What are the priorities?
OK, so we’ve signed up to the Cooperation Agreement with Labour. They have reluctantly delivered on parts of it, but as Jeanette says not all of it.
But now they’ve lost their majority after expelling Philip Field, and Clark has given a speech where she says she cares about sustainability. Seven years into this government and it would seem that, both rhetorically and in terms of the harsh reality of the numbers in parliament, sustainability might finally have a chance. Dunne, Peters and the anti-green wing of Labour will do everything in their power to stop it but just maybe there’s an opening for sustainability.
So, working from the Cooperation Agreement, what should be our priorities? Which elements should we promote with this new found influence? I’ve got my views but I’m gonna hold them to myself for a while but I’d be interested in yours.
February 14th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
Softly softly?
IMHO the Greens have done well from being the (only) voice of reason in Parliament recently. Keep pushing the sensible ideas in the Agreement!
How about encouraging new oil and gas exploration- it’s better than coal mining! Also streamlining the RMA for hydro or wind schemes as a matter of national energy security.
Also on a societal level, the Greens would do well to avoid controversial issues IMHO, the Green “brand” is too easily tied in with the hard left of old, when in fact it is mainly just commonsense. Social issues are the third rail of nz politics and the Greens as a minor party should keep clear. Of course that is from a cynical percentage politics point of view.
February 14th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
grab them by the balls…squeeze ’till their eyes water..
then draw them close to you…lean into them..
and say..in a quiet voice…
“..um…about all that sh*t that needs to be done…?
let’s crack into it..shall we..?
you have a choice of that…or an early election…”
and then just take it from there…
with your ‘promotion of your new-found influence’..
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
February 14th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Hey Russ, how you doing?
From my reading it seems that the Labour have not yet delivered on the committment to build “increased capacity for public passenger transport.”
Labour appears to have refused funding for Auckland’s rail business plan, despite the plan having a positive benefit/cost ratio (and in spite of funding the western motorway, which has a NEGATIVE benefit/cost ratio).
Therefore I think that the Greens need to demand that Labour fund Auckland’s rail upgrade as part of the cooperation agreement. It would prove politically popular, with independent surveys showing 75% of Aucklanders want half of transport funding spent of public transport and 70% choose rail as the mode of choice.
The Greens at least need to get one significant PT project through as part of the agreement. This could be a new rail line to the airport via the existing Onehunga railway line, electrification of the rail network, or an underground tunnel out of Britomart.
So please Russel, get the Green caucus to pick a signature PT project and demand that Labour fund it in accordance with our cooperation agreement.
February 14th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
Not that the project has to be in Auckland of course … but wherever the need is the greatest
Yep that’s Auckland
February 14th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
Russel,
It would seem the timing of the Greens extra leverage coincides nicely with medical marijuana debate. So puff up your chest and blow them away!
February 14th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
And if the Greens are feeling empowered by recent political events, then how about blowomh away Auckland’s air pollution. One in five weekdays has air pollution above international standards.
Our lungs are getting screwed because people fill the streets driving from their home in a leafy suburb to their job downtown. These people do not pay the true cost of their addiction to driving.
The Greens should demand that the negative externalities of driving, such as air pollution, accidents, and surface water run-off, are covered by petrol taxes.
February 14th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
Yay! +1 for public transport in Auckland and Nice One Stu, for pointing out the air pollution, in case you missed it, today’s Herald:
Fossil-fuel health threat ‘next scandal’
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10423895
February 14th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
Good stuff. Now you have real leverage. You could always keep the Ministry of the Environment outside of cabinet as a card up your sleeve. DBP wouldn’t mind.
February 15th, 2007 at 1:19 am
Getting their planned climate change policy through. It may not be perfect, but it ain’t too bad, and at this stage pretty much any policy at all is better than nothing.
To add a little to it, if they’re not already doing it, require all vehicle imports within a few years to be capable of running on 20% biofuel mixes. Otherwise when we want to ramp up the mix, we’ll still have the same problem we have now that the cars are not certified by the manufacturers to run on the stuff. A little bit of forward planning could help a hell of a lot here.
February 15th, 2007 at 1:23 am
ANIMAL WELFARE.
We finally have the chance to do something on this front.
Phase out battery cages and sow crates. Fund R & D into alternatives to animals research. Stiffer penalties for animal abuse. Lifetime bans for any conviction of animal cruelty, etc etc.
February 15th, 2007 at 7:32 am
Stu,
Rail corridor to the Airport will be via Puhinui not Onehunga. Shorter and more efficient. Will join the eastern rail spur planned to run along Ti Irrirangi Drive.
Most of Auckland traffic does not go down town. Biggest road blocks are at Manukau, Penrose and North over the bridge. Feeding the industrial areas of Penrose, East Tamaki and Albany. Traffic is now relatively free flowing from Greenlane into the city. Spagetti junction is at last doing it job.
Southern motorway from Papkura to Mt Wellington will get even more congested when the East Tamaki interchange opens and the traffic which takes the longer scenic Alfriston route from South into industrial East Tamaki also joins the motorway.
Money certainly needs to go to Auckland rail but would suggest light rail or trams are a better alternative to the heavy trains we currently have.
Love the Melbourn transport system. That is what we should aim for.
February 15th, 2007 at 7:38 am
Russ
I am with Chrish on this one, rip into the buggers about animal welfare however I would go further, lifetime bans are all well and good but I want the buggers locked up for a very long time.
February 15th, 2007 at 9:40 am
Put pigovian taxes on petrol to (eventually) get it in line with European prices. Use this and cuts in new road-buillding to fund a big increase in public transport spending so that our main cities have PT comparable to the best in terms of capacity, reliability, regularity etc.
Have a certain percentage of new houses to be built to passivhaus standards. This percentage should be ramped up to cover almost all new houses within the decade.
Put feebates on electrical appliances: efficient appliances will get cheaper, inefficient will get more expensive. If and when the electricity supply is decarbonised, this can be abandoned.
So many ways to improve our dire efficiency…
February 15th, 2007 at 10:21 am
Baz
What does “pigovian” mean?..(genuine question)
February 15th, 2007 at 10:26 am
Russel i’m with Baz on taxes, but you guys should get serious with Jeanettes statement last week. Its time to get structural with tax (reform) and genuinely incentivise cleaner production. To nip around the edges issue by issue is to tread water at best.
Tax reform should extend to all sectors - incl the building sector (Baz, above), motoring, and yes, even agriculture…
Mike
February 15th, 2007 at 10:26 am
Concentrate on the energy efficiency and solar initiative - push it through and extend it. This is useful, do-able (before the next general election), and attractive to voters.
And please, don’t get into sideshows like marijuana reform and slagging off the US - this sort of thing just turns voters away in droves.
Thanks for providing the opportunity to comment.
February 15th, 2007 at 10:41 am
Scrap a lot of the Government’s silly roading schemes and put the money into developing public transport - getting private motor vehicles off the road is the biggest quick-fix thing we can do to reduce climate-change forcing emissions
Reintroduce cabotage and get more goods moved by NZ owned coastal shipping - the most environmentally friendly means of transporting goods
Direct the Government-owned energy companies to abandon plans for coal-fored power stations
February 15th, 2007 at 10:44 am
Big Bruv asked: What does “pigovian� mean?..(genuine question)
A Pigovian tax is a tax levied to correct the negative externalities of a market activity. For instance, a Pigovian tax may be levied on producers who pollute the environment to encourage them to reduce pollution, and to provide revenue which may be used to counteract the negative effects of the pollution.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax
February 15th, 2007 at 10:58 am
Toad
Thanks for that.
February 15th, 2007 at 11:00 am
Public transport and more pressure on the solar water heating. Keep it simple but effective.
February 15th, 2007 at 11:01 am
bb asks:
What does “pigovian� mean?..(genuine question)
Try these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax
http://economics.about.com/od/incometaxestaxcuts/a/pigouvian_tax.htm
e
February 15th, 2007 at 11:29 am
Toad
Cramming people into public transport against their will is a sure fire way to get yourself kicked out of the house.
February 15th, 2007 at 11:37 am
Public transport is the most important I think. In Auckland it is utter s*#t. On the North Shore we don’t have the luxury of a rail line so are relegated to a third rate, expensive bus service, and ferries which only go to two points on the Shore.
At present it is only marginally cheaper to catch a bus in than to drive in and pay for parking, and when you drive you don’t suffer the detriments of catching the bus: overcrowding and having to stand in the isles on 1970s era buses (who knows what damage they’re doing to the environment!), never knowing when you bus will arrive and when it will get to your destination, and having to wait half an hour for the next bus to come if the driver comes past too early.
Some form of government subsidy on public transport would be a great start to encourage people out of their cars onto buses, trains and ferries. And integrated ticketing would certainly work well too, instead of needing a different ticket for each service/company.
February 15th, 2007 at 11:47 am
bb, incentivise it so “their will” is not so cut and dry.
February 15th, 2007 at 11:52 am
bb, pigou club often has intersting blog posts. this recent one highlights national tax regimes and car efficiency. it links to last weeks handy economist article on the topic.
Mike
February 15th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
BB: I’m not suggesting “cramming people into public transport against thir will”. Recent experience in Auckland has shown public transport filled almost to capacity at peak hours as a response to rising fuel prices.
People will willingly use public transport if it is cheaper and not substantially less convenient than using a private motor vehicle. I often catch the train or bus around Auckland when I’m travelling for both work and leisure - but I’m less likely to use public transport if it arrives 3/4 of an hour before I need to get where I’m going and departs 3/4 an hour after I’m ready to start the return journey, or if it means catching 3 buses and/or trains with a 1/2 hour wait between each.
Just last weekend I had to travel by car to the Green policy conference in Rotorua. If the train were still an option, I’m sure most of us going from Auckland would have caught it, just as we did from Wellington to the conference in Masterton a few years ago. But passenger trains don’t run between Auckland and Rotorua anymore because the invisible hand of capitalism decided to make the journey so expensive and lengthy hardly anyone used it.
February 15th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
I agree with uk_kiwi - this could finally be a real window of opportunity. Let’s not waste energy chasing albeit worthy issues that might alienate the mainstream. Let’s follow Rod Donald’s pragmatic lead - what are fundamentals that the public will understand and support? Surely - climate change (transport initiatives, setting examples with planting projects etc), and the economic and environmental benefits of resource preservation (eg planting more trees than is harvested, getting behind new technologies for efficiencies in fishing, energy, agriculture, water use, land use…). How frustrating the public perception of greenies as “hippies arguing hopeless causes” - in reality we are pragmatists, economists - even helpful members of society!
February 15th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Sue
You are the voice of reason, I understand how tempting it must be for the Greens now they have a say in how the shop is run but they run a real risk of totally alienating their moderate supporters if they push their more extreme policies this early in the piece.
The facts are that the cast majority of Kiwi’s want better roads, the vast majority drive cars so despite what Toad says about “encouraging” (another world for taxing) people out of their private motor cars they will not stand for this.
Perhaps when we have a decent alternative to private motor cars then you may have a point but to tax people now in favour of a public transport service that does not exist is simply revenue gathering.
The Greens need to face the reality that the vast majority of the voting public do not take a day to day interest in what is happening in the political world, the politicians know this otherwise they would not offer bribes every three years.
If you want to implement these extreme measures then you need to campaign on them, even those of us who take an interest in politics had only a vague idea of what your polices would be if you were part of the government.
By all means implement them if you receive a mandate from the people, but at the moment you do not have that mandate, the easiest way to destroy your support base is to kill any new roading projects or raise taxes.
February 15th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
I am with BB on this one, even though we disagree on the work for the dole issue. Animal welfare is an issue that is Green policy, but none of the MPs except Sue K actually seem to take seriously. Labour are not absolutely wedded to keeping sows crates and battery cages going. Given that the Regulations Review Committee has already ruled that they should be illegal, it would probably only require a gentle push to get them to agree. Also, labour will need the Maori Party onside, and abolishing factory farming is also their policy.
February 15th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Big bruv - I don’t see that there’s anything “extreme” with what toad has proposed. It sounds like commonsense - getting people out of cars and onto more effective public transport systems has a range of benefits, not just reducing emissions.
But the question is what the Greens should do in this new political situation. What most people seem to be saying is keep it simple, don’t get carried away. Focus on one or two ‘do-able’ and practical projects that get runs on the board; use this as an opportunity to build public support in the run-up to the 2008 general election; and don’t get distracted by sideshows which alienate voters. This should provide a platform for winning a commanding number of seats at the next election, with ample opportunity then to tackle a bigger suite of measures.
February 15th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
I think the cost/benefit of migration needs looking at. Do property developpers pay their fair wack for hooking their houses up to exsisting infrastructue? How can councils let people loose their right to sun, view, ambience without recompense (ie all rewards to the developper).
Life in NZ has got worse over the years. The cities are more crowded and congested, it is harder and harder to live somewhere nice. 6 years of (average salary) to pay off a house( with a smaller section). Too many people have got rich at others expense.
[Let us not undermine the eglatarian, democratic, secular and sceptical nature of our society. Did British liberals r-e-a-l-l-y intend their citizens to live under the tino rangitiratanga of a neolithic culture???]
jh
February 15th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
Toad said - “But passenger trains don’t run between Auckland and Rotorua anymore because the invisible hand of capitalism decided to make the journey so expensive and lengthy hardly anyone used it”.
Then free the use of rail lines up to private enterprise and let those who know how to run the right size of passenger trains with the onboard services that customers demand to utilize the rail corridor.
Rails are nothing more then steel roads. They should be used by anyone who wants to run trains (passenger or freight) provided they pass a COF (like road trucks and buses) and they obey the “rules of the road” pertaining to successful train operations.
That is what the green party should be pushing for. The people own the railroad and anyone can run on them like public tarseal roads.
How about letting private enterprise build the eastern arterial train - tram route from Howick through the East Tamaki industrial estate and onto Manukau City before joing the existing train network at Puhinui and continuing onto the airport.
February 15th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
There’s something screwey in the analysis here. When it comes to cars versus trains we act like any other organism, we take the path of least resistance and work in the service of enropy we use up the cheap oil and then, being all sad tut-tut at what our generation has done as we line up for public transport. I don’t see it as a fault of capitalism per se but of lack of a lack of political management. Basic economics tells us that markets work perfectly (in theory) except for “rigidites” and a lack of information. Not believing climate change or peak oil (if/when) realised = a lack of information. There are many areas Greens can work at to make the capitalist system fairer, markets (at least) seem to behave according to the rules of ecology. The problem is that socialists seem to see all evil stemming from the capitalist system rather than capitalism operating in an imperfect world.
jh
February 15th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
I should add I’m not an expert
jh
February 15th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
JH
Sums it up beautifully.
To often capitalism is blamed for why things dont happen and socialism as the perfect answer to all the ills that befall us.
Neither system is perfect and somewhere there is a balance. The Greens may come to reckonise this and use it to their best advantage. Striking the right balance for the beterment of people and the planet.
February 15th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Russel,
My pick list would be:
- public transport (some significant progress on rail in Auckland)
- vehicle fuel efficiency standards (for imported vehicles) or reduced vehicle registration fees for more fuel efficient vehicles.
- reduced road user charge for smaller diesels (on the grounds that they’re significantly more fuel efficient, gebnerate less wear on roads than light trucks and to support bio-fuels policy)
- more emphasis on energy efficiency, demand side-management re electricity market and support for smaller distributed generation (break the big player monopoly)
- increased support for organic sector.
- support funding for serious research on potential for locally produced bio-fuels on marginal and/or non-food producing land.
February 15th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
Kiwinuke
I cannot disagree with any of those points, well said.
The Strategist.
You forget that there is not currently a viable public transport system available, it is grossly unfair to tax people now when there is no alternative public transport system.
However I pretty much agree with the rest of your post, the only thing I would say it be honest, get a mandate from the public at the next election before you set out on your more radical path.
February 15th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
it’s hardly grossly unfair to incrementally increase petrol taxes to encourage less use of cars when our petrol is about the 3rd cheapest in the world. You should see the petrol tax rates in Europe.
so mr BB, you want improved public transport in place before raising petrol taxes, you want us to keep building roads (which are incredibly expensive), and you want personal tax rates to be reduced. Where is the money to come from for all these grand development plans? I submit that you are an unrealistic dreamer who thinks that the country can have its cake and eat it.
February 15th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
# big bruv Says:
>Cramming people into public transport against their will is a sure fire way to get yourself kicked out of the house.
Indeed, cramming people into public transport does piss people off. The main thing stopping more people in Wellington using public transport at the moment is that we’re being crammed in too tightly because there are not enough buses, and the trains do not have enough carriages. Because buses take up far less room on the road than cars carrying the same number of people, providing enough buses so that everyone can travel sitting down without using their cars is actually a much more efficient way of reducing congestion.
And we’re actually not at the point of needing to convince more people to want to take public transport - the number who already want to get on the buses is frequently more than can fit.
February 15th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
jh
\quote
Basic economics tells us that markets work perfectly (in theory) except for “rigidites� and a lack of information.
\endquote
Leaving aside the validity, or not, of “basic economics” when markets work perfectly they create “economic efficiency”, perfectly maybe, but economic efficiency is not necessarily socially desirable. IMO markets produce socially desirable outcomes only in special circumstances.
W
February 15th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Russ
IMO the most crucial thing is to concentrate on level 1 and level 2.
The Kiwi made campaign has been undermined by “Made from New Zealand” campaign. We cannot get the goernment to back off of that without looking like creeps. The solar initiative needs full support and…
“public acknowledgement of the Green Party’s contribution through measures such as: press releases; speeches; or supporting agreed Green Party amendments to legislation ” How often do we see senior cabenit ministers giving press conferences with Jenette about the energy efficiency and solar stuff she is doing? (Mind you might make her sick!)
…and…
“significantly raise the fuel efficiency of vehicles coming into NZ with a mandatory market based mechanism”
Apart from the weasel words (market based mechinisim) how about this? They could do this.
Environmental education. This is a biggie. We have to get the next generation knowing what is happening in/to the environment and to understand it.
And this…
” * Developing a ‘traffic light’ labelling system to enable consumers to quickly identify healthy food.”
Where is that one?
And…
“Organics Advisory Service ” how is that one going?
I have just scanned the document and cherry picked the ones that stuck out. It is this document that the party must5 base it’s new relationship on. We cannot rewrite it and add things, (sorry about animal rights, banning sow crates and continuing to ban imports of raw pork would make my bacon eating habbits *much* happier, but it is not in the agreement).
W
February 15th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
Stuey
I am well aware of the price of petrol in Europe I suspect you are talking about the price of fuel in the UK as that is by some distance the dearest in Europe.
And please stop using words like encourage, call it what it is and that is a tax increase, if you go on about keeping your word and sticking to agreements how about being the only party in the house that tells the truth.
Interestingly enough the high price of fuel in the UK only hurts those who can least afford it as a high percentage of those who live outside the M25 still have to use their cars to get to and from work, I suspect that the tax increase on fuel you are so keen on will be used for more sinister socialist purposes.
But to answer your questions, yes I do want better roading, I originally come from Wellington, we have a road down there that has been killing people for years, the sooner that the transmission gully road is opened the sooner people will stop being killed on the coastal highway.
Luckily enough I do not have to travel at rush hour any longer, but those who do have to suffer that will tell you that our roading is prehistoric and is costing the country millions in lost revenue every year.
Tax rates…you bet I want them reduced.
The money Stuey is going to come from the existing fuel surcharge (Tax) every cent of petrol tax should be spent on improving our roads.
And the other grand plans?..perhaps you have not noticed but I am a huge fan of less govt, we could reduce personal income tax in a big way and still provide better health care and far better education than this corrupt govt is providing for us.
That is about all the govt should be involved with, I want less FAR less of my money given out in benefits and far less in support of silly things like “the arts”
Its all about personal responsibility Stuey, but as you are a socialist who cannot comprehend a life without nanny state then i suppose you do not understand.
February 15th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
Russ
I must whole heartedly congratulate you and the party for paying back the money the greens overspent during the last election campaign.
I heard the co leaders little speech in the house today before question time and while I thought that the little dig at the AG was unnecessary I am still grateful that the Greens have paid back the money wrongly taken from us tax payers.
Now shoot up to the Ninth floor (I bet getting up there is a bit easier to do given the developments of the last two days) and have a word with Klarke, tell her that we want out 880k back as soon as possible please.
February 15th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
jh says:
[Let us not undermine the eglatarian, democratic, secular and sceptical nature of our society. Did British liberals r-e-a-l-l-y intend their citizens to live under the tino rangitiratanga of a neolithic culture???]
Let’s just start to examine that statement (and “compare apples with apples”:
“British liberals” in 1840 … who came from a heavily divided-by-”Class” part of the Planet. There was very little respect for human life. Wars were frequent. Hanging was common. People starved while others had plenty. etc etc
Australia and then Aotearoa became “home” to a mixed bunch of misfits and rejects and some very worthwhile settlers as well. In both countries the indigenous inhabitants at the time had very little say in the matter.
Granted that the British Isles were more “advanced” than Aotearoa in some ways … because they are situated alongside continental Europe which is attached to Asia. A large landmass where people lived in larger communities in touch with each other, so ideas spread more easily; artifacts and ways of doing things spread more easily; various metals and how to work them spread more easily … etc
They were NOT the advanced society that we see in that part of the World today. Nor could Maori and Polynesia at that time be written off as a “neolithic cultures” in the manner that you suggest.
Polynesians were wonderful seafarers. Their navagational skills are legend. James Cook et al “discovered” Pacific Islands with the help of Polynesian navigators who knew their way around the Pacific.
When comparing the vessels of the time … put one of their (puny by today’s standards) sailing ships alongside a large seagoing double-hulled Waka … both have their advantages and disadvantages, but neither could be seen as “inferior.” (If I had a choice I’d go for the Waka!)
etc etc etc
At the time Maori signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi they were the majority. Basically they chose to allow Pakeha to stay.
Above all, PLEASE recognise that LOGICALLY, all “advances” in “our” society and that of the wider World that you seem to claim as belonging to Pakeha only, are, since 1840, just as much able to be claimed by Maori as well. (In most cases Aotearoa/New Zealand had very little to do with these major advances.)
We are now a multicultural society with a bicultural base.
Maori and Pakeha signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi (”our” founding document.)
Maori are Tangata Whenua.
jh: I’ve seen you write on this topic before. To gain a different perspective, might I suggest that you learn a bit of our history?
I’d be happy to recommend a “must read” (or two!)
February 15th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
I said:
‘Because buses take up far less room on the road than cars carrying the same number of people, providing enough buses so that everyone can travel sitting down without using their cars is actually a much more efficient way of reducing congestion.’
I shouldn’t have said ‘everyone’ as I didn’t really mean everyone should take the bus - I don’t want beekeepers carrying their beehives on the bus.
Also there are tradespeople and delivery drivers who can’t really take the bus, and some people who have to drive or take a taxi because of disabilities, and plenty of other cases when taking the bus is not appropriate. But if everyone who would take the bus if the buses were less crowded and the services more frequent and more reliable were travelling by bus, the reduced congestion on the roads would also benefit those who have to travel by car.
February 15th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
Eredewn
I read you last post, are you in the wrong thread?
February 15th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
bb,
No … right thread, “wrong” topic.
I finally decided it was time to answer one of jh’s regular swipes at Maori,
on this thread: (”February 15th, 2007 at 4:57 pm”)
e
February 15th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
Oh OK, while I cannot remember what JH has to say about the subject I suspect that I am of a similar mind if his/her stance is one of all Kiwis being equal.
But perhaps that is a debate for another day.
P.S Will you be coming to my little photo shoot?
February 15th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
Put a price on Carbon.
Increase petrol taxes.
Ensure that national spending on public transport is at least double the spend on roads.
Roll out smart electricity meters in all homes and allow consumers to generate and sell excess power back to utilities.
Building code for new houses up to LEED or equivalent standard.
Legislate mandatory standby power standards for all appliances with an annual downward ratchet.
Introduce CO2 and particle emission standards for all new and imported vehicles.
Reduce nutrient and methane pollution in the farming sector.
Since Labour is once again “keen” on sustainability, insist on a formal Sustainable Development Strategy that guides all other policy like the one we were meant to have in 2003.
February 15th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
BB: “we could reduce personal income tax in a big way [and not increase petrol tax] and still provide better health care and far better education [and build more roads and fund public transport]”
I rest my case, you are a pie in the sky ideologue with no concept of the reality of government budgets.
February 15th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
also BB, your inability to use Google to learn the meaning of phrases for yourself is legendary around these parts, but your inability to scroll up a page 15 comments, or to use the find on page command (it’s Ctrl-F by the way) is a new one.
BTW, eredwen it is possible to link to a comment on frogblog, the date and time that you copied is actually a link to the comment that you can use, i.e.
http://blog.greens.org.nz/index.php/2007/02/14/what-are-the-priorities /#comment-23515
February 15th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
oh and toad, what’s wrong with using the bus from Auckland to Rotorua?
(in case BB forgets that comment it was here)
As well as intershitty there is new bus service nakedbus.com where if you book in advance you can get Auckland to Rotorua bus tickets as cheap as $1.
February 15th, 2007 at 11:50 pm
Okay, I reckon everyone’s given Russel enough to work with.
So, Russell, you ready to tell us what your priorities are - or you still want to hold that close to your chest?
Hell, I caught myself sounding a bit like Phil there for a bit … mmm
February 16th, 2007 at 1:44 am
Public transport is a clear policy area where the Greens could make significant traction on democratic, social justice, economic efficiency and environmental grounds.
In 2004 two polls taken in Auckland showed around 70 percent support for better public transport compared to 25 percent support for greater roads. Pro-road mayor John Banks was booted out of office based on his Eastern Motorway plans. Yet the 2005 RLTS remained road dominated due to the influence of central govt bureaucrats who control the necessary funding and who are mostly road engineers and transport economists (who hate collective transport). The Greens tried to instill greater sensitivity to environmental issues in transport via 2002 hanges to the LTNZ settings but the agency ignored these and went ahead and approved unsustainable projects like the Wellington Motorway Extension Stage II (aka Te Aro Bypass).
Three problems (among many) afflict Auckland’s public transport: i) lack of integrated ticketing, which penalises public transport users when they transfer from one service to another thus discouraging patronage, ii) non-electrified rail network, which reduces the efficiency of the rail system, iii) The TSLA which prevents ARTA from exercising centralised control over the private operators, which means coordination and integration remain elusive and the efficiency of the ‘network effect’ cannot be realised.
The first two improvements to Auckland’s public transport system could be easily funded by re-allocating some of the billions of central govt dollars budgeted for Aucklands roads. The third is regulatory and thus technically fiscally neutral. ARTA has been begging for greater control but looks likely to be ignored as a result of Infratil (major private bus operator) lobbying. Auckland has been waiting 60 years for an effective, integrated public transport system - perhaps the Greens could deliver it.
February 16th, 2007 at 7:30 am
eredwen Says:
February 15th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
bb,
No … right thread, “wrong� topic.
I finally decided it was time to answer one of jh’s regular swipes at Maori,
———————————————————————————-
The topic was (for example): “And please, don’t get into sideshows like marijuana reform and slagging off the US - this sort of thing just turns voters away in droves.”
I’m not attacking Maori, just the set of western society hating (or something?) ideas that demeen settlers from Europe as some filth and dietify Maori as though they are at a different spiritual level, like the “old people” in Lord of the Ring.
As for my statement: “Let us not undermine the eglatarian, democratic, secular and sceptical nature of our society. Did British liberals r-e-a-l-l-y intend their citizens to live under the tino rangitiratanga of a neolithic culture???”
I’m questioning the reallity behind the signing of the treaty. I.e
was there really agreement between the participants or was it an imperfect process. Would the liberals behind the British Governments humanitarian drive have really agreed to kawangatanga and tino rangitiratanga? I say no, they gambled on assimilation.
I make that point in resonse to those who draw on the treaty to make policy such as: “Tangatawhenua to be consulted as part of their partnership role”, which sounds like: “children ask your parents first”, or “don’t mark the furniture it isn’t our house”.
Maori are Tangatawhenua in relation to historic treaty settlements, however the reality is that we New Zealanders be it from Europe, China, India or Malawi are also “the people of the land” (unless you don’t think farmers aren’t “people of the land”)
As for learning history we discussed the colonisation of the Chathams. Michael King used it to demonstrate that we all have skeletons in the closet; you quoted Ranganui Walker who treats it as a “myth” used to justify colonisation “they did it so it’s o.k to do it to them”. I don’t think I would pass your history course.
The wisdom of crowds?:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/ED0701/S00037.htm
jh
February 16th, 2007 at 7:58 am
An idea that I think is worth debating for inclusion in any proposal is limiting the time a person can be a peoples representative in parliament (and local body politics as well).
I would like to see the number of terms one can be a representative limited to 4 (12 years)
That way we have a continuious refreshing of our parliament and that it is actually representative of the people.
February 16th, 2007 at 8:02 am
Stuey
“BB: “we could reduce personal income tax in a big way [and not increase petrol tax] and still provide better health care and far better education [and build more roads and fund public transport]â€?
I rest my case, you are a pie in the sky ideologue with no concept of the reality of government budgets.”
Look Stuey, grow up!
Do not take it personally, I understand that those from the hard left are very nervous about the next few years as you are well aware that your time in charge of the treasury benches is coming to an end but that is not an excuse to abuse those who do not share your view.
The truth is Stuey that the next govt (led by John Key) can slash social welfare and the working for families package, some of the savings made here can be put toward the education and health departments.
In fact you would not need to increase the health budget by one cent if you got rid of the PC rubbish and waste in the healthy department system, we need more doctors and nurses and less administrators.
Stuey, if we got rid of the nanny state we could have the best of both worlds, think about it.
February 16th, 2007 at 9:04 am
biv bruv
>>Interestingly enough the high price of fuel in the UK only hurts those who >>can least afford it as a high percentage of those who live outside the M25
Indeed. I used to take the tube to work, but not because of the cost of fuel. That didn’t bother me. It was the lack of parking, the congestion (the tube was quicker) and it’s difficult to drive home having consuming six pints and a curry.
>>Roll out smart electricity meters in all homes and allow consumers to generate and sell excess power back to utilities.
I quite like that one. A free market incentive.
Stuey:
Of course we can run more efficient and effective systems. Cut the wasteful PC, socialist crap, and we’ll save billions. Then increase productivity.
Nothing the current administration will do, of course. They’re still under the illusion that government spending isn’t inflationary.
February 16th, 2007 at 9:35 am
Kiwinuke
“Okay, I reckon everyone’s given Russel enough to work with.
So, Russell, you ready to tell us what your priorities are - or you still want to hold that close to your chest?”
Very good point, it is all well and good to say that you want to stop building roads and force people onto public transport but the public deserve to know HOW you are going to do that.
We all suspect you will put up the price of fuel but we need to know by how much, it is time for the Greens to start giving us some details of their policy, lets see how long Green support remains at the current level when you tell the public that petrol will be $4 a liter under a Labour/Green coalition govt.
I am impressed at how far the Greens have come without really giving any in depth detail about their policies, it is another example of the shocking level of political journalism in NZ that our media let the Greens get away with it, however the time has come to stand up and tell us IN DETAIL how the Greens intend to implement their sustainability and environmental policies.
If I am wrong tell me, but I suspect that the only answer the Greens have to these issue is to tax the hell out of them.
February 16th, 2007 at 9:37 am
My Wish List:
Electrification of Auckland rail
Mandatory solar water heating in every new house built and all govt and local govt buildings
Buy NZ made compulsory for all govt and local govt bodies
No SH20 or new motorways built
Faster carpool only lanes on Auckland motorways
Funding to help growers convert to organics
Scrap the TGA
Cheers
February 16th, 2007 at 10:51 am
Stuey asked: oh and toad, what’s wrong with using the bus from Auckland to Rotorua?
Firstly, the bus takes 3h 45m if direct, or 5h 15m if via Hamilton, which is even worse than the train that hardly anyone used was.
Secondly, the conference venue was 30m by road out of Rotorua, and no public transport goes there. If everyone could have gone on a train, we could have chartered transport from the rail station to the venue. But organising getting everyone from Auckland onto the same bus would be nigh on impossible, so there would have had to have been cars ferrying people to the venue as the various buses they were on arrived, which would be a logistical nightmare and kind of defeats the purpose.
By the way, we did carpool, so at least didn’t have single occupant vehicles going to Rotorua and back.
February 16th, 2007 at 11:03 am
BB et.al.
You can slash social welfare and build more and bigger prisons. Don’t expect anything but abuse from us for proposing it though.
As for $4 per liter, it’ll get there soon enough but there’s no Green who wants to whack it all at once and not give the economy a chance to adapt.
Anyone who thinks that a Nat led government wouldn’t simply contract welfare for people and expand it for companies is a poor student of history.
Libertarians might try to do such a thing (stop both) but history also shows that that doesn’t last very long. Balance gentlemen… BALANCE… maybe Key can strike a better one, but I would be loathe to bet on it.
Just knock off the straw-men stuff, OK?
When you’re here OUR context has to apply. We actually do reason things out in some depth and we have the greater good of NZ and the Planet firmly in first place.
Russel
Greens should IMHO, play to our strengths in the electorate. The electrification of rail and expansion of that network has to be in there. Don’t mind roads that are well along in the process, just de-emphasize new roads in future plans. Have to have the alternatives viable before yanking too hard on that chain.
Solar Panels can’t be mandatory, they DO NOT make sense everywhere , but insulation standards can be made better, wood-pellet fires in place of gas furnaces make a lot of sense, and efficiency improvements have to attract tax benefits as well. Greens need to promote and encourage these changes, but cannot force them by fiat.
The Carbon Tax needs to be revisited. The other two minor parties be damned!!! It needs to be worked through and put in gradually in a pigovian approach with the automatic benefits to the efficient that flow on from that. Noting that if it had been done right in the first place most of the rest of this would be unnecessary. This is where I’d push the envelope or in Phil’s words “grab ‘em by the balls”
It also needs to be organized somewhat better than the last attempt. I have SUB-ZERO faith in the current finance minister and his clan of “taxes can’t be fixed, it is too hard” advisors. These people either are completely incompetent to organize a p!ss up in a beer-hall or they are not being truthful about their real priorities in terms of taxes and policy. I don’t think there are any other possible descriptions.
I’d also be wanting to examine immigration and population. This is slightly OT, but Greens need to work up a “sustainable level” of population here based on some data-driven and reasonable estimates of sustainable and comfortable carrying capacity. I think I have to go somewhere else and have a look at our policies groups to see what others have said on this, but it came to mind as I was looking at things I want to see done.
February 16th, 2007 at 11:11 am
Bliss, JH
Lack of information about social costs and future costs counts as lack of information. I read JH as being general. Markets DO work, but the information about some of those costs has to be determined and set by the society, usually in the form of taxes or other penalties for abuse of things that cannot be otherwise costed.
You two are actually much more on the same page than you may realize.
BJ
February 16th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
BJ
“You can slash social welfare and build more and bigger prisons. Don’t expect anything but abuse from us for proposing it though.
As for $4 per liter, it’ll get there soon enough but there’s no Green who wants to whack it all at once and not give the economy a chance to adapt.”
Now you are talking!, I would forgo tax cuts for a short period so we can build bigger prisons.
I refuse to make excuses for criminals, poverty is (and there is no such thing as true poverty in NZ) not an excuse for crime, the sooner the left stop using poverty as an excuse the better.
At least you are being honest about taxing the hell out of petrol, now if you would only be so good as to tell the voting public this.
I am not sure why you want to commit electoral suicide and for the life of me I cannot see what that would achieve.
If you are determined to do this can you please do something about battery hens and pigs in crates first, I would hate the Greens to disappear from the house before you actually got something done.
February 16th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
BJ
“I’d also be wanting to examine immigration and population. ”
On this we agree, we can start by getting rid of Zaoui.
February 16th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
oh b.b…you are getting a tad carried away now…eh..?..(”i know..!..i’ll throw zaoui into the mix..!..”..)
isn’t that big basket of red herrings you cart around getting a bit smelly…?
tho’ i agree with yr call on pig crates/battery-hens…
but i wouldn’t hold your breath..
going on efforts to date…i can’t see the greens leaning on the govt/’squeezing’ over animal welfare issues..being on any list..anytime soon..eh..?
i mean..kedgley/they all (xcpt nandor) chow down on them…
so taste..(”..mm..! organic pork..!..”)..more than welfare..would be driving them on that one..eh..?
(personally..i’ve given up on them doing anything to help animals…it’s just not on any of their radar screens…)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
February 16th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
Phil
I hope that is not the case, they (despite what Stuey thinks) are the only left wing party I have any time for.
There is nothing good about the corrupt Labour party and not one of their policies that I could or ever would support, however as scary as some of the Green ideas are they do have some that I totally agree with.
February 16th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
Would the Greens consider rolling back (pun intended) the stupid exclusivity agreement with Toll regarding freight train opertions in New Zealand and let the likes of Mainfreight , Owens, NZ Couriers, etc. utilise the rail network better with their own trains.
One thing to promote rail but the current set up is all in favour of Toll running down the rolling stock, locomotives and pushing their own trucking arm. The people of New Zealland who own the track network could throw billlions of dollars in upgrades and still Toll could resist utilising it fully.
Greens should push for spending massively on the rail network and free up the operator usage to all who can run a train.
The monopoly on the Cook Straight rail network needs a review as well. Competition is required if you want to move goods by rail in New Zealand.
February 16th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Thanks for all your feedback. Like most people, better public transport is at the top of my list, particularly in Auckland but elsewhere also. And we need to make progress on the Energy Efficiency dimension of our agreement (with all that entails). I think the Buy Kiwi Made campaign is gonna be OK.
Public transport spending is capital expenditure so can either be funded from the surplus or by debt - I note that Cullen has been proudly announcing the oversubscription of his “Infrastructure Bonds” ie loans of $100m, of which $50m is for roads - the biggest roading-building programme the country has ever seen as he describes it. Well if Cullen can issue bonds to increase greenhouse emissions I don’t see why he can’t issue bonds to decrease them by funding public trasnport investment, and make it easier to get around Auckland at the same time.
We already got the Organics Advisory Service up and running. We are making slow progress on better nutrition initiatives, though it feels like swimming in molasses at times.
But all we can do is try to twist Labour’s arm to put sustainabiity into the budget. Of course sustainability is for speeches not budgets with Labour so we can’t make any promises that we’ll get anything out of them.
February 16th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
russell said..
“..we can’t make any promises that we’ll get anything out of them…”
two responses..
1)..um..do you think you should advertise your (lack of) negotiating position/view/staunchness..in advance..?
(just wondering which negotiation textbook that comes out of..)
2)..if they will do nothing..
bring/take the bast*rds down..!
there is a certain urgency around all this russel..
the time for (humbly) waiting on favour from labour is over..eh..?
didn’t you get the memo..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
February 16th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
but anyway..it’s all academic now..
you/we can all let that rush of (power) blood to the head pass..
clark dosen’t need you/us any more..
she has locked down fields’ support ’till the next election..
(brilliant political footwork on her part..she is seen to have done something about field..
still has his support/vote locked-down….
and dosen’t have to give the greens diddly-squat..)
so..once again ..
the cupboard door is creaked open just long enough for the greens to get excited..
then slammed shut..
now..upward and onward..
anything to be learnt from this little exercise..do ya think..?
do you see any patterns here..?
(and um..i’d get someone else to handle any negotiations..eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
February 16th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Good point Phil, I wonder how she did that?..did she have a word with the comissioner?..I wonder if we will have another case of “while we have a prima facie case we will not be proceeding etc..”
But you are right, the greens have missed the chance again, when will they learn that Labour are going to give them nothing.
February 16th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
BB I said the $4 will arrive eventually, not that it would all be tax
See what I mean about the context? You made an assumption based on a preconception. Yes… Greens will tax petrol. Tax anything that uses and abuses the commons actually… and relieve taxes elsewhere. To get the actual numbers we’d have to have an actual budget and actual power. From the posts just above it looks like this will have to wait for an actual election after the actual climate induced disasters become so obvious that it is impossible to resist the conclusion. In other words? Far too late.
BJ
February 16th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
i would guess taito was told..”..we can do this hard..we can do this easy..”
with (needed) ’seperation but continuation’ being the crux of it..
and if he stands for the maori party next election..?
(and a strong (female?) right/nat candidate…?..)
things get suddenly very interesting in the seat with (’till now) the largest majority of any labour m.p…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
February 16th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
BJ
OK, I accept that if the Greens are in a position of power (or influence) then you will raise taxes on fuel and “anything else that uses and abuses the commons”.
Does this mean that you will
1. Keep the overall tax grab where it is or
2. Lower Taxes or
3. Raise Taxes
As for Labour crapping on the Greens again, did you really trust them this time?
I really think that you cannot wait for the next election, they will only crap on you again, withdraw support now and force an early election.
February 16th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
“Quote of the day” goes to phil_u (for his question to big bruv):
” isn’t that big basket of red herrings you cart around getting a bit smelly…? “
February 16th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Eredwen
Has my call for the Greens to tell the truth upset you that much?
You need a much thicker skin.
February 16th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Out tax changes are aimed to be fiscally neutral in general - ie resource or pollution tax increases should be matched by tax decreases elsewhere. Sometimes it is recyled as a targetted subsidy - eg a waste levy recycled into schemes to reduce waste. The overall objective is to move economic activity towards sustainability using market mechanisms without increasing the overall size of the state.
February 16th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
Russel
Thanks for that, I do however take issue with subsidizing anything, New Zealand has been through this before and subsidies did not work.
There is one obvious question though Russel, if you raise the tax on fuel and off set this with reductions in personal income tax what will you achieve?
February 16th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
thanks eredwen..but quote of the thread/day/week/month goes to russel..
“….we can’t make any promises that we’ll get anything out of them…â€?
(how prescient was that..?..eh..?)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
February 16th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
hey phil!
That one of Russel’s is marvellous!
(… but as a “visual” person, I’d still vote for yours and the GREAT picture it evokes.)
February 16th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
eredwen: “(In most cases Aotearoa/New Zealand had very little to do with these major [technological] advances.)”
this was a wee while ago, but I can’t really leave the assertion that NZ/ Aotearoa had very little to do with major advances unchallenged.
* Ernest Rutherford’s major contribution to atomic physics
* Maurice Wilkins’ major contribution to DNA research
Also consider other remarkable achievements eg. Britten, Richard Pierce’s arguable pioneering of flight. While I’m not making any comment on the cultural identity or alignment of these inventors, or the validity of your post not withstanding this criticism, I thought it definately needed to be pointed out.
February 16th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
big bruv it depends entirely on what the subsidy is. If the subsidy is motivated by a luddite mindset to support outdated practices then it will not be positive. If it is motivated by a desire to get ahead in the uptake of the progressive technologies of the future then its outcome is highly likely to be positive. The subsidies you refer to were of the first type, the subsidies proposed by Russell the second. In fact the first type of subsidy is alive and as well as ever in the USA, in support of…. you guessed it! The fossil fuel industry.
February 16th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
Ahuahu.
Very well said.
February 16th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
BB
If income is taxed less or not at all, but carbon use is taxed more, people will inevitably still have to burn fuel of some sort, but will have more money to pay for it AND will get to KEEP more money if they are particularly efficient at what they do. In other words the market reward will be put in place for efficiency of conservative farming rather than the efficiency of slash and burn. This will turn the invisible hand to work at making our future society efficient and able to withstand some of the more outrageous things our current consumption based operations have stored up for it. Will it be enough? At this point probably not, but it’s the best shot we likely have.
respectfully
BJ
February 16th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
BJ
Thanks for that, I now understand a little better what you are driving at (this is not to say that I agree of course but at least I can mull it over)
It does strike me though that the rich are still going to be able to drive their big SUV’s and the like under this scheme, i guess the only way to stop that is to ban them.
February 16th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
Ahuahu,
I agree with you! Like you I am proud of our country and an admirer of our people, their individual and collective achievements, and our “way of life”.
We do we have an impressive proportion of citizens who have done meaningful things in the world and we as a nation have been pioneers in various fields. Importantly one of the reasons we have comparatively good race relations here is because Maori have refused to be pushed out of the way and forgotten!
If you take my post in context, it was in answer to an assertion that Maori were a “neolithic culture” when the (by implication) much more advanced Pakeha arrived here … (and that somehow that difference in “status” remains.)
jh has on a number of occasions written in similar vein as you will discover if you read back through the various threads … and this time I REACTED!
February 17th, 2007 at 8:00 am
BB
It comes down to “The Tragedy of the Commons” writ large. A slight variation.
As long as a resource that is actually valuable is treated as free, the market will consume it until it is gone. It will consume it in preference to any other strategy because it IS free, and thus its use is perceived by the market as efficient.
To make the market work well it has to be given true costings. It is not always easy to determine what those are, but “free as air” is a bigger mistake than $20 a tonne. $1000 a tonne is ALSO very likely a mistake, but some costing has to be applied and there’s no means to do it that I can see except to apply a tax.
If the rich guy wants to pay the tax and drive the SUV it puts more money in the hands of government to mitigate by planting trees and building wind farms and installing solar somewhere else… and since we wouldn’t be taxing the SUV itself, it is perfectly within reason to expect efficient and alternate fuel SUVs. Steam powered SUVs. Fuel-Cell driven SUVs…
Doing it right gives everyone all the choices possible. Banning SUVs does not. The only justification for such a ban IMAO would involve the lack of safety inherent in mixing such behemoths into traffic comprised largely of smaller cars on roads that were designed for (and possibly by) goats.
Doing it right means that maybe Kiwi ingenuity will see farms running trucks powered by methane that comes from farm waste. Bio-Diesel trucks. Wood-Pellet-Stirling-Engine fired trucks.
I don’t want to STOP the rich guy (or anyone else) from doing whatever the hell he wants… I want him to pay the real price of doing it. Determining the “real” price is damned difficult but of all the answers for setting a price, “free” is the only one I know that is guaranteed to be wrong. ALWAYS wrong. TANSTAAFL.
It doesn’t say who pays or when, but it is actually a law of thermodynamics written so people can understand… and thermodynamics and evolution are the actual basis for the efficiency of “the invisible hand”.
respectfully
BJ
February 17th, 2007 at 8:08 am
I wonder if Helen Clarke or one of her handlers was reading this thread and became so alarmed that she went to Field with a deal… Nothing would surprise me at this point.
BJ
February 17th, 2007 at 8:38 am
BJ
The “rich guy” is already paying for more than his share (or real price) in our socialist society, what you are proposing (and I must say it is a very well put together argument) is that they will continue to shell out money simply because they are rich.
I was thinking about this on the way into the office this morning, I drive about 30 mins to work most days and there is no viable public transport system save an irregular and atrocious bus service (that takes an hour to cover the same distance).
Given that most people of modest means live on the outskirts of a city or town they are the very ones who will be forced to give up work or suffer a major drop in real income if you raise the price of fuel dramatically.
Do we not run the risk of creating a whole new army of unemployed if fuel is so expensive that they are forced to give up work?
February 17th, 2007 at 11:57 am
bb says: “Given that most people of modest means live on the outskirts of a city or town they are the very ones who will be forced to give up work or suffer a major drop in real income if you raise the price of fuel dramatically.”
How about showing some “vision” and keeping up with the times?
Take a leaf out of Environment Canterbury/plus Christchurch City Council/ other local Councils’ books. They have introduced a comprehensive integrated public transport system that is regular, frequent and reliable (and inclusive and adaptable to new methods of transport).
More and more people are using the system and leaving their cars at home (and owning fewer cars per family.) Bikes are also noticeably on the increase, and some buses will take bikes (they all take prams and all the new ones are “kneel down” buses for wheelchair users). It will “cost” the rate payers for a while … we’ve spent millions … but it has had a GREAT affect on the City.
Some services are free
I use my smart “MetroCard” and pay no more than $3:80 per day to travel wherever I want, with weekly maxima of $19 per week. Eventually all ferries and other forms of transport will be totally integrated into a regional transport system.
Spend some time reading the following …
http://www.ecan.govt.nz/Our+Environment/Transport/bus-services.htm
February 17th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
yeah..i’ll second eredwen on that..
christchurch has done what auckland failed/continues to fail.. to do…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
February 17th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
BB
In THIS tax and benefits regime Ms Gattung will, on the last 30K of her paycheck, put in 39% at worst. Of the last 30K of MY paycheck I got about 3K, and I don’t think you could claim I am wealthier than her.
Thats the reality based argument… specific to stupid NZ tax and benefits schemes. Not affecting the basic philosophy.
Basic philospophy was one that even Adam Smith concurred in, that them as gets more pays more when it comes to government.
The basic philosophy problem was not part of this already long-enough thread. Maybe we should argue about it some other time.
respectfully
BJ
February 17th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Eredwen
More and more people riding bikes?…I will accept that more people ride bikes for recreation (mountain bikes and the like) but I do not accept that they are fast becoming a viable or acceptable option for getting to work.
Interesting that you use Christchurch as an example, I lived there myself for some time until recently and I did notice a big number of bikes on the road at the weekend, however there were very few during the week.
I am not sure about the public transport system, our teenage child used to moan constantly about irregular and unreliable bus schedules.
I note that you have still not answered my question though, what do you propose to do to until there is a reliable and rapid public transport system? will you give those who are earning the minimum wage cheap fuel?
February 17th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
That was too hasty BB… actually they’ll have a larger choice about how much they shell out, as the cost of the fuel for an SUV is far more optional than income for most of us.
We gotta talk about this more, but I gotta go NOW
respectfully
BJ
February 17th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
bb
I can’t speak for your adolescent, but my kids used buses happily and found their frequency fine, including the “after midnight” buses on weekends. (Perhaps they planned their journey / read a book while waiting!)
There is a serious, rapid (and noticeable) increase in improved amenities for bikes in Christchurch. Highly visible bike lanes and road signs are becoming the norm on major roads…sophisticated solutions at traffic lights and other intersections … and special bike paths around the city … bike stands are appearing all over the place. I can’t speak for your adolescent or your former suburb, but where I live there is a constant stream of bikes using the bike lanes, from 0700hrs onwards, for the 10Km journey to and from work/school. (Some who live on our hill park their cars at the bottom and bike from and to there.)
Each member of our family has a state-of-the-art bike. My 27 year old son has only recently bothered to get his restricted licence (and a car that will take a multiple bike rack on the back.) My 23 year old daughter and her partner ride bikes everywhere. Neither bothers to drive.
True, there is still a stream of cars (a surprising proportion of which are are getting smaller and newer by the day, and more and more of them have bike racks on the back…)
There are still quite a few luddites driving SUV’s … bur NO Hummers that I have seen.
(So we seem to be fast learners in Christchurch!)
February 17th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
BB
Both places I’ve worked so far here have had at least 1 cyclist-commuter. It doen’t serve well for the manager whose fittest days are in his past, but even I would consider it if I could afford a house nearer the city or a way to manage them with the train (I live in Porirua and commute to Wellington). Save me all the time spent running to stay fit.
Bicycles are viable when bicycles are considered in the construction of facilities. Cycling up Ngauranga gorge next to trucks that are belching diesel particulates is likely to shorten our lifespans, not lengthen them, and the typical cycle-commuter will be visiting the ACC body and fender shop more often, until cars become a bit less possessive of the paved surfaces around the place.. cars don’t share space with cyclists all that well.
I think you are making an important point (though you are still phrasing it in the accusative - and catching flack for that).
Our culture must be weaned from the car, and the process is not without perils for the least affluent. They are the ones who pay with their travel time for the house they cannot afford close to the city. Some planning needs to be done to receive the influx of users bound to show up when the prices start being affected seriously.
Housing policy changes must also be regarded and housing density needs to be worked out. The death of suburbia? Maybe. Access to trains and access to bus routes with regular runs will become more important to people making buying decisions.
Buses that run regularly empty must needs be smaller too. I happen to know that after the rush hour in Porirua the whitby bus runs hourly and even so seldom has more than a half-dozen people going home. I’ve been the sole occupant on occasion. It’s a damned big bus for that to be happening. I’ve suggeset off peak services on smaller buses several times.
BJ
February 17th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Eredwen
We lived in Sumner and at the weekends i could not move for bloody people on bikes, trying to get a Hummer around people riding three abreast is a pain.
Well Eredwen it seems things are moving along at a rapid rate of knots in Christchurch, now if you can fix the rampant racism in that city it might be a place i would come back to.
February 18th, 2007 at 11:56 am
bj:
I too feel uncomfortable about the overall size of buses … large buses with few passengers. I can undertand why it is happening in the short term, but haven’t followed the local decision making: longer term plans / implications / solutions for this. (I know there are plans to buy more smaller ones … )
On that topic, the number of large trucks, each from a different company (in the name of “private enterprise” and “competition” presumably) that visit our street to deliver one small package each is another glaring “must change” area of concern.
A few well thought out adjustments to the “level playing field”, “market”, whatever, would seem to be in order!
February 18th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
” Good afternoon
We have had a problem in the Sydney office with the air con and because of this the server room has over heated. ”
Just a reminder that a LOT of our technology goes at risk when we go over the falls in this ill-structured barrel. Can we cope? Will NZ be isolated in the future as it was in the past? Will we adapt?
Or will we stick with this?
“World comes to an end. Film at eleven” - Carson
BJ
February 20th, 2007 at 10:07 am
I’ve just about given up on public transport in Wellington City - mostly because a bike is faster, cheaper and more pleasant. A few more decent bike lanes would get more people off the roads and off the overloaded public transport. Seems like a win-win situation.
And particularly on days such as yesterday, when the sun is shining and the traffic is banked up all the way between Newtown and the Basin Reserve, there’s nothing like zooming past hundreds of expensive cars on a $20 second-hand bike* for making you feel smug.
(* and maintenance and repairs are free at the Mechanical Tempest community bike workshop at 128 Abel Smith Street. ‘Scuse the plug)
February 20th, 2007 at 11:23 am
Toad, your note about shipping had me thinking - is it a good idea to consider reducing wharf space with things like the Stadium in Auckland and apartments and shops in Wellington on wharf frontage?
February 21st, 2007 at 1:36 pm
I am an emigrant and have lived in this country for 7+ years. I will never get used to the “nanny state” (cradle to grave) mentality. Frankly, had we known about how this country is governed we would have likely chosen another country.
Just like WINZ, ACC consistently fails to advise claimants about their full and true entitlements. The majority of claimants lack the knowledge and education to seek out and read the IPRC Act and its regulations. ACC relies on this broad public ignorance and saves itself millions in the process.
I have first hand experience of how ACC works; the mentality and processes behind the scheme and the people who operate it. The focus is NOT on rehabilitating claimants to the maximum possible extent - as the IPRC Act requires - but on ‘exiting’ claimants as quickly as possible.
ACC is advertising because of its poor image. If you watch the advertisement you’ll see that its purpose is not education. So what benefit does the viewing public derive from ACC misleading the public with blatant lies?
If ACC was such a wonderful organisation with thousands of happy present and past claimants, why didn’t they use any of these people in their advertisement? Why use and coach actors?
February 21st, 2007 at 2:32 pm
“Just like WINZ, ACC consistently fails to advise claimants about their full and true entitlements. The majority of claimants lack the knowledge and education to seek out and read the IPRC Act and its regulations. ACC relies on this broad public ignorance and saves itself millions in the process”
When it comes to WINZ…long may the public remain ignorant.
February 21st, 2007 at 2:47 pm
My view is that the government obviously supports the legislation as it is and must deliver on its responsibilities.