Pork Barrel roads

In the 1980s and 1990s, funding for roads in New Zealand moved away from a pork barrel approach to one based on several key principles:

1. All central government funding for roads sourced from taxes raised from road users (with an increasing proportion of such taxes dedicated to such funding);

2. Removing direct political interference on decisions regarding which projects would proceed and would not proceed by appointing boards with specific independence to fund and develop projects that would meet goals such as economic efficiency and safety, within available budgets;

3. Allocating funding for projects based upon advancing those with the best ratio of benefits to costs first, and delaying/deferring very high cost projects with relatively marginal benefits. In short, allowing spending to be concentrated on maintenance and smaller projects that could be cost controlled, and allowed steady improvements to networks;

4. Increasing road funding based upon steady growth of funds for new projects, not largescale increases that could place severe pressure on contracting costs.

~

Since 1999 Labour has eroded these principles, significantly by:

1. Introduced specific Crown taxpayer votes of funding for transport projects, in addition to dedicated road tax based funding (albeit it has also dedicated more and more road taxes to transport as well);

2. Introducing far more specificity in the outputs that the Minister of Transport expects from the crown agencies funding and building roading networks, and becoming significantly more interested in the timing of major road projects, particularly in Auckland;

3. Placing pressure on the government appointed boards to advance projects based upon "strategic considerations", being code for advancing lower value projects with high political profiles over higher value projects with lower political profiles. None of this is explicit or public, but it involve phone calls to board chairs, conversations between politicians, board members and chief executives;

4. Allowing goldplating and greenplating of major state highway projects with little justification based upon quantifiable returns or benefits (e.g. tunnel under Victoria Park viaduct), but high political profile.

5. Engaging politically driven official groups for special funding of transport in Auckland, Wellington, Bay of Plenty and Waikato to buy regional political support, and advance low value high cost projects that fail following the changes listed above.

~

The last time you saw it explicitly was when Labour bought Winston Peters by using taxpayer funds to advance the Tauranga HarbourLink project, even though all the work beforehand indicated it could have been easily funded through tolls.

~

Now you see it with Dr Cullen about to bribe Auckland voters with their tax cut - but by funding a heavily greenplated, expensive, and not particularly efficient new motorway. This project has grown from around NZ$700 million in cost to well over NZ$1 billion, and its benefit cost ratio has always hovered below 1:1. It cannot be funded from tolls as Transit's own analysis indicates motorists wouldn't pay to use it. On top of that, while it could be built as a motorway at surface (with some noise barriers), what is being proposed, largely for an environmental argument (i hesitate to use the word reason), is a huge tunnel, adding enormously to the cost. Before you say "it's done in Sydney", Sydney isn't a big volcanic basin - tunnelling is easy and cheap there, it isn't in Auckland.

~

"but we need the road" you say? Well, prove it. Two other segments of the SH20 motorway are under construction now, extending it east towards the southern motorway bypassing Manukau and west towards Mt Roskill. Both of these projects are good, and will make a big difference to traffic conditions around Auckland. When completed they may indicate there is demand for improved roads between Mt Roskill and Waterview, and then? Well, let the private sector finance and build the road, find a route, develop a design, buy properties as necessary and then IT can toll it (and it would be fair for the proportion of fuel tax and road user charges paid when using the road are paid from the government to the owner). Why should current taxpayers (not road users) fund a road that will be used for generations? Why not let it be financed and the debt paid off over time from charges by those who will use it?

~

It wont happen? Well maybe the road isn't that necessary then. Getting the government's state highway agency (Transit) with an insatiable appetite to spend money, to contract yet another huge road project in Auckland, right now, will further inflate road contracting costs. Promises from the contracting sector that funding lots of roads at once will save money have proven nonsensical.

~

So I'd let Transit fiddle around with determining a route, but that's about it - and finish the other two major projects on that corridor (plus duplicating the congested Mangere bridge, by tolling the new lanes). Then Dr Cullen you can give New Zealanders a bigger tax cut. Instead of spending $1.5 billion on a motorway of dubious economics, you might give that money to New Zealanders - $375 per man, woman and child would do a lot of good, wouldn't it?

~

UPDATE: So I underestimated it. $2.5 billion is the hyperexpensive, fully tunnelled, "wish the country had the oil wealth of Brunei" option. Apparently it will be tolled, but I can assure you this will recover a small portion of the costs - most will come out of your pocket. So you can easily say that every person will pay $400 towards it, or in Auckland terms, $1500 per person or $4500 per family, for a road that the users wouldn't choose to pay for.

~

However, the blurring of government accountability grows again with the report that "a six-member committee of two Government and three private-sector representatives with an independent chairman" would look after the project. Those of you driving substandard highways over the Maramaruas, or south Waikato, or from Kapiti to Levin might ask why your far cheaper, better value projects aren't so important. Well ask why people vote for political decisionmaking over roads.

~

Also note the "Waterview connection" project has not even entered the design stage, and the budget for design has grown about 60% as the Herald reports "its estimate of design costs alone has soared from $50 million last year to $79.4 million in its latest draft highways programme".

~

This is an Auckland election bribe, bribing Auckland voters with tax cuts that could be for the whole country. It's a bribe that Labour doesn't need to commit to either, as the project is not close to construction.

~

The Greens oppose it, of course, because it's a road - preferring to waste taxpayers' money on rail projects that also aren't paid for by users.

What NOT to learn from Waitangi Day

PC has written an excellent post on Waitangi Day and what it could be, and being in the “mother country” of course, I wont have that day off. However, I can reflect on what it is like to be away from all of the wailing and gnashing of teeth that is around when the usual tribe of tired old collectivists seek to treat people on the basis of “ethnicity” not behaviour.
~
As PC has said:
~
What the Treaty did do, for which we can all be thankful, was to bring British law to NZ at a time when British law was actually intended to protect the rights of British citizens, and it promised to extend that protection to all who lived here. For many and often differing reasons, that was what the chieftains signed up to. To become British citizens, with all the rights and privileges thereof.
~
Indeed!
~
And yes, I do know that for some, these rights and privileges were in practice more limited, due to sexism for one, and racism. I know the 19th century was hardly a period of colourblind government anywhere, but in the realm of colonialism the Treaty was a significant step. No such rights and privileges for Australian aborigines.
~
Unfortunately, Waitangi Day perennially becomes the rallying point for those who prefer tribalism and separatism, those who believe in intergenerational blame and guilt, and moreso the idea that you can blame your current life on what happened to your ancestors.
~
It is identity politics, the notion that what matters most is not what you do, but what group you “identify” with. Interwoven with this is the belief that people treat you according to that identity, and that statistics can “prove” unfair treatment if members of an “identity” perform “below average”. You know what I mean, the idea that more Maori are in prison not because they committed crimes, but because “the system” was against them. Those of other identities don’t have this disadvantage because the system was “designed by and for them”. It denies objective analysis, it denies those who reject identity politics as either part of the problem, or traitors.
~
The corollary of that is the notion that ones life today is directly attributable to what someone else’s ancestors did generations ago. To carry the notion that being unhealthy, being poorly educated and committing crimes is because you carry the pain of your forefathers is to be psychologically unhinged. No one can doubt that one’s inheritance matters, but what is done with it matters too. In fact far more important that material inheritance is the psychological one.
~
Did you have parents who loved you, taught the value of hard work, education, respect and support you as your grew and learnt? That is far more likely to influence whether you commit crime, get a job, look after yourself and do the same to your children. Then beyond that is what you do with THAT personal inheritance. Sadly far too many Maori are being told that they don’t have choices, that it isn’t their parents fault they bashed them up or neglected them, but “society”.
~
Waitangi Day could be a day to celebrate the founding of a nation-state, the opportunities it brings to those who live there, the relative freedom, lack of corruption and rule of law that exists.

~

When you see those advancing “tino rangitiratanga” ask yourself what they mean by that? Do they mean the individual freedom and private property rights that British law SHOULD have granted them (and all citizens)? Or do they mean they want more government, government based on race, interventionist government, with more taxes and more control over education, broadcasting, property rights and the economy? Is it a coincidence that almost all those advocating “tino rangitiratanga” get inspiration from authoritarian socialists?

~

So don't think of Waitangi Day by race - race is not an objective way to judge a person and it has no place in any considerations of state. Waitangi Day should be a day to celebrate the common nationhood of New Zealand.

~

Then take the concept of one law for all - colourblind - and ask politicians this year, election year, whether they believe in that and what they'll do about it. Chances are the two main party leaders wont deliver.

Prince Andrew should choose

Are you part of an apolitical constitutional monarchy or are you a common citizen who should have to work for a living?

~

At the moment you are neither.

~

If you are the former, then smile, hold your views and let the elected representatives of the people and their duly selected officials do their job. Go to York and do "duke" things. For all of their many many faults, they have more authority than you do. You have had a reasonably notable military career and have an honorary role going to meetings for the Department of Trade and Industry.

~

If you want to get into politics, then distance yourself completely from your mother and brother, and go on - but don't expect to have any taxpayer funded privileges that come from your title. I am not saying you are wrong, I am simply saying you should not use your position of constitutional privilege to criticise the duly elected government or engage in foreign policy without its explicit permission.

Palestinians could change Gaza

It should hardly be a surprise that recent coverage by the so-called peace loving left about Gaza retains a remarkable willingness to be blind to what the “government” in Gaza did to provoke Israel into sealing off its border.
~
Let me remind you. Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005. Withdrew, that’s right pulled out as it has been asked since 1967. It has no governance or military presence on this strip of land whatsoever. It has removed the 9000 or so Jewish settlements, it has essentially done exactly what all of its opponents asked of it, regarding Gaza. Now some argue that as Israel still controls the airspace, territorial waters and the borders with Israel that there is not complete control, but still, it is sovereign territory notwithstanding that.

The Palestinian authority elections in 2006 saw Palestinian voters have a set of odious choices. The main ones were either vote for Fatah, which supports peaceful co-existence with Israel, but has proven itself highly corrupt and administratively incompetent, or vote for Hamas, which wants to destroy Israel, but also has run schools, medical centres and tends to be far less prone to corruption. There were other parties offering alternatives that were not Islamist and with no background on corruption. Some of these could have provided a more reformist way forward, but no they chose Hamas. By choosing Hamas, Palestinian voters chose war with Israel.
~
Without going into the detail about Hamas being effectively ousted from power in the West Bank, it remains that Hamas governs Gaza. Israel’s withdrawal means it is effectively the government of a rump Palestinian state of sorts. What did Hamas do with this power? It started firing rockets into Israel proper – you know, the country that is a UN member state, recognised by the vast majority of countries around the world including Egypt and Jordan. Hamas decided that it was more worthwhile to attack Israel than to try to rebuild the shattered infrastructure and economy of Gaza, blighted by conflict over decades. Why? Because Hamas has little interest in the here and now, but every interest in fighting the “infidels”.
~
With over 4,000 rockets hitting Israel, Israel could, on the basis of self defence, have reoccupied Gaza to root out those attacking it. It has not. What it has done is impose economic sanctions against the Hamas regime (Western countries including New Zealand have imposed such sanctions against countries that never laid a hand on it), built a barrier around Gaza (Israeli side not Egyptian) to restrict entry by terrorists into Israel, and put up a blockade against most imports that could aid and assist those attacking Israel. It has also attacked from the air, sites from where rockets are being launched.
~
If you listened to the views of Israel’s critics it should have done none of this, but sit back and watched its people’s homes be bombarded from a territory that Israel does not control. It is notable that Egypt hasn’t much tolerated the onslaught of Palestinians on its border either, but nobody blames Egypt do they?
~
Gaza, of course, is in an appalling state. It has high population density (though lower than the likes of Hong Kong and Singapore), under developed and hardly a haven of prosperity. Hamas could change that of course.

~

It could stop attacking Israel and announce that Gaza will not be a base for attacks on Israel. It might find economic sanctions get lifted. It could seek to be outward looking and encourage Palestinians to seek trade as the way forward, and presumably their wealthy allies in Saudi Arabia might cough up some of their funds to finance simple infrastructure such as water, sewage, roads and electricity. Of course they wont, because keeping Palestinians in poverty, angry and willing to fight to regain Jerusalem is exactly what their rich friends want. The Palestinians are, in some respect, waging a proxy war for Iran and Saudi Arabia, one that makes them the losers.
~
In other words, there is a chance for Gaza to, with some effort, be transformed. It is on a stretch of land that could become an attraction for tourists, it has horticulture and could become a free trade area, if only Hamas would also set up an independent judiciary that could enforce private property rights and contracts.
~
I doubt whether it will, of course. You see Hamas worships the afterlife, being Islamists. It cultivates a culture that worships violence, celebrates death and honours those who give their lives to take those of others. It actively recruits the young to sacrifice their lives for this cause of violence.

~

Gaza could be so much more than a strip of hell. Remember, Israel withdrew – it doesn’t want it back – Palestinians have it, and they wont get Israel proper – ever. If Gaza could succeed, then it would have positive effects on the West Bank, as Palestinians no longer act as victims, but set up a haven of prosperity, freedom and peace. Doing that will open borders with Israel (and the world) more than any militancy ever could.

Super Dooper Tuesday?

I am trying hard to resist the only sensation I get from the US primaries, the only thing I can get passionate about, deceptive though it may be, which is to cheer anything that stops Hillary Clinton become President.

~

You see, it is visceral, it goes back to the days after Bill Clinton was elected with a minority of the popular vote (forgot that, didn't you?), when Hillary decided she had been "elected" too and Bill appointed her to nationalise US health care. It goes to her views against free market capitalism, and so much of her election platform which is about tinkering, doing more with the federal government, giving away other people's money here and there, and control. Beyond that is her sense of entitlement to rule - she WANTS power, power over people, and she believes it is her right, her goal to be the first woman President, as if her sex gives her more entitlement. Her willingness to play dirty against Barack Obama speaks volumes, and has backfired somewhat.

~

While Hillary Clinton is, for anyone who believes in individual freedom, and private property rights, an anathema. Her current opponent, Barack Obama is no better. He is a nicer, friendlier and more seductive face of exactly the same politics. There is no substantive difference between Obama and Clinton, indeed Obama's endorsement by those on the left such as the Kennedys (another clan of "born to be rulers"), Democratic Socialists of America and the Communist Party of the USA (hat tip: New Zeal) makes him potentially more dangerous.

~

In addition to that, Obama's charisma is a contrast with Clinton's so-called divisiveness. Obama doesn't excite conservative USA as much as Clinton does - as Andrew Sullivan in the Sunday Times pointed out:

~

She has extraordinary negatives. She galvanises the conservative movement in ways no other Democrat can. Against McCain, she and she alone enables the Republicans to forget their deep internal divisions and unite. Nothing – nothing – unites them as she does. The money she will raise for the Republicans is close to the amount they can raise for themselves.

~

Sullivan believes Democrats should pick Obama. I believe, as difficult as it is to swallow, that it would be better for the world for them to select Clinton. Obama is a flake, he can speak well, he can inspire, but the substance behind what he says is absent. The media's inability to quiz him on this has been shocking.

~

By contrast we know what Clinton believes in, and fortunately, on foreign policy, she is willing to be braver than Obama. She is pro-Israel, she supports sanctions against Cuba, she supported a resolution calling Iran's Army of the Guards of National Revolution terrorists, she voted in favour of authorising military force against Iraq and she stated on CNN that "The first obligation of the president of the United States is to protect and defend the United States of America". For her many many flaws, I would feel slightly safer with Clinton than Obama.

~

Oh yes there are Republicans. Romney the flip flopper, who once was seen with Margaret Thatcher, will not win. John McCain, who is Republican lite, or a member of the rightwing end of the Democratic Party, will win the nomination. The best you can hope for with him is that he wont reverse the Bush tax cuts. woopee.