Latest Green outrages

Environment Court appeals

It starts with the moans about how the filing fee for Environment Court appeal applications is being increased from NZ$55 to NZ$500, hardly a big deal for anyone with a serious concern about an Environment Court decision, but clearly a deal for the interfering busybodies who want to dictate to others what to do with their land. The Greens are outraged according to the NZ Herald.

The claim is "The fee increase will particularly hurt the small environment groups, residents' associations and voluntary community project groups who work on behalf of the public." says Russel Norman. Sorry Russel, the groups you describe work for themselves NOT on behalf of the public. The "public" does not belong to them, they are lobbyists with special interests. None of such groups ever speak for me - unless I explicitly authorise them to do so.

Hopefully the fund that Labour set up to subsidise environmental group appeals to the Environment Court has also been abolished.

Anti-nuke hysteria

Dr Kennedy Graham, (one of the new intake) says New Zealand should be "anti-nuclear all of the time". He is upset NZ did not support a UN resolution for a treaty banning nuclear weapons.

Nuclear weapons kept the peace in Europe from 1949 to 1989, Dr Graham would prefer to keep his head in the sand about this saying "NATO countries rely on nuclear weapons. New Zealand does not. NATO believes that their retention of nuclear weapons keeps the peace. New Zealand does not. It is time that New Zealand acted consistently with its stated policy of rejecting nuclear deterrence and supported the UN call to ban the use of nuclear weapons".

Actually Dr Graham nuclear weapons DO keep the peace. They have kept Israel from full scale attack since 1974, they have kept North Korea at bay since 1953, they have kept India and Pakistan from fighting over Kashmir since the 1970s. "Banning nuclear weapons" is childishly naive. Russia and China, both authoritarian states with designs on their neighbours, wont abandon nuclear weapons, so why should the US/France and the UK?

Despite the naive wishes of the "anti-nuclear movement", the world has states which are militaristic and threaten their neighbours, some of these are nuclear powers. While there remain such countries with nuclear weapons it would be counterproductive to remove any Western deterrence of them (and Israel would be mad to surrender the nuclear option whilst Iran talks of wiping it off the map).

Foreign investment North Korean style

Green MP Kevin Hague is xenophobic about foreign (ew) investors because "dividends from a locally-owned business are considerably more likely to be reinvested locally" (fine but why restrict foreigners from investing too? or should New Zealanders not be allowed to invest overseas?), Local owners of a business are more likely than foreign owners to have some sense of identity and common purpose with local people and environment (you can say that about truly local owners, like Auckland for Aucklanders, or should it be Parnell for Parnellians?

Then the pièce de résistance "Economic power translates in part to political power. Greater foreign ownership of businesses in New Zealand thus generally weakens national sovereignty." Nonsense. If the role of the state simply was to protect individual rights, you wouldn't care.

An investor from Australia in Auckland is no different from an investor from Auckland in Dunedin, or an investor from Takapuna in Penrose. They are all "foreign", it's just the Greens think national boundaries matter because of a peculiar geographic phobia of auslanders.

Self sufficiency is the basis for the North Korean philosophy of juche which is:

1. The people must have independence in thought and politics, economic self-sufficiency, and self-reliance in defense.
2. Policy must reflect the will and aspirations of the masses and employ them fully in revolution and construction.
3. Methods of revolution and construction must be suitable to the situation of the country.
4. The most important work of revolution and construction is molding people ideologically as communists and mobilizing them to constructive action.

I'm sure the Greens would reject the fourth point, but the rest?

20 years since Hillsborough

20 years ago today 96 people were killed at the Hillsborough football ground in Sheffield.

The story behind it is on Wikipedia. In essence, an influx of fans crushed those already in the ground, the Police opened a gate to try to ease pressure at turnstiles, causing the crush. The Police kept a cordon around the Liverpool fans, preventing some of them escaping to carry the injured, because they wanted to separate groups of fans of rival teams. The Police turned away ambulances that had been called to deal with the injured.

It was a horrible appalling tragedy, one that saw an inquiry undertaken by Lord Taylor of Gosforth, which recommended an end to standing accommodation at football grounds. The Police did not apologise or ever admit any mistakes in their handling of the tragedy, the families of the dead today booed Culture Secretary Andy Burnham at a gathering at Anfield today to commemorate the death.

That weeping sore has not yet been healed.

London Met Police investigated again for brutality

The BBC reports two incidents recorded on video of the London Metropolitan Police lashing out at G20 protestors. In one incident, a woman slapped in the face, then whacked by a baton on her legs. Another shows a policeman using the edge of his shield to hit protestors.

Now I'm no supporter of the protestors at all, I despise their violence and vandalism. However, it is core to the state that the Police behave with restraint. It plays into the hands of protestors to do otherwise, and is frankly criminal.

The job is difficult, intensely so. They have to put up with abuse, and have to protect people and their property, as well as allowing angry people to protest verbally. However, they also have to ensure they do not initiate force - they exist to use force to protect themselves and others, and their property. Having this privileged use of force, police must always be under scrutiny, and those who go beyond the reasonable use of force in protecting the rights of others, should be held accountable and removed.

Be glad NZ avoided the Human Rights Council

Why? Because New Zealand would never have the gravitas or the courage to confront the barely mitigated evil contained within it.

Peter Singer in The Guardian writes about how the UN Human Rights Council adopted a resolution that considers defamation of religion a human rights violation. This resolution was sponsored by the Organisation of the Islamic Conference. The likes of Iran and Saudi Arabia, governments that completely reject the concept of individual rights, promoted this vile non-binding resolution.

UN Watch describes it as "an Orwellian text that distorts the meaning of human rights, free speech, and religious freedom, and marks a giant step backwards for liberty and democracy worldwide."

Quite.

Germany bravely spoke against it saying it "rejected the concept of "defamation of religion" as not valid in a human rights context, because human rights belonged to individuals, not to institutions or religions."

Which is of course the key point.

Now assuming the US sits on the Human Rights Council, it should use that role to stamp on the morally wanting states who want to treat rights as subservient to the state, or religion. However, don't blame me if I think that a US Administration with Secretary of State Hilary Clinton is hardly going to be a strong fervent supporter of individual rights.

Individuals have a freedom of religion, and a freedom to believe in no religion, and no state should interfere with that free choice. Sadly, most of the Muslim world retains laws on apostasy (Muslims changing religion or becoming atheists).

However, it is the UN that puts all governments on a level playing field - treating New Zealand, Iran, the United States, North Korea, Germany and Turkmenistan as each having equally valid points of view.

New Zealand is best standing to one side from the debates between those who have some respect for individual rights, and the murdering, torturing, thieving bullies that sadly govern the majority of the world's population.

Free pools aren't free

John Walker is worried the megacity will see the end of Manukau's own little pork project, which is to take money from ratepayers to provide free access to baths pools in Manukau.

The NZ Herald reports "Since 1974, Manukau City Council has provided free public access to all pools, putting up to $7 million of ratepayers' money towards running the facilities each year."

It isn't providing anything - it is taking money from those who don't swim to subsidise those who do. Children wont lose access if their parents bother paying for it, instead of expecting everyone else to provide something to nothing.

The usual excuse is given that if you don't give kids something to do, they'll be criminals - which isn't a reason to blackmail ratepayers. "it's giving them something to do - take it away and they're on the streets, bored and [with] nothing to do - leading to trouble." says Walker.

I'm sorry, when I was bored as a kid, i didn't go round robbing people, or beating people up or vandalising buildings. Providing free pools because kids are feral is a copout out of ensuring that they have some respect for others, and get over "being bored". If the poor bubbas of Manukau can't cope with being bored now, then wait till have to work (or have to do stuff while on welfare).

Of course John Walker and other supporters could raise funds themselves to help pay for children from low income families to have access to the pools. However, that would require convincing people to pay for others, and why should you do that when you can force them to pay for what you want?

USA and North Korea celebrate 15 April

For Americans some are protesting it as Boston Tea Party day, a day to protest taxes, as it is the day for the final lodging of tax returns for the Federal government. A tax code that is mind numbingly complex, give the likes of lawyers and H & R Block completely unproductive jobs helping people avoid the heavy hand of the US Federal Government pursuing its number one goal - taking money off of US citizens to pay for its activities. NOTHING the US Federal Government does is pursued with such relentless threats and assuming guilt (with you having to prove innocence) like it pursues tax.

CNN reported "CNBC personality Rick Santelli went off on Obama's policies live on air. "The government is promoting bad behavior," he said, his voice loud. He asked why Obama would make Americans who pay their bills subsidize the mortgages of "losers." Santelli said he wanted a tea party to happen in Chicago, to stand up and angrily demand "No more.""

The Ayn Rand Institute explains more clearly what the problem is:

"Today, thousands of Americans are joining modern day tea parties, named after the Boston Tea Party of 1773. They are protesting a government that, in the wake of today's financial crisis, is rapidly strangling their freedom, with endless bailouts, mounting regulations, reckless spending, and the promise of a crippling tax burden. Correctly sensing that the American system is being discarded, they seek to battle this trend by taking to the streets to register their outrage.

But today's statist onslaught is the result of a deeply entrenched set of ideas about the proper purpose of government. Virtually everyone today believes that unrestricted capitalism is immoral and dangerous, and that the government's role is to actively intervene in the economy in order to achieve the "public good." So long as these ideas remain unchallenged, and no positive alternative is offered, no protest will be able to change the country's course."

That is why a moral defence of capitalism is essential.

Don't expect the man who has engaged in the biggest exercise of fiscal child abuse in world history to do much substantively about it, he is part of the problem. President Obama is promising a simpler tax code according to the Wall Street Journal:

"It will take time to undo the damage of years of carve-outs and loopholes," Obama said. "But I want every American to know that we will rewrite the tax code so that it puts your interests over any special interest."

However, his record in combatting the special interests of his party is so far nil.

SO what about North Korea? Well 15 April is the birthday of President Kim Il Sung. Yes he has been dead since 1994, making North Korea the world's first necrocracy according to Christopher Hitchens. It's a public holiday in North Korea.

Just thought it was a curious parallel.

What Maori can do about representation

Read Blair Mulholland's latest post. It's pretty much on the ball.

Unlike the racist victim promoters in the Green Party and the Maori Party he says:

"No need to worry about rednecks like Harawira and Hawke, you have a right to vote and stand and be elected for the new Council just like everybody else. All you need to do is put it into action and stand!

Good luck in 2010. I hope to see some of you on the hustings, and some of you at the table when it is all over."

A hikoi or protest will deliver nothing in comparison.

Labour complaining about its own policy!

What else can explain the inane press release from former Beehive spin doctor Brendon Burns (now MP for Christchurch Central) moaning that Sky Television won the rights to broadcast the Rugby World Cup?

He says it "is another example of the National/Act Government’s ‘hands-off’ policies failing New Zealanders".

Brendon, it is the same frigging policy that existed under Labour.

There are no so-called "anti-siphoning" laws in New Zealand, there never were under Labour (although Jim Anderton supported them, they would be contrary to New Zealand's WTO commitments in audio-visual services for starters).

So moaning that less than half of households have Sky, really is unimportant, as most people know someone with Sky, and most pubs in the country have Sky.

Or would Brendon rather that taxpayers subsidised TVNZ to pay an unprofitable price for the broadcasting rights?

It hardly matters - National didn't change the law - Brendon just doesn't like a policy that has been in place for the entire period of the last Labour led government.

Talk about scratching around desperately for issues!

MORE good news from The Standard

This time how the government is not forcing you (those who own homes outright and those who have yet to buy a home) to pay for people who took out mortgages they can no longer afford.

I guess The Standard supports subsidies for people who borrow to buy real estate. If that isn't a transfer from lower income taxpayers (those too poor to own, or the elderly who are income poor, but many own their own homes) to middle income ones, I don't know what is.

Socialists are funny aren't they, thinking that when the government doesn't take your money to spend it on propping up people who took risks, that you will be unhappy about it.

A rates cap is not enough

A comment by Nick on one of my posts about the Auckland supercity said:

"Rodney Hide has said the LGA will be amended and this will include a cap on Rates to inflation + population growth. That cap will get rid of these quangos overnight even if the power of general competence remains."

Blair Mulholland thinks that:

"The point of the reforms was not to reduce the size of local government, although it may yet do that. The point was not to reduce rates, although it may yet do that. The point was always to destroy the vice-like grip of socialists and busybodies over our fair region."

Blair essentially thinks that the political demographic of the supercity will lean towards the centre-right, which is nonsense. He says "The Left will lose out in such a contest, not because they have less money (as they will inevitably whine) but because they are simply less organised in Auckland."

Blair is naive. The ARC has been centre-left dominated since its inception, it resisted selling the Yellow Bus Company when National last reformed local government, so had to be forced to do so by legislation because it could not fairly be a subsidiser of public transport through competitive tendering, and compete with the private sector in those tenders. The proposals create a grand ARC. It will NOT stop the vice like grip of busybodies over Auckland - not by a long shot.

Nick's more interesting point that a cap on rates (well after inflation and population growth) will be an effective constraint also misses certain key points. Such a cap does NOT restrict the regulatory powers of local authorities, it does NOT restrict the powers of local authorities to borrow and start up public sector businesses. Given the growth of local government in recent years, it does nothing more than slow down future growth.

Like I said before, a supercity for Auckland does nothing to address the core question - what should be the role of local government?

New Zealand is NOT a federal constitutional democracy. Local government has powers purely because central government lets it. Local government currently has unlimited powers because the Labour/Alliance coalition, with Green party support, granted it such powers.

A rates cap should be introduced quickly as an interim step, but a fundamental review of the powers and purpose of local government is needed - now - before super unitary authorities are to be created.

I'd hedge a bet that as long as people are confident their footpaths and roads would be maintained, rubbish collected, water/sewage systems function, and private property rights are protected from encroachment or torts (e.g. nuisance), most would want nothing more from local government.

Moreover, I struggle to find a single useful activity local government undertakes that can't simply be user pays in one capacity or another, or isn't just a matter of delineation of what ought to be property rights.

Maori Mugabe?

If you scuttle over to Scoop you'll find something called the Maori Declaration of Independence made by a self styled "Co-founder and Maori Governor of the Maori Government Of Aotearoa". Chanel Morton-Matene - who is more insane than Catherine Delahunty.

In essence, she is calling for Maori tribes to sign a "declaration of independence" from the New Zealand government. For a split second it sounds curiously libertarian, for a moment, rejecting taxation as it does. However, it is far more sinister - it basically seeks to nationalise all land under the banner of this self styled government. Under the neo-fascist nationalism of this philosophy, you would only be allowed to be a "land holder" and could never sell your land, just have it passed in succession.

"for those of you who have more homes on land than you know what to do with - I will be looking to downsize your property holder portfolios in the interests of moral and restorative justice - and the same goes for Maori people. Just because you are Maori, does not mean that you will escape my long arm of restorative justice that will reach the furthermost parts of our globe".

Nasty stuff.

Apparently any Maori who disagrees is a "sellout", so it's deliberately totalitarian.

Then the real weirdness is that motor vehicle registration will end, but warrants of fitness remain, and manufacturers need to use biodegradeable materials. Yep, priorities right there!

"The New Zealand People As A Collective, Though Not Entirely, Are Using Oppressive Techniques Such As Negative Expressions, Indifferent Body Language, Verbal Jargon"

It gets funnier:

"I can actually see future events before they happen. And yes, I saw 9/11 when I was five years old, and was able to read out the names of the people who hijacked the planes. But who in the NZ government would have believed a five year old little Maori girl right? And yes. I can read tomorows paper today, and see lotto numbers before they are drawn. I can taste food I've never tasted before, and tell you things about yourself that you have never shared with the world. I can see bombs before they drop, and disasters before they happen. I can see business investments go up or down before they actually do. And I can even see horses that win at the races before the races have even begun. I believe that with this gift, I can help create world peace, anull poverty and avert wars which is exactly my intention. And once I prove to the world that I have this gift by winning lotto seven times in a row, all you prejudiced individuals will wish I were on your side."

Go on - win lotto you freak - what's stopping you?

Anyone not Maori is a foreigner or descendent of a foreigner. Not true Aryan Maori, but auslanders. The parallels with Hitler, Milosevic, apartheid era South Africa, or indeed the legions of ethno-nationalist mental pygmies who classify people by who their parents are, not what they do, are clear.

The websites related to it certainly are mindless racist ramblings.

However, more importantly shouldn't the Maori Party unanimously damn this bigoted nonsense, promoting violent theft of land, fascism and well lunatic racism?

Especially given this statement from the self styled "governor" "Therefore, in recognition of your most notable and worthy contributions to Maori causes, especially you Hone, and you Tariana for your letter of support recently, I cordially invite you and all interested parties, to the first signing ceremony of the Maori Declaration Of Independence 2008, at my home here at 546 Whangaparaoa Road, Whangaparaoa, Aotearoa, on September 30th 2009 - Maori Day Of Redemption - exactly one year following the establishment of MDOI 2008."

So Hone and Tariana. Do you agree with the sentiments of this insane Maori version of Robert Mugabe or not?

Catherine Delahunty is clearly quite mad

On Catherine Delahunty's Twitter account her views are simply too bizarre. Is it the appalling use of English, or the evasion of reality, or is someone doing a remarkably good job of poking fun at her?

Yet it seems serious!

Take her Twitter posts:

"greencatherine: Despite the pretty words and new clothes am hoping new puppy at white house will stop killing afghanis and funding Israel wars on Palestine"

The Obama puppy has been killing afghanis and funding Israel? What a wonderdog!

"Awesome Tairawhiti sunshine a good to start our own banks instead of trusting the white boy club"

Yep it's sunny so set up your own bank Catherine. Good luck with that. Banking with sea shells as currency are you?

"Ten thousand families per day lose their home in USA capitallists can fix this?"

No of course not Catherine, socialists can. Go on, make something out of nothing. Support people who borrowed beyond their means to speculate on property prices going up forever.

"If it wasnt for almonds and dark chocolate I would go crazy here."

Clearly not enough almonds and dark chocolate around.

"Iin a beige hotel after some good meetings trying not eat the chocolate as people lose their jobs"

Yep, those magic chocolates that fire people from each one you eat. Must have been made by magic witch doctor indigenous people who can cast spells on the chocolates to punish capitalists!

"Am experiencing a weird desire not to make a speech about nothing in the House, but met some amazing rangatahi yesterday at Challenge 2000"

Wanting to not make a speech about nothing, but doesn't matter I met some kids?

Come on, it must be someone making this stuff up. Surely.

Keep it up Catherine, you're the Green Party's greatest new electoral liability - Jeanette embraced reason by comparison.

More interesting facts from the Standard

Tane at the Standard presents a useful update on how the Labour government increased the largely unproductive sector (state sector - given you have to be forced to pay for it) from 1999 to 2008, whereas the previous National governments and the reformist Labour government cut it back tremendously (and of course unemployment also dropped from the mid 1990s).

Presumably the Standard intends to scare you into thinking that somehow you got a 50% added value from the 50% additional bureaucrats Labour hired over National.

Do you think you got your money's worth? Tane of course doesn't really consider it has been YOUR money that paid for it.

It's a pretty useful guide as to the bare minimum cuts the government should be implementing surely.

A car race not an arms race

The Guardian notes (hat top North Korea Economy Watch) that the ambassadors of North and South Korea in London both have equally flash limousines. Though I'd add that while the number plate of the South Korean ambassador's car (ROK1) makes sense, the number plate of the North Korean ambassador's car (PRK1D) is far too close to Prick 1 for he to have been given useful advice of English colloquialisms.

Remembering Nicky Hager

Given Idiot Savant has linked to far leftwing activist and "investigative journalist" Nicky Hager, I thought it was worthwhile to link to Trevor Loudon's useful bio on Mr Hager.

It is, after all, in the interests of transparency and fairness that people know Mr Hager is anything but an independently minded truth seeker, but has a long standing serious leftwing agenda that puts him to the left of the Green Party.

Rudman smarter than McClay

Yes, I'm astonished! I agree with Brian Rudman. In the NZ Herald he says "the simple solution does seem to be to remove all restrictions and be done with it."

Quite! It is symbolic of the disgusting interfering nature of New Zealand political culture that the ban on opening retail outlets on specific days, because some people hold them to have significance because of ghosts they worship, continues to exist and gets enforced by the most joyless set of government goons.

I blogged about this quite satisfactorily a year ago, saying Easter Sunday is for individuals not politicians, responding to Sue Bradford's own mindless press release.

It is simply fascist to tell business owners when they can and cannot trade - it is such a clear example of a victimless crime that it is beyond a joke that it remains. However, as Rudman says that "both major parties too chicken to stand up to the high priests of Christianity and organised labour on this". Indeed it is true.

Christians who wont mind their own business (because they want to mind everyone else's) and unions who want workers to all follow in unison (!) like a lumpen proletariat.

National's latest gutless MP - Todd McClay (yes you know his dad), has a bill that would NOT do away with this vile law, which should be seen as contrary to the philosophy of the National Party. No. McClay, who has no media releases on his page on the National Party website, is going to let councils decide.

Instead of embracing the freedom of businesses to decide for themselves, he has embraced a new power for local authorities to decide for them. He has done nothing more than proposing the devolution of an authoritarian law from the Labour Department to local authorities. He talks the collectivist claptrap of letting "communities decide", as if it is right that the majority decide whether a business opens or not.

Well Mr McClay, you've proven that you, and the National Party, remain gutless failures in defending the fundamental right of any business to decide when it should trade.

It's time for ACT to propose that the Bill simply remove all restrictions on shop trading hours. It is what Libertarianz would do.

UPDATE: Andrei at NZ Conservative suggests that the Labour Department be prosecuted for having its "workers" "working" on Good Friday and Easter Sunday. Lucyna at the same blog disagrees, just to show that Christian conservatives are not all of one opinion on this.

Isn't the Standard funny?

with this. (and I don't support the cycleway at all)

So how about this?

Kiwirail

Time: 9.5 months
Jobs created: 0
Additional freight and passengers carried: 0
Cost thus far: $1.07 billion (purchase plus capital injection)
Wealth created from purchase: -$242 million (Treasury rightdown in November, to be conservative.)
Money saved on road maintenance minus road user charges revenue lost: 0
Enrichment of foreign investors from the New Zealand taxpayers' pockets: $206 million (difference in what Toll paid and what Dr Cullen paid using your money to buy the same thing).

What do you want local government to do?

Well under the Local Government Act 2002, which National and ACT are willing to continue with, for the Auckland megacity, a council can do the following:

Open restaurants
Establish independent and integrated schools.
Open hospitals
Establish welfare benefits
Set up its own bus company
Run its own taxi company
Start its own plumbing business
Open a chain of hairdressing salons
Establish massage therapy centres
Establish bookshops
Open a supermarket
Set up a telecommunications company
Set up a courier and postal operation
Open a florist
Establish an architecture firm
Promote tourism
Open its own hotel
Start a tour service
Start an airline
Open shoe shops
Establish a radio station
Establish a tv channel
Establish a newspaper
Open a bar
Publish local literature
Set up a comedy troupe
Fund any Auckland sports teams
Sell Christmas Trees
Run a harbour cruise company
Establish a bakery
Establish crèches
Set rules on what colours your property must be
Open a clock factory
Subsidise software sales
Buy out a magazine
Buy SkyCity
Establish a museum of erotica
Establish a museum of racism and homophobia
Establish a museum of religion
Establish a museum of socialism
Establish its own trucking company
Establish a water bottling company
Open a chain of stationery stores
Develop its own Wikipedia
Provide gardening advice to home owners
Organise raffles
Establish language schools
Set up a national political party
Start a fish farm
Start a dairy farm
Start a sheep farm
Buy out a deer farm
Buy out a vineyard
Subsidise motor mechanics
Subsidise braille classes
Subsidise home water collection systems
Celebrate Hannukah with a parade
Celebrate Buy Nothing Day with a parade
Celebrate Margaret Thatcher's birthday with a parade
Celebrate the Queen's Birthday with fireworks
Publish recipe books of Auckland recipes
etc etc etc.

Do you want this? or do you want your council to be able to do the bare minimum of planning under whatever happens to the RMA, look after footpaths and parks, let rubbish collection, water and sewerage become utilities, and manage the stormwater network under roads as long as it looks after local streets?

You see, it seems that the power of general competence that Labour, the Alliance (with Jim Anderton then) and the Greens passed, now has the tacit approval of Peter Dunne, the Maori Party, National and ACT - despite the latter two parties voting against it.

Is this what you voted for? Shouldn't you be letting John Key and Rodney Hide know loud and clear if you disagree?

Auckland megacity - what does it mean for transport?

According to the "Great" Auckland website, it means a council controlled organisation responsible for "all local and regional transport". However, it says little more. So let's explore that a bit further.

The key responsibilities in transport today are:
- The territorial authorities are responsible for their own local road network. They all raise rates to pay for between 40 and 60% of the cost of maintaining and improving the network, while bidding to the NZTA for the rest (which comes from fuel tax, road user charges etc). This is by far the most important function;
- ARTA, an ARC subsidiary, is responsible for contracting any subsidised public transport services, and registering commercially provided ones (which it has been discouraging through various contracting arrangements). It leads the rail project.

Note that all state highways in Auckland are the responsibility of the NZ Transport Agency, Transit's successor. Whether these will be handed over to the mega city is unclear. Hopefully not.

The megacity will no doubt take a view that the biggest problem with Auckland transport is not that it doesn't manage local roads well, doesn't build capacity when it is urgently needed and doesn't price the network to reflect costs, but rather there are too many cars.

It will want to use your money to subsidise those who don't drive, and penalise those who do. It wont be content with running the roads as a business, whereby anyone wanting property access pays an access fee, and motorists pay for what they use. It may neglect roads significantly, rather like Transport for London which has an appalling record in badly maintaining signs, and making next to no investment in improving capacity.

You see the megacity will own trains, and want those trains to grow. It wont own the private bus fleets so wont care so much about them It wont own trucks or cars, so they wont even be on the radar screen.

Most importantly, it wont own the motorways or be likely to build major new roads.

So the megacity wont do much, other than encourage more cross subsidisation of roads, and public transport dominating transport thinking across the region, even though it carries a tiny minority of trips.

A better solution would be to spin off the roads completely into arms length companies, responsible for providing access to properties and road space for motorists, and charging appropriately for both.

However, politicians wouldn't have control, and it wouldn't be democratic - which of course, is how everything should be - up to a vote.

Greens promote racist representation

Metiria Turei is upset that the government isn't going to introduce guaranteed race based Maori seats for the Auckland planners' wet dream megacouncil.

What evasion of the truth is it to say "The biggest Maori urban population shut out from their own city"? How are Maori residents shut out?

Have they lesser voting rights? No.
Have they lesser rights to make submissions on consultations? No.
Have they lesser rights to stand for office? No.
Have they lesser rights to apply for and be considered for employment? No.
Are Maori residents treated in any way differently from those of the many dozens of ethnic backgrounds in Auckland? No.

So why make it up? Why lie? Maori will NOT be shut out. Nor would they let themselves be shut out. Metiria is confusing South African apartheid with New Zealand local government. Why?

Because it suits her post-modernist identity politics based worldview of Maori as perpetual victims that can never be equal under systems that are not ethnically defined.

She links the lack of Maori city councillors to meaning Maori are not represented. This is presumably because the brain and views and experiences of a Maori individual can only be adequately represented by another Maori individual - NOTWITHSTANDING, any difference in philosophy, ideology or experience. In other words, your views are not something consciously chosen, but you inherit them from your ethnicity and identity.

This is why the left eschews the likes of Margaret Thatcher and Ruth Richardson, because as women they SHOULD have certain political views - but they don't.

It classifies all Maori as shut out, because even though thousands vote for non-Maori council candidates (and Maori candidates), it can't mean anything. They must feel "disenfranchised".

This is like saying that if my local councillor happened to be a Chinese lesbian, I wouldn't feel represented. It is reality evasion, and by evading the truth (Maori vote for non-Maori candidates, and less Maori are interested in becoming control freaks on councils than non-Maori), you create a proposal that evades reality too.

Separate Maori seats are racist - they discriminate and distinguish on the basis of race. However, Metiria would say they are the opposite - evading reality.

So a non-race based system is racist, and a race based system is not - as long as the selected race is identified as "victim" not "oppressor". A glimpse into the mindset of the radical left.

UPDATE: Some are "angry" at not getting special political privileges based on who their ancestors are. Easier to moan and demand apartheid than to actually encourage Maori voter turnout and put up candidates isn't it?