When is an official independent?

Joris de Bres thinks that the government should continue to pay him to be a critic of it. It raises the issue as to when state sector employees are meant to be independent and when they can effectively lobby politically.

He went to the Geneva Racism Conference, in his "independent capacity" then criticised the government, parroting the Labour Party point of view.

Foreign Minister Murray McCully said "I am not sure whether he is there is an official capacity or as a representative of the Labour Party". Of course de Bres's boss, Rosslyn Noonan is herself a card carrying member of the Labour Party, and saw nothing wrong with it.

The Human Rights Commission is meant to be independent, in terms of enforcing the hideous law that created it. In that respect its independence is justified. It must be able to criticise politicians when they break the law. Ros Noonan did so on the Electoral Finance Bill.

However, for paid employees at the level of de Bres to attend international conferences in a private capacity (we have yet to find out who paid for the trip), and then use the trip as a platform to do politicking when it is NOT part of his job, is outrageous.

Imagine if a National Party member, was a government official, and went to the US to complain about NZ's nuclear ban - how would the Labour Party welcome that?

Exactly. De Bres should go, Noonan should be warned.

No Minister agrees.

Of course, I'd abolish the Human Rights Commission, but that's another story.

Exploit the earth or die

It's today! The Greens will hate it, because it runs counter to the philosophy so many have had rammed down them for the last two decades - that the best way nature can be is left alone.

Capitalism magazine says:

Capitalism is the only social system that recognizes and protects each individual's right to act in accordance with his basic means of living: the judgment of his mind. Environmentalism, of course, does not and cannot advocate capitalism, because if people are free to act on their judgment, they will strive to produce and prosper; they will transform the raw materials of nature onto the requirements of human life; they will exploit the Earth and live.

Environmentalism rejects the basic moral premise of capitalism—the idea that people should be free to act on their judgment—because it rejects a more fundamental idea on which capitalism rests: the idea that the requirements of human life constitute the standard of moral value. While the standard of value underlying capitalism is human life (meaning, that which is necessary for human beings to live and prosper), the standard of value underlying environmentalism is nature untouched by man.

Oh and it doesn't mean polluted air, water and the end to parks, forests and lakes. It means recognising that human beings survive by using the earth. It means acknowledging that people worldwide survive by exploiting the earth and applying their minds to it.

(Hat Tip: Not PC)

Obama's boondoggle of "fast rail"

The Obama Administration is pouring US$13 billion of money into developing a high speed passenger rail system. Sounds great doesn't it? Obama talked of how countries like Japan and France have been doing it for decades, but the US hasn't, and it is about time that it did.

Sadly this money is going to be wasted, and it isn't going to deliver anything remotely like a high speed rail system for the USA. Why?

The USA is vastly different from France, Japan, Italy, South Korea and other countries with high speed rail systems for one obvious point - size! Japan has profitably developed high speed rail because it has tens of millions of people living very short distances down densely packed corridors. With the exception of the Boston-New York-Washington DC Northeast Corridor, the distances in the US are too vast for rail to begin to compete with aviation for travel time. That rail route in itself is profitable, but sadly under the Federal Government owned AMTRAK is milked to cross subsidise other politically driven routes.

Obama's money will be bad money after bad. It wont build any high speed rail routes because it isn't enough money. The money will go to improve existing lines, at best upgrading lines as fast as the Northeast Corridor, which is nothing like lines in Japan and France. Speeds in Japan and France are In the US it is 145 km/h, in France it is 320 km/h, in Japan 300km/h. High speed rail in the US is slower than most main lines in the UK, which are at least at 160 km/h and typically faster.

Obama has basically lied that this money will deliver the US high speed rail like in those countries. A country that is far bigger will get trains less than half the speed of the countries where high speed rail works. It isn't enough money, and what it will do is next to nothing.

More importantly, rail can never be competitive with aviation over medium to long distances, and the diversity of origin/destination patterns means it wont be useful over short distances in most cases. Obama wont set it free to be profitable and slash all of the politically driven loss making routes that excite far too many members of Congress.

In short, he's wasting money on a feel good project, lying about what it will deliver and pretending it will make any noticeable change in the US economy or the environmental impacts of transport.

It's not change - it's the same failed policy of the Carter Administration on transport.

I'll leave to Sam Staley of the Reason Foundation to explain further. As Randall O'Toole says "Taxpayers and politicians should be wary of any transportation projects that cannot be paid for out of user fees."

Aucklanders are about to get something just like that.

South Africa's election - rewards for corruption

The ANC is predicted to win another landslide in the South African elections. Although you could be excused for wondering why it could deserve it. ANC President Jacob Zuma has already proven that the ANC is willing to corrupt the judicial system when one of its own are threatened.

That in itself should deny it power. The separation of party and state, and the independence of the judiciary are clearly threatened in South Africa.

The party of Nelson Mandela who conducted himself admirably when power was handed over after the first non-racial election, dropped far under Thabo Mbeki. Mbeki on one hand evaded science and contributed to the deaths of thousands as he embraced quackery on HIV, and on the other hand has his hands bloodied by his embrace of Robert Mugabe. Jacob Zuma shows signs of being worse still. Blocking a visa for the Dalai Lama, because China wanted it, shows how the anti-imperialist credentials of the ANC look rather rusty.

The ANC has the arrogance of the single governing party it long wanted to be – after all, it never ever really wanted liberal democracy. In South Africa, it still doesn’t need to give a damn, as so many black South Africans are grateful for liberation from racist rule. That sadly is enough to maintain the ANC’s arrogance.

The ANC has used the government owned media to push its own platform disproportionately. It has also been profoundly corrupt, with government contracts going to friends of Ministers, and politicians enriching themselves from the state.

More generally, South Africa is a mess in several dimensions. The economy is suffering from the global recession, crime has not receded with a murder rate the second highest in the world, and the highest reported assault and rape rate. South Africans have largely had to take things into their own hands to protect themselves. Riots a couple of years ago don't mean the majority have turned on the ANC. Bishop Desmond Tutu has been critical of the government, saying bureaucrats act with little regard for citizens, much like under apartheid. Electricity is severely rationed, because the government refused to privatise or allow the state monopoly to be challenged.

This has seen a new breakaway party emerge called COPE (Congress of the People)– which blames the ANC for opposing the rule of law and for corruption. The Democratic Alliance has long been the party of Opposition, even when apartheid existed, the Democratic Party was the liberal opposition, with recently deceased leader Helen Suzman. It has a long proud tradition of opposing apartheid and is now lead by Helen Zille. Suzman expressed concern before her death that democracy was more vibrant under apartheid than it is today, a sad legacy.

The best result would be for the ANC to be defeated, for a coalition of the Democratic Alliance and COPE to purge South Africa of the corruption and kleptocracy of the ANC years. However, the South African government media portrays the Democratic Alliance as a party of “white interests”, and the vast majority of poor barely literate black South Africans believe the cargo cult the ANC pulls out to have them vote for it – that only the ANC is looking after them, despite precious little evidence of the sort.

The most likely outcome is the ANC wins less than the 66% needed to change the constitution. The ANC will gloat and cheer, and continue to look after itself over holding itself accountable.

We can only hope that it wont threaten South Africa’s open liberal democracy as the party that believes it exists to rule increasingly sees its majorities eroded away. The sooner South Africa tells the ANC "thanks for the revolution, now we want good governance" the better.

Rudman gets much wrong on transport, again!

Oh dear, after doing quite well lately, Brian Rudman has it badly wrong.

On Auckland he claims "That Aucklanders were willing to pay an extra regional fuel tax on top of the fuel tax the rest of the country paid".

Um Brian, the government that passed the legislation for this tax was voted out, rather comprehensively, by Aucklanders as well as the rest of the country. I wouldn't have thought that meant "Aucklanders were willing to pay".

Then he says...

"It's not that Auckland wants special treatment. It just wants an equitable share of the budgetary cake.

In the past I have given examples of how Auckland was for years ripped off by the state road builder Transit New Zealand when it came to the distribution of road-user levies."

Brian has an interesting view of "equitable" being that Auckland gets money taken from road users, but he wants it spent on public transport. He doesn't mind road users being pillaged to pay for public transport, but don't let fuel tax paid in Auckland get spend on roads in Southland. Equity for Brian is geographical, but not modal.

Moreover, he doesn't even understand that Transit New Zealand (which doesn't exist now) hasn't been responsible for distributing road taxes since 1996. Not good for a man who writes so frequently about transport to not even understand the funding framework. Transit used to bid for funds, it did not distribute them - and in fact the public transport projects Brian likes never went far for so long because they have such poor returns - Labour had to change the funding framework to allow poor value projects to proceed.

Then he quotes the Green Party Transport Research Unit!! Wonderful stuff, people who evade facts that there is little difference between trucks and trains in environmental impact, people who lie about the nature of road projects (witness the nonsense about the Basin Reserve flyover in Wellington). The Greens claim Auckland got 40% of what it paid in road taxes. Now I don't know the basis for that (Brian doesn't publish the documents so we can actually determine if mistakes have been made), as it could simply be the fact that the majority of fuel tax until this year went to the Crown anyway.

Then he makes the fantastic non-sequiter "Imagine the wonderful rapid rail system, complete with spur lines to the airport, Aucklanders could be enjoying now if that money had already been spent here." Yes imagine Brian, because until Labour got re-elected, the rapid rail system would NEVER have been funded because it has always been an inefficient project. The money would have gone on roads.

Furthermore, Brian avoids confronting you with the truth that IF such a system existed, Auckland ratepayers would have had to pay 40% of the capital costs and the ongoing operating subsidies. Road users don't pay all of the subsidies paid out by the ARC, nor should they.

Finally he says "Over the last couple of years, the progress was there for all to see. Double tracking of the rail lines was under way, Spaghetti Junction was expanded, the Northern Connection was completed." Yes, the double tracking was funded by former Infrastructure Auckland money. Spaghetti Junction expansion came from road users and was accelerated at the cost of the "Northern Connection" (I guess he means the Northern Gateway toll road).

Sorry Brian - you can't claim it is inequitable to spend Auckland motoring taxes outside Auckland, but somehow fair that economically questionable rail projects get subsidised by those who don't use them (and don't pretend it makes a jot of difference to congestion).

Moreover, don't pretend that if motorists were pillaged to pay their "share" of the costs of a rapid rail system that Auckland ratepayers would pay "their share". It's a nonsense, Aucklanders have proven they don't want to pay - stop trying to find non-users to pay for your expensive rail fetish, when there is no evidence that it will do anything besides gold plate the commutes of maybe 5% of Aucklanders.