Watch this video of a cat taking on an alligator.

Hat Tip: Andrei at NZ Conservative

Oh this really is getting sad. NZUSA have spent some of their compulsory given fees on a poll, which they claim has 77% of NZers opposed to Heather Roy’s VSM bill.

NZUSA claim:

Public poll reveals overwhelming majority opposed to Act Party bill

It of course reveals no such thing

The New Zealand public has again overwhelmingly declared that students themselves should determine the method of students’ association membership, a week out from the committee stage of a Bill that attempts to remove this choice.

“Students are best placed to make their own decisions about the membership of their local students’ associations, and this public poll shows there is no appetite for Government involvement in such processes,” says NZUSA co-President David Do.

Mr Do is of course also the former Chair of the Princes St Labour Branch.

But turning to what he says, here is the hypocrisy. It is purely due to Government involvement that student associations are currently compulsory.

Without an Act of Parliament allowing them to be compulsory, student associations would have no more ability to be compulsory, that Neighbourhood Watch. Their compulsion comes from the Government.

An independent public opinion poll revealed 77% of respondents felt that students should decide the structure of membership of their associations, compared with just 17% that believed it was the Government’s decision, and 6% who were unsure.

George Orwell’s 1984 characters would be proud. Instead of asking the public whether student associations should have compulsory membership, or even asking whether students at a particular instistution should have the power to make their association compulsory, they asked a meaningless question about “decide the structure of membership”.

For NZUSA to claim this as demonstrating that there is an overwhelming majority opposed to Heather Roy’s bill, is desperate and ridiculous. Their remaining credibility is draining away even faster than student associations are withdrawing their memberships of NZUSA.

I am a 100% supporter of VSM. However if I was polled and asked “Do you think students should determine the structure of membership of their association” I would answer “yes”. In fact I am amazed that NZUSA did not get 100% of people answering yes.

Likewise if you asked who should determine the structure of membership of Federated Farmers – farmers or the Govt, I would answer farmers. If you asked me should a majority of farmers be able to make Federated Farmers compulsory, I would answer no.

The last vestige of compulsory unionism will die early in 2011. It is long overdue.

A friend e-mailed around a group of us this puzzle. Naturally I stopped all activity that actually earns me money, and set about solving it.

It took me a while, and I had to recall my school day use of sine and cosine, But I think I worked it out. Try it for yourself. My answer is after the break.

Continue reading »

I enjoy all the US comedy shows, but I do wish they were so not predictable with the targets of their jokes.

Two years after he has left office, and I’d say David Letterman is doing 20 times as many references to George W Bush as to Obama.

And Sarah Palin gets targeted more than I’d say anyone else.

Now don’t get me wrong – I enjoy the jokes at their expense. Humour is humour.

But where are the Obama and Biden jokes?It’s not like there is a shortage of material – esp with Biden.

The final Mana result is out – 1,406 final majority, under 1/4 of 2008. Faafoi got the polling day specials go his way 3:1.

The final margin is 6%, down from 18% in 2008. Turnout was 55%.

Of interest 485 people tried to vote who were not enrolled.

This table shows the final result broken down by area.

As one can see it is the margin in Porirua East that makes such a difference. And it was the one area where there was effectively movement.

Faafoi did very well on special votes – 63% of them.

R2 have announced:

This webcam was sponsored by R2.co.nz. It allowed  viewers to watch proceedings in the Beehive Theatrette. On a typical week at around 4pm, The Prime Minister delivers a post-Cabinet meeting Media Briefing. This and other events  were  recorded  and made available afterwards.

The webcam has been withdrawn for two reasons

1. We can no longer afford to sponsor it.

2. We have been unable to gain access to maintain the equipment. Our Parliamentary access was withdrawn  with no explanation and an application for new acreditation has gone unanswered.

It got too hard.

I found out about this on Red Alert. Clare Curran blogged:

Not sure how it happened, so will favour the cock up rather than conspiracy theory until proven otherwsie.

Can someone tell us why? Cost cutting?

I hope it falls into the former category also.

I’d actually like Parliament to be broadcasting not just the House and the PMs press conference, but also all public sessions of select committees.

I think it is good that citizens have been able to view the PM’s press conferences in their entirety, rather than just the parts the media decide to publish.

It would be really nice if someone could look at what would be involved in restoring this service, or providing a similar service directly.

Charles Chauvel at Red Alert blogged:

I’m in Cancun, Mexico, at the 16th UN Climate Change Conference. Like last year at the 15th Conference in Copenhagen, I am representing Labour as its climate spokesperson; I paid my own way to get here; I am part of the delegation from the International Trade Union Confederation (thanks to Helen Kelly and Sharan Burrow).

I wonder what would be the reaction if a National MP turned up at an international forum as part of a business lobby group?

I’m here to support efforts to get an ambitious, binding, global deal to limit the problems that we are all likely to face as a result of human-induced climate change, and to support a just transition to the different world we are all to shortly going to find ourselves living in.

There will be no binding deal at Cancun. Cancun will make progress in a number of areas but no one expects a binding deal.

So why am I here? Well, just because the media isn’t talking about it so much doesn’t mean that the issue isn’t just as serious as it was last year. My aunts’ home in Tahiti, 6m from the high tide line, is no less likely to be washed away by rising sea levels than it was last year.

This is th part which I think is ridicolous scare-mongering – I expect it from ill informed people, but not from the official Labour Spokesperson on climate change.

The IPCC 4th report had a number of scenarios. In the most optimistic the mean sea level rise by 2100 would be 18 cm and the most pessimistic would be 59 cm.

So the IPCC have said the worst case scenario is that by 2100 the sea level may have risen 10% of the 6 metres above high tide.

If that rate kept up, Charles’ auntie’s place will get swept away in the year 3000. Now regardless of sea level change, Tahiti is also sinking or subsiding at around 25 cm every 100 years. So in fact around 2700 or so it might get hairy.

Of course by then it will be 18 generations or so on from Charles and his aunt.

I’ve often said politicians who scare-monger like Charles are in fact very damaging to their own cause. Such ridicolous statements (which strongly implied that a six metre rise could happen in his aunt’s lifetime) just provide ammunition to sceptics.

[UPDATE: Several commenters have pointed out that a more likely meaning is that the house is 6 metres along the beach from the high tide mark. If that is the case, then it all depends on the angle of the beach. If the angle is more than 9 degrees, then it still isn’t until 2100 that you get problems.

The projected rate of sea level rise is not dramatic (it is undesirable though). The increase per decade last century has been 1.8 cm/decade. From 1993 it has been 3 cm/decade and the IPCC projects the worst case scenario is 6 cm/decade up until 2100.]

Assistant Deputy Vice-Chief Political Editor Claire Trevett reports in the Herald:

Maori opposition to the new foreshore and seabed bill is increasing, with South Island iwi Ngai Tahu saying it would rather keep the 2004 act than give Maori support to a 2011 version which was equally unjust.

Ngai Tahu representatives spoke before the Maori Affairs select committee in Christchurch yesterday, saying that while the Marine and Coastal Area bill was an improvement on the Foreshore and Seabed Act, it would leave most iwi and hapu no better off because the tests required to have customary title and rights recognised were unfair and too high.

The test required for customary title is not designed by politicians – it is the test that the Court of Appeal said was required under the law.

Ngai Tahu are right that under that test, they would gain little, if any, customary title.

But they are now arguing not for having their legal rights restored, but for Parliament to give them greater rights than the Court of Appeal said they had.

Ngai Tahu’s submission quotes the iwi’s kaiwhakahaere, Mark Solomon, as saying it would be better to leave it to future generations to take up the battle of fixing the injustices caused by the 2004 Act “rather than shouldering the burden of a history that alleges Maori support for a 2011 Act that is equally as unjust”.

They may have a very very long wait. I can not imagine either major party ever wanting to go beyond what the Court of Appeal found, in terms of eligibility for customary title.

The iwi’s stance is a turnaround from initial support for the bill from Mr Solomon as part of the Iwi Leaders Forum which was consulted when the bill was developed.

Not exactly good faith it appears to me.

Ngai Tahu said the test for title and rights should be based on Maori custom and the intensity of each iwi’s relationship with the coastline, rather than on exclusive use and occupation of the coastline.

That is a valid view. But it is not the law of the land, as decided by the Court of Appeal.

Ngati Tama and Te Atiawa were among the Te Tau Ihu iwi which applied to the Maori Land Court seeking title of the foreshore and seabed in 1997 – a move which led to the Court of Appeal’s Ngati Apa decision that iwi could test their title in court, and, as a result, the 2004 Act vesting the foreshore in Crown ownership which iwi were so opposed to.

Yesterday, Te Atiawa rejected the bill that was supposed to rectify that, saying the tests were “unreasonably high” and if they were not changed, it should not go ahead.

Again the tests were set by the Court of Appeal. No Government would dare go beyond what the Court of Appeal found in relation to customary title.They want the rules changed to favour them – understandable, but unjustified from a public policy viewpoint.

The NZ Herald editorial:

The labour Party’s finance spokesman, David Cunliffe, raised some eyebrows last Thursday when he spoke favourably of allowing state-owned enterprises to form subsidiaries in partnership with private shareholders.

Could it be that Labour is relenting on the stern anti-privatisation stance it adopted under Helen Clark?

Alas, no. Mr Cunliffe was talking strictly of subsidiaries. It would be an enlargement of the state’s role in the economy, not a diminution of it.

Even the Clark Government was open to this idea. Trevor Mallard, urged it upon the SOEs when he was minister of state-owned enterprises, though nothing happened.

Mr Cunliffe, in his speech at Victoria University, cited Kiwibank as an example of a subsidiary that had added value to its state-owned parent, NZ Post. The next day he made it clear Kiwibank would be excluded from the envisaged private partnerships.

So alas, it is a policy from the Clark Government.

This policy will not answer the Stock Exchange’s prayers for blue chip listings of public utilities. But unless the National Party leadership has more gumption on that subject in a second term, there is not much prospect of SOE share floats from either of the main parties.

The bipartisan policy on no asset sales is I suspect unique in the developed world. And that is not unique in a good way.

Labour probably wants to sound more moderate and reasonable on a subject such as privatisation, even if its real motive is to increase state participation in the economy.

This is true, but they may find it hard to explain why they are pro-private sector investment in “new” assets ut 100% against in existing ones.

At least the policy Mr Cunliffe has revived, and the Government can readily endorse, opens the way for private enterprise to propose projects to SOEs and tap their resources. That sort of investment could be better for the country in the long run than passive private holdings in the parent utility.

No company should need additional capital unless it has something new to do. In that event, it is sensible to set up a subsidiary to do it.

With the benefit of private investors’ assessments of value, and the discipline of sharemarket accountability, the foal would outshine the horse. The state should open its stable and let all its enterprises reach their potential.

I agree.

Whale has blogged about the Get Frank site, and use of bloggers material.

A number of bloggers back in 2007 gave permission for Get Frank to to use some of their posts on their site. At least one blogger was told:

as our adver­tis­ing grows we will be offer­ing all con­trib­u­tors the chance to take 50% of all adver­tis­ing rev­enue from their page(s) on a CPM basis.

I was one of those bloggers who gave permission. I can’t recall whether or not my e-mail made any mention of revenue sharing. I suspect I said yes on the grounds of liking to help a new site.

But Get Frank has gone on to be commercially successful, and the Bloggers Union (which is compulsory – like student associations) has been saying that those who provide the content should be getting a share of the revenue, which has been declined. So Whale has gone to war in his normal subtle way.

By coincidence, I had noticed around six months ago that Get Frank were still using my content and I made a mental note to myself to email them at some stage and say I think it is time to stop using my content, especially as I do get advertising revenue on my own site. But it was not a priority so I had not got around to it.

This flare up has been the catalyst for me to do so, and hence the permission has been terminated.

Cactus Kate has blogged on this also.

I blog primarily because I enjoy having a say. I do make some “pocket money” from advertising but on an hourly rate it would come to less than the minimum wage. So my motivation is not commercial. But I’d rather increase the money I made from my content, than have others do so, and receive nothing at all myself.

If Get Frank (or anyone) are interested in a commercial relationship in the future, my door is open.

No we are not talking about Andrew Williams. Len Brown doesn’t want the public to know who is recommended for CCO Board appointments according to the NZ Herald:

Auckland Mayor Len Brown has ordered an investigation into a councillor suspected of leaking the names of council-controlled organisation (CCO) board appointments.

A source close to Mr Brown said the mayor had “lost faith in a member of the committee and is asking the chief executive to conduct a full investigation into the leak of information”.

This followed online reports at the weekend that two people with close links to Mr Brown – former Manukau City Council chief executive Leigh Auton and former Manukau deputy mayor Gary Troup – would be appointed to CCO boards on Thursday.

That is the same Leigh Auton who refused the Ombudsman’s request for information before the election.

The mayoral source refused to name the member of the CCO strategy and appointments subcommittee suspected of leaking the information.

Asked if it was Jami-Lee Ross, the Citizens & Ratepayers co-leader who issued a press release at the weekend criticising CCO appointments based on “long-standing friendships and political campaign connections”, the source said “no comment”.

Yesterday, Mr Ross categorically denied leaking information to the Sunday Star-Times reporter who named Mr Auton and Mr Troup.

Mr Ross said he had been clear that he could not comment on who was being proposed for the CCO appointments but felt the item should not be conducted behind closed doors.

Jami-Lee’s sin was to propose that the appointments be done in public session.

I’ve often said that Yes Minister was a documentary. Do you recall the episode of the hospital with no patients? Well read this Dom Post story:

A tiny rural school that has not had any pupils for three months is still open nearly every day, overseen by a “very busy” principal.

I’m sure the school runs much more effectively, without any pupils getting in the way.

NZPA reports:

Trade minister Tim Groser has welcomed a World Trade Organisation (WTO) ruling that says Australia’s 90-year-old restrictions on New Zealand apples are unscientific and break international rules.

Australia imposed the restrictions in 1921 to protect local apple trees from fireblight, a pest that also affects pear trees and rose bushes.

New Zealand has been pushing for access to the Australian market since 1986, and after “exhaustive efforts” took the dispute to the WTO.

The organisation’s Appellate Body found in favour of New Zealand in August, but Australia appealed the decision.

In a new decision released overnight, the body upheld its original findings that all 16 of Australia’a quarantine measures were inconsistent with its legal obligations.

The victory should allow New Zealand to resume apple exports to Australia and clear the way for sales to other markets where the fruit is also banned.

At long long last. This should be the end of the track.

If Australia refused to abide by the WTO decision, it would be a massive undermining of its credibility on trade issues. And they would actually be liable for trade sanctions.

The smart people in the Australian Government will be pleased with the outcome. By going all the way to a WTO appeal, they can say to their apple producers they have done everything possible, but they have to obey international law. And it allows them to remove this stain on their free trade credentials.

The ACT Board has spent the last few months quietly cleaning house, to prevent a recurrence of the infighting which damaged them earlier this year. They understand that open warfare puts people off voting for you.

We see the results of the house cleaning in the Herald today:

Peter Tashkoff is crying foul over his expulsion from the Act Party because party leader Rodney Hide attended the meeting at which his fate was decided and voted against him. …

The vote was not unanimous, but party president Chris Simmons said a majority of 75 per cent support – at least nine out of 12 votes – for removing Mr Tashkoff was “comfortably” met.

ACT can now focus on two key things:

1. Retaining Epsom
2. Gaining enough party vote to remain relevant

John Armstrong writes in the NZ Herald:

For most Wellingtonians, Pukerua Bay is notable only for a couple of kilometres-long stretch of State Highway One where the speed limit briefly but annoyingly drops from 100km/h to 50 km/h and creates another bottle-neck on the slow trip north.

Not for me. My grandmother lived in Pukerua Bay and I would often train up there as a kid to spend weekends and holidays there. I have an intimate knowledge of all the playgrounds in Pukerua Bay 🙂

It is here that a major shift in voter behaviour was noticeable in last Saturday’s extraordinary outcome of the Mana byelection. …

In Pukerua Bay, where a large proportion of people designate themselves as “professional” for Census purposes, National’s Hekia Parata won by 249 votes to 217. Go back to the 2002 and 2005 elections and you find Labour winning the booth on the party vote – the fairer measure as the candidate vote was distorted by the huge personal appeal of Winnie Laban, whose retirement prompted the byelection.

Pukerua Bay went narrowly in National’s favour in 2008 – an indication that Clark’s cross-over appeal was on the wane.

But the trend was replicated elsewhere in outlying settlements of Porirua City, such as Plimmerton and Pauatahanui. National’s share of the vote even increased in less well-off Titahi Bay.

There are still wealthy pockets of Mana, such as Paekakariki and Raumati South, where Labour’s support remains staunch. These settlements may have saved the blushes of Labour candidate and now MP, Kris Fa’afoi. But with the Key machine carving out more territory in middle New Zealand for occupation by National, Fa’afoi should not be relying on them remaining faithful next year.

Labour’s stranglehold on Wellington is under threat; the National barbarians are storming the city’s northern gates.

I’m going to be watching Mana with interest in the 2011 election.

Transtasman has published its annual ratings for our 122 MPs. As usual, I do some analysis. The overall average rating is 4.5

Average Ratings per Party

1. Maori 5.7 ((+0.5 from 2009)
2. United Future 5.5 (+1.5)
3. National 5.2 (+0.1)
4. ACT 4.4 (-0.2)
5. Labour 4.3 (+0.4)
6. Green 4.1 (+0.6)
7. Progressive 2.0 (-1.0)

The overall average rating increased from 4.5 to 4.7.

Top MPs

1. Simon Power 9.0 (+0.5)
2. John Key 9.0 (nc)
3. Tony Ryall 8.5 (+0.5)
4. Bill English 8.5 (+0.5)

Bottom MPs

1. Chris Carter 1.0 (-2.5)
2. Paul Quinn 1.0 (-1.0)
3. Ashraf Choudary 1.5 (+0.5)

Top Labour MPs

1. Annette King 6.5 (nc)
2. David Parker 6.5 (+0.5)
3. Darren Hughes 6.5 (+0.5)

Top Third Party MPs

1. Tariana Turia – 7.5 (+0.5)
2. Peter Dunne – 5.5 (+1.5)
3. Sue Kedgley – 5.5 (+1.5)
4. John Boscawen – 5.0 (+0.5)
5. Jim Anderton – 2.0 (-1.0)

Top 2008 intake MPs

1. Steven Joyce 7.5 (nc)
2. Rahui Katene 6.0 (nc)
3. Simon Bridges 6.0 (+2.0)

Biggest Increases

1. Lindsay Tisch, Simon Bridges, Sue Moroney and Hone Harawira all +2 from 2009

Biggest Decreases

1. Pansy Wong -3.0
2. Chris Carter -2.5

Group Ratings

1. Ministers 6.6 (+0.4)
2. Cabinet 7.1 (+0.4)
3. National frontbench 7.9 (+0.2)
4. Labour frontbench 5.0 (+0.5)
5. National 2008 intake 4.2 (nc)
6. Labour 2008 intake 4.1 (+0.4)

Unbelievable. news.com.au reports:

WA POLICE have defended their policy of banning ethnic or religious words to describe offenders after it was attacked by the Police Union as ‘political correctness gone mad’.

The policy, a direct order from Police Commissioner Karl O’Callaghan, means officers can no longer use details such as a suspect’s nationality, race or religion when seeking public help.

Instead, they have been told to say if the person is light or dark skinned.

Are they allowed to still describe the gender?

WA Police are standing by their policy, saying many people don’t actually know what people of different nationalities look like.

“More general descriptors limit the chances for people to make error,” WA Police Media spokesman Samuel Dinnison says.

“People have different terms of reference and if we narrow investigations down to specific race, the person may have gotten it wrong and that may limit an investigation. Narrowing it down too much can be detrimental to an investigation.”

Yes some witnesses may not get the ethnicity right. But some may. Surely the sensible thing to do is use specific ethnicities when the witnesses are certain, and use more general terms when they are not.

Also from what I can tell, even if CCTV footage showed the offenders, the Police would still refuse to refer to their ethnicity. Incredible stupidity.

WA Police Union president Russell Armstrong wants the rule overturned, arguing that using “scant descriptions” makes it harder to catch criminals. …

One police insider said the policy had prevented the capture of suspects.

“These rules don’t give a true indication of who police are looking for,” the source said.

“There is a big difference between a dark-skinned person being Aboriginal or African. And if we are looking for an Asian person-of-interest it’s a bit narrow to describe them as simply having fair skin and dark hair.”

Exactly. One might not be sure if they are Korean or Chinese (for example), but would be sure they are Asian.

Other states, such as Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory use the nationally agreed ANZPAA policy which limits the description categories to broad groups including Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander, Asian, Middle-Eastern or Caucasian appearance unless there has been a positive identification of the nationality of a person described.

That seems far more sensible.

The Government has selected Justice Panckhurst to chair the Royal Commission.

He is the second longest serving High Court Judge, having been a Judge since 1996. He also spent seven years as the Crown Solicitor covering Canterbury and the West Coast, which is useful.

Justice Panckhurst was a sole barrister and QC prior to his appointment to the High Court. He also seemed to have become a partner in a law firm, four years after graduating.

Interest will now focus on who the other two members will be.

There are few bigger fans of Air New Zealand than me – both of their actual travel, and of their marketing.

However Lance Wiggs blogs that AirNZ are now introducing a credit card charge, if you pay online with one. As 99% of individuals do exactly that, it will be felt. It ranges from $4 to $20 for return fares.

I think this is a very ill considered move from Air New Zealand.

They have spent millions of dollars on a brand of having nothing to hide – of how when they quote a price, there are no hidden extras. And it is one of the things people do like about them.

And then they go and do something which is directly contrary to their brand – a fee that you won’t know about until you get to the pay now section.

Now when I see their ad about nothing to hide, I’ll think “yeah except for your credit card fee”.

Kate Newton at the Dom Post reports:

Te Papa’s new chairman has thrown his weight behind building a $100 million art gallery to house the museum’s formidable – but rarely seen – collection.

Sir Wira Gardiner, appointed to the top job a fortnight ago, says a standalone gallery is high on his personal agenda as the museum does not do the collection justice.

Te Papa has been criticised by the art community, politicians and the public since it opened in 1998 for not displaying more of the 15,000 artworks in its collection.

Sir Wira said yesterday that he supported Te Papa board member Chris Parkin, who told The Dominion Post he “would really like to leave Wellington with a new national art gallery”.

Mr Parkin said he wanted to see the national collection housed in the proposed “transition building” next to Te Papa. The building was designed for Wellington City Council by Amsterdam-based UNStudios in 2005 but the council has said it is unlikely to go ahead until at least 2014.

Mr Parkin estimated the cost of a new building at $100 million, which he believed could partly be raised from private benefactors.

It is true the art works are almost hidden away at Te Papa, and not enough of them get displayed. It would be nice to have a dedicated gallery for them.

But this is the worst possible time to be proposing it. With a huge fiscal deficit, the Government can not even think about extra funding.

Once we are running a large enough surplus to be reducing debt, then maybe we can discuss it. But that is at least five, possible ten years away.

The Herald editorial:

A “business case” for a central Auckland rail loop has been endorsed from left and right of the new Auckland Council. Mayor Len Brown found it “compelling”, Christine Fletcher, co-leader of the Citizens and Ratepayers minority, said there was a consensus for it.

It is not known how many members of the council are accustomed to assessing business cases for big investments. Transport Minister Steven Joyce seems to know what to look for: figures based on guesswork for wider economic benefits (webs). This report, said Mr Joyce, has “webs on steroids”.

A smart man, Mr Joyce. And often these assessments are little more than guesswork.

It is an exciting project. The loop could be the revival of the CBD, bringing all corners of it within a 500m walk to a station. The ridges around the inner city would be more easily accessible. The line from the western suburbs could come straight into the city, rather than joining the southern line at Newmarket. Most important, many more trains could run once Britomart became a through-station.

I think it is the most sensible of the proposed rail projects for Auckland. Of course I do not live there, so my view is one of a frequent visitor.

As it stands, it seems unlikely to persuade the new Auckland Transport agency where city and national representatives need to agree on projects to be jointly financed. If the council and its representatives on the agency are confident of their project, they must first convince Aucklanders to pay the lion’s share of it.

Exactly.

History has shown that when Aucklanders really want a transport link, when they know they will use it, they are prepared to pay for it. Before Mr Brown, Mrs Fletcher and the rest try to convince Mr Joyce of the merits of this proposal, they should put it to Auckland – with an honest price on it.

Then, if ratepayers are as excited as they are by the case for an inner city rail circuit, they could have a proposition the Government would find hard to refuse.

Let’s assume ratepayers will pay 3/4. Work out how much that is, and consult Aucklanders on whether they are happy with that investment. Then you can talk to the Government about its contribution.

As it is, it sounds like business as usual – Auckland’s voice whining like a demanding child expecting a treat from the taxpayers.

There may be other options. I don’t have a problem with the Auckland Council being given the power to have its own regional petrol tax. I do have a problem with people from Oamaru, Napier and Dunedin being the major funders of an Auckland CBD rail loop.