What does Clark need to do?

A few days ago I posted about the abject vacuity in the NZ mainstream media reporting about Helen Clark taking on the lead role at the UNDP. So is the UNDP just a grand generous aid organisation out to help the world develop, or is there more to it than that? Why indeed have none of the scandals that have emerged from the UNDP in recent years been raised in the NZ mainstream media? Why has nobody seriously questioned Clark about what she thinks of the scandals and whether she is concerned about the UNDP’s reputation?

UNDP Watch is a blog dedicated to reporting on issues arising from the UNDP. Of course any good journalist knows not to rely on a single source. However, let’s just do a summary of the recent list of publicised scandals arising from this organisation. Bear in mind the UNDP does not publish detailed accounts of revenue and expenditure. In other words it has less financial accountability than any New Zealand central or local government organisation or publicly listed company. That in itself is a reason for concern. Will Helen Clark ensure that accounts are published in full after this current financial year? If not, why not?

There are charges of nepotism in employment whereby a UNDP employee used his influence to ensure his daughter got a job at UNDP, despite this being against policy. This is under investigation.

There are charges of the UNDP grossly overcharging the Panamanian government for advice. In other words, acting as management consultants. Clark might want to get a robust vetting process for all contracts, and to be ruthless in firing those who don't follow procedure.

An independent audit commissioned by UNDP demonstrated how the organization “routinely, and systematically, the agency disregarded U.N. regulations on how it conducted itself in Kim Jong-Il's brutal dictatorship, passing on millions of dollars to the regime in the process”. In other words it funneled taxpayers’ money to a regime that run slave gulags containing children. UNDP should cease all activities in North Korea, much like Medicin Sans Frontieres did because it could not guarantee that the aid it supplied was not being siphoned off to the military and party officials. Clark would do good to shut down activities in North Korea.

Most of all, she could commission an independent report into the success of UNDP programmes over the past decade, checking what was expected compared to what was delivered, and whether it was worth it.

However, given she spent part of the 1980s rejecting the very transparency and accountability that the reforms of the time were promoting, I wont be holding my breath. The UNDP is rotten, with staff paid salaries that make NZ MP's incomes look very pitiful, and with performance and results that is questionable at best.

Who will be the first NZ mainstream media journalist to do a full scale investigation and then to question Clark about it? Given Barry Coleman has such a jaundiced view of bloggers, maybe it could be the NBR?

Can't they learn?

Tory MP Alan Duncan was foolish enough to say MPs live on "rations" and are "treated like shit". Of course, nobody forces him to stand, and given the competition every few years for the job, it would suggest that plenty of people are interested in the job.

Given Duncan is a millionaire from working in the energy sector, you'd have to wonder why he should care.

However, it does show a sad failure by those who get elected seeking to have power over others to recognise that they live a life well beyond the means of many of their constituents.

It is something MPs in New Zealand, on all sides of the house, may think carefully about.

Privatisation improved train reliability in UK

Yes, this is according to a BBC report.

"According to Hassard Stacpoole, media relations manager for the Association of Train Operating Companies, the value of improvements to punctuality is greater because the network is getting more crowded.

He said: "You will find that we are running 20%-plus more trains than we were under British Rail, in what is a busier network.

"Overall we would say punctuality is much better than even under BR. We have one of the most punctual railways in Europe.

So the doomsayers are wrong, railways in Britain are carrying more people than they have for over 50 years, and more reliably.

"Mr Stacpoole adds that commercial incentives, which did not exist under the nationalised BR system, work as a safeguard to improvements.

"If the trains are not going to run on time that's going to cost you money. Network Rail will have to compensate the operators or vice-versa (depending on who is at fault).

"There's an incentive to get things right. People expect their trains to run on time. "

You see if it is the fault of the track owner (Network Rail) the train operator, which pays to use the track, gets compensated. If the train operator is late in using its slot, then it pays more to use it later, as others are disadvantaged by the change.

Now there remains mistakes, massive subsidisation of major infrastructure projects that should have been financed directly. Political subsidisation of uneconomic lines and projects, but by and large, it has been a success going this far. Another loony leftwing legend about "good old British Rail" (which closed more railway lines than private railways ever did) is blown away by the facts.

New reasons to abolish the ARC

Number 1: ARC wants to force people to pay for a tourist tram. It is already going to waste Auckland ratepayers' money on a "feasibility study", even though it doesn't own the roads or property that such a tram would run on. Given the loud silence from the private sector, this is just another toy from the same people who made you pay for a big elaborate train set to replace commercially viable bus services. Of course it hasn't stopped legions of gormless idiots saying it's a great idea on the NZ Herald website, none having the slightest idea as to how to pay for it.

Number 2: ARC wants to force people to pay for a far more elaborate SH20 motorway extension. Whilst there are issues with the government's less expensive plan to complete the South Western Motorway in Auckland (mainly how it wont obtain consent from all property owners), the ARC has shown that other people's money is no object. Again. It is campaigning to extend the motorway from the current end at Mt. Roskill through Rosebank Peninsula to the North Western motorway. Why? It is "superior" strategically, and has less environmental impact. Given the ARC has no responsibility for roads at all, belongs to the railway religion, and the views are expressed by hard-left shrews like Sandra Coney, you can see where economics escaped them all. Mike Lee is "annoyed" this very high cost option was ruled out. Well Mike, it was ruled out by the previous government as well, and nobody sees the ARC coughing up money to pay for it (let alone the private sector).

So couldn't Auckland local government reform simply wind up the ARC as a good start?

Simple policy lesson on energy

The Electricity Commissioner position was created by the Clark Labour Government.

It was never needed before. Jim Anderton and Helen Clark were keen on Ministerial Inquiries into industries that had no fundamental problems.

The Electricity Commission isn't needed, nor is an Electricity Market Authority.

My first step would be to choose another electricity SOE to privatise. Although whilst National has promised to sell nothing, there is no reason why it cannot issue shares in an electricity SOE watering down the shareholding. Similarly, shares could be distributed to everyone. Private owners, after all, demand better performance and seek to be more competitive than the state.

Lines companies should be allowed to retail electricity, as the recent review recommends.

So hopefully Cabinet will agree on modest steps to liberalise and get crony bureaucrats out of the way - and so the question will arise as to why the government owns the majority of the generation and retail market.