshore and Seabed Bill last term.

So if the ODT is right, NZ has a leftwing government, not centre-left as it is more leftwing than 2002-2005, the Maori Party after all is Marxist as I have pointed out, and the Greens are authoritarian in most instincts as I listed here and which PC has also identified here.

Any notion of taxcuts and repeal of race based laws? I'm afraid they are gone by kaitime.

My verdict on Election 2005

As many others have done so, I thought I would publish my verdict on the election. There are basically three conclusions:

1. This was about a challenge from Don Brash to Labour on two issues - tax cuts and race based laws, with a subtext about trusting Labour given a whole host of issues, like the speeding motorcade;

2. Voters either voted for a change in government (National), with those on the Maori roll going for the Maori party to send a different message. Or they voted AGAINST that change (Labour).

3. All other parties - that is other than Labour, National and the Maori Party - did poorly, because they either did not stand for supporting either Labour or National, risked not reaching the 5% threshold and because almost all voters wanted to choose a government - which doesn't mean a coalition partner or supporter on confidence and supply.

Unlike the last three MMP elections, this time voters stopped dabbling with minor parties. Most voters decided it was a choice between changing the government ala Don Brash and National or not, this is different from endorsing Labour - this was Labour's election to lose, and it nearly did.

Large numbers of people turned out to vote out Labour – they abandoned NZ First, United Future, ACT, Christian Heritage and others to vote National – and they sure did. Brash delivered a result that he should be proud of – because it beats anything Jim Bolger achieved after 1990. Bolger only got 35% and 33% respectively in 1993 and 1996, and the 1990 result was in no small part to him promising to abolish the then superannuation surtax and Phil Goff’s tertiary student fees, and then doing quite the opposite (which spawned NZ First).

Brash lost because he blundered in some debates, was not always speaking naturally as himself by correcting the message when his advisors saw it as being not so popular - e.g. privatisation, nuclear ships. He did not show sufficient passion and courage to defend on principle tax cuts and less bureaucracy. Next time he should sharpen the focus as a battle between nanny state Labour and "we trust you a bit more" National. However, it was hard to fight with the economy buoyant. Brash's key success was that he asked the public two questions:

1. Do you want Maori to continue to have laws and taxpayer funding that other New Zealanders cannot receive?
2. Do you want more of your money back when the government is running surpluses and expanding the bureaucracy?

39% said no, but 41% said yes.

The message resonated for many New Zealanders, as shown by the swathe cut through provincial New Zealand by National. Labour has lost much support in cities like Napier, New Plymouth and Hamilton, only the high party vote in the core support bases of south and west Auckland saved them. Labour remains dominant in the big cities – Labour won Auckland - just. It lost the North Shore, but lower income Auckland was scared they would lose benefits under National. Wellington and Christchurch were also won. Wellington wasn’t a surprise, as public servants vote for the incumbent government as a rule, and Christchurch is the people’s republic. National clearly has struck a couple of chords, and with its substantially refreshed caucus will hopefully continue running with that. The risk is that it has a bunch of MPs who will sell out for power once more, feeling they lost because they weren't centrist enough. This is nonsense - National lost because it didn't stick to the message throughout the campaign. It DID play well in one respect - it ignored Labour's pleas to change the terms of the debate, but it did falter at key moments, and these probably cost it the support it badly needed, particularly in the main centres.

Labour, as usual, mobilised those who were scared that tax cuts meant their beloved state health and education systems would fall apart – it perpetuates the myth, beloved by the vested interests who want more money and no competition or accountability, that constantly pumping money into publicly provided health and education makes a huge difference. The beneficiaries of Labour – anyone who chooses not to work, public servants and unionised quasi-monopoly industries (teachers and nurses) came out in force to continue to vote themselves other people’s money. The naïve were convinced that Helen Clark would better spend their money than they could, so they came out to vote. National played against that by listing many areas of poor spending - it could have done more of this, and been credible - but didn't have the team doing sufficient research to fight Cullen hard on this.

Others were frightened by Labour and the Maori Party, that abolishing race based law would upset too many radical Maori, and we could have civil war or something not far short of that. Then there are the legions of voters now indoctrinated by Nanny State's schools into loving the Treaty of Waitangi and the guilt industry built around it.

Labour undoubtedly lost some votes to National, and to the Maori Party (although more electorate than party votes), but it gained some from the Greens, the JAP party (Jim Anderton) and the remnants of the Alliance. While in a time of low unemployment and a reasonably buoyant economy Labour should have won, it shows how Brash’s policies of tax cuts and abolishing race based laws were resonant with much of the electorate for it to be so close.

Those who hate the Nanny State hypocrisy of the government and saw in Brash an honest man who would give people back their money, and end special government privileges for Maori, got out to vote. Labour got out its core vote, and used fear to generate votes for the status quo, and it worked. For that, Clark deserves credit for winning a third election – although that victory may not taste so good when she has to share it with so many. More New Zealanders wanted government that tells them what to do and spends their money, than not. She runs a tight ship, and is a model for future PMs in that regard. There is little tolerance of dissent or side agendas – Helen Clark has spent far too long working to get where she is to let the lesser minds of many of her caucus members derail this government. Heather Simpson and Helen Clark (H2 and H1 in common Parliamentary parlance) tolerated the 1980s Labour government, and the debacles of the 1993 and 1996 elections to go on and reshape government to be more closely involved in most aspects of the economy and society. Just think about how much untangling of funding, bureaucracy and regulation would be needed by a free market oriented National government to wind back what Labour has done. Telecommunications, energy, education, the arts, broadcasting, local government, the list goes on and on.

Beyond the two big parties, the Maori Party was the other success story. It won because it had a brand, it had an MP who stood up against Labour on the Foreshore and Seabed Bill, and Pita Sharples – a man who at best, is a skilled and passionate educator and communicator. The Maori Party harnessed the vast taxpayer funded Maori broadcast media, and with very little policies, became a nationalist rallying cry. Much of the Maori Party’s policy and some of its candidates had been seen before – in the very nationalist Mana Maori Party. Now those voting in the separate Maori seats had a choice, like had happened with NZ First in 1996. This time the party simply said it would be a voice for Maori – as if Maori have one coherent view on the role of government. Nevertheless it worked, and with an overhang of one, the Maori Party has shown that many Maori voters figured out MMP – voting Labour for their party vote and Maori party for the electorate. The test will be the next three years – how critical will the Maori Party be in granting confidence and supply, or supporting key legislation. Will it press Labour towards taking more steps to please Maori voters specifically, and if so, will this backfire by returning those voters to Labour?

Losses for the other parties were rather catastrophic. As Frogblog has already noted, the Greens lost the lowest proportion of votes of all those remaining in Parliament – but clearly it did face some voters reverting to Labour, to bolster its chances of beating National for number 1 spot, but also because polling for the Greens made their 5% spot not always convincing. Wasted votes are avoided by many voters, and the Greens had little new to sell to voters besides “we’ll support Labour and want to spend more of your money on new energy sources, and petrol is running out ha ha ha”. The loss of Nandor Tanczos will also reduce the appeal of the Greens to voters keen on cannabis law reform.

NZ First suffered a loss of protest votes to National. Winston rightfully should feel humiliated having lost his base in Tauranga and is now playing a careful game of not supporting or opposing Labour being in government. His elderly support base are slowly dying off missing Rob Muldoon and the dark ages, his Maori supporters are drifting away, and virtually all of his MPs are invisible and unknown (who’s going to miss Bill Gudgeon and Edwin Perry!). Unless Winston exploits a high profile issue near the next election that National drops the ball on, he is fading away.

United Future understandably is back down to more usual levels, as much of its support from 2002 went back to National. Even absorbing the Outdoor Recreation party and the irrelevant WIN party, did nothing for United Future, which at best is now a place for those who don’t care about the election outcome – but like Peter Dunne – to vote. The soft Christian family vote has probably left for National as well. Once Dunne retires, United Future will be gone, and not a moment too soon!

ACT is glad it survived – it barely did. Rodney Hide made a great effort in Epsom and I trust he will be a vibrant local MP, and deservedly so. No doubt ACT would have picked up more National votes had Epsom been a sure thing, but then that would not have assisted National in forming a government while Dunne and Peters prefer negotiating with the larger of the two main parties. It now has two socially liberal MPs, and it is about time they thought more about that, and let ACT be free of its conservative instincts. It wont of course, which is why I didn’t vote for ACT in the 2005 election. I did in 1996 and it proceeded to disappoint.

Jim Anderton is back down to his personal cult party – how quaint and irrelevant, it’s Labour in drag with a Catholic conservative bent *yawn*.

Beyond that, those who believed God was on their side were wrong – Brian Tamaki has little support outside his tithing sheeple, following him in his quest to take New Zealand to the Dark Ages. The Christian Heritage Party was damned for having tried to convince the public to vote for Graham Capill too many times in the past – Libertarianz beat them in several electorates for the party vote. Methinks Destiny and Christian Heritage would get together, if Brian's ego wasn't so enormous (oh I forgot, he doesn't lead the party - it has nothing to do with him!).

The Alliance similarly must now be down to its last rites, as Libertarianz also beat it in several electorates on the party vote.

Which comes to Libertarianz – a very poor result, less than one thousand votes, despite a tremendous effort campaigning by a range of talented people, some of whom were cutting their teeth bravely on the campaign trail for the first time. At least the party stood this time, and generally did better in electorates it had candidates than those where it did not. Two of our key messages were central to the election – abolishing race based laws, including the Maori seats, and cutting taxes. Sure we wanted to abolish taxation ultimately, but the principle remained – Brash argued it is YOUR money, Clark argued that the world would end if she didn’t have access to it.

Where to from here for Libertarianz? The message remains the same - small government is beautiful and the state should get out of the way, but the way the message is communicated will diversify. It has to – nobody else on the political spectrum is consistently fighting for private property rights and the right of you to own your body, your life and interact voluntarily with other adults. That is what Libertarianz is about – it is not what Labour, National or any other party believes in.

For New Zealand? Clark will run a status quo government, and be hard pressed to do anything beyond tax and spend more of your money - and pass some legislation that isn't too controversial.

One thing to remember though is that although NZ First and United Future are painted as being centre-right, they are both parties of bigger government. NZ First is inherently conservative, likes the government running businesses and likes banning things it doesn't like (look at how it approached civil unions, prostitution and censorship). United Future is also conservative, and if creating a new pointless bureaucracy called the Families Commission isn't about big government, what is? They will both allow Labour to increase the size of the welfare state in the next three years - no pleading from either party about stable government will deny this fact. If either wanted to legitimately claim they support tax cuts and less bureaucracy they would withhold confidence and supply, and let Labour deal with the Maori Party - and implement its agenda.

I dare them!

Why do I like Tony Blair?

I shouldn’t like Tony Blair –after all he is a Labour Prime Minister, and instinctively I prefer the party that was of Thatcher - the Conservatives, which is meant to believe in smaller less intrusive government, which stood steadfastly with the USA during the Cold War, and confronted the post-war malaise of British socialism head on.

However, I must confess, that I do like him. It is not because the Tories are a dissembled bunch of rudderless opponents of Labour – the Tories have never been socially liberal, and struggle to maintain economic liberalism consistently. It is because Blair shows two qualities that place him in the league of Thatcher, and place him light years above Clark, Brash and indeed any New Zealand Prime Minister in my lifetime.

1. Blair is principled;
2. Blair is unashamedly willing to confront those who oppose him and argue out of principle.
Yesterday I watched Blair’s speech at the British Labour Party Conference on TV (the BBC still covers political party conferences for nuts like me), and I came away inspired.

Now there is an enormous rider in all of this – I don’t approve of the social engineering, the growth in the state, the willingness to limit civil liberties and the many of facets of what are “old labour” that the Blair administration has been a part of. I would not have voted Labour in the last UK election – largely because I could not have brought myself to do so, and because the Tories need new blood to succeed Labour in due course. On top of that the emphasis on “spin” and controlling the language used by the (until recently) Blair friendly British electronic media, is at best hiding from debate and at worst deceitful.

So what did Blair say and what has he done?

I could go on about his confrontation of the barely shrouded Marxists in the British trade union movement, in pushing for private sector provision of health care, something National feels very brave to campaign on in New Zealand. He also stated that the future for energy was technology, and nuclear power – something that the luddite Green movement would be aghast at. Both are worthy of praise.

However, nothing matches his willingness to defend the UK presence in Iraq, and the war on terror. He declared, in no uncertain terms, that the so called “grievances” of the terrorists have to be exposed for what they are – the use of 21st century technology to fight the religious wars of the dark ages – their attack on 9/11 was an attack on our way of life, on the values of modernism – it is NOT about Afghanistan or Palestine.

He cited how awful Afghanistan was under the Taliban, and how the terrorists and their supporters used Afghanistan and now use Iraq as excuses for waging their war of hatred on modern civilisation. He stated how the UK presence in Iraq is welcomed by the democratically elected Iraqi government, and the UN, and the UK could NOT sit back and let other countries carry the burden. He is unashamedly proud of the British role in overthrowing Saddam Hussein, and providing Iraq with a freer democratic government – and it is time to finish the job, confront those who want Iraq to become a terrorist run state and spread liberal democracy to Iraq.

This is light years ahead of the mealy mouthed pragmatism of Clark and Brash on this issue, Clark happily lets NZ free ride off of Australia and the US for defence – Brash knows better, but panders to the mindless anti-Americanism that braindead journalists and the Michael Moore sycophants adore.

You see, Blair does not give one inch of credit to Al Qaeda or any other terrorists for their behaviour. He does not surrender the fundamental morality of Western liberalism –a liberalism that protects individual rights (albeit inconsistently), that guarantees plurality of speech, guards against extreme abuses of power and welcomes reason, science and diversity as being the beauty of what humanity is. Blair is a staunch defender of those fundamental freedoms, the ones that the apologists for the West use blatantly to attack it, the ones that Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and yes the Mullahs in Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and elsewhere exploit to wage war on civilians. Nothing is more unspeakably loathsome than the apologists for deliberate murder of people and of civilisation, reason and the belief that all human beings are created equal and because they are human have inalienable rights. Have no question about it, the Islamic fundamentalists would not for a moment tolerate any of the women protesting for THEIR rights, doing anything short of being virtual slaves to their husbands – and if humanity had followed their path then the dark ages would be upon us – remember these are people who ban music!! Think about it – Nazi Germany, North Korea, the Khmer Rouge – three of the most despicable regimes in human history, were not so utterly without a shred of any joy to ban music.

This is not a war against Islam – individuals in a free society have a right to peacefully practice their own religion, and market it – Islam does need to go through its own enlightenment, and perhaps Turkey shows one path for it to go down. It is a war against those who seek to turn government and society back to premodernity, to the caves, to the savages of mysticism.

Back to Blair – his other statement was shorter and more pithy. He talked of those wanting to oppose globalisation as being as pointless as wanting to oppose autumn following summer. He talked of Britain embracing globalisation, and competing using knowledge, skills and being better and smarter at producing goods and services. He reflected on how India and China were embracing globalisation, and it was lifting many in those countries out of poverty, and how Asia and Latin America were better off with trade. Africa would have to be next. While talking about debt relief and fighting poverty in developing countries, he did point out clearly that one of the most important steps was for Europe and the USA to reform trade in agriculture. This meant explicitly abolishing export subsidies and curtailing the Common Agricultural Policy of the EU. Such steps, which the leftie Green socialist luddites will probably resist, will make it easier for poorer countries to compete fairly in world markets, and reduce the price of food in the richest countries. He pointed directly at the economic failures of France and Germany, for having too much angst to undertake serious reforms – and rightfully so.

Blair sees clearly the future agenda in foreign affairs on two fronts: the war on terror and trade. The war on terror is just, and remaining in Iraq is just. Yes foreign affairs is about realpolitik. The opportunity to overthrow Saddam Hussein was taken, when he was flagrantly ignoring UN Security Council resolutions time and time again, he was militarily weak, and there was every good reason to believe he had weapons of mass destruction (as he clearly had before and was prepared to use them on civilians to suppress dissent). He ran a brutal illegitimate regime than nobody in their right mind could possibly excuse – except his mate George Galloway of course – and the chance was there to remove a defence risk, a brutal regime and to institute a peaceful liberal democratic government – you know the sort that allows protest marches, a free press and women to have the same rights as men.

His advocacy of eliminating agricultural export subsidies and cutting back the Common Agricultural Policy is also moral – the average cow in the EU gets more in subsidies than the average person earns in developing countries for income per annum.

Most importantly, he does not shirk from his principles, and he knows what matters first and foremost – survival and freedom. He will not sell out the defence of the UK because of self imposed guilt about what others think about western civilisation, and he believes that markets work (most of the time he does anyway). Don Brash could learn a lot from Tony Blair, and the idea that Helen Clark shares with Blair anything besides his obsession with spin - is ludicrous!

Sobriety and a chance for reflection

Hello all

I have not been blogging because I have shifted lock stock and barrel to London the day after the election - I had to leave - Clark and her minions seduced the sheeple to believe they needed her and couldn't handle having some of their own money back - Brash nearly did show that a plurality wanted change. However, combined with the luddites, the racists, the middle mediocrity muddlers and Winston First, Clark will no doubt form another administration to run your lives for you.

Until special votes are counted, I wont be commenting further - as that WILL make a big difference, but I do want to reflect on what did happen last Saturday night.

The statist, socialist bullies got scared for several hours that they could not bully you, scare you into giving up more of YOUR money, for three more years - until the sheeple gave them the chance. This election was almost entirely about National rebuilding itself - and decimating the third parties on the right that had been the repositary for protest votes. Labour lost very little, its main loss went to the Maori Party - but that is another story.

For Libertarianz? a poor result, partly due to non appearance in 2002 on the list, but also due to the resurgence of National - ACT suffered just as humiliating a cut in the vote.

Anyway, I have far more interesting things to talk about than NZ politics in the coming months, but as I said - until the votes are counted, the true situation is not entirely clear. If National and Labour have the same number of seats - who will Winston choose?