Maiden Speech 2: Rahui Katene: Te Tai Tonga

In order to give balance to reviewing the maiden speeches, I figured I'd try to alternate between opposition and government MPs. In this case, Rahui Katene is the Maori Party's new MP in 2008, taking Te Tai Tonga from Mahara Okeroa of Labour.

Her speech is here on Scoop in full.

Early in the speech is a statement that effectively says she is a Mormon ("That life of service to, and love of, others is a lesson well learnt as a member of my whanau, hapu and iwi, as well as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."). Of course she can believe what she wants, but frankly someone believing in a church founded by a relatively modern day fraudster deserves some ridicule (Christopher Hitchens has a short summary of the bizarre story behind this ridiculous church).

Beyond that most of the speech is about her family. Dad protested at Raglan, Bastion Point and at the Springbok tour. Mum went with the New Labour Party. Great stuff! Red flows in her veins in more ways than one. A minor error saying "as a University student I protested against the Springbok tour in 1986" which was the Cavaliers's tour of South Africa.

Unsurprisingly she is big on genetic identity "My politics have always been defined by my upbringing and my experiences as a Maori, a Maori woman and a mother of Maori children." Because, she understands the experience of not being one?? Of course most of the rest of her speech is about how she became a lawyer and part of the Treaty of Waitangi industry. Again, hardly surprising, but nothing outstanding out of this, beyond the strong alignment between who she is, and ethnicity.

Verdict? Well she has hardly a wide range of experience or exposure to different ideas of philosophies. She has been brought up by socialists, and matured in an environment of ethnically based nationalism. She believes in collective responsibility and " Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly".

You wont find an advocate of individual freedom here, you'll find socialism, nationalism, stirred with the mysticism of a loony church, but be grateful - she's not Kennedy Graham!

Maiden speech reviews: Kennedy Graham: control freak

Yep, I'm a bit late on these, so thought I'd better catch up. Starting with the far left of the House with Kennedy Graham, brother of ex. Cabinet Minister Doug Graham. However, whereas Doug went with the Nats (and had his proudest moment after the 1987 election when he admittedly wholeheartedly that National should have embraced the free market years ago) , Kennedy is a Green socialist.

Sadly reason isn't one of his fortes. Take this part of his speech:

"For ours is the first generation to confront problems of a planetary scale – daunting in their complexity, seemingly intractable in nature."

World War Two? Risk of nuclear annihilation? Those were past generations. Give up the dramatics.

"- As our human numbers increase, our earth-share diminishes."

A new piece of GreenNewSpeak. "Our earth share diminishes". Sounds like voluntary human extinction could help out.

"- As our materialistic lifestyle expands, our ecological footprint grows ever larger."

alone with our lifespan, our time for leisure, and opportunities for happiness, but fuck that right?

"Humankind today, casting precaution to the wind, is recording an ecological overshoot beyond the planet’s carrying capacity, anthropogenically inducing climate change of unprecedented magnitude and alarming danger."

Utter bollocks of course, since there has been far more dramatic climate change in human history than is even forecasts by the most pessimistic of major climate scientists.

"We are drawing down on Earth’s natural resources, borrowing forward on the human heritage, irretrievably encroaching on our children’s right to inherit the Earth in a natural and sustainable state. It is the uniquely dubious fate of our generation to have broken the eternal promise of inter-generational justice. "

Ah, "we" and "our", the words of the collectivist. The eternal promise of inter-generational justice? More Green NewSpeak, what the hell is he on about?

"We in New Zealand are part of the problem, not yet of the solution. Our ecological footprint is three times higher than the global average, our carbon emissions five times higher."

Dodging a definition, I assume he means per capita. Probably explained by this being a developed country Kennedy, of low density and high agricultural output. You could try North Korea which is almost certainly below average, or Equatorial Guinea, or how about Sudan? Yep they get up every morning glad they are your heroes.

" It is time we measured national success, not through mindless material growth but through genuine progress in human well-being"

It is time individuals measured their own success. Mindless material growth is it? So you tell people wanting to earn more that it is mindless? Ah genuine well-being, well go tell a trade union that they should give up material growth for their members.

"It is time we relinquished our feverish ranking within the OECD, and began contributing to the true advancement of the emerging global society"

Yeah man, let's drop down like Argentina once did, for the "emerging global society".

Vapid onanism par excellence so far. However, he's not just silly, he's downright dangerous. His speech took a far more ominous tone when he talks about individual freedom (emphasis added below)

"Sustainability is the supreme political value of the 21st century. It is not a concept of passing political expediency – a clip-on word for post-economic environmental damage. It is now the categorical imperative of personal behaviour. Individual freedoms are no longer unlicensed, but henceforth subordinate to the twin principles of survival and sustainable living. The political rights we enjoy today are to be calibrated by the responsibility we carry for tomorrow."

Get it? The categorical imperative of personal behaviour is NOT "do no harm to others", it is not "obey the law", it is not "respect the bodies and property of others", it is "sustainability". Furthermore individual freedom is subordinate to the "twin principle of survival and sustainable living". Think how much freedom you can lose by this idiot pursuing "sustainable living" because he thinks this is more important than your political rights. Not a libertarian, possibly not even a democrat.

He waffles on about international commitments, worrying about tomorrow's children (sacrifice you and your current children though), and respecting all civilisations and faiths with due humility (yep the Taliban, the North Koreans, respect them all!).

He misquotes the UN Charter saying "Today, armed force may no longer be used by Member States save in the common interest". Bollocks, as every member state can use armed force for self defence, and the UN Security Council can authorise it against threats to international peace and security (and has done so). He wants it to be illegal for New Zealanders to commit aggression. By that he means war, which undoubtedly includes mercenaries. He doesn't mean himself and other politicians against New Zealanders, although the state is by its very nature aggressively initiating force every day. He undoubtedly wouldn't like mercenaries from New Zealand trying to overthrow any dictatorships, as he probably sees them as civilisations to respect.

So he's a fool and has the inklings of a fascist in his willingness to sacrifice freedom for "sustainability". He says "Generations gone before have sacrificed for our cherished freedoms – freedom of speech and association, freedom to practise our religions, freedom from want and freedom from fear" yet he is willing to sacrifice freedom for his religion of "sustainability", using fear of Nanny State to practice it.

For a man with several degrees, he has foolishly bought into the Green hysteria, the moral relativism of post-modern political philosophy, and is happy to sacrifice individual freedom for the new religion of environmentalism.

If he was just an airy-fairy hippie with silly optimism about the world he'd be harmless, but he worships sustainability over individual rights. He is, in other words, a rather dangerous man.

Discriminate away

Catherine Delahunty, one of the new intake of post-modernist reason evading socialist MPs is upset that Rodney Hide, Minister of Local Government, has told a businessman to avoid the instructions of his local authority on a planning requirement. These apparently have no legal force.

According to Stuff, the council said that if the man, an employer, were to install a shower for staff, it would have to be wheelchair accessible. According to the employer, that would make it prohibitively expensive.

Catherine Delahunty's reality evasion sees her blogging that "There is a growing body of evidence that tells us people with impairments are above average employees if their needs are met" and goes on to give no evidence at all, showing how shallow her argument is. That's it, just make it up, the Greens are used to faith based initiatives. Think about it - people with impairments are above average employees if their needs are met. However she did make the faux pax in saying "And if you build a walk-in shower everybody can use it, whether they have been cycling on two wheels or rolling to work on the two wheels of a wheelchair". Yep those two wheeled wheelchairs are a real hit!

Idiot Savant is upset because a Cabinet Minister is advising someone to break the law. A position I am sure he wouldn't have had a problem with if it was a law he didn't agree with, like laws on blasphemy perhaps. It is hardly being a gangster saying "if you want to build a shower, build it how you like it". Particularly since it isn't a legal requirement (although Hide didn't know that at the time).

The point is simple, the law should leave this man well alone regardless. If he wants to install a shower for his employees, good for him! He probably figures that it is a good way of helping retain valued staff. If he doesn't want it to be available for those in wheelchairs, why the hell is it anyone else's business? Why is it the state's business if he doesn't want to employ people in wheelchairs?

In fact if Catherine Delahunty believes so passionately in "transition from a disabling environment to an equitable environment" why doesn't she offer to help pay for it? Does any property she own have fully accessible access, to all floors, rooms and showers?

Making the fun police squeal

I'm unsure what it is, whether it is some sort of inate desire to evade the parenting finger pointing and "do what I say" judgmental nannying of do-gooders, but few things are quite as satisfying as pissing off Sue Kedgley.

The government decision to scrap the "only healthy foods" policy for schools is one I don't get too heated up about myself. You see I think schools should make their own decisions on this sort of thing (in fact all decisions if they could get funded from parents directly), so this is a minor step forward. However, for the chief conducator of nanny state, Sue Kedgley to describe it as "an astonishingly stupid move which will cost the nation dearly" is her usual hysterical cry of nonsense.

Kids can eat some unhealthy food, it's fine. You see, they ENJOY it. Enjoying some unhealthy food is part of life Sue - enjoying non-organic, sugar salt or fat laden deliciousness - like a decadent chocolate cake, like deep fried fish and chips. It's part of living, and the do gooding harpies like yourself make people want to do it more.

Because frankly the more you tell people to not do something, the more they want you to just fuck off and mind your own business. Especially since you want a state run health monopoly that doesn't charge people more or less if they live less or more healthy lifestyles, and rations due to politically agreed criteria instead of price.

It's like telling teenagers not to drink, not to smoke, not to have sex - the obvious response is to want to do it, just because you say no, and because the common theme among do-gooders is to want to regulate having fun.

That's the same response I give to Dr Alan Maryon Davis in the UK, who the Daily Telegraph reports as saying "I see an increasing acceptance that we, all of us, need not only more information and guidance from government, but also more legislation to save us from ourselves". He WANTS more Nanny State, he thinks people are stupid and should be treated like children and saved from themselves.

What he wants and needs are two different things. What he needs is, as Bob Jones would say, a smack in the chops. People take risks about their health because they face no consequences in the Soviet style National Health Service. The ultra healthy gain nothing, the ultra sick get all the health care the system can ration their way. If you change that, then it shouldn't be any else's business if you want to risk a short life being decadently unhealthy, or a long life being frigidly good - or indeed the opposite, as both happen.

The fun police are to be scorned and loathed and exposed for what they are, with their only argument of merit - that it is useful to inform people of risks and behaviour that can harm them - being something that the fun police should direct attention to. I like knowing blueberries are very good antioxidants, and butter really is rather bad for the circulation (with little else going for it). However, damn the health fascist who tells me off from lathering butter on toast once in a while, or tells me I am not eating enough blueberries.

In the meantime, upsetting Sue Kedgley is a pleasure - so let's all have a chocolate bar, hamburger or the like this weekend, to make her writhe.

Waterview connection business case

The Minister of Transport has kindly released a report on the business case of the Waterview Connection of SH20 in Auckland - the NZ$2.8 billion motorway that the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) wants in a bored tunnel, even though the two other sections under construction are of standard surface level cutting design - surely not because it partly goes through the former PM's electorate. Current legislation, heavily influenced by the Greens, probably means the tunnel makes sense if all that matters is to minimise environmental impact. Anyway, the main points I got are:

- While this is only for four lanes, having six lanes would add another NZ$390 million to the project. Given growth in Auckland traffic in recent decades you'd be mad to assume that a four lane route is all that will be needed in the medium term.
- The benefit cost ratio is 1.15/1, which means it is barely worthwhile doing. However, if delayed ten years that goes up to 1.7/1. Cutting costs from the project would do a lot more.
- The appendix at the back of the report shows you could do a six lane cut and cover tunnel for 10-15% less than the four lane bored tunnel. Better yet you could shave 20-25% off the cost if it was built just like the other sections of SH20. Doing this of course makes the project worthwhile.
- Pushing the project forward at current costs will delay many many others which are more worthwhile.
- A toll could only hope to pay around NZ$400 million of the cost, suggesting that those who would directly gain from the road wouldn't be that interested in directly paying for the time and operating cost savings. That should in itself set off some alarm bells.

There is some analysis that is missing that could enlighten further of course. First, it would interesting to see what "shadow tolling" would say about the revenue the road would generate from those using it, that is from fuel tax and road user charges, which are "paid" whenever any road is used. If you combine that with a toll (or even on its own), would enough be paid over 35 years from users to pay? THAT is the true "toll" from a financial perspective.

Secondly, what would the toll revenue be if the parallel route was also being properly tolled. In other words, if the local roads the motorway would bypass were charged by a company seeking to maximise revenue. You see, many more may pay to use the toll road if the slower local streets were priced at peak times also.

Anyway, the NZTA has been sent back to find ways to trim the cost of the project, and I think this has to mean at least going partially cut and cover, if not abandoning the nonsensical tunnel idea altogether.

Personally, I'd prefer it a decision on whether to proceed were delayed until the other sections under construction are completed. Then we will know how bad the congestion is between SH16 and SH20, and for how long. It can also exploit the recession to get a better price for construction. (Steven Joyce might also consider the removal of the Avondale to Southdown railway designation, because frankly that railway wont ever be built, isn't worth building and can provide some of the land for the motorway).

The bigger truth is that the government is operating in a non-market mode, with roads priced as taxation, so the roads parallel to this motorway are too cheap to motorists (as around 60% of the cost of maintaining them comes from ratepayers), and inadequate analysis of revenue generated from road taxes from use of the road. Most of all, the pressure to build the road comes from planners and politicians.

What this doesn't tell you is that the primary blame for the problems around this project is the stupidity of Auckland City Council in the 1970s in abolishing motorway designations, on unbuilt land.

Designations were retained for the Mt Roskill to Manukau section, but not beyond. Without it, the land has been built on, unlike the designated land which always has temporary use (and little property purchase was needed). That's local government failing again. There was a designation for a motorway from Upper Queen Street parallel to Dominion Road to Mt Roskill as well, but all you see of it today is a cheaply built section from New North Road to Upper Queen Street. See how good planners are? The country is full of examples like that by the way.