Toll NZ demands you subsidise its investment

The Toll NZ CEO David Jackson is in the NZ Herald pleading the case for you being forced to pay to prop up its investment, having done a deal with the government a few years ago that has gone sour.

.

Oh dear, how sad. Having already NOT paid what it was meant to in track access fees to OnTrack to cover the maintenance of the network it uses to make a profit - it wants more and the reasons it gives are worth closer investigation. Below are some of his points and my response:

.

"Statistics show a significant conversion of freight from road to rail (meeting the Government's objectives), and the industry is poised to move forward, more so, arguably, than at any other time in the past 50 years."

.

Well fine, so you've had success. Good for you.

.

"We have taken no dividends, we have improved the efficiencies, we have motivated staff and we have a business that is now viable. We have done a lot of this with fundamentally the same set of tools (people, rolling stock and assets) that we started with."

.

This puts paid to the doggerrell spread by the Standard that Toll has been asset stripping, which is a complete lie.

.

"We are prepared to invest more but require reasonable returns. We want a regime that puts tensions in place to achieve the most cost-effective outcome, that all stakeholders are accountable in this essential service to the country, and that a true, positive economic outcome is achieved. With limited funding, maximising value is critical."

.

Ohhh wait for it. "All stakeholders accountable", I know what you want, because you then say...

.

"For that to occur, a subsidy is required in some form."

.

Ah, so we all have to prop up your investment, by force. Some investment.

.

"Road transport in itself does not carry its full costs. There is no recognition of road operators receiving a subsidy but arguably they do. "

.

Neither does rail, since you are getting a subsidy on maintenance of the rail network. The only subsidy of road transport is spending on local roads from rates. Besides, since you operate a trucking network you already get a subsidy then? So presumably charges for your trucks should rise then instead? No, didn't think you'd advocate that.

.

"Rail operations the world over do not meet their costs and require significant subsidisation."

.

Oh really? So that's why British rail freight operations are commercially operated, why US railways are commercial and privately owned, and so are most Australian rail freight operations. What nonsense.

.

"I think it needs to be understood that in a country of four million people, with distances which make rail difficult to run commercially and growth opportunities that restrict the opportunity for scale improvements, there can be no room for inefficiencies."

.

In other words you bought something marginal, and it's proving harder than you thought.

.

"A final word of warning - customers are key. Without their buy in and satisfaction of their needs, rail has no future. If a subsidy is required, it is ultimately the customers along with the country as a whole, which is so desperate for infrastructure improvement, who will be the true beneficiaries."

.

There we have it. So Fonterra, Solid Energy and the various forestry companies and freight forwarders - give Toll an offer. You are the true beneficiaries - so you should pay for it. The average family with two kids shouldn't be subsidising your freight movements. Oh, and all those on the left who think it is strategic - you chip in too, since you think it is so important put YOUR money where your mouth is - oh you don't tend to do that do you?

So who owns your life?

David Farrar has posted a tragic story of a French women suffering intolerable agony and loss of dignity due to esthesioneuroblastoma.

.

I challenge anyone to dare think for a moment that anyone BUT that woman has the right to decide when and how she should die. Who owns YOUR life?

.

Few points of freedom are more important than asserting that we all have the right to control not only our life but our own death. The last attempt to grant New Zealanders this right was in 2003, with the Death With Dignity Bill proposed by NZ First list MP Peter Brown - his proudest Parliamentary move in my book.

.

It was defeated 60 to 58, with one abstention and one no vote. The defeat wasn't even at the final reading, it was on the FIRST reading. It wasn't even allowed to go to Select Committee for submissions and for further work. That in itself tells you what those who voted against it thought. They don't even want to entertain that adults should decide when to terminate their lives when they become insufferable. It is worth remembering, of those in Parliament today, which MPs believe you own your life, and which ones think THEY do. You may be surprised. Of interest, Don Brash voted for the Bill.

.

Those who voted FOR considering the Death with Dignity Bill (who are still in Parliament today):

Tim Barnett (Lab)

David Benson-Pope (Lab)

Sue Bradford (Greens)

Peter Brown (NZ First)

Mark Burton (Lab)

Chris Carter (Lab)

Steve Chadwick (Lab)

Helen Clark (Lab)

David Cunliffe (Lab)

Ruth Dyson (Lab)

Russell Fairbrother (Lab)

Jeanette Fitzsimons (Greens)

Phil Goff (Lab)

George Hawkins (Lab)

Dave Hereora (Lab)

Rodney Hide (Act)

Marian Hobbs (Lab)

Pete Hodgson (Lab)

John Key (Nat)

Winnie Laban (Lab)

Keith Locke (Greens)

Moana Mackey (Labour)

Steve Maharey (Lab)

Murray McCully (Nat)

Mahara Okeroa (Lab)

Pita Paraone (NZ First)

Winston Peters (NZ First)

Lynne Pillay (Lab)

Heather Roy (Act)

Dover Samuels (Lab)

Lockwood Smith (Nat)

Barbara Stewart (NZ First)

Nandor Tanczos (Greens)

Georgina te Heuheu (Nat)

Judith Tizard (Lab)

Metiria Turei (Greens)

Tariana Turia (then Labour now Maori)

Maurice Williamson (Nat)

Pansy Wong (Nat)

Doug Woolerton (NZ First)

Those who voted AGAINST the Bill (and remain in Parliament):

Jim Anderton (Prog C)

Shane Ardern (Nat)

Rick Barker (Lab)

Gerry Brownlee (Nat)

David Carter (Nat)

John Carter (Nat)

Ashraf Choudhary (Lab)

Judith Collins (Nat)

Brian Connell (Nat)

Gordon Copeland (UF now independent)

Clayton Cosgrove (Lab)

Michael Cullen (Lab)

Lianne Dalziel (Lab)

Peter Dunne (UF)

Harry Duynhoven (Lab)

Bill English (Nat)

Taito Phillip Field (Lab now independent)

Martin Gallagher (Lab)

Mark Gosche (Lab)

Sandra Goudie (Nat)

Phil Heatley (Nat)

Parekura Horomia (Lab)

Darren Hughes (Lab)

Paul Hutchison (Nat)

Sue Kedgley (Greens) (big surprise, yeah right!)

Annette King (Lab)

Nanaia Mahuta (Lab)

Trevor Mallard (Lab)

Wayne Mapp (Nat)

Ron Mark (NZ First)

Damien O'Connor (Lab)

David Parker (Lab)

Jill Pettis (Lab)

Simon Power (Nat)

Katherine Rich (Nat)

Mita Ririnui (Lab)

Ross Robertson (Lab)

Tony Ryall (Nat)

Clem Simich (Nat)

Nick Smith (Nat)

Paul Swain (Lab)

Lindsay Tisch (Nat)

Judy Turner (UF)

Margaret Wilson (Lab)

Richard Worth (Nat)

Dianne Yates (Lab)

ACT's caucus (today) voted for it, as did John Key and Helen Clark. Any hope of this being resurrected after the next election, or will we have the usual swathe of conservative National MPs who think they know best?

Nanny State in the supermarket

Bill Ralston reports in the NZ Herald how the Public Health Bill has, courtesy of Sue Kedgley and her fascination with banning things, the power for the state to tell supermarkets where and how they display "unhealthy" food.

.

Kedgley says it is "unlikely to be used", which of course makes it ok to have the power to direct how the internal layout of a shop might be. The word fascist clearly applies here, how DARE they!

.

Set aside the technical problems of administering this, when supermarkets are all sorts of sizes and layouts, think of what "unhealthy" food is. Is it butter? After all, it is high in saturated fat, has virtually no fibre, low vitamin and mineral content and can be used for frying and baking, both arguably "unhealthy" forms of food preparation. How about sugar? A bag of sugar can cause all sorts of mischief when combined with butter, flour and eggs. Then there is red meat. The evidence linking high consumption of red meat with heart disease and bowel cancer is overwhelming. Potatoes too. After all, cut them up and deep fry them and you're in trouble. Cheese too is closely linked to heart disease due to high saturated fat content. Bacon and other cured meats are high in nitrites and nitrates which are implicated in digestive system cancers as well.

.

I'm sure nanny knows what is unhealthy, but it is telling that Labour and the Greens are championing this fascist piece of legislation - with the philosophy that supermarkets can't decide how they organise their own business, but more importantly that New Zealanders can't be relied upon to decide for themselves what they should eat.

.

Is there no limit to the powers that those on the left seek to impose themselves upon businesses and consumers "for our own good"?

Meanwhile, since it is election year, would National and ACT repeal it?

ACT on education, some hope?

Well ACT bloggers think so, although until I hear some details about policies I wont be getting too excited. Having said that I AM pleased to read that one of the policies will be education choice. Sir Roger Douglas has talked of "scholarships" for all kids. If ACT could just get that implemented, in a coalition with National - it could make a positive difference to education for the good. National on the other hand, will do nothing - like it did in the 1990s when it had the perfect chance to battle the teachers' unions and win.

Education is the one area where the damage wrought by the state is most apparent. The centrally planned and funded education system, which seeks to churn out kids production line is NOT a system for the 21st century. It is one of the three main areas of state activity that was NOT properly reformed in the '80s and '90s. Outside paying either for location or fees, most parents have little option but to send their kids to the local school - like it or not. They all pay taxes and get wildly different results.

The teachers' unions oppose school choice because it devolves authority from Wellington to schools, it means funding follows pupils, and means that schools will be driven to make their own choices about teachers, teachers' pay and how they differentiate themselves. The unions have left clout and monopoly power if the decisions are up to schools. The nonsense that teachers can't be subject to pay based on performance can be confronted. Teachers' unions argue they only do their best with what kids they get - and that they can't be blamed if the kids they get from low income areas don't do well. This is a blatant obfuscation of reality. Parents and kids know good teachers from bad - the ones that inspire kids, the ones that cause them to want to go to school, or that class, and who clearly demonstrate improvements. They also know the bad teachers who don't communicate, who aren't interested in extending the kids, who don't inspire and who do as little as they can.

By and large, most parents care a great deal about their kids' education. It is not good enough to repeat the nonsense socialist fairytale that "we wouldn't need school choice if all schools were excellent". Much like we wouldn't need choice in brands of car, or clothes, or food. It isn't going to happen. Some schools will be badly run, some will be excellent. Some teachers are abysmal, some are extraordinary. That's right PPTA and NZEI, some of your members shouldn't be teaching!

The big question should be - why SHOULDN'T parents choose what school their kids go to, and why SHOULDN'T taxpayer funding follow the child? We have had nine years of fully centralised funding under Labour to make the schools "equal". That is enough, it is time for New Zealand to take the baby steps towards more choice and accountability that have worked in such bastions of the unfettered free market as ... Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands.

No doubt the PPTA and NZEI will go on strike - showing clearly how much they really care about the education of children. They will go on strike because they fear losing members who are incompetent, and schools hiring teachers that are competent but aren't members. They fear accountability, and fear the power shifting from bureaucrats and politicians, to parents.

No, vouchers/scholarships wont be enough. No, it wont free up education from the fetters of bureaucracy and the ideology of self sacrifice, collectivism and statism that is part of the curriculum. It wont mean all kids can go to an integrated or private school, as some will have fees beyond the value of a voucher - but more will be able to, without paying twice like they do now.

There is little hope under the current environment for any other steps forward in education. I can only hope that if ACT can ever do anything if it ever is in power with National, it is this one thing.

Bureaucracy cutting: so many possibilities

One can do nothing but laugh at those who think National’s policy for not growing the bureaucracy will cause chaos and ruin. Besides being a bit wimpish, the truth is that far too many in the public sector are far from over worked and even more simply do things that are fundamentally useless.

I spent several years in the state sector, observing officials from many departments and seeing the differences in culture between them. There were always some hard working ones, and of them, some were heavily misguided – undertaking tasks that, with all honesty, did no good at all. One was to register postal operators.

Despite all the best efforts of the officials at the time, MPs, against advice, decided that when postal services were deregulated in 1998 it couldn’t be allowed for new companies to simply set up and carry mail. No. Because the Police were concerned that (wait for it) drug dealers could set up competing mail operators and use these services to distribute drugs (because you’d do that wouldn’t you?), a handful of MPs caved into pressure and decided that every company that wanted to carry mail had to be registered with what is now the Ministry of Economic Development.

This registration process includes, believe it or not, a Police vetting. That Police vetting is to ensure the director of the postal company has not been convicted of a range of criminal offences, excluding murder and rape. You can not carry mail if you have ever been convicted for possessing cannabis, but if you committed murder you can.

By the way none of this applies to couriers or trucking companies, only postal operators. Of course, drug dealers and fraudsters were all keen to get into the mail business weren't they?

It’s all completely absurd.

This is only one type of ridiculous bureaucracy that exists. There are many more throughout the public sector. The creation of endless “strategies” is another. Search the word "strategy" at govt.nz and you'll find one that is applicable to you - that you were not consulted on and which is trying to get people to do all sorts of things.

Imagine if a bureaucrat had developed an "online strategy" 20 years ago - would have been brilliant wouldn't it? You wouldn't be reading blogs now would you? You might have had to go to a community resource centre to access terminals with a central database of government supplied information.

So there are many ways to cut the state sector that National could pursue, although it might face some questioning about the one I just mentioned. Since it was something National approved when it was in coalition with NZ First.