Single Auckland council wont fix transport

"There will be an integrated single authority for Auckland's roads and public transport"

Wrong.

There will be three.

Megacouncil will look after local roads and contracting public transport, kind of like ARTA is meant to do now, but doesn't do a good job of local roads. You might reflect on why that is.

NZ Transport Agency will continue to look after the state highways. Ministers don't trust the Auckland Megacouncil to do that. Who would blame them? So the busiest most strategically important roads in Auckland wont be a matter of the Megacouncil.

Ontrack will continue to look after the rail network. Ministers also don't trust the Auckland Megacouncil to do that. Again, key routes for freight (set aside the unprofitable low frequency low density passenger services) are too important to leave to a local authority.

If you want to see how poorly a local authority can perform on transport planning and management you need only look at Auckland's past, which is littered with several planning screw ups. Here are a couple.

1. SH20: Land was designated for the so-called "South Western Motorway" in the 1960s, to link the Southern Motorway to the North Western Motorway. The land was empty at the time, so placing a designation on it meant anyone using the land would know it would one day be acquired for a motorway, so short term leases were the order of the day. However, the ARA and Auckland City Council decided in 1974 that the route beyond Richardson Road to the northwest was not well defined, and so the designation should be dropped from there. As a result the designation only comprises the sections now being built - from the Southern Motorway to Mt Roskill. The Waterview Extension debate is purely because previous Auckland councils decided the South Western Motorway need end at Mt Roskill. Well done. Cost of that decision now runs at least to $1 billion.

2. South Eastern Arterial: Auckland City Council decided in the 1980s that there were inadequate connections between Pakuranga, Mt Wellington and the Southdown areas so decided to revive plans for the "South Eastern Motorway" to link Church St to Mt Wellington Highway and the Pakuranga Motorway, with on and off ramps to the Southern Motorway. It did so on the cheap. The resulting road has few shoulders to accommodate breakdowns, and traffic lights on multiple busy intersections when it should be a proper motorway with flyovers. Ultimately this will need perhaps $100 million of improvements to bring it up to standard to relieve the bottlenecks on this important road.

The Auckland mega council wont change that - and in fact the government doesn't even trust it to manage its own networks.

So let's stop hearing arguments that a single council will be good for transport in Auckland - when there isn't any evidence for that.

When is an official independent?

Joris de Bres thinks that the government should continue to pay him to be a critic of it. It raises the issue as to when state sector employees are meant to be independent and when they can effectively lobby politically.

He went to the Geneva Racism Conference, in his "independent capacity" then criticised the government, parroting the Labour Party point of view.

Foreign Minister Murray McCully said "I am not sure whether he is there is an official capacity or as a representative of the Labour Party". Of course de Bres's boss, Rosslyn Noonan is herself a card carrying member of the Labour Party, and saw nothing wrong with it.

The Human Rights Commission is meant to be independent, in terms of enforcing the hideous law that created it. In that respect its independence is justified. It must be able to criticise politicians when they break the law. Ros Noonan did so on the Electoral Finance Bill.

However, for paid employees at the level of de Bres to attend international conferences in a private capacity (we have yet to find out who paid for the trip), and then use the trip as a platform to do politicking when it is NOT part of his job, is outrageous.

Imagine if a National Party member, was a government official, and went to the US to complain about NZ's nuclear ban - how would the Labour Party welcome that?

Exactly. De Bres should go, Noonan should be warned.

No Minister agrees.

Of course, I'd abolish the Human Rights Commission, but that's another story.

Exploit the earth or die

It's today! The Greens will hate it, because it runs counter to the philosophy so many have had rammed down them for the last two decades - that the best way nature can be is left alone.

Capitalism magazine says:

Capitalism is the only social system that recognizes and protects each individual's right to act in accordance with his basic means of living: the judgment of his mind. Environmentalism, of course, does not and cannot advocate capitalism, because if people are free to act on their judgment, they will strive to produce and prosper; they will transform the raw materials of nature onto the requirements of human life; they will exploit the Earth and live.

Environmentalism rejects the basic moral premise of capitalism—the idea that people should be free to act on their judgment—because it rejects a more fundamental idea on which capitalism rests: the idea that the requirements of human life constitute the standard of moral value. While the standard of value underlying capitalism is human life (meaning, that which is necessary for human beings to live and prosper), the standard of value underlying environmentalism is nature untouched by man.

Oh and it doesn't mean polluted air, water and the end to parks, forests and lakes. It means recognising that human beings survive by using the earth. It means acknowledging that people worldwide survive by exploiting the earth and applying their minds to it.

(Hat Tip: Not PC)

Obama's boondoggle of "fast rail"

The Obama Administration is pouring US$13 billion of money into developing a high speed passenger rail system. Sounds great doesn't it? Obama talked of how countries like Japan and France have been doing it for decades, but the US hasn't, and it is about time that it did.

Sadly this money is going to be wasted, and it isn't going to deliver anything remotely like a high speed rail system for the USA. Why?

The USA is vastly different from France, Japan, Italy, South Korea and other countries with high speed rail systems for one obvious point - size! Japan has profitably developed high speed rail because it has tens of millions of people living very short distances down densely packed corridors. With the exception of the Boston-New York-Washington DC Northeast Corridor, the distances in the US are too vast for rail to begin to compete with aviation for travel time. That rail route in itself is profitable, but sadly under the Federal Government owned AMTRAK is milked to cross subsidise other politically driven routes.

Obama's money will be bad money after bad. It wont build any high speed rail routes because it isn't enough money. The money will go to improve existing lines, at best upgrading lines as fast as the Northeast Corridor, which is nothing like lines in Japan and France. Speeds in Japan and France are In the US it is 145 km/h, in France it is 320 km/h, in Japan 300km/h. High speed rail in the US is slower than most main lines in the UK, which are at least at 160 km/h and typically faster.

Obama has basically lied that this money will deliver the US high speed rail like in those countries. A country that is far bigger will get trains less than half the speed of the countries where high speed rail works. It isn't enough money, and what it will do is next to nothing.

More importantly, rail can never be competitive with aviation over medium to long distances, and the diversity of origin/destination patterns means it wont be useful over short distances in most cases. Obama wont set it free to be profitable and slash all of the politically driven loss making routes that excite far too many members of Congress.

In short, he's wasting money on a feel good project, lying about what it will deliver and pretending it will make any noticeable change in the US economy or the environmental impacts of transport.

It's not change - it's the same failed policy of the Carter Administration on transport.

I'll leave to Sam Staley of the Reason Foundation to explain further. As Randall O'Toole says "Taxpayers and politicians should be wary of any transportation projects that cannot be paid for out of user fees."

Aucklanders are about to get something just like that.

South Africa's election - rewards for corruption

The ANC is predicted to win another landslide in the South African elections. Although you could be excused for wondering why it could deserve it. ANC President Jacob Zuma has already proven that the ANC is willing to corrupt the judicial system when one of its own are threatened.

That in itself should deny it power. The separation of party and state, and the independence of the judiciary are clearly threatened in South Africa.

The party of Nelson Mandela who conducted himself admirably when power was handed over after the first non-racial election, dropped far under Thabo Mbeki. Mbeki on one hand evaded science and contributed to the deaths of thousands as he embraced quackery on HIV, and on the other hand has his hands bloodied by his embrace of Robert Mugabe. Jacob Zuma shows signs of being worse still. Blocking a visa for the Dalai Lama, because China wanted it, shows how the anti-imperialist credentials of the ANC look rather rusty.

The ANC has the arrogance of the single governing party it long wanted to be – after all, it never ever really wanted liberal democracy. In South Africa, it still doesn’t need to give a damn, as so many black South Africans are grateful for liberation from racist rule. That sadly is enough to maintain the ANC’s arrogance.

The ANC has used the government owned media to push its own platform disproportionately. It has also been profoundly corrupt, with government contracts going to friends of Ministers, and politicians enriching themselves from the state.

More generally, South Africa is a mess in several dimensions. The economy is suffering from the global recession, crime has not receded with a murder rate the second highest in the world, and the highest reported assault and rape rate. South Africans have largely had to take things into their own hands to protect themselves. Riots a couple of years ago don't mean the majority have turned on the ANC. Bishop Desmond Tutu has been critical of the government, saying bureaucrats act with little regard for citizens, much like under apartheid. Electricity is severely rationed, because the government refused to privatise or allow the state monopoly to be challenged.

This has seen a new breakaway party emerge called COPE (Congress of the People)– which blames the ANC for opposing the rule of law and for corruption. The Democratic Alliance has long been the party of Opposition, even when apartheid existed, the Democratic Party was the liberal opposition, with recently deceased leader Helen Suzman. It has a long proud tradition of opposing apartheid and is now lead by Helen Zille. Suzman expressed concern before her death that democracy was more vibrant under apartheid than it is today, a sad legacy.

The best result would be for the ANC to be defeated, for a coalition of the Democratic Alliance and COPE to purge South Africa of the corruption and kleptocracy of the ANC years. However, the South African government media portrays the Democratic Alliance as a party of “white interests”, and the vast majority of poor barely literate black South Africans believe the cargo cult the ANC pulls out to have them vote for it – that only the ANC is looking after them, despite precious little evidence of the sort.

The most likely outcome is the ANC wins less than the 66% needed to change the constitution. The ANC will gloat and cheer, and continue to look after itself over holding itself accountable.

We can only hope that it wont threaten South Africa’s open liberal democracy as the party that believes it exists to rule increasingly sees its majorities eroded away. The sooner South Africa tells the ANC "thanks for the revolution, now we want good governance" the better.

Rudman gets much wrong on transport, again!

Oh dear, after doing quite well lately, Brian Rudman has it badly wrong.

On Auckland he claims "That Aucklanders were willing to pay an extra regional fuel tax on top of the fuel tax the rest of the country paid".

Um Brian, the government that passed the legislation for this tax was voted out, rather comprehensively, by Aucklanders as well as the rest of the country. I wouldn't have thought that meant "Aucklanders were willing to pay".

Then he says...

"It's not that Auckland wants special treatment. It just wants an equitable share of the budgetary cake.

In the past I have given examples of how Auckland was for years ripped off by the state road builder Transit New Zealand when it came to the distribution of road-user levies."

Brian has an interesting view of "equitable" being that Auckland gets money taken from road users, but he wants it spent on public transport. He doesn't mind road users being pillaged to pay for public transport, but don't let fuel tax paid in Auckland get spend on roads in Southland. Equity for Brian is geographical, but not modal.

Moreover, he doesn't even understand that Transit New Zealand (which doesn't exist now) hasn't been responsible for distributing road taxes since 1996. Not good for a man who writes so frequently about transport to not even understand the funding framework. Transit used to bid for funds, it did not distribute them - and in fact the public transport projects Brian likes never went far for so long because they have such poor returns - Labour had to change the funding framework to allow poor value projects to proceed.

Then he quotes the Green Party Transport Research Unit!! Wonderful stuff, people who evade facts that there is little difference between trucks and trains in environmental impact, people who lie about the nature of road projects (witness the nonsense about the Basin Reserve flyover in Wellington). The Greens claim Auckland got 40% of what it paid in road taxes. Now I don't know the basis for that (Brian doesn't publish the documents so we can actually determine if mistakes have been made), as it could simply be the fact that the majority of fuel tax until this year went to the Crown anyway.

Then he makes the fantastic non-sequiter "Imagine the wonderful rapid rail system, complete with spur lines to the airport, Aucklanders could be enjoying now if that money had already been spent here." Yes imagine Brian, because until Labour got re-elected, the rapid rail system would NEVER have been funded because it has always been an inefficient project. The money would have gone on roads.

Furthermore, Brian avoids confronting you with the truth that IF such a system existed, Auckland ratepayers would have had to pay 40% of the capital costs and the ongoing operating subsidies. Road users don't pay all of the subsidies paid out by the ARC, nor should they.

Finally he says "Over the last couple of years, the progress was there for all to see. Double tracking of the rail lines was under way, Spaghetti Junction was expanded, the Northern Connection was completed." Yes, the double tracking was funded by former Infrastructure Auckland money. Spaghetti Junction expansion came from road users and was accelerated at the cost of the "Northern Connection" (I guess he means the Northern Gateway toll road).

Sorry Brian - you can't claim it is inequitable to spend Auckland motoring taxes outside Auckland, but somehow fair that economically questionable rail projects get subsidised by those who don't use them (and don't pretend it makes a jot of difference to congestion).

Moreover, don't pretend that if motorists were pillaged to pay their "share" of the costs of a rapid rail system that Auckland ratepayers would pay "their share". It's a nonsense, Aucklanders have proven they don't want to pay - stop trying to find non-users to pay for your expensive rail fetish, when there is no evidence that it will do anything besides gold plate the commutes of maybe 5% of Aucklanders.

UN Racism conference proven to be a farce

The vile speech by Iran's homophobic warmongering racist President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has previously damned liberal democracy as a failure, has provoked a walk out by many delegates at the UN Conference on Racism according to the BBC.

He claimed Israel was created to "make an entire nation homeless", which is historical nonsense.
He claimed Israel existed to create a "totally racist government".
He claimed Israel existed on the "pretext of Jewish suffering", as he denies the Holocaust once again.

CNN says he was jeered at and cheered at, but the cheers were from Iran and the Palestinian delegations it appears.

New Zealand can be glad it isn't a party to a forum for this vile bigoted thug to express his idiotic views. Of course, I expect Green MPs to send a note of protest to the Iranian Embassy about Ahmadinejad's views, like the Greens did when he denied there were homosexuals in Iran - remember that? It must have happened surely, I mean they always claim the moral high ground!

Racism is mindless, but to hijack this forum to talk only of the Palestinians, to engage in historical denial, to point a finger at one but not others, shows little real interest in racism.

Reuters report

UPDATE: Colin Espiner in the Press reports that Chief Human Rights Commissioner (and long standing leftwing Labour Party stalwark) Ros Noonan claims "I've been through the programme and I can't find anything that smacks of anti-Semitism quite the reverse". I guess the fact Ahmadinejad would use the conference as a platform for it, didn't matter did it?

Espiner basically takes the Labour and the Green view, by not stating until halfway through his article that only the Labour and Greens are questioning whether foreign policy is independent, and he doesn't list all the countries boycotting the conference. Yep, good independent unbiased MSM journalism there Colin.

UPDATE 2: Keeping Stock reports that Joris de Bres is attending the Geneva conference, despite it being boycotted by the government.

Shouldn't this supercilious little man arrive home to find a letter advising him of the termination of his employment, with the bill for this unauthorised trip removed from his salary?

Condoms too big for Indian men

This is an old report I happened to find listed in the top 10 on the BBC website.

A new stereotype to go alongside the one for black men and for east Asian men.

Nothing more to say on this.

Labour and the Greens think their side is "independent"

Presumably if New Zealand "followed" the Arab world, Africa and the developing world, known for being scrupulously anti-racist, pro-individual rights and pro-liberal democracy, that would be an "independent foreign policy". However "following" the developed world, of countries that prohibit racism at the government level, that actually do let the judiciary hold the executive and legislature to account, that constitutionally and factually embrace free speech and individual rights to a relatively high level, is "following others".

Grant Robertson and Keith Locke mistake choosing to agree with the likes of the US, Australia, Germany and the Netherlands as being "not independent" which is frankly insulting. However, they wouldn't dare suggest that choosing to agree with South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Iran and China means you are "not independent".

It's just their own bigoted anti-Western scepticism over individual rights and the West coming to the fore - trying to paint the government as slavishly following the United States, even though the US has Barack Obama as President - who I don't doubt was the preference of both Robertson and Locke.

Keith Locke moreover supports this conference singling out the Palestinian issue, but happily lets the genocide in Darfur remain unmentioned, not least because Muslim states don't want to point a finger at a fellow Islamic regime committing racist murder, supported by China. Locke likes to see the UN as a meeting of equals, when it is a gallery from the relatively free to murderous butchering tyrants.

New Zealand attending this conference would imply its endorsement and being a party to an one sided set of resolutions - or it would be fighting hard to make it different.

I used to like child abuse

until Cindy Kiro came along. So implies Lynne Pillay Labour list MP in saying "Cindy Kiro played an important role in opening our eyes to the detrimental effects of bullying and child abuse".

Child abuse was such a joke beforehand, and bullying? Hey it toughened you up - it was all good until the sagacious Cindy Kiro came along.

Please - she meant well, but she did nothing besides promote a nanny state and more welfarism.

Children don't need very highly paid bureaucrats being their advocates - they need families who give a damn and the state to enforce the law on lowlife parents and guardians who abuse and neglect. Dr Kiro widened the net of her concern to all parents, she thought her role was to ensure all kids did better - letting down those kids living in hellholes of terror and abuse.

Metiria Turei messaged me on my twitter account to say "Completely disagree with you view of Cindy Kiro. best child advocate this country has seen ever". Respect the fact she responded to me, but what has been the record in the last 9 years, what remains the tragic truth that too many kids, particularly in Maori families, are being ignored or abused. Cindy Kiro did precious little to target this.

It IS about race

Merata Kawharu’s column in the NZ Herald this morning is an attempt to justify separate Maori political representation on the Auckland mega stadt rat.

She claims “Maori deserve their own voice”, well who doesn't? Nobody is seeking to stop it - the issue is whether Maori voting themselves is generating a voice, or whether it should be guaranteed, but others get no guaranteed voice. Moreover it implies that Maori have one voice - as if all the individuals of a race have one opinion. A rather nonsensical and sinister notion.

Quite how New Zealand got through local body restructuring in 1989, the Local Government Act 2002 without “honouring existing agreements” is beyond me – I didn’t notice Hikois then, so this “agreement” must be recent.

She then lies about what has happened “The abolition of Maori seats on the governing Auckland body must rank among the greatest challenges. It is, in short, premature and flawed.” There has been no abolition, as there are no such seats. The idea is new. You can’t abolish something that doesn’t exist.

She repeats Metiria’s call for mana whenua which she says includes “offering protection where relevant to those who may visit or live within the tribe's traditional domain.”. Hold on, protection where? On the tribe’s land, it need not have anything to do with local government. Elsewhere, it is the role of the state to offer protect from the initiation of force – the tribe is not excluded from that as all of its members have equal participation rights.

So she talks of a long history of Ngati Whatua wanting participation in governance of Auckland, but largely ignoring that for around three generations it didn’t have any special role.

However, how does she respond to the point that mana whenua IS about race? After all, Ngati Whatua is a tribe of people of one race. Maori representation is about Maori voters, Maori candidates and Maori representation. It is not about other races.

She doesn’t. She said it isn’t about race – but then talks about it being exactly about – not race, but a subgroup of a race.

Saying it isn’t about race, doesn’t change the fact that it is. It doesn’t change the fact that Maori have as much right to representation in local government as anyone else – nobody blocks it or restricts it. I am not represented just because someone of my race is elected (whatever that truly means), and I can be represented by people of other races.

Oh, and if you think belonging to a tribe should give you special privileges in government over others, then you haven’t learnt that nepotism is a dirty word in government in the civilised world. Setting aside any political representation on a basis that excludes people because of who their parents are is simply wrong.

If Maori seats are not about race, they would be seats open to anyone to get representation by whoever wishes to stand - which of course, they are not.

Geneva racist conference should be boycotted

The UN is often seen by many as an organisation with lofty goals of getting the world together to agree on what is right and wrong, and have collaboration, co-operation, compromise all to make the world a better place.

The Durban Review Conference in Geneva is meant to be like that. Its stated goal is “evaluate progress towards the goals set by the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance in Durban, South Africa, in 2001.”

Racism is bad right? What’s wrong with eliminating racism, xenophobia and “related intolerance”? Nothing of course, until you find out what is really behind it.

You see a real conference would look at what has happened at Darfur, and how so many countries have provided succuour to the Sudanese government and be dismayed. It would look at the blatant racism in the media of many in the Middle East, not just what happens in the Israeli occupied territories.

So what is wrong with the conference? For starters, Islamic countries are seeking religion to be put on the same level as race. The Netherlands is boycotting the conference for that reason. While people have a right to freedom of religion (and no religion, which none of the conference documents acknowledge), it is NOT about race. Religion is a choice. Funnily enough, precious few Islamic countries allow Muslims to commit apostasy without severe punishment. Many countries are seeking this conference to pass resolutions banning offence against religion - which is an attack on free speech and open debate.

The United States is boycotting it because Islamic countries are seeking to return to the “Zionism is racism” focus, making it predominantly about Israel.

Australia is boycotting it for similar reasons, as delegates from some countries used it as a forum to declare anti-semitic views.

Canada, Italy and Israel are also boycotting.

So for Green MP Keith Locke to say boycotting would be “just to follow the US”, is a lie. It would be following many Western countries that share our values, values of free speech, freedom of religion (and to have no religion), and to be committed against racism as a whole, not to single out Israel on dubious grounds.

It speaks volumes about the immaturity of the Green Party’s foreign policy that it rejects a boycott because the US - and we are talking about the Obama Administration – is boycotting, along with many others. Of course given the Greens support race based politics in New Zealand why should one be surprised.

New Zealand should stand against the hijacking of this conference by countries that practice vile racism in their media against Jews, that ignore the racist based genocide in Sudan (why is that not mentioned but Israel is) and want to suppress religious dissent.

Murray McCully is considering New Zealand’s position – it is right to stand alongside our friends in opposing the doggerel that will come from Geneva.

The UN for decades was a forum for brutal dictatorships and autocracies to pontificate about South Africa and Israel, ignoring their own murderous records - it should not now be the forum for the Muslim dominated autocracies that span from the Maghreb to Malaysia.

UPDATE: Associated Press is reporting that Germany is boycotting now too - and that is a country that knows only too much from history about racism, and moving on beyond it.

UPDATE 2: Foreign Affairs MinisterMurray McCully has announced New Zealand is NOT attending. He said it needed to responsibly and productively address racism

“It would also need to avoid circumscribing freedom of expression, such as in the contentious area of ‘defamation of religion’.

“I am not satisfied that the wording emerging from preparatory discussions will prevent the Review Conference from descending into the same kind of rancorous and unproductive debate that took place in 2001.

“It is a pity that this should have been the case. Combating racism and related intolerance is an important cause, and one to which New Zealand attaches the highest importance.

“However the Review Conference in Geneva is not likely to advance the cause of race relations at the international level, and so New Zealand, like many other countries, will not be represented at it"

GOOD!

Too wide for the seat?

Stuff reports an article from The Age on what it calls an airline "fat tax", which of course is nothing of the sort. MSM clearly unable to tell the difference between a tax (a government imposed charge that isn't optional) and a fee, but I digress.

United Airlines, which in my experience meets all expectations of North American airlines for being abysmal (yet the US domestic market remains closed to foreign owned competitiors), announced that passengers that cannot fit into its seats will be asked to buy a second adjacent seat or a business class seat.

In effect, if you're too wide for your seat you need to buy another.

This is great news for those of us who suffered on flights where your neighbour extended over the armrest or even over the seat.

However, as Cactus Kate points out, business class may not make you immune from the impact of the grotesquely obese. Air NZ long haul, Virgin Atlantic, British Airways, Singapore Airlines and a couple of others have business class that puts a serious barrier between passengers, but many don't.

What intrigues me is how this will be policed by the airline - will there be a seat at check in for passengers to be placed in for the airline to test if you fit?

By contrast, the socialists in Canada ban airlines charging for an extra seat.

I'm flying BMI in business class tomorrow to the Middle East, I should have an empty seat beside me (because of frequent flyer status and the flight isn't full), and for that I will be glad.

CO2 is a pollutant? well...

With CO2 deemed by the US Environmental Protection Agency as a health risk, (despite plants thriving on it), the most committed environmentalists can have only a complete response.

If you're a true environmentalist, stop emitting this pollutant- now. All those who believe CO2 is a pollutant should take immediate steps to cease emissions, cutting down on them by not driving is hardly enough. Of course, the obvious step isn't enough, you need to ensure the breakdown of your remains is addressed too - jumping into a volcano will do the trick. The last CO2 emitted, but it will be less than you emit in a day.

You know what you have to do. That 450 litres a day of CO2 you emit is simply immoral - and those of you environmentalists who made little polluting beings, shame!

By the way you also produce methane, 21 times the impact of CO2, you can address that at the same time.

(Hat Tip: Tim Blair)

Conflict of the commons... again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Greens don't get the idea of choice

Foodstuffs' decision to charge for plastic bags at its New World, Four Square and South Island Pak 'n' Save is being hailed by the Greens.

It is, of course, a clever move to boost the firm's environmental credentials, whilst making a comfortable profit on bags that cost a fraction of that to buy (even if some money is donated to "environmental causes"). It's been widely done in the UK, and customers seem to have started taking their own bags, while supermarkets can charge for a marginal cost input.

However, the Greens don't get it. Foodstuffs' is doing this as a commercial decision, it believes its customers will pay, and use less bags as a result - and it will be a winner, and presumably there will be less plastic bags used (which is the goal of the Greens, although the environmental impact is negligible).

It is done by free will, choice, voluntary agreement, option, conscious decision.

So what do the Greens say?

Forget choice, you can stick that up where a bag isn't comfortable, the Greens don't just encourage others to do the same. They don't even encourage the public to use Foodstuffs' supermarkets and bring their own bags.

No.

Green Co-Leader Russel Norman says "What we need now is for the Government to back up Foodstuffs' good initiative by introducing mandatory product stewardship for plastic bags".

So we need the "government" to force people to do it, even though it has been proven that you can convince people to do it. Russel gets out the truncheon of state force. State violence needed when people do something by choice.

WHY don't they get it?

Russel says "we don't want the good guys to be disadvantaged by other companies freeloading or refusing to do something about their bags." What? HOW is Foodstuffs disadvantaged when it is making money out of deterring what you don't like? If you WANT it to do well, go SHOP there, encourage people to shop there.

Then he contradicts himself again "They are also easy to do something about, and the public is overwhelmingly behind bold moves to reduce plastic bag use. Foodstuffs' move is an important recognition of this."

So why do you need to force people if they want to reduce plastic bag use? Foodstuffs will be successful, and others will follow.

Or maybe, just maybe you don't believe what you say. Maybe you think most people don't care, will want free plastic bags, and it will fail - which is why you want to force them.

In which case be honest - you want plastic bags taxed or banned regardless of what people think, because the Greens are wedded to statism, to authoritarian bullying - to nanny state regulating, taxing and pushing people around to fit your world view.

According to the Greens, if people really want something, you have to force them to do it.

The party of non violence? Ha!

Good riddance to Stalin Kiro - let's not replace her

The children who benefited from this office were those of the people "working" there, which of course took money from families with their own children.

I have long regarded Dr Cindy Kiro as odious. She is prepared to sacrifice reason and individual rights for a big nanny state that puts safety of children above everything else. She was an authoritarian bully of the worst kind, she wanted all children monitored and planned by the state, under her warm stifling embrace. Instead of focusing on the vileness of parents who brutally abuse and neglect their kids, she adopted a scatter gun.

Meanwhile, the record of child after child murdered and abused by their extended families, far too often Maori, grew under her watch. She was gutless. Unable to confront the gravy train of intergenerational welfare that sees too many have accidental children and pay them at best negligible attention, at worst treat them as violent and sexual playthings, she wanted what's best "for all children" - ignoring that most parents, most of the time raise children who turn out to be reasonably well balanced, happy, healthy and productive citizens.

It was like she saw security at airports (because of terrorism) and figured the same "screen everyone every time" approach should apply to parenting.

I watched the antics of this woman throughout the life of this blog as follows:

In 2005, Cindy Kiro supported airlines having a deliberate policy of never sitting men next to children. She said "children’s safety is paramount" which of course can justify a Police state. It doesn't matter how many adults are offended, blamed for abuse or what freedoms people lose, nothing comes before the safety of children.

In 2006, Cindy Kiro promoted a single ID number for all children, so the state could track them. Her phrase ""If there is glue ear, or major issues about safety at home, then people do not learn properly. All the little bits need to come together." seems to justify monitoring every child. As Not PC said at the time "To say that all children need to be numbered because some children have been beaten by their parents is not just disingenuous, it's downright insulting to the vast majority of New Zealand parents." Indeed, Cindy Kiro wanted it to be about ensuring every child "did better", because the state, somehow can know best.

I first called her Cindy "Stalin" Kiro in June 2006. Why? Because she called for a "plan for every child" agreed by the state in a press release that remains on Scoop, but curiously not on the OCC website (Stalin rewrote history often too). She said "“In future we need to put in place a plan for each child from the day that they are born so that children don’t fall through the gaps again". Terrifying stuff, nonsensical when you consider CYPS is incapable of handling the deluge of cases of children living with criminally negligent/abusive parents already. A chilling vision of the state checking if, maybe you let your 10 year old taste wine, or maybe let your child briefly read Lady Chatterly's Lover, and punish you appropriately.

In October 2006 I blogged how Sue Bradford SUPPORTED Kiro's idea. Kiro called it "Te Ara Tukutuku Nga Whanaungatanga o Nga Tamariki" "This would provide a systematic approach to monitoring the development of every child and young person in New Zealand through co-ordinated planned assessment at key life stages and supporting families to make sure children have the opportunity to reach their full potential. The assessments would take into account the whole child: their physical, social, educational, emotional, and psychological development.”

She was awfully excited about planning childrens' lives.

In September 2007 I despaired it took the MSM a year to catch up on this story. Kiro claimed it would cost NZ$5 million a year. The Dom Post reported she "would make it compulsory for every newborn's caregiver to nominate an authorised provider to assess their family's progress through home visits. Those who refused to take part would be referred to welfare authorities." In other words, state goons to watch on your family. She said "She did not know of any similar schemes internationally. "We can lead the world in it.""

North Korea watches on families constantly Cindy, hardly world leading. I bet you don't know much about North Korea though do you? It's a long way from where you have spent your life.

In November 2007, I blogged about how she talked about "our children" again and how "we" needed to change "our" attitudes to child abuse, as if most people were casual about it. She said "New Zealanders had to change their attitudes and behaviour to become more child-focused". I'd bet most parents would beat to a pulp anyone they caught harming their kids.

No Dr Kiro, perhaps abusers should change their attitudes, and you can stop lumping everyone in the same group you collectivist!

In February 2008, I blogged about how she encouraged people to spend more time with their kids, having recently pocketed her relatively comfortable salary paid for forcibly by the people she wants to spent more time with their kids.

In August 2008, I blogged on how she called for "action on child poverty", not from those who breed without the means to raise kids. No. She wants to force everyone else to pay for those families. She wanted more welfare, and for no penalties for DPB beneficiaries not naming "deadbeat dads" (hey we can all be forced to pay for it).

Finally in December 2008 I asked when she would be fired. Zentiger at NZ Conservative noted how she said "New Zealand has a high tolerance to violence", making the murder of children everyone's problem and fault.

However Dr Kiro never liked picking on those who abused their kids, because it would raise some uncomfortable truths about demographics both of income and race. She let down Maori children in particular because she wouldn't finger point at the disproportionate number of young Maori who have children they never wanted, who leave children in the hands of extended families that include abusers, and who live a life on welfare giving scant attention to the educational, nutritional and emotional needs of the children.

That is the scandal of modern New Zealand - and Cindy Kiro was too ideologically blind or afraid of offence to point it out.

She COULD have called for an outright ban on anyone convicted of a serious violent or sexual offence from ever having custody of children or being allowed to live under the same roof as children - but no.

She COULD have called for a denial of welfare payment to anyone who abused children, but no.

She COULD have shouted loud and clear to Maori, given her own background, that it is disproportionately poor fatherless Maori families on welfare that somehow see the worst cases of abuse. Parents who abuse their kids, neglect them or let them be abused or neglected should have them removed.

but she is a gutless control freak who would rather regulate and monitor everyone Orwellian style (bet she never even read "1984") than point blame at those who ARE to blame. Not only that she wanted you to be forced to pay MORE welfare to those who are to blame, meaning less for you and your kids.

The Office of the Childrens' Commissioner should be abolished, to save the money taken from families to pay for it. To have a bureaucrat willing to advocate to sacrifice the freedoms and responsibility of most citizens because a small number are vile towards children is wrong - the experiment of this bureaucracy has failed - it is time to save a little money, and let the criminal justice system focus on identifying, convicting and punishing abusive parents, and placing the victims in the hands of those who give a damn - which also means abolishing the institutional bias against adoption.

but that's another story.

So if it isn't about race... then what Metiria?

Metiria Turei claims on her Twitter account that the call for dedicated separate Maori seats on the Uber Alles Auckland Stadrat is NOT about race.

"Not about race. Its about being tangata whenua and manawhenua. The Treaty creates the right to structures for representation." she said at 9:14 AM Apr 15th from txt.

Is this just Orwellian doublespeak? I wanted to get to the bottom of it. After all, the Treaty doesn't say there should be parallel political structures, each one reserved by race. However, there are clearly two very distinct views of what is going on here, and I want to know why some Maori think this is not about race, when to everyone else it so clearly is.

Tangata whenua is literally “people of the land” which is a mystical concept based on the idea that “land is regarded as a mother to the people”. Some people believe this, but it is hardly helpful for an objective definition to be based on whether you believe in something supernatural. That would be ridiculous surely.

So what makes someone a “person of the land”. I was born in New Zealand, which surely makes me a “person of the land”, why wouldn’t I be? Well, apparently I am not. In fact nobody who does not claim "Maori identity" can be "tangata whenua". Am I wrong?

I can never be tangata whenua, neither can my offspring or their offspring. It IS about race. Race DEFINES “tangata whenua”. Metiria Turei IS engaging in Orwellian doublespeak to justify a race based definition of political separatism – it’s just HER race that benefits.

What about manawhenua then?

According to TPK it means “the exercise of traditional authority over an area of land [whenua]”. So what is “traditional authority”? If you own land, or are part of a collective that owns land (which is Iwi or Hapu owned Maori land), then of course you should authority over it. That is about property rights, and is protected by the Treaty of Waitangi, as are the property rights of others. However, you don’t need special representation on a local authority to do this.

Maori should have traditional authority over their land, but then so should we all over our own land. Local authorities should not be a tool for Maori to have special representation to also exercise control over other people’s property. Unless, of course, you believe that YOUR property rights are subject to mana whenua by "Maori".

Is that what you expect from the Green Party or the Maori Party, that you should have consent from Maori politicians for what you do on your land?

Metiria presumably believes that local authorities should have authority over everyone’s property, it is, after all, Green policy to use the RMA to control land use. However, she also believes that ethnic Maori have some special right to be guaranteed to be part of that political control.

How can this NOT be about race? Well, if you believe you can inherit rights over others because of who your parents are then what she says is legitimate - but hold a second, isn't that very concept wrong? Why SHOULD anyone have different civil and political rights because of their parentage?

That IS what this is about. It IS the source of the difference. If I am born in New Zealand, and own land in New Zealand, why is it that my neighbour, who has some ancestors of different racial origin gets different political representation and rights from me? Why is HE special? Why should HE assume that because most councillors look like they are of a similar race to me, that they somehow "represent my interests", when they vote to increase my rates, regulate my land use and have contrary political views to me?

It's because those advocating for separate Maori representation identify race with political power. It is the idea that there is a "Maori world view", you know like there is a "Serb world view" to Serb nationalists. I have a world view, you have yours, we only share one if you give your express consent for it. Race does not give you a "world view". Your brain does. It is an individual choice.

Conclusion

So when Metiria says it is not about race, but about tangata whenua and manawhenua what is she saying?

She is saying it is about “people of the land”, which doesn’t mean people born locally, but people who have a “spiritual connection” to the land – and the only ones she recognises as doing so ares Maori. She is saying it is about “exercising traditional authority over land”, she means Maori being guaranteed representation at council level to have authority over everyone’s land.

So if the only people who can be “people of the land” (a concept not unlike how virtually all racist-nationalist groups see themselves) are one race, and if they have a right to guaranteed political representation so they can exercise control over land that isn’t there’s, then what is it if it isn’t about race?

Nobody I have seen who opposes race based local government representation wants to deny Maori any political rights, none want to deny Maori political candidates being successful if they can convince sufficient voters to select them. They particularly reject being called "racist" because they want all political institutions to be non-racial.

If the Green Party, Maori Party and others want race based representation for Maori, then they should first be honest about it, secondly admit that in granting race based political privilege, it is racist, but then justify it on objective terms. Not having enough Maori in councils is not a reason, because there are probably not enough people of a vast range of backgrounds, in some councils women, in others Pacific Islanders or Chinese. The list can go on and on about types of identity not represented.

Individualists want race to be irrevelant and unimportant in politics, for it to be something personal, private and a matter of voluntary association, rather than have anything to do with the state. Why should it be any other way?

Farewell Sir Clement Freud

Perhaps the most exposure anyone in NZ has had to Sir Clement Freud was with the BBC radio gameshow “Just a Minute” which National Radio frequently carried. Freud has appeared on every episode of the gameshow since 1967, which continues to be broadcast on BBC Radio 4.

Freud was born in Berlin in 1924, and of course as with his grandfather (Sigmund Freud), his family fled the Nazi regime in 1934. He was a Liberal MP from 1973 to 1987. However, it is his intelligent wit and warm sense of humour that I remember him for.

It would be a waste for me to duplicate the obituaries published by the BBC (including video), Daily Telegraph (also including video), and the list of Freud quotes published here.

My favourites are:

"I think our police are excellent, probably because I have not done anything that has occasioned being beaten up by these good men."

"If you resolve to give up smoking, drinking and loving, you don't actually live longer; it just seems longer".

However, my favourite is this Guardian tribute. If you haven't heard Clement before, try that selection.

Farewell to a man who loved life and entertained millions over the years.

He could stand tall in an age when so many know and celebrate those who offer nothing but inane bland mediocrity. Sadly I already know the death of a certain young woman will be more remembered and talked about than the passing of this great man. Tributes published here.

Turia - Associate Minister of teen pregnancy?

An unlikely Hat Tip to Tony Milne at Just Left for pointing out this one.

Tariana Turia is now Associate Minister of Health with the following delegated responsibilities:

Functions and responsibilities relating to:

• Maori health (including Maori provider development);
• Disability Support Services funded and managed by the Ministry of Health for people under 65 years of age;
• breast and cervical screening programmes;
• communicable diseases (infectious and notifiable diseases, but excluding immunisation);
• sexual health;
• diabetes;
• tobacco.

Reassuring stuff, except Turia is on the record believing that the Maori teenage pregnancy is not a problem. Her own view appears to be that Maori should go forth and multiply, for political demographic reasons.

Nice given that one of the biggest problems facing Maori, demographically, is the high numbers of unplanned pregnancies, children growing up in homes that barely wanted them, and the disproportionate amount of child abuse in Maori homes. Turia presumably is happy every time a Maori child is born, regardless of how interested the parents are in looking after him or her, or how much taxpayers are forced to carry the cost, because of her own barely hidden agenda of eugenics.