Kiwirail should not be required to pay its way

May 19, 2010

I may be wrong but … there seems to me to be some faulty economics going on behind the decision to put the pressure on Kiwirail to pay its way. Or is it just a case of starting the debate with the wrong set of assumptions and being totally unable to change our mindsets?

The charge that a rail network in New Zealand needs to be subsidised and therefore should be scrapped just doesn’t wash with me.

Most of its services cannot pay their own way because they cannot compete with road services (trucks for freight, cars and buses for passengers).  But do roads pay their way? Of course not!

We all heavily subsidise roads through taxes. If all road users (freight firms and private vehicles) were to pay for ALL the costs for the creation and maintenance of all roads, through some all-enveloping road user charge (such as tolls based on vehicle weight) rather than through taxes, then we would be not only screaming at the cost but also looking for some alternative – including public transport and rail.

The trouble is, we have a fundamental, rarely questioned assumption that roads should be there so we can drive on them whenever and wherever we wish, and that the government must make them available seemingly for nothing. This assumption has an obvious corollary – that alternative transport modes are add-ons to our car-based lifestyles and must therefore pay their way (because we rarely if ever use them directly).

This is feeble but sort-of okay until we start to look out a decade or more into the future, with fuel costs continuing to rise and roads getting increasingly clogged with heavy trucks (requiring higher-capacity roads at huge cost to subsiding taxpayers). It seems obvious to me that the realisation will eventually dawn that winding down rail for short-term, political reasons has been foolhardy.

So then we will find ourselves debating the seemingly prohibitive costs of buying land and re-laying tracks to build or re-open parts of the network that were sold, left to ruin, poorly maintained or built over.

Christchurch city shows one pretty obvious example of how hindsight is easy but paying for winding back abandoned networks is horrendous. Once it had a tramway system, now all gone. The cost of re-establishing one small part of it (for tourists) has been huge, and this would be magnified greatly if old suburban routes were rebuilt. Much running argument in that city centres on the need (and huge cost) of a light rail system to serve the future. If only all those abandoned networks had not been thrown away, it may have been possible!

And now we have the prospect of closing down existing smaller railway services that cannot pay their way. Doubtless Kiwirail will also sell some of the land these lines occupy in order to free up more money, making it even harder and more expensive for the lines to ever be rebuilt when they do become potentially desirable to run.


The big lessons from volcanic ash and oil spills

May 10, 2010

One problem with being a worrier about the way the world is going is that when your predictions become reality it’s hard to know what to say without sounding holier-than-thou.

I don’t like being told “I told you so” by anyone else, so I prefer not to say it to others when what is obvious to me, but is negative lefty thinking to others, turns out to actually happen. And generally you can hardly be pleased to be right, because what you’re right about too often results in a mess that you really, really don’t want.

But every now and then things happen that cause you to sit up, put two and two together and say: We are going in the wrong direction! It’s obvious. Why could you not see that this was going to be the result? I did tell you so.

Two recent events have made it abundantly clear that unsustainable activities eventually have downstream costs which even the cheerleaders of relentless economic growth acknowledge are horrendous.

Now I didn’t predict the eruption of that volcano in Iceland, and the ensuing disruption to air traffic. And I didn’t predict the accident at the oil rig off the US coast. So I won’t say ‘I told you so’ about these specific events (though some people actually could).

But what I have thought, spoken and written about for many years, and am being proven correct often enough, has been that the more we allow ourselves as residents of this planet to become dependent upon economic growth and the unsustainable tools of growth, the more likely a disaster results when mother nature or human error throws us a curve ball and these tools let us down.

The volcano event has shown how dependent most of us are, mainly indirectly, on scheduled air services. When they’re interrupted for days or weeks, products cannot get to market, people get stranded, people run out of funds to live, business contracts are threatened or breached. And the thing is …. we can’t do anything about it. Good old Mother Nature reminds us that she’s in charge. No amount of management skill, market-driven competition, economic growth or new technology has any real effect.

I’m not saying that good public management skills, sound trading markets or new technologies are poor goals. I’m just saying that we all need a level of self-sufficiency in our places of living, our communities, and our lives such that our existence is not threatened by distant acts of nature. Disrupted, maybe; but not seriously threatened. Making us ever more dependent on remote technologies and activities is just not the way to go.

(I wrote about this in this article on the Haiti earthquake.)

And then we come to the oil rig situation – an even more salutary event with far longer-term implications and an even more obvious lesson for us. Here I’m going to borrow ideas and a few sentences from an opinion article I read in the Christchurch Press (May 3), written by The Times’s Simon Barnes. It was his piece that prompted me to think: I should be writing in the same vein, because I sure think the same.

As we watch on TV the desperation of the Americans who live and earn their livelihood by the coastline that will now inevitably be ruined for decades by the incoming oil slick, it is impossible to see any good side to this. There is no grey area, no “Yes, but ….”, and certainly no bright side. We’ve got it wrong, and we’re going to pay for it.

Those Americans whose jobs will be ruined by the destruction of the seafood stocks will be directly affected. The rest of us will be affected by the resulting costs and how they ripple through our economies.

And although the operator/owner of the exploded oil rig, BP, and its technology suppliers are directly to blame, we’re all indirectly responsible. Everyone who whinges every time the price of petrol goes up, and who demands the right to use a petrol-powered vehicle to go wherever they please, has played a part in this and every costly mistake made within the petroleum industry (including the tanker whose short-cut caused damage to Australia’s Great Barrier Reef last month). The oil suppliers are merely responding to demands from addicted consumers for petrol at the cheapest possible cost – which inevitably means ‘cut corners if you have to, I want my petrol now!

As Simon Barnes put it: “These spills concentrate the mind, at least for a while. They tell us that our addiction for oil is madness, that our short-term thinking is madness, that our reckless approach to containment – oil at any price – is madness. Treasure this spill; it is a rare occasion on which we can see this essential truth of the way we run our lives with absolute clarity.

“We crave oil like a junkie craves his fix, and like the junkie, we will put up with anything to get it. But even for an addict, there come moments of searing clarity. A sudden revelation that this is actually a stupid way to live life. Well, the spill tells us that this is a stupid way to run our planet.”

Sorry for copying that bit, Simon. But it’s exactly what I’ve thought about the attitude of too many people who lack any longer-term respect for our environment, and he’s said it in far better words than I could have used.

And so I say, with feeling, “I also told you so!”


Comparing life across the Tasman

January 15, 2010

I’m back at the keyboard after a few weeks pre-occupied with family stuff. And not much has happened that I feel strongly enough to write about.

I must admit to a degree of satisfaction (hopefully not edging too far toward smugness) that New Zealand’s government has decided to change direction on Fiji. Loud, angry chest-thumping and finger-pointing have, as I (and others) predicted in an earlier blog, led nowhere. Nor should it: Fiji’s governance is Fiji’s concern, not ours.

To begin my writing this year I want to go back a month or so to the report by Don Brash’s taskforce on how to “catch up” to Australia. My opinions are somewhat longer formed on this issue than many others, as I lived my first 25 years in Australia and have chosen to live since then in New Zealand.

For those non-downunder readers of this blog (happily, the number of such is growing), many New Zealanders – ranging from leading politicians down to my own daughters – have been angsting for the past couple of decades about how much more money Kiwis can make in Australia, how the shopping is so much better and how the lifestyle is richer and more affluent.

So leading right-winger Don Brash was tasked with drawing up a plan that would enable us to catch up, to earn more and be able to spend more. Although one of the expressed motivations for setting this goal is to encourage more young Kiwis to stay here, I suspect this is only a minor goal for most business leaders, well behind simply making more money and buying more stuff.

There’s also the aspirational (or envy?) factor. Pacific Islanders worry about their citizens coming to New Zealand as they aspire to live our lifestyle. Kiwis similarly aspire to be more like their big cousins over the Tasman Sea and worry when our kids fly off there. But then Australians aspire to match the earnings and influence of Americans (or English) and do their own big OEs.

On this issue, very few people have been asking the question: Do we really want New Zealand to be more like Australia? Especially if that means we also have to accommodate a larger population in much larger cities, and be spread that much further apart. Is the extra money that can be earned in Oz worth the loss in lifestyle? And anyhow, will young Kiwis travel and work overseas regardless of how much money they can make at either end?

Back when we were both working employees in Melbourne and Christchurch respectively, my brother, still living over there, would have earned more than I. But he would have spent a hunk of the difference on petrol commuting from the outer suburbs (plus loss of time while driving a couple of hours a day), as well as on servicing a mortgage on a more expensive house. (For the record, we were never in such comparable positions so this comparison is incorrect in detail, but reasonable in principle.)

He pays significantly more in several State and Federal taxes and for items such as car registration and insurance. It’s further to travel for him to see other members of his family (myself notwithstanding).

It is just too simplistic to compare the two countries in terms of money in the wage packet. So many specific factors can enter the equation for any one person or comparison.

So it comes back to balancing all the advantages and disadvantages between the two countries, not just the relative material wealth. I actually chose (and continue to choose, despite being apart from my dear siblings all living still in Australia) to live in New Zealand. For me, the complete picture included being able to earn enough money to live comfortably, alongside the simpler, more sustainable lifestyle and diversity of culture here. With all these factors in the equation, my decision was to live here.


Let’s hear it for the weather forecasters

December 31, 2009

Tis the season for generosity and, for media, handing out bouquets and brickbats (whatever brickbats are!). So it’s my turn to say something nice, but this time I’m offering my praise and thanks to an unusual recipient – New Zealand’s weather forecasters.

In those surveys about the most trusted jobs or professions – you know, nurses and firemen at the top and journalists and politicians waaaay down at the bottom – I don’t think I’ve ever seen weather forecasters even offered as a choice. But I do know that they are one of the most frequently lampooned and put-down of all.

“They said that today would be sunny but look, the drizzle’s setting in.”

“Rain clearing, they said; and it hasn’t even started yet!”

“They just look at their computers in Wellington and guess, whereas I look at the sky and can work out that the wind will change from experience.”

This is exacerbated by the fact that the weather is one of the most common topics of small talk in social settings, especially when you don’t know what to say next; and that particular conversation is always more fun when you grouch about the weather forecast rather than say how accurate it may have been.

Disrespect for forecasters is also fostered by the words used by television weather presenters, who tend to say “Wellington will be raining but with sunny breaks later” rather than the more appropriate “In Wellington it’s predicted (expected? most probable?) that rain will fall this morning and ease this afternoon”. We the public don’t like to talk in terms of probability and uncertainty; we want it in black and white and get picky when other shades eventuate.

Several times over the past month, here in the Tasman district, we’ve been given longer range forecasts (like, 3 days away) that have said things like “Wednesday, a cool change about midday”, and they’ve actually happened as predicted to within an hour of midday. Three days away! Now I happen to think that that’s impressive. And even if it’s a day out, its waaaay better than I could have guessed on Sunday.

True, many people, and particularly people of the land who have farmed in a particular place for decades, do have a good feel for the weather patterns expected locally for up to a day, and can even guess details correctly for a couple of days. But on average I observe that the scientific forecasters, with the satellite and other tools available to them, are almost always far closer to the mark.

When I hear the forecasters castigated for getting it wrong a few days out, I would like to do an experiment with the critic: give me their 3-day forecasts every day for the next two weeks, without consulting the published forecasts, and see if their predictions can come at all close to those of the professionals when it comes to viewing the actual results. I can confidently say, not a chance!

So my Xmas praise goes to the weather boys and girls. Keep up the good work, don’t let the critics get to you, and be aware that I for one am prepared to take your forecasts as predicted probabilities.


Holocaust mockers are just kids being silly

October 30, 2009

I’ve been feeling a bit sorry for the Auckland Grammar students who have been psychologically hammered and publically shamed and humiliated to the point of tears for their thoughtless tomfoolery in mocking the Auckland Museum’s Nazi display.

On countless occasions through my life, and of course especially in my teenage and early adult life, I’ve been unable to resist poking fun at the good and bad, the silly and the serious, and just acting the goat among friends. I love satire. Without trying, it seems, I look at the funny or quirky side of any issue as well as its serious facet. Age hasn’t dulled my instinct to think satirically (even about some things I think are quite important) although perhaps it has given me wisdom to choose time and place a little better.

If on every occasion I’d been hauled up in front of stern Keepers of Morals and others who believe “serious things should only be taken seriously”, I would have had all enjoyment of the complexities and ironies of life well and truly beaten out of me by now, and I’d like to think society would have been the poorer for it.

Sure, those schoolboys acted in poor taste. Certainly they should have kept the photos of their mock adulation of the swastika off the internet. Likewise for the Lincoln University students at their bad-taste Nazi party. But they were not seriously trying to make a point about German Nazism or the Holocaust. They were having fun, as teenagers will and do, and just going a step too far by publicising it.

In good time, today’s and tomorrow’s young people will learn about the horrors of that part of World War 2, which for them now is a generations-past event, the same way that the Boer War was for me when I was young. They will learn and absorb it in a more holistic fashion through normal educational events and adult social activities.

They do NOT need the public humiliation and shame visited upon them by those of my WW2-remembering generation who have a limited sense of humour and lack generosity of spirit.

The Holocaust was a blight on the 20th Century, one of several (including Rwanda and Vietnam) which showed the absolute worst our “civilised” humanity is capable of. But I believe that if we’re ever to move totally past it (and I hazard to suggest that we absolutely must sooner or later) we must stop demonising and shaming people who offer any sort of light-hearted take on it. Especially ebullient young people who are yet to understand all the subtleties underlying such issues.