Discriminate away

Catherine Delahunty, one of the new intake of post-modernist reason evading socialist MPs is upset that Rodney Hide, Minister of Local Government, has told a businessman to avoid the instructions of his local authority on a planning requirement. These apparently have no legal force.

According to Stuff, the council said that if the man, an employer, were to install a shower for staff, it would have to be wheelchair accessible. According to the employer, that would make it prohibitively expensive.

Catherine Delahunty's reality evasion sees her blogging that "There is a growing body of evidence that tells us people with impairments are above average employees if their needs are met" and goes on to give no evidence at all, showing how shallow her argument is. That's it, just make it up, the Greens are used to faith based initiatives. Think about it - people with impairments are above average employees if their needs are met. However she did make the faux pax in saying "And if you build a walk-in shower everybody can use it, whether they have been cycling on two wheels or rolling to work on the two wheels of a wheelchair". Yep those two wheeled wheelchairs are a real hit!

Idiot Savant is upset because a Cabinet Minister is advising someone to break the law. A position I am sure he wouldn't have had a problem with if it was a law he didn't agree with, like laws on blasphemy perhaps. It is hardly being a gangster saying "if you want to build a shower, build it how you like it". Particularly since it isn't a legal requirement (although Hide didn't know that at the time).

The point is simple, the law should leave this man well alone regardless. If he wants to install a shower for his employees, good for him! He probably figures that it is a good way of helping retain valued staff. If he doesn't want it to be available for those in wheelchairs, why the hell is it anyone else's business? Why is it the state's business if he doesn't want to employ people in wheelchairs?

In fact if Catherine Delahunty believes so passionately in "transition from a disabling environment to an equitable environment" why doesn't she offer to help pay for it? Does any property she own have fully accessible access, to all floors, rooms and showers?

Making the fun police squeal

I'm unsure what it is, whether it is some sort of inate desire to evade the parenting finger pointing and "do what I say" judgmental nannying of do-gooders, but few things are quite as satisfying as pissing off Sue Kedgley.

The government decision to scrap the "only healthy foods" policy for schools is one I don't get too heated up about myself. You see I think schools should make their own decisions on this sort of thing (in fact all decisions if they could get funded from parents directly), so this is a minor step forward. However, for the chief conducator of nanny state, Sue Kedgley to describe it as "an astonishingly stupid move which will cost the nation dearly" is her usual hysterical cry of nonsense.

Kids can eat some unhealthy food, it's fine. You see, they ENJOY it. Enjoying some unhealthy food is part of life Sue - enjoying non-organic, sugar salt or fat laden deliciousness - like a decadent chocolate cake, like deep fried fish and chips. It's part of living, and the do gooding harpies like yourself make people want to do it more.

Because frankly the more you tell people to not do something, the more they want you to just fuck off and mind your own business. Especially since you want a state run health monopoly that doesn't charge people more or less if they live less or more healthy lifestyles, and rations due to politically agreed criteria instead of price.

It's like telling teenagers not to drink, not to smoke, not to have sex - the obvious response is to want to do it, just because you say no, and because the common theme among do-gooders is to want to regulate having fun.

That's the same response I give to Dr Alan Maryon Davis in the UK, who the Daily Telegraph reports as saying "I see an increasing acceptance that we, all of us, need not only more information and guidance from government, but also more legislation to save us from ourselves". He WANTS more Nanny State, he thinks people are stupid and should be treated like children and saved from themselves.

What he wants and needs are two different things. What he needs is, as Bob Jones would say, a smack in the chops. People take risks about their health because they face no consequences in the Soviet style National Health Service. The ultra healthy gain nothing, the ultra sick get all the health care the system can ration their way. If you change that, then it shouldn't be any else's business if you want to risk a short life being decadently unhealthy, or a long life being frigidly good - or indeed the opposite, as both happen.

The fun police are to be scorned and loathed and exposed for what they are, with their only argument of merit - that it is useful to inform people of risks and behaviour that can harm them - being something that the fun police should direct attention to. I like knowing blueberries are very good antioxidants, and butter really is rather bad for the circulation (with little else going for it). However, damn the health fascist who tells me off from lathering butter on toast once in a while, or tells me I am not eating enough blueberries.

In the meantime, upsetting Sue Kedgley is a pleasure - so let's all have a chocolate bar, hamburger or the like this weekend, to make her writhe.

Waterview connection business case

The Minister of Transport has kindly released a report on the business case of the Waterview Connection of SH20 in Auckland - the NZ$2.8 billion motorway that the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) wants in a bored tunnel, even though the two other sections under construction are of standard surface level cutting design - surely not because it partly goes through the former PM's electorate. Current legislation, heavily influenced by the Greens, probably means the tunnel makes sense if all that matters is to minimise environmental impact. Anyway, the main points I got are:

- While this is only for four lanes, having six lanes would add another NZ$390 million to the project. Given growth in Auckland traffic in recent decades you'd be mad to assume that a four lane route is all that will be needed in the medium term.
- The benefit cost ratio is 1.15/1, which means it is barely worthwhile doing. However, if delayed ten years that goes up to 1.7/1. Cutting costs from the project would do a lot more.
- The appendix at the back of the report shows you could do a six lane cut and cover tunnel for 10-15% less than the four lane bored tunnel. Better yet you could shave 20-25% off the cost if it was built just like the other sections of SH20. Doing this of course makes the project worthwhile.
- Pushing the project forward at current costs will delay many many others which are more worthwhile.
- A toll could only hope to pay around NZ$400 million of the cost, suggesting that those who would directly gain from the road wouldn't be that interested in directly paying for the time and operating cost savings. That should in itself set off some alarm bells.

There is some analysis that is missing that could enlighten further of course. First, it would interesting to see what "shadow tolling" would say about the revenue the road would generate from those using it, that is from fuel tax and road user charges, which are "paid" whenever any road is used. If you combine that with a toll (or even on its own), would enough be paid over 35 years from users to pay? THAT is the true "toll" from a financial perspective.

Secondly, what would the toll revenue be if the parallel route was also being properly tolled. In other words, if the local roads the motorway would bypass were charged by a company seeking to maximise revenue. You see, many more may pay to use the toll road if the slower local streets were priced at peak times also.

Anyway, the NZTA has been sent back to find ways to trim the cost of the project, and I think this has to mean at least going partially cut and cover, if not abandoning the nonsensical tunnel idea altogether.

Personally, I'd prefer it a decision on whether to proceed were delayed until the other sections under construction are completed. Then we will know how bad the congestion is between SH16 and SH20, and for how long. It can also exploit the recession to get a better price for construction. (Steven Joyce might also consider the removal of the Avondale to Southdown railway designation, because frankly that railway wont ever be built, isn't worth building and can provide some of the land for the motorway).

The bigger truth is that the government is operating in a non-market mode, with roads priced as taxation, so the roads parallel to this motorway are too cheap to motorists (as around 60% of the cost of maintaining them comes from ratepayers), and inadequate analysis of revenue generated from road taxes from use of the road. Most of all, the pressure to build the road comes from planners and politicians.

What this doesn't tell you is that the primary blame for the problems around this project is the stupidity of Auckland City Council in the 1970s in abolishing motorway designations, on unbuilt land.

Designations were retained for the Mt Roskill to Manukau section, but not beyond. Without it, the land has been built on, unlike the designated land which always has temporary use (and little property purchase was needed). That's local government failing again. There was a designation for a motorway from Upper Queen Street parallel to Dominion Road to Mt Roskill as well, but all you see of it today is a cheaply built section from New North Road to Upper Queen Street. See how good planners are? The country is full of examples like that by the way.

Government cuts spending on broadband pork

Well, the NZ$340 million broadband subsidy that Labour proposed.

Because National has a bigger one, which I can only hope doesn't go anywhere. If the telecommunications industry could be certain of its private property rights, it would invest where it would see returns in providing broadband capacity.

Labour's Clare Curran (who I described as a vile little PR hack) is screeching saying it is "gut wrenching and wrong", presumably because delaying some people having subsidised access to swap music, download pirated videos, porn and do high end gaming is "wrong". Not that she knows right from wrong, as she actively tried to position National as "enemies of the people". You can just see what she'd have been doing had she lived in East Germany before 1989. She says it sends the industry tumbling backwards. Well any industry that needs shots of money taken from taxpayers shouldn't be our concern.

Broadband has become the new political pork of the 21st century. Those who want it aren't prepared to pay for it. Some suppliers are gagging for subsidies to expand their "businesses" and it has become the cargo cult "essential for the economy". Remarkable how something so essential doesn't get investors excited or the users willing to pay for what it costs.

However, I wont hold out hope that the government will keep its sticky fingers off this, restore private property rights to Telecom over its network and remove the ability of councils to block the roll out of new telecommunications networks through the RMA

In the "get over it, you lost" file

A report that Prince William is to be sent to the Falklands with the RAF as a search and rescue pilot has upset the Argentine government.

The Daily Telegraph reports:

"Jorge Taina, an aide to Argentina's foreign minister, said the move would reopen debate about the future of the islands.

"This circumstance only serves to once again highlight Britain's ongoing military presence in land and sea areas that are part of the Argentine Republic's national territories," he said."

Guess what Jorge. The people of the Falklands don't want you there, the territories are de-facto and de-jure recognised as part of the United Kingdom. Falkland Islanders do not want to be ruled by a developing country that comparatively recently was run by a mindless and incompetent military junta.

If they don't want you, then you should kindly fuck off and leave Falkland Islanders alone, look at your own bizarre little leftwing government to find reasons why your economy isn't as much of a success as Chile. It isn't that different from Spain and Gibraltar. Spain wants Gibraltar, most people in Gibraltar don't want to be governed by Spain.