Brian Rudman - a little knowledge isn't dangerous, just ignorant

Brian Rudman is perhaps the most regular of the NZ Herald's columnists to comment on transport issues in Auckland.  He comes at it from a rather predictable standard point of view which blends the railevangelism of the Greens with the cynical populism of NZ First.  To be fair to him, he does a bit of research, but the conclusions he comes to shows a rather dire lack of understanding of economics, a paucity of depth of knowledge about the sector and an unfortunate tendency to be driven by faith rather than evidence.

His latest column is headlined "tolls alone won't unclog our roads".  The implication being that someone claimed that they would.   A more honest headline in response is "trains wont unclog our roads", since column after column he has been preaching the gospel of the church of passenger railways.

What he is talking about is a proposal to introduce new tolls on Auckland's existing motorway network to "raise revenue" tax road users to pay for Auckland Council's grand transport plans, much of which is to fund infrastructure for subsidised public transport services.

There are three substantive issues here:

1.  Is the NZ$11.7 billion "funding gap" real and justified?  (i.e. should that much extra money be spent on transport in Auckland? What is gained by that? Who are the winners, and are they the same as the losers?  Why should anyone trust Auckland Council on this?  Given that all of the future money taken from motoring taxes and rates is already taken into account, has anyone asked Aucklanders whether they are willing to pay more?

2.  If there is a gap, how should it be funded?  Should users pay more for infrastructure and services they will benefit from?  Should ratepayers pay for infrastructure that increases their property values?  Should existing taxes go up? Should there be new taxes?

3.  Should Auckland roads have direct tolls/road pricing introduced as a different way to charge for road use, which could also reduce congestion by introducing the price instrument?

Is the NZ$11.7 billion "funding gap" real and justified?

On the first question, Rudman fails.  He doesn't ask this question.  With some irony, the Greens are attacking (with some good reason) central government's Think Big highway spending plans for being poor value for money.  Neither the Greens nor Rudman apply a similar test to the Auckland Council project list.  For many years, the former Auckland Regional Council had unfunded transport wishlists, is it any surprise the new Auckland Council has simply grandfathered that wishlist and added to it?

He simply parrots the simple line that Auckland "needs more public transport " and the myth of "building the passenger transport options that might well help unclog the roads without the need to build more".  Might well? Where in the new world have major rail projects actually unclogged roads?  What city has accomplished this successfully?  It's a simple belief system - it is one the Greens share - but it is just that, a belief.  The bare fact is that no new world city has significantly reduced traffic congestion from construction of a new rail link - none.  Advocates may argue that congestion would be worse without them, but that's just hypothesis, and it isn't based on any significant difference in mode share from car driver to rail after a line has been opened.

So let's take the highest profile project that he and the Greens advocate - an underground CBD rail loop.

The Treasury/MoT report that reviewed the Auckland CBD underground rail tunnel states that this project, estimated to cost NZ$2.4 billion in capital, with ongoing additional costs of NZ$37 million per annum (although revenue offsetting that is not mentioned), will only reduce car trips into the CBD by 2,000 a day - out of a total of 40,000.  Now 88% of commutes in Auckland are not to the CBD.  That stark fact is constantly ignored by almost all advocates of rail in Auckland.

Of the remaining 12% around, 42% of motorised commutes to the CBD in Auckland are by car - yes a majority go by public transport now. You might ask why that is a problem.

So his pet rail project, will reduce 5% of 42% of 12% of Auckland commutes, which means only 0.25% of Auckland commutes will be shifted from car to public transport.  It's a brave person indeed who claims that is worth NZ$2.4 billion.

However, he completely blanks out the other effect.  The CBD rail project reduces bus trips to Auckland CBD by 10%, with double the number of people taken from existing bus services, both subsidised and unsubsidised, than from cars.  NZ$2.4 billion would in part be about shifting more people from buses than cars.  In short it is estimated to accommodate only 19% of the growth in future trips to the Auckland CBD.  The rest would be travelling by bus, car and ferry.  In his own article on this very report he blatantly misses this point by saying that other improvements wont be able to "cope with the predicted 32,000 extra passengers into the CBD in the 2041 morning peak. For that we need the rail loop." No Brian, only 6,000 of those 32,000 will use the loop.  It's deception to claim otherwise.

So it has a negligible impact on congestion, in fact the effect is so low it will be more than offset by forecast growth in traffic.  It reduces bus use more than car use, and only 1 in 5 future Auckland CBD commuters (which are themselves a subset comprising 1 in 5 of all Auckland commuters) would use it.

Even if you presume that all of the car commuters to the Auckland CBD benefit from the 5% reduction in car trips (and presumably a handful of fewer buses), that means that only 5% of all Auckland commuters experience a reduction in the negative externality of congestion.  So quite why should anyone pay over NZ$2 billion, plus ongoing operating subsidies, for 6,000 new rail commuters and for 5% of car commuters to save time (which they would do, on the margins), is a mystery.  It either hasn't occurred to Rudman (the report is rather clear on this) or he is evading it.

If there is a gap, how should it be funded?

However, let's leave that to one side, because his column does.  How should the money be raised if it was legitimate in the first place?  He doesn't spend much time on how it should be funded, rather how it should not be.

The solutions be posits are to both spend existing funds differently and raise new taxes from motorists.

He wants the state highway budget "redirected" towards public transport. Beyond the Puhoi-Wellsford motorway project, he isn't too clear on what other funded road projects shouldn't proceed.  In the past he has bemoaned other parts of the country getting money for roads, when his beloved Auckland can't get enough to pay for what it wants.  What he neglects is that outside Wellington and Tauranga, virtually all state highway projects are about reducing accidents, not reducing travel time.  However, he is an Auckland advocate so let's just accept that bias as being natural to him.  To be fair to the Greens, they do seek to abandon large swathes of road projects, including the Waterview connection, Puhoi-Wellsford and Waikato Expressway series of projects. 

For new money, he supported the regional fuel tax Labour tried to introduce, but which the National government scrapped.  This was a stupid idea, and tends to be embraced only by those with a paucity of understanding of such taxes and their role in New Zealand.

For a start, regional fuel taxes in the past have been opposed by oil companies because of the administrative cost in applying differential taxes for a commodity distributed nationally.  Service stations near the boundaries of Auckland (which most people wont be aware of) would be winners or losers for fairly obvious reasons if applied regionally.   National tried regional fuel tax in the early 1990s and had to abandon it because oil companies calculated the revenue that should have been collected based on consumption in the regions, but applied the tax nationally to save on the administrative costs and boundary effects.  Regional fuel tax for Auckland risks being applied nationally again, unless government applies stiff enforcement procedures to stop oil companies repeating this - which adds another cost.  Something Brian curiously ignores given his pleading on the cost of operating tolls.

Secondly, he ignores the effect on diesel.  There is currently no fuel duty on diesel, because diesel powered vehicles are liable for road user charges (RUC), paying in advance for distance travelled on roads based (shortly) on maximum vehicle weight.  There are various reasons for that, but what it means is that RUC, in its current form, cannot be applied regionally because diesel vehicles have distance bought before they travel regardless of where the roads are.  So regional RUC wont work for now, without a significant change in technology.  Regional diesel tax would mean the 36% of diesel usage off road would have to have a refund scheme (as applies to petrol tax), which imposes an administrative cost on the agriculture, industrial and fisheries sector to which this largely applies - unless Brian thinks that off road users of fuel in Auckland should pay for Auckland transport, in which case he is arguing to get rid of refunds for off road use of petrol and LPG as well (and why only abolish refunds in Auckland).   He simply wont be aware of these implications of imposing new costs outside the transport sector.

In other words, his bright idea for new money is full of holes, but since Labour tried to do it (against official advice) it must be ok, because he trusts politicians of a leftwing bent.

Should Auckland roads have direct tolls/road pricing?

Most of Brian's latest comment is a diatribe against road pricing.  That puts him firmly in a camp I describe as populist left-wing opposition to tolling - he shares this with NZ First.


I am, in principle, in favour of road pricing as a replacement for taxation of motorists, because it creates a direct relationship between the road user and road provider, sidestepping the interfering influence of politicians seeking to spend motoring taxes on pet projects.  However, from an economist's point of view, it enables the price instrument to be applied to roads.  That alone means road users can be charged directly for the costs of the roads they use, accordingly to the proportion of usage, according to the wear and tear they impose on the roads, and according to the vagaries of demand and supply.   Congested roads would cost more, managing demand, but generating revenue that might be enough to remove bottlenecks and build new capacity, or may simply mean off peak charges are lessened to spread demand.  It is this lack of the pricing instrument, which affects both demand for road use, and the funds to supply roads, that is the biggest single factor in facilitating traffic congestion, and the negative externalities from that in the form of wasted fuel and increased pollution.  Even when applied bluntly, the effects of pricing on congestion have been seen clearly in Singapore, Oslo, Stockholm and London.

It would appear Rudman is almost oblivious to this, or at best dismissive of it.


He claims tolling is "not fair", because he doesn't believe Aucklanders should pay more for their roads and public transport than other New Zealanders.  Rather odd that, if Aucklanders actually wanted more roads and public transport than other New Zealanders, they shouldn't pay.  Who should pay?  Aucklanders pay more for land and property now, does he suggest people living in Oamaru pay a land tax to equalise it, or should Auckland land be subsidised? However, this is a man advocating a REGIONAL fuel tax, which would mean Aucklanders would pay more.  He can't make his mind up. It is a specious "argument" worthy of a drunken talkback caller.   Aucklanders should pay for the transport they want, maybe if they did, they may want less of it (and nothing could be "greener" than that).

He repeats the claim by Chairman of Auckland Council's business advisory panel Cameron Brewer that "tolling is a flat tax that hit the poor the hardest".  Yet I have never seen Brian advocate that poor motorists get a discount on their petrol tax (the equivalent to a toll now), or discounted train fares, or discounted phone line rentals.  Why is a user charge for one service a "tax" when it doesn't apply to others?  Again, a specious argument.  Even though Brewer's sensible suggestion that "it be levied at a reduced rate for service sector shift workers in off-peak times" has economic merit in that tolls should be lower at times of low demand.  Brian's regional fuel tax, which would be paid most by those in least fuel efficient (i.e. old) vehicles on slow lengthy trips would be paid more by them, but he blanks out even considering that.

His next claim is that tolling targets private motorists, whereas commercial road users and councillors (cue NZ First type rhetoric here) can pass it on.  Well what would a regional fuel tax do Brian? 

However, moving beyond this rather facile rhetoric, his big opposition to tolls appears to be because the collection costs are higher than fuel tax.  Now I've already fisked him on fuel tax given that the regional fuel tax would cost more than he thinks, and so would mean costs for administration by both government and oil companies, and for those off-road users of diesel facing a new refund regime.  However, he does use both the Northern Gateway toll road and the earlier Auckland Road Pricing Evaluation Study work to back up his claim that, yes indeed, having a direct customer relationship with users one by one and being accountable to them is more expensive than a tax.  However, as I have written before, the costs now claimed are for a government specified bespoke system that is far more expensive than it should be.  Work I've done elsewhere indicates the costs of collection can be much much less if you have the volume to sustain it and outsource much of it effectively, like utility companies do.  So this argument is less worthy that it appears on the face of it.

Yet the real benefit of tolls, compared to taxes, is that they can charge according to costs and demand.  The benefits to Auckland of road users paying tolls to use roads, compared to more taxes, is that they could be charged more for roads close to capacity and could be charged less for roads at off peak times.  This can spread demand, encourage use of other modes at peak times, and cause people to think again about whether it is worth using that rather expensive piece of infrastructure when it is highly priced.   Yes for "revenue" alone it isn't clever, but if that was the only measure, then electricity would be free and everyone would have paid for it through their taxes, so would phone calls etc.  The effect on use of electricity if it was paid for through your rates or income taxes would be dramatic.

To be fair to him, he is right in quoting the Auckland Road Pricing Evaluation Study work in opposing tolls on the motorways only.  I don't believe this can be justified in Auckland today, but I do believe that a shift from rates and fuel tax based funding of roads to tolls is justified.  The issue is how that is done (privatising Auckland Harbour Bridge might offer a clue).

If Auckland did have largely privately owned roads, charging usage on various basis (e.g. tolls, distance charging, property access charges), it would transform transport in Auckland, particularly by eliminating rates funding of roads (cutting your rates by 10-15%) and fuel taxes (cutting fuel prices by 20%).  It would mean users of main roads at off peak times would probably pay less, whilst at peak times they would pay more.  It would mean buses wouldn't need bus lanes in most locations, except where bus companies were willing to pay for special access.  Truck operators would probably change times of travel.  Short car trips would be more likely to be replaced with walking and cycle trips.  The legacy railway might even have a financially sustainable life, somewhere where it parallels road corridors too expensive to expand (or it gets taken over by them).  

Quite simply, it is Rudman who doesn't have a transformational state of mind.  He, and the Greens, are trapped in tired old solutions implemented en-masse in the United States in the 1970s and 1980s that have failed - in the form of new government provided rail transit systems.  He ignores road pricing, like it was ignored then (except at least then, technology was a bigger limiting factor than it is today).  He swallows the hackneyed and overused line that "building more roads leads to more traffic" (given Auckland has had a lot of new roads lately but no more traffic, he has failed to join the analytical dots).  He wants taxpayers to spend a lot of money for what are pet schemes, whilst he resists economics and employs contradictory arguments.

Auckland's transport could be transformed, with technology, pricing instruments and a more commercial and market oriented approach to the provision of infrastructure and services.  Cities from London to Stockholm to Singapore to Tehran even, have had success in better pricing of roads to reduce congestion, yes reduce.  New technologies in San Francisco and Los Angeles are offering real time information on parking availability with the scope for dynamic pricing of parking.  Bus rapid transit has demonstrated enormous success in Auckland in limited form as it is, and has also been a success in cities in the US, Brazil, Germany and Australia.

It is overwhelmingly clear that the advocacy of rail in Auckland is not about transport policy outcomes, but a broader agenda that is about intensification of the Auckland CBD, moving more Aucklanders into high and medium density housing, for environmental policy reasons, and because of a warm fuzzy feeling that electric trains are just great, but cars and roads are just wrong.

It isn't about Aucklanders making the best choices about how to get around based on the costs of travel, it isn't about balancing what people want in homes, businesses and leisure activities, it isn't about real environmental outcomes (because road pricing would deliver a bigger constraint to sprawl and reduce pollution due to traffic jams, than any rail scheme), it is about grand centrally planned visions that look nice in drawings and in theory, but don't actually deliver the real-world trade-offs people actually want.

The biggest irony is that the greatest beneficiaries of this agenda, if it gets pursued, are owners of commercial property in downtown Auckland.  Now they are far from willing, it would seem, to pay for more than a tiny fraction of the grand CBD rail project.   Is it not ironic then, that Rudman and the leftwing promoters of this plan are advocating a massive transfer in wealth from taxpayers across the country, to this small, some may say, elite group?

30 years since the foolish Falklands War

30 years ago a nasty little fascist military dictatorship launched a vain war to conquer a collection of islands 460km away from its territory.  The purpose was to rally a shallow machismo-like nationalism to divert attention from the economic disaster and oppression that it had brought to the people it pushed around.

Today its successor regime, democratically elected, and far closer to Western values of freedom and individual rights, is playing the same game.  Engaging in shallow machismo to demand that islands that are inhabited by people who don't want to be ruled by them, are handed over to them, and effectively commemorating a war that, by implication, it considered to be just.

For a woman called Cristina Kirchner, ruling a country in South America, to talk about colonialism is comical.  For the claim Argentina makes is because of its past Spanish coloniser (and her late husband's ancestry is no more linked to that land than it is to Spain).

Let's make it clear.  Britain discovered the Falklands, but France later established a separate colony on the Falklands that Spain acquired in the late 18th century.  Spain attacked the British colony, but a peace treaty divided the island.  However, subsequently both Spain and Britain abandoned the islands although leaving plagues indicating their claims.  Subsequently Britain returned, and Argentina attempted to do so, claiming Spain's authority.  It failed.

However, today countries don't fight territorial wars of conquest.  The Falklands have a permanent settlement of virtually entirely people of British descent.  Under the principle of international law known as self-determination, the future of the islands should be decided by those who live there.  As they have repeatedly made it clear, they want to remain under British sovereignty.   It's hardly surprising, given almost all of Argentina's post independence history has been pockmarked with dictatorship of both fascists and socialists, hyperinflation, corruption and economic illiteracy.  Kirchner has continued this tradition.

She has managed to reintroduce import licensing, constrained exports of food with export quotas and taxes.  Importers have to follow bizarre rules, that economic nationalists would be proud of, in that they need to export the value of the goods they want to import.  Absurd arrangements are set up as exporters make money by setting up multiple businesses to help importers get the foreign exchange they want.

Kirchner's regime in 2008 nationalised private pensions to help balance the budget, so she is a long proven thief, but a thief that commands enough patronage through subsidies, welfare and other transfers that she has managed to get re-elected.  

In fact, it has even started lying about its inflation statistics to the point that the Economist has stopped reporting it.  Argentinian politicians have long been adept at stealing from their own people through inflation to the point that the US$ is the preferred currency in the country.  Inflation is really around 25% despite official reports of less than 10%.   Of course the result of the preference to the US$ is strict monitoring of currency conversions with tax inspectors especially focused on such transactions.  The result is that larger companies arrange their affairs to minimise liability, small ones and individual Argentinians get their savings thieved either by inflation or Kirchner's patronage based administration.

Argentina's economy isn't stagnant, the rise in commodity prices has meant that revenue from mining and agriculture has kept the country afloat, yet Kirchner's profligacy has wasted away a period when the country could have boomed.  It could have built an economy like Chile, by doing away with patronage laden monopolies, trade licences and subsidies, and liberalising, but it refused.  It has even told RIM and other mobile phone manufacturers they must assemble phones in Argentina.  A few are proceeding to do so, at high cost, obviously creating less jobs than they are costing by raising the price of mobile phones.   The economics that brought Argentina from 2nd highest per capita GDP in the 1940s to third world are being replicated.

It's hardly surprising, she is allied to that poseur and economic lunatic Hugo Chavez, who helped fund her electoral campaign. 

So now she is using the Falklands to distract attention from the accumulated economic cost of her kleptocratic policies.  It is a tiresome expression of Latin machismo and bluster.  Argentina hasn't remotely got the means to militarily take the Falklands, and her interest is in vacuous nationalism, and to claim the oil and gas reserves that she claims are "polluting" "her" country and ocean.  They wont be if she was running them of course.

The fundamental issue with the Falklands is that self-determination is about what the people of a territory want.  The people of the Falklands want to remain British, not least because Argentina's unstable history of dictatorships of the left and right, kleptocratic lying corrupt regimes whether elected or not, is hardly conducive to closer relations.  Why would farmers on the Falklands want to pay extra taxes to export, or deal in the worthless Argentinian peso, or face the patronage laden courts, police or the socialist eccentricities of a country which elects Presidents who care more about their own pride and posturing than about their people.

That is why the Falklands will remain British for now.  For until Argentina and Argentinians create a country, a political culture, an economy, a legal and constitutional framework that people want to join, they will seek to remain part of the UK.  For however flawed it is and however distant it is, however slow its economy, however much of its glory is in history, Britain is still less corrupt, more stable, more dependable, and respects individual rights and freedom more consistently than a young post-colonial Latin American republic, barely a generation away from military dictatorship.

It is for that that good men and women served to defend the Falklands from the frightened young men of a military dictatorship 30 years ago.  The sacrifice and effort of those who defended the Falklands are to be commended and remembered, the loss and tragedy of those who were forced to fight the petty little war of Galtieri is sad.   

Earth Hour?

If I hadn't seen the odd reference I wouldn't have remembered that this event was meant to be today.  In the UK neither TV, nor the rest of the mainstream media have paid it any attention.

Perhaps in an age of economic stagnation, most people are fed up with smug middle class types telling them how good it would be if they used less electricity and cared more about environmental causes, and perhaps they are also tired of being told about how much harm they are causing, when the same types don't bother telling people of countries with far greater per capita contributions to emissions to do the same.

The environment matters because we breathe, eat, drink and live in it.  Yet without harnessing it, using the resources around us and applying reason to it, we would not survive.  The harnessing of energy and generation of forms of energy that only a few generations ago were mostly only visible in electrical storms, has resulted in a monumental improvement in the lives of billions.

That's something worth celebrating.  Let the people worshipping the dark do so, but I'm more concerned about the millions who don't yet have the opportunity to brighten their darkness with technology we take for granted because of the philosophy of those who don't believe people own their lives, that property rights should be defended or that science, reason and individual creativity should prevail over superstition.

Earth Hour is contrary to that, it proclaims that the answer to concerns about pollution is to abandon technology and the advantages that modernity has brought us.  That's wrong.  The answer is to embrace it, to embrace reason, to embrace the creativity of the human individual and to create property rights for that which people value (and hundreds of millions of people do value protected natural environments).

West Bradford shames itself

I don't need to say much about George Galloway, he is one of the most repulsive politicians in Britain today.  As Christopher Hitchens once said "the man's search for a tyrannical fatherland never ends".  He has been a sycophant of Saddam Hussein, Bashar Assad, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez.  He misses the Soviet Union - the stale stinking behemoth of blood stained lies, oppression, imperialism and terror.  He supported the Islamist terrorists who festered in Iraq after the Western invasion, he supports Hamas, he said the Syrian people are lucky to be ruled by Bashar Assad.  On top of it all, this Dundee Catholic fifth columnist lies - blatantly - denying that for which there is video evidence.  He blames 9/11 on US foreign policy.  He claims to not support the Iranian system, yet said explicitly he supported the campaign of Ahmadinejad on Iranian TV.  His direct relationship with the Hussein regime was demonstrated with evidence, but he continues to deny it.

So how did such an odious creature get elected in a low profile Bradford West by-election?  Simple.

He has a high public profile (he appeared in Celebrity Big Brother in 2006).  He spent money and time in the constituency spreading his latest brand, of being a teetotaller who has always supported Muslims, who opposed the war in Iraq, opposes Western forces in Afghanistan, supports Palestinian militancy and opposes Western intervention in the Middle East.  He played to the tribalist, anti-Western bigotry of many ethnic Pakistani voters in the constituency.  He benefited from a week of appalling mismanagement by the government, and the continued ineptness of Labour leader Ed Miliband.  It was a protest vote, apparently driven also by Galloway targeting young Pakistani voters who otherwise may not have voted.  It has been alleged that some of his supporters voted for him as a rebellious action, for his shenanigans with Celebrity Big Brother were looked down upon by some of his Islamic support base.

Bear in mind also that turnout was low (25% or so down on the general election), and it was meant to be a safe Labour seat, which motivates less supporters for major parties to bother voting.

Yet while much analysis will focus on why the major parties, especially Labour, did so badly, the real menacing implication is that a man who has long provided succour to Islamists and dictators, can command such overwhelming support.  Was there not sufficient media scrutiny of Galloway?  If there had been much more, would his campaign have been harmed (and is it not for the other parties to do that?)?  Or do his voters agree with him - that Iran doesn't have such a bad President, that Syrians are lucky to be ruled by Assad, that criticism of Syria is because of the "good things" Assad does, that Saddam Hussein deserved to be saluted for courage and indefatigability, that Hamas is a force for good, that Islamists who shot dead 58 people at a Catholic Cathedral in Baghdad were to be supported, or the ones who bombed 48 people at a restaurant, or who let off a bomb killing 54 Shia on a pilgrimage, etc?

George Galloway has always done well out of politics, he has connected himself to whoever he can who opposes open, free, liberal Western democratic capitalist societies, and embraced variously Marxist, Soviet, Islamist, Ba'athist dictatorships.  He says one thing on the broadcast outlets of his favoured dictatorships and another in the West.

So it's about time that proper efforts are taken now to hold this friend of thugs to account, to reject his evasion and deception, and expose him once again.  However, although I hope most of his supporters are naive young voters who see him as a high profile protest against the mainstream parties (and their parents), I fear more than a few embrace an agenda that is anti-British, anti-Western, sympathetic to Islamism and believers of the rampant conspiracy theory ridden nonsense that passes for "theories" in some parts of the world.  Is anyone confronting this?

Idiot Savant has lost the plot and is clueless about Europe

For a while I would read the blog of Malcolm Harbrow, aka Idiot Savant, aka No Right Turn, if only because it would provide some useful coverage of Parliament, and it is helpful to know what the hard left is thinking. It's hardly surprising that I mostly disagree with him, except when it comes to individual liberties where he can often be right - and will call out politicians of all ranks on that, and bureaucracies as well. 

 After all he thinks that children are the responsibility of everyone, through the state. He'd only be happy if the welfare state expanded, was more generous with less limits on eligibility. After all, tightening up eligibility for the invalids benefit is seen as "sadism" by him. He considers Ayn Rand and objectivism to be a "cult". He thinks people are only free if they don't have to provide for themselves and can choose whatever they want to do with their time. 

Such a disjoint with reality indicates a fair degree of foolishness. If everyone was "free" to do this, then everyone would starve, freeze and die rather fast. In order for anyone to have this "freedom" to "do whatever you like" literally, someone else has to be forced to provide for that person, or to choose to sacrifice oneself for that person. It's quite absurd, but then I've come to the view that Idiot Savant is indeed absurd himself. He is a great example of the fundamental disconnection between reality, principle and morality that the hard left carries with it. See I am fairly generous about most people across the political spectrum. I think they genuinely do believe they want the best for humanity, in general. The key debate is the means of getting there, and the priorities in doing so. However, there is a more fundamental belief around rights, and the relationship of the individual to the state. Statists believe individuals are a means to an end, individualists believe they are ends in themselves. 

Idiot Savant doesn't believe those on the right or those who believe in less state want people to be better off, he actually believes that those opposite him on the spectrum are sociopaths.  Because he advocates using the state to force some groups to be better off, he thinks everyone wanting to shrink the state want the rich to be better off and the poor to suffer and die.  The idea that people who believe in less government actually want better outcomes for all is ridiculous to him, because he can't conceive of how you do that without Marxist redistribution and regulation policies.

The simplistic position he takes is that those who believe that the state should take from those better off and pay those worse off, are morally good. Those who want to force people to give people jobs, keep them in jobs, allow them to work less for more money, and to ban people from choosing to work more for less money in competition, are morally good. A big warm cuddly state that exists to facilitate such transfers of money from "rich to poor", to provide state monopoly services paying its employees generously, not expecting them to be accountable for performance and having safe jobs for life, and which ruthlessly restricts businesses or entrepreneurship when it threatens to undermine state monopolies, existing employment or punitive taxes, is his dream.

 He stands for unionised labour closed shops. He is willing to use shonky surveys developed by private companies seeking to promote their services if it supports his point of view. He touts tired old leftwing cliches about privatisation which have been proven to be false, whilst supporting implicit subsidies of the coal, dairy and timber industries. He manufactures a story about protests in London that he never witnessed, and which even the media he uses doesn't support. He likes to give the impression that he is authoritative, like a journalist, and does his research. Well patently he doesn't. He is an angry bigoted little man, whose view of his political opponents has become so bitter he may as well paint them all as fascists or caricatures of Montgomery Burns. 

Take his recent celebration of Nick Smith's resignation (which was entirely justifiable). He can't just stick to that, he has to say "climate change denial and destroying the environment are tribal shibboleths of the right, and so these portfolios will almost certainly go to someone with no commitment to them." Tribal shibboleths? Does he really think those on the right want to destroy the environment? Is it true that everytime National gets in power that it lets rip with pollution and destruction of habitats? Is this what the hard left tell themselves - that they are the great saviours of the planet? His comment on the UK's budget speaks volumes too about his inane grasp on reality. It's one thing to slate tax cuts for those on highest incomes, as par for the course for Marxists. However, he manufactures a claim that benefits are being slashed for the unemployed, disabled and the sick. It's simply not true (the kernel behind this is tightening up eligibility for disability benefits because of the hoards who remain on it, even though they may be as mobile as many others). He claims it is cutting the NHS, when funding for the NHS is growing (even a leftwing website bemoans at how low the increases are). He of course, like any Gramscian Marxist ignores the increase in the income tax free threshold for the very poor - he can't compute, accept or spread the fact that the evil child eating Conservatives might cut taxes for the poor. That interferes with his bigotry. 

However, the post which really caught my attention was his rant about austerity in the Eurozone. He said: But there's little doubt that these cuts will lead to tens of thousands of deaths in each country. And every one of those deaths can be laid at the feet of the foreign bankers demanding their pound of flesh. What they are doing to Greece and Portugal constitutes mass-murder on a vast scale. And they need to be held to account for it. He basically believes that cuts in health spending in Portugal and Greece are resulting in people dying citing a Guardian article. 

Let's assume that there is evidence of this, it is curious who he blames. 

 Does he blame the politicians in those countries, who spent other people's money and borrowed more money than they could pay back to buy goods, services, infrastructure, welfare for those people? No. They would be socialists. They meant well. Even the Greek politicians who deliberately lied about the public finances. 

Does he blame the voters who elected the politicians who spent the borrowed money that couldn't be paid back, and who ostensibly benefited from the excess spending? No. Suddenly the commitment to democracy and politicians acting on behalf of the people, even in countries with proportional voting systems, evaporates.

 Does he blame the citizens the countries whose taxes are funding the bailout of these countries? The taxpayers of Germany, the UK, France, the Netherlands etc who have helpd finance this? No. They are irrelevant to him. 

 No he blames his bogeymen, his scapegoat, his hated minority, the "foreign bankers". The same "foreign bankers" who wrote off 79% of the debt owed by Greece to them (quite rightly so). Except of course, he's avoiding the point. 

 You see the austerity in Greece and Portugal is NOT about paying off bankers. It's about stopping those countries from continuing to borrow more. They are both still in deficit, the amount the government spends in both countries is more than they receive in tax. If his philosophy was applied, presumably taxes would shoot up in both countries (and they have to some extent). 

However, no. 

This little man in Palmerston North is venting his ranting spleen against foreign (note how xenophobia is good if you have Marxist motives) bankers.  He wants them to pay, and I doubt he means not using force.  See it's all very well caring about civil liberties, until you want to extract a pound of flesh yourself from your favourite scapegoat. 

Bankers should just lend Greece and Portugal as much as those governments want, and not expect any of it back right? Indeed they should be charities, right Malcolm?  Should the countries abandon the Euro and print their worthless new currencies endlessly until they can pay for it all? 

Let me be crystal clear, so that even an Idiot can understand. 

Austerity means living within your means.

Both Greece and Portugal are unable to borrow internationally to fund overspending, so they are getting taxpayers' money from other Eurozone countries, and IMF member states, to cover their current overspending. Money taken from people and businesses. The austerity measures they are required to undertake to meet this are to bring their budgets into balance. Something he once appreciated, when it was a government he preferred spending a surplus. 

If people in Greece and Portugal die because of reduced health care, it is because they can't afford it.  They are unwilling to pay directly or pay additional taxes to pay for it.  They are also unwilling to vote for politicians who will force some to pay additional taxes to pay for it.

Don't expect your health care to be paid for by money borrowed by politicians from people who don't believe you're willing to pay it off - because they have good reason not to lend it to those politicians who have now forced them to write off a good chunk of past bad loans.

However, Malcolm can help those people.  He could donate money from his own pocket to save the infants of Greece and Portugal.  He could arrange others to donate as well.  He could actually do some good.  However, if he has any charitable aspirations or interests, he really ought to say, because by and large his key interest appears to be in forcing others to pay more for state bureaucrats to help people - which isn't exactly philanthropic in deed or spirit.

UK budget, a lost opportunity

So it was George Osborne's third budget, and a lot was done about tax.  He could have just cut taxes, but instead he cut some, increased others and pandered to the strong red tinge of envy about anyone who earns higher incomes.

What did he do?  What should he have done?

- Cut the top tax rate from 50% to 45% (this applies to earnings over £150,000).  A pathetic response to a tax rate imposed for political reasons weeks before the 2010 election by Gordon Brown.  Almost all of the noise from the left will be about this as they feed the vile hatred of success, the envy of wealth and the lie that this is all about benefiting "the people who caused the crisis".  Osborne should have scrapped the top rate altogether, that would have indicated Britain is open for business.  Still the evidence from Revenue and Customs is that the 50% rate only earned a third of what was forecast, as high income taxpayers rearranged their affairs to minimise their tax liability - or what I call, property protection.

- Age related allowances for pensioners are frozen, effectively eroding them with inflation.  A minor reflection of the soaring cost of the PONZI unfunded state pension.  A start, but still a stark failure to remind people that government funded pensions will have be less and later as the years go by.

- Income tax free allowance increased to £9,205 in April 2013 (the amount anyone can earn without paying income tax) with this applying to anyone earning under £100,000.   It remains a stingy trend to increase this allowance, but lower the higher tax thresholds to make it so people earning higher incomes don't benefit.  This allowance should be at least £15,000 so that those on the minimum wage and slightly above are untaxed.  

- Corporation tax immediately cut from 25% to 24%, dropping to 22% by 2014.   Osborne should have bitten the bullet and dropped it to 20% immediately and aimed to reduce it to 10% by 2015.  That would have made the UK the most competitive corporate tax in the EU, and been a real shot in the arm for business.

- A "General Tax Avoidance Rule" is to be introduced, to make protection of your income and property from tax even more of an offence.  This is what is morally repugnant, not tax avoidance, which is morally just - it is an act of self defence.

- Fuel and alcohol duty ARE going up, by the rate of inflation, just the same as Labour had decided before, but tobacco duty is to soar by 5% above inflation immediately.  There was no need for this from the point of view of the costs imposed by consumers of those products.

- New gambling taxes, just another grab on people's fun.

- Stamp duty - a tax on purchases of property - will be 15% on residential properties worth more than £2 million transacted through a company, designed to plug a loophole in this tax. For those not transacted through a company it will be 7%.  A better move would have been to abolish this ridiculous tax on property transactions.  However, this was about hitting the rich.

-  Child benefit will be reduced for households where anyone earns more than £50,000 down to zero for those earning over £60,000.  All of them are in the second top tax bracket, so this is a welcome cut in middle/upper income welfare.  However, he should have been far tougher.  Simply announce no new child benefit for children born in one year's time.  This would have saved a fortune, and enabled further tax cuts.

- Some more money for railway electrification, tax credits for certain creative industries, money to subsidise broadband networks, planning regulations to be simplified with a presumption "in favour of sustainable development" whatever that means, and a limp wristed waiving of Sunday trading restrictions for eight weeks over the Olympics.   In short, some pork, some relief for property owners and "testing" allowing businesses to trade when they wish.

- Despite all of this and claims of savage cuts, the UK government is still seriously overspending. Total borrowing will come in at £120bn next year and £98bn in 2013/14, followed by £75bn, £52bn and finally £21bn in 2016/17.  Austerity?  Where.

Uninspiring, a few steps in the right direction, a few in the wrong direction, little evidence of serious new spending cuts, and money thrown at activities that would be best left to the private sector.

Yes it could be worse. It could have been Gordon Brown, but it deserved to be braver.  Abolishing the 50% tax rate outright would have been braver, not increasing ANY taxes would have been braver.  It was a missed opportunity.

There are promising steps on the horizon, like abolishing national wage settlements for the public sector, like reforming highways funding and ownership and the reform of planning laws, but for now, it is business as usual with some tinkering.  No reason to get excited.  However, for most people it is a tax cut, which is not something to be sniffed at - until you lose it all from increases in fuel, alcohol and tobacco duty.

Envy - Labour's favourite base instinct

Next week is George Osborne's third budget, and the big rumour is that he may drop the top rate of income tax, 50%, which applies to income above £150,000.  It was introduced in April 2010, literally weeks before the 2010 election, designed cynically by then Prime Minister Gordon Brown, to corner the Conservatives.

A totemic tax on "the rich", designed to play into the well cultivated class envy.  To spread the bigoted discrimination against anyone who has managed to get a job or set up a business or inherit a business that generates that sort of income.  Because those how don't have it think the state taking half of every extra pound earned makes up for it.    For salary earners, add on the pseudo income tax "National Insurance" (which isn't insurance), it is 52%, add on the employer's contribution to "National Insurance" and it is 58%.  Yes, 58% of every pound in income over £150,000 really goes to the state.

Those vindictive little envy mongers in the Labour Party demanding a "banker bonus" tax dishonestly neglect to say that over half of the bonuses go to the state in taxes in any case.   

The top tax rate is paid by around 1% of income earners, around 308,000 people, but those people pay 27.7% of all income tax.   Fair?  Why doesn't the Labour Party tell its low income supporters that almost the entire health budget is paid for by the "rich"?  Well it would make people less hateful and envious, and less likely to demand Labour get the power to take more.   

£2.8 billion was the estimate for revenue, but other estimates put the real revenue gained as less, because actual revenue from self assessed taxpayers (high income) has dropped half a billion. In other words, they have re-arranged their affairs to reduce their liability.

The debate around the 50% tax rate is full of misnomers.  Claims like "bankers are to blame they should pay".  Yet most of those on that tax rate are not bankers, and how are they to blame for massive state overspending?  They tend not to claim welfare, housing benefit, use the NHS more than anyone else or use state schools.  They are more likely to employ people and consume on levels that keep others employed.  To blame the successful for the economic situation is dishonest.  Even if one claims that some bankers made bad decisions that caused them to fail, this is hardly a fair way to "punish" people who, by and large, lost their jobs in the first place.  Besides, who punishes politicians who make bad decisions?  

Who holds Gordon Brown to account for selling a significant portion of Britain's gold reserves when it was at a nearly all time low?

The 50% tax rate is not just an envy tax, but is deterring investment and deterring entrepreneurs from basing themselves in the UK.  It is a disincentive and earns little revenue, and besides with the rate below that 40%, it's not as if people on higher incomes are not paying substantially to the state.

If George Osborne abolishes the 50% tax rate, he will deserve enormous credit for sending a signal that the UK is not besotted by an attitude of envy, one that doesn't hate success, that doesn't hate entrepreneurs and doesn't see the purpose of high income earners being to fund a state that spends around 50% of GDP.

He ought also to raise the income tax free threshold to £10,000.  It is Liberal Democrat policy and will make a positive difference to everyone, as long as the tax band thresholds aren't increased so that people in the higher bands don't lose out.  It will be a enormous step to drop the top rate and have a healthy income tax free threshold.   

However, more important than that is to confront the envy, confront the acceptable class hatred cultivated by the left, that people on higher incomes not only should pay more tax than those on lower incomes (flat tax does that), but should pay higher proportions of income in tax.  The moral question is why should anyone surrender half their income to the state, especially when with most purchases they also pay 20% VAT on many goods and services, and draconian taxes on petrol, air travel, alcohol and tobacco.  

That's why abolishing the top tax rate MUST be accompanied by a lowering of the total tax burden, by pulling people at the bottom out of income tax, and being honest about how much tax is paid by those on the highest incomes.

BT8P96E65HAJ

Northern Gateway toll road - politics over reason

I've had a fair few years experience of consulting in the transport sector, and one of the most basic tenets of establishing fully electronic free flow tolling systems is enforcement.  So the news that the New Zealand Transport Agency is finally going to get around to recovering fines for recividist toll violators on the Northern Gateway toll road made me laugh at how a state body can so egregiously ignore collecting money for the use of a service, when the incentives are so badly wrong.

The Northern Gateway toll road north of Auckland is a political creation though.

You see the Clark Administration had decided to take the ever so brave and bold step to allow tolls to be introduced on new roads, with authorisation by Order in Council.  The Land Transport Management Act, which included a wide range of measures including the politicisation of land transport funding priorities and removal of a common approach for economic appraisal of state funding of all modes, included the provision on tolling.

This created two imperatives.

Firstly there was the question of what would be the first agency to apply to toll a road.  The choice was between local government in the form of territorial authorities (and two councils at the time had toll road proposals in the pipeline) and the then Transit New Zealand, which of course was a central government Crown entity responsible for the state highway network.

Transit was determined that it should be in charge, being a central government body and Transit Chief Executive Dr. Robin Dunlop found just the project.  It was then called ALPURT B2, and is the road we all know as the Northern Gateway today.  It fitted the bill from an engineer's perspective in that it was the northern motorway extension that should have been built after the Albany to Orewa section, but which was delayed for RMA reasons.  This delay meant that it could now, suddenly, be treated as a stand alone project.

From a tolling perspective, practically speaking, it seemed to fit well.   It is a bypass of an existing slower and longer state highway, so conceptually users would pay to save time and fuel by using the new road.   

From Transit's institutional perspective it provided a "ready to go" project that could be tolled, especially since there were no others anywhere near "as good" for tolling.  In New Zealand, most road projects are neither big enough nor involve stretches of motorway without interchanges for tolling to be practical without it diverting large numbers of users onto other routes.

Transit not only wanted to have the first toll road, it wanted to be responsible for all future toll roads, because of the need to establish a whole range of functions and activities it hadn't undertaken before - in particular customer service and billing.

Transit, in full collusion with its "arms length funding agency" Transfund, subsequently Land Transport New Zealand (LTNZ), proceeded to blank out the history around this project.

ALPURT B2 as a highway project was originally costed at under NZ$100 million in 1999, but estimates of costs of big highway projects were not good a decade or so ago, and the massive increase in spending on roads undertaken by the last Labour government (especially after 2002 when the Greens were no longer necessary) had inflated construction costs.   Costs started heading towards $200 million.  The benefit/cost ratio of ALPURT B2 was good, over $3 for every $1 spent on it, but with cost increases that was being whittled away.   This was a good thing for Transit, LTNZ and the government because it enabled the impression to be given that ALPURT B2 would not be funded from fuel taxes and road user charges in the National Land Transport Programme like other roads.   With the RMA issues around the project getting settled, the issue of funding approval was going to come up.

This suited Ministers, because they had wanted the focus of the National Land Transport Programme to be on commuter motorway projects in central Auckland, such as Grafton Gully, the Spaghetti Junction improvements, Mt. Roskill extension of SH20, Upper Harbour Motorway and so on (don't talk about tolling motorways in metropolitan Auckland because that will cost votes, and means traffic stays on untolled roads).  

So whilst money was being dripfed into completing the investigation and design work for ALPURT B2, it was all set up so that the project would be deferred.  Bear in mind that it was still a high value project from an economic point of view.  Now, with the Land Transport Management Act passed Transit felt "obliged" to consider it for tolling, and so the project began to morph.

Transit decided that if it was going to charge motorists a toll to use a highway, it better not be any sort of highway, but be the best highway they had ever been on.  The original design for ALPURT B2 was to have inclines and curves that were not all to 100 km/h standard, because the geography of the area it went through would make it prohibitively expensive.  The biggest issue being what to do at Johnson's Hill.  The original plan was to have the road climb up it and go through a cutting.   That was seen as being inferior to trucks which would have to slow down excessively (especially if they are paying a toll) so Transit went about to pursue its other engineering goal - build a tunnel in Auckland.

Tunnels on state highways in New Zealand are rare, the geology makes them expensive to build compared to say Sydney, so they have never been good value unless absolutely necessary.  Transit had never built one in its institutional history, the last new road tunnel built having been the Terrace Tunnel in Wellington completed in 1978 by the Ministry of Works, which was justified because there was no other way to bypass central Wellington without building an eyesore along the waterfront.  

Transit saw the future as having many more tunnels.  There was already pressure to change the Victoria Park Viaduct widening project into a tunnel (which is exactly what happened), and the extension of SH20 to Waterview was also expected to have tunnels (and will).  So tunnel construction and operation in Auckland was something Transit was keen to get started, along with tolls.  See the focus of an engineering based government agency?

So it was decided that tunnels would be built.  Another "innovation" was to build a four lane viaduct  over the Waiwera River, even though the highway would have to narrow to two lanes directly to the north (and there was no prospects of funds to widen that in the near future).  It was also decided to build a viaduct over Nukumea Stream to smooth RMA negotiations.

Certainly a series of government decisions caused the costs of the road to blow out.  One early one was Labour's decision to remove the cost/benefit funding threshold which once encouraged Transit to ensure project costs were contained to get project approval.  The funding threshold was abolished, as the Clark government wanted a whole host of major projects approved.  A philosophy National has continued.

In engineering, projects can be "gold-plated" by including elements that are not essential, but which raise the cost.   Here, Transit was "green-plating" by arguing that the tunnel was less environmentally destructive than a cutting.   The additional cost? $85 million.  The Ministerial Advisory Group on Roading Costs in 2006 found "the Board papers (including resolutions) are silent on whether Land Transport NZ viewed the changes as justified. This does not appear to have been a rigorous review for what was a costly change to the project." No there wasn't.  However, cost effectiveness was already declared to be less important under Labour than it had been before, and this was about building a flash toll road "the first fully electronic toll road" in Transit promotional literature.

By now (2006) the cost of this road had skyrocketed to $359 million.  Bear in mind it was $82 million in 1997, had gone to $138 million in 2001, $218 million in 2004 and by 2006 had been green-plated to $359 million, including several million of costs of toll equipment on site.

Never mind, tolls will pay for it right?  Well no.  Prices can't be set at any level.  There is a revenue maximising level above which too many motorists will choose to use the parallel untolled route, and below which you're not really encouraging too many more to use it.   So when that was modelled, it came that at best, half of the cost of the road could be recovered from tolls.  The other half would come from a normal funding grant, paid for by fuel taxes and road user charges, in other words from all road users.  Yes, ALPURT B2, sorry, Northern Gateway toll road, is subsidised.

Now a fair argument can be made that everyone using the toll road also pays either fuel taxes or road user charges whilst on the road, a secondary argument is that those using the current road also benefit from the new one because of less delays, so this subsidy is not necessarily a big deal.   The state highway network at the time was self funding from revenue collected from users.

It was agreed that Treasury would raise some public debt to pay for the tolled component, to be repaid by the toll (after collection costs are paid).  That is what the toll is paying for.

However, that's not all.  Whilst the cost of building ALPURT also includes the cost of installing electronic tolling equipment, that isn't enough to implement tolls.   It also needs a transaction processing centre, customer contact centre, with accounts payable, receivable etc.  It also needs to connect to the motor vehicle registry to correlate images of number plates to vehicle owners for billing and enforcement purposes.

Now you might think that this all sounds perfect to be outsourced, besides the provision of access to the motor vehicle registry.  No.  Transit and LTNZ decided this would be a separate, bigger project, called the Toll Systems Project.  That would be over $60 million more, just to collect the tolls.

The philosophy behind this was empire building.  The idea was presented that this was the first of "a series" of toll roads (none of which Transit was very transparent about), and that a single back office billing operation would be the "most efficient solution".  However, there were a few flies in the ointment on that idea.

1.  It was after the 2005 election, and Labour had already surrendered to NZ First the only other viable tolling project in the country - Tauranga Harbour Link.  Without the number of transactions from that project, Northern Gateway would be an orphan.  Transit had identified no other major tolling projects likely to proceed in the next few years, with the Weiti Crossing project of the then Rodney District not looking viable and talk of Auckland congestion charging simply political suicide for now.  In short, the case for a single large bespoke billing system for lots of toll transactions had become nonsense.

2.  Given the lack of transactions, it wouldn't be viable to pay for the Toll Systems Project from toll revenue.  In other words, the Northern Gateway toll would not be able to charge enough to pay for the capital costs of the back office systems required to bill the toll.  The operating costs could be recovered, but the capital costs of tolling would have to be born by all other road users through fuel taxes and road user charges, despite there being no discernible benefits to them from doing so.

3. Land Transport New Zealand already long had a billing activity in house, used for paying road user charges, handling fuel tax refunds and motor vehicle and driver licencing transactions.  It saw advantages in taking on this function as well.

So what was decided by Transit and Land Transport New Zealand (which Labour subsequently merged, because it didn't believe in the accountability implied in separating a funder from a bidder for funds), was that the Toll Systems Project would proceed, regardless of the fact that only one toll road would open within the next five years or so, ignoring that the tolls on that road would not be able to contribute one cent towards the capital costs of the billing system.

So all road users in New Zealand have paid for a toll billing system run by the New Zealand government in house, for one toll road that will be, in part obsolete, by the time the next toll road comes about.

Therefore, it is hardly a surprise that the tolling system itself isn't incentivised to pursue debtors who ignore fines.  The fines themselves are not revenue for the toll system, but Crown revenue. Yet pursuing fines does mean that toll revenue increases because the incentive to evade tolls reduces considerably.   Curiously, NZTA's own reporting on tolling claims there is an "industry standard" of 10% evasion of electronic free flow tolling worldwide.  A fascinating figure, but it's wrong although it makes 4.3% look awfully good.  5% is average from my experience, so the performance at the moment is rather average.

Even today in 2012, the next toll road is likely to be Tauranga's Eastern Link motorway, with Wellington's Transmission Gully after that (and unlikely to open before 2020).  By then the infrastructure and systems behind the Tolling back office will be long obsolete.   In short, the Toll Systems Project was an abject waste of money.

A better solution would have been to cut ones losses and simply outsource the entire billing function for the Northern Gateway toll road, because it is not a big road, it only has around 14,000 trips a day on average.   Sydney's much maligned Cross City Tunnel manages around 30,000 vehicles a day, Melbourne's Eastlink manages 190,000 a day, Brisbane's Clem7 around 25,000 a day, Sydney's Harbour Bridge and Tunnel manage over 250,000 a day.  In other words, by global standards the Northern Gateway toll road is low volume, which makes a bespoke collection system even more absurd.  What's a bet that Vodafone, Contact Energy or Sky TV could have done it for them.   However, that would be an anathema to the Clark administration's opposition to anything that smells of "privatisation".  So instead we have what might be the only customer service and billing operation set up that hasn't been paid for by the people paying the bills!

Indeed, it is hard to avoid the possible conclusion that it wasn't worth building as a toll road at all.  

However, it is done now, and a better option all up would be to sell it and the toll system with it, on the basis that someone else might be able to make a better go of operating it.   A utility company, for example, can do billing and chase debts far more effectively than a government agency.  Besides, as a privately owned highway it would still have a parallel state owned route through Orewa and Waiwera.  (Before some on the left get agitated, France is covered in privately owned motorways and almost all of the toll motorways in Australia are privately owned).

The bigger lesson is what a debacle can ensue when something as simple as a road project gets mired in politics and the institutional incentives of bureaucracies.   In this case we had:

- Politicians wanting to prioritise lower value roads over this one, but still wanting it built;

- Politicians wanting to allow tolls, but expecting a toll project to emerge to prove they were right in allowing tolls (but not the toll project in the electorate of the coalition partner);

- Central government bureaucrats wanting to take charge of running tolls and keen to find whatever project would be practical, ready to build (even if not exactly economically viable) for tolls, before a local authority did so (Tauranga);

- Bureaucrats wanting to build a tunnel and a really high quality road (because they are engineers who get excited about these things), so those paying the toll would be "wowed" by the road and it enabled them to silence the concerns of those objecting to the road because of environmental impacts, regardless of the cost;

-  Bureaucrats wanting to take charge of running a single national toll system because it enabled them to wider their remit and authority into customer service and billing, regardless of the fact that the billing itself couldn't pay for it;

-  Bureaucrats already running a kind of billing/customer service system wanting to widen their remit and secure more money to expand their operation;

- Politicians uninterested in pushing for outsourcing or private investment, bureaucrats not incentivised to push for it either.

Not one of these decisions was seen as creating consequences for the other, but the result has been well over $100 million wasted because of it, on one road project. 

Consider this, if the road was privately owned would there even be an issue of people not paying the toll and getting away with it on the scale currently seen?

Finally, the National government, to be fair, had nothing to do with any of this, because it was all over bar the ribbon cutting when the 2008 election happened.  This was a Clark Administration special.   However, it is rather poor form for the Nats to not contain things now. I have three simple recommendations:

1.  Put the Transport Registry Centre of NZTA up for sale (with the toll system) keeping data management of the driving and motor vehicle licensing databases in-house and separate.
2.   Require NZTA to outsource provision of tolling services for any future toll roads by competitive tender;
3.   Put the Northern Gateway Toll Road up for sale (or even lease for 50 years). 

France's Presidential election wont save the French from themselves

Politically France is more of an enigma than many will think. It could be said to be the cradle of democratic socialism in the Western world. With a ridiculously generous welfare state (unemployment benefit is paid at 70% of the salary of the previous job), spending over 28% of GDP on welfare, a relatively interventionist industrial policy and retention of state owned companies operating major services, it is seen by many on the left as a model. 

France of course has also long been at the vanguard of support for closer European integration. Its unalloyed support for the European Union would suggest that the people of France regard it as critical to their economic future. Yet the truth would appear to be a bit more subtle than that. Whilst the Common Agricultural Policy gives France 10 billion Euro a year in subsidies for its farmers (and indeed it was creation of this policy that was critical to France delaying the UK’s entry into the EEC – because France wanted Europe to pay for its own ruinous subsidy scheme), French voters clearly have mixed feelings about the EU. The main selling point of the EU to them has been a fortress Europe mentality. EU laws to set minimum employment standards, to regulate competition and to keep out imports and foreign competition are what they want. Compare that to the UK which has seen the European project as one about lowering borders between countries and liberalising markets.

Indeed it is this clash of ideologies that is at the heart of the European project battles. Guess which view took hold in Greece, Spain, Italy and Portugal. Late last year France briefly looked like it might fall victim to the sovereign debt crisis, but austerity measures were introduced that bear little resemblance to those elsewhere. It almost entirely involved raising taxes, and French voters hardly blinked. Indeed, the socialism ingrained in French popular thinking has been seen in the popularity of the socialist candidate for President, Francois Hollande, who has sought to bribe voters with more welfare, earlier retirement, more subsidised jobs all paid for by higher taxes (top rate of 75%!) and the tooth fairy of future sovereign debt default paid for by German taxpayers. The reality evasion has been delusional, but he has been ahead. Until now. 

Whenever anyone blames the US for a lack of political sophistication, they should pause for a second. For what else can explain the sudden rise of Nicolas Sarkozy in the opinion polls, as he switched tack so profoundly and cynically it would destroy a similar politician elsewhere. An objective view of Sarkozy is that he has been, by and large, a status quo President. He did undertake some modest reforms around pensions, but by and large has made little effort to reform the French socialist state. His largest profile has been in supporting the revolution in Libya, in banning the niqab and his partnership with Angela Merkel in dragging out the Eurozone crisis. However, he found new life in campaigning as if he wasn’t President, but a new candidate. 

His new policies include:

 - Withdrawing France from the Schengen agreement (which means France has no controlled land borders) if other members did not adequately control illegal immigration; 

- Saying there are “too many foreigners” in France, demanding immigration be cut from 180,000 a year to 100,000 (which of course France can’t control whilst it is in Schengen); 

- Demanding a “Buy European Act” requiring EU governments to buy EU goods and services, and if not agreed he’d establish a “buy French Act”; 

- Opposition to halal meals at schools or swimming pools having separate hours for men and women to meet demands of Muslim users; 

- Demanding all kosher and halal food be labeled so consumers can avoid it if they wish.

 In short, he is seeking to take votes from ultra-nationalist candidate Marine Le Pen, who believes in strong state ownership of strategic businesses, radical protectionism, withdrawal from the Euro, boosts for subsidies for French business and agriculture, a looser EU, withdrawal from the Schengen area, a moratorium on immigration, withdrawal from NATO and a closer relationship with Russia. The result, he is now ahead in the polls. Let’s be clear, he can’t implement most of what he said without effectively withdrawing France from key EU provisions on freedom of movement and open markets. So if he is re-elected, he wont actually do most of this. France wont leave the Schengen area and France wont be able to introduce a “buy European” law, because it will be opposed by Germany and the UK. However the support gained for a “fortress France” suggests that even French voters are not too warm to the EU. 

What is most striking though is how French voters are not as cynical as one would have hoped. Sarkozy could have held these positions for years and could have done something about it. He didn’t, and now he is remodeling himself to be the nationalist “with reason”. Presuming it will be him up against Francois Hollande, it is clear neither has any solutions to confront France with its decades of reality evasion. For France’s economy remains anaemic, its best and brightest leave because of taxation.

Its much vaunted manufacturing sector is, in fact, no bigger as a proportion of GDP than manufacturing in the UK (the difference is UK manufacturing largely involves rather smaller firms, with a few exceptions, whereas France relies on larger firms with high profiles). Meanwhile, public debt in France is creeping ever higher above 85% of GDP, and France has not had a budget surplus for over 30 years. For all of the Airbuses (which are propped up by the EU and have a significant part of their componently manufactured in other countries), TGVs, Renaults, nuclear power plants and armaments, there are precious few service industries that export and few IT startups. 

France may provide final assembly for nearly half of the world’s jetliners, make some trains and cars, weapons and satellites, but in all but one of those markets, it faces serious competition in export markets. Meanwhile, its own media is gagged by laws on privacy that make it difficult to take on politicians, despite the extraordinarily lavish lifestyle and corrupt practices that appear to be the norm at the top. France’s socialism does have a semblance of the totalitarian personal aggrandisement of Marxist-Leninist regimes. 

Ultimately, when France faces reality it will probably be overwhelmed by a belief that it is capitalism and free markets that have brought the country down. It will seek to demand the EU save it, somehow, by shaming the Germans into thinking they owe France because of the war. It will dabble with the idiocy of economic nationalism, and find it sliding further into stagnation. France wont abandon the EU, because no politician has the courage to take on the lobby of the largest group of corporate welfare parasites in the EU – French farmers. A group French taxpayers can’t afford to prop up on their own. The question French voters ought to be answering is this. Do they vote to hurry along this inevitable confrontation with the unsustainability of French socialism, by voting for Mr. Hollande? Or do they keep it decaying at a steady pace with Mr. Sarkozy? 

In either case France's future looks like Greece does now.  I suspect by then that Germans will be rather fed up being made to feel guilty for a war that none of them remember, and which they have long expressed penance over.   They also wont think their own taxes should go to pay for a country that has stubbornly resisted restructuring, true austerity and liberalisation for far too long.

Not everyone on public transport would have driven

I saw a press release from the government's uber agency on land transport (set up by the Clark Administration to get rid of the funder-provider split that saw decisions split between government agencies, making them difficult to control directly) New Zealand Transport Agency that seemed otherwise innocuous.

It is about a series of bus lanes opening in Christchurch on the main highway south of the city (curiously it links to a website that hasn't been updated since 2010 -  Christchurch has changed since then, and there is no map of the lanes actually opening - well done).  I'm not particularly objecting to the bus lanes, they may well make sense here.  What caught my eye was this absurd statement:

"A full bus equates to 40 fewer cars on Christchurch roads"

Pardon me, but this is unadulterated bullshit, whatever way you look at it.

Even if we assume that a full bus really is a full bus (people seated and standing), it might at best have 70 or so passengers.  The only way it could mean 40 fewer cars on the roads is if everyone on that bus would have driven a car or ridden in a car with someone on that bus.

That assumption is quite ludicrous.  

If a bus doesn't operate, there are two broad options for the user.  Travel by another means or don't travel at all (which can include changes in destination).  To assume all bus users would drive, or ride a car driven by someone on the bus is nonsense.   

Yes, some would.  

However, some would catch a ride with someone who is already driving.   That isn't adding a car to the road.

Some may bike, some may walk. Both of those options are environmentally preferable to the bus.

Some will decide not to travel at all, and may undertake the trip purpose elsewhere.  In the longer term, it may mean people relocate to a place closer to work, or choose a different job.  Not all trips occur regardless.   It is false to presume all bus trips are commutes.

In other words, to grossly simplify transport mode and trip choice options as being "catch public transport or drive a car" is to exaggerate the importance of public transport.  It is one option.  It can attract people from driving, but many users are those for whom driving isn't a reasonable alternative in any case.

If people are attracted from cars to buses, then all well and good.  Given the bus companies and their passengers are getting allocated a third of the road "for free", you'd hope it does work.    However, let's not pretend buses are full of otherwise drivers.  

Of course in Auckland it's even more ludicrous, because there it is trains that in part attract people from buses - but that is an uncomfortable fact the railevangelists would prefer to sideline - that many of the people riding public transport are not people who would otherwise hop in their own cars and jam up the roads, but people who wouldn't travel otherwise (and are getting a heavily subsidised trip for the privilege).

Nick Smith might be about to do some good

Yes, I am flabbergasted, but there is every potential Nick Smith might do something positive in his career for less government and more freedom.

In fact he'll demonstrate that as Minister of Local Government he will achieve more in that department than Rodney Hide.  According to the Dominion Post, he has announced the Government is looking to curb council powers by revoking the "power of general competence" introduced by then Alliance Minister of Local Government, Sandra Lee, in the first term of the Clark Administration.

The report states that "he will pare back the scope of local government functions so they will only have control of essential local services such as waste, water, roads, libraries and consents".   

If so, it will remove the power of councils to get involved in any area of public policy they wish.  You see Labour, the Alliance and the Greens supported the current wide ranging powers on the philosophical basis that councils should only be controlled by voters - that if voters elected councillors that wanted to make ratepayers pay for a street race, a wind wand, a tv station, a restaurant, a housing block, a tourism promotion in Japan or a farm, they could.  

It is a classic example of basic statism - that government should be absolutely unlimited, except for democracy. That government can buy any business, set up any activity, spend money on anything.  The only limit being the motives of the elected councillors.  The idea being the councillors represent the "will of the people" and they wont want to do anything that wastes money, because they face the penalty of being - voted out.

Now the truth is that this is little check at all on local government.  For a start, losing your council position is small penalty for wasting millions of dollars of other people's money, for putting people out of business, for being part of decisions to borrow millions that future ratepayers have to pay for or for eroding people's property rights.  It's like a company director being able to make stupid decisions for three years before shareholders can vote him down.  Imagine being able to be incompetent for three years before losing your job.

Secondly, elections are not a constraint when councillors can spend the money of all ratepayers to support vocal rent-seekers in the form of council workers, preferred businesses, non-governmental organisations or other ginger groups.  The rights of all citizens of a city or district can easily be surrendered by bribing vocal minorities with other people's money.   The cost to individual ratepayers of a single decision may be a few dollars a month, which they wont get too upset about in themselves, but which can easily curry the favour of lobbyists.

Finally, local government elections have never been a great representative of endorsement by citizens, because turnout, even in postal elections has been low, particularly in larger metropolitan centres.  Whilst rural districts can get turnout of 60-70%, urban ones can be as low as 30%.   Many people find councils mind-numbingly tedious, and activist councillors take advantage of that.  It helps that only property owners are legally liable for rates, but everyone who is on the electoral roll can vote in council elections - a majority of whom are not liable for rates.  As landlords can't simply raise rents automatically when rates rise, it means representation without taxation.  Indeed, Sandra Lee also abolished the vote for property owners in a district who are non-resident.  So you can be forced to pay rates, but have no right to vote for those who decide on how to set them.

A classic bit of left-wing envy ridden denial of the democracy they claim to support so much, tinged with xenophobia (think districts where there are high numbers of holiday homes). 

Nick Smith's reforms appear promising, although I'd argue there needs to be a more fundamental question asked as to what local government is needed for, at all.

He said "Water, roads, footpaths, libraries, local regulatory services – where you go to get your building consent, resource [consent], food safety, the dog control role"  are essential services.

Well I'd say, yes - if councils just did that, it would be one step in the right direction.  Yet one must question the others.  Water, libraries (and waste collection) could be easily privatised.  Roads require more effort, but can be commercialised (and new residential streets vested in body corporates of property owners).   Given I'd do away with the RMA, the whole building/resource consent function would be abolished.  The food safety and dog control functions could ultimately be undertaken by voluntary agencies.

Regardless of all that, I'll give Nick Smith a cautious nod in support for winding back the Local Government Act, with some advice about how to restrict councils:

-  Prohibit councils from entering into any new commercial activities, and require them to transfer commercial activities into SOE type arms-length organisations (called Local Authority Trading Enterprises once), and privatise them by sale, or distribution of shares to ratepayers, within three years;

-  Prohibit councils from entering into any activities already undertaken by central government;

-  Prohibit councils from increasing rates without Ministerial approval (which can only be up to inflation);

-  Return council elections to votes only from ratepayers, including absentee ratepayers;

-  Require councils to get out of any non-core functions within three years.

Doing this would go some way to constraining the petty fascists, the do-gooding busybodies and the numerous groups and second-handers out wanting councils to give them other people's money.

However, it wouldn't slay the biggest risk councils present to individual freedom - the RMA.

So while Nick Smith might be said to have turned a corner on this issue, he wont have really addressed how councils constrain individuals, businesses, clubs and other private organisations by eroding their property rights through the RMA.  So come on Nick, it's not too late to think again.  If they can't organise events, or be entrusted to pay their staff appropriately, why should they be trusted to take away people's property rights?

(can't wait to see what John Bank thinks of this).

New Zealanders already own them

Such is the cry of the impotent leftwing cry in New Zealand politics against privatisation of state owned businesses.  It is this position, and the infantile debate about privatisation that passes for political discourse in New Zealand that demonstrates how far removed the country can actually be from the rest of the world.

The only countries in the world that decry privatisation are the likes of Venezuela, Iran and North Korea.  In the rest of the OECD it is mainstream policy and has been for some time.  However, in New Zealand the debate is at a level that I think reflect a combination of the base level of debate through television and talkback radio, and the agendas sold by some in academia and education, pushing what can best be described as the Green/Alliance leftwing legend about the reforms of the 1980s and 1990s.

The latest phrase thrown in is just banal.

"New Zealanders already own them" or "You don't have a right to sell something New Zealanders own".

Of course it is cravenly misleading political rhetoric, like the bald faced lie that opening ACC up to competition is privatisation, because some of its customers will choose a private competitor. Like the complete blanking out of history by Labour politicians who happily consented to Michael Cullen seeking to sell part of the re-nationalised Air New Zealand to its arch rival Qantas - because Qantas was keen to snuff out any chance of the knee-capped airline becoming a bigger competitor, and Cullen was too inept to see through its rhetoric. 

New Zealanders do not own SOEs by any standard definition of what ownership of property means.

If you own a shareholding in a business, whether by shares, or in partnership, or private equity stake, or even as a secured creditor, you have a wide range of rights in relation to the assets and liabilities of that business.

First and foremost is the right of alienation.  You can sell, gift or surrender that stake to whoever is willing to buy or receive it.  You are not forced to own it.  After all, if you were, you'd be forced to bear liabilities as well as receive proceeds from profits.  

Secondly, ownership bears the ability to gain dividends from profits and capital gains from appreciation of the assets. Conversely, it also means you bear liabilities (in the form of your assets being devalued and shareholding able to be surrendered to creditors, or rendered worthless through the market).  Ownership is dynamic.  Like owning a home, or a painting or a car, what you own can make you money, or can lose you money, but ultimately you gain or lose value according to how it is managed, used and ultimately the market for buying it.

New Zealanders do not have either of these rights in relation to SOEs.  There must be a few environmentalists who'd rather not own a coal mining business, but they can't sell out of the state shareholding in Solid Energy.  As New Zealanders individually can't sell out of SOEs, only the state can, it is absurd to claim that the state has "no right" to do so, when in fact the elected government is led by a political party that campaigned on that platform.

The government does have the right to sell any asset it holds, and indeed it has a democratic mandate to engage in its small SOE part privatisation programme.  To reject this is to claim the state should never sell anything again, and to reject the mandate of the electorate.

New Zealanders don't get dividends from SOEs.  The state does.  New Zealanders don't get a dividend cheque to spend on their mortgage, their kids' education or their businesses.  Those on the left will argue that they do get the "fruit" of government spending, but government spending is distinctly unequal among New Zealanders.  It tends to cluster around rent-seeking groups, such as employees in the state sector, businesses that receive subsidies, the state education and health sector, state housing and welfare recipients.  Is that what people want their dividends spent on?   Of course if the state was going to spend that anyway, it is arguable taxes would increase, although again, taxes aren't equal either.  If everyone had equal shares, they would get equal dividends, but the benefits (and costs) of the state are not equally distributed.

So to claim New Zealanders "own" SOEs is a complete fallacy.  They can't sell or give away their ownership, even if they wanted to.  They can't gain the fruits of ownership.  Yet they do bear the costs.  Loss making SOEs may get additional funds from the state.  Kiwirail being the obvious example.  Those who pay the greatest tax bear the greatest loss.

This "public ownership" is effectively meaningless.  It is, legally, Crown ownership.  The government owns SOEs and it is up to the Minister of Finance to exercise the rights of ownership.  The state owning something doesn't mean you own it.  It spends the proceeds on what it wants, and if it loses money, it takes it from your taxes.

Yet have you noticed how opponents to privatisation get awfully wound up about selling businesses, but the state taking your money through taxes and buying them, that;s another story.

In the past decade New Zealand taxpayers have been forced to buy an airline and a railway, but nobody who says there is "no right to sell" argues it about buying.  Apparently the state has every right to borrow or tax to make people buy a business, or invest in an existing one (take Kiwibank).  

What does that mean?  Well if you follow it to the logical conclusion, it means the state can buy up anything it likes, but never sell it.  Ultimately it means nationalising the entire private sector and all private property.

The real debate that should be had is whether it is appropriate for the state to own businesses at all.  It gets diverted because those wanting to debate are wanting to scaremonger.

It's why the Greens, Hone Harawira and others on the left raise their racist bogeyman of "foreigners" when it comes to privatisation.   The very people who cry racist whenever they find an unequal outcome between two groups they subjectively define by ethnicity, raise hackles of what is nothing more than pure nationalist hatred regarding foreign nationals or companies owning businesses in New Zealand.  The implication being that foreigners "rip people off", New Zealanders don't.  That foreigners will "take their money and run", New Zealanders never spend their money on luxuries, foreign travel or invest overseas.  Foreigners "don't understand us", because New Zealand state owned businesses have always been a roaring success and delivered just what everyone wanted.

If you want to know one reason why Air New Zealand did not get fast approval for Singapore Airlines to lift its shareholding from 25% to 49% by the last Labour government, the word "xenophobia" might explain something.

So no kiwis, you don't own SOEs - a collective of politicians exercise ownership rights over them, spend the profits arising from them, and collect from you when things are going bad for them.  You have no more right to say they can't be sold than you have to say the state shouldn't buy a car, a plot of land, or a new locomotive for Kiwirail.

The late Roger Kerr wrote extensively about privatisation, it would be a start if some journalists in New Zealand actually took some time to read some of it, such as the review of the actual performance of privatised state businesses and their history.  It would also be nice if some of them asked the politicians who oppose privatisation whether they also oppose the state buying businesses on behalf of taxpayers.