Is the fall of the Palace an opportunity for Auckland's rail aspirations?

Last week we saw the sad sight of the 124 year old Palace Hotel fall to the ground, seemingly as some 'reconstruction' work was going on. Auckland lost another piece of its history - it is unfortunate the CBD has so few such pieces left.

Yet when I heard the news a thought suddenly struck me - the site could be a key part of Auckland's future. On Thursday the Transport Committee of the new Auckland Council will meet. (Hat tip Jarbury) One of the first items on their agenda will be considering the business case for the CBD rail tunnel from Britomart to Mt Eden.

The Palace Hotel site would be perfect spot for a SkyCity entrance/exit to the proposed Aotea/Midtown underground railway station. It would be approximately 80 to 100 metres from the Midtown platform to the street. Given the capacity of this station is expected to be greater than Britomart it would make sense to have a greater number of exits to spread the foot traffic.

Say when they rebuilt the site they included a small underground retail precinct with a large 'subway' type entrance on the corner facing SkyCity. This could be linked up by underground pedestrian subway when Midtown station opens, and the retail alongside immediately gets a massive foot traffic boost. I imagine being able to get a escalator up that big hill from Queen Street would be pretty popular for pedestrians as well as rail users.

If the business case for the CBD rail tunnel works out as well as is expected, there should be no need to involve the private sector in a so called public private partnership. These are nothing new - its worth remembering all the private sector railways in 19th century England that were all bailed out by the Government. Instead I wish the Council look back to the mojo of Henry George and Julius Vogel, and look to fund rail projects by ensuring the public recapture the 'unearned increment' of those holding the land. Why should private enterprise privatise the benefit of public investment merely because they live next door?

Keeping these issues in mind doesn't even have to be particularly radical. At the very least there should be a developer levy with the funds going towards the rail tunnel.

The council could also look at buying strategic sites around the proposed stations and develop these areas with provision for their transport plans. Another thought - could we have the pedestrian subways we will need for Midtown before we get the station? The construction activity will help the Auckland economy in the downturn, and the ability for the council to make the leases dependent on the needs of the transport development could potentially lower overall long term costs and improve outcomes. Plus the fact the council could gain some of the benefits of the expected increase in property values once the station is operational.

Riding on the Singapore MRT last year it dawned on me how much easier and cheaper it must be to design and build an excellent public transport system when the Government owns 58% of the land (most land in Singapore is leased). Hopefully with the new Auckland Council in place and a spacial plan in development, some of the tragic planning mistakes will be rectified and Auckland's transport problems will improve. A lot of this puzzle is rethinking how we are using the land.

I hope the Council look at buying the Palace Hotel site - its in a useful location. Before the collapse the owners of the Palace Hotel were looking to reopen the building as a brothel. To end on a cheeky note, there seems no reason why the ground and underground floor of the new building could not be an entrance to Midtown station. Brothels usually don't want or need a high profile street entrance! That said, it is not a kind of establishment I have ever frequented!!

Why we need an Onehunga to Airport bus service

Attempting to travel between the Onehunga and the Airport by public transport is a pain due to a lack of direct connections.

The airport bus speeds past Onehunga on State Highway 20 on its way into town. Even if it did stop it would still charge passengers the full fare of $15 for going half the distance. While its possible to get off at Three Kings Plaza and bus back, at a total (un)fare of $19.20, the cheapest taxi at $25 starts looking very good.

The Auckland Regional Council/ARTA have improved services to the airport last year, increasing the frequency of the Airport bus to the CBD and through the introduction of the 380 Airporter service to Manukau. ARTA were rewarded with a 13.5% increase in patronage, demonstrating there is demand for better airport services. The Manukau service has great potential as it links up with the rail system at Papatoetoe, which together could offer a more reliable service into Auckland CBD, particularly at peak hour. Unfortunately, there has not been enough marketing and promotion of this service for it to reach its potential. An airport services page on the Maxx website would be a good start at no cost.

Flying back home on Sunday I thought I would try an experiment. How easy would be it to catch the 380 to Manukau and then get a bus to Onehunga from there? While I would normally check the Maxx website to see where the routes best interconnect, I thought it would be more interesting to take the position of a tourist new to Auckland. So I asked at the Airport helpdesk. The older woman behind the counter was very helpful, familiar with the 380 service as she sometimes used it to get to work. She suggested staying on the bus to Manukau and catching the connecting bus from there.

My flight landed at 4.30pm. The 380 arrived after 15 minutes and took roughly 10 minutes to reach Papatoetoe station and another 10 to arrive in Manukau. So far so good. There were about 7 passengers on the bus. Unfortunately being Sunday I happened to strike an hour and a half long break in the timetable for the next 348 to Onehunga, and had to wait 50 minutes for the connecting bus. At least the mall was open at the time. This is likely to be nearly the worst possible scenario as the 348 connection is more frequent at other times in the week.

While the 348 is a lovely fast bus from Onehunga into town, before this it snakes like Slytherin through Mangere and Mangere Bridge for 40 minutes. This meant I didn't reach Onehunga until 6:45pm, meaning a total of 2 hours travelling time. With a straightforward connection between the 380 and the 348 it would take an hour.

I later found out it is possible to get off at Papatoetoe and catch the 348 on St George Street - this would take approximately 15-20 minutes off the total journey time (cost $8.60). Another option, more direct, but only available during the week, is to catch the 375 from the airport and transfer to the 348 on Ascot/Kirkbride Rd.

Despite the two hour commute last Sunday, I would catch the 380 again, but would only try it during the week. Also would like to try out the 375/348 combo as this is the cheapest ($3.20) and most direct route from Onehunga to the Airport. I only wish the 375 ran more often. That said I suspect only transport geeks like myself and students will bother with having to catch more than one bus.

The reopening of the Onehunga branch line for passenger trains next year provides a great opportunity to fix the Onehunga to Airport transport hole. A connecting bus from the Onehunga train station to the Airport would be a great way to encourage more patronage on the line, as well as create demand for the eventual extension of the line to the Airport. The combination of the bus lanes to be built on the new Mangere Bridge motorway crossing and the ability of rail to sail past peak hour traffic on the Onehunga to CBD stretch, will improve the potential reliability and speed of the service. Geoff on the Better Transport forum make a similar suggestion here. That said, the following could make a Airport>Onehunga>CBD service even more viable.

• ARTA are currently planning for half hour peak services on the Onehunga line, with services each hour off peak. An airport service, if it was to be used for travel to the CBD would require half hour off peak services at the very least. While I appreciate the Britomart tunnel is a troubling bottleneck, could some other southern line services stop at Newmarket until we get a CBD rail tunnel?
  
• Move the Onehunga bus terminal closer to the new Onehunga railway station. I am told the Onehunga Business Association have previously resisted such suggestions for no other reason than they want people to walk 10 minutes past their shops. This won't happen - people travelling from the south will stay on the bus into town instead of transferring to the train. Given the recent attitutes of bus companies like Infratil, Aucklanders are plain sick of myopic business owners who demand the public transport system should be screwed up for the benefit of their private profits.
• Integrated ticketing, or at least a combined ticket for the bus/train journey into town.

I really hope ARTA consider the idea of an Airport bus service to Onehunga that linked up with the train and other buses. It strikes me as a good use of existing infrastructure while we keep the demands persistent for the CBD rail tunnel and an airport rail service.

State Highway 20: A bit sneaky

Yesterday I took the opportunity to walk along the new section of State Highway 20 before it opens for traffic next Friday.

NZTA claim to have made provision for rail in the future as part of the SH20 project. Despite looking through a number of NZTA documents over the past few months I have found very little detail on what this means, besides leaving a little extra room under the bridges.

I couldn't see where the railway line would go, so I asked one of the representatives in the public NZTA information tent. He pointed to a narrow section of grass running alongside the eastern side of the new motorway, where "light rail" for passengers could run. He confirmed this ruled out heavy rail like the rest of the Auckland network, carrying both freight and passengers.

There is only room for a single track light rail - it seems NZTA planners are oblivious to the huge amount of recent double tracking work over the rest of the Auckland rail network. A passenger service that is single tracked over 4km is going to have limited service frequency.

The guy I spoke to was a good natured sort. He even ventured to say with a smile that building SH20 on a designated rail corridor was "a bit sneaky'. You could say that.

It sounds like top dogs in NZTA and the Government decided to do the minimum they thought would be required to build their road. Unfortunately it sounds like we have lost rail options for the future already.

So while NZTA claim they have left provision for rail, "including ARTA's promosed rail link to the airport", this does seem at odds with ARTA's draft 2009 Auckland Transport Plan which includes a Southdown to Avondale link for both freight and passengers, following the proposed route of SH20 to Waterview.

Its also worth noting that Onehunga residents lost their beach in 1984 when a motorway was rammed over the waterfront, despite a Government promise to fix up their mess when they next extended the motorway. Well that is now happening, and it looks like Onehunga will be given what NZTA believes is the bare minimum to make the problem go away. The Onehunga Enhancement Society is to launch a legal challenge.

These examples ought to be a warning to the residents of Mt Roskill as NZTA start the "consultations" about the extension of SH20 to Waterview.

As I was walking back I heard another couple asking those in uniform where the railway line was going to go. Good.

I predict a double tracked rail line will be needed at some point, but because of the decisions made over SH20, its likely to become a more expensive project. I fear that Auckland's transport problems will never be solved while there remains a focus on the ultimate sovereignty of the car and short term economic cost/benefit analysis. Particularly when such decisions limit options for the future.

PS: At least they let the kids draw on the Motorway for one day (see pic above). If Auckland City Council gave out free chalk - would there be such a graffiti problem?

Auckland rail stations to prop up a debt ridden KiwiRail?

The decision the National Government to abandon the regional fuel tax, but promise to fund Auckland's rail electrification left a number of other significant transport projects unfunded. This included railway station upgrades, ferry terminals and (long fought for) integrated ticketing.

The Auckland Regional Council (ARC) based its budgets on income that was expected from the regional fuel tax, only to find the rug pulled out from under it by unilateral action from central government. Its not the ARC being irresponsible here*.

Now it appears National may have had an ulterior motive. To cover the shortfall, the ARC may be forced to cede the region's control of 41 railway stations to government owned KiwiRail, with Mike Lee calling the move a 'technical confiscation'.

If another Government was attempting to pull the same trick and the train stations happened to be privately owned National would have been crying communism and predicting the end of the capitalist world order. That said, its a pity Labour were not this hard nosed with Toll Holdings, the former owners of the railways.

I don't discount there may be strategic advantages to having KiwiRail own the stations - but the way National is going about it is very underhand, particularly as they are dealing with locally owned public assets. The ARC is likely to be the more responsible public owner at present, particularly when National is attempting to run spending cuts across the public service.

At the same time Transport Minister and former Hollow Man Steven Joyce is announcing new investment in KiwiRail as a 'stimulus package', when it is nothing of the sort. Instead Joyce is merely re announcing investments made by the previous government, and forcing KiwiRail to take on more debt as a means of gaining long overdue new locomotives. He is also cutting public transport funding to build more roads. In other words, cynical public relations spin many people would just call lies.

There may be a link between Joyce's demands to reorganise the train set in Auckland and in KiwiRail nationally. By acquiring Auckland's rail stations KiwiRail gains significant assets and land to add to its balance sheet. This would only encourage National to load yet more debt onto KiwiRail - is this the grand plan?

* One wonders Stephen Joyce, as one of the more 'cynically motivated' Nats has an ulterior motive for attempting to undermine the ARC, with the Royal Commission into Auckland Governance soon to report, and Mike Lee likely to be the main challenger to John Bank's quest to be 'Lord Mayor' of Auckland. Hmmm

Yay to the Onehunga Express

Very happy to hear today that the Onehunga Branch rail line will reopen for both passengers and frieght in 2009. Well done to the Government, Ontrack, Auckland Regional Transport Authority and the Auckland Regional Council. As I am currently living in Onehunga, I only wish it was open so I could use it to go into town on Friday!

Its happy days in Onehunga for the Campaign for Better Transport too.

This particular line represents an important part of New Zealand rail history. Auckland's first railway opened between Auckland and Onehunga in 1873, so there may be some value in promoting this fact - how about a couple of steam train trips for the tourists? New Zealand's first public railway opened in Ferrymead in 1863, but one would expect an ex-Christchurch person to point that out wouldn't they!

Ironically a friend and I were recently discussing a creative little action to encourage the powers that be to put the Onehunga line back into service. We were getting quite enthused by the idea and then we hear it is happening - oh well - its still great news!

I've been quoted in the Listener

I was quoted in last weeks edition of the Listener talking about Toll's plans to end the Overlander train service. I will post up a link to the article 'End of the Line' (by Sally Blundell) when the complete text is available online.

It was the first time I have been officially 'interviewed' by a journalist, so I admit I was a little nervous about being quoted saying something silly. On seeing the article, I am happy.

While its nice to see my name in there, I am much more chuffed to see the article raise issues I found when I researched Toll two years ago. Other mainstream media have appeared to want to believe the Government's spin that the deal with Toll will save rail in NZ, and do not seem to realise that the closure of the Northerner and the Overlander are at the very least partly attributable to agreements made over passenger rail at the time of the Toll rail deal.

Toll have a vested interest in ending the Overlander rail service

So Toll Holdings, the Australian owned rail operator, have decided to axe yet another passenger service, the Overlander between Auckland and Wellington. This follows the chop of the night service over the same route in 2004.

At the time of the axing of the Northerner in 2004 I predicted Toll would cut more passenger services.

"More cutbacks and closures are likely, as the July deal between Toll and the Government stated there would be no new scheduled passenger operations for three years. So even if another operator decided they wished to run a service cancelled by Toll, they would be unable to do so. After three years, Toll is only required to run three return passenger services on a line to maintain its monopoly."

So by ending the Overlander service now, Toll have a year to kill off the service with no threat of the service being taken up by another operator. A new operator wanting to start a new service between Auckland and Wellington will now have to start from scratch.

So while Jeanette Fitzsimons is right to call on the Government to ensure the infrastructure for such a service is not lost, she does not appear to identify the real cause - the 2004 rail deal between Toll and senior Labour ministers.

While the 2004 deal was widely touted as 'taking back the tracks' into public ownership, the deal actually put some significant restrictions on what the Government could do with its new dilapidated 'asset'. At the same time the Government 'bought the tracks' for $2* the Australian transport multinational gained a near effective monopoly on the use of the tracks until 2070. Toll also gained a seat on the board of the track operating company, and the ability to take the Government to arbitration over track access fees and track spending plans. Negotiations over track access fees for the next year have been dragging on for months, so I would not be surprised if the end of the Overlander is part of a Toll 'hardball' negotiating strategy over track access fees.

Toll asked the Government for a subsidy for the Overlander to continue. For a private business Toll are regularly demanding public subsidies - perhaps it would be simplier if the Government just nationalised the company!

Toll have shown no interest in passenger services, apart from what they call 'high value tourist operations'. In March this year Toll cut several North Island towns from the Overlander's schedule - so it could be argued that the drop in passenger numbers was not all pure 'market forces'. It is reminicient of the stupid decision of the previous owners TranzRail to build the new Christchurch passenger railway station miles from anywhere and on no bus routes - the Southerner train service between Christchurch and Dunedin did not last long. With such a mindset, there was no incentive to keep fares competitive with other forms of transport.

And of course if private ownership had not been so darned irresponsible in failing to maintain the tracks passenger rail journeys would now be a darn sight faster and more comfortable.

Update: Many of the comments on Frog's post echo the point made above - if Toll run a rubbish service, they should not be surprised when not enough people use it.

Instead of making deals with Australian mulitnationals with dodgy employment records, the Government would have been far better to nationalise the whole railways and gain a clear start to promote its social, enironmental and transport goals, without having to make concessions to profit centric private investors.

Tags: Politics, Rail, Corporates, Toll Holdings, Privatisation

* Toll ended up getting $2 for the rail network, as a government official did not have a $1 coin in his pocket.

OEs in the future

With the price of oil continuing to climb, it could well become too expensive to travel to Europe for the big OE.

At least by plane.

Thus I was interested in this story in the Jakata Post about the proposed Trans-Asian Railway (TAR). A train ride all the way from Singapore to Glasgow! Less jet fuel burned into the atmosphere would have environmental benefits, and there would be more interesting scenery than clouds on the way.

"Covering a distance of almost 81,000 kilometers in 26 countries, the line would consist of a northern corridor connecting Europe and the Korean Peninsula through China and Kazakhstan, and a southern corridor linking Thailand with Turkey through countries like Myanmar and India."

For many Kiwis and Aussies, Singapore is a regular halfway point on the long haul flight to London. So could we see environmentally conscious Kiwis and Aussies flying to Singapore to get the train?

In reality I suspect it would be something people might do once in their lives. As for myself, I have always wanted to travel the Trans-Siberian, so taking the train from Singapore seems like a natural extension.

Update: Unfortunately the Jakata Post website does not seem to understand the concept of permalinks and why they are a good idea. I have fixed the link - but I don't know how long it will stay current.

Toll Holdings bullies with Big Fat Ferry

Just uploaded my latest published piece 'Arrogant Toll Bullies Small District Council with Big Fat Ferry' to the articles section of the site. It appeared in the December edition of the CAFCA magazine Foreign Control Watchdog.

In August, Toll Holdings introduced a new ferry to the Cook Straight run, the Kaitaki, and immediately began sailing at 20 knots through Marlborough Sounds. Toll refuses to follow the rules set by the local Marlborough District Council that require the ferry operator to gain a resource consent in order to travel more than 15 knots in the Sounds.

These rules, known as 'Variation Three', are designed to protect people and the environment from the negative impact of large ferry-created waves. While Toll is appealing the decision of the Council through the Environment Court, the Australian owned corporate refuses to abide by the rules as they stand.

Toll claims the 15 knot speed restriction has no scientific validity and that the Council has failed to show adverse effects arising from a 20 knot speed. Yet as the Press says in its editorial of September 27 2004, in reference to the effect of the wake on the foreshore, "it is hard to believe that this could be environmentally benign. There are also concerns of property damage and potential risk to human life". Ferry wake can also contribute to erosion and land sliding.

Toll's actions have been widely condemned by the local community and the mainstream media, with the company regularly accused of 'arrogance' and acting as a 'bully'. Both the Marlborough Express and the Christchurch Press have called on Toll to slow down the Kaitaki, and expressed the hope the District Council is successful in winning its case in the Environment Court. The court battle resumes on the 30th of January.

Go, Go, and good speed Marlborough District Council! :)

PS: I nicknamed the Kaitaki the 'big fat ferry' on account of the new boat being 30 metres longer and 3 metres wider than the Arahura and Aratere ferries.

Do corporates get away with murder?

In the UK unionists and victims of the Hatfield rail disaster are dismayed the culpability of engineering firm Balfour Beatty (BB) has been limited to a £10m pound fine. On October 17 2000 a King's Cross to Leeds train came off the tracks at 115mph after a rail disintegrated, killing four people and injuring 102.

While Trade Union Council general secretary Brendan Barber welcomed the severity of the fine, he joined others in calling for tougher corporate manslaughter laws.

"The families of those killed will still feel cheated that no senior executives are to face punishment as a result of their safety crimes. The government urgently needs to address [the fact] that all the courts can do is to fine a company. What is necessary is both a new offence of corporate killing, with a wider range of penalties available, and new legal duties that make directors directly responsible for the health and safety of their staff and customers."

The Old Bailey judge put Balfour Beatty's failure at the "top of the scale", saying he regarded "Balfour Beatty as one of the worse examples of industrial negligence in a high-risk industry I have seen". While Justice MacKay was highly critical of the company, he cast out corporate manslaughter charges bought against Balfour Beatty, most likely due to the difficulty in securing convictions under present legislation.

Perhaps it says a lot about the company that BB did not admit breaching health and safety rules until the corporate manslaughter charges were dropped.

I would be interested to look into whether New Zealand has a 'corporate manslaughter' charge on its statute books and if so, what kind of burden of proof is required. New Zealand could come up with its own shady looking lineup of irresponsible corporates. As a couple of examples, the former Tranzrail and forestry company Juken Nissho have long records of heath and safety convictions - including incidents leading to deaths on the job.

Back to the BB case, the judge also voiced his own criticisms of the way the UK railways were privatised.
"The elimination of one of the indefensible features of the 1996 privatisation is now gone - the separation of the track from its maintenance - is now gone. Perhaps that is one good thing resulting from this disastrous affair."

In 2002 Tranzrail contracted out track maintenance to Transfield, who by most accounts maintained a better relationship with unions and did a better job than the privately owned Tranzrail ever did (that would not be hard). Following the renationalisation of the rail track in September 2004, the Government set up a new Crown agency to oversee the ownership and maintenance of the rail infrastructure on its behalf - OnTrack.

Given the clear warning the Balfour Beatty case represents, it is probably a good thing OnTrack decided to bring the maintenance work back in house, following a tendering process it is obliged to carry out under the agreement it made with Toll Holdings. Best of all, OnTrack purchased part of the present contractor, allowing staff who maintain the rails to transfer to OnTrack while maintaining their present terms and conditions of employment.

The Guardian - Hatfield victims and unions call for new corporate killing law
The Independent - Balfour Beatty fined £10m for Hatfield disaster

Categories: UK, New Zealand, Corporations, Law, Politics, Rail, Union, Safety

Blackball election meeting (West Coast Tasman)

On Thursday I spoke at my first candidate meeting. Best of all the meeting was at (Formerly) The Blackball Hilton on the West Coast, a proud historical home of the left. I drove over to Blackball for the meeting on Thursday, stayed at the Hilton overnight and had a good stroll around the town the next day.

Following a yummy dinner, kindly provided by Jane of the Hilton for the candidates, the debate got going just after 7.30pm. Each candidate got a 5 minute introduction followed by question time where each candidate got 1 minute to answer questions from the audience.

Apart from me, the line-up consisted of.

Richard Davies (Green): Bloody nice guy. Would pick him to be on the 'social justice' side of the Greens. Said he still had a lot of time for the Alliance and he admired our tax policy. He told me it was good to have someone to the left of him there as it made him look more moderate! (I took that in the kind way it was intended). I felt we were able to back each other up on a number of issues, often approaching the questions in different ways. If missed a point in an answer, or ran out of time I was often relieved to see Richard make up for it :)

Kevin Gill (Act): Despite only being 22 on the Act list Kevin has his own new looking Act bus with his name and photo all over it. In contrast, the Alliance candidate (me) arrived in a $750 car, borrowed from a mate. Kevin's initial 5 minute speech was a little unusual. Kind of reminiscent of your odd uncle telling jokes at a wedding. I thought got his points across better during question time. When I first arrived and introduced to the other candidates as the Alliance person, he made some quip about me only getting 1 minute to speak. I quickly quipped back that Kevin didn't need any dinner, as the 'market will provide!' :)

Damien O'Connor (Labour, sitting MP): An assured speaker, Damien delivered a very 'MP in Government' speech. Talked about what Labour had achieved with ERA and renationalising ACC, among other things. A local gave Damien a hard time about schools, as he felt Damien had done little to prevent the closure of many local schools (this was the big local issue).

Derek Blight (Christian Heritage): An interesting mix. I found Derek friendly and chatty and I was genuinely impressed with his enthusiasm for restorative justice and how it fitted into his work in Hokitika. I would normally associate CHP with the lock em up brigade, so meeting Derek was a welcome surprise. Of course he was a social conservative, stating CHP would repeal the Civil Unions Act and giving the obligatory 'abortion is murder' speech near the end.

Milton Osborne (United Future/ Outdoor) Seemed to be one of the Outdoor Recreation crew. Wanted to ban 1080 - prompting a question from the audience about what the UFO party would replace it with. Gave Peter's talk about UFO making MMP work and the need for one of the big parties to form a coalition with a smaller party. Don't remember him mentioning 'common sense' once!

Chris Auchinvole (National): At first sight Chris reminded me of English comic Harry Enfield and I had difficulty shaking off that image all night! His opening speech attempted to paint tax as the key issue in the election. A couple of people in the audience asked why rich people gained more from National's tax policy, gaining with those on the highest incomes getting $92 extra per week. Chris resisted from conceding this point, and argued that more people would gain tax relief under National than under Labour. I thought Chris would have done better to acknowledge rich people would gain more, as it was blindingly obvious, and this may have allowed him to make his point about 'more people gaining' in a more convincing way.

My opening was a bit of ramble following a few rough notes. I talked about despite the fact we were being told the economy was doing well, many people continued to miss out. Made a call for a minimum wage of $15, introduced our tax policy, and explained how 75% of people would pay less tax under the Alliance. Arriving with a large stack of Alliance tabloids, people seemed to enjoy my quip that the Alliance stood for free health, free education and a free newspaper! I also talked about what the Alliance had achieved in government, and made a strong call for public ownership and control of electricity, rail etc.

As I expected I was more comfortable at question time. Very happy to get a question on globalisation/free trade where I outlined the opposition of the Alliance to the current WTO/World Bank agenda as this has only led to the rich getting richer while the poor get poorer across the world. I think I surprised a few people by rattling off the most recent trade deficit figures, including the now massive $2 billion deficit with China, pointing out that despite the hype trade liberalisation was leading to an explosion of imports and this could have negative impacts on our economy.

My answer to the last question on school closures was very well received. I pointed out there was a bigger issue here, which went back to tomorrow schools which made administration of schools more businesslike, and that treasury was largely responsible for this agenda (hehe dig at treasury felt good). I said that some right wingers even celebrated the fact that businesses closed down when they talked about creative destruction. Labour were also making schools more businesslike by encouraging them to recruit foreign fee paying students, creating their own funding stream. I reminded people that every time they hear the words 'bulk funding', 'school choice' in this election, these were moves to make schools even more like businesses, and these policies would lead to more closures. I would have liked to flesh the argument a little more, but answers to questions were strictly limited one tiny minute.

Quite a few people told me I did well (including some of the other candidates).

Following the debate I got into some interesting discussions with a couple of people. A member of the Rail and Maritime Union questioned my contention that the Government should have bought back the entire railways instead of giving the operations to Toll until 2070. He actually confirmed my fear that track upgrades continue to be mostly of the band aid variety, like they have been for the past 15 years, instead of the major upgrades that are needed. I also talked with a woman about the management of schools and the possible implications of bulk funding. While I suspect we may have had different views, I felt we both appreciated each others strong interest in education issues. I suggested she check out the QPEC website.

Overall the debate was a lot of fun, made more enjoyable by the friendly nature of the other candidates and an audience dominated by lefties!

Lots of hits from the information superrailway

Been getting a lot of hits on my website this week. 26 on Monday, 37 on Tuesday and 19 yesterday. Most appear to be linking to the critique I wrote in July of the Toll rail deal.

While this deal did bring the rail track back into public ownership it effectively left the railways in the hands of an almost complete private monopoly until 2070. The article also demonstrates that the Government missed many (cheap) opportunities to bring the whole of the railways back into public ownership and the long drawn out negotiations with Toll held up track improvments, as Cullen was forced in the 2004 budget to transfer $30M of funding for track upgrades from last financial year to this financial year.

With so many hits on my rail article I could not help but be nosey as to where the referrals were coming from. It appears a link to my article was included in a message on LocoBoard: NZ Locomotive Engineers / RMTU members email group. Very pleased to discover that. If any of you guys and gals have any feedback on my article that would be very welcome.

Although Toll have only been in NZ for a couple of years they have already gained a reputation for arrogant union busting attitudes to industrial relations, especially when it comes to existing collective contracts. On that note I would like to wish both the RMTU and the Maritime Union 'good luck' and 'good speed' for their negotiations with Toll this year.

Demise of the NZ Northerner Rail Service

I wrote an article for the Alliance Standard on the demise of the Northerner passenger rail service - its now been uploaded to the site.

Northerner Rail Service Axed: More Cuts Likely to Take Their Toll

This week saw yet another cutback to passenger rail services with the announcement that the Northerner, the night service between Auckland and Wellington, would cease operation on the 12th of November. When one considers this annoucement alongside specific clauses in the agreement the Government signed with Toll in July 2004 it becomes obvious that the Northerner will be first of many closures within the first three years of this 'public private partnership'.

Read the rest of the article

"From Toll to the Dole" now online

My other article on rail related issues in the August issue of 'Foriegn Control Watchdog' "From Toll to the Dole" is now online. It documents the heavy handed approach to industrial relations taken by Toll Holdings this year, despite only owning the-company-formerly-known-as-Tranz-Rail for a short time. It examines Toll's treatment of the crew of the ferry Arahura and Toll's ultimately successful attempt to
destroy the Multi Employer Collective Agreement (MECA) that once covered a large proportion of their workforce, notably the Auckland rail workers that have now transfered to Connex..

Take it or leave it" was the choice given to the cooks and stewards of the Cook Strait ferry Arahura. The new transnational owners of the ferries, Toll Holdings, told the crew to accept a big cut to pay and conditions or be made redundant. The live-on-board positions were to be disestablished, with those made redundant forced into reapplying for their jobs in competition with other Toll employees and external recruits.

Continue reading the article

Article on Toll deal on renationalisation of the rail track now online

I have now uploaded my article 'Toll Rail: Secret Deals Close to
Witching Hour Revealed" to the site. It looks at the July
agreement between the NZ Government and Toll Rail (an Australian
transnational) that bought the rail network back into public
ownership.

The article can be read here

Ironic twist to Blair 'victory' at UK Labour conference

This afternoon the UK Labour conference voted down a motion calling for an early withdrawal of British troops from Iraq. Many are calling it a lucky escape for Tony Blair. (Guardian report)

While at first glance the result looks like a sound victory for Blair, with 86% of the conference voting against the 'rebel' amendment (14% for), Blair only avoided defeat by gaining the support of the 'big four' unions at the eleventh hour, after days of tense negotiations.

The 'rebel amendment' was a moderate one, calling for Blair to set a date for the early withdrawal of British troops. Given that it is at last becoming widely recognised that a key driver of the insurgency is the presence of the foreign troops, sending a clear signal that Britain does not intend to have a permanent military presence in Iraq may help to calm the situation. A date would have been a clear signal, even if events transpired whereby the forces were there for a short time after the designated date.

Jack Straw attempted to claim that the US, UK troops in Iraq were not an army of occupation, but were there at the request of the interim government and with the support of the United Nations Security Council. But the credibility of Jack's justification is seriously strained by actions of its 'coalition partner', especially as the US appointed the government that made the 'request' and the clear US plans to have a network of permanent military bases in Iraq long after an elected government takes power. The military occupation of Iraq will last decades, not months or years.

When it is taken into account that the 'big four' control 40% of the Labour party conference votes it can easily be seen that the vote was far closer than it first appears - had the unions voted in consistency with their previous clear anti-war views - Blair would have lost (14% supported the motion today and 14% plus 40% is 54%).

There is a deep irony when today's vote is compared to the debate over rail renationalisation at the same conference a few short days ago (Guardian).

On Tuesday the conference overwhelming voted in support of renationalising the railways, despite the protests of the Labour leadership, including Chancellor Gordon Brown and Transport Secretary Alistar Darling. 64% of the conference voted to bring the private rail operating companies back into public ownership, with 36% voting against. Gordon Brown attempted to scaremonger, claiming that renationalising rail would cost £22 billion, seemingly ignoring the obvious option of buying up the long term contracts and phasing out the rest as they come up for renewal. Although the conference motion is meant to be binding, the leadership has already dismissed the possibility of rail renationalisation being included in the Labour manifesto.

BBC news reported that Labour's high command blamed the block voting of the 'big four' unions for the loss, with the Blairites rather pitifully claiming a 'moral victory' because a majority of electorate committees failed to support the renationalisation motion. While a majority of electorate committees voted against the withdrawal amendment today (70%*), Blair got 80% of the union votes - in the twisted Blairite logic does this make it a 'moral defeat'??

Today the British Labour party had a chance to save itself from the poor judgement of its leadership, under the glare of generous television coverage. Ultimately by defeating a moderate motion that called on Blair to set a date for the withdrawal of British troops, it may not escape being branded with Blair's mistake. With this is mind, the left may be best to organise elsewhere.

* these figures flashed up briefly on the BBC