Saving Special Seats

ACT has stood for abolishing reserved seats in Parliament for a while now. I personally think it's a bit dopey for Dr Brash to make this a core election policy, when we have an economy to fix! As much as I would like to see them gone too, it's a pretty controversial topic, and a mere formality we can get rid of once the economy is fixed! The reason I bring up this topic now, is because the Waikato Māori want to see Māori seats on the Waikato Regional Council. 

The New Zealand Herald says:

"Maori are 20 per cent of the population of the Waikato region, and since the council was set up in 1989 there have been no Maori representatives elected.
The Bay of Plenty Regional Council has three Maori seats and Mr Buckley said he had received positive feedback on the system."

One or Two Laws?

I attended a debate at the University of Auckland law school a few weeks ago, where the moot was "This house supports one law for all" with David Seymour (ACT-5, Auckland Central) and two students on the affirming, and Dr Pita Sharples (Māori-1, Tāmaki Makaurau), Shane Jones (Labour-16, Tāmaki Makaurau), and a law teacher on the negating. Believe it or not, the affirming team won, since the adjudicator - retired Supreme Court Justice Sir Ted Thomas - jokingly gave Dr Sharples a negative score for going into a coalition with National. The affirming team won, largely because I noticed that the negating team, who claimed to support Māori rights, spent the whole debate describing the bleak moments of New Zealand history, and failed to recognize that we haven't properly tried a true 'one law for all' system. 

If Māori representation is low, that's probably because Māori have not stood candidates, and if 20% of the population is Māori, that can easily make the difference between a winner and loser candidate. Or, Māori themselves have been apathetic to the democratic process, and not bothered to vote. Either way, the push for special Māori seats undermines the democratic process in itself, it is trying to bypass a process everyone else has to go though. Trying to bypass democracy with a racial motive also looks bad in itself, why would the council consider this?

Then again, we do have Māori seats in parliament, a Māori advisory board on the new Auckland Council, the Bay of Plenty does it - and they said it works great. On the other hand, this bit sounded really good:

"Te Arawa River Iwi Trust co-chairman Roger Pikia hoped that introducing Maori seats would encourage Maori to vote and would enhance rather than replace consultation with tangata whenua."

Get Māori involved in the democratic process? Remove the need to consult with tangata-whenua? This sounds fantastic, it brings Māori to participate in the democratic process and removes the costly and hindering consultation with Māori that developers and planners loathe. But the cost would be the skewed democratic process and the racial segregation that it implies.

Special Seats For Everyone?

Anyway, it got me thinking - why don't we have special seats for white people! It'd be like South Africa without the bizarre accent! Or add some Malaysian influence and have separate politics for Chinese and Indian people here, apart from Melissa Lee (Nat-34, Mt Albert) and Raymond Huo (Labour-21) there aren't really many Asians represented. How about separate seats for rich people? Since they have so much sway over the economy and are good with money, only fair they get a seat at the table, right? What about reserved seats for the ACT party, the VRWC and VRWNLLC would love to see ACT get some permanent seats. 

All of this undermines the purpose of representative democracy, which is that all of these people will get seats if they win the hearts and minds of the people. Doesn't need to be said really, if Māori want representation at the table, they gotta stand a candidate and get votes like everyone else. 20% is a large group of people and could easily mean a seat or two.

What's Worse Than Auckland's Public Transport? Auckland Traffic

Where I live is entangled by motorways leading South and to the port. To add to that, I live near the intersection of two busy roads between Mt Eden and Parnell, and between Newmarket and the city, which is also one of the busiest bus routes in New Zealand. I see, hear, and often smell the constant traffic from all of these transport routes, and the worst time for all of them seems to be a Friday afternoon.

 

Traffic clogs up well before 5, usually at 3, and continues until 7 or 8 in the evening. Regardless of the weather, they'll be clogged and crawling. Clever people who take the bus are caught up in the chaos too, as bus services using the motorway are slowed behind all the cars. Pathetic measures like a 250 meter truck lane that bypasses two lanes on an on-ramp only to be whittled down to one lane before joining the motorway. As a planning student, of course I ask myself "who designs this shit?!" At the end of the 2011 Rugby World Cup, we were still left with a crap transport system. 

News of the Victoria Park Tunnel project nearing completion says that we have the capacity to build impressive transport infrastructure quickly, but still have the stupidity to only alleviate problems rather than fix them. Another symptom of Kiwi short-term thinking and inability to take risks. Transport in Auckland needs some decent investment; while everyone blames the lack of capital, the real issues lie in the tangle of red tape and political ignorance. Fixing Auckland is permanently in the 'too hard' basket. The National government's favoring of roads is simply short sighted. More roads might seem like a quick fix and a popular one, but so is giving out the benefit like a cashed-up Father Christmas - the real costs come later, and they'll be big and hard to undo. 

Roads - Worse Than Trains

That topic headline is an overstatement. Roads aren't all bad, and trains are far from rosy. From some observation as to how motorways work over time, traffic congestion is simply another case of a Tragedy of the Commons. Roads are a public good, and the users are private individuals and companies, who only benefit themselves when they add more vehicles to the road. The more cars that are added to the road impact everyone else driving, whether they be other private cars and trucks, or passengers in a bus. Either way, road capacity is scarce, and people treat motorways like they'll work no matter what. Not only does adding more cars to the road create more congestion, but other costs this incurs are large and numerous. Clogged roads are more dangerous, road rage and dangerous driving is more prevalent, deterioration of resources as cars still burn fuel while idle, lost productivity as people and goods do not reach their destinations soon enough, air pollution skyrockets, noise and dirt affects the surrounding houses and environment, and essential services such as ambulances are rendered useless.

Traffic is a massive problem for Auckland's social and economic wellbeing, one of the huge hindrances to the local economy is the pain in the neck moving goods around creates. While the left wants more public transport because they're attracted to anything with the word 'public' in it, or they're physically attracted to railways and railway paraphernalia. Either way, their arguments are often weak and unconvincing to the general public and the powers that be. Auckland Transport Blog has mentioned that road users should be subsidizing railway users, since road users will benefit from the fewer cars on the road. This argument makes some, but not a lot of economic sense, since roads and railways currently compete as transport options. For railways to work, they need to outcompete roads, starting with what railways can do better than roads when given the chance. Other uses and expansion can be added later, but the road system wasn't built in a day either.

Public-Private Partnership Transport

Railways and buses obviously take up far less space than cars, making them more efficient and sharply reduces traffic congestion. In my interest of devolved power, private management of public transport makes more sense, since services can compete with each other, and we do not leave all our eggs in one basket, should one service fail for any reason. The problem with Auckland's public transport fans is an avoidance of 'duplication' of services, where two lines or modes serve the same route or direction, such as trains between Britomart (Auckland Central) to Newmarket, when there is already (more than one) bus service between the two points. These modes can compete, and often where there is a fault with the railways, passengers are thankful that they could take either a Metrolink, Waka Pacific, or Howick & Eastern bus to the same destination. Private companies working in the same model can work too. Private companies have the interest of providing the best (most reliable) service to their customers to gain market share. They too have an interest in transport efficiency.

From previously living in North London and many visits to Los Angeles, Hongkong, Sinagpore, Brisbane, Vancouver, and others - public transport can work well, and it doesn't even need to have the word 'public' in it. The MTR in Hongkong is a public-private partnership where the system is managed by a private company, much of the revenue coming from the operation of train stations rather than the railways themselves. Auckland's public transport makes for a small market at present, but that's only because we have a shit public transport system. Many more Aucklanders would use public transport if it ran on time, had frequent services, the buses/trains were kept clean and tidy, and the stations were very near to where they want to get on and get off. These are all possible with the right economic environment for these demands to be met, not that I don't trust Len Brown or the Auckland council, but that private companies work like special interest groups in that they deal with these more specific demands. 

Auckland traffic is notorious all over the country, since the rest of the country sniggers at the poor planning, decision making, investment, infrastructure, and motivation that goes on. Wellington sits nice and smug on its more efficient transport system and nearly congestion-free motorways. Why Auckland sucks at these sort of things is the fault of Aucklanders. Of course I'd like to see a CBD rail link and systemwide electrification, as much as I'd like to see it all privatized when  it's done! Roads being clogged up in Auckland is a serious problem, and another attributed to a Tragedy of Commons, another that can be solved with more privatization.

Labour Wants Old People Working

"There are three types of lies - lies, damned lies, and statistics" - Old English proverb

I'll start by saying that I don't necessarily support this, I appreciate the merits of doing so, but I also know of the human cost that may be involved, knowing of people around this age that actually can't work. But Labour wants Kiwisaver to be compulsory, and wait for it - raise the pension age to 67 from 65.

That aside, Labour is going to make really good opposition against National next term! I've already blogged on the idea that Labour needs to prove themselves now as a worthy opposition in order to get support, now they're just showing how weak they are as an opposition and how terrible that would make them as government.

When the nation is in a hole, apparently you don't sell your ladder - Phil Goff's actions have said keep digging! Not only has Labour cancelled their campaign launch to prevent Goff getting any more exposure (all news is bad news for that guy), but they've taken this bizarre approach in copying ACT and National's ideology. ACT strongly supports raising the age, National would do it even though John Key has said he wouldn't, and with the current financial picture, it seems that this could become a likely move in the next term. Nice to see Labour will defend its core constituents by letting National walk all over them. David Farrar has mentioned this will be opposed by unions, Māori, laborers, and other disadvantaged people. Lifelong Labour supporters should turn their back on Labour for turning their back on them! 

The constructive thing for Labour to do, is to show that this is part of being good economic managers, that they can be fiscally responsible. This may be a ton of shit since Farrar has also mentioned that Labour's policies since they will need an extra $9bn of borrowing to fund their expensive taste in policy.  If Labour is only going to purport the same policies as National and ACT, you might as well vote for the parties that thought of them first, plus you don't get a goofy leader and incompetent cronies.

Back to the Future union policy, plagiarism of ACT and National policy, communist asset-retention policy, anti-investment policy, anti-jobs policy. Where does it end? Like the saying goes,"If you can't beat 'em, join 'em." Any more economic conservative policies and they'll make a sizable coalition partner.

The Good People of Epsom

There's a lot of talk about the campaign for my electorate, Epsom. Both Cameron Slater (WhaleOil) and David Farrar (Kiwiblog) have covered this extensively, so I have little to add, other than a local perspective.

As I've mentioned to a certain Curwen Rolinson (leader of New Zealand First on Campus and self-proclaimed candidate for Epsom, as NZF hasn't verified this), I am already a pretty typical Epsom voter; supporting ACT and National, white and middle class, totally disinterested in NZF. The point is, like most people here, I don't want Phil Goff to be PM either.

The dirty tactics of Labour making a scandalous lie out of a donation to the ACT party from the Sensible Sentencing Trust, a Young Labour (probably Princes Street) executive adding their own illegal tactics, and a failing attempt to undermine the ACT party is starting to look like crap. Where I live, there are defaced billboards everywhere. 

Such as this one of Labour's David Parker - "Vote Banks and get both dopes" - Which reads "Authorized by David Parker, Parliament Buildings, Wellington" underneath.

And even what's-his-name from the Conservative party have showed up.

Epsom is well known as the white well-to-do seat, covering Auckland's prestigious suburbs including Parnell, Grafton, Remuera, and Newmarket. The people here are supposed to be too smart to be subject to gerrymandering and party politics. However, national did make agreements about allowing Rodney Hide to take the right wing vote and carry ACT list MPs to provide National with a coalition partner. The question of course, is that National may no longer need a coalition partner, meaning the leniency towards ACT is no longer necessary.

But do Epsom voters really get manipulated? This time it seems they see Paul Goldsmith (Nat-39 Epsom) as their man for the job, even though he doesn't want the job! Goldsmith is campaigning for party votes!

Epsom could well be the most manipulated and most played electorate from both sides, with the National-ACT deal and the ineffective lefty tactics that allow Keith Locke to run directly against Rodney Hide, or David Parker taking the whole left vote. But the people themselves aren't manipulated, they're not stupid! Credit where credit is due, and the people of Epsom are not half-wits that will do as they are told. They understand party politics and vote strategically, they have their own ideas, but the the powers that be like to take away a lot of their choice. 

The election results according to iPredict have shown New Zealand First getting 6 seats, with ACT getting 5. Good news for ACT, bad news for everyone as a whole if we get Winston First and his cronies in the House. We also have suspicions the (insert derogatory statement here) Curwen Rolinson has invested his own money in the website to manipulate stocks, seeing how cheap they were before. The stocks have returned to normal, so nothing to fear folks!

More party politics, more gerrymandering, more manipulation. With 40% or more still undecided, it will come down to the day. At least John Banks is campaigning on his own honesty and integrity, regardless of the silly games. 

Occupy, and the 99%

This is a topic covered by every blogger at the moment, no need to depilate opinions or steal others' ideas.

My thoughts:

• No, banks and insurance companies should not have been bailed out. Corporate welfare is the worst kind of welfare and saving failing businesses is the most timid, anti-capitalist, waste of money and discriminating cop-out. The whole concept is wrong. Left up to me; I would enjoy watching big inefficient businesses fail while listening to 'Ha Ha You're Dead' by Green Day.
• Protestors have no idea what power they actually have in a market. While they hate big corporations, guarantee they're all there with the latest smartphones, cameras, computers, luxury clothing, processed food, and the like. Especially the spoilt brats with iPhones, Abercrombie & Fitch, and MacBook Air notebooks. If they hate big companies so much, stop buying from them - that simple. If all 20 000 protestors didn't buy McDonald's for lunch for one day, they could have spent their collective $100 000 at various smaller, better, more honest businesses. 
• Lefties just love to protest. I laugh every time they do as they can finally organize collectives, make placards, shout abuse, and get media attention. Any excuse will do for most of these people, as I have already covered.
• Wall Street, Queen Street, Threadneedle Street - wherever these protestors are rallying, the people they are targeting are not going to listen. I highly doubt a stocks trader or investment banker is going to do anything about whatever the Occupy protestors want.
• Which brings me to the other point - they need clear objectives. Without any goals, there is no option to engage in dialogue, the protest loses validity, and it just looks like a bunch of overeducated or uneducated socialists hanging out in the city center. A group of BA graduates are about as boring and useless as sheep in a paddock, and deserve to be left alone in the same way.
• The richest 1% may be the target of their anger, but they'll achieve nothing without going to government, who has more power to redistribute that wealth. Otherwise essentially all the protestors are doing is begging outside the stock exchange, knowing there's rich people inside.
• They all think it's capitalism that's put them where they are, when really they are poor and broke largely on their own achievement; with the flaws in government and economy they cite as failures with large companies, not the capitalist system. As a staunch capitalist, I couldn't give a poo about Google or DuPont or Bank of America falling apart; the hole they leave in the market can only be filled by better companies. Holding on to companies and favoring some over others ruins the capitalist system, and is the fault of government more than anything.
• I do have to say, I laugh that they think government is the answer. Little do they know of Nineteen Eighty-Four, the Soviet Union, the Great Leap Forward, Juche, or Karl Marx. Government is more than likely the fault behind all the economic problems they cite, yet they want more of it. Go figure…
• The economic right has retaliated with its own idea: Occupy A Job!

At the Occupy Auckland in Aotea Square (a large public space next to mid Queen Street, just in the city center), the hippies have set up rosters for communal responsibilities, created a drug and alcohol free zone, made a swathe of signs and banners, and allowed Penny Bright to take part. 

I took some photos on Sunday when my friend and I went to have a look...

So inspiring, so meaningful... (NOT)

Nope, he caused a shipwreck to get oil for that, remember?

Hmmm...

Sums up most of the protest really

I've seen this one before - It's Dr Brash morphing into Mr Burns from The Simpsons, and John Key morphing into a pig