Environmentalists risking lives

A group of transport fanatics are proposing that Aucklanders break the law and walk and cycle along a motorway this Sunday. They of course mean the Auckland Harbour Bridge.

There is a reason walking and cycling on motorways is illegal - motorways are built for motor vehicles travelling at open road or close to open road speeds, and are free of obstructions to avoid accidents. If there was a walkway/cycleway then fine, but there isn't. It's like the stupid teacher who decided to walk some kids through the Terrace Tunnel in Wellington - recklessly stupid.

The construction of Auckland Harbour Bridge was funded through tolls on motorists and its ongoing maintenance is funded through fuel taxes and road user charges on motorists. Auckland ratepayers pay nothing. Pedestrians and cyclists pay nothing. There is no "right" to use something you don't pay for, and which creates hazards for those who do.

Building a walkway/cycleway isn't cheap, partly because having people walk on a bridge creates challenges different from a road bridge, because it creates a resonance effect from the steps, different from rolling. The cycle/walkway enthusiasts don't want to pay for it, they want the money taken from road users, even though the business case for it doesn't stake up. They lie that every biking or walking is taking a car off the road, when it is more likely it is a new trip, as it is a novel experience. The effects on congestion will be negligible.

The answer simply is for those who want it to pay for it. Imagine even a turnstile either side charging £2 to cross the bridge. Why not? The motorists paid for their part.

Meanwhile, the issue is a bunch of activists willing to risk the lives of people, by walking on a motorway, which will give others the idea that walking on motorways is fine. What parents take their kids on a protest march on a motorway?

The Police set a bad precedent by letting a Hikoi cross the bridge illegally some years ago, so refusing it this time will look like "you can get away with breaking the road code if you're a Maori led group".

Where else might they demand "a right" to travel? Through Rimutaka tunnel? Through the Terrace Tunnel? Through Lyttelton Tunnel? It's a nonsense. Pay for a walkway, or use the bus or ferry.

House of Commons speaker resigns

After a remarkable fortnight of revelations about the trough that so many British MPs have been feeding from, it is right that the Speaker of the House of Commons - Michael Martin - MP for Glasgow North East (Labour) has announced he is quitting. He is resigning not only as speaker, but as an MP, provoking a by-election in a rather dire part of Glasgow (which is saying something!). He could not continue, with MPs from several parties on both sides of the House demanding he quit. Especially since his own role in the parliamentary expenses scandal is so odious.

For a Labour MP in a low income constituency he has had his snout firmly in the trough for some years, it will continue as his pension is worth half his MP's salary and half his Speaker's salary for the rest of his life. In other words a pension pretty much like he earned working, except he wont be. An editorial in the Observer (which is typically pro Labour) said a month ago

"A fish rots from the head down and in parliament the precipitous decline in ethics and probity begins with the speaker, Michael Martin. For years, the speaker and Mrs Martin have been plundering the public purse for an almost grotesque array of personal perks and foreign junkets. Only last week, we learnt of new beanos to the Gulf, in the wake of similar trips to Hawaii and the Bahamas."

Martin topped it off by trying to hide MPs travel expenses a couple of years ago, and when the Daily Telegraph started publishing the expenses claims of MPs across the political spectrum he said that the publication was a "security risk" that the Police should investigate. He also made a limp wristed call for change. When challenged by one MP that this would waste Police time and imply MPs had nothing to hide he said "It's easy to say to the press this should not happen - it's a wee bit more difficult when you just don't have to give quotes to the press and do nothing else", he criticised another MP who long called for more transparency as someone who was seeking press attention.

Martin has shown himself to be complicit in hiding the truth behind the outrageous expenses claim system, criticise those who wish to show to taxpayers the truth of the trough of the House of Commons. The extent of this scandal is almost impossible to get to grips with, as the Daily Telegraph almost daily has had new revelations. It has decimated public trust in politicians across the board, although Labour has been damaged the worst. What has been most telling is how utterly out of touch most MPs have been with their constituents. Many have been bombarded with angry phone calls and emails from people who are outraged at MPs claiming for lavish expenses on second homes, whilst being immune from capital gains tax, whilst in some cases not having the second homes in London, or not using them (because they already own a second home, but claim an allowance for another one). The Telegraph also has those that are "angels" in comparison.

Quite simply the difference between David Cameron, who called on his own MPs implicated to pay the money back, and Gordon Brown who called for a committee and a review, is stark. Cameron looked like a man of contrition and action, Brown looked like the dour bureaucrat who wanted to investigate before acting.

The question is how it will affect both the local and European elections in a few weeks time, but more importantly the entire reputation and credibility of mainstream politics in the UK. It implicates so many, and has angered so many more - could it ever plant a seed of distrust in letting politicians spend people's money?

Government moves transport funding towards state highways

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

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

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

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

What has the Minister decided?

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

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

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

What goes up?

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

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

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

What doesn't change?

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

What is cut?

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

Shift to economic efficiency

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So was it a crime before?

The case of Jimmy Mason raises a very basic question.

Mason apparently flicked his son's ear and punched him. Would that have been "reasonable force as correction" before smacking was banned? Punching a 4 year old hardly seems to be reasonable.

I'd have thought the charges related to pushing over the bikes of a 4 year old and a 2 year old while they are riding them also would not be "reasonable force" (though he was found not guilty of such actions as the details and description are not clear).

The case was brought as a bystander observed Mason "disciplining" his son in a public place.

The point being this. What did the abolition of the defence of reasonable force as correction do to this case? I'm no fan of smacking - but it appears on the face of it that had the law not been changed, Mason could still have been facing charges.

Or was it just that the Police wouldn't have bothered before?

One mistake in appointing Families Commissioner

is having one at all. Christine Rankin's unsuitability is moot, given that the role itself is completely inappropriate.

The post can remain vacant, whilst legislation is introduced to abolish the role.

The only people who would be upset are those who work there and Peter Dunne, who got it as a "gift" from Labour in exchange for granting Labour confidence and supply in 2002, when his party had 8 seats. Now he is the sole MP.

Give one good reason why taxpayers should be forced to pay for this bureaucracy. It should be first on the list of cuts by Bill English.

So here's a question for Mt. Albert voters to put to the candidates. "Why should I be forced to pay for the existence of a Families Commission and Commissioner?"

Melissa Lee and John Boscawen can't disagree with it can they, unless either plans on disagreeing with the government they support? Neither can David Shearer nor Russel Norman, since both were in parties that supported it in the first place.

Only a vote for Libertarianz candidate Julian Pistorius will help Mt. Albert elect an MP that will demand the abolition of this useless bureaucracy, and that's just for starters!

Rudman: People use something they don't pay for

That's Brian Rudman's latest piece of genius. He is pleased that public transport patronage went up a fair bit in the last nine months in Auckland.

Much of that is due to the Northern Busway, and a lesser extent due to greater use of rail services. Not that surprising when you consider how much the price of petrol went up for part of that period, which made public transport more "competitive" price wise.

However, the increased usage isn't from people paying for what they use. The Northern busway cost NZ$210 million (paid for by all road users) and has a lot of unused capacity (empty space that other vehicles could used). Rail passengers moreso don't pay anything towards upgrades to the system, and only pay a third of the cost of running the trains through fares.

For ARTA Chairman Mark Ford to regard it as an "investment" under circumstances where the investment costs more money is a little stretch.

However, Brian is making a far bigger claim saying "These were 3.7 million trips that were not taken in a private car on our congested roads." How does he know what would have happened otherwise? How many train trips were previously bus trips? How many trips were previously people car sharing? How many trips wouldn't have been made at ALL?

How many of those trips would have occurred had the bus and train passengers had to pay the same proportion of cost of providing those services and infrastructure as motorists do?

Brian goes on about the Tamaki Drive bus lane, which he thinks shouldn't be allowed to be used by other vehicles. Far better for trucks and fully loaded cars to be stuck in congestion, rather than the near empty bus lane let a few more vehicles in, right Brian? Those evil car drivers and their passengers should catch the bus!

The real issue in Auckland is congestion, which is a result of supply not matching demand, which is itself a function of price and funding. Pouring a fortune into subsidising public transport is tinkering at the edges, and the most successful example is, funnily enough, the one that requires the least ongoing subsidies - buses.

However, what I really want to know is has ARTA done surveys as to where new bus and train users come from? What were they doing before? After all, if a majority of them weren't driving cars, then isn't this all a great big subsidy for people who weren't on the roads in the first place?

Talk about a bad investment?

Stuff reports: "Transmission Gully could be one of a host of shelved projects to get the green light under a radical idea that would see KiwiSaver funds channelled into long-term strategic infrastructure assets.

The brainchild of Tower Investments chief executive Sam Stubbs, Public KiwiSaver Partnerships (PKPs) would allocate a proportion of funds directly into core infrastructure projects, freeing up government cash for investment in goods and services."

Well nice idea, if the investments were profitable. Commercial enterprises make sense of course, but Transmission Gully? What's he on?

Tolls wouldn't pay for more than 10% of the road, there isn't enough money in the National Land Transport Fund to pay for it either, so is he suggesting that taxpayer funds be poured into a road (lent to pay for it) that taxpayers would have to pay for? A road that users can barely pay a fraction of the cost of isn't profitable.

Sorry Sam, try again.

Sri Lanka poisoned by nationalism

Tamil protestors have been out in force in London for several weeks. I said to one that the tragic support of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) meant I saw both sides as equally in the wrong. However, none of this takes away from the humanitarian disaster that this war has seen inflicted on Tamils and the Sinhalese. The apparent ceasefire by the LTTE may hopefully see an end to the killing, but it wont resolve the underlying sore - the malignancy of nationalism on both sides.

The LTTE is a terrorist organisation that maintained a gangster "state" in the north of Sri Lanka for years. It's own tactics which included, until recently, child soldiers as well as bombing civilian targets have badly hurt the cause of Tamils in Sri Lanka. The LTTE, with shades of Hamas, happily has used civilians as human shields. However, which most Tamils support a cause which is based on resisting the nationalist chauvinism of the Buddhist Sinhalese, there is a darker side to this resistance. It is based not on promoting a Sri Lanka where the state is blind to nationality, but on separatism. To resist bigotry and nationalism by promoting your own nationalism by murderous means is not claiming the moral highground. For Tamils to start to claim that, they need to condemn and reject the LTTE, and demand equality under the law and before the law in Sri Lanka. After all, Tamils in India have little appetite for separatism, as India itself is not ethnically or religiously defined.

However, while Wikipedia has lists of attacks by the LTTE, it also has them of the Sri Lankan military. There is little doubt that the Sri Lankan military is far from innocent in this conflict. Its own application of severe censorship on reporting the war means its own antics will be hidden. Sinhalese paramilitary have assisted the Sri Lankan government in attacking Tamil areas. China too has helped armed the Sri Lankan government, demonstrating its willingness to turn a back while its customers kill.

So it looks like the Sri Lankan government will win, but for the conflict to truly be over, Tamils must no longer fear that government - which means it should be open, which means removing restrictions on the media - it should seek transparency and reconciliation, acknowledging what wrong has been done, so Sri Lanka as a whole can start to put this conflict behind it. Tamils and Sinhalese both have to admit people in their communities have assaulted, murdered and destroyed, and the will must be to live side by side.

However, whilst too many in Sri Lankan politics pander to Sinhalese Buddhist nationalism, they will continue to see Tamils as the "other", a group that deserve nothing, instead of treating all those in Sri Lanka as individuals. Sri Lanka has tremendous potential in tourism, and in enjoying a share of India's economic revival.

It can only do it best if the religious, nationalist and Marxist elements of Sri Lanka's politics can be eschewed. Yes, Sri Lanka, start treating each other as individuals, not as Tamils, Sinhalese, Hindu, Buddhist or whatever.

Auckland motorists go have some fun!

Have a drive on a new motorway!

According to the NZ Herald, from 3pm this afternoon, the eastbound lanes of the Mt Roskill extension will be open from Maioro Street and Sandringham Street, so you can have a clear run from there to Kirkbride Road near the airport or to Roscommon Road in Wiri. The westbound lanes wont be open till Monday at the earliest, but still go on - have fun in one direction - your petrol taxes and road user charges paid for it, and you'll get a taste of the time savings. On top of that, you can be of clear conscience that NO land was compulsorily purchased for the motorway.

Oh and it will annoy the Greens, because they actively opposed building this motorway. It will annoy a small group who wanted to protect the volcanic cones.

UPDATE: Oh, by the way as you enjoy this new motorway, notice it goes through Phil Goff's electorate. Notice the absence of tunnels even though it involves passing alongside hills and going uphill itself. This project was brought to you by the fifth Labour government, fully funded from the National Land Transport Fund.

Bullshit about the Waterview Connection

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

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

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

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

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

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

All options require work at SH16 worth $242 million.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Green's want a Mega Auckland with nationalised transport

The Greens are supporting the Auckland mega city, just in a different form.

It's outlined here. In summary the Greens want:

- A single Auckland mega council which will:

1. Nationalise or regulate all bus, ferry, truck and taxi companies ("Fully integrated transport, under the full control of the Auckland Council, Council should own and manage all the relevant assets") with council controlling all transport, presumably excluding your cars and bikes, but that's it.
2. Take over the state highways from central government (and you can imagine what it will do with them).
3. Dividends on council assets could be paid to ratepayers or not paid at all;
4. Privatisation not possible without two-thirds majority in favour (forget democracy then when it is about the Port and Airport, they are "special").
5. Lots of little community councils with lots of power over spending your money, think of them as party cells.
6. Have race based special representation for people of Maori descent.
7. More councillors than National proposes (how else are leftwing activists to get jobs?)
8. The overriding philosophy will be sustainability, which means whatever the Greens say it means.

Nice that. A big big city, with lots more politicians, lots of local community councils to meddle in your affairs, but it will be democratic, except when a majority think owning a Port isn't core business for council, oh and except for those who are Maori who think that race is a basis for political identity. Oh it will relieve the government of the state highways (so that some main national corridors become beholden to local interests in Auckland) and take over the running of transport in Auckland. Finally, Auckland transport gets owned, run and regulated by the council, at large, for people and freight presumably. Yep, the people who think traffic congestion is caused by building more road capacity, and it can be relieved by subsidising modes that get grossly underutilised, want to control how you move.

Still thinking the Greens are about real change, or just a different form of local government fascism?

So when does Labour build tunnelled urban highways?

You have to laugh at the politics around the Waterview motorway, and the sheer hypocrisy of the Labour Party in opposing what is now a partly tunnelled partly surface route.

Yes, it isn't a surface motorway at all, it is 60% cut and cover tunnel under the Great North Road and a suburban area. However, the lies about it are rather infectious aren't they?

Since 1999, the following major urban motorway/highway projects have been started while Labour was in power. None were tunnelled.

- Grafton Gully upgrade - at surface option selected over tunnelled and viaduct options.
- Central Motorway Junction upgrade Stages 1 and 2 (no tunnel option.
- Greenhithe Deviation (Upper Harbour Motorway) - at surface.
- Mt Roskill extension of SH20, at surface.
- Manukau extension of SH20, at surface.
- Waiouru Peninsula highway and interchange (Otahuhu) at surface.
- Hamilton Avalon Drive bypass, at surface.
- Tauranga Harbourlink (second Tauranga Harbour Bridge with highway connection to Waikareao Expressway), elevated.
- Hawke's Bay Expressway northern extension, at surface.
- Wellington Dowse Drive upgrade on SH2, elevated.
- Wellington Inner City Bypass stage 2, at surface.
- Mana-Plimmerton upgrade SH1, at surface.

So you see, a tunnel isn't good enough for Greenhithe, Mt Roskill, Manukau, west Hamilton, Tauranga or downtown Wellington, but it is for Mt. Albert.

One tunnel was built, it was on the Northern Gateway toll road that now bypasses Orewa. It is a rural tunnel, and while strictly unnecessary it reduced the incline of the motorway (as a gully would have done). Another is proposed, the Victoria Park tunnel instead of a duplicate Victoria Park viaduct, largely because the ARC wanted it. Sadly the Nats are continuing with this waste of money.

How about urban highway proposals that were progressed under Labour that had no tunnel:

Hobsonville Deviation
Newmarket Viaduct replacement (imagine a tunnel under Newmarket instead of the towering viaduct)
Te Rapa Bypass
Tauranga Eastern Motorway
Tauranga Central Corridor Upgrade
Wellington Basin Reserve Upgrade.
Christchurch Southern Motorway extension.
Christchurch Northern arterial.

Yep, Labour has NO credibility on this issue. It looks glaringly obvious that the reason why Mt Albert was going to get a tunnel, but Greenhithe, Hobsonville, Mt Roskill, Manukau, Otahuhu, Hamilton, Tauranga, Wellington and Christchurch were not is politics.

So Darren Hughes is talking absolute bullshit when he says Steven Joyce "represents the old style of Tory Transport Minister who doesn’t give a toss about people who don’t live in a flash area" when his government pushed through urban highways in Auckland, Hamilton, Tauranga, Napier and Wellington.

It is more that Helen Clark and the last Labour government represented an old style serfdom, where the constituency of the Prime Minister is to be tunnelled with minimum disruption, but those who live elsewhere (except those at St. Marys Bay near Judith Tizard) can go fuck themselves. To be fair to the Greens, they have opposed some of those roads outright, but Labour? No credibility at all.

Vote for freedom in Mt Albert

By-elections are always a little strange, since they tend to produce results that do not tend to favour the incumbent government or incumbent party in that seat. Voters know that on this occasion they cannot change the government, as there is no party vote, so it is about having a local representative. Having said that, most people spend their lives not bothering their local MP. Of those that do, some are perpetual whingers and slightly unhinged, and MPs see them regularly as a result, others are people who see the MP perhaps once with a concern hoping the MP can make a difference. This is often because the state provides so many services taxpayers are forced to pay for, that the last resort when bureaucrats don't move is to bring in the MP.

So in that sense, constituents are probably best served by someone who is suspicious of bureaucracy, who can gently avoid wasting too much time with nutters, not claim credit for something they didn't do (Darren Hughes is one who claims credit for getting roads built when he had virtually nothing to do with it).

I said on 4 May that "It might be better to just wait to see who all the candidates will be, before making a choice." of candidate. So I am pleased that Julian Pistorius, a Mt. Albert resident no less, is standing for Libertarianz.

Let's be clear, the motorway will be built, but only Julian can be a solid advocate for the private property rights of landowners who may face compulsory purchase, and for ways to respect that while progressing the road (for example, the Melbourne Citylink motorway was built by the private sector negotiating the land purchase from all those along its route).

Let's also be clear, a Labour MP will mean no change, a backbencher in a party that has no power over the next 2.5 years and which has shown a willingness to pillage taxes to buy an electorate. What one next?

A National MP will mean no change. Melissa Lee is already in Parliament, being MP for Mt. Albert will just give her a little more to do, but she wont be fighting for private property rights.

A Green MP will mean no change. Russel Norman will lead obstructive direct action against motorway building, whilst cheerleading on the pillaging of Mt. Albert taxpayers for a railway that ever ARC has as a low priority.

ACT candidate John Boscawen has shown his level of judgment in voting for the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Act.

ALCP candidate Dakta Green is worthy of your vote if that one policy matters above everything else.

However, Julian Pistorius IS worthy of your vote if you want to shake up Parliament, and get a man dedicated to standing up for Mt. Albert taxpayers and property owners (who are, after all everyone). He wont be a backbench voice on a major party, or speaking to increase taxes or spend more of other people's money. He wont be claiming to speak for property owners on the motorway issue, but at the same time running roughshod over them with the RMA. He wont be supporting the megacity or indeed local government that continues to have a power of general competence to do as it sees fit.

You see Julian will call for the government to undertake the tax cuts it promised. Julian will support private property rights as an absolute. Julian will also support the right of ALCP candidate Dakta Green to campaign to legalise cannabis without harassment, because Julian too supports legalising consumption and sale of cannabis for adults on private property.

Mt. Albert voters might baulk at voting Libertarianz when it is about choosing the government, but who could have a louder voice for Mt. Albert than a Libertarianz MP? Who will in principle oppose the confiscation of land for a road, or any purpose, and call for less government so Mt. Albert residents can make their own choices?

So go on Mt. Albert, vote Julian Pistorius as your local MP. Beyond anything else it will give Helen Clark the most unwelcome surprise when she wakes up in New York the next morning to see who she handed the seat over to.

National makes right decision over Waterview

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

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

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

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

More importantly, why should the taxpayer subsidise this?

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

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

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

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

MY PAST COVERAGE OF WATERVIEW:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Post number 2000

There are times in one’s blogging life when it is an appropriate chance to look back at what one has done and why one blogs. This is my 2000th post so is a self-indulgent reflection on why I do this, and more importantly what’s important to me.

Bloggers generally blog as an outlet for their opinions and comments, with a particular bent politically and philosophically, and a particular focus on certain issues. For me, it is because, with the exception of Not PC, my views are consistently NOT represented in either the mainstream NZ media or blogosphere.

So what flavours of opinion do I add?

Well, I have specialised in New Zealand politics and in that sense the promotion of individual freedom. That being the freedom of being to do as they see fit with their own bodies and property whilst respecting the same right of others to do so. The banality of those who say this means the “freedom to hurt others” or “freedom to push drugs onto kids” does not detract from this core concept. It comes from the principle that adults generally know best how to run their own lives, and more importantly that other adults do not have a claim on their body or property. It is a principle that is almost universally disregarded across most of the political spectrum.

Those on the left treat private property with contempt, regarding the income and assets of people considered “rich” to be ready picking to supply what they see as the “rights” of the relatively poor – people who are wealthy by the standards of most of the world’s population. The sneering contempt that “the left” holds the financially successful is mean spirited and revolting. It implies that those who raise their heads above the average owe everyone else a share of their success, or at worst they must have earned it unfairly. However, the left does not confine its claim to people’s property, but to their bodies too.

The left proclaims the superiority of state provided health care and education, despite state health care regularly failing those who are forced to provide their services, and state education by definition standardising what and how children are taught. The idea that people might choose alternatives provided privately is seen as undermining these sacred signs of universal service, ignoring that monopolies rarely seem able to meet the varied needs of all those who use them.

However, the right is far from immune from claiming peoples’ bodies or property. Historically this was seen most specifically with conscription, but the conservative right also say its role to protect and reinforce “traditional role models”. Much of that is now gone, with few laws restricting or defining personal relationships or sex relations between consenting adults. However, the fight that many have had to demand equal treatment under the law was always resisted by some. Today the most egregious example of the right promoting interference in people’s bodies are laws on drugs. Criminalising people for what they put in their bodies is a gross infringement on individual liberty, when the real concern should be what people do to others – intoxicated or not.

So I start from the view that the individual is sovereign. That the individual should not be subordinate to other individuals, whether dressed up as “the public good” or “general will” or “will of the majority”. Those phrases are the tools of both the left and the right, both who believe the decisions of a small group of individuals (Cabinet, Parliament, bureaucrats) should be able to spend the money of others, and regulate them. The difference is I don’t believe in “public good”, as it implies that there is something higher than individual rights, and so individual rights can be sacrificed for the public good. Every dictatorship through history has justified its actions, and indeed every democracy has justified what it did for “the public good”, particularly when it was curtailing individual freedom and spending other people’s money.

The Greens, for example, appear to have a strong interest in many things that a lot think are good. Who argues against clean air, clean water and protecting cute animals from extinction? Yet the means the Greens wish to employ is violence – state force – to tax, to subsidise, to ban, to compel, to regulate. On top of this authoritarian desire to push people around is scaremongering against science and technology, such as genetic engineering and cellphone transmitters. The apocalyptic glee that evidence about global warming gives them to excuse their joyless agenda of restricting flying, driving, trading or even using appliances at home gives me despair. The forked tongue of opposing racism, but demanding racially separate Maori seats and saying it isn’t about race, when they are DEFINED by race. Meanwhile the anti-racist party promotes opposition to foreign trade and investment, because foreigners can’t have “our” interests at heart. No different from similar remarks Winston Peters used to have an audience for. Environmentalism has become the pathway for those who have a vision of changing people to fit a view of what they should be like. It has disturbing parallels with Marxism-Leninism in that respect, with the use of terminology like “climate change denial” to imply that those who debate science are debating actual events not theories of causation.

For me, I believe the jury is still out on anthropomorphic climate change, with contradictory evidence pointing in two different directions. However, I am most disturbed by the way that the climate change evangelists regard it all as an excuse to fanatically intervene in sectors from energy to transport to agriculture, without any serious analysis as to the implications of doing so except for the holy grail of CO2 emissions. Climate science is one thing, but the “answers” given are typically devoid of serious analysis then there is no wonder it is seen to be a religion.

Naturally, Labour and National pander for the middle ground, Labour especially now fertile fields for largely mediocre individuals to seek to spread their bile of envy of the successful, patronising the proletariat and scaremongering with the “we’ll look after you” attitude that sadly pervades this once proud party. National watches polls constantly, and forever runs away from principles even though so many inside it know that the state is largely incapable of delivering substantially better results in health and education. ACT has soiled itself lately with the gang patch law, and I await to see if Rodney Hide can cut the size of local government whilst he has been promoting the biggest council ever for Auckland.

The Maori Party being defined by race is a mix of good intentions and racial superiority, how else can one think of a party that treats the people it represents as being “special”.

Beyond that, religion has a low impact on New Zealand politics and for that I am glad. I am an atheist, and proclaim the doctrine of Voltaire in defending freedom of religion, but at the same time damning religion itself as being at best unnecessary, at worst a justification for murder and denial of humanity. My first priority for religion is to expunge it from the state, so that it has nothing to do with the supernatural. The secularisation of states that are populated primarily by Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists should be a priority project for the 21st century for all who support civilisation and humanity. For conflicts in the Middle East, South Asia and Sri Lanka can be linked to those who reject this. I’m an advocate for reason and an objectivist, and derive my values and morals from objectivism, not religion, though I rarely blog about that.

So for me, I blog about NZ politics, UK politics, occasionally US and Australian politics, the Middle East, dictatorships in Africa and Asia and Europe, the European Union. I focus regularly on sectors I have professional experience in, such as transport, communications, trade and broadcasting, with a particular distaste for the European Union Common Agricultural Policy, environmentalist worshipping of railways and damnation of aviation and the private car, and a hatred for those who seek to restrict trade based on random political geographies.

However, most of all I detest the attack on the human mind, on human achievement and on reason. Which is why my greatest advocacy is for the removal of the initiation of force (and threat of force) in adult relations, and that means between states and between states and their citizens. Most people will say yes to this at first then “but”. For me there is no “but”. After all, what right do you have to initiate force against another adult?

So after 2000 posts I thank those of you who read regularly, and have seen my average daily unique reads average at around 200 a day the last couple of months. I’m no supporter of ACT or National, but will praise and damn either when I see fit, the same with Labour, the Greens or any other party anywhere. I am not aligned by political tribe, but by philosophy. A philosophy that says that human individuals have the right to exist for their own purpose and own reasons, and no other adults have a claim on that at all, that anyone claiming this is selfish is damned right. Because unless I own my life, I am a slave to another – and I’ll be damned if I’ll support any who advocate running other people’s lives because anything else is selfish.

So to you all, be selfish, live your life to enjoy it, share yourself with whoever you see fit, who wishes to share with you, and to be yourself, respecting the same in others. Be benevolent in sharing yourself and your values as you see fit, but do so being true to yourself, not because you feel obliged to do so. You exist for your values, for if that is not your first priority, then nothing else can follow.

UK allowances scandal

Perhaps the biggest outrage in UK politics in the past few days have been the detailed revelations through the Daily Telegraph of MPs, including Cabinet Ministers, claiming expenses for items that in the private sector would be paid for out of salary. The most damning revelations have been those claiming a "second home allowance" when their first home is either commutable to London, the second home isn't commutable to London or when the second home being claimed has expenses that are luxurious.

Most of those implicated are Labour MPs, though the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and even Sinn Fein are also caught up in the scandal.

The true scandal is that all of these were approved, apparently allowed under the rules, so there is little likelihood of any legal redress- the system itself allows MPs to featherbed at taxpayers' expense. At a time when so many taxpayers are struggling int he recession, it looks quite simply as if MPs see their salaries as a perk, while they can claim most of the costs of living from the taxpayer.

What is astonishing is the complete disconnect between so many of these MPs and their association with the general public. One MP, Margaret Moran, appeared on the BBC to justify claiming £22,500 to treat dry rot at her second home in Southampton, days after selecting it as a second home, (she is the MP for Luton South, not that far from Westminster). She said:

Margaret Moran: "I have to be able to have a proper family life sometimes which I can't do unless I share the costs of the Southampton home with him (her partner, Booker)."

Andrew Sinclair: "But why should the taxpayer pay for your home in Southampton when clearly you are not using it for work?"

Margaret Moran: "Well, I... I... I...you could argue that I use it to be able to sustain my work. Any MP has to have a proper family life.

Margaret - you chose to be MP for Luton South, you chose a partner living in Southamption, deal with it and take your filthy pilfering hand out of taxpayers' pockets to pay for your lifestyle choice. Pay it back you thief.

Further revelations include Sinn Fein MPs Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness, claiming £3,600 a month for a flat in London that is rarely used as they never attend Westminster out of opposition to British control of Northern Ireland.

The Daily Telegraph has extensive details of all the claims, including how one Labour MP bought three beds in nine months, one Conservative MP claimed the cost of coathangers, one Conservative MP claiming chimney sweeping for a country home, one Labour MP claiming 23p for a lemon, one Liberal Democrat MP claiming a Sky TV subscription with family pack and now the Conservative MP who claimed money for someone to change a lightbulb for him (the Skills Shadow Minister no less).

However for the easiest summary try this slideshow.

The clearest implication of all this is how much this scandal brings into disrepute not only the Labour Party and the government, but MPs generally. The Daily Telegraph was accused early on of political bias for highlighting Labour MPs, and given the well known political leanings of the Telegraph ("Torygraph" being one commonly used description), that was not surprising, but the revelations about MPs across the political spectrum destroys that.

The upcoming local authority and European Elections are likely to see Labour punished, but one of the concerns is that people will vote for the closet racist BNP, as the "anti-politics" party in protest. UKIP (UK Independence Party) may also do well.

Sadly, whilst many Britons hold politicians in disrepute, the idea that politicians would give up control of the health, education, pension and welfare systems would remain an anathema. That is the disconnect that the fledging UK Libertarian Party ought to take advantage of. Sadly, socialism remains ingrained in British politics that so many fear they will be ripped off by the private sector in health and education, but don't recognise that is exactly what is happening by the state sector.

Gordon Brown has since apologised on behalf of all political parties and calls for public trust to be restored in the "profession". Guido Fox rightfully says:

"Politics is not a profession Gordon, it is a racket, and this has been going on for decades not days. Guido won't believe they are sorry until they pay back the money they have embezzled. Then they will be really sorry…"

Quite. However, will the public have long enough memories to damn those exposed in this scandal at the 2010 election?

Road User Charges review sensible outcome

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Budapest - museum capital of the world

Well maybe. Besides a good selection of art galleries, the Museum of Terror focused on communism and fascism, the Jewish Museum and Holocaust museum, national history, transport, and standard national and metropolitan museums, Budapest has ample evidence of a past when whole families were expected to go out on a Sunday and observe the past (going to church wasn't a big deal under Marxism-Leninism).

I haven't been to any of these, but it is rather sad that I am curious about more than one of them (and have no time to go now):

Pharmacy Museum
Museum of Actors and Actresses
Stamp Museum
Bible Museum
Underground Railway Museum
Military Baths Museum (baths would be too big a category)
Ambulance Museum
Electrical Engineering Museum
Museum of Hungarian Commerce and Catering (how did people cook in the past?)
Television Museum of the Technical and Programming TV (not just communist TV)
Marzipan Museum (see how unnatural it is?)
Agricultural Museum
Geological Museum (don't look at new rocks)
Foundry Museum
Postal Museum (not the stamp museum, don't expect stamps here!)
Museum of Crime (got to be worth a look!)
Museum of Medical History (not pharmacies though!)
Sport Museum
Telephone Museum
Textile Museum
Fire Service Museum
Flag Museum

So it is either the place for museum buffs, or a place to bore most kids senseless.

Keep politicians away from roads

The nonsense of Auckland City Councillors arguing about whether a barely used bus lane should be allowed to have wider usage speaks volumes about why politicians are profoundly incompetent at running what is essentially a utility service.

It's very simple. The NZ Herald reports that the Auckland City transport committee has decided to allow the Tamaki Drive bus lane to be open to any vehicles with 2 or more occupants, largely because the lane lies empty every 7.5 minutes at peak times, whilst parallel lanes are congested. An intelligent decision, although it could be better (as there is no reason why all heavy vehicles couldn't use it, since they pay more than any other vehicles to use the roads anyway, and have no reasonable alternative.

However, the leftwing halfwits at City Vision disagree. They would rather a precious scarce resource (road space) remain empty, whilst cars, taxis and trucks sit held up, wasting more fuel (and emitting more pollution and CO2) than would otherwise be the case. They baulk at money for the conversion coming from the "public transport fund", which of course is a little precious.

It's a quasi-Soviet central planner attitude that people using cars are "bad" and should be punished (presumably also trucks, because freight should go on rail), but public transport is "good" and everyone else should be forced to subsidise it.

Auckland's local roads should be given over to a new council controlled organisation, at arms length from all politicians, with a board, and a mandate to operate the road network to encourage free flow of people and goods and make a profit doing so. It would get money from kerbside parking (which it would run to maximise profits), any tolling, rates (as a transitional measure) and bidding funds from the National Land Transport Fund (as councils do at present). It should also be allowed to hand over local streets to body corporates of adjoining property owners if they so wish, and build new roads (tolling them if it sees fit).

Then you might get roads for those who pay for them, with the highest priority going to those who pay the most - at the moment truck owners and private cars.

So do that along with amalgamating Auckland councils (and getting rid of the power of general competence), and you might help address Auckland transport far more than an electric train set.

ACT's first serious (partial) let down?

A law on what people wear in public in one district.

After all, couldn't pubs, clubs and restaurants just enforce private property rights and set their own rules?

Good on Heather Roy and Sir Roger Douglas for being principled opponents, shame on Rodney, David Garrett and John Boscawen. You cannot pretend to be for less government or the liberal party by supporting the criminalisation of what people wear in public in one district.

It is not just authoritarian, but ludicrous that there is now a separate criminal law (not bylaw) for a distinct local authority district.

It is one thing for ACT's policy to disappoint me as a libertarian, but to actively machinate to support a new - victimless - criminal law, is appalling. The issue of course is that it isn't party policy, but for individual MPs - of whom only Rodney Hide is directly voted (and without whom none of the others would be there).

So I'll leave it to Bernard Darnton, Lindsay Mitchell and Blair Mulholland to conclude. Garrett and Boscawen appear to believe it, but Rodney Hide? He always talked differently - now with this, and the mega city, he looks like the others, it's a pity. I always hoped I would be wrong about ACT in government. This appears to be its first active support for MORE government not less. Shame.

How to help families?

Homepaddock proposes an excellent first step:

"If the Families Commission was really serious about addressing the causes of neglect and abuse it would disestablish itself and request that the funding it gets is redirected to where it will make a positive difference."

Now I know it would mean bugger all when you spread it around all families, but it is the principle of the thing.

Besides, wouldn't it be fun to watch Peter Dunne have a hissy fit about his pet bureaucracy?

If he left the government nobody would care, and it would be far preferable for government supporters to vote for a National candidate in 2011 than Dunne. Winston's gone, Anderton must be nearly retirement, about time to remove the last party that is simply an offspring of Labour.

Hungary 1989 - the iron curtain was cut

Today is the 20th anniversary of the day the Iron Curtain was cut. It followed Hungary's own movement towards freedom that paralleled that of the Soviet Union under Gorbachev. Karoly Grosz had become General Secretary of the Hungarian Socialist Workers Party in May 1988, and began a process of liberalisation.

Widespread protests in 1988 calling for democracy saw multi-party elections announced in February 1989. Along with that came freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of association and the right to form competitive trade unions. In April 1989, the USSR agreed to withdraw all Soviet troops from Hungary by 1991.

However it was the removal of barbed wire between Hungary and Austria, and the "shoot to kill" policy of border guards on 6 May 1989, that saw the Iron Curtain pulled to one corner, and the light of the West draw thousands.

You see passport holders in the Warsaw Pact countries had freedom of movement between those countries. East Germans notably could travel freely to (then) Czechoslovakia and onto Hungary, and now onto the West. 30,000 did so between May and September 1989, before the geriatric thugs in the dying German Democratic Republic (GDR) put up their own restrictions on travel to Hungary. East Germans kept fleeing to Czechoslovakia, which had its own border closed in October before protests by hundreds of thousands in the streets saw Erich Honecker himself deposed by his own party.

Then the Wall came down.

Today I am in Budapest, by pure coincidence. It is a thriving city of free people, as it always should have been, and a city that remembers what it went through from the terror of a brief period of fascist rule in 1940, to Soviet imperialism, the 1956 uprising and its crushing and the sheer terror of never knowing from one day to the next whether the state would turn on you next.

Budapest has a Museum of Terror, dedicated not to terrorism as we know it, but the terror of the period of Hungary under dictatorship - from its own fascism to Nazi occupation. to the Soviet occupation and its socialist stooges. It includes pointedly, a long list of those who were the foot soldiers in this police state, the prison guards, the "judges" who proclaimed death sentences and the secret police men and women who bullied their own people. It was designed to name and shame those who "were only following orders" and so did what most would think was unthinkable - murdering, imprisoning and torturing in the name of "the people" and "the party" and "the revolution".

Today is a day worthy of celebrating, for it is remarkable to think that this once Marxist Leninist dictatorship is today a free member of NATO and the European Union. It is also worthy remembering that most of the former Soviet Union itself, at best has only just started really having some of that freedom, at worst is under a similar level of tyranny, with a different name. The philosophical and political battle for freedom in the former Soviet bloc is far from over.

Mt Albert and that motorway

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

The bottom line is this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go on, take real action on global warming

Frogblog is quoting a survey saying "a majority of kiwis support taking real action to combat global warming". Fine, who is stopping them? The survey the Greens are quoting lists a whole host of "measures", which I don't have a problem with, if they involve people making their own choices or they are about getting the hell out of the way of making choices. So let's go through them, nice to get rid of the euphemisms and describe what they really are

"More incentives for households to improve energy efficiency" means forcing other people to pay others to save money by being more efficient. Oh please. How about letting electricity operate at market prices, by privatising it, and not really caring where prices go as a result?

"Incentives for businesses developing renewable energy projects (like wind, solar, wave, geothermal, hydro power)" means forcing other people to pay for businesses in the renewable energy sector that the state identifies. Another option could be to zero tax any companies primarily engaging in that sector, but that starts to become complicated, better to just reduce the burden of tax on business overall.

"Lower vehicle registration fees for fuel efficient and low-emission vehicles" means reducing money to spend on road safety promotion and Police enforcement of traffic laws. Though the main part of registration fees primarily pay ACC (which would be better off just being open to competition and choice), and also pay for road safety promotion and Police enforcement of traffic laws. So do the Greens want less spent on road safety, or money transferred from roads? Yeah you've figured it out already.

"A cash incentive to encourage replacement of energy inefficient home appliances with energy efficient ones" means forcing you to pay for people to buy new appliances. Nice, could always just cut GST on them instead, or just cut taxes overall so people can better afford them. Guess it doesn't matter if the reason people don't buy them is it is cheaper to buy others and spend the difference on something more important right?

"Financial incentives to purchase fuel efficient, low emission vehicles" making you pay for other people to buy new cars!! When was the last time you bought a brand new car? Yep very Green. Could always just cut GST on them too.

"Incentives for landowners to plant more carbon sink forests" making you pay for landowners to plant trees. Yep. Own land do you? Nope no money for you.

"New Government investment funds to help quickly commercialise new lower-emission technology invented in New Zealand" making you pay for "businesses" that aren't profitable in the hope they are. How's your business doing? Yep maybe they'd all like a company tax cut?

"Lower road user charges for diesel vehicles using lower-emission bio fuels" less money for roads because I haven't noticed the type of fuel trucks and buses use reducing the wear and tear they impose.

"A Government information programme to advise businesses and households about climate change policies and ways to help manage it" forcing you to pay to be told what to do by the government. Is it polite to call it propaganda?

"Increasing goods transportation by rail and coastal shipping" how? What's stopping those who want to, doing it now? Oh yes, it often costs more. So is this about forcing you to pay for goods to be shipped at higher than cost? Where is the evidence this will make a difference?

"Increased spending on research to produce technology to help reduce emissions" force you to pay for more research. Be more polite to ask.

"Subsidies for farmers to use fertilisers which inhibit the release of nitrogen, lowering emissions and improving water quality" force you to subsidise farms. Fertiliser subsidies went in the 1980s, and this would hurt arguing for less subsidies in agriculture at the WTO, but the Greens don't care about exports soo...

"Assistance to sell New Zealand emissions reduction technology to other countries" subsidises for marketing to countries? So governments then? So are businesses that incompetent that they need to force others to pay for their marketing?

"Replacing road user tax with a lower vehicle licensing levy for light diesel vehicles, including cars" This doesn't even make sense. So light diesel vehicles should have their road use subsidised so they pay an annual fee instead of according to usage? Buy a diesel and use it as much as you like - very Green??

"Allowing forest owners to cut their trees and replant substitute carbon-sink forests on other marginal land without incurring any emissions penalty" Yes!! DON'T do anything that penalises behaviour that can reduce CO2 emissions. That can't be hard.

"Higher road user charges for vehicles which are not fuel and emissions efficient," oh so making a windfall profit from such vehicles, to spend on what? More roads? Didn't think so. Oh to subsidise the other ones for the costs they impose. Any evidence this would work?

"Higher road user charges for diesel vehicles which do not use lower-emission bio fuels" ditto

Bar one, it is all about making you pay more to prop up unprofitable businesses or to pay people to do something that likely benefits them financially (reducing energy use).

Here are four better ideas:

1. People who believe "more should be done" to prevent climate change should do it themselves. Turn off the lights, drive less and do all this without tax or regulation. Live the ascetic low carbon footprint lifestyle, and you can tell others to do so as well, but don't force them.

2. Stop getting in the way of low CO2 business activities. Nuclear power is an obvious one (which may go nowhere but still), but also cutting taxes and regulatory barriers to establishing any such businesses.

3. Stop subsidising business activities that emit CO2. Buses would be a start, since the majority of bus users don't have access to a car, you might find they walk or cycle, or travel less.

4. Get government out of activities that emit CO2. Privately owned energy and transport companies wont tolerate unprofitable activities or poor rates of return, so wont subsidise prices or run poorly used services. Coal mining is the other obvious one, farming too. This also includes roads, which governments stubbornly underprice at peak times, and overprice in areas where roads are cheap to maintain (e.g. Canterbury).

So would the Greens support getting the hell out of the way of more environmentally friendly businesses, and stop subsidising sectors that produce emissions, stop owning businesses that produce emissions?

Three bills on Auckland mega city

The NZ Herald reports there are to be three bills setting up the new Auckland uber stadt rat, one to set it up as a legal entity and establish transition boards, a second dealing with representation issues and a third "detailing structure, functions, roles and powers of super Auckland council and local boards".

Maybe we'll get answers about what the new council is meant to do?

Maybe that's the time to demand that the power of general competence be abolished, as is ACT policy (and which National opposed when the Local Government Bill was being put through Parliament).

Let's take the report of the Local Government and Environment Committee in 2002 and what National said then:

"National members of the Local Government and Environment Select Committee strongly disagree with the process, policy, and detail of this bill.

National believes it will result in increased duplication of services and inefficiencies, and, when things go wrong, a lack of accountability and buck-passing. National believes Parliament should clearly define the role and function of local and regional councils.

Councils will have a freer hand to invest in particular activities but not divest in areas such as ports, housing, and water systems. This introduces a structured bias towards expanding councils and their playing an ever-increasing role in our economy and citizens’ lives. National believes that increasing the size and involvement of local government will only make harder the ambition to return New Zealand to the top half of the OECD."

Quite! So what are you going to do about it?

Phones, streets and mail not safe for children

That's my reaction to the Privacy Commissioner's absurd declaration that the "internet is not safe for children".

What is?

Travel? Talking to people on the phone? Sending letters? Talking to neighbours? Relatives? Playing sports? Climbing trees? Swimming pools? Playing in the streets?

It really becomes a matter of applying your mind to the situation, and when children are involved, an appropriate amount of supervision. Smart kids manage risk, and smart adults know the extent and degree of keeping an eye on their kids.

In the scheme of things, the internet isn't dangerous. Physically it does nothing at all other than facilitate information and conversation. Of course if you let your kids take photos and send them without permission it becomes a little riskier. If your kids seek attention from strangers then maybe it is because they can't talk to you about certain things, or they are from a home lacking a parent. As much attention should be paid to those who seek out inappropriate attention, as those who respond to it.

Meeting people you only know from the internet is risky, just as risky as pen pals once were i bet, just easier. Simple rules around never meeting people without someone else present, who is an adult, is key.

This issues comes up perenially, this time because a man was luring underage girls to talk about sex with him online. He of course is now paying a price for that, the law is strict and is in itself a deterrent. However, the internet for many kids is probably far less risky than Uncle Tom, or Cousin Jed, especially if you leave them alone, they are alcoholic, and you as parents spend large amounts of time partying, or being absent. Risks need to be in perspective. The bigger risk comes from meeting people you don't know who might abuse you. These people are often brought in by adults as friends, or partners.

However, all that gets the attention of law enforcement on the internet is not the result of adults. You see the truth is that censorship laws are producing some new perverse results - according to Wired thanks to camera phones and web cams, teenagers (they aren't children and not adults) are now being prosecuted for producing child pornography. Why? Because they take photos of themselves and send them on. In one ridiculous case a teenage couple have been prosecuted because they filmed themselves having sex, and sent it to no one.

The internet is presenting new challenges to parenting, it also means taking a realistic approach to what young people do. It is more an opportunity than a risk. It offers unparalleled access to information and entertainment. It makes it far easier for young people who feel isolated and alone to explore the world, and learn about themselves and others. In short it offers far more good than bad.

Children shouldn't be exploring the internet unsupervised, but as they get older they should be allowed more and more freedom. They will talk to friends online, they may make new ones, and yes, some will explore sexuality - like they have for time immemorial. Yes, they should be protected from being hurt and harmed by predatory adults, but given the rate of teenage pregnancy far too many are experimenting with each other in the riskiest way. Wouldn't many parents rather that their teenagers sat behind a computer looking at pictures and chatting to strangers they never meet, than went out partying, getting drunk, and risking getting pregnant (or someone pregnant) or catching something nasty?

Risk is all around, it is about life. The best gift any parent can give to their children is to nurture their ability to reason, balance risk with opportunity and make informed judgments, and to be monitored, and observed as they mature with that ability.

The internet is no different.

Bludging kiwis should thank Rudd government

$A22 billion of spending on 100 new fighter jets and 12 submarines by Australia is a substantial commitment over the next 10 years, along with confirmation that its military alliance with the US is the cornerstone of its defence policy.

Have no bones about it, this means Australia is maintaining its strong defence presence in the region and its ability to project its air and sea power around its lengthy territorial waters. It is a commitment Australia has maintained throughout the Cold War and since.

Sadly, New Zealand has eroded its military commitment to the defence of the South Pacific in several stages since the mid 1980s. It started with the effective abandonment of ANZUS when the Lange government, following extensive goading from the left of the Labour Party, took an ideological hardline against the US Navy. The Lange government refused to accept a conventional powered, nuclear incapable ship because the US "neither confirmed nor denied" it carried nuclear weapons.

Following that, New Zealand has eroded its blue water navy to 2 frigates, and eliminated its air strike capability. As a result, with New Zealand effectively unable to contribute more than 2 frigates (and the army) to an overseas actions, its contribution to the collective defence of the South Pacific is derisory, through no fault of the forces themselves.

So New Zealand should be grateful at Australian taxpayers continuing their commitment. The truth is that the New Zealand armed forces are capable of maintaining some defence of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) from illegal fishing, but not any serious attack, or assisting Australia in the likelihood of any attack.

From Lange to Clark, New Zealand governments have wimped out of defence, because New Zealanders always felt safe from invasion. The idea of contributing to a defence alliance has seemed fanciful, suiting the "independent foreign policy" stance of the so called "peace movement".

Defence is a core role of the state, and while the current government will be fiscally constrained in a recession to remedy it, it should be addressed over the medium term. Meanwhile, a big "thank you" should be extended to the Rudd government, for maintaining Australia's defence forces over the longer term, and in effect, New Zealand at the same time, whilst New Zealand can effectively contribute proportionately so little in return.

How Turkey put back membership of the EU

One of the more presumptious statements of President Obama in the past month has been to support Turkey's membership of the EU. An understandable position, but I suspect had George Bush said it, Europe would be seething with "imperialist" and damnation that the US was meddling in EU affairs. Given the USA is not a member of the EU, for it to openly express a view that it should accept a new member is rather rude at best.

However, the bigger issue itself has long been a debate between those who believe such membership would promote the acceptance of secular Turkey's modernisation, a predominantly Muslim country accepted into the European club, vs. those who fear the mass migration of Turks into the rest of the EU, swamping the state welfare, health, education and housing systems, and putting EU boundaries at Syria and Iraq, rather than Turkey as they are today. Besides 6 countries of eastern Europe, plus all of the former USSR (besides the Baltic states) remain out of the EU. A bigger case can be made for the integration of the former Yugoslav republics in the EU than Turkey.

Christopher Hitchens argues in Slate that Turkey itself has put its own case backwards by a long shot. It did this by:
- Opposing the PM of Denmark as a candidate for NATO Secretary General, because he refused to interfere with Danish newspapers publishing the famous "insulting to Islam" cartoons because he had no legal right to do so;
- Opposing the PM of Denmark as a candidate for NATO Secretary General, because he refused to shut down a Kurdish language satellite TV channel, accusing it of being sympathetic to terrorism.

Hitchens argues that these show Turkey is not willing to accept the values of the EU of free speech and tolerance, and with its continued discrimination against Kurds, and denial of the Armenian genocide of 90 years ago, Turkey has a fair way to go yet.

"Put it like this: Obama's "quiet diplomacy" has temporarily conciliated the Turks while perhaps permanently alienating the French and has made it more, rather than less, likely that the American goal of Turkish EU membership will now never be reached. And this is the administration that staked so much on the idea of renewing our credit on the other side of the Atlantic. This evidently can't be done by sweetness alone."