Rudd apologises

Australian PM Philip Rudd is to say sorry for past treatment of the Aborigine communities, in particular “the removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families, their communities and their country”.
~
The move is controversial. Some argue that there wasn’t a stolen generation at all, although there is certainly evidence of there being a discriminatory policy towards targeting particularly so called “half caste” aboriginal children through much of the 20th century, and evidence of disconcerting practices and policies towards them.

~
As a result I don’t know what is truth and what is not, but one thing is clear, if it were true, it would a damning indictment upon Australian federal and state governments. Saying sorry would be the right thing to do.
~
What? Me an objectivist libertarian believing in collective guilty? No. It is the guilt of the state, the Australian federal and state governments in what was theft, theft of people. Australian governments nationalised children. The Director of Native Affairs in Queensland literally was guardian of all indigenous people under 21 after 1939. He had complete authority over them all. What is this other than the racist nationalisation of children?
~
It is also difficult to escape the testimony of some of those who talk of being taken from their parents, and how they were treated. Yes, some were taken from abusive environments, some were given up by their families, but some were not. My question for those denying it is simply this : do you trust the federal and state governments to be parents?
~
It is fair to acknowledge that in some cases the removal benefited some children, as the odds are that some were in abusive or negligent families, and that they benefited from removal. However, that is what the state should do regardless of race, remove abusive parents from their children, not remove children completely from families.
~
It is also fair to acknowledge that materially some of the children were better off because of it, but this does not make it right. It is not right for the state to break up families when there is no evidence of criminal abuse or neglect of the children. The ends do not justify the means. Children are not the property of the state.
~
The stories that some have told are gut wrenching and vile. It went on up through to the 1960s. This isn’t concern about what happened before people were born, there are generations today who were stolen, and no doubt people alive who were part of this bureaucratic process.
~
The “Bringing them home” report commissioned by the Federal government notes the attitudes of the 1930s were not dissimilar to those of South Africa at the time:
~
“Mr Neville [the Chief Protector of WA] holds the view that within one hundred years the pure black will be extinct. But the half-caste problem was increasing every year. Therefore their idea was to keep the pure blacks segregated and absorb the half-castes into the white population.”
~
A problem based on race.
~
Statements like “We was bought like a market. We was all lined up in white dresses, and they'd come round and pick you out like you was for sale.” ( New South Wales: woman fostered at 10 years in the 1970s; one of a family of 13 siblings all removed; raped by foster father and forced to have an abortion)
~

So let's say for argument's sake, the woman concerned had abusive parents, or their parents gave them up willingly, does it absolve the government from placing them with an abusive foster father with no checking?

~

Beyond the apology and acknowledgement that wrong was done, needs to be acceptance that the appropriate process for compensation is through the courts and proving harm was caused. It is not a reason to grant blanket compensation that could be fraudulently claimed, it is also not a reason to engage in additional racism. However, when governments act as it appears happened in Australia it is wrong – pure and simple.

~

Those of conservative bent should think very carefully about this. Statements like:

~

"The truth is that "reconciliation" already took place thirty years ago. This took place at the time of the Constitutional referendum in 1967, in which certain constitutional changes were proposed, allegedly for the benefit of aborigines. Many Aborigines campaigned for a Yes vote at this referendum, and were ecstatic when a staggering 97% of Australians voted "Yes". This was a recognition that Australians wanted one people, treated fairly and equally, and were fully prepared to extend the hand of brotherhood, citizenship and reconciliation to aboriginal Australians."

~

Sorry? Reconciliation started when you granted Aboriginal Australians the full rights of citizenship in the 1960s? I guess all them black fellas should be so grateful it took until 1967 to extend citizenship to them, on the land they were on first. The USA did the same to Native Americans in 1924, and funnily enough Australia granted Maori in Australia the right to vote in 1902. Aborigines got the same in 1962.

BBC kills private broadcaster

OneWord the spoken word private radio station in the UK has closed, largely it seems, because the BBC - using the funds extorted by force from TV owners - launched BBC 7, a digital spoken word network, commercial free.

~

OneWord was available on DAB and on Sky and Digital Freeview, and broadcast audiobooks, drama, comedy, discussion programmes and the like. It attracted an audience of around 300,000 nationwide, but couldn't attract advertisers, but the BBC could attract more and didn't have to care about who it could ask to fund it - it doesn't ask, it demands.

~

The heavy hand of the state funded dominant broadcaster strikes again.

No more short haul business class on Air NZ?

Yes I know most of you don't care, but there is evidence growing that Air NZ is looking to drop business class on its Boeing 767s and Airbus A320s in favour of premium economy. This presumably means a drop in food service and possible drop in food quality as well.

~

Why does it matter? Well some of us pay for business class occasionally for crossing the Tasman, it is more important between Auckland and Perth. Sometimes there is value in using airpoints upgrades as well (useful when flying in the evenings after a long day to get a decent meal and relaxing seat without sitting like cattle). Qantas business class is usually far more expensive (and not any better), and Emirates flights are not at convenient times.

~

I hope it is not true. It would go against the increase in legroom for some rows in the front of 737s on domestic flights, and the reintroduction of a (modest) complimentary food service on domestic 737 and A320 flights.

Planet Green

Jeanette Fitzsimons occupies a strange place, it isn't occupied by reason, it's a curiosity that means that when she "almost buys" a Chinese made drink in Moerewa, she hypothesises (makes up) about how she got that drink and how trade works. It would be funny if she was simply a private citizen, but you pay for her and she wants power over your body and property.

~

Jeanette is the mistress of the"we" word, the word used when someone actually wants to tell you what to do, because she wants to collectivise everyone under some banner. Take this from the Green Party blog post on the subject:

~

"And what benefit do we get from these dairy exports? Cans of water and sugar" which is extrapolated from her not buying a drink, and there being exports of dairy products to China.

~

Hold on. "We" don't get the benefits from dairy exports, the producers (and those supporting them) do. You don't make anything Jeanette ok?

~

The dairy exporters don't import "cans of water and sugar", someone else does that. The world does not operate in the fairytale land of "New Zealand inc" exporting to China and "New Zealand inc" importing. North Korea does, but New Zealand does not.

~

Besides Jeanette, the imports wouldn't be imported if people did not choose to buy them. Now go along and get your dictionary and find the word "choose". It means people have the freedom to say yes or no. You too can "choose" to persuade them to change their habits, and frankly I'd rather you spent all your efforts doing that rather than advocating force, which you do and have done the whole time you've been in Parliament.

~

She goes on: "We pollute and over-allocate our high quality water here in order to pay for importing doubtful quality water from China. Does that make sense?"

~

Paraphrasing what Not PC would say "what's with the "we" white woman?". "We" don't Jeanette. Get that through your collectively muddled head.

~

Having muddled through all that she concludes with the bizarre notion that "we" "swap", which is utter nonsense of course, unless you think New Zealand is, or should be, a highly planned economy:

~

free trade with China means swapping our good quality water and the health of our children and our rivers for their poor quality water, using lots of fossil fuel to arrange the swap and denying the human rights of their workers.

~

It is not "our" good quality water, it is owned by whoever's property it is on. It is not "our" children either. "We" do not deny the human rights of their workers either, it is the government of the People's Republic of China. You might ask why one of your MPs was once a cheerleader for the regime in one of its darker hours - Sue Bradford

~

Free trade with China is about choices. It is a choice to export to China, and a choice to import. A choice for individuals. If you wish to boycott Chinese imports then feel free, it may be perfectly moral to do so in some cases. However don't ban them.

~

However the Green opposition to free trade is not about human rights, it is not about pollution, it is about opposing choice in trade. The "fair trade" euphemism is actually about regulated trade, and is about ignoring price signals about over production. If the Greens are opposed to the dairy industry (which this post also effectively implies) then that is far more serious.

Mad woman costs us all

This has me absolutely furious. The silly bitch who stabbed a pilot because of her deranged desire to be flown on a small plane to Australia (which wouldn't have made it) is now going to be an excuse to grow the state - yet again.

~

One of the few reliefs of flying provincially in New Zealand is not going through the bloody silly nonsense of security checks before boarding turboprop aircraft. You know, much like we don't do it for passengers on buses, or people driving cars or trucks, even though all of those kill more people every year than aircraft do.

~

However no, the Dear Leader Helen Clark, responding to the kneejerk reaction no doubt of the safety fascists, has said that "tighter security was inevitable".

~

Why Helen? Because a mentally disturbed woman has undertaken a one off attack?

~

The great logic is from Helen:

~

"It was my understanding that we operated the same general rules as in Australia [but] it's now clear to me that there is a size of plane we're flying in this country which, in Australia, would be a jet plane. We apply the same jet plane rules but we have rather a lot of turbo-propelled planes in this country of some size. So that raises some issues."

~

Except Helen a turboprop is not a jet plane, and besides which, why the hell does it matter?

~

This will mean more money for the Aviation Security services then and "Tighter screening is likely to impose extra costs, however, and Miss Clark indicated that those were likely to be borne by passengers on a user-pay basis."

~

Hold on, user pays? Shouldn't this be on an "abuser pays" basis? Shouldn't the woman concerned be required to pay the full costs of health care, damage and delay she has caused? Why should the 99.999% (rounded down) of airline passengers pay more to be screened for an extraordinarily rare event when they are far more likely to be killed or injured being driven to their flight?

~

I know why, because one reason this incident happened is because the state failed... as "She acknowledged, meanwhile, that the woman at the centre of last week's incident, Asha ali Abdille, had "presented a range of agencies with serious issues for quite some time"."

~

Marvellous. So Air National could sue them for this? Hmmm.

Archbishop of Canterbury believes in competing laws?

"An approach to law which simply said - there's one law for everybody - I think that's a bit of a danger" he is reported to have said according to the BBC.

He is quoted as saying "the UK had to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system." So what? In fact a lot more than simply Muslims do not relate, there is a whole underclass of yobs and obnoxious oxygen thieves that don't relate.

However, why is that a reasons to surrender the British system?

"There's a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law, as we already do with some other aspects of religious law"

PM Gordon Brown has rejected this, and Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg has said "We cannot have a situation where there is one law for one person and different laws for another".

Unfortunately in New Zealand we do, and the leaders of neither major political party want to change that, whereas in the UK the leaders of both major parties and the major third party don't want it.

and so Transmission Gully?

Martin Kay from the Dominion Post is interviewing his PC by speculating that "The potential for private investors to pick up the $470 million shortfall for the planned motorway is firmly on the table"

~

Given that the legislation to do this has been around since 2002, and that there has been some private interest in this, it is hardly a surprise. However, Martin Kay has clearly missed a major point. The proposal for the Waterview project is (presumably) that the full cost of the project is financed by the private sector. Suggesting the private sector finance less than half of the cost of the project, while taxpayers subsidise the rest means that taxpayers are subsidising the return to private shareholders. Indeed, the noise from potential "investors" (nice to invest some money and get a return from the money "invested" by the state too) a few years ago was that they would happily help with financing, building and operating Transmission Gully, if the government coughed up the majority of the cost.

~

The truth still remains that Transmission Gully has low traffic volumes, is not viable as a toll road (even if the current highway is also tolled) and the $955 million putative cost is about to undergo the same type of inflation that Waterview Connection has. Let's not pretend that a costing that is now nearly 3 years old remains accurate in todays money, it is $1.04 billion based on inflation alone. The current detailed investigation phase will probably uplift that by another 20% I suspect. The $485 million "promised" hasn't increased to compensate for that. Again it's a road that the users wouldn't pay for if they had to, nor would those who directly benefit from it, so why make others pay for it?

What do the "anti-war" left think?

I’d have thought the leftwing blogs that claim to care so much about death and destruction in Iraq would be outraged that the Islamist insurgency is training children and using people with Down’s Syndrome to bomb civilians.

However, I have yet to see a single post from the left outraged by it. Surely it can't be because the insurgency is fighting the USA? Surely that doesn't justify using innocent people to bomb innocent people?

My question is this. Do those who opposed the invasion of Iraq and overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime support or oppose the Islamist insurgency there?

Quite simply, if you have strong views on waging war against the Ba’athist Iraqi government, presumably you should also have views on waging war against the current one.

Emirates first to fly whalejet into NZ

Those looking forward to flying on the "superjumbo" new Airbus A380 from a New Zealand airport look like they'll have to wait a year. Emirates is the first airline to announce flights with the A380 to/from Auckland. According to Business Traveller, Emirates daily flight EK 412 from Dubai to Sydney (and EK 413 in reverse) will be flown by an A380 from February 2009, and the flights will be extended onto Auckland (the flights currently continue to Christchurch). Emirates will be the third airline to fly the A380 starting September 2008.

~

Presumably there will be some rejigging of flights between Auckland and Christchurch, unless Emirates is dropping Christchurch, but anyway Emirates does promise its A380s will introduce new first, business and economy class products on board. That will be interesting given the world beating Singapore Airlines products on its A380s, although the number of seats Emirates is installing on its A380s will range from 489 to 600, whereas Singapore Airlines only has 471. I suspect Emirates will be flying the low density long haul version on this route though, as it seeks to compete with Singapore Airlines, Qantas, BA and Virgin Atlantic for the lucrative Sydney-Europe routes.

~

Anyway it will be good to see the whalejet flying regularly to and from NZ. This will undoubtedly put pressure on airfares in all classes. Frankly, the odds are that no other airlines will be flying A380s to NZ in the near future. The other airlines that have ordered A380s that currently fly to NZ are Qantas, Singapore Airlines, Thai, Korean and Malaysian. Out of them only Qantas and Singapore Airlines currently fly their biggest aircraft (747s) into NZ, and in both cases the majority of their flights are on smaller aircraft. I doubt it is worthwhile either Qantas or Singapore Airlines flying such large planes on any of their services to NZ.

Private road or expensive folly?

Earlier reports that the government was going to bribe Auckland voters by using taxpayers money to fund the hienously expensive and greenplated "Waterview extension" motorway link have proven to be only partially correct. It appears, amazingly, according to the NZ Herald that the government is looking to use private capital to fund, build and operate it. The full details are here in the government press release.

~

Firstly, it makes sense to do this. It makes sense for the private sector to raise capital and pay it off, using revenue collected from road users. It also makes sense for the private sector to not only build it (all roads in New Zealand are built by private contractors in essence), but operate it and although discussion is about a "lease" this in effect means it is a private road. The talk of Annette King that it is "not privatisation" is a fudge. In effect, even if it is a traditional BOOT operation (build own operate transfer) it is a privately built road that gets nationalised at the end of the lease period. This is not much different from similar private roads in Australia, or shouldn't be!

~

However there are still some significant issues:

~

1. Why must only the section of SH20 that goes under the PM's electorate be placed underground in a tunnel that adds well over NZ$1 billion to the cost? If the people of Mt. Roskill, Manukau, Albany-Puhoi, Greenhithe, Hobsonville and Waiouru Peninsula can have motorways built at ground level or in trenches, why is the PM's electorate special?

~

2. Should Transit do more than complete investigations on this project, and let the private sector take control of the design, route selection and property purchasing as well as construction? In Melbourne, the Citylink tollway saw the private company responsible for it determining the route, producing a design, engaging in consultation and negotiating with property owners for building the road. Why not let the private sector be incentivised to do all of this, so the road is built quicker, with more public acceptability and lower cost? Transit is clearly poorly incentivised to keep costs down.

~

3. How should the private sector recover the costs of building the road? The only fair, modally neutral and economically efficient way to do this is:

~

• Allow tolls to be charged on the highway, at a rate of the choosing of the private sector (it will charge at rates to maximise use of the route, and is likely to vary by time of day. There are easily two alternative for potential users of the road);
• Land Transport NZ should pay shadow tolls to the private owner to reflect the fuel tax and road user charges collected from road users as a result of using the road.

Of course, a combination of these and the ultra high cost tunnel option wont work. It simply isn't enough money to pay for the road. That is why the private sector must be involved in the design stage, and lower cost alternatives be developed. However, even then there may still be a gap, which the government will be tempted to fill. The question is whether non-users should pay.

The only way this could be justified is to charge other road users for the benefits the road will bring in relieving roads they travel on (such as the parallel Great North Road, and Central Motorway Junction). This could be calculated and be part of a shadow toll (recognising that you could recover this if the roads were properly priced according to demand/supply), but that's it. I'd be wary about calculating this as well, because assessing economic benefits to non-users should not go beyond road users, so that the benefits of the project are not double counted.

If the project cannot be financed from tolls and shadow tolls that reflect what the users pay, it should not proceed. The road is not good "at any cost", it is only worthwhile if those who will benefit from it are willing to pay for it.

4. Finally, the question of the period of private involvement is important. Labour's legislation limits it to 35 years. I'd argue it could be indefinite (in fact the whole of SH20 could be privatised), but that wont happen. In the interim it would be preferable to have a 99 year lease and for the private lessee to have full control over that period. By then maybe people will not be scared of private roads.

Fundamentally the government COULD do this right, as long as it doesn't write a blank cheque, doesn't subsidise the road from revenue from those who wont directly benefit from it and allows the private sector to innovate and bear the risk. After all, if the forecast traffic levels are wrong the private sector should bear the risk/benefit depending which way it goes. This is a chance to see how things COULD work, but I suspect the main reason private involvement is being sought is to do off-government balance sheet borrowing. In other words, while the private sector finances it, the state effectively guarantees it and will almost certainly be willing to bail out a failed private invetsment. If that IS the case then all of the criticisms by the Greens and others on the left about Public Private Partnerships will be true.

The Waterview connection MIGHT be a good investment for a private company, it might not be. The government should simply allow the opportunity to be presented on terms that don't mean it is subsidised and do not mean failure is protected by the government. If the private sector is not interested, because the revenue from those who will benefit directly from it is insufficient to pay for the road, then it should NOT proceed at present. It might be worthwhile in the future, especially once the other sections of motorway are completed and there is further traffic growth, but if it can't be paid for by users then others should not pay for it.

Meanwhile I have to laugh at John Key saying "it represented a "massive flip-flop" after years of opposing private sector involvement in roading". Pot calling the kettle black surely, John Key ought to know a flip flop or ten.

UPDATE: No Right Turn makes the nonsensical claim that PPPs have been a "complete disaster". You may as well claim that government funded roads have been as well, because some of them have not generated the economic returns that were promised (although thats not very transparent). The truth is that many have been a roaring success, Melbourne Citylink is one, as is the Dartford Crossing in the UK, Chicago Skyway and on and on. His example of the Sydney Cross City Tunnel (which was also about improving the on street environment) shows it went into receivership, but it is still private debt and being privately managed. The road is there, it wouldn't have been there otherwise. The point is though that he isn't talking about fully private roads, and frankly if no taxpayers' money is involved and it is a new facility, why should he care?

UPDATE 2: Further reactions are curious:

Peter Dunne is cheering it on, and even seems to not care if it is all privately owned. This is good news, although I don't think he is that agnostic about whether it gets built. After all, Transmission Gully being an economic dud hasn't stopped Dunne cheerleading it.

The Greens are jealous that the government doesn't want to piss more of your money down a drain into the faith based initiative of rail based public transport saying "A couple of billion dollars could pay for a rail line to the airport, turning the Britomart line into a loop - with an underground extension to Mt Eden - and connecting Onehunga with the western line at Avondale". Yes but whose money is it Jeanette? When you build you trainset you want hundreds of millions every year to subsidise its operation too!

ACT's Rodney Hide has turned his back on user pays and economic efficiency in saying the government is dithering without saying what he would do. An empty statement at best, at worst he wants taxpayers' money ploughed into it without any concern about value for money.

The NZ Contractors Federation want this to be part of a Think Big style massive taxpayer funded build of infrastructure, which their members could profit from building. They claim it can be built on time and within budget. Which budget? The cost keeps shooting up year after year! Most concerning is the belief in Soviet style planning saying "We would like to see it become part of a 20-year national infrastructure plan. At present infrastructure planning for this country is ad hoc. To get the best from our scarce resources in the future, New Zealand needs to better co-ordinate projects, particularly very major ones like this".

So you want to nationalise planning for telecommunications, electricity, water, sewage, stormwater, airports and ports as well? Sheesh.

Perhaps the best comment came from IPENZ Director of Policy Tim Davin who says the current legislation is flawed "We are already hearing in the media today, members of the community opposing the project. Because the Act’s ‘high degree of support’ clause it may make any large roading project difficult to proceed as a lot of communities may take the NIMBY (not in my back yard attitude.) ".

National backflips on Maori seats

I was slightly heartened by John Key's comment that, according to Stuff that (paraphrased) "the National Party would have no second thoughts about abolishing the Maori seats once the historical treaty settlement claim process had been resolved".

~

Well only that the policy remains, except for the bizarre linkage between the seats and treaty settlements. This significantly incentivises the prolonging of that process. Why do those seats assist that process? The only people assisted by the Maori seats are the members of the Maori party

~

John here is a new concept, it is called a principle.

~

In New Zealand, as in all other liberal democracies, all eligible people 18 and over have the right to vote. This right should not have any limits or privileges. In a modern 21st century secular liberal democracy, race based seats have no future. Only one political party benefits from these, and it is racist itself. Only one political party benefits from winning constituencies defined in part by race, and by doing so gets a notably higher proportion of seats in Parliament from those race based constituencies (3.3%) than it would win based upon nationwide party vote (2.1%). MMP was partly advanced on the basis that it would allow party lists to comprise a more representative variety of people from different backgrounds, and this has happened.

~

The Maori seats should go. It is NOT racism, it is NOT Maori bashing. It simply reflects that constituencies in the New Zealand Parliament should be based on geography - nothing else. It will mean National wont always win Northland (because most of the votes for that constituency are non-Maori), and it might never win seats in East Cape/Gisborne, but it wont mean Maori representation is over.

~

However I suspect John Key wants to reserve the right to "do a deal" with the Maori Party after the next election, as he can't be sure of National getting 47-48% of the vote. No different than Helen Clark with Winston Peters and Peter Dunne - but how do we know John Key wont sell out National voters? We DO know Helen Clark does deals but tends not to sell out Labour voters (throwing a new bureaucracy, getting rid of tolls on a road and other baubles are nothing compared to what National might do).

Pork Barrel roads

In the 1980s and 1990s, funding for roads in New Zealand moved away from a pork barrel approach to one based on several key principles:

1. All central government funding for roads sourced from taxes raised from road users (with an increasing proportion of such taxes dedicated to such funding);

2. Removing direct political interference on decisions regarding which projects would proceed and would not proceed by appointing boards with specific independence to fund and develop projects that would meet goals such as economic efficiency and safety, within available budgets;

3. Allocating funding for projects based upon advancing those with the best ratio of benefits to costs first, and delaying/deferring very high cost projects with relatively marginal benefits. In short, allowing spending to be concentrated on maintenance and smaller projects that could be cost controlled, and allowed steady improvements to networks;

4. Increasing road funding based upon steady growth of funds for new projects, not largescale increases that could place severe pressure on contracting costs.

~

Since 1999 Labour has eroded these principles, significantly by:

1. Introduced specific Crown taxpayer votes of funding for transport projects, in addition to dedicated road tax based funding (albeit it has also dedicated more and more road taxes to transport as well);

2. Introducing far more specificity in the outputs that the Minister of Transport expects from the crown agencies funding and building roading networks, and becoming significantly more interested in the timing of major road projects, particularly in Auckland;

3. Placing pressure on the government appointed boards to advance projects based upon "strategic considerations", being code for advancing lower value projects with high political profiles over higher value projects with lower political profiles. None of this is explicit or public, but it involve phone calls to board chairs, conversations between politicians, board members and chief executives;

4. Allowing goldplating and greenplating of major state highway projects with little justification based upon quantifiable returns or benefits (e.g. tunnel under Victoria Park viaduct), but high political profile.

5. Engaging politically driven official groups for special funding of transport in Auckland, Wellington, Bay of Plenty and Waikato to buy regional political support, and advance low value high cost projects that fail following the changes listed above.

~

The last time you saw it explicitly was when Labour bought Winston Peters by using taxpayer funds to advance the Tauranga HarbourLink project, even though all the work beforehand indicated it could have been easily funded through tolls.

~

Now you see it with Dr Cullen about to bribe Auckland voters with their tax cut - but by funding a heavily greenplated, expensive, and not particularly efficient new motorway. This project has grown from around NZ$700 million in cost to well over NZ$1 billion, and its benefit cost ratio has always hovered below 1:1. It cannot be funded from tolls as Transit's own analysis indicates motorists wouldn't pay to use it. On top of that, while it could be built as a motorway at surface (with some noise barriers), what is being proposed, largely for an environmental argument (i hesitate to use the word reason), is a huge tunnel, adding enormously to the cost. Before you say "it's done in Sydney", Sydney isn't a big volcanic basin - tunnelling is easy and cheap there, it isn't in Auckland.

~

"but we need the road" you say? Well, prove it. Two other segments of the SH20 motorway are under construction now, extending it east towards the southern motorway bypassing Manukau and west towards Mt Roskill. Both of these projects are good, and will make a big difference to traffic conditions around Auckland. When completed they may indicate there is demand for improved roads between Mt Roskill and Waterview, and then? Well, let the private sector finance and build the road, find a route, develop a design, buy properties as necessary and then IT can toll it (and it would be fair for the proportion of fuel tax and road user charges paid when using the road are paid from the government to the owner). Why should current taxpayers (not road users) fund a road that will be used for generations? Why not let it be financed and the debt paid off over time from charges by those who will use it?

~

It wont happen? Well maybe the road isn't that necessary then. Getting the government's state highway agency (Transit) with an insatiable appetite to spend money, to contract yet another huge road project in Auckland, right now, will further inflate road contracting costs. Promises from the contracting sector that funding lots of roads at once will save money have proven nonsensical.

~

So I'd let Transit fiddle around with determining a route, but that's about it - and finish the other two major projects on that corridor (plus duplicating the congested Mangere bridge, by tolling the new lanes). Then Dr Cullen you can give New Zealanders a bigger tax cut. Instead of spending $1.5 billion on a motorway of dubious economics, you might give that money to New Zealanders - $375 per man, woman and child would do a lot of good, wouldn't it?

~

UPDATE: So I underestimated it. $2.5 billion is the hyperexpensive, fully tunnelled, "wish the country had the oil wealth of Brunei" option. Apparently it will be tolled, but I can assure you this will recover a small portion of the costs - most will come out of your pocket. So you can easily say that every person will pay $400 towards it, or in Auckland terms, $1500 per person or $4500 per family, for a road that the users wouldn't choose to pay for.

~

However, the blurring of government accountability grows again with the report that "a six-member committee of two Government and three private-sector representatives with an independent chairman" would look after the project. Those of you driving substandard highways over the Maramaruas, or south Waikato, or from Kapiti to Levin might ask why your far cheaper, better value projects aren't so important. Well ask why people vote for political decisionmaking over roads.

~

Also note the "Waterview connection" project has not even entered the design stage, and the budget for design has grown about 60% as the Herald reports "its estimate of design costs alone has soared from $50 million last year to $79.4 million in its latest draft highways programme".

~

This is an Auckland election bribe, bribing Auckland voters with tax cuts that could be for the whole country. It's a bribe that Labour doesn't need to commit to either, as the project is not close to construction.

~

The Greens oppose it, of course, because it's a road - preferring to waste taxpayers' money on rail projects that also aren't paid for by users.

What NOT to learn from Waitangi Day

PC has written an excellent post on Waitangi Day and what it could be, and being in the “mother country” of course, I wont have that day off. However, I can reflect on what it is like to be away from all of the wailing and gnashing of teeth that is around when the usual tribe of tired old collectivists seek to treat people on the basis of “ethnicity” not behaviour.
~
As PC has said:
~
What the Treaty did do, for which we can all be thankful, was to bring British law to NZ at a time when British law was actually intended to protect the rights of British citizens, and it promised to extend that protection to all who lived here. For many and often differing reasons, that was what the chieftains signed up to. To become British citizens, with all the rights and privileges thereof.
~
Indeed!
~
And yes, I do know that for some, these rights and privileges were in practice more limited, due to sexism for one, and racism. I know the 19th century was hardly a period of colourblind government anywhere, but in the realm of colonialism the Treaty was a significant step. No such rights and privileges for Australian aborigines.
~
Unfortunately, Waitangi Day perennially becomes the rallying point for those who prefer tribalism and separatism, those who believe in intergenerational blame and guilt, and moreso the idea that you can blame your current life on what happened to your ancestors.
~
It is identity politics, the notion that what matters most is not what you do, but what group you “identify” with. Interwoven with this is the belief that people treat you according to that identity, and that statistics can “prove” unfair treatment if members of an “identity” perform “below average”. You know what I mean, the idea that more Maori are in prison not because they committed crimes, but because “the system” was against them. Those of other identities don’t have this disadvantage because the system was “designed by and for them”. It denies objective analysis, it denies those who reject identity politics as either part of the problem, or traitors.
~
The corollary of that is the notion that ones life today is directly attributable to what someone else’s ancestors did generations ago. To carry the notion that being unhealthy, being poorly educated and committing crimes is because you carry the pain of your forefathers is to be psychologically unhinged. No one can doubt that one’s inheritance matters, but what is done with it matters too. In fact far more important that material inheritance is the psychological one.
~
Did you have parents who loved you, taught the value of hard work, education, respect and support you as your grew and learnt? That is far more likely to influence whether you commit crime, get a job, look after yourself and do the same to your children. Then beyond that is what you do with THAT personal inheritance. Sadly far too many Maori are being told that they don’t have choices, that it isn’t their parents fault they bashed them up or neglected them, but “society”.
~
Waitangi Day could be a day to celebrate the founding of a nation-state, the opportunities it brings to those who live there, the relative freedom, lack of corruption and rule of law that exists.

~

When you see those advancing “tino rangitiratanga” ask yourself what they mean by that? Do they mean the individual freedom and private property rights that British law SHOULD have granted them (and all citizens)? Or do they mean they want more government, government based on race, interventionist government, with more taxes and more control over education, broadcasting, property rights and the economy? Is it a coincidence that almost all those advocating “tino rangitiratanga” get inspiration from authoritarian socialists?

~

So don't think of Waitangi Day by race - race is not an objective way to judge a person and it has no place in any considerations of state. Waitangi Day should be a day to celebrate the common nationhood of New Zealand.

~

Then take the concept of one law for all - colourblind - and ask politicians this year, election year, whether they believe in that and what they'll do about it. Chances are the two main party leaders wont deliver.

Prince Andrew should choose

Are you part of an apolitical constitutional monarchy or are you a common citizen who should have to work for a living?

~

At the moment you are neither.

~

If you are the former, then smile, hold your views and let the elected representatives of the people and their duly selected officials do their job. Go to York and do "duke" things. For all of their many many faults, they have more authority than you do. You have had a reasonably notable military career and have an honorary role going to meetings for the Department of Trade and Industry.

~

If you want to get into politics, then distance yourself completely from your mother and brother, and go on - but don't expect to have any taxpayer funded privileges that come from your title. I am not saying you are wrong, I am simply saying you should not use your position of constitutional privilege to criticise the duly elected government or engage in foreign policy without its explicit permission.

Palestinians could change Gaza

It should hardly be a surprise that recent coverage by the so-called peace loving left about Gaza retains a remarkable willingness to be blind to what the “government” in Gaza did to provoke Israel into sealing off its border.
~
Let me remind you. Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005. Withdrew, that’s right pulled out as it has been asked since 1967. It has no governance or military presence on this strip of land whatsoever. It has removed the 9000 or so Jewish settlements, it has essentially done exactly what all of its opponents asked of it, regarding Gaza. Now some argue that as Israel still controls the airspace, territorial waters and the borders with Israel that there is not complete control, but still, it is sovereign territory notwithstanding that.

The Palestinian authority elections in 2006 saw Palestinian voters have a set of odious choices. The main ones were either vote for Fatah, which supports peaceful co-existence with Israel, but has proven itself highly corrupt and administratively incompetent, or vote for Hamas, which wants to destroy Israel, but also has run schools, medical centres and tends to be far less prone to corruption. There were other parties offering alternatives that were not Islamist and with no background on corruption. Some of these could have provided a more reformist way forward, but no they chose Hamas. By choosing Hamas, Palestinian voters chose war with Israel.
~
Without going into the detail about Hamas being effectively ousted from power in the West Bank, it remains that Hamas governs Gaza. Israel’s withdrawal means it is effectively the government of a rump Palestinian state of sorts. What did Hamas do with this power? It started firing rockets into Israel proper – you know, the country that is a UN member state, recognised by the vast majority of countries around the world including Egypt and Jordan. Hamas decided that it was more worthwhile to attack Israel than to try to rebuild the shattered infrastructure and economy of Gaza, blighted by conflict over decades. Why? Because Hamas has little interest in the here and now, but every interest in fighting the “infidels”.
~
With over 4,000 rockets hitting Israel, Israel could, on the basis of self defence, have reoccupied Gaza to root out those attacking it. It has not. What it has done is impose economic sanctions against the Hamas regime (Western countries including New Zealand have imposed such sanctions against countries that never laid a hand on it), built a barrier around Gaza (Israeli side not Egyptian) to restrict entry by terrorists into Israel, and put up a blockade against most imports that could aid and assist those attacking Israel. It has also attacked from the air, sites from where rockets are being launched.
~
If you listened to the views of Israel’s critics it should have done none of this, but sit back and watched its people’s homes be bombarded from a territory that Israel does not control. It is notable that Egypt hasn’t much tolerated the onslaught of Palestinians on its border either, but nobody blames Egypt do they?
~
Gaza, of course, is in an appalling state. It has high population density (though lower than the likes of Hong Kong and Singapore), under developed and hardly a haven of prosperity. Hamas could change that of course.

~

It could stop attacking Israel and announce that Gaza will not be a base for attacks on Israel. It might find economic sanctions get lifted. It could seek to be outward looking and encourage Palestinians to seek trade as the way forward, and presumably their wealthy allies in Saudi Arabia might cough up some of their funds to finance simple infrastructure such as water, sewage, roads and electricity. Of course they wont, because keeping Palestinians in poverty, angry and willing to fight to regain Jerusalem is exactly what their rich friends want. The Palestinians are, in some respect, waging a proxy war for Iran and Saudi Arabia, one that makes them the losers.
~
In other words, there is a chance for Gaza to, with some effort, be transformed. It is on a stretch of land that could become an attraction for tourists, it has horticulture and could become a free trade area, if only Hamas would also set up an independent judiciary that could enforce private property rights and contracts.
~
I doubt whether it will, of course. You see Hamas worships the afterlife, being Islamists. It cultivates a culture that worships violence, celebrates death and honours those who give their lives to take those of others. It actively recruits the young to sacrifice their lives for this cause of violence.

~

Gaza could be so much more than a strip of hell. Remember, Israel withdrew – it doesn’t want it back – Palestinians have it, and they wont get Israel proper – ever. If Gaza could succeed, then it would have positive effects on the West Bank, as Palestinians no longer act as victims, but set up a haven of prosperity, freedom and peace. Doing that will open borders with Israel (and the world) more than any militancy ever could.

Super Dooper Tuesday?

I am trying hard to resist the only sensation I get from the US primaries, the only thing I can get passionate about, deceptive though it may be, which is to cheer anything that stops Hillary Clinton become President.

~

You see, it is visceral, it goes back to the days after Bill Clinton was elected with a minority of the popular vote (forgot that, didn't you?), when Hillary decided she had been "elected" too and Bill appointed her to nationalise US health care. It goes to her views against free market capitalism, and so much of her election platform which is about tinkering, doing more with the federal government, giving away other people's money here and there, and control. Beyond that is her sense of entitlement to rule - she WANTS power, power over people, and she believes it is her right, her goal to be the first woman President, as if her sex gives her more entitlement. Her willingness to play dirty against Barack Obama speaks volumes, and has backfired somewhat.

~

While Hillary Clinton is, for anyone who believes in individual freedom, and private property rights, an anathema. Her current opponent, Barack Obama is no better. He is a nicer, friendlier and more seductive face of exactly the same politics. There is no substantive difference between Obama and Clinton, indeed Obama's endorsement by those on the left such as the Kennedys (another clan of "born to be rulers"), Democratic Socialists of America and the Communist Party of the USA (hat tip: New Zeal) makes him potentially more dangerous.

~

In addition to that, Obama's charisma is a contrast with Clinton's so-called divisiveness. Obama doesn't excite conservative USA as much as Clinton does - as Andrew Sullivan in the Sunday Times pointed out:

~

She has extraordinary negatives. She galvanises the conservative movement in ways no other Democrat can. Against McCain, she and she alone enables the Republicans to forget their deep internal divisions and unite. Nothing – nothing – unites them as she does. The money she will raise for the Republicans is close to the amount they can raise for themselves.

~

Sullivan believes Democrats should pick Obama. I believe, as difficult as it is to swallow, that it would be better for the world for them to select Clinton. Obama is a flake, he can speak well, he can inspire, but the substance behind what he says is absent. The media's inability to quiz him on this has been shocking.

~

By contrast we know what Clinton believes in, and fortunately, on foreign policy, she is willing to be braver than Obama. She is pro-Israel, she supports sanctions against Cuba, she supported a resolution calling Iran's Army of the Guards of National Revolution terrorists, she voted in favour of authorising military force against Iraq and she stated on CNN that "The first obligation of the president of the United States is to protect and defend the United States of America". For her many many flaws, I would feel slightly safer with Clinton than Obama.

~

Oh yes there are Republicans. Romney the flip flopper, who once was seen with Margaret Thatcher, will not win. John McCain, who is Republican lite, or a member of the rightwing end of the Democratic Party, will win the nomination. The best you can hope for with him is that he wont reverse the Bush tax cuts. woopee.

Auckland's Northern Busway opens, but..

A great hurrah has come about from the opening of the Northern Busway (once called the North Shore Busway, but Transit often changes the names of projects for unclear reasons). Nothing wrong with increasing transport capacity in Auckland no, and it is a far better project than upgrading rail, but still - you wont see any coverage investigating the other side of the busway. Journalism is what I am looking for, but I simply don't see it.

~

The Stuff report on it (above) could be a government press release, and the NZ Herald saying "The first stage opened in 2005 and resulted in 500 fewer cars being on the Northern Motorway" doesn't have anyone questioning the evidence. It may be true, but what was the cost of achieving this? Was it worth it? 500 cars over what period? A journalist would ask these questions, instead of parroting government statements as fact.

~

One thing I notice is how the cost has gone up, pretty easy to find this out as you just need to look at past issues of the Transfund National Land Transport Programme/National Roading Programmes. The cost of the busway (excluding stations) is now $210 million. Only four years ago the cost was going up from $95 million to $110 million. You might ask how it went up to $210 million (plus the bus stations). The reason being because Labour has been feeding massive road construction inflation, and the contracting industry knows when the government wants something to be built - regardless of cost. You see, upgrading public transport is important to this Labour government - regardless of cost. Think what else could have been built had the government taken a more prudent approach to increasing spending on roads, or if - perhaps - it had not taken a personal interest in the advancement of certain roads. You're seeing it again now with the Waterview extension of SH20 (formerly Avondale), the PM wants it built, it has gone from $700 million to $1.2 billion in four years. Construction wont be starting for several years yet, but it will be over $1.5 billion by then.

~

I wont go on about the details of this road, they are mostly here. It's basically an extra couple of lanes parallel to the Northern Motorway, with some flash bus stations.

~

Now despite the Stuff release lets be clear, the money paying for it wasn't the warm bosom of the "government", it came from road users, all road users, although the only way all road users will benefit is from the handful of cars and buses that wont be travelling on the Northern Motorway as a result.

~

Want to know the economic benefit/cost ratio of the Northern Busway? It's not clear, you see the government doesn't like Transit publishing benefit cost ratios anymore, it shows how many of the roads getting built aren't that good. It was just over 2 last time I knew it, which was around seven years ago. With cost increases and traffic increases, it probably is closer to 1.5 now. Not great, but not bad.

~

Finally, the most important point - for all road users to note, especially those driving parallel to the Busway, is that it will be grossly underutilised if it remains only a busway. A corridor that cost over $200 million to build will lie, largely empty. A bus every 3 minutes! Imagine if a car passed along a motorway lane every 3 minutes! It deserves to be better used

~

It should become a tollway. As a tollway, it could charge vehicles a premium to bypass congestion, like the 91 express lanes in California. The tolls would be high, and vary according to demand, and would ensure free flow conditions remain. However, the tolls could ultimately pay for the road (except that past road users have already paid for it). An even better option would be to sell it, let bus companies pay for the right to use it, along with other road users. People could hardly moan about there not being an alternative, the government owned "free" motorway beside it would remain available.

~

Of course the whole damn thing is limited by the Harbour Bridge, itself a bottleneck, itself needing money to have its life extended and for a second crossing to be considered. So here is another solution.

~

Sell the Auckland Harbour Bridge (may as well sell the Northern Motorway from Onewa Road to the Victoria Park Viaduct as well). The new owner can then toll it, without booths, but fully electronic. Then what?

1. The new owner would be able to use revenue from road users to maintain the roads, and build new capacity. You see, the pursuit of a second harbour crossing funded by taxpayers is futile and expensive.

2. Tolls at peak times would be high, and congestion would be lower. After all, the owner would want people to use the road, but not for the road to be unattractive compared to the Upper Harbour crossing, or ferries. Of course higher tolls would make buses even more attractive, and buses could cross in relatively uncongested conditions.

3. Tolls could also help fund the Victoria Park Tunnel/Viaduct widening which has been delayed for years due to dithering, and funding. In fact, this project is probably the most valuable in Auckland, as it would eliminate the worst bottleneck at Spaghetti Junction - lack of capacity to/from the north.

4. The proceeds from selling the bridge could then be used to compensate the folk of the North Shore, in a rather simple way. Half of the proceeds could go to all North Shore City ratepayers could receive a lumpsum from the sale - this would be in recognition of how, as road users, they had contributed towards the road. The remaining half could simply be used to cut central government debt.

~

Or do you like queuing?

Goodbye to a bully

Stuff reports that David Benson-Pope has not been selected to be Labour candidate for Dunedin South. Good.

~

I blogged about his bullying behaviour in select committee, which I witnessed first hand some years ago. I don't care about allegations of being kinky, though the allegations around his behaviour as a teacher are somewhat more disconcerting. However, his involvement in the Madeleine Setchell affair is worthy of his dismissal.

~

He's a hypocritical little prick, and his disappearance from politics will only be good. A world where obnoxious lying bullies aren't in politics is a better place.

~

Though it's probably too much to hope that the people of Dunedin South will resist voting for a unionist.

Phasing out the DPB

Not PC rightly pointed out that one of the negative consequences of the DPB is that there has been a rising incidence of children being raised by parents who didn't want them, and these children end up being a problem in themselves. Now many on the DPB DO want and love their kids, after all the DPB was intended to cover a number of unfortunate events, such as death of a spouse and separation - not to fund a lifestyle choice.

~

So what could be done? It is easy to say withdraw the DPB, but we all know that wont happen, what is needed is for it to be phased out. Here are some simple steps that, dare i say it, a National government might consider if it really wants to address welfare:

~

1. Freeze the number of children current DPB beneficiaries can claim the benefit for. In other words, if you had two children when you got on it, you can't get more money for a third child.

2. Prohibit claims for the DPB for beneficiaries who wont name the other parent.

3. Replace the DPB with the unemployment benefit when the youngest (eligible) child is at school age, so that the focus moves from domestic purposes to employment.

4. Establish a legal alimony framework to allow the other parent of the dependent child to be liable to share the cost of raising the child. This will mean every separation will see this legal obligation come into effect, which will be predefined unless the parents expressly contract out of it by mutual agreement. Parents cannot rely on the state to fill any gap, beyond the unemployment benefit. This legal framework would effectively end new claims for the DPB.

~

These simple steps would have several effects. Firstly, it would replace state funded parenting with parent funded parenting. Parents would be paying for their kids, and would have to sacrifice part of their earnings to do this, even on low incomes, even on the unemployment benefit. Single parents would be treated as unemployed once the youngest child is at school, shifting the obligation towards finding employment/income. Finally, it would put a substantial new legal obligation upon both parents to share the costs of child rearing, regardless of domestic living arrangements.

~

Meanwhile, you might save enough money to knock a few more percentage points off of income tax, this in itself would also help people afford to raise their children.

~

I know this proposal is hardly that radical, and would mean the DPB is gone within five years. While it would help shrink the state, by far the biggest change would be it would destroy the incentive to have children you can't afford, and suddenly parents who get away with little (mostly men), would have to face the consequences of their breeding.

~

However, much has been written about this by Lindsay Mitchell, who has done and said more on this issue than most. If the Nats do even some of what I've listed, I'll be astounded though.

UK company makes record profit, makes BBC gloomy

So what was the lead item on BBC breakfast news on TV this morning? It was about Royal Dutch Shell making the biggest profit of any UK company in history. Now in Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore or even China, this would be something celebrated, an enormous success. However not for the BBC on TV, the manufactured story was “are they ripping us off?”.
^
Now the BBC isn’t stupid. It knows that a profit figure of £14 billion means little unless you have the context of the value of the company. After all, if the assets are worth £500 billion, it isn’t great, if the assets are worth £50 billion it is a tidy profit indeed. However the socialist minded British public see profit like a lottery win – not a return on investment. The BBC didn’t disclose the current market capitalisation of Shell. Secondly, it didn’t reveal where the profit goes. This isn’t clear yet, but presumably some will be reinvested capital and much will be dividends to shareholders, many of which are financial institutions with pensions, deposits and other funds that affect the wealth of many people. Keeping vague about this ensures that many think that it just means a few people living the life of Uncle Scrooge or Montgomery Burns, whereas Shell has generated a profit that will benefit plenty.

^

There is a bigger question about reserves and whether discoveries and current production can keep up with demand, which is what the Daily Telegraph focused on.

^
One thing the BBC did report was where the profit came from – exploration and discovery of new fields, the wholesale market for crude and refined products. It wasn’t retail at the pump, where the margins are closer to 1-2p per litre (noting than in the UK around 70p is tax). This doesn’t stop the leftwing union Unite stating calling it obscene – when what is truly obscene is the extent to which taxes on fuel fund big government at Westminster. Of course Unite doesn’t produce anything itself, it calls for a tax to add to the money that the state takes from oil customers, like far too many socialists Unite worships the fist of the state over the choices of consumers and shareholders.
^
So there you go, big British firm makes a hefty profit and it is held in suspicion. The UK wonders why so many people have a poverty of ambition while a culture of envy is cultivated, and the thieving hand of the state is largely ignored.

^

Of course given that by owning a TV set in the UK you are legally obliged to pay for the BBC, under threat of fine and criminal prosecution, regardless of whether you watch or listen to any of the BBC's content - I would wonder why the BBC can't answer why it can judge Shell, when its customers don't get forced to buy its products, but the BBC forces people who aren't its customers to pay for all of its products? Presumably TV and radio are more important than energy.

Which US Presidential candidate will call THIS ridiculous?

Expelling good students from school for kissing on a bus. Video here of the news article.

The puritanism, the idea there is something immoral about two teenagers kissing in public. The Islamists are closer to how some Americans think than many will admit.

Whose money?

The Dominion Post reports "Wellington City Council will plough $90 million of its own money into a Government-funded revamp of its dilapidated council flats"

Excuse me? Replace "its own" with "ratepayers'". Given 179,466 residents of Wellington city, and assuming one third are children, that means around $749 per adult resident being spent on the proposed council housing revamp.

Of course it could always sell them. After all, why should one of the local authorities with a reasonably above average citizen income be the second largest landlord in the country?

Naughty Ryanair

Isn't the UK Advertising Standards Authority amusing? I mean, seriously. It is not a government body, but you can be sure that if it didn't exist, the government would create it. It has ruled that an ad, that I and millions were unaware of, is offensive.

Now of course, it's been far more widely seen than it was originally, and Ryanair is laughing, and rejecting the finding.

The ad is shown here in the Sun, (mildly NSFW) depicting an adult woman dressed as a tarty schoolgirl. The problem is it "appeared to link teenage girls with sexually provocative behavior" which of course is a link that is completely unjustified. There is no claim the young woman in the ad is under 18, or really a schoolgirl, and she is wearing a uniform that is more likely to be seen at School Disco club events, rather than real life. However, it clearly can't be allowed in post "Carry On" straight laced, highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe, Britain.

Of course, surely it should be up to the newspapers carrying the ad, which were the Daily Mail, the Herald and Scottish Herald, to decide whether it is offensive. They are best able to judge their readership. I almost never buy The Independent or the Daily Mail because I often find their content offensive, for example.

~

Ryanair is up for a fight as "Ryanair head of communications Peter Sherrard said the airline was refusing to withdraw the advert in light of the ASA ruling...Ryanair believed there was nothing irresponsible nor offensive in its advert. “Consequently we will not be withdrawing this ad and we will not provide the ASA with any of the undertakings they seek,” he added"

According to the BBC, none of the papers that ran the ad will run it again - but I wouldn't bet it is the last time it will be shown. After all, one thing about the UK, it is full of pervs!

~

Oh and if you don't like it, don't fly Ryanair. I don't, and it's not because of its ads!

Bye Rudy, onto Tuesday (yawn)

He's not happy is he?

CNN reports the Republican race is between McCain and Romney. Now it is up to Super Duper Tuesday. Will the Republicans choose the Mormon flip flopper or the Republican-lite both of whom have similar policies of a little less government in some areas, and a little more in others?

^

Should I simply not care anymore?

^

Well since the "Change we can believe in" site requires me to effectively register, to find out what Obama wants to do, I had to go to Hillary "my entitlement to rule you" Clinton's site. I find she believes in restricting freedom of speech, subsidising families, nationalise parenting and early childhood education, more farming subsidies, massively subsidise the energy sector, strengthen unions somehow, demand all Americans pay their fair share (for what?), and finally be softly softly on the Iranian backed insurgency in Iraq as she wants to "work to convince Iraq's neighbors to refrain from getting involved in the civil war".

^

OK, that's enough reasons to want her NOT elected, shame the Republicans don't give me any reason to be excited about them more than that.

Scotland drops tolls, ignores economic truths

The Scottish Executive, which governs Scotland under devolution with taxpayer funding directly from Westminster, is abolishing tolls on the Tay and Forth Bridges. So, instead of road users paying for the maintenance and upkeep of the two bridges directly (and paying off loans associated with the Tay Bridge), money will come from general taxpayers. Socialism at work - shifting from user pays to bureaucratic planning and taxpayer pays. According to the Scottish Transport Minister this ends "years of injustice". Apparently the injustice is that those bridge users pay for their bridges, but other Scots get their bridges subsidised by everyone else in the UK. Maybe food should be "free" too.

^

Well it wouldn't be if you applied some economic rationality. For starters you could have dedicated the average amount of fuel tax collected from users of the bridges to the bridges themselves, and used the tolls to collects anything left over. You could have sold the bridges. Yes, I know you'd almost rather paint a St. Andrew's Cross on yourself and call yourself English that do something so instinctively anti-Marxist, but you could've. Then you'd still have people saying they pay fuel tax and tolls, but you could have offered to refund the fuel tax, or credited it towards the tolls. After all, what's wrong with user pays? Oh I forgot you're running the Scottish Executive, everything is wrong with user pays isn't it? Because the users wouldn't pay if they had the choice.

^

Of course abolition of the tolls is meant to bring great benefits, by elimination congestion at toll booths. Again, a modicum of research would point out that toll booths are yesterday's technology to tolling, as electronically tolled roads in Canada, Chile, Australia and elsewhere have proven for several years now.

^

The truth will be in a few months time and a few years down the track. Removing the tolls lowers the cost of using the bridge, this increases demand, which will in itself mean congestion at peak periods of demand. This will bring demands for new bridges, which are not cheap. So then you have to decide do you have those who demand the new capacity pay for it, or just be good socialists and make everyone pay for it.

^

In Tauranga, it was less than 2 years after the toll was removed that there were regular reports of lengthy delays on the harbour bridge, and calls for a duplicate bridge. Now the bridge is being built, paid for by all road users nationwide, after NZ First Leader Winston Peters lobbied for it not to be tolled as part of the confidence and supply agreement with the Labour Party. No doubt in 10 or so years time there will be demand for yet more increases in bridge capacity or at least peak periods of congestion.

^

Selling the bridges would make far more sense. You may then see the following happen:

^

1. Operators of the bridges that want to maximise their efficiency, so would shift towards lower cost electronic tolling and optimise maintenance;

2. Operators of the bridges that want to maximise throughput of the bridges. This means charging more at times of peak use, but correspondingly ensuring traffic is not severely congested. It also means responding quickly to accidents or blockages, and ensuring maintenance activities are carried out at off peak periods. Don't believe me? Look at the privately built, funded, designed and owned Citylink motorway in Melbourne, because this is exactly what happens.

3. Operators of the bridges that make profits, and might reinvest the surplus in other worthwhile business ventures, pay dividends to shareholders or even build duplicate bridges if they were deemed worthwhile. This is bound to be better use than politicians spending the surpluses.

4. Government would get a substantial windfall of cash it could use to pay off debt and reduce taxes overall.

^

Or you can keep doing the old fashioned tried and tired central planning option for roads. It has been a stunning success hasn't it?

Another reason why the job in Afghanistan was half done

Yes the Taliban were removed, from Kabul and much of the country. Yes, the new administration is friendlier towards the West. Yes it is better than the Taliban, but no.. it is no friend of individual freedom.

^

A death sentence has been imposed upon Afghani journalist, Pervez Kambaksh, for "downloading and distributing an article insulting Islam". According to the BBC the Upper House of the Afghani Parliament "supports" this, reportedly "the Afghan Senate has issued a statement on the case - it was not voted on but was signed by its leader, Sibghatullah Mojaddedi, an ally of President Hamid Karzai. It said the upper house approved the death sentence conferred on Mr Kambaksh by a city court in Mazar-e-Sharif."

^

It isn't final yet as "Mr Kambaksh has at least two more courts in which to appeal and the sentence would have to be approved by President Karzai to be carried out". One can hope that one of these appeals would be successful. However it simply highlights how little so called "imperialism" has been imposed by the US and allied forces. All that has happened is that an offensive war mongering regime has been replaced by a less offensive non war mongering regime. Afghanis deserved better than this.

Greens oppose apolitical state sector

Transit has for some time now allowed foreign countries to fly their flags on the Auckland Harbour Bridge on various occasions, particularly national days. This policy was reversed last year to avoid controversies with the relevant press release stating "The New Zealand flag will be the sole flag flown on the Auckland Harbour Bridge. It will be flown on both flagpoles and will fly at half-mast on occasions of national mourning as directed by the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage".

~

This was a wise step, Transit should, after all, be apolitical. So its most recent decision to refuse to fly the Tino Rangitiratanga flag is correct. Green MP Metiria Turei's response is nothing more than grandstanding. She claims it is pure prejudice. What nonsense. Transit New Zealand is a New Zealand government Crown entity, if it flies flags of political movements it will need to also fly flags for any political party or organisation, and ceases to be apolitical. Turei is quite racist and patronising to claim that the Tino Rangitiratanga flag represents "Maori". Some Maori may support it, but others do not. Turei, like the collectivist she is, believes Maori are a political group, with one set of views. The flag does NOT represent Maori, nor does she.

~

The public sector should be strictly apolitical. The Tino Rangitiratanga flag is highly political. The only "cultural division" here is between those, who like the Green Party, Chinese, Zimbabwean and Russian governments, think the state sector should be politicised, and those who believe the state sector should be beyond politics to the extent possible. So should the Auckland Harbour Bridge fly a flag for free market capitalism too Metiria, or is that unacceptable because it isn't your preferred race?

Kedgley peddles more hysteria

Like some parroting hysteric, Sue Kedgley has found a new conspiracy which threatens the health and lives of us all. It is the possibility that telecommunications transmitters might be installed, of all places, on top of power poles. Her reaction tells all about the use of language as propaganda.
~
The tenor of her press release is seriously unhinged and outright scaremongering with statements such as “telecommunications companies will be able to clutter power poles in residential areas and next to schools and childcare centres with new cellular and wireless technologies”.
~
In that once sentence she loads so much evidence absent value judgments to frighten the ill informed, i.e. those who vote for her. “Clutter” apparently implying that somehow we’re all using the top of power poles now, and will be interfered with, or that it will be ugly. I am willing to wager than in one day, Sue Kedgley would be unable to identify every single telecommunications transmitter site in Wellington City – because so many of them are unobtrusive, and plenty are on top or on the side of building with nobody noticing them. However, I am sure it wouldn’t be “clutter” if they were broadcasting a free to air commercial free channel of leftwing doggerel.
~
Then she talks of “next to schools and childcare centres”, implying, though not saying, that transmitters are “unsafe”. She likes claiming new technologies are unsafe, it gives her something to regulate, something to blame at and it looks like she is saving us all from the evil companies who don’t care. The truth is that she is an unscientific busybody who prefers fear and hysteria to science and balanced debate – she squawks like a parrot, happily stirring fear to gain votes.
~
She continues "We have set up a power pole in Mount Victoria with antennae and masts, to demonstrate how visually intrusive power poles around New Zealand could become”. No doubt using the latest technology with every incentive to make it work efficiently and be unobtrusive right? Of course most homes in New Zealand already have antennae, masts, some have satellite dishes. Perhaps they are visually intrusive too, as are the trolley bus wires that provide a 550v netting over many major arterial routes and city streets in Wellington – but that’s ok, because electric buses are good – telecommunications companies are bad. Of course she has a cellular phone and rarely catches a trolley bus – funny that.
~
She continues her rant “there will be no restrictions on the number of masts and antennae hanging on poles outside homes and bedrooms, regardless of concerns about the health effects of increased exposure to radio frequency radiation”. Forgetting that the laws of physics do impose such restrictions, given poles can’t carry unlimited numbers of these things, and there are serious issues of avoiding harmonics and interference between antennae, and if you have a bedroom next to a power pole then more fool you. More importantly the “health effects” are largely a beat up by her. She completely ignores that every single radio and TV transmits non-ionising electromagnetic radiation, she also ignores the proliferation of home wifi systems as well – presumably this is all good, or because it isn’t an evil entity (telecommunications companies fit that category), it isn’t worth her attention.
~
Finally she says “There is no obligation under the proposed national standard for the companies to pay rentals for the usage of power poles, which in many cases are owned by state-owned enterprises”. Again, her lack of command of the facts says a bit about her. Very very few power poles are owned by state-owned enterprises, largely because most are owned by electricity lines companies. These are not retail companies (which SOEs most certainly own). The implication here is that the beloved warm embracing state that she loves is being “robbed” because of a lack of rentals. She should relax. Not only are they not owned by state owned enterprises in almost all cases (and transmitters on top of Transpower masts are likely to be hardly an issue for numerous reasons), but the issue should be whether owners of poles should be allowed to.
~
So there it is, a press release of hysterical assertions, and leading value judgments with next to no evidence. It bears a mild resemblance to the sort of nonsense that passes for news from North Korea – blurting out fear, blame and demands that something be done – when scratching the surface it is just a grasp for attention, pleading to the ignorant by the power hungry and envy ridden.

Bush's final state of the union address

I don't go along with the views of most people I meet about Bush. It is almost de riguer to treat Bush as an unmitigated disaster. When you probe as to why, the comments tend to be "Iraq" or "foreign policy" or climate change. You see it's trendy to bash Bush. Michael Moore made it an art form, or indeed a multi-million dollar business, ironically - funny how little of that he uses to buy poor people health insurance isn't it?
^

So I react to that, not because I think the Bush administration is an overwhelming success. However, I do acknowledge what has happened. Afghanistan and Iraq have been partial successes, and quite principled too (and contributed to Libya coming out from the cold). It has also been a relatively friendly administration for free trade, challenging Europe to match it on slashing agricultural subsidies at WTO talks - which the EU promptly said "no" to. Yes I can criticise Bush for excessive spending, and for the erosion of civil liberties as part of the war on terror, but I don't doubt that Bush believes in Western civilisation. He called Islamism Islamo-fascism, and he was dead right - you wont hear Gordon Brown say that, let alone Helen Clark, Anyway, so what of his final state of the union address? What DID he say?

^

• He called for a balanced budget, and not by increasing taxes. Good.
• He wants to save Social Security. Bad, but hardly surprising.
• He believes "Spreading opportunity and hope in America also requires public schools". Bad, public schools are the problem.
• He wants public school control to be further devolved, and effectively endorsed education vouchers. Good, but it wont happen. Democrats don't like school choice or performance monitoring of schools or teachers.
• He wants standard tax deductibility for health insurance. As far as this reduces taxes for those looking after themselves then good.
• He wants to subsidise state programmes to fund private health insurance. Bad, it undermines the earlier programme, states should raise their funds locally.
• He wants to establish a temporary worker programme for foreigners. Good.
• He wants to use taxpayers' money to subsidise alternative fuels. Bad, let the market decide based on price signals.

None of this excites me particularly, in fact, sadly I can say at best it could be worse. However, Bush does inspire me in one direction - his response to Islamofascism. He said:

"Al Qaeda and its followers are Sunni extremists, possessed by hatred and commanded by a harsh and narrow ideology. Take almost any principle of civilization, and their goal is the opposite. They preach with threats, instruct with bullets and bombs, and promise paradise for the murder of the innocent. Our enemies are quite explicit about their intentions. They want to overthrow moderate governments, and establish safe havens from which to plan and carry out new attacks on our country. By killing and terrorizing Americans, they want to force our country to retreat from the world and abandon the cause of liberty. They would then be free to impose their will and spread their totalitarian ideology. Listen to this warning from the late terrorist Zarqawi: "We will sacrifice our blood and bodies to put an end to your dreams, and what is coming is even worse." Osama bin Laden declared: "Death is better than living on this Earth with the unbelievers among us."

Take that "death is better than living on this Earth with the unbelievers among us". THAT is the enemy, as cold and murderous as that. THAT is who is appeased by withdrawal from Afghanistan, Iraq and by befriending Islamism. Bush continues:

"What every terrorist fears most is human freedom"

Indeed. It is as clear and stark as that. You wont hear this from Helen Clark, Ken Livingstone, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. In fact you wont hear it from the Green Party either. Listen carefully from the Presidential candidates this year, as to who talks of freedom, and who really believes it.

As Bush continues, talk of withdrawal from Iraq, like the left wants to do unconditionally is a nonsense:

"If American forces step back before Baghdad is secure, the Iraqi government would be overrun by extremists on all sides. We could expect an epic battle between Shia extremists backed by Iran, and Sunni extremists aided by al Qaeda and supporters of the old regime. A contagion of violence could spill out across the country -- and in time, the entire region could be drawn into the conflict. "

Islamist Iraq would be a disaster for Iraq, and its neighbours (except Iran), and the West.

Beyond that Bush talks of freedom elsewhere, although saying "We will continue to speak out for the cause of freedom in places like Cuba, Belarus, and Burma -- and continue to awaken the conscience of the world to save the people of Darfur." may be too short a list. I'd add Saudi Arabia, Russia and China as well. Realpolitik means it is easy to support freedom in relatively weak states, it takes more courage to confront Russia, China and Saudi Arabia.

^

You see, flawed though he may be, Bush more than many of his critics, understands that the battle against Islamism is a battle for freedom, and a battle for Western civilisation. It is for this he should be remembered. His domestic record is not inspiring, and on balance perhaps mildly positive. However, internationally Bush has adopted a foreign policy that at best has overthrown evil murderous dictatorships, and at worst had mistakenly replaced them with democracies, not guided by secularism or freedom, but by milder forms of Islamism.

^

The world is a dangerous place, but a withdrawn USA that ignored the hosts of its enemies would not make it safer. Beyond the rhetoric of the centre-left chattering classes, Bush understands that. Islamism is our most real and present enemy, confronting it not appeasing it is critical.