When bureaucrats and politicians are out of touch

you get the most inane ideas proposed, agreed and implemented.
.
Surely the latest one in the UK - to require registered sex offenders to reveal their email addresses and for these to be forwarded to social networking websites like Bebo, Myspace and Facebook has been put through by people with only a banal understanding of the internet.
.
According to the Daily Telegraph:

"Under new guidance to improve internet safety, (police) officers will pass on the details to social networking sites in the hope that they will remove the profiles of anyone caught preying on children. Offenders who refuse to hand over their details, or supply false email addresses, will face a five-year prison sentence"

Now think about that, why would you refuse to hand over the details? How would they know they are false? What would happen? Presumably perv@uknet.com gets a nice email from PC Plod saying "Hello Mr Perv just confirming it's your email address" and he says "Yes officer thank you", before he logs on to Myspace using perv2@hotmail.com or whatever.

I have lost count of the number of email addresses I have had. I have had hotmail, yahoo, netscape, usa.net, netaddress and several other email addresses almost all of which have expired - after all they are free and easy to get. It's not as if it's your home address or phone number, though I don't doubt that some of the bureaucrats and politicians involved think it is!

The scaremongering and nonsense surrounding this issue is palpable. The same report says "Officials estimate that as many as one child in 12 who makes contact with someone online goes on to meet them." Well yes, perhaps. How many of these people are adults they meet? How many do they meet with parents or in groups or in public places? In other words, what are the actual crime statistics attached to this?
.
There are really only a few sensible approaches to this. Firstly, parents have to control net access in sensible ways. Most importantly by listening to (properly) their children, talking to them and knowing how they are. Inculcate dignity, pride and confidence to them so they look after themselves. Place the computer in a public room. Have some strict rules about meeting people online that includes insisting on meeting them with a parent, responsible adult or a couple of friends. There is only so much you can do of course. If you can't control your 15 year old drinking on a Saturday night then you'll hardly stop them meeting strangers over the internet.
.
Secondly, sentencing of sex offenders (and violent offenders) has to be proportionate to risk. Those who are clearly dangerous should have long custodial sentences. If there are truly dangerous people out there, then why are they free?
.
Finally, there needs to be a cultural change that stop making the care of children a matter for the state. If children are reaching out outline for company isn't this a particularly sad set of affairs? When I was a child, the neighbours in my street knew who I was and where I belonged, and I had no reason to fear any of them -women or men. It felt safe and almost certainly was. Nowadays adults are more fearful of any friendly contact with someone elses' kids for fear of being branded as perverts or predators - when we know this is highly unlikely. It's time to be realistic - despite the tabloid media - there aren't perverts under every corner. In fact the situations where kids are most at risk are either large extended families where parental supervision is lax, or single mothers who have questionable male partners (and daughters desperately seeking male attention). That is the sad tragedy about it all - the real issue being why are people's kids meeting strangers they meet on the internet in the first place? and if they are, how many of these cases are really a problem? The truth is nobody knows the answer to the latter question.
.

Telecommunications nationalisation

Not PC has said much of what I want to say, and I have said much in the past about the absurdity of local loop unbundling, and the de facto decision by the state to decimate investment in competing telecommunications networks by granting property rights over Telecom's network by its competitors.

There is a story about the success of deregulating telecommunications from 1989 through to 2001, the time that getting a phone line installed became quick and easy, when national and international call prices plummeted, as did cellphone calls. This is the time that a company came in and built, from scratch a duplicate nationwide telecommunications network - it was BellSouth at first, but Vodafone built the bulk of it. It is the time that Saturn (later Telstra Saturn and then Telstra Clear) built a hybrid fibre/coax telecommunications network to homes and businesses on the Kapiti Coast, Wellington City, Lower and Upper Hutt, Christchurch city - and planned to do the same in Auckland, Hamilton, Tauranga and Dunedin - yet, funnily enough, decided not to when the government started granting property rights over Telecom's network.

Now the very same people who wanted Telecom's network to be everyone's to use, but not anyone's to make an investment out of - decry that there might not be the incentives to build a next generation network of fibre optic capacity to the kerb. Funnily enough, when dialup internet was king in the late 1990s there WAS the incentive for two firms to do it - Telstra Clear as I mentioned, but Telecom did so also in parts of Auckland and Wellington, until it decided ADSL was cheaper to roll out in the meantime.

So what has been created in the last eight years of Labour government reforms has been to incentivise usage of Telecom's existing network - which is all very well if you believe that is the beginning and the end of telecommunications - except most don't. Some believe that fibre to the kerb is the next step - some believe it is wireless, some may argue that satellites can offer a solution. The state wont of course know best - in fact not one company will. Telecom got it wrong on mobile phone standards, and got it wrong on hybrid fibre coax in the late 1990s. The Post Office got in wrong in the 1970s by having triple twisted copper wire lines installed in parts of Wellington. How can the state get it right now?

and no. The arguments that "we'll all benefit" and it's "like the roads" are just fatuous. Those who will benefit from state subsidised investment (which all state investment) are those who will be internet intensive businesses. They aren't special any more than energy intensive, labour intensive or land intensive businesses. Remember how the great state folly in the late 1970s, early 1980s was replacing foreign oil - when all those "investments" were written off, as the price of oil plummeted and energy was no longer a problem (funny how most of those are irrelevant now when oil prices ARE high).

and roads? Well let's remember how roads are managed. When most people want to use them, they queue for them and get appalling service, some are in excellent condition, others are barely usable, there has been a massive backlog of deferred investment, except in politically driven projects which have dubious benefits. It takes years to get any extra capacity built, and there are plenty who lobby against it - and if you don't like the service, you generally don't have a competitor (except the railways, which may be akin to the postal service competing with email).

NZ First racism... again

Winston Peters built part of his career on race baiting ignorant white and Maori New Zealanders, scaring them about a so-calld "yellow peril", so it is hardly a surprise that with low poll ratings, NZ First is being blatantly racist - this time according to Stuff, Peter Brown is doing the job.

Brown is, himself, a foreigner. Although British is ok of course. He claims that "Asian immigration", funnily not Pacific Island, European, South African or American immigration is "pushing Maori further down the pile".

What complete utter vile racist nonsense. Not only is it racist, but it plays into the hands of those who think the living standards of Maori people depend upon others - they don't. It implies that Asian immigrants actively suppress the success of Maori. How different is that fin principle, if not degree, from the anti-semitic bile that the Nazis distributed in the 1930s claiming that Jews kept "Aryan" Germans down?

He is also reported as saying that "Asians would form "mini-societies" that led to division, friction and resentment". So unlike Maori iwi, or small villages, or gangs, or suburbs, or religions? The only person breeding resentment is Peter Brown - why be resentful, unless it is the repulsive New Zealand tendency to chop down tall poppies. You know the types - the semi-literate talkback calling envy dripping bigots who don't like the new family next door with the big car, nice clothes, who have spent money on the house, but speak some "foreign" language, and don't mix with us, don't like rugby, don't like drinking Tui's and whose kids are brighter than theirs.

Peter Brown is scratching this underbelly - a combination of racism, tall poppy syndrome and dependency - those who think the government owes them something, and resent when others do better than they.

Labour Party supporters might ask why they continue to support a government which relies on this racist party for confidence and supply, but even more inexplicably appointed its leader to be, of all things, Minister of Foreign Affairs. National supporters shouldn't gloat though. National made Winston Treasurer and Deputy PM, and would be sycophants to NZ First again for power (as would Labour).

So that's the test. Will the PM terminate the confidence and supply agreement of NZ First because Labour doesn't want to be reliant on racists for power, and will John Key say he wont do a deal with NZ First to win power for the same reason?

Of course not - both don't want to give Winston the monopoly on the racist vote.

Earth Hour or gulags more important?

I hope the sanctimonious act of mass onanism called Earth Hour gave people what they wanted - a sense of purpose from an act that at best is about saving a couple of cents. Auckland and Wellington cities allegedly participated in this. I'm glad the Green Party didn't promote it.

.

Meanwhile, while the world looks at China - I want yet again to raise the horror of the gulags in North Korea. I'll do it because unlike "climate change" you don't hear about it most days, you don't have sanctimonious little do-gooders telling you to do something about it - just 50,000 men, women and children in slave labour camps.

.

Yes, and when they escape to China - China returns them so they can all go back to the gulags.

.

LiNKorea's blog takes an uncompromising view on addressing the horrors of North Korea. They should be the top of the agenda for Amnesty International, and anyone else demanding improvements in human rights.

Many Heathrow travellers enjoying relief

well not those at Terminal 5. That's a disaster. It's not even a wholesale shift of all BA flights. All that happened is that most Terminal 1 BA flights were shifted to Terminal 5, none of the Terminal 4 flights have moved. They are scheduled to move in a month, but that's unlikely to happen on time. So expect a second major failure when that shift occurs.

.

However, by contrast Terminal 1 by some accounts is an absolute breeze.

.

You see, with almost all BA flights having moved out of Terminal 1 to Terminal 5, those remaining ones are flying through with a capacious, though aging terminal.

.

Biggest airline at Terminal 1 is BMI, enjoying its highest ever reliability levels at Heathrow, as well as a boon from those avoiding BA with all of the troubles. You can also enjoy Heathrow's easiest to use terminal if you fly:

- Aer Lingus;

- Asiana;

- Cyprus Airways;

- El Al;

- Finnair;

- Icelandair;

- LOT Polish Airlines;

- South African Airways;

- Transaero; and

- US Airways.

.

BA also has kept flights to Spain, Portugal and Finland at Terminal 1, for now (partly as BA wants routes operated jointly with codeshare partners not to operate from Terminal 5).

.

So, for now, avoid Terminal 5 - which continues to have flights cancelled, baggage delayed and more disturbingly luggage lost for transit. That means don't use Heathrow as a transit hub flying BA.

.

On the other hand, if you are flying any of the above airlines, Terminal 1 is apparently a breeze, with a 60% reduction in passengers - there are plenty of places to sit, baggage is getting through fast, no queues for gates on arrival. Meanwhile it's getting refurbished, and both Air New Zealand and United Airlines are moving there from Terminal 3 on 10 June.

.

So there is a new experience at Heathrow - it's at Terminal 1. Give the other one at least a month to shakedown.

Easter means farewell till Tuesday

escaping this cold place to go south!

Cullen shows how dirty politics is

Well there must be something in it if John Key denies he would let Roger Douglas implement a "radical right wing agenda", although methinks he is partly posturing cleverly to say "go on take some votes on the right and be my preferred coalition partner".

According to the NZ Herald, Michael Cullen, who was in Cabinet with Roger Douglas and voted to privatise Telecom, among other things, is bleating that Douglas would "flog off the schools, hospitals and cut benefits". Hell, if only! Cullen shows who he wants to appeal to - those who live off the state, not those who pay for it, as if wasting billions of taxpayers' money on growing the state is a great success.

What Douglas DID say was far from radical:

- Get rid of the 39% tax rate, which National voted against in 2000 but hasn't the balls to get rid of today;

- Inflation adjust all tax brackets since 1999, which was Dr. Cullen's policy writ large, but isn't exactly flat tax or abolishing income tax which was ACT policy before;

- $40,000 p.a. income tax free threshold, which IS rather radical, but does mean that perhaps as much as a half of taxpayers would no longer be so - except for GST. That isn't a bad thing, except those people will still vote to get money spent on them;

- Abolishing Working for Families, which National voted against but hasn't the balls to get rid of;

- Introducing education vouchers, which National had as policy in 1987, but hasn't the balls to introduce;

- Rental out spare hospital ward capacity to be used privately - which should hardly be an issue if public funding isn't available to use them;

- Cutting state spending by $3-$5 billion per annum, which is laudable - except little detail about where and how.

.

The sad thing is, in their heart of hearts both Key AND Cullen know that what Douglas did in the 1980s (and Cullen voted for it all in the House of Representatives and was in Cabinet for half of that government) was necessary and positive, and notwithstanding that the New Zealand economy is the better for it. Neither man is half that of Douglas, who faced down trade unions, farmers, manufacturers and countless interest groups suckling off the starving state tit and said "no more", as they were all suckling the productive sector and consumers dry.

.

Douglas has proposed a moderate agenda, positive yes, but hardly major leaps forward of the Unfinished Business kind, although it IS a winding back of the state. A high tax free threshold is a major tax cut.

.

However, nothing exemplifies the filthy lucre that is politics more than both men willing to take out the knives to Douglas to pander to the lowest common denominator, the Muldoonists, the Alliance retards and the second handers who constantly call for the "Guv'mint" to "do something", usually involving giving them some money or giving their favourite cause some money, taking it from someone else and telling people what to do. Key and Cullen know there are far more economically illiterate socialist types than productive types, so will sell out principle for politics.

.

Pragmatic? Perhaps yes. Revoltingly insincere and hypocritical? I hardly need to say so.

Pity those who can't avoid Earth Hour

A bunch of hand wringing environmentalists are promoting Earth Hour. A time when at 8pm (not at the same time, but 8pm local time wherever you are) you are meant to turn off the lights. You see to some this is the most important thing i the world to do - turn off the lights, feel so good that you've saved a couple of cents on your power bill, turn them on and feel purged of the sin of consumerism.

What banal nonsense.

23 million people are going to be participating in it without much choice. Take a guess who. Almost all of them aren't allowed to leave, can't own a car, take a flight or use the internet.

Last year I blogged about the true horror there. The existence of the gulags that keep children. One is called Camp 22. Camp 22 keeps 50,000 men, women and children as prisoners.

Testimony from those who have been prisoners and camp guards talks of 5 year old political prisoners. 5! Children of most ages are expected to work at gulags.

.

This 122 page report talks of the camps murdering newborn children who are not ethnically pure Korean. Some of the other stories from former prisoners include: Pregnant women have induced abortions. Prisoners do not get to bathe or any change of clothes. Prisoners are regularly beaten by fists, sticks, rifle butts or thrown against concrete walls. A 4 year old boy imprisoned with his mother dying of malnutrition. Forcing prisoners to beat each other up. Pregnant women raped by prison guards.

.

Former prison guard Ahm Myong Chol describes it all here.


This Earth Hour I ask you, for the sake of the tens of thousands in Camp 22 and the millions in North Korea, instead of engaging in some easy environmental onanism, go here and donate to LINK (Liberty in North Korea). Demand that all political parties standing in the 2008 election lobby to get this and all of the North Korean gulags shut down and the prisoners freed. Demand that North Korea stop imprisoning children and pregnant women, and stop executing new born babies of prisoners. Demand that this neo-Nazi/Stalinist/Pol Pot type horror end.

.

Given New Zealand's new relationship with North Korea, which Winston Peters has led - I want Winston to write to the ambassador to Australia/NZ from North Korea, demanding that, as a first step, all children are released from gulags and the Red Cross be permitted to enter the gulags and report on conditions. I expect the Prime Minister to support this. I expect Keith Locke and the Green Party to demand this as much as they demand freedom for Tibet and the end to Guantanamo Bay. This is a chance for politicians in New Zealand to stand up together for the end to the most vile oppression on earth today. We don't have a trade relationship with North Korea that's worth thinking twice about this.

.

This is about children being imprisoned, tortured, enslaved and murdered! Nothing is more important that ending this. Ask all candidates for election this year what they would do about it.

.

This is more important than turning the fucking lights out.

Bus patronage down in Auckland - want to know why?

The NZ Herald reports that while North Shore bus patronage has shot up thanks to the opening of the $300 million busway providing a faster ride. The increase is 66% on the express services that now use the busway. No surprise there, although by no means are the bus passengers paying anywhere near the full cost of building the busway. However bus patronage across Auckland is down 2.2% in the 6 months till the end of 2006. Why so?

.

Well there are a couple of reasons. For one, the collapse of the language school business a few years ago is having an ongoing impact, so it is partly demographics. However a more important reason is what you see in the overall public transport patronage figures - they are only up 0.4%.

.

You see train patronage is up 11.6%. Given the millions spent on new stations and more rolling stock, and subsidising more frequent services, it isn't a surprise, but many of those new passengers are actually former bus passengers. That is why the net increase in public transport use is a derisory 0.4%.

.

So with a fortune being spent on enhancing trains and buses (hundreds of millions from central government alone), with petrol prices continually growing, Aucklanders are hardly switching en-masse to increasingly heavily subsidised public transport.

.

The problem with people shifting from bus to train is that it costs. In 2002 the average subsidy per passenger in Auckland for rail was $3.69 per trip, for bus passengers it was 96c per trip (Source: Surface Transport Costs and Charges report, Ministry of Transport, Final report Table B8.1). Remember some Auckland bus services get no subsidy whatsoever, although the ARC has been trying to get the government to change that - because it wants to control all services and not allow bus operators to operate services on a commercial basis.

.

So it costs more to construct, maintain and operate rail services, and with lowering patronage of buses, it costs more to subsidise them as well. So when the ARC's leftwing Chairman Mike Lee says that it will impose a full 5c a litre petrol tax increase, for Auckland only, to pay primarily for upgrading rail services, you might ask a few questions:

1. How does shifting people from bus to rail services represent value for money for ratepayers and petrol tax payers?

2. How much faster is it to get around Auckland as a result of the improved rail services? In other words, is the spending on rail reducing congestion?

3. Why are people who live near railway stations and work near other ones, deserving of an over $7 a day handout to help them get to work, paid for by people who don't, including those who don't even go to work?

4. Why shouldn't they just ride buses that would cost only $2 a day to subsidise - in fact, why can't they pay for that themselves?

5. How many Aucklanders who live near the boundaries of Auckland region will buy fuel in Northland and Waikato, which wont be taxing motorists to pay for lavish public transport? How many petrol stations on the wrong side of those boundaries will go out of business?

Gordon Brown to meet Dalai Lama, would Helen now?

Good for him, he has told the Chinese PM Wen Jiabao that he will meet the Dalai Lama when he visits London in May. Not only that the Chinese PM has said he would meet the Dalai Lama as long as he renounces violence (which appears to hardly be an issue) and does not call for Tibetan independence (which he has not lately, simply requesting the same autonomy Hong Kong has). The Chinese reaction to the proposed meeting has not been hostile.

.

The British PM's meeting with be a formal one, not the Helen Clark "happen to be at the airport" meeting at Brisbane airport last year which she anxiously said "wasn't planned" and "because one doesn't know whether people are going to be in the lounge, or what time other passengers are boarded". They happened to be on the same flight from Brisbane to Sydney. Clark, understandably was in business class, the Dalai Lama in economy, but Qantas granted him lounge access at Brisbane which allowed the meeting to occur. Remarkable that Qantas could do what Helen Clark wouldn't - because she undoubtedly could have invited him as a guest (I fully expect she is a Qantas Gold frequent flyer).

.

This meeting will undoubtedly raise the pressure for the Chinese PM to actually meet the Dalai Lama. Helen Clark on the other hand has no backbone at all on this.

Arthur C. Clarke's passing

According to the BBC, scientist and novelist Arthur C. Clarke has died in Sri Lanka at the age of 90.

He wrote over 100 books, but is best known for writing the novel "2001: A Space Odyssey" that became a famous film directed by Stanley Kubrick, but perhaps his greatest contribution to history is his design of the concept of the geostationary satellite. Clark in a 1945 article in Wireless World proposed how a satellite orbiting over the equator at around 35,787 km over mean sea level could remain stationary over its "footprint" area. Whether or not his article was in fact the catalyst for geostationary satellites is unclear, but his science was impeccable. This ultimately had a profound influence over telecommunications and more recently television.

A dark cloud was briefly pulled over his life by the leftwing tabloid the Sunday Mirror alleging that he was a pedophile. Clark denied the allegations and a police investigation found no evidence to support the comments attributed to him, and the Sunday Mirror ultimately having to publish a retraction.

However Clark was a fascinating man - he was seen by me first in a TV series called "Arthur C. Clarke's mysterious world" which was unforgettable for the Mitchell-Hedges Skull that was part of the introduction to every episode. He had a remarkable imagination and whilst fascinated by the paranormal, was ever the scientist seeking rational answers to unexplained phenomena.

He is survived by his foundation which exists to:

• "Stimulate creative use of communications technologies and social resources to improve health, education, and the quality of life for people everywhere, with emphasis on the needs of developing countries."
• "Integrate science and technology with literature, film and other means of outreach to enhance recognition of our increasingly complex, interconnected world."
• "Deepen public understanding of science and technology, and their impact on humanity and all the other components of our universe."

these are all noble pursuits inspired by a man who looked at the stars and saw endless possibilities for humanity to use science, go forth, create and discover.

Dutch ban bestiality

I've copped some flack at David Farrar's blog for bemoaning this. Clearly the Netherlands is having a bit of an attack of the conservative bug. Of course the bestiality porn/sex show industry will simply move east (pity Prague).

.

Yes I blog too much about bestiality, since I wrote about it here and here. My key point in doing so is that the law shouldn't be involved when it is about "yuck" not harm.

.

Some of the points are funny if this wasn't about people being imprisoned. Some talk about raping animals, neglecting that the law doesn't distinguish between consent or non consent, besides animals don't give consent to be farmed and slaughtered, or have their milk taken do they? You can see the oddity of that argument.

.

My point is simple:

1. If it is your animal and you catch someone interfering with it, it's your property, trespass law should suffice. Most farmers facing this "issue" have that remedy.

2. If it is your animal or you have the owner's permission, you can do with it as you see fit, but not inflict cruelty or wanton neglect.

.

Like I said in the thread, I knew a woman who had received oral pleasure from a dog when she was younger. That is a criminal offence, as ridiculous as that may be. I know it disgusts many, and I have no interest in having sex with animals at all - but disgusting things are not the realm of the criminal law. The criminal law is about rights, and animals don't have those - there is only a duty of care for humans who own them. Besides, if you really think people who engage in it are sick then the last thing you need is for the criminal law to be involved.
.

UPDATE: For clarity. The key thing is this - not having something a crime does not condone it. Here is a list of practices that are not illegal, but are not endorsed by the state:

- Eating rotten food;
- Drinking milk that is off;
- Smoking lawn clippings;
- Piercing your tongue;
- Tattooing your partner's image on your face;
- Having groupsex;
- Eating lightbulbs;
- Drinking urine;
- Smoking pencil sharpenings;
- Piercing your genitalia;
- Having naked photos taken of you and placed online;
- Getting tied up, spanked and whipped;
- Eating lint;
- Drinking wallpaper paste;
- Inserting objects inside any of your orifices;
- Sniffing dust from your carpet;
- Masturbating into a sock;
- Sitting at the airport sniffing aircraft fumes;
- Tasting battery terminals;
- Dressing your animals as clowns;
- Eating any of your bodily fluids;
- Wearing a different shoe on each foot;
- Yodelling while frying a sponge;
- Dripping hot wax on someone's nipples;
- Drinking liquor from a woman's genitals;
... et cetera.

Kiwisaver policy

So the Nats will keep some version of Kiwisaver, just like they are keeping a 39% top tax rate, just like they are keeping the Maori sears, just like they are keeping the RMA, just like they are keeping the Employment Relations Act, just like they are keeping democratically elected DHBs, just like they are keeping centrally funded schools, just like they are keeping the nuclear free policy, just like they are keeping the unbundled local loop, just like they are keeping the subsidised TVNZ, just like they are keeping local government's power of general competence, just like they are keeping the Ministry of Economic Development, just like they are keeping income related state housing rents...

.

Here is a thought for Kiwisaver policy.

.

Grant full tax deductibility for any income from Kiwisaver, then privatise it.

.

Meanwhile make it clear that National Superannuation in its present form will not be sustainable and that those who don't save for retirement in one form or another should expect little from the state. While you're at it, you might just want to the total taxation burden to let people do that.

Helen Clark partly right... again

Yes I know it's strange, but true. No Minister reports on the PM saying that at least ACT believes in something, unlike National. Stuff quotes Clark saying:

.

"I think the way National's behaving they are leaving room for ACT because the National Party doesn't stand for anything, the National Party only stands for power and people in ACT at least have things they believe in and they believe in them quite passionately"

.

I'm not sure about ACT - certainly Douglas has beliefs, and Hide does, though you wouldn't always know them. I'm sure that, on the whole, ACT members believe in less government, sadly they have by and large not had the courage of their convictions to express them.

.

However, Clark is right about National. It by and large stands for power and sells out principle for that at any cost. Of course this is a little pot calling the kettle black, Labour's backtrack on the Treaty of Waitangi before 2005 is part of that, as is backtracking on tax cuts.

.

Yet for all that, as much as I disagree with Clark, I do believe that she has a vision of the state and society that she is willing to defend and argue for. She believes passionately in the welfare state, in central government control and supply of health and education, and that the state should direct areas of the economy when it sees fit. She is a statist, and has little resistance to using the state to change people and society.

.

ACT may, just may, have a good go at being a party of principle and courageous policies this year, although the signs are yet to be seen. It is this failure to show conviction about freedom consistently that is why Libertarianz exists today.

.

However, what does the National Party stand for that is consistently different from Labour?

Domestic airline service - quality again

Is it a sign of change that both Air NZ and Qantas have now reintroduced food service on board the main trunk domestic flights, with promises of more improvements to come?

.

Back before Ansett NZ arrived in the 1980s, when Richard Prebble lifted the limit on foreign investment in domestic airlines to 50%, Air NZ offered just a simple tea/coffee/orange juice service with legendary unopenable packs of cheese and crackers. The arrival of Ansett saw hot meals arrive and first class on domestic flights (with a choice of hot meals), airbridges and business lounges. Air NZ quickly followed suit creating Koru Club, introducing cold meals (then hot meals) and business class, as well as spending several million upgrading the then clapped out mostly central government owned Wellington domestic terminal (oh yes the wonders of government ownership).

.

We had around 15 years of competition on service, as Ansett NZ went from strength to strength, was hurt badly by a long running industrial dispute, and eventually was flogged off to become Qantas NZ, which folded and was replaced by Qantas proper operating domestically in NZ. Meanwhile, Air NZ was privatised and came to dominate domestic routes, before investing in Ansett Australia - due to Australian government rules on foreign investment - and nearly collapsing as Dr Cullen refused to let Singapore Airlines bail it out.

.

Then Air NZ introduced Express Class, gutting Business Class on domestic flights and all food and drink, except tea/coffee and a cookie - which itself was about to be cut last year.

.

Now it's halfway back, with snacks, free bar, and other enhancements. More is to come, with Qantas reintroducing flights to Christchurch, upgrading its domestic lounges, and Air NZ to create a new premium section at the front of its 737s with 3-4 inches more legroom than at present, for full fare and top tier frequent flyers.

.

Just another cycle - but it is only a coincidence that service was poor under Muldoon's socialism, got better under Douglas's free market reforms - stayed that way until two years after Labour got into power -then went cheap and is now emerging again to be higher quality just as Labour is about to lose.

Cheers Helen

So according to the NZ Herald, Helen Clark agrees with me on Air NZ paying the going rate for its Shanghai based crew.

So if there is allowed to be a going rate for labour in China which isn't decided by the government, why isn't it the same in New Zealand?

Or does the fact the airline is predominantly state owned influence things?

What foreigners can do to an airport

Many people flying to and from London's Heathrow Airport are about to find out. In July 2006, Grupo Ferrovial - a Spanish company - bought BAA plc. BAA plc owns Heathrow. Yes I know, foreigners. Think of the risks!

Now the approval and plans for Terminal 5 were made in 2001, but now Terminal 5 is about to open, on time and under budget. The first passengers will use it on 27 March 2008. British Airways is transferring almost all of its flights there from Terminals 1 and 4, which will provide much capacity at both those terminals to reduce overcrowding across the airport (Terminal 1 is destined to become the Star Alliance terminal, Terminal 4 for the Skyteam alliance and most airlines not belonging to any alliance).

Now Heathrow is far too often a nightmare - largely because of gross underinvestment over many years and a lack of capacity. Terminal 5 promises to transform the experience for British Airways customers, as well as allowing for the terminals it vacates to have ample spare capacity which will be used by reshuffling the airlines broadly into a terminal for each airline alliance.

See The Times for a photo series of the opening of Terminal 5 by the Queen.

So what is happening in Tibet?

Undoubtedly the Chinese government is tackling dissent with its usual ruthlessness. David Farrar notes pointedly how Helen Clark is treating both the Chinese government and Tibetan protestors with moral equivalency:

.

“The Government is concerned at the reports of violence and is trying to obtain more accurate information. It calls on all sides to exercise restraint.”- Prime Minister Helen Clark

.

It could have come from China's official Xinhua news agency commenting on any foreign trouble.

.

However, it is important to note that the protesters are not angels. Some are targeting any Han Chinese they see. James Miles of the Economist is the only foreign correspondent legally allowed to be in Lhasa reports he saw:

.

crowds hurling chunks of concrete at the numerous small shops run by ethnic Chinese lining the streets of the city’s old Tibetan quarter. They threw them too at those Chinese caught on the streets—a boy on a bicycle, taxis (whose drivers are often Chinese) and even a bus.

.

As your correspondent spoke to a monk in the backroom of a monastery, a teenage boy rushed in and prostrated himself before him. He was a member of China’s ethnic-Han majority, terrified of the mobs outside. The monk helped him to hide.

.

However, it is NOT an orchestrated foreign conspiracy that is "anti-Chinese", despite the hysterical claims of the Chinese government. Tibetans deserve freedom of speech. Until they have this, China has no moral authority. Without the right to criticise government and hold it to account, it is simply fascism.

.

However, the condemnations from the New Zealand government, the one that so claimed the moral highground on disarmament and Iraq - are so absent.

Toll NZ demands you subsidise its investment

The Toll NZ CEO David Jackson is in the NZ Herald pleading the case for you being forced to pay to prop up its investment, having done a deal with the government a few years ago that has gone sour.

.

Oh dear, how sad. Having already NOT paid what it was meant to in track access fees to OnTrack to cover the maintenance of the network it uses to make a profit - it wants more and the reasons it gives are worth closer investigation. Below are some of his points and my response:

.

"Statistics show a significant conversion of freight from road to rail (meeting the Government's objectives), and the industry is poised to move forward, more so, arguably, than at any other time in the past 50 years."

.

Well fine, so you've had success. Good for you.

.

"We have taken no dividends, we have improved the efficiencies, we have motivated staff and we have a business that is now viable. We have done a lot of this with fundamentally the same set of tools (people, rolling stock and assets) that we started with."

.

This puts paid to the doggerrell spread by the Standard that Toll has been asset stripping, which is a complete lie.

.

"We are prepared to invest more but require reasonable returns. We want a regime that puts tensions in place to achieve the most cost-effective outcome, that all stakeholders are accountable in this essential service to the country, and that a true, positive economic outcome is achieved. With limited funding, maximising value is critical."

.

Ohhh wait for it. "All stakeholders accountable", I know what you want, because you then say...

.

"For that to occur, a subsidy is required in some form."

.

Ah, so we all have to prop up your investment, by force. Some investment.

.

"Road transport in itself does not carry its full costs. There is no recognition of road operators receiving a subsidy but arguably they do. "

.

Neither does rail, since you are getting a subsidy on maintenance of the rail network. The only subsidy of road transport is spending on local roads from rates. Besides, since you operate a trucking network you already get a subsidy then? So presumably charges for your trucks should rise then instead? No, didn't think you'd advocate that.

.

"Rail operations the world over do not meet their costs and require significant subsidisation."

.

Oh really? So that's why British rail freight operations are commercially operated, why US railways are commercial and privately owned, and so are most Australian rail freight operations. What nonsense.

.

"I think it needs to be understood that in a country of four million people, with distances which make rail difficult to run commercially and growth opportunities that restrict the opportunity for scale improvements, there can be no room for inefficiencies."

.

In other words you bought something marginal, and it's proving harder than you thought.

.

"A final word of warning - customers are key. Without their buy in and satisfaction of their needs, rail has no future. If a subsidy is required, it is ultimately the customers along with the country as a whole, which is so desperate for infrastructure improvement, who will be the true beneficiaries."

.

There we have it. So Fonterra, Solid Energy and the various forestry companies and freight forwarders - give Toll an offer. You are the true beneficiaries - so you should pay for it. The average family with two kids shouldn't be subsidising your freight movements. Oh, and all those on the left who think it is strategic - you chip in too, since you think it is so important put YOUR money where your mouth is - oh you don't tend to do that do you?

So who owns your life?

David Farrar has posted a tragic story of a French women suffering intolerable agony and loss of dignity due to esthesioneuroblastoma.

.

I challenge anyone to dare think for a moment that anyone BUT that woman has the right to decide when and how she should die. Who owns YOUR life?

.

Few points of freedom are more important than asserting that we all have the right to control not only our life but our own death. The last attempt to grant New Zealanders this right was in 2003, with the Death With Dignity Bill proposed by NZ First list MP Peter Brown - his proudest Parliamentary move in my book.

.

It was defeated 60 to 58, with one abstention and one no vote. The defeat wasn't even at the final reading, it was on the FIRST reading. It wasn't even allowed to go to Select Committee for submissions and for further work. That in itself tells you what those who voted against it thought. They don't even want to entertain that adults should decide when to terminate their lives when they become insufferable. It is worth remembering, of those in Parliament today, which MPs believe you own your life, and which ones think THEY do. You may be surprised. Of interest, Don Brash voted for the Bill.

.

Those who voted FOR considering the Death with Dignity Bill (who are still in Parliament today):

Tim Barnett (Lab)

David Benson-Pope (Lab)

Sue Bradford (Greens)

Peter Brown (NZ First)

Mark Burton (Lab)

Chris Carter (Lab)

Steve Chadwick (Lab)

Helen Clark (Lab)

David Cunliffe (Lab)

Ruth Dyson (Lab)

Russell Fairbrother (Lab)

Jeanette Fitzsimons (Greens)

Phil Goff (Lab)

George Hawkins (Lab)

Dave Hereora (Lab)

Rodney Hide (Act)

Marian Hobbs (Lab)

Pete Hodgson (Lab)

John Key (Nat)

Winnie Laban (Lab)

Keith Locke (Greens)

Moana Mackey (Labour)

Steve Maharey (Lab)

Murray McCully (Nat)

Mahara Okeroa (Lab)

Pita Paraone (NZ First)

Winston Peters (NZ First)

Lynne Pillay (Lab)

Heather Roy (Act)

Dover Samuels (Lab)

Lockwood Smith (Nat)

Barbara Stewart (NZ First)

Nandor Tanczos (Greens)

Georgina te Heuheu (Nat)

Judith Tizard (Lab)

Metiria Turei (Greens)

Tariana Turia (then Labour now Maori)

Maurice Williamson (Nat)

Pansy Wong (Nat)

Doug Woolerton (NZ First)

Those who voted AGAINST the Bill (and remain in Parliament):

Jim Anderton (Prog C)

Shane Ardern (Nat)

Rick Barker (Lab)

Gerry Brownlee (Nat)

David Carter (Nat)

John Carter (Nat)

Ashraf Choudhary (Lab)

Judith Collins (Nat)

Brian Connell (Nat)

Gordon Copeland (UF now independent)

Clayton Cosgrove (Lab)

Michael Cullen (Lab)

Lianne Dalziel (Lab)

Peter Dunne (UF)

Harry Duynhoven (Lab)

Bill English (Nat)

Taito Phillip Field (Lab now independent)

Martin Gallagher (Lab)

Mark Gosche (Lab)

Sandra Goudie (Nat)

Phil Heatley (Nat)

Parekura Horomia (Lab)

Darren Hughes (Lab)

Paul Hutchison (Nat)

Sue Kedgley (Greens) (big surprise, yeah right!)

Annette King (Lab)

Nanaia Mahuta (Lab)

Trevor Mallard (Lab)

Wayne Mapp (Nat)

Ron Mark (NZ First)

Damien O'Connor (Lab)

David Parker (Lab)

Jill Pettis (Lab)

Simon Power (Nat)

Katherine Rich (Nat)

Mita Ririnui (Lab)

Ross Robertson (Lab)

Tony Ryall (Nat)

Clem Simich (Nat)

Nick Smith (Nat)

Paul Swain (Lab)

Lindsay Tisch (Nat)

Judy Turner (UF)

Margaret Wilson (Lab)

Richard Worth (Nat)

Dianne Yates (Lab)

ACT's caucus (today) voted for it, as did John Key and Helen Clark. Any hope of this being resurrected after the next election, or will we have the usual swathe of conservative National MPs who think they know best?