Editorials 4 March 2010
March 4th, 2010 at 10:43 am by David FarrarThe Herald calls for PPPs to hasten infrastructure projects:
Finance Minister Bill English calls his National Infrastructure Plan an important step towards better infrastructure management. “Even a small improvement in this area could reap gains worth billions – making our infrastructure dollars go further and ensuring a better return for taxpayers,” he says.
The multibillion-dollar sums sprinkled throughout the plan leave no doubt about the size of the commitment. Equally, the OECD’s view that investment in infrastructure, especially transport and communications, boosts long-term economic output more than other kinds of physical investment emphasises this is a road that must be travelled.
The Government, like its predecessor, does not seem sold on fixing this by adopting the bold option of build, own, operate, transfer (Boot) schemes, even though they have been widely used in Australia. The plan is not specific, talking only of PPPs expanding “the scope for innovation in design, construction and management of new assets”.
But it also pays attention to their potential downsides. These include the “reduced flexibility due to the long-term nature of the contract, and the cost that arises from unanticipated contract variations”. The latter can, of course, be mitigated by precise framing, so the private partner is in no doubt about the risk to itself.
Far more emphasis should have been placed on the advantages of PPPs at a time when, despite the squeeze on its finances, the Government is eyeing spending $8 billion to $9.6 billion on designated roads of national significance over the next decade. These pluses include not only the reduced cost to the Crown but the economic value of private investment decisions if they have to carry a fair share of the risk.
Transmission Gully would be a fine candidate for a PPP.
The Dom Post looks at waterfront democracy:
Democracy can be a messy, expensive and lengthy business, as Wellington City Council is finding as it tries to push ahead with its plans for the waterfront. It also provides the best chance of the public ending up with with something it finds acceptable.
Wellington Mayor Kerry Prendergast’s sense of frustration at the appeals against Variation 11 is palpable. In broad terms, Waterfront Watch and the Historic Places Trust believe the variation, which allows buildings under certain heights to go ahead on part of the waterfront without any public consultation, is not stringent enough, and will mean the loss of transparency in the process. Queens Wharf Holdings, on the other hand, believes the proposed restrictions are too stringent. …
Ms Prendergast hopes a solution can be found through mediation. That, based on past experience, is unlikely. The dispute over the proper role for the waterfront has dragged on too long and the positions are too entrenched to hope with any sense of realism for a negotiated settlement. Instead, it seems inevitable that both sides will remain in their trenches, lobbing legal grenades at each other. That is not ideal, but it is the price paid for having a democracy where everyone can have their say and test their case.
It’s ridicolous that after almost two decades we still have no agreed upon plan implemented for the waterfront.
The Press looks at the proposed driving changes:
Despite clear evidence that younger drivers are over-represented in crash statistics, successive governments had for too long placed the controversial issue of the driving age in the too-hard basket.
Finally the present administration has decided to act by accepting the recommendation in the Safer Journeys discussion document to raise the age to 16. And, in another welcome move, the Government has announced that there will be a zero-alcohol limit for drivers under 20. …
And the ODT also looks at the driving changes:
Fifteen is too young to be out and about on the road in cars.
Once, of course, cars in this country were a relatively expensive commodity, owned only after years of hard work and saving.
It might be surmised that a degree of maturity and good sense would have been inculcated in the individual in that time.
There were no cheap Japanese imports, the banks operated under much stricter lending criteria, and there were no such entities as finance companies as might be recognised today; certainly none especially designed to propel young men and women, barely past puberty, into the ownership of fast cars.
March 4th, 2010 at 11:33 am
I wouldn’t touch a PPP with a barge pole. Take Sydney for example:
PPPs just have to cost more because of:
* the increased up front legal costs of contracting the risk of failure
* the costs of private firms having to borrow funds instead of the government borrowing at the cheapest interest rates available
* the costs of ensuring a profit for the private partner
* etc
And the risk still ultimately falls back on the taxpayer if essential services collapse because the contracts weren’t drafted with enough profit for the private operator. And someone ends up paying for the extra layer of PPP consultants, banks and lawyers.
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 11:36 am
What will happen, when the Alcohol limit goes from .08 to .05, is that tens of thousands of kiwis will aquire criminal convictions, that stay with them for the rest of their lives. This is exactly what happended in Australia. The number of drivers at fault in accident with levels in this range is very, very small. What statistics are published in Australia about the number of lives that this initiative actually saved? None. The best case scenario I’ve seen for NZ is that this change will save 14 lives per year. Once again, at the cost of criminalising tens of thousands of Kiwis. And if you think it’s no big deal, what happens is if you get done for .07 once, you live the rest of your life perpetual fear. If the goal was to save 14 lives per year, get all the crap cars and crap drivers off the road. Enforce the rules we have already. Spend some somey on black spots for accidents. Do something effective about stopping people from starting smoking, if you want to save 14 lives. No, I have never been done for driving under the influence, but have seen the impact on otherwise completely law abiding people.
While I’m ranting about this, if its OK for the police to inform an employer (Air NZ) about convictions recorded against an employee, why stop with pilots? What about Air Traffic controllers? Maintenance staff? What about bus drivers? Train drivers? Train engineers? Doctors? Dentists? Surely, I’m entitled to know, byu this logic, that my surgeon has been done DUI 3 times in 22 years? Where does this end? Is it a numbers game? Pilot has 200 passengers at a time, therefore the rules are different for them? Says who?
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 11:39 am
I have an idea.
Let the people who own the land in question decide what goes on it.
Let the people who feel strongly about the value of the land raise the money needed buy it and preserve it. If they can find the support and achieve that, then that is your answer. If they cannot, then that is your answer.
I call this system “property rights”. Ok, I’ll admit I am not the inventor of the idea. Property rights used to be something that was recognised and respected in New Zealand. It is an important part of the reason we enjoy a first world existence.
Letting people with no stake block $billions worth of value on other people’s land simply by writing letters to the appropriate authority is a great way to stop development and ensure the status quo quite arbitrarily stays indefinitely. Wellington’s waterfront did not achieve perfection in 1990.
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 11:52 am
Prendegast must go.
When she steered variation 22 (stop the wall) in 1997-8 and it was defeated she didn’t do the honourable thing and resign, in fact none of the councillors did.
Now they want to stop participation because they can’t get the developers wishes delivered. They are anti democratic.
Waterfront Watch has done a sterling job in making all of our rights be heard.
Shit they had a competition for designing Waitangi Park, lots of people got involved, the public voted.
Guess what? It didn’t suit the committee so they went with their own preference.
What did the councillors say?
Fuck all.
WCC did not and still do not consult, neither do they actually serve the city on this issue.
Gary Poole (paid $300k a year) recommended that Fran Wilde should be let go as she wasn’t up to the job at the Waterfront, but the councillors didn’t take action and she moved on to Chair the Regional Council.
I think the time has come to wipe the council chamber clean of the old dogs and start afresh.
Maybe jack Tan and Allan Probert with Robert Jones can come up with a plan.
I hope so as Wellington is not well served.
If Goulden would produce the goods on the corruption and financial dealings he alludes too maybe that might help.
Vote:Iona Pannet seems to be the only one to stand firm on common sense since Andy Foster caved in to whatever backroom deal he agreed to over the indoor stadium. another one of those flexible Christians.
March 4th, 2010 at 2:46 pm
What a bunch of sanctimonious arsehats these editors are. I was perfectly safe in a car at fifteen, as were thousands of others over the years, including, no doubt, the editors. But lets overreact once again as a nation and ban something because a few people are stupid.
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 6:39 pm
Interesting doco on the documentary channel a few nights back, it was about the crumbling infrastructure in the USA and how great superpowers collapse when they fail to maintain their infrastructure.. Boy I thought we had problems. But the real ludicrous point was the Mac Daddy administration has only allocated some 9 billion dollars out of the hundreds of billions in the stimulus for infrastructure reconstruction. I think Beck has it right, these progressive clowns have no wish to pull the US out of the shit, they wish to collapse the joint. Given the many thousands of bridges and roads that are no better then goat tracks this shall not be long in coming.
Vote: