Infrastructure for the future

A modern and efficient rail system will be as crucial to our future as fiber to the home broadband.  So I'm extremely pleased to see that the Government has secured this crucial rail infrastructure.  As petrol prices go up and up and up public transport (rail and buses) will be increasingly important.  And as the price of Kyoto starts to kick in, rail will be an obvious solution to moving people and freight around.  Having said that, I'm at a loss to understand why we paid so much.  Surely, given the Government owned the rail, the Government could have driven a much harder deal?

Which leads me to the second related point - broadband.  I was pleased to see John Key come out with a bold position on investing in broadband.  I agree that the Government must play a role in ensuring fast-speed broadband Internet.  Having spent the past 7 weeks in the US, where they do have very fast Internet, I have discovered how disabling our Internet speeds in New Zealand are.  Having said that, Key's proposal seemed a little weak on details.  I'd like to see a continued debate on how to get fast Internet speeds and in the shortest possible time.  If that means Government investment is needed, so be it.  Key, by proposal the Government fund the investment, has presented the Government with an opporunity to come up with its own proposal that National will find difficult to attack.

Which leads me to the final point - climate change and petrol prices.  The Government is sending very mixed messages about what it is trying to achieve in sustainability.  On the one hand the Government announces that it wants to be carbon neutral, and starts to develop (finally) a policy to address climate change.  And the other hand, it is sending a message it doesn't want regional councils to use one of the key tools it is introducing to address climate change, the regional fuel tax).

Why the mixed messages?  Firstly, while many people are concerned about climate change, the vast majority of people are always much more concerned about their back-pocket - particularly when making political decisions like who to support in an election year.  Petrol prices are important, because most people fill up their tanks at least once a week and in the course of a day drive past petrol stations, and therefore a constant reminder of petrol prices, several times a day.  National's 2005 "remove GST on petrol" bribe was bad policy, but good politics (actually it's bad politics, but that depends on how you view politics!).  It almost got them over the line last election.

I was in charge, last year, of helping develop Labour's climate change policies for our manifesto - which involved facilitating a party-wide discussion on climate change.  The one over-riding message from our members was that they wanted more carrot and less stick: more incentives for energy and fuel efficiency and fewer disincentives such as additional taxes and penalties.  The problem of course, is that disincentives tend to be much more successful than incentives.

So where does that leave us?  In an MMP environment people have choices.  Voters get to send a message with their 2008 vote about the relative importance of different issues and the relative value people place on different policies and priorities.  I hope that that is what the 2008 election is about.  While the election will be fought in the political center, people will have clear choices within that.

I will do another post soon on what I think the election will be about, and what I think are the policy strengths and differences between each party.

UPDATE: NZ Herald reports that the Government will also delay bringing the transport sector into its emissions trading scheme until 2011.

Comments

[tim barclay]

Tony the Labour Party's policies on climate change are in tatters. It is one step forward and two steps backwards. You propose something and then slam on the breaks when the costs become real. Basically Green policies are expensive and while us Tories can afford to drive nice new efficient cars (we do) and have efficient energy saving appliances (I have recently replaced all mine), and I have changed all my ligh bulbs in my nice new energy efficient house, the average Labour voter is poor and cannot afford all this middle class guilt stuff. So the Labour Party talks big on green policies but it acts very very small.

[Tony Milne]

There is some truth to that - that is what I mean by people have choices. Labour is a social democratic party and will always put the interests of poor and middle New Zealand first. Other parties will put the environment first. I will write a post elaborate on what I mean in the coming weeks.

[Libertyscott]

"Having said that, I'm at a loss to understand why we paid so much. Surely, given the Government owned the rail, the Government could have driven a much harder deal?"

It's always easy to spend more when it is other people's money, and you're not truly accountable for it.

Why do you believe in the faith based initiative of rail Tony? What facts do you have to prove that it is more efficient to use rail for most movements of people and goods in the country, given that the trend over seventy years has been the opposite?

[Libertyscott]

"Having said that, I'm at a loss to understand why we paid so much. Surely, given the Government owned the rail, the Government could have driven a much harder deal?"

It's always easy to spend more when it is other people's money, and you're not truly accountable for it.

Why do you believe in the faith based initiative of rail Tony? What facts do you have to prove that it is more efficient to use rail for most movements of people and goods in the country, given that the trend over seventy years has been the opposite?

[Tony Milne]

"It's always easy to spend more when it is other people's money, and you're not truly accountable for it".

Really? That's not how I think. In my jobs (NGO and Government) I've always been extremely careful with money that is not my own. I find it much easier to spend my own money when I'm only accountable to me. Do you actually believe that's how people think, or is that just a nice right-wing talking point.

There are several reasons why rail is and will be crucial (as it is and has been in other countries). The major reason being the soaring price of petrol.

The price of petrol (apart from a short blip over a 3-4 year period in the late 1970s/early 80s of the Iran/Iraq war - although even then it was still much cheaper than now) has been very cheap and very stable over the past 70+ years. Petrol today is 5 times the price that it has been for the past 70 years. And it is likely to increase in price further.

[Clint Heine]

Tony, maybe you think differently than some of your colleagues and I commend that!

I am worried that Labour have their priorities all wronfg. If they cared about people on lower incomes, why would they spend all that cash on a rail service not even the watermelon Greens would be seen dead on. Why wasn't it channelled towards health or improving education?

It seems that politicians who are paid more than they were outside of politics have a real problem with spending other peoples money. Politicans who have taken pay cuts in order to serve NZ have a far healthier attitude towards what they spend.

[libertyscott]

"Do you actually believe that's how people think, or is that just a nice right-wing talking point" Tony, I commend you for thinking that way. Although there is always a major difference between having to convince people to give you their money vs. getting it from taxes.

What is it about petrol that makes rail (which has a network tiny compared to roads) so critical?

I know it is very easy for those who don't work in the transport sector to assume rail and road are interchangeable and that rail's fuel efficiency with large loads over long distances somehow is a magic panacea that can make a big difference. None of these people ever talk to those in the freight sector who will say that for 85% of freight, rail doesn't even come close. Coastal shipping is more fuel efficient than rail (truck on ship at Port Chalmers and off ship at Auckland easily beats rail), so why not as much enthusiasm for that?

It's not politics, it is the bizarre belief by politicians (I know few bureaucrats who know the sector who believe it) that rail is a realistic alternative. Don't forget the price of diesel has accelerated faster than petrol, almost all trains in NZ run on diesel. Rail simply isn't flexible enough for a lot of loads and the enormous infrastructure and double handling costs typically more than offset the lower cost of fuel.