Memories In Future Tense

A few things have happened in the last 24 hours that have taught me a lesson about trying to be too clever.

I wrote a post about water, and specifically whether it is capable of being owned, and I scheduled it for a few days time.  My instincts say, even now, to leave it to post as scheduled.

Meanwhile, Puddleglum has gone a step further and identified what lies behind the current discussion about water.  I'll not steal his thunder, it's a hell of a good post and you should read it.  Even Bryce Edwards thinks so.

And in the end I got back to where Every Tiny Straw started - back in June last year when wildcrafty said:

wildcrafty said...

Wish you had a blog AC.

"I reckon the whole "the land belongs to me" concept is a failure. I much prefer the idea that "I belong to the land". As such, I am its property and thereby I am responsible for looking after it."

There's a conversation I'd like to see NZ having more of.

June 14, 2011 11:38 PM

over at Cr Guyton's blog.  Gosh, that feels a bit weird, quoting someone who was quoting me.  However, that's kind of where it all started - a seminal moment, if you will.  If you read this blog, wildcrafty, thanks.

So, and acknowledging that this pre-empts a post that is already written and scheduled for publication, but is as yet unpublished.  I've fallen back to a principle I explained a year ago:

I reckon the whole "I hold water rights" concept is a failure.  I much prefer the idea that "I belong to the water, and the land".  As such, I am its property and thereby I am responsible for looking after it.

The concept of ownership, as we understand it in our culture, may be too simplistic to allow us to manage water properly.

The Church - Of Skins and Hearts, 1981

Hideous Twinge

Back from recess, and question time was pretty dull. Unusually so.  Which is a bit of a shame; I'd wanted something to blog about.  The highlight was Question Six.

Gerry Brownlee, as Minister of Transport, was unnecessarily belligerent with his answers to this primary question from Julie Anne Genter:

6. JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) to the Minister of Transport: How much was spent on investigation, design, and other preparatory work for the now cancelled Otaki to Levin expressway?

The questioning elicited a few bizarre and un-ministerial answers,this exchange being the most obvious example:

Julie Anne Genter: Will he admit that spending most of the transport budget on building a few expensive motorways is not the best, most cost-effective way to improve safety and move more people and freight around the country, as we have seen with Ōtaki to Levin?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No. Of course I will not.

Seriously Gerry, you wouldn't admit it?  What if it was demonstrably true?

The nest supplementary was just as revealing, but it left the obvious follow up unasked:

Julie Anne Genter: Will further low-value roads of national significance projects be cancelled, such as the $1.7 billion Pūhoi to Wellsford project, which has lower traffic volumes and a worse benefit-cost ratio than the now cancelled Ōtaki to Levin expressway; and if not, why not?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No, because we think it does have the potential to carry a lot more traffic in the future—far more, in fact, than the tunnel through Auckland for the train with nobody on it.

 I'd like to know what basis the minister has for expecting more traffic on the Puhoi to Wellsford road, given the static or falling traffic counts across the country.
The subtlest bit was the minister revealing his ignorance.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: [...] What I will instruct the New Zealand Transport Agency to do is to stop paying for reports like that on the impact of urban form on economic performance, Valuing Urban Design, and Business cases for walking and cycling, all compiled for the New Zealand Transport Agency by the member, at a huge cost—a jaw-dropping cost, in fact.

As I read it, this says that the minister is lacking the intellectual capacity to understand some of the reports his ministry has commissioned.  I doubt a glossary would have helped, and a larger font or more pictures can only go so far.  It seems we need a smarter minister.

Tufnels - Lurid, 1994

Come Together (Again)

A little "told you so", if I may.

More than two months ago I blogged abut Pete George and his behaviour at The Standard.  Not much had changed in the interim, until the last day or two.  I suggested some form of collective action and it appears to be under way.  Not quite what I suggested, but who cares, as long as it works.

Go Standardistas!

I'm a little disappointed that I've not followed the action closely enough to see the cause of the action, and I'm not motivated enough to go looking for it.  Something to do with something RedLogix said.

Anyway, with Pete George gone, and following the advice darkhorse gave me, I will head back to The Standard and comment more frequently.

The Beatles - Abbey Road, 1969

You're So Foolish

Amongst my research for my post on the Auckland Central Rail Loop I came across more of Jim Hopkins' work.  At least he tries to be topical.  There, I've said something nice.  Now...
I couldn't help but read the comments thread, because I was so overawed by the stench of stupid that emanates from Hopkins' writing.  And this one, from a Paul Andersen, rung true:

Is this rubbish masquerading as humour?

That seems to be the most likely explanation.


Essentially Hopkins' argument is that water is transitory, and we can not own transitory things.  It's a weak argument.  Stock animals are transitory too, both by nature (without fences they wander, and graze) and by the customs of our society (we move them around, including onto land we don't hold title to).  Neither instance automatically results in transfer of ownership.


I'm tempted, at this stage, to take the easy way out and say I don't know who owns water.  I believe water is capable of being owned, and I believe that on 5 February 1840, water in New Zealand was not owned by the Crown.  I understand that there has been no legislation passed, in the interim, that explicitly alienates the pre-Treaty owners from their ownership rights.  As such, that leaves the owners of water, as at 5 February 1840 with the ability to assert their ownership rights.


I look forward to seeing what wiser heads than mine think.


And while I haven't worked out all the answers for myself, I do know who doesn't have the answers, and whose column and thoughts need not be consider - and that's Jim Hopkins.


Heavenly Bodies - ...But I Can Write Songs Okay (Compilation), 1996

The Hardest Button To Button

Sometimes words fail me.  Like now.  But I know someone is thinking about what I want to say when I read well written words.  And yesterday I did that.

Darkhorse writes the howdaft blog.  I am genuinely in awe of his writing, and evidently others are too because his posts are republished at The Standard and linked to from The Herald.

Rather than link to a whole post from howdaft, I've decided to highlight a couple of sentences that really resonated as being fundamentally true and a reflection of the essence of society.  They are;

'...the wisest long term investment strategy for both retirees and for future taxpayers is to build an essentially debt free society. 
We need to be building an investment in the future.  Instead we have loaded our children with debt. We have either run the assets we inherited from our parents into the ground or sold them off and we have not prepared ourselves, or our children for the future.'

While I am normally quite pedantic about quoting in context, I believe that these few words are so universal that they can stand independent of their original context.

The political blogosphere tends to be awash with negativity, and people who are prepared to knock, or waffle, or not understand the fundamentals of their positions.  I can do this with the best (or worst) of them.  So it is refreshing to see someone who can express something constructive, definite and honest.

Cheers darkhorse, please keep writing.  Change has to start somewhere.

White Stripes - Elephant, 2003

I Started Something I Couldn't Finish

The Herald reports that $200 million or so has been spent on consultancy fees for the Roads of National Significance, with the underlying message that this is not a good use of public money.  James Henderson at The Standard picks up on the underlying message, and runs with it.  Both rely on quotes from Phil Twyford, Labour's Transport spokesperson and, from what the discussions we have had, a very good bloke.

I think the analysis is a bit shallow, although James Henderson does get some of it.

On my point of disagreement - good planning always pays off.  As such, I have no problem with money being spent on making sure we will do the right thing, and the right way.  If that involves spending $200 million, which is an eye-watering sum, then so be it.

As I see it:

• the requirements to plan for roads and other major infrastructure can be enormous, and this is a crude way of making sure that projects that are a bad idea do not go ahead.
• as a direct result of the point immediately above, and as noted by James Henderson, spending this much money on roads that should not and mostly will not be built is ridiculous.
• the procurement model for planning and design services for roads is fundamentally flawed, in that in only allows for competition from within the private sector, when doing so (and exacerbating this by enforcing the same model for the construction) allows price gouging, can stifle competition, and reduces the control that the funder (that's you and me, via our government) has over the process.

The alarmist approach of saying "gosh, that's a lot of money" is overly simplistic.

The Smiths - Strangeways, Here We Come, 1987

I Keep Coming Back

Another milestone reached a few days back, though one where I'll keep the news to myself and smile on the inside.  And more note-worthy, perhaps, is what stands out for me from the 200-odd posts I have written since starting this blog in January.

There's one post that, for some reason, keeps getting read by people from all over the world.  It was one of the off-the cuff, whimsical ones that I never expected to be read by anyone.  Ever.  It's about learner plates on cars, for goodness sake.  What is so interesting about this post?

My favourite post is about asset sales.  It was inspired by one of my favourite critics, Shunda Barunda, who I like and respect a lot more than he suspects.

The most read post is this one, on Hekia Parata's folly.

The rest don't really surprise me.  I'm open to suggestions on topics for future posts, too.

Afghan Whigs - Gentlemen, 1993