Labour's Newspeak

The Standard has linked to a Stuff report about words and phrases circulated around the Health Ministry that Ministers would prefer to be used and not used.

"Among terms now considered "out" were public health, social change, inequalities and advocacy"

All standards for the left. Public health is a collectivist term, social change is social engineering said nicely, inequalities is used as a proxy to claim outcomes are related to being treated differently, and advocacy is what lawyers do, not public servants.

The Standard calls it Newspeak. It may be, but I find it curious that when National does this, public servants leak it to the press and the press takes it. However, when Labour did the very same thing it didn't make news. Either officials were more loyal to Labour, or the media was not interested (or I suspect, the way Labour did it was less formal).

What happened? Well I was told by officials of the Department of Internal Affairs that there was a clear directive from then Local Government Minister Sandra Lee that using words like "accountability, transparency and efficiency" were no longer acceptable in briefings or Cabinet papers because they were "Business Roundtable speak". Obviously, accountability and transparency are hienous plots to bring down the people's government!

The word "efficiency" was dropped in briefings and reports on transport in favour of "value for money", because efficiency sounded like "New Right economics" to some Ministers of the previous government.

Quite clearly Ministers would get very irritated if they thought advice was suggesting policies of the previous government, or that Labour policies were too hard or expensive to implement.

The vetting of all these came through a new level of engagement between departments and Ministers - the Political Advisor. Political advisors are an idea from the Blair administration in the UK, and they are designed to ensure Ministers get official advice politically vetted in advance. Political Advisors would reject briefings or Cabinet papers before they even got to Ministers, to make sure the (truly) politically correct language and the correct advice was being given. Heather Simpson led this, and she became the vetting agent for all Cabinet papers. She was often referred to as the "Associate Prime Minister" and had power that was only rivalled by Cullen at Cabinet. I wrote extensively about H2 (Helen Clark was H1) over two years ago.

H2 would pull Cabinet papers from the agenda and insert new ones. She would edit Cabinet Minutes if they didn't reflect the "correct" view of what was decided.

I'd be very curious to know what our "friends" on the left would think if National adopted exactly the same techniques, and more curious if anyone in the know (e.g. David Farrar) is aware if the current government has Political Advisors for Cabinet Ministers, and is there is a J2.

John Key said before the election that a National led government would listen to the public service and I gave a few idea about what to ask. Is National exercising political control over the advice given to it?

The Standard talks nonsense on rail and roads

Just when you thought Frogblog was the leading source of reality evasion on transport, I find I have new respect for Frogblog and that the Standard deserves the prefix "sub" that NotPC rightfully gave it last year. Frogblog recently posted on Kiwirail evidence that contradicts the Green view on things, it gave a flimsy rebuttal, but still all credit to actually looking at broader evidence.

The Standard on the other hands is the repositary of complete ignorance on the topic.

The latest post has Steve Pierson saying of Kiwirail (in a post about ACC, more on that later):

"even if it’s true in the sense that it won’t give any profit to government as a going concern, and will require the Government to put in more money, so what?"

So what? Yes Steve, taxpayers should bend over and let the government shaft them up their fundament right? An unprofitable business is no big deal to the Standard. Then again, the history of NZR in its various guises in my lifetime under state ownership was to be unprofitable from 1970 to 1982, when it was bailed out, profitable for 2 years (after contracted subsidised services), then unprofitable from 1985 to 1990, when it was bailed out again, and profitable for three years before being sold.

Then he says:

"If that were the criteria for whether owning an asset is worthwhile, we should get rid of the state highway system for a start - it costs the Government over a billion a year and there’s nearly nil revenue."

Nearly nil revenue? The government is forecast to receive $897 million from Road User Charges and nearly $1.9 billion from fuel tax (adding the $600 million currently diverted as Crown Revenue then recycled back to transport) from using all roads in the current year. 50% of vehicle kilometres travelled are on the state highway network. So around $1.4 billion a year of revenue is nearly nil?

Oh and the planned expenditure on the state highway network in the current year is $1.26 billion, of which 63% is on capital improvements.

The state highway system raises enough revenue to pay for its ongoing maintenance, with sufficient surplus that it can be used to improve the network, and there is over $100 million on top of that revenue used elsewhere (subsidising public transport).

Then we have mysticism dressed as economics:

"It’s the externalities that matter. Having a working rail system, liking a working road system, allows the economy to work much better than it otherwise could. That produces tremendous wealth, even though it doesn’t show up on Kiwirail’s balance sheet."

Externalities? Yet when the Surface Transport Cost and Charges study dug down into the marginal costs of road vs rail freight, the differences between modes varied considerably. In two out of three cases, road user charges revenue paid were in excess of all externalities, in the other case it fell short. So it is NOT cut and dry.

However, this nonsense about it producing "tremendous wealth" is pure mysticism.

Let's see the wealth creation from Labour and the railway system:
- $665 million to buy a company that couldn't pay its bills (track access charges), when its market valuation was around two-thirds of that;
- That same company needs hundreds of millions of dollars to just keep doing business over the medium term, and wont generate a profit from that.

The Standard has been a cheerleader for the rail religion for some time. It described renationalisation as such:

"The Government has acted in a way that makes economic and environmental sense. The only opposition has been from the ‘free market is always right’ lobby and National. Their childish comments about buying a train-set have fooled no-one."

Childish? Using analysis which the government itself commissioned from consultants?

Steve Pierson before that talked absolute drivel suggesting enormous demand for Kiwirail:

"Businesses are keen to take more freight off the road in the face of skyrocketing fuel prices and long-distance car travel is also getting out of reach for many; KiwiRail will provide an alternative."

Which businesses? Who is thinking of dumping their car for long distance passenger rail?

You see, the subStandard thinks it is about ideology not evidence:

"The only reason I can think of is that National/ACT doesn’t like KiwiRail and insulation because they were the Left’s iniatives. There is certainly no pragmatic reason to drop them. From both an environmental and economic stand-point investing in rail and warmer homes are the best options."

None Steve? When nobody has done a study on the economic or environmental benefits of subsidising rail? When a government pays well over the odds to buy an unprofitable business?

Dare I suggest the Standard has superseded Frogblog in abandoning evidence and preaching the religious mantra "rail must be good" - a faith based initiative if ever there was one.

Newspeak at the Standard

Let's say I have a shop, and I have a product on display. You want me to hide it, I choose not to do so. Have I changed the situation? No. YOU wanted the change and didn't convince me. Right?

No - not according to The Standard's Ministry of Truth. Apparently the government's refusal to ban tobacco displays in shops is going to make it EASIER for kids to get tobacco than at present, which funnily enough is that shops can have tobacco displays.

Like has been allowed the entire term of the government The Standard has glowingly loved.

Not only that, but the government WANTS kids to smoke. The reason given by Health Minister Tony Ryall was the lack of evidence that such a ban would be effective, but The Standard prefers a Parliamentary select committee (which face it is just MPs expressing opinions, NOT experts) to a Minister taking advice from officials.

You can see how the folks at The Standard could get a job overseas, such as at the Korean Central News Agency, which is a daily factory of twisted Orwellian fiction.

Of course I'd simply say that it is nobody else's business how a shop displays products that it is selling legally. If you don't want your kids to go to the shop, don't take them or tell them not to. Unless, of course, you have the kids sick of being told what to do by you, or are really dumb and will start smoking because of a product display, despite you warning of the health risks.

Auckland councils have a laugh

$22 billion! The draft Auckland transport plan seeks that amount over 10 years. $2.2 billion per annum, divide it by 1.4 million Aucklanders means $1,571 dollars per man woman and child,

Stuff rightly points out it is "little more than a wishlist", it is hardly a plan. It is like listing what you want if you win the lottery, except Auckland councils want to make you pay for it, whether by rates, fuel tax or general taxation.

Current road taxes are adequate to maintain and make regular improvements to the road network, but any serious major improvements ought to be put through the "toll" test. If it can't be funded through tolls (and road taxes collected from the road), then it probably isn't worth doing.

I've suggested before that a good pilot for private investment of Auckland roads would be to sell the Northern Motorway from Spaghetti Junction to Constellation Drive, allow the owner to toll it which could fund duplicating the congested Victoria Park Viaduct, strengthening the Bridge and a second crossing IF it is viable. Oh and the proceeds from the sale could be allocated to Auckland motorists.

However, in the big picture there is a demand for all sorts of passenger rail network extensions, when none of them could generate enough revenue to cover operating costs. There is ample evidence from the Sydney and Brisbane airport railway lines that an airport railway line does not make sense.

What is most apparent is that this is driven by the public transport obsessed ARC, which has bought into the failed cargo cult ideology that building public transport relieves congestion. You can see it from this statement:

"A rail tunnel under the CDB, for example, would result in more than 200,000 people being within 30 minutes travel of Queen Street"

I'd say far more than that are within 30 minutes travel of Queen Street already. Those people own their own vehicles, and their fuel tax more than pays the cost of the infrastructure they use, and pays to subsidise the public transport they don't use. These magic people are car commuters.

If ever there was a reason for Rodney Hide to throw away any nonsense of a single Auckland council, it is this - a big Auckland council will demand massive cheques from taxpayers for grandiose projects. The question needs to be asked - Is there a role of local government in transport?

Worthless asset - Part 2 - what can be done with Kiwirail?

I like railways and I am an economic rationalist. I find it a little sad when a railway line closes, as if its purpose, hauling goods or people, is no longer needed, like a piece of economic history, and that for a long term it served a useful purpose to many people as an artery. However, I also resist vehemently, the idea that people should be forced to subsidise the freight movements or passenger movements of others. Some like railways and don't apply economics to it, like the Greens. Some apply economics, and want the railway shut down.

Some blogs are suggesting that Kiwirail be shut down, which was what Pacific National, past owner of the Tasmanian rail network threatened, until the Tasmanian state government agreed to take over the network. I can understand this view. However, it is NOT a lost cause. Governments have bailed out the railways twice before in my lifetime, now it should be about accepting the massive right down in value on the government's books before trimming it back to what can be profitable.

I've written many times about this already, so I don't want to add too much:
- Subsidising rail freight is subsidising rail freight's customers, which is coal, timber, dairy and shippers of containerised freight. If anyone should be paying for rail it should be them. A subsidy to rail is "picking winners" in those industries.
- A presentation by NZISCR on the future of rail freight, originally linked to by Frogblog. That presentation dismisses many myths about rail;
- Why the Greens are wrong to worship the religion of rail;
- History of previous rail bailouts and Labour's spending of taxpayers' money on railways;
- Consultant's reports to The Treasury on why rail freight in New Zealand is not on a scale or distances that compare favourably to profitable railways in Australia or the USA. Part One and Part Two.

And after that, where IS rail viable.

In summary, I am optimistic about rail transport in New Zealand, if not for the value of the renationalised "asset". Why?

1. The Auckland-Wellington-rail ferry-Picton-Christchurch-Dunedin route has sufficient traffic to be profitable in the long term. It can carry containerised traffic by the train load efficiently. Similar traffic profitably runs from the Port of Tauranga to the main trunk.
   
2. As long as good quality coal comes out of the West Coast and can be sold, it is profitable to send it by train to Lyttelton. Meanwhile, the TranzAlpine tourist train is also profitable on that same route.
3. Fonterra's milk traffic from Oringi to Longburn, and Hawera to New Plymouth is profitable.
4. It may be profitable to keep hauling logs out of the Kaingaroa forest, and rail wood products from Kawerau to the Port of Tauranga, and from Kinleith similarly.

Beyond that it needs to be on a case by case basis, and the likelihood is most other rail freight can only profitably run as long as the rolling stock and track can be maintained in a serviceable condition and the revenue from running trains makes a profit on top of that. When trains need replacing or track/bridges on some lines, it will simply be a case of giving up.

If trains aren't to operate anymore, the line can be mothballed, so if anyone else wants to run services they can - at a cost. After a set number of years, if there has been no serious interest (in some cases railway enthusiasts take over the line and run tourist services, such as to Middlemarch in Central Otago, or at Waitara) then the tracks should be pulled up and the corridor reused. If people want to convert them into cycleways, so be it.

Bill English and Steven Joyce should request a report from Kiwirail describing not lines, but freight business by major customers/commodities and route. It should describe how long term the contracts are, their financial position, and any demands for new capital to keep services going, with recommendations for the short term, medium term and long term future for those services. Business like decisions need to be made. If Kiwirail wants more money to invest in profitable parts of the business, it should borrow against those projections and recover it from users.

Oh and while you're at it, think about the state highways being run as a business too, directly charging road users for the cost of using them. The state highways ARE profitable as a whole, but it would be nice if it were explicit, and they were run as a business supplying customers, instead of a bureaucracy following statutory objectives.