Gordon Campbell | Parliament TV | Parliament Today | Video | Questions Of the Day | Search

 


Greens and National failing to commit to cost-benefit ratios

Greens and National failing to commit to cost-benefit ratios
ACT Leader Jamie Whyte

The government has spent $3.4 billion on Roads of National Significance. Yesterday the Greens announced their discovery that the benefit-to-cost ratio of the spending on these roads has been either “low” or “medium”. Since the money could have been spent on projects with high benefit-to-cost ratios, it has been ill-spent on these roads.

Transport minister, Gerry Brownlee, replied that the Auckland rail loop that the Greens want brought forward has a benefit-to-cost ratio of 0.8, which is not just low but negative.

It is a shame that the Greens cannot avoid making the very mistake they criticise. But that is irrelevant to the matter at hand. That your critics are keen on wasting money doesn’t mean that it is OK for you to waste it too.

Government spending is apt to be wasteful because the people who make the decisions are not spending their own money. That is why government spending should have to pass a benefit-to-cost ratio test.

According to Radio New Zealand, Gerry Brownlee said that the government is not fixated on benefit-cost ratios because there are clearly benefits from having a good roading network around New Zealand. This is hard to understand. If there are clearly these benefits, they should already be included in the benefit-to-cost analysis.

I fear that when politicians talk about benefits over and above those included in the benefit-to-cost ratio they are talking about political benefits. That is precisely why taxpayers should demand that the government be fixated on benefit-to-cost ratios.

The Land Transport Management Act 2003 was drafted, under the influence of the Greens, to allow more political input into land transport decisions though a Government Policy Statement (GPS) on land transport. The NZ Transport Agency must now take into account the wishes of politicians in the GPS whatever their cost-benefit analysis says about the wisdom of these projects.

The GPS has opened the door to extraordinary political discretion and potential waste. We should close that door by amending the Land Transport Management Act 2003 to ensure that its prime objective is to provide New Zealanders with an efficient land transport system. That means applying the cost-benefit analysis to the pet projects of politicians in the GPS, not exempting them.

© Scoop Media

 
 
 
 
 
Parliament Headlines | Politics Headlines | Regional Headlines

 

Plain Packs Plan: Gordon Campbell On Tobacco Politicking (And The TPP Death Watch)

Has Act leader David Seymour got the easiest job in the world, or what? Roll out of bed, turn on the radio and hmm…there do seem to be a lot of problems out there in the world. Must think of something. And so it came to pass that this morning, David Seymour took up his sword and shield to fight for a world that’s about to be denied the rich and vibrant beauty of tobacco advertising. More>>

ALSO:

.


RECENT TPP MEETING:

Professor Ian Shirley: The Budget That Failed Auckland

The 2016 budget offered Auckland nothing in the way of vision or hope and it continued the National Government’s threats against the Auckland Council. Threatening the Council with over-riding its democratic processes if it fails to release land for housing is a bullying tactic aimed at diverting attention away from the fundamental problems with housing in the region. More>>

ALSO:

PM's Post Cab Presser: Budgets, Trusts And Pacific Diplomacy

Today Prime Minister John Key summarised last week’s budget and provided further detail about his upcoming trip to Fiji. He said that there has been “plenty going on” in the last couple of weeks and emphasised the need for Auckland council to facilitate more housing supply. More>>

ALSO:

Max Rashbrooke: A Failure Of Measurement: Inside The Budget Lock-Up

Shortly after the embargo lifted at 2pm news organisations started filing reports claiming that health, and to a lesser extent housing and education, were the ‘big winners’ out of the Budget. It failed to take into account the fact that in most cases the apparent increases were in fact cuts. Because of the twin effects of inflation and population. More>>

ALSO:

DOCtored Figures: Minister Clarifies DOC Budget

“Commentators have overlooked the fact $20.7m of that perceived shortfall is new funding for Battle for our Birds 2016, provided for in last week’s Budget...” DOC also has approval in principle to carry over a further $20m to 16/17 due to unexpected delays in a number of projects. More>>

ALSO:

For The Birds: Gordon Campbell On The Budget

Budgies, so their Wikipedia page says, are popular pets around the world due to their small size, low cost, and ability to mimic human speech. Which is a reasonably good description of Finance Minister Bill English eighth Budget. . More>>

Max Rashbrooke On The 2016 Budget

The best label for this year’s announcement by Bill English might be the ‘Bare Minimum Budget’. It does the bare minimum to defuse potential political damage in a range of areas – homelessness and health are prime among them – but almost nothing to address the country’s most deep-rooted, systemic social problems. Indeed the Budget hints that these problems may get worse. More>>

ALSO:

Gordon Campbell: On Bank Scandals (And Air Crashes)

Last month, the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) filed proceedings against Westpac over activities that have some distinct echoes of the Libor scandal. More>>

Get More From Scoop

 

LATEST HEADLINES

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Parliament
Search Scoop  
 
 
Powered by Vodafone
NZ independent news