and out comes the fascist

.
Well my post on Milosevic got some excitement, if you look in the comments a foaming at the mouth Serb, who on the one hand makes a fair point about atrocities committed by all sides in the Balkans, but then defends Milosevic because you see if YOUR side commits some murder, rape and pillaging in the name of self-defence (including setting up a state just for your own kind, never mind if your neighbour has a different ancestry) it’s ok. That's why I have posted a swastika - because it is precisely the same philosophy as Hitler.
.
Let’s make it clear, I fully defend the right of any person, anywhere to defend themselves, their family and their property from attack. That attack can come from your neighbour, a gang of thugs, invading army or indeed, your own government. If “anonymous the hater” had bothered to read a bit more about who I am and my philosophy, he (I assume it is male) would know this.
.
I could go into the chain of events in Yugoslavia which, since I don’t come from there, I couldn’t possibly be allowed to have an opinion on (hey can’t judge the Holocaust either, how could I POSSIBLY know what the Germans were going through), but what it comes down to is one simple philosophy:
.
“Our side is better than your side, and we'll kill you to prove it”
.
It is a childish, pre-modern, knuckle dragging nationalism – where who you are and who your friends are is based on ancestry. That is why “anonymous the hater” likes Milosevic – he authorised the oppression of thousands of people, but hey “he was one of our guys”.
.
Opposing Milosevic does not mean I don’t also oppose the nationalism of deceased Croat leader Franjo Tudjman, or the Janus like Alija Izetbegovic (Bosnian Muslim leader). A curse on all their houses when they advocate murder.
.
“Anonymous the hater” however is a knuckle dragging nationalist, who Hitler, Milosevic, Pavelic and the KKK would be proud of. Let me dissect his response:
.
Scott, you are so full of blind fury and hate against people you do not know in place you have never been.

.
Pot calling the kettle black I think. I don’t have blind fury and hatred, I simply hate anyone who advocates murder, rape and deportation – it is utterly vile and disgusting. In this case, this was done en masse by Serb forces, and also committed by Croat and Bosnian Muslim forces as well. YOU have blind fury and hatred against Bosnian Muslims not just those who kill, but by implication the lot – you may as well advocate concentration camps and gas chambers. Actually there were camps where Bosnian Serb forces raped and abused civilians – but that’s ok because you say…

.
I hate muslims with reason - majority of them think of themselves as superior and justified by god to do whatever they want to non-muslims.

.
How do you know this? Asked them? Is not saying that simply showing YOU think of yourself as superior? So this justifies Bosnian Serb forces raping women and young girls because, hey, you’re superior and justified in raping and killing because YOU think THEY think they are superior. Think about it. You’re the same as those you accuse. You think you're in their heads, when you know nothing - it is no different to Hitler justifying gassing Jews for the same reason.

.
My christian ancestors in Bosnia delt with hundreds of years of forced conversions, stealing christian children to be raised as yanisari, church burning, impalings on stake (read nobel prize winer Ivo Andric Bridge on river Drina) and other forms of genocide by muslims.

.
You didn’t face this, and the Bosnian Muslims living today didn’t do this either – grow up – you’re not responsible for what your ancestors did, and they are not for what their ancestors did. The Cranberries song “Zombie” says a bit about the attitude you are showing.

.
And we did not want to exterminate them, only to carve out our own state formed by bosnian counties where we were majority.

.
Oops, shame that Srebrenica happened then – “we didn’t want to round up all the men and boys and execute them, we were just carving out a state, we just made a little mistake”. Can't make an omelette without cracking a few eggs then? By the way, if every nationality in the world formed states from majority areas there would be many many thousands of countries, and it would be ungovernable. Most European countries have significant national minorities, you see many people look past ancestry. Bosnia was not majority Muslim, it was roughly 43/31/17 between Muslim, Serb and Croat - it would not have threatened Serbs or Muslims, though that is exactly what Milosevic and Tudjman claimed after stitching up their deal to partition Bosnia between them.

.
As far as muslims beeing peacefull and democratic, their police celebrates as holiday the day of forming secret paramilitaly units in Bosnia in 1989 - fully 3 years prior to referendum on bosnian independance.

.
The police – ok - well that covers all the civilians, including the boys and girls killed or raped. In 1989 Milosevic abolished Kosovo’s autonomy and prohibited the use of Albanian in schools, cracking down on the use of the language throughout the province, but that's ok because although Albanians were 90% of the population (see they want a state too because they are the majority there), Serbs lost a war there in 1389 and that is a reason to run the province as a police state over the majority, like South Africa under apartheid. “Their side is worse than our side” doesn’t wash. In fact, you're argument is utterly banal.

.
Referendum itself was illegal since existing bosnian constitution at that time prohibited any major decisions to be made without all 3 ethnic groups agreement.

Milosevic didn’t care much for constitutions when he overrode the constitutional autonomy of Kosovo did he? I doubt that constitutions matter much in an authoritarian state anyway.

.
And muslim own demographic institute (easily found on the web) shows that out of 289,000 people killed in the was only about half were mulsims, and their civilian to military casualty ratio was 2:1. One third of the victims in the war were serbs, with civilian to soldier ration 5:1. In fact if you compare numbers of civilians killed in war, it was around 90,000 muslims versus 72,000 serbs - for poor defensless victims of genocide they did pretty well.

.
Stalin said 1 person dying is a tragedy but 1 million is a statistic. It is ALL bad – I never denied that, regardless of whose statistics you use.

.
Muslims had much higher military casualties due to inferior armament and organization in the beggining, but soldiers killed in the battle are not victims of genocide (according to muslims they are martirs) plus they started the war fully aware that they are weaker.

.
Yes, the Yugoslav National Army was controlled by Milosevic and armed the Serb forces – not exactly a fair distribution of military resources funded by all republics. I don’t know what evidence there is to say that the Bosnian army attacked Serbia after the republic declared independence, and what evidence there is that the Bosnian government started killing Bosnian Serbs as part of official policy. If there is, I’d be interested. Many Bosnian Muslims were quite secular in outlook, not the fundamentalists that you paint them to be.

.

Nobody in the west ever quotes these numbers, even though they are provided by muslim sources, it is always said that as a consequence of serb "genocide" several hundred thousand people were killed.

.
Well there was genocide, maybe 30,000 Bosnian Muslim civilians killed deliberately – you can’t deny Srebrenica was genocide, it was akin to the Nazis eradicating Jews from towns. Anyway, you are arguing statistics – there were plenty of Serb victims as that is no less a tragedy, but please stop denying that some on the side you support were barbaric murderers, just like some on the sides you hate were.

.
We bosnian serns wanted the same deal protestants in norther ireland got - to stay with mother nation when others want to secede. Since you live in Britain you can relate to that.

.
Yes I know of the disaster of Northern Ireland from 1920. Another example of mindless knuckle draggers hating each other because of ancestry and religion. Fortunately increasing number of Irish people have grown up, since Ireland is in the EU and the border between Ireland and the UK is very porous. There are no issues of trade or migration between them. There are communities in northern Ireland where foaming at the mouth hate filled cretins despise Catholics or Protestants because of who they are – but it’s just mindless bigotry. Look beyond it, it makes no sense whatsoever.

.
Keep your rabid foamy blogger mouth off balkans, you lowlife scum, and do not insult the memory of bosnian serb heroes including my brother who defended their own people, and west indirectly. Hope some muslim brother blows you up in suicide bombing in London to thank you for your support of muslim cause.

.
I love you too, I wouldn’t wish ill will upon you, until now - you ARE lowlife scum for hoping I get murdered because you simply disagree with me. Zeig Heil you fascist bully. I’ll comment on whatever I like, it’s called freedom of speech. Something that Yugoslavia didn’t have under Tito and which Milosevic wasn’t too keen on either. I don’t know if your brother is a hero or not, I wouldn’t dare judge individuals, but he didn't defend the West. Bosnia threatened no other country. You, on the other hand, would cheerily shoot, rape and terrorise men, women and children because of their ancestry. You want me killed because of what I have written – congratulations, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Saddam, Pavelic and Milosevic would be proud. Your attitudes belong in 1389, Serbs I know would prefer you joined the 21st century and looked forward. Imagine just for a minute what it would be like to treat people as individuals, if you didn't know their ancestry and join the enlightenment.

.

UPDATE:

Just to prove my balance on the Balkans here is:

The Balkans (not much lesser) evil - Franjo Tudjman, Croatia's "Milosevic"

No sympathy for Slobo (more on Milosevic) and

Remember Srebrenica (the other side of Alija Izetbegovic and the tragedy of Serb deaths unreported)

Daily Telegraph obituary of Alija Izetbegovic

200th post

Well I can't believe I've posted 200 thoughts or rants about various things since I started - thank you for the comments, the bloggers who link to me and the ever growing number of hits.

.

I started this blog to be an outlet for libertarian politics, objectivist philosophy and some considered thought about policies, current events and history. Sometimes I post vitriolic disgust at the nauseating behaviour of lowlifes, or bureaucratic busybodies, other times I take a more considered view, and then there are my rants on Transmission Gully - which is just another outrage of those addicted to Other People's Money (OPM = opium, no I wasn't the first).

.

I hope to evolve the blog more in coming months, learning from those who are deserving of awards such as Not PC and Kiwiblog, and using the blog to inspire thought, rather than be a venting forum. Passion without reason is uncivilised, and reason without passion is lifeless - so I will continue to express both - in between time to work and live! I've said precious little about life in the UK so far, largely because I've been concentrating on getting established, having moved once, and settling into work and life over here with my girlfriend. However, there WILL be more on this.

.

I am unapologetically a libertarian objectivist atheist, I strongly believe in the power and beauty of the rational passionate human individual, and in benevolence to other human beings who also exude and seek these values. I have been a socialist and Christian, I have voted Labour, National and ACT at various times, and came perilously close to joining both Labour and National at different points in my life. I have worked in government and the private sector, on issues ranging from transport to the internet to broadcasting to telecommunications to tourism.

.

I hope you will continue to enjoy reading those posts that interest you, and if you don't well fine, bugger off then and go here.

Emirates cancels flights to Denmark because of cartoons

It appears the Danish cartoons are continuing to have an impact. Emirates has decided not to commence its planned service to Copenhagen. It has planned to fly there from 03 October 2006, but according to a Danish paper these flights have been cancelled.

.

An aviation news forum quotes a TV report stating that it is not "politically correct" for Emirates to fly to Denmark.

.

Is it therefore "politically correct" to fly Emirates at all?

.

UPDATE: The route is postponed, but it has only been reported in Denmark. It was to have been Emirates' first foray into Scandinavia.

Wellington City not endorsing Transmission Gully

My views are pretty clear on this, but at least Wellington City Council is showing a bit of sense in digesting the Hearings Committee report before deciding what it thinks of it. It shows that once in a while, a local authority can have more common sense than MPs, which have jumped up and down like excited children at the chance to spend lots of money on a big project they would all claim is because of them - regardless of where the money came from and what projects lost out as a result. Porirua can't wait for its free ride, Kapiti can't wait for the thousands of new residents and the Hutt? Well, can't see quite what it gets out of having virtually no money for any new projects out that way after the Dowse to Petone project is finished.

.

The report is full of holes, and with journalists who don't even understand the transport funding system, questions don't get asked. Even DPF has discarded his usual willingness to weigh up the opportunity costs of policy options, and just wants the next three bureaucratic groups to rubber stamp it.

.

When you are talking about spending $1 billion - money that isn't just lying around, and more than any other roading project in New Zealand's history, and on a project with a benefit/cost ratio of less than 1:1 - you don't just rubber stamp it, unless a former rather authoritarian Prime Minister from the early 1980s is your role model.

.

and no, the Option 3/Green/anti-car crowd have it wrong too. A lot of money is planned for rail to Kapiti, it will enable the line to be fully utilised without being ridiculously uneconomic. There needs to be road construction, the question is how much and where.

Vodafone CE opposes more telecommunications regulation

Yes, it's true. The CE of one of Telecom's major competitors has been quoted in the NZ Herald saying:

.

"If we want true broadband, we're not going to get it by regulation alone. We need investment."

.

Of course, unlike almost every other competitor, Vodafone has a parallel network to Telecom. It was built from scratch starting in 1993 with BellSouth, later bought out by Vodafone, and expanded. Vodafone went from Telecom having a mobile phone monopoly (since 1987) to sharing the market roughly 50/50, and good on it. There are frequencies held by Telstra Clear and others to build more mobile networks, but the government has already taken steps to force Vodafone and Telecom to share their networks with competitors. You see, when a mobile competitor reaches 5% coverage with its own network, it can force a competitor to sell it wholesale capacity to get nationwide coverage. That was a little deal stiched up so that the Maori/Zimbabwean consortia set up - Econet could operate. Here it is in the Herald bleeting on about how it needs the regulatory environment to compete, not good enough to get discounted radio spectrum. You might have noticed that five years after getting its nice little cheap spectrum deal, there is little to notice from Econet.

.

So you see, Econet is another second-hander - a business demanding another business share its property, for it to exist.

Foolhardy airline entrepreneur #236

or something like that.

.

Paul Stoddart has, once again, proven that the airline industry attracts fools like flies to decaying meat. The closure of his airline – Ozjet – is a classic example of ego and excitement over reason and hard headed investment. In New Zealand, the example of Tasman Pacific airways (which used the Qantas New Zealand franchise before going into receivership and then liquidation) was our most recent example of wealthy businessmen setting fire to dollar bills, but that didn't deter Mike Perot pouring plenty of his personal fortune into Origin Pacific Airways and seeing it disappear in barely visible plumes of exhaust behind the planes.
.
Ozjet failed because Stoddart got the market badly wrong. He didn't like tight airline seats on domestic flights and poor service, so he thought far more people would pay loads to go business class on a 1.5 hour flight if it was REALLY swish, in fact a whole plane load. He forgot that most business people don't fly business class, a wealthy minority do, others use frequent flyer points for upgrades, and most have contract rates with Qantas. He forgot that with airlines, networks are very important, he only flew Melbourne-Sydney. He couldn't afford new planes, so got four old Boeing 737-200 series, gas guzzlers (Air NZ replaced its ones in the late 1990s) - as the price of aviation fuel soured. He certainly had comfortable planes, wide seats, plenty of legroom, meals - but no lounges to relax in before the flight - instead you hunted around the terminal looking for somewhere to perch. Leisure travellers wouldn't pay high fares, business travellers usually didn't either and those that did were tied to Qantas -so it was very very dumb, but it WAS his money. Stupid, but his and his investors' loss - not your money, which is the difference. Oh and no doubt unions will be upset about the staff without jobs, and not the entrepreneur who lost millions of dollars in creating those jobs, for the time the airline lasted. The employees walk away with salaries, CV entries - the entrepreneur with burnt fingers and less money. Capitalism is SO unfair isn't it?

.

However, there is something bizarre about the airline industry that attracts mavericks willing to piss money down the drain, because planes are exciting and prestigious and sexy. They never seem to notice the graveyard of airlines that failed due to lack of capital, or sheer stupid management. Sir Richard Branson hasn't done a bad job, but then don't forget Virgin Atlantic Airways is 49% owned by Singapore Airlines (sacre bleu - why didn't the Brits stop that - fortunately Aunty Helen and Dr Cullen stopped Air NZ being tainted by such a failure of an airline).

.

Oh well, there will be another fool willing to put his money in the engine of a jet, there always is and they are always men.

Slobodan Milosevic - nationalist thug

Slobodan Milosevic’s death should not be mourned by anyone with any sense of civilisation and justice, and certainly no friends of liberty. Milosevic was a calculated purveyor of racism – of a vile murderous kind, only Radko Mladic and Radovan Karadjic are more responsible for the slaughter of innocent Bosnian Muslims in the war in Bosnia.
.
Milosevic was a socialist, having inherited his position in the post-Titoist Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, as the communist party tried to find a future without their personality cult. Yugoslavia, through Titoism, hadn’t been as badly damaged as the rest of the eastern socialist states, largely because it was outside the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet bloc (Tito rejected Stalinism in 1948 and adopted a soft socialism – allowing small private businesses to remain and develop). However, after the fall of socialism in the Soviet bloc, there was enormous pressure to move to multi-party democracy. It was in 1990 that Milosevic, representing the Serbian branch of the Communist Party, advocated greater centralism – multiparty democracy, but dismantling the federation. By contrast, the presidents of Slovenia and Croatia wanted more autonomy, multi-party democracy and liberalism. Milosevic won the day – he had already supported the racist hysteria propagated by the Serbian Academy of Sciences and the Arts. The Academy promoted the view that Serbs had a golden age, which came about before the Serb defeat by the Turks in Kosovo in 1389. Milosevic had already just about obliterated the autonomy of Kosovo and Vojvodina, as he kept Serbia in the socialist dark age. He encouraged the idea that Kosovo Albanians were dirty, thieves, rapists and not worthy of governing Serbs.
.
He used racist nationalism to scare Serbs, particularly rural illiterate ones, into thinking the Croats, Albanians and Bosnian Muslims were out to get them. He provided fuel for his racist opponents in Croatia (Franjo Tudjman did his best to spread nationalist filth amongst Croats) and ran the very well equipped Yugoslav National Army as Yugoslavia fell apart. He used the army to attack Slovenia when it seceded, but couldn’t sustain it – but then led a prolonged war, arming Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia against the secessionist governments. In Croatia – it was a war between nationalist racists – both seeking to conquer territory, and rid that territory of those not of their ethnicity.
.
This was the start of the coining of the term “ethnic cleansing”. It was applied most disgustingly in Bosnia, with the slaughter of men and boys in Srebrenica – as Bosnian Serb troops, armed and backed by the “Yugoslav National Army” cleared non Serb males from the town. Milosevic supported and encouraged Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadjic in his project of ethnically cleansing Bosnia – and no, all sides were NOT equal. The Bosnian government tried hard to promote a colourblind Bosnia, with the cosmopolitan Sarajevo as capital, Milosevic promoted a greater Serbia. He demanded peace through expanding the borders of Serbia (under the rubric of a new Yugoslavia), encouraging other ethnic identities in the former Yugoslavia to act the same way.
.
However, he lost. Despite the disgusting appeasement of the European Union, helped by New Zealand, in maintaining the arms embargo on the former Yugoslavia (meaning Bosnian Muslims and Croats found it very hard to get arms for self defence, while Serbs had the resources of the Yugoslav Army), ultimately air strikes on Belgrade, and NATO intervention in Kosovo spelt the end of Milosevic’s rule in Serbia. Serbs in Belgrade became sick of having a bankrupt economy, ostracised by western Europe – as they watched their neighbours to the north (Hungary, Czech republic etc), liberalise, grow and look towards joining the EU.
.
Milosevic was a racist, but not the insanely stupid National Front type, but an intellectual power hungry bully. I doubt he ever believed the racist nonsense he promoted, but he certainly hated his rivals in Croatia (Tudjman) and Bosnia (Izetbegovic) and outlived them both. His politics are the crude politics of national identity – he used fear and the brainless psychological fiction of nationalism to motivate people to vandalist, assault, terrorise, rape and kill - because of ethnicity. Yugoslavia under Tito lived under fear driven by the communist party, Milosevic replaced it with fear based on national identity - he should be remembered as the final blood thirsty gasp of barbaric nationalism in the Balkans.

Why ban nude cycling?

Maybe if you look like this, you don't like your own body very much. Tasman District Mayor John Hurley is trying to ban a nude bike ride according to NZ Herald.
.
Why? Who are they hurting, besides risking sunburn or hypothermia or a rather nasty injury somewhere if they fall off? He said it is because it has offended locals before. Fortunately Takaka police have determined it isn’t illegal – but the fascist mayor says Police will look like fools if they DON’T arrest them.
.
What does John Hurley want? Iranian style morals police covering up people who offend him? 200 people signed a petition against it – why don’t they damned well mind their own business? What nosey pathetic snivelling busybodies that sneer at the human body, show hatred for people minding their own business. All you have to do is look the other way.
.
John Hurley offends me by wanting the Police to act against the law, to be enforcers of his Victorian age, Taliban style morals. Naked bodies are harmless, we all have them.
.
So let people bike nude, particularly fit women, but not John Hurley. Who wants to see his bits flopping about?

How fair the state is

.

Rodney Hide, Silent Running and Sir Humphrey's have all blogged about the Penfolds. A family who have emigrated from South Africa, with two children. Their photo is common to the first two blogs.

.

The Herald reports that the reason why they emigrated was fear of crime:

.

"You live in constant fear that something is going to happen to your family", the 30-year-old father of two told the Herald yesterday. A number of his relatives had been victims of violent crime, and he was once held hostage during a robbery. "

.

The Immigration Department is deporting them in two weeks because Mr Penfold failed to advise them that he had changed his jobs. It was 10 months after he switched jobs before the Department was advised, so he and his family have been "overstayers" and are not welcome. It doesn't matter that he has been working, paid taxes and NOT claimed benefits, NOT committed crimes. No - this peaceful productive hard working couple and their children are to be treated as common criminals.

.

On the other hand, Ben Haerewa, Belinda Edmonds, James Martin and countless others shall stay. Haerewa is up for parole in April next year, but will be out in September 2011. He only killed James Whakaruru with a steel vacuum cleaner pipe and brass tack hammer. James Martin raped a woman on a home invasion in 1999, not his first time. I was at the trial when he was convicted of raping - in all conceivable ways - a woman who had been subject to brutal assault and robbery by three others moments before. He offered to help her, he raped her. Martin is up for parole in 2011, and will be out in 2017. Edmonds killed her six year old daughter with repeated blows to the head in 1999, after years of torture - she was released from prison in October 2005.

.

So that's New Zealand, one can hope Clayton Cosgrove can let the Penfolds stay, for being a peaceful family, enjoying their lives and no doubt adding to the lives of others. After all, we pay so the lowest of the low get a slice of bread and cup of water every day (if only it were that!), the type of people the Penfolds hopefully can avoid. New Zealand desperately needs to attract hard working, peaceful people - instead of treating them like criminals.

Poor air quality contributes to DVT on flights

So says research about to be published in the Lancet according to the Daily Telegraph. The proportion of oxygen in the air onboard aircraft is around 15% compared to 21% typically outside. This reduced amount of oxygen results in the blood thickening, increasing the propensity for clots.

Some of the measures you can take to avoid this include drinking plenty of water, because dehydration on board cabins exacerbates it. The usual advice about walking, taking aspirin with meals and not eating too much on board all apply, as does not sitting in cattle class (but that’s just about letting the blood swell around your ankles).

So it begs the question about what airlines or aircraft have better air quality. A fair rule of thumb is the newer the better. There used to be an “economy setting” installed on airliners to save fuel when passenger loads were light. Boeing states that it no longer offers an “economy setting” option for air conditioning on board its new aircraft. This includes all existing Boeing 777s and 747-400s and, of course, new ones. This covers a good proportion of flights from New Zealand. Boeing recommends airlines flying older aircraft operate air conditioning on full whenever passengers are carried (the “economy setting” was for flying empty or near empty).

.

I couldn’t find anything about it on the Airbus website, so can’t comment on them.

The new Boeing 787 (which Air NZ and Qantas have both ordered) will make a big difference. Humidity will be higher, and the cabin pressurisation will be as well – this should mean more oxygen and a safer, more pleasant flight. However, it will be about three years before you fly on one of those.

More FM and the right to be racist

Racism is a mindless irrational attitude. It has no place in the philosophy of a civilised, thinking person. Racism of all kinds, from the obvious cases of Apartheid and the KKK, to the more controversial racism of coated in sugary terms like "affirmative action", or when Atareta Poananga called New Zealanders of British descent, the riff raff, flotsam and jetsam of British society. Judging people's minds or character purely on the basis of skin colour, ethnic background or indeed, any other inherited characteristics - is wrong. It should never be done, it IS done for ancient biological reasons (fear of outsiders in the stone age was often legitimate, as they were probably out to conquer you) - but in civilised society it belongs in the past.

.

Government should never be racist - it should act colourblind in all it does. However, it cannot and should not get in the way of private citizens being racist - because that is about personal freedom. People are racist regularly, regardless of what you think - but criminalising them for what is essentially a thought, is wrong. The appropriate response is to use your own freedom in response - if a shopkeeper is racist to you, take your business elsewhere, tell others why you are, organise a boycott. If a landlord is racist, do the same. Parents will, in some cases, raise children to be racist - but intervening in that would be a dangerous precedent. Is it appropriate for the state to intervene against parents raising children who are communists, atheists, Muslims, libertarians, homophobic, homosexual advocates? Quite simply no. As long as parents do not abuse their children, then whatever philosophy is taught cannot be regulated by the state.

.

This is the point Libertarianz Deputy Leader Julian Pistorius raised when interviewed by a reporter for More FM on Thursday. Julian has blogged about it in full here - and was misquoted, which More FM subsequently apologised about on air. Not PC has also commented on it.

.

Racism is vile - the state should not ever practice it - and individuals should personally abhor it. However, it should be fought through free speech and freedom to act - not through force, whether personal or through the state. That is why the Human Rights Act should be repealed.

Local loop unbundling and subsidies for telecommunications

I said a week or so ago that I would read InternetNZ’s submission on telecommunications reform. I know Colin Jackson (President of InternetNZ) and David Farrar are smart men, having read their work before, and I also know they aren’t just bleeting for the own self-interest, there is a genuine interest in producing the best policy for NZ telecommunications. I also know that neither have a specific anti-Telecom agenda - so this is not about politics, but about outcomes. The Greens on the other hand, are simply anti-big business, Telstra Clear is conversely out to screw its competitor - Telecom.

.

InternetNZ is a private organisation which has evolved over the years to be an excellent example of the government NOT needing to be involved to ensure an industry can co-ordinate co-operatively and effectively when it is appropriate. For that alone, when InternetNZ speaks it should be listened to and carefully considered. Note that Grant Forsyth, Manager of Industry and Regulatory Affairs Telstra Clear is a councillor of InternetNZ and Deputy Chair of its Public Policy Committee- that interest is declared, and I don’t believe David Farrar (as Chair) would let that interest dictate policy (although if Telecom was in such a role and InternetNZ opposed local loop unbundling, there would no doubt be howls of indignation).

So I thought I’d go through the media release, which summarises the submission, and consider all of the points. If I was being truly libertarian I would reject competition law and this would be easier, and I wouldn't care about outcomes - but I accept that Telecom's privatisation was done with the owners (and subsequent owners) agreeing to it being regulated under the Commerce Act in order that Telecom provide cost oriented, fair interconnection with its competitors. This is a bare minimum for telecommunications, so I will take that as read. So here are the points from the press release in italics and my response in bold:

Our key message is that there is no 'silver bullet' in telecommunications reform - a multi-pronged strategy is required to deliver a more competitive market in telecommunications. The debate is not just about whether to unbundle the local loop or not. That will not be enough by itself. It will be a very useful step forward but needs to be followed by separating Telecom's wholesale business from its retail business.

Hmm not convinced, and some of its wholesale business faces enormous competition from the likes of BCL and Vodafone. Nowhere in the world has this been done. It is an enormous intervention in the business of a major company, and the last time it was done in New Zealand (electricity) it was against officials’ advice and didn’t deliver.

"Our submission contains proposals in two areas. The first series of proposals deals with increasing competition on the key economic bottleneck in the telecommunications market - the local loop. The second series of proposals deals with the development of other areas of Internet infrastructure.

"On local loop matters, InternetNZ proposes three inter-related steps:

Development of stronger wholesale service options for resellers of Telecom's services, starting with an unconstrained UBS (unbundled bitstream service). Such a service would allow bitstream provision at the maximum feasible line speed, with adequate network provisioning to make such services useful.

Talk to Telecom about it - ask why it wont do it, or whether it will do it if you pay. If Telecom wont do it, it may be because it wouldn’t be profitable, in which case why should it be forced to do so? I'd like a straight answer from Telecom.

Local loop unbundling, allowing service providers to install their own equipment in or near Telecom's local exchanges and cabinets. Growing international experience indicates this allows the development of very high-speed Internet services due to the stronger competitive environment resulting.

How about at the very least, amending the RMA so that telecommunications network operators have the right to lay cables along public corridors wherever other operators have cables, including power companies. This will end the abuse of the RMA by local authorities banning overhead cables where Telecom and power companies already have them. How about explaining why Telecom’s competitors wont pay a price to install equipment near its exchanges? Given the Commerce Act exists and was substantially strengthened by Labour, why have no competitors taken legal action claiming Telecom is acting anti-competitively? Is it possible that infrastructure based competition is not occurring also because competitors would much prefer a free ride with Telecom's infrastructure?

A split of Telecom's wholesale business from its retail business - the only way to ensure fair treatment for all competitors on Telecom's local loop network is to ensure the company faces incentives to deliver this. Only by including Telecom's wholesale business in a separate firewalled division - or a separate company - can one be certain that it will treat all access seekers on an equivalent basis to Telecom's retail division.

Hold on, the entire wholesale business? Including in Wellington and Christchurch and Kapiti where there IS infrastructure based competition? Including the CBDs? Including the toll bypass and international networks? There is no “natural monopoly” outside the provincial and rural local loops, and no justification for splitting the lot - competition on national and international calls is vigorous. Local competition now exists nationwide on Telecom’s network, and cellular is increasingly an option for people who do not want a fixed line. However, using information disclosure regulations along with the Commerce Act should be enough protection against “anti competitive behaviour”. It requires a case to be proven, but when you are talking about interfering with property rights the proof required should be high.

.

"InternetNZ has also proposed several other reforms that do not focus on the local loop. While we regard the local loop as the key site where competition is lacking today, there are other interventions the government can make to roll out better Internet for New Zealanders.
"In these other areas our proposals include the following:

An additional $60m for the Broadband Challenge, to ensure it can deliver meaningful fibre infrastructure to local communities. We understand that the fund, established under the Digital Strategy with a $24m limit, is fully subscribed. Expanding the fund is a simple way to show government commitment to the development of open alternative network infrastructure.

Nice try, but bugger off and look for your subsidies elsewhere! You have no more right to taxpayer’s money to subsidise your industry than farmers, tyre manufacturers, travel agents, shoe repairers or architects. Give that one a rest. If telecommunications companies don’t find it economic to expand infrastructure to certain communities (though I thought you wanted to piggy back off Telecom), then why should businesses, workers, pensioners and others pay for it? What is this about a government funded alternative network infrastructure? Why can’t Telstra Clear or an alliance of Telecom’s competitors do this? Why can’t you? This is no different to asking for Kiwibank, petrol stations or anything else that socialists ask for. Rural roads are paid for by road users and local landowners paying rates - why should telecommunications be different?

Review of state network building - a large number of Crown organisations have network capacity installed around the country, including the developing GSN, Advanced Research Network, SOEs like BCL Ltd and Transpower, and others. It is important their networks are well-coordinated, and that any potential gains they can bring to making the national Internet backbone network more robust and more competitive are fully realised.

Why not require state owned entities to onsell excess capacity, before privatising it?

Review of spectrum allocation policies, to allow better development of community wireless broadband. Current spectrum allocation policies allow the hoarding of spectrum by market participants. These should be reviewed to ensure that communities can easily roll out non-profit wireless broadband services.

Spectrum should be sold, those “hoarding it” value it more than the so called “communities”. Communities are either bunches of people with ideas (which they should pay for) or councils who want to force people to pay for their ideas. If someone buys spectrum and doesn’t use it, it is just like buying land and letting it go fallow - it isn’t your business, as long as the government has sold all of the available spectrum.

Develop a national strategy to roll out fibre-to-the-home services. Most of the best-placed OECD countries are already moving towards very high-speed Internet service rollouts. Copper technology imposes speed limits that don't exist with fibre. A national strategy to get fibre to the home - sooner rather than later - is a vital element in bringing New Zealand up to speed for the digital future.

Hold on, I thought competing infrastructure to Telecom’s network was uneconomic, which is why you want to attack its property rights. NOW you are saying copper is essentially becoming obsolete and the government needs to develop a strategy to replace it. Why? The government did not develop a strategy to roll out the internet in the first place, or a strategy for cellular phone networks, or a strategy for pay television, or a strategy for rollout of PCs in business and homes. Get councils out of the way in planning terms, and get taxes down and let network providers hold their property rights. Very high speed internet service rollouts are not being undertaken as government central planning, outside China and one or two others. Why are you choosing technology? HFC was the technology of the future in 1995, then it became xDSL, now you are claiming fibre to the home - the costs of getting this wrong are potentially enormous. Let Telecom, Telstra Clear, Vodafone and any other entrants invest, without feeling like they need to pull government strings for funding, or for access to each others property - beyond what was agreed at Telecom’s privatisation.

Taken together, this second series of proposals would push the boundaries around Internet service provision, leading to alternative options for those not well served by incumbent providers, far faster Internet access for communities with fibre infrastructure, and concrete plans to bring New Zealand to world class standing for very high speed Internet services over fibre," said Colin Jackson.

You either rely on the incumbent or rely on new entrants to roll out competing networks, you can’t have incentives for both.

"In Australia, it is possible for businesses and householders to buy packages that deliver ADSL2 services with 24mbps downlink speed and 6mbps uplink speed, without data caps, for AUD39.95. Such services are close to 40 times faster than the majority of 'broadband' services available under the current regime.

Not in most of Australia. This has a limited rollout. Why not ask why no one else is providing it, including Telecom.

"The current policy framework and resulting market structure cannot deliver outcomes to match Australia's, because they do not provide competition on the local loop. By far the best way to deliver higher quality, more innovative services is to create a level playing field where competition forces better services at lower prices.

Telecom’s owners bought a network, its competitors didn’t and haven’t offered to buy it from Telecom - it’s a level playing field when you each own the property you bought. What is stopping Telstra Clear from building an alternative network? Its owner is many times the size of Telecom.

"No matter what promises are made by incumbent providers, the fact is that progress in New Zealand will continue to lag behind the OECD, behind Australia - behind any country we might compare ourselves with - until competition is a fact of life, rather than allowed now and then by grace and favour of incumbents.

It’s not grace and favour, it is the right you have through ownership - a right you can get by building your own network or buying it from Telecom.

I’m not convinced - InternetNZ has shown it is either in favour of forcing Telecom to be split, so that its competitors (which in some cases are bigger than Telecom) can use its property, and ALSO it wants subsidies and central planning for competing networks, wireless and fibre, that will bypass Telecom’s network. This is fundamentally inconsistent, unless you simply believe in competition at any cost - including the cost of property rights, and the cost of taxpayers who may or may not ever use high speed internet services.

Telecom’s competitors have two avenues open to them to compete:

1. Build their own networks - lobby to remove restrictions on doing so, but build. If there is going to be demand for fibre to the home, then someone has to build it, and Telecom hasn’t. If it isn’t economic to do so, then don’t ask the government to pay for it.

2. Negotiate with Telecom. I mean seriously, not just to buy access but to buy the entire local loop business into a company owned jointly by Telecom and its competitors. Make Telecom’s shareholders an offer, assuming you believe you can grow this business better than Telecom alone - if you think there should be structural separation, make a serious proposal with money. It may cost a lot of money, it may be cheaper to build your own network in places, but if it costs a lot of money you will only buy it if the benefits are worth it. If not, then Telecom's shareholders have something of more value than what you want. I think all of the Telecom's competitors could form a company to buy 50% of the local loop from Telecom and agree on a way forward for the local copper loop - (although Telecom might want similar access to Telstra Clear's local networks in Wellington and Christchurch). It is too easy to ask the government to give you access to something someone else owns - it is more creative and entrepreneurial to make the owner an offer it can't refuse!

.

3. Make a takeover offer. That means buy shares. Either you get to influence Telecom's business decisions (but you aren't allowed, nor would you want to make it go under) or you gain a return on its dividends. If it isn't a good investment, then presumably Telecom isn't ripping you or New Zealand consumers off (otherwise you would want to share in the profits). If it is a good investment, you wouldn't be averse to enjoying a share in it. Yes, you need to watch the Commerce Act. Vodafone couldn't do it, but then again Vodafone is silent on all of this. Why? Because it took option 1 - it bought a network built from scratch, expanded it and it is now nationwide. Done in the early to mid 1990s, when councils were still finding their trigger fingers for using the RMA.

.

and don't even START thinking councils should spend ratepayers money on telecommunications infrastructure, if councils are doing it, it either is a very stupid idea or something that telcos would be doing anyway if councils weren't making it difficult to do!

Politics and roads don't mix

The political reaction to the Hearings Committee report on Transmission Gully is not unexpected. The media has failed miserably to note that the Committee was a consultation exercise, not a project evaluation, just as the politicians have. I raised some doubts about the project in my post yesterday already.

The Greens aren’t happy because they don’t like motorways or cars. They would rather spend your money on a very expensive rail option. The Hearings Committee supports a cheaper rail option (although delaying a much needed upgrade of Porirua station – the second busiest in Wellington so money can be spent on the Gully), which is probably the most that is worth doing for rail. The Greens should acknowledge that there should be roading improvements along the corridor.

The Nats, local Labour MPs and United Future are all ecstatic, since they panned the last officials reports, and agree with this one. All are claiming that no more needs to be done, just Transit should “build it” and the money should somehow just appear to do this. The NBR quotes Dunne wanting the private sector to build the road - ummm Peter, Transit has no bulldozers, everything is contracted out, has been since 1989 when you voted to set up the organisation with your Labour colleagues.

All of them are anxious to spend your money, bugger the consequences, it’s popular so it must be done. It doesn’t matter WHOSE money it is – it is just taxes after all, and politicians are elected to spend them, so as long as people want it, it’s ok. Democracy is ok, isn’t it?

Well the Greens do have a point in that Transmission Gully will encourage urban sprawl – fine, I say. If people want to live on Kapiti Coast and pay for the cost of commuting, I wont object – but they wont be. Transmission Gully is proposed without a toll, and that means the money for it either comes from general taxation or by diverting funds from other projects in the Wellington region. In other words, Kapiti commuters will only be paying a fraction of the cost of commuting by car. If there was a toll of around $15 each way, then you’d be talking, but funnily enough none of the advocates for Transmission Gully would pay that, I doubt if most of the property owners along the existing route would pay either (Porirua City Council was unwilling to rate them for it).

That is my first fundamental point – I’d support Transmission Gully, wholeheartedly, if the people who will use it would be willing to pay for it. They wont though, and neither National nor United Future believe in user pays for roads. Arguments about diversion of petrol tax don’t wash either: Wellington contributes about $68 million a year in petrol tax to the Crown account (the petrol tax and road user charges to the National Land Transport Fund are already committed to road maintenance, some modest construction and maintaining public transport subsidies). Labour has already pledged $885 million of Crown account money towards Wellington transport in the next 12 years – MORE than the $68 million a year, not taking into account the $800 million of Crown account money going on projects funded from national allocations, not taking into account money for rail infrastructure!

In short, Wellington transport is already being subsidised by the rest of New Zealand. Just because several thousand Wellingtonians think that it should be, doesn’t make it right – and the National Party should know better.

Secondly, the cost of Transmission Gully is far from certain. Let’s be real here, the road wont be able to start to be built for around 4 years, as it has to go through detailed investigation, design and remaining properties have to be purchased. The cost of major roading projects around the country has gone up enormously, over 100% in some cases, as contractors demand higher prices to upsize their capacity. In the case of Transmission Gully, it is a one-off enormous project – so contractors will have little use for the equipment after it is built – this adds a premium to it. The Avondale extension of SH20 went from $600 million to $800 million to $1.1 billion within 3 years. Transmission Gully faces the same risk. This project has been rated as having very high risks of cost escalation – so talking about the money is very important – the figures the Hearings Committee put together don’t add up, because they don’t take into account inflation. This is why Transit’s latest draft State Highway forecast has less projects that previously envisaged. It’s not politics – it’s the market!

Thirdly, Transmission Gully remains inefficient and one of the worst investments in roading that could be undertaken in the Wellington region. Transmission Gully will make any upgrade of the rail link pointless, as the road will be faster, knocking around 15 minutes off of the car commute time – until you get to Ngauranga, or the Terrace Tunnel. You see it isn’t politically popular to call for a proper bypass of Wellington city – with a second Terrace Tunnel, second Mt Victoria Tunnel and a cut and cover 4-lane arterial bypass (the original Wellington motorway plan abandoned in the early 90s) – it would cost $450 million, have more than double the benefits of Transmission Gully and make a huge difference to inner city Wellington. It would take cars out of Te Aro and remove one-third of the traffic from the waterfront – enabling Jervois Quay to be narrowed to a 4-lane boulevard as has been proposed.

So why? It is politics. Politicians like Peter Dunne, Jenny Brash, Chris Turver, Mark Blumsky, Marian Hobbs, Chris Finlayson, Darren Hughes – deciding on the basis of what pushes people’s buttons. They are not concerned about who pays, as long as it isn’t the people whose votes they are clamouring for. They are not concerned about whether it will deliver net benefits, they want net votes. It’s called porkbarrelling, and if the government agrees to Transmission Gully getting taxpayers funds – it will be the biggest slice of transport pork handled down to Wellington in decades.

The biggest disgrace is that the National Party has hopped on this bandwagon. Politically, it would because it gets the party votes and because voters have short memories. You see Labour is in a position little different to the one National was in when it was in power – a decision on a popular but very poor quality project - objectively speaking, if you had to choose between spending taxpayers money on Transmission Gully or on other projects, you’d choose the other projects almost without fail.

The Nats have abandoned user pays and economic efficiency. Have the Nats also abandoned using statutorily independent boards to weigh up the best way to spend road users money? Let’s use politicians because they know best, after all Mark Blumsky and Chris Finlayson have extensive backgrounds in road engineering, traffic modelling and transport economics…. Not.

In fact, Land Transport New Zealand is required to make decisions on funding projects outside the realm of politics – so that important but unsexy activities like maintenance, widening intersections and bridge replacement get funded because they are worth doing, instead of big politically important projects that aren’t really worth it. Guess who set up that independent funder originally? National. National established Transfund to ensure road user funds were spent on the best projects first, so that, unlike the USA and the UK, road maintenance would come first, followed by small high value projects, then by large projects ranked according to their net returns (measured by benefits) to road users. Those benefits are time savings, fuel savings, reduced accidents, vehicle wear and tear etc.

National did not progress Transmission Gully when it was in government, because it didn’t stack up as a worthwhile project to fund. National supported a major change in the funding system for roads, that would have changed Transit into an SOE – and had the then Transfund buy services on behalf of road users from Transit. Transfund would use petrol tax and road user charges to reflect what motorists were willing to pay for, and Transit could institute tolls or means by which motorists could opt out of petrol tax, and pay for road use directly. Transit would also have been allowed to borrow to build new roads and pay off the cost over time using direct charging. National’s policy was that Transmission Gully would stand or fall on its merits under that system.

Now the National Party believes that roads should be funded on a pork-barrel basis – now don’t get me wrong, Labour’s special funding for Auckland, Bay of Plenty and Wellington transport isn’t that much different.

So what SHOULD politicians say? Well, in the short term, let Transit and Land Transport NZ get on with their jobs. The best solution will never be determined politically, and will not be determined by consultation. Imagine if you ran Air New Zealand politically – well, don’t imagine, think about the late 70s, early 80s. Imagine if you ran Air New Zealand on the basis of public consultation, it would go bankrupt with all of the bright sparks wanting flights from Wellington to LA, or wanting business class seats for everyone on long flights or whatever.

It is, as Hayek said, the fatal conceit. Politicians don’t know any better than consumers, and consumers aren’t deciding this because all you are hearing is noise from people who don’t want to pay for a very large construction project.

How about this comparison? You have three options for $1 billion (lets assume inflation is covered):

1. Build Transmission Gully; or

2. Build a cut and cover tunnel bypass from the Terrace Tunnel (with a second one for 2 lanes southbound) to Mt Victoria Tunnel (also with a second one) and 4 lanes to the airport, plus upgrade Rimutaka Hill Road to a 70km/h standard highway with a continuous passing lane up each side, plus flyovers to eliminate every traffic light controlled intersection on SH2 from Petone to Upper Hutt, and an underpass for Paekakariki and bypass for Pukerua Bay (with a median barrier along the length of the coastal stretch of SH1); or

3. 30,000 more cardio-thoracic operations per year nationwide; or

4. $11 a week tax cut for every employed Wellingtonian (including public servants).

Which one would you like? Remember the fourth options allows you to choose any of the others as well, if you think about it.

.

UPDATE: Dominion Post misreports yet again. "It found the proposed four-lane inland motorway would cost $96 million less than the original $1.1 billion estimate". Ok so that makes it $1.04 billion, not $955 million like it says at the top. In fact $955 million is what is in the report, but there is easily a 10% risk premium on any project - the key is that it still costs $300 million more than upgrading the coast. What ELSE do newspapers report inaccurately that only people who have been closely involved know about?

.

"Land Transport NZ chief executive Wayne Donnelly said four years was the longest funding period for a new road project in the past, but nothing legally constrained funding projects over 20 years. ".

.

Indeed, although if done you would have to wonder how much the Board of Land Transport NZ would be willing to fund any other major new projects in Wellington over that time. That is what councils in the Hutt, Kapiti, Wellington and Wairarapa ought to be thinking - does it mean that there will be little new roading work in those cities? Is Wellington stuck with Mt Victoria Tunnel/Basin Reserve congestion getting ever worse?

.

"United Future leader and Ohariu-Belmont MP Peter Dunne said the decision to go with Transmission Gully had been made and it was time for Ms Prendergast to move on. "I think it's all over frankly. This was the step that was needed . . . the rest is all procedure." "

.

Sorry Peter, only Land Transport NZ can make the decision to fund it, and Transit to proceed with submitting a funding proposal for the project. The Inner City Bypass was approved by Wellington City Council in 1993, and didn't start work until 2004 - following the Environment Court, High Court, Historic Places Trust, Transfund peer review, Major Projects Review, Transit Board, Transfund Board.

.

One other minor point - once four lanes of motorway reaches the Raumati straight, then what? The Hearings Committee is "funding" Transmission Gully by not proceeding with a bypass of Paraparaumu, despite Kapiti congestion being the fastest growing in the region. Never mind, all hail the God of Transmission Gully - fixer of all congestion, solution to all our woes - all bow down to the cargo cult.

.

UPDATE TWO: ACT's Heather Roy is cheerleading Transmission Gully on too - surely Roger Douglas doesn't believe in inefficient public expenditure? Vapid nonsense like ""Until Transmission Gully is built, Wellington remains without a second main access route in the event of bad weather or a natural disaster." The current road was closed once due to flooding from rainfall which saw a culvert overflow - so let's spend $955 million +? In a natural disaster, Transmission Gully is only slightly less vulnerable, and um, why would I want to take a drive out to the coast in any case? By the way, Auckland's North Shore doesn't have a second main access route either - care to volunteer $3 billion of other people's money to help them out?

.

"Wellingtonians know that something needs to be done about road access into the region." So if taxes were cut to 25% and 15%, you really think you could afford this Heather? Road users aren't going to pay for it.

Transmission Gully proposed by Hearings Committee

So the Western Corridor Hearings Committee has come out in favour of Transmission Gully. That doesn’t mean it will go ahead, but it is definitely something for Transmission Gully proponents to cheer about. I have read the Hearings Committee report executive summary, and will consume the rest in the next few days. However, before the Transmission Gully Think Big crowd pop their corks, they need to sober up and consider the following:

1. 
   These are recommendations, following consultation and the development of a view on the work done to date. They are only a reflection of the results of consultation and amending the plan due to that. The public has had its say, or rather the public that is agitated about it. The recommendations are not binding, and the final decision on the Western Corridor Plan will be made by the Regional Land Transport Committee. EVEN then, Transit’s board does not need to follow what the RLTC says. The Land Transport Act 1998 Section 181(1) states that Transit must ensure that it “takes into account any current regional land transport strategies”. Transit wont proceed with something that is unaffordable.
2. 
   Transmission Gully has become cheaper, now it is around $955 million, when it has been up to $1.1 billion on some estimates. It still remain unaffordable though, the money for it simply does not exist, unless it is taken from other projects or people. National's answer of using all of the petrol tax money does not wash - through three tranches of funding promised by Labour, Wellington is already getting all of its petrol tax share.
3. 
   The Hearings Committee assumes that, somehow, there will be funds to cover the gap in cost between the coastal and the Transmission Gully options – some of it is made up by NOT proceeding with valuable projects that need to happen anyway. If anyone thinks the Paekakariki intersection can be tidied up for $1 million, they are kidding themselves. Doing so would probably breach the Land Transport Management Act in itself. Similarly, the Whitford Brown Interchange is a high benefit/cost project that is about access between Porirua and its northern suburbs that the Hearings Committee wants dropped. The savings from the dropped projects are only one-third of the cost difference between Transmission Gully and the coastal option.
4. 
   Statements such as “ It appears to the Subcommittee that the case for NLTF funding being made available for the completion of the TGM is at least equally as strong as the case for funding to be made available for the Mana Bypass or the Northern Expressway” are not backed up by analysis. The Northern Expressway (which is about a 4-lane highway bypassing Paraparaumu and Waikanae) has a good benefit/cost ratio, and a Mana Bypass is likely to have a reasonable one, compared to Transmission Gully, which has benefits half of the costs. The Northern expressway and Mana Bypass projects are cheaper, with higher benefits – Land Transport NZ tends to fund projects on this basis!
5. 
   The Hearings Committee has considered evidence claiming Transmission Gully would have a benefit/cost ratio of 1:1, by changing the discount rate and counting the multiplier effect on the economy etc (which is to some extent double counting). The truth is that by taking the same approach to the coastal route you’d get a BCR of nearly 2:1 and there are many many other projects of higher value that get really good BCRs. BCR is first and foremost a ranking tool, and Transmission Gully ranks very poorly. If the Hearings Committee is not better placed than Land Transport NZ and Transit to change the BCR formula. Land Transport NZ spends nearly $2 billion a year of road user's funds partly based on that analysis, the Hearings Committee is hardly a comprehensive review of funding policy.
6. It makes some weird assumptions about funding, getting Porirua City Council to fund the Porirua bus/rail interchange (which is outside its mandate) and delaying it, it recommends an extra $25 million on public transport that doesn’t exist!

It wouldn’t toll Transmission Gully, because tolls would not produce enough income to pay for the cost of tolling! However, an untolled subsidized Transmission Gully would generate enormous demand for growth on Kapiti Coast, and encourage commuters to live on the coast and drive to central Wellington. This is what happens when politicians build uneconomic roads! It subsidises the transport of people to and from Kapiti - something I would have thought the Greens would be less than happy about.

So the committee has proposed a very poor project, that ranks as one of the worst in the country, which does not have funding, as the preferred option.

It has analysis in the report as vapid as:

The Sub-committee notes that TGM provides approximately 108 new lane kilometres (27 kilometres of four-lane highway) whilst retaining the existing Coastal Route as a local road and scenic highway. In contrast, the Coastal Route Upgrade provides approximately 44 new lane kilometres on the existing alignment (10 kilometres of new two-lane Coastal Expressway, 2 kilometres of four new lanes through Pukerua Bay, and 4 kilometres of new four-lane Mana Bypass). The Sub-committee therefore agrees with many of the submitters that TGM appears to provide much better value-for-money.

Except it costs a lot more and has a far lower benefit to cost ratio!

How about the great finding that:

“A number of young adults, children and the elderly submitted that their independence would be destroyed.”

By a road? How about your independence interfered with by taxes taken to build roads you don’t use?

Then there is the analysis behind why Transmission Gully benefits GDP:

“The contribution to GDP from transport savings is very much the same for the two scenarios ....The contribution to GDP arising from construction costs is greater for TGM.

– because YOUR taxes are being used to build it – the GDP benefit is purely a transfer to the construction sector. Since when is taxing people to pay construction companies for a poorer net benefit project a contribution to GDP?

So where to now? Well the Regional Land Transport Committee, Regional Council and Transit are in an invidious position. The Hearings Committee has recommended a bunch of proposals for which there is no funding – Transmission Gully and Grenada-Gracefield (or Tawa-Gracefield, they haven’t made their minds up).

If I were them – I’d defer it, not bother about Transmission Gully or the coastal route 4-laning, but proceed with a Paekakariki interchange and Pukerua Bay Bypass.

You see this is what happens when central planning goes wrong. Bureaucrats argue about how to spend other people's money, and nothing gets done. Politicians interfered with a rational funding allocation process, dedicating special money for Wellington and then special money for the Western Corridor - when it should have simply been left to Land Transport NZ to spend all road users' funds efficiently.

The timeline is like this:
- Up till early 90s – coastal upgrade preferred and designated option.
- Early 90s – locals want Transmission Gully (nimbyism) and bureaucrat agrees (Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment)
- early 90s- Different bureaucrats disagree, not enough revenue from road users to pay for it, other projects deliver better returns.
- mid 90s – agreed that Transmission Gully be long term option, but unaffordable for many years
- 2004 – Transmission Gully investigated properly, suddenly trebles in cost – unaffordable, look again at coastal upgrade
2005- coastal upgrade cheaper, even when mitigated and built to high standard - funding made available for it – bureaucrats agree it is best value for money
2006- -NIMBYISM comes out again, and another bunch of bureaucrats disagree and recommend to 2 other sets of bureaucrats to change their mind.

Alternative?

Roads run by profit oriented company – receives revenue directly from charging road users. Figures out best way to expand capacity, negotiates with land owners to buy land to widen road or build new road, negotiates with local road owners (company, co-operative or whatever) to interconnect with their roads – builds best option.

In the short term, I'd spend road user funds on the best projects in the region - by economic efficiency - and then I'd sell Transit New Zealand, abolish the RMA and the Public Works Act, and let Transit figure it out. You see the majority of French motorways are privately owned and operated, and France is hardly a bastion of free market liberalism.

The Hearings Committe has reflected the noise of public opinion, largely based on people living near a highway that has existed for over 70 years, who want someone else to pay for a new road to take the traffic away from their homes. They do not care who pays, as long as it is not them, so that their property values can be increased thanks to taxpayers.

Read the full report of the Hearings Committee here - Hearing SubCommittee report

Read the proposed Western Corridor plan here - Western Corridor consultation document

See the proposed Western Corridor plan costs here - Western Corridor costs diagram

Review of comparative costs of Coastal Highway and Transmission Gully

The original 2004 report which blew the cost of Transmission Gully up to $830 million from $255 million - Beca Carter report on Transmission Gully cost executive summary

See Minister's decisions and officials reports to Ministers on the Western Corridor - Officials report on Western Corridor

See how the Mana upgrade has already reduced congestion at minimal cost.

See my history of Transmission Gully blogging:

Part One

Part Two

Part Three

Part Four

Part Five

UPDATE: Stuff reports Hearing's Committee result incorrectly. Kim Ruscoe and Adam Ray haven't been reading the report that thoroughly.

"A new inland motorway through Transmission Gully can be built without charging tolls or using ratepayers' money – and for less than the original $1.1 billion estimate. That is the finding of a Transit-Greater Wellington regional council committee set up to study the best way to fix the region's chronic traffic problems. "

No, the Hearings Committee was set up to undertake public consultation and make recommendations based on that consultation. It had no mandate to "study the best way to fix the region's chronic traffic problems", it was the Western Corridor Plan consultation process, not about the Hutt or access to the airport or roads south of Ngauranga Gorge. Read the terms of reference!

Try this quote "The committee has also found that the original estimated $1.1 billion cost of building the Gully route was too high. Government road builder Transit New Zealand has admitted it over-estimated the Gully route's cost by $98 million. Further savings could be made by removing $18 million for outdated toll booths and axing some projects planned for the existing coastal highway, which would not be needed when it became a local road."

Hold on a second. There is a $465 million gap, this saves $116 million - you don't save money on Transmission Gully by not building some improvements on the existing route which would NOT be a local road. Knocking out the projects as listed by the Committee, saves only another $205 million - so there is still a gap. The existing route will still carry 40% of its current traffic, in other words, what it carried in the late 1970s, hardly a local road - it will be the main road north for Porirua, still.

Then Kim Ruscoe and Adam Ray say "The Government has offered a one-off $500 million cash injection for the region's roads. " Really? When? Look at my link above to find the papers, there is NO mention of $500 million. The figure is $405 million for the Western Corridor roading, with $255 million for other Western Corridor roading, public transport and transport demand management. The $255 million is to cover projects that should go ahead regardless of whether Transmission Gully or the coastal route is chosen.

The NZ Herald report is more accurate here, and TVNZ reports that "Funding for the gully route is a major concern but Sir Brian Ellwood from the Western Plan Hearing Subcommittee doesn't believe the public should foot the bill." Then proceeds to say the government should pay - huh? TVNZ then says "The pressure is now on the government to come up with the funding." Um no, the report needs to be considered by Transit and the Regional Land Transport Committee, the government already has offered more money for Wellington roading than has been seen in over 35 years in real terms.

So who wants to pay more taxes for Wellington to get an uneconomic road, while the rest of the country gets told to ignore its Think Big wishlists?

Helen Clark is always her own person says Germaine Greer

That's what Germaine Greer said in the Sydney Morning Herald as follows:

"Professor Greer's ideal female leader was New Zealand's Prime Minister, Helen Clark. "She's always her own person," she said."

Oh sure, absolutely, no doubt about that AT all - complete integrity there. Of course, then again which MPs are always their own person?

Why drugs matter?

Some comments on the DPF blog have accused me and Libertarianz of going against the cause of overthrowing socialism because we want ACT to support legalisation of cannabis. This arises from Richard Worth’s rather pathetic attempt to attack Rodney Hide for being a supporter of legalising drugs (where, to be fair, it is never clear whether he is or isn’t). I think Worth is completely misguided, there are far bigger fish to fry for National in terms of attacking Labour – but he can’t get past Hide winning the seat off of him. It is petty, vindictive and utterly useless for National to attack ACT, since it virtually cannabilised most of its vote at the election anyway.

.

However, I did say that Hide brought it on himself by not expressing a clear view one way or the other on this. I want Rodney to support legalising cannabis, even if, for a start, for medical use on prescription. I think, deep down, this is what he truly believes. He wont even say that. It is critical to being a liberal party to believe adults have the right to decide what they do with their own bodies – The Economist two years ago advocated legalising drugs – so it is far from being a radical non-mainstream view.

However, this is what I got in return…

“You're a lefty pretending to be something else. Have to be. Nothing would make Helen Klark happier and be more likely to ensure her e-election than advocation of drug legalisation by ACT or the Nats. From a strategic point of view, its just an incredibly dumb idea. Success in politics and most things is down to timing.”

Well really? How would the Greens react? How many young urban voters would think ACT or National are perhaps no longer the reactionary party of conservatism? So politics are just about what the voters want, rather than challenging the status quo and questioning why the status quo doesn’t work?

.

Russell Brown got it in one though:

“Seems like a fairly standard National tactic: try and scare the horses by accusing your opponent of being soft on (a) drugs, (b) crime, (c) whatever. What I find a bit odd is the belief that Act conducts itself according to the principles of classical liberalism anyway. It would be a much more interesting party if it did.”

.

Indeed it would be. I would support ACT if it was consistent on freedom and liberty. This is not a matter of degree, whether tax is 10% or 20%, but whether or not adults own their own bodies and can control what they ingest. No freedom is more important than that.

You can get your taxes back, run your business how you want, but get arrested for taking a puff of cannabis. ACT would probably gain support if it came out in favour of legalising cannabis - Lindsay Perigo did get several thousand votes in Epsom when he stood in 1996 - on that platform. National wont run with it, but it could be supported by an ACT party that took votes from the liberal left to the liberal right.

That, of course, is not as important as the debate - why does the state own your body?

The Evil Empire

Yes, today is the day President Ronald Reagan called a spade a spade, and said in 1983:
.
“Let us be aware that while they preach the supremacy of the state, declare its omnipotence over individual man, predict its eventual domination of all peoples of the Earth, they are the focus of evil in the modern world.”
.
He was right, of course, Reagan also put the boot into moral relativists in saying:
.
“I urge you to beware the temptation of pride - the temptation of blithely declaring yourselves above it all and label both sides equally at fault, to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire, to simply call the arms race a giant misunderstanding and thereby remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong and good and evil.”
.
Why was he right? Unfortunately too many nowadays need reminding of a system that prohibited you from leaving the country, that prohibited any publications not approved by the state, prohibited meetings not approved by the state, suppressed information that could be seen as critical of the system (e.g. the Chernobyl accident) and aided and abetted satellite regimes that were equally as brutal in suppressing dissent. The Soviet Union was an empire bent on dishonesty, bent on denial and built on the ever present violence of state totalitarianism. A cold brutal corrupt bureaucracy acting on whim, acting on command to push people about, deport, arrest, execute and bully. It lost because it could not compete materially or ethically – and it was only two years before Mikhail Gorbachev opened up the USSR, and reformed it to its ultimate disintegration.

.

and why is it relevant? Well check out Not PC's post. Why don't you spend $1 million of YOUR money, seeking permission to build with your own property and your own money, a marina - go through the legal system, take FOURTEEN BLOODY YEARS to get permission from the courts - and a tinpot little wanker called Chris Carter - who never EARNT $1 million from productive activity in his life - says "fuck off, you've pissed all your time and money down a hole". The people of Te Atatu elected a little despot.

.

The founders of the Soviet Union hated initiative, entrepreneurship and money. To quote Ayn Rand:

.

"Money is the barometer of a society's virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion—when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing—when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors—when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you—when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice—you may know that your society is doomed. Money is so noble a medium that is does not compete with guns and it does not make terms with brutality."

.
Chris Carter produces nothing - even if you accept the nonsense of spending a decade and a half and $1 million to just get permission - he vetoed a court decision, and our own Union of Soviet Socialist Fascists are cheering him on. I sincerely hope the Whangamata Marina Society gets a judicial review of this decision. I hope the society wins and wipes their arses on the faces of the smug little power-lusting vermin who would make Brezhnev proud!

Waikato wants more roads money

Well of course it does - you see moving from a benefit/cost funding approach for roads to a more "strategic" or politically defined funding framework has meant Auckland has gained and Waikato has lost. Many Waikato projects are relatively low cost compared to Auckland projects, and have quite high benefits, but the government decided votes were in Auckland - and granted $900 million of Crown funding for Auckland transport over 10 years. Wellington has been granted $480 million so far, with another $405 to come if there is agreement on the Western Corridor roading option.
.
The answer? Well the Nats have half of it - instead of granting sums of taxpayers money to fund regional transport on an adhoc basis, shift petrol tax from the Crown account to the National Land Transport Fund, and insist that Land Transport NZ fund projects on a benefit/cost priority basis, with no projects below a threshold of 2.0. Shifting 9c/l immediately would have no net fiscal effect if you use it to replace the special Crown funding for transport in Auckland, Wellington, Bay of Plenty and for state highways. The remaining 9.8c/l could be moved over in a four year period, to avoid fueling more inflation.

.

and some Waikato projects aren't worth doing in the next ten years - a Hamilton eastern bypass? There already is a western one, which the region wants around $250 million spent on (and it is worthwhile)- the benefit/cost ratio of the eastern one is no higher than 1:1 at best. It is time to stop this Think Big approach to roads - most of the projects worth doing are relatively small and fix blackspots and pinchpoints. They don't get much publicity, but every year they save more lives and reduce delays for far more bang for your buck than most really big projects.

John Cleese upsets Palmerston North

The Sydney Morning Herald reports that John Cleese has upset some people in Palmy by calling it New Zealand’s “suicide capital”.
.
He said:
.
"If you wish to kill yourself but lack the courage to, I think a visit to Palmerston North will do the trick,"
.
The full story is here. Of course the Mayor is upset and the local tourism office reckons he didn’t spent enough time there. Oh come on!! I’ve spent two nights in Palmy, and well, it really is just a place where people get drunk, shag and race cars down the four main streets.
.
It isn’t the suicide capital of New Zealand though, I think that there are plenty more nominations for that, such as Tokoroa, Kaikohe and Levin. Of course, this is the best publicity Palmy has had in ages and according to the Manawatu Evening Standard the local Chamber of Commerce agrees and wants to exploit it!

.

Shannon isn't on the list because it has Owlcatraz, which is up for sale.

Ignore the census - defend the right to NOT speak

Today is apparently census day - I know I can ignore it because I'm not in New Zealand, but I ignored the last two - didn't fill them out and nothing happened. Forms were left for me and I threw them away. A few years ago a contractor at the Ministry of Economic Development had his contract terminated because he sent a joke email around about filling out religion with "Jedi" (which was circulating at the time) - MED staff were warned about joking about such a serious activity because the Ministry so badly needed the information strong-armed out of citizens. Public servants be warned - Helen and her drones don't like you joking about the Census, consider it as destructive as a cartoon about Mohammed!

.

The principle is very simple - there should not be an offence of failing to fill out a questionnaire. The state does not have a right to force you to answer questions in this case, any more than it does if you are arrested for murder.

.

Statistics could ask, you could fill it in because you think it is a good thing to do. However, this is an initiation of force. The excuse given for compulsion on the census website is nonsense:

.

"The reason for making the census compulsory is simple. It is the only way we can be sure that information about the total population has been obtained and we have an accurate overview of New Zealand society every five years. The census is the key source of information about the people living in our cities, towns, suburbs and rural communities. As everyone takes part, we can get a full picture of what’s really happening in our country. If the census was voluntary, we would never know whether those who filled in the census forms were truly representative of the population or not. The statistics produced would be very unreliable. "

.

Well no they can't - because people object and people lie on their forms. You cannot possibly be that omniscient and by the time the data has been collected, it will have changed. You can't know whether people filling it out have filled out other people's forms. Besides, there are companies that risk millions of dollars of their OWN money investing in New Zealand gathering information they require through surveys and observation - by voluntary means, and it seems to work for them.

.

The ends do NOT justify the means - it might be good for everyone if they were put on a special healthy diet for every day, but it would not justify forcing people to only eat what was approved by the state. NOT because it would be inefficient, but because it is immoral.

.

So ignore it, tell Statistics you are saying no. Not PC gives you ways of doing so. If you don't want to confront them, then hide from them - don't answer the door when they come knocking, and just live your life in peace. A small point? Petty even? No - if I went to your front door and demanded you answer questions about your household and life, and would arrest you if you failed, how would you feel? Why do you think it is ok for the government to do it then?

.

UPDATE: Libertarianz have organised a protest at the Wellington Sound Shell, with a fire breather to burn census forms. The press release states:

.

"Libertarianz leader, Bernard Darnton, announced the event today, saying that "the census is a blatant example of Government intrusion intopeople's private lives and should not be tolerated."The fire-breather will be performing on the Sound Shell Lawn in theWellington Botanic Gardens at 8.30pm on census night and everyone who opposes the compulsory collection of personal information is welcome. Libertarianz members in other parts of the country will also be barbecuingtheir census forms.

.

The press release also notes that Germany doesn't have censuses, and the sky hasn't fallen in. Maybe it learnt from its less than free recent history? Go join them in the Sound Shell tonight, at least to watch the spectacle and support another dimension of free speech - the right not to be FORCED to speak.

Minor revamp

Hi all, I've done a minor refurbishment of this place so that the sidebar works, added a number of new blogs and other links, and done some other bits and pieces. Some more changes coming soon.

Greens call for more bans

.

Sue Kedgley can't help herself! Remember PC's post recently on how much the Greens want to ban things (Reading the Bans)? Well add two to the list:

.

- Ads for prescription medicines; and

- Cancer linked pesticides.

.

You see because only NZ and the US allow direct to consumer advertising of medications (which I actually doubt) it must be evil, we know, after all, how many people want to leave the USA and how evil and awful it is to live there. Sue doesn't like people learning about new medications, because you're too stupid to know whether it is worth asking your doctor about them, and he is too inept to say no to your demands to get prescriptions of unlimited viagra or flixotide or whatever else upsets Sue. She presents NO evidence of the freedom of advertising having ill effects, she just hates pharmaceutical companies being able to advertise their heavily regulated products (but she likes vitamins, minerals and all sorts of natural snake oil being advertised).

.

"I am calling on the Government to ban this dangerous practice immediately, and to instead set up an independent medicine and health information service that is free of commercial interests"

.

Well Sue, they are prescription medicines and you can't control people who get controlled drugs from abusing them, except you probably want to ban people from ingesting drugs without direct medical supervision - from a union, state approved culturally safe doctor. So we should be forced to pay for bureaucrats who will be lobbied by pharmaceutical manufacturers to make our decisions for us? Thanks Auntie Sue, don't know how I survived so long without your whip keeping me in line!

.

Then, she wants some pesticides banned because they are clearly killing us all - without evidence beyond saying "Endosulfan has been banned in 20 countries because of its link with breast cancer, its persistence in the environment and because it disrupts the endocrine system." She then is anti-bureaucrat by saying "The food safety authority seems to have a well-rehearsed public relations strategy to deal with any food safety scare other than microbial contamination – namely to downplay the issue, seek to pacify consumers and deny there is any public health risk. "

.

Gee well Sue, maybe there isn't one? Have you any evidence of its harm to people in New Zealand or do you remain the perennial princess of scaremongering?