Regardless of their party, in the US Congress, senators and congressional representatives employ constituency services personnel whose job is to cut through red tape. In addition to the specific issue, this is a way in which the elected officials can monitor the performance of the public servants who are supposed to be serving the people without the filter of the vested interest of those public service senior management.
In New Zealand, the public service has become opaque, erecting information walls to make this difficult. The various departments, ministries and agencies do not want their activities to be seen so they use standing orders, privacy claims and confidentiality to mask private agendas, incompetence and pecuniary interest.
When they make regulations, how it will impact the regulated person is not part of their concern. They do not connect the regulations they make with the problems facing the nation – such as the affordable housing crisis, or the drop in literacy. The checks and balances that would expose these failings are blocked by the rules.
Techniology makes constituency services easier to run than back in the days of letters and postal delivery.
It requires an online web site in which a set of questions help focus the complaint, and the issue is then fleshed out to not only see the specific concern, but the larger impact. This should be run by the political party or the office of the MP. For list MP’s, the CS should have a nationwide focus. For elected MP’s, their constituency.
It is recommended the party establish a group of peer review volunteers who rank the quality of the complaint. In part this is to filter out the usual cranks who become chronic complainers.
Then, within the party office, examine the complaints to determine which ones can become the triggger for a petition, and also which ones can be consolidated into a press release and news story.
Select a topic: Before selecting it, ensure the outcome will be delivered
Independence: The person hosting the petition is not a member or official
Communication: The host can send out one email every 24 hours to petitioners
Delivery: Four months before the next election, remind the petitioners
Opaque government has developed rules on the content of a petition presented to Parliament, effectively rendering them effete. The petitioners are thanked, the petition is recorded, and in most cases nothing happens.
Technology has changed the power of petitions, primarily because they are not controlled by opaque government, and because they are two-way tools… many-to-one , followed by one-to-many.
In addition to the email link, petitioners can write comments, and these often prove the most useful, especially in debate or confronting bureaucrats.
The power of a two-way petition
Traditionally, petitions were one-way, and indeed, Parliamentary petitions still are. With Change.Org (and possibly other similar apps), the petitioner not only provides their name and address, but their email address. The email address is not downloaded to the host of the petition, but the host is permitted to send out one bulk email every 24 hours to everyone who signed the petition until the host declares victory, after which the petition is closed.
The political secret is not to hit the “declare victory” button that closes the petition. Instead, keep the petitioners informed, especially when victory is achieved, but don’t overdo it. People have busy lives and don’t need fluff emails cluttering up their inbox. Then 4 to 5 months before the election the host sends out a few emails reminding the petitioners which elected official and party delivered, and why it will be important to keep those elected persons in office to protect the reform.
It is better if the host is a trusted person, but not formally affiliated with the politician or the party. This enables the host to maintain control over the petition, giving a hostile media one less target.
Most important is to never promote a petition where the officials will not deliver. Once the regulation has been targeted, the elected official must ensure they have the power to meet the concerns addressed in the petition and to word the petition accordingly. In other words, shoot an arrow at the barn wall and then draw the target around it.
Regulation is intended to enable an economy to thrive, to play by rules and protect people, but without Checks and Balances, it corrodes society and civilisation goes into decline.
This site would begin by asking the people for some overall guiding principles, in effect regulations about regulations.
Draft Questions:
What does it mean to actually have a regulatory system where every person exercising powers and performing functions under the law must take all practicable steps to use timely, efficient, consistent, and cost-effective processes that are proportionate to the functions or powers being performed or exercised?
Should the fiscal impact of any regulation be understood as equivalent to a tax?
Should regulations be tested to measure the extent to which they serve pecuniary interest rather than public interest (for example, regulations promoted by lobbists or trade organisations.
It is the responsibility of government to create regulations that are onerous to all people in order to protect a small minority from their own bad judgement, irresponsible or anti-social conduct?
Should revenue collected by an agency of government be included in the operational budget for that agency, or should it go into a central pool to eliminate pecuniary interest of the agency?
Something has gone terribly wrong in New Zealand. The practical Kiwi-can-do attitude that got things done seems to be dying. Getting anything done has become encumbered to the point where the social fabric is breaking down. As one examines what’s changed, it becomes clear it is the culture of government. Where once the elected representatives represented their constituents, walls have been built between the people and the system that governs.
The balance of power is skewed toward the ministries and the PM and Cabinet, where the democratic principle of elected officials voting their electorate is lost. To restore the balance of power, rules on voting instruction need to be changed, and the electorate MP’s and Ministers need their own staff of well-informed researchers to give them an independent assessment of the information provided (or not) by the Ministries and government agencies to the MPs and Ministers.
End party whip telling Electorate MPs how to vote
Change: Prohibit party line voting by Electorate MP’s; only permit party votes by List MPs
Why: As demonstrated by the first MMP government where one party held majority power, the PM and an inner circle of senior MP’s undermined the fundamental principles of democracy. The voters elect electorate representatives to speak for them, not for a political party. When they give a party vote, they are supporting the party platform.
What this policy will do: It limits the power of the party whips. The electorate MP’s will take their direction from their electorate, not the party. As members of a party, electorate MP’s can be expected to have a particular affiliation, but as representatives of the people, they cannot be told how to vote by the party.
Independent MP Researchers
Change: Fund three Office of MP researchers for each electorate and ministerial office
Why: To become an electorate MP one must win a vote of the people. To become a list MP, one must rise through the party ranks. Neither requires skills in understanding what law and rule making is about, and too many MP’s find they rely on the government agencies – the ministries – for advice. Unfortunately, such agencies have their own internal interests that are not necessarily aligned with the public interest. For MPs to remain informed, they require independent advice under their sole control. Not control as a party, but for each electorate or ministry.
What this policy will do: Each electorate and ministry is funded to employ three law & rule researchers. These researchers would have no political alignment, and would generally be expected to be inherited by the subsequent electorate MP or Minister, regardless of party, although they would serve at the pleasure of said MP and tender their resignation at each election. Their job is to learn and inform their MP as to the detailed workings of the government agencies that impact MP their role (electoral district or Ministry) independent of the information supplied directly by the agency. In effect, the researchers become a form of checks and balances with full right of enquiry into any matter within the Executive branch of government – with no impediments of privacy, state secret (with some limits on overseas-intelligence information) or commercial sensitivity.
Citizen Advocate Services for Electorate MP’s
Change: Each electorate MP has 3 funded citizen-services staffers with right of enquiry into any agency
Why: Accountability has broken down. Government agencies use privacy as a shield to avoid accountability. They limit contact with the public to telephone numbers with long holding time, answered by uninformed staffers reading from the same web pages available to the public. Decision-making is anonymous and unaccountable.
What this policy will do: Citizen Advocate Services (CAS) would fund three “fair go” type staffers to cut through the agency barriers. One of the staffers should be a practicing lawyer, qualified to bring legal action to require agency compliance without delay. CAS would have full enquiry authority, not put off by claims of privacy, commercial sensitivity or other barriers. Agency personnel or contractors who obfuscate or obstruct would be subject to negative reports on their personnel file that would be included in promotion, demotion or termination reviews.
The Shield of Privacy and Commercial Sensitivity
Increasingly, accountability requests for information directed to central and local government agencies are deflected with claims of privacy and commercial sensitivity. While government officials have a personal right to not become the subject of public scrutiny, their roles should not be able to use privacy to avoid accountability for their action or inaction), errors and omissions, misuse and abuse of their powers.
Further, in contracts with the private sector, too often claims of commercial sensitivity are used as shields to block legitimate public criticism. In contrast, in many local governments in the United States for example, private sector tenders for government contracts – including sales presentations – are open to the public and often read/attended by competing vendors. The presenting vendor hates it, but the upshot is their competition improving their product or service to win the next contract, thus the people get more bang for their buck. Everyone adjusts to the new open-reality, and quality of life improves for all as a result.
NZ’s laws which obscure public transparency must be replaced to ensure the public knows what its public servants are doing behind closed doors.
Drastically cut privacy & commercial sensitivity
Change: Open almost all government functions to public view, available without censorship, omission or obfuscation – and do so using government web pages open to everyone.
Why: Transparency is uncomfortable for anyone except the most outstanding performers. But discomfort is what brings about improvement. A transparent government becomes the focus of what is called crowd-sourcing, where private citizens become unpaid researchers focusing on inefficiency, waste or even wilful corruption. They do for free what media used to do when advertising in newspapers supported independent investigative journalists.
What this policy will do: The privacy laws will be amended to greatly restrict invoking them in public matters. Further, penalties for obfuscation, obstruction or delay will become personnel offenses that go on the personnel file and may result in penalties, demotion or dismissal. Privacy may protect a person’s name, where it is clear they may be unfairly targeted, but never their office. Most tenders and contracts with the private sector will be published online and all presentations captured in video and posted online. Government accounting will be published online, down to the transaction level, where a claim of privacy will require the same legal process as procuring a search warrant – permission of the court.
Regulation and Associated Costs
The cost of compliance with laws and regulations is becoming onerous; to the point where it is polarising NZ into a comfortable class who dislikes the cost of compliance but can afford it, and a struggling class who finds they are locked out of an adequate standard of living due to the excessive rules and regulations.
Tax versus User Pays
Problem: In democracies, people pay tax because they value certain services that benefit the public good. However, over time, the State begins to see taxes as its right, as the obligation of the people without accountability for how well those taxes are invested in the public good. More recently, the neo-liberal concept of User Pays appeals to elected officials because it takes some public services off the books.
The checks and balances of elected officials protecting the people’s money is lost as User Pays uses divide and conquer tactics where individuals face demands rather than the taxpayers as a whole. User Pays creates a monopoly lacking any effective checks on agency dictates.
Demands for fees, charges, contributions and levies are passed on to individuals, and in projects with fixed budgets, the government cut comes first, meaning the money needed for the applicant’s project is reduced, or in many cases, those costs are passed on to the final customer in the form of higher prices where it becomes a de facto tax. This has now become such a problem that public interest is damaged. For example, affordable housing has been regulated to the point where housing is no longer affordable by 90% of prospective first home buyers and 77% of Kiwis agree home ownership in New Zealand is financially out of reach.
Change: Significantly cut back on User Pays as a revenue source for central and local government. User pays fees must be clearly shown to benefit the applicant.
This change is proposed as part of the Citizen Advocate Services (CAS) described above. On its own initiative, or through citizen-request, CAS may demand a fiscal impact report of any User Pays. CAS may demand a change to the charge (including requirements for private consultants) to require the public benefit is paid by the taxpayer through agency funding. Fiscal impact includes not only charges by the agency and requirements for costly consultants, but also the cost of time and the cost of distracting the people from their work. Time and stress is as much a “tax” as fees, charges, levies, fines and 3rd party charges.
What this policy will do: On a real-time basis as the people encounter regulatory costs that are alleged to benefit the pecuniary interest of the person (user pays) but the person feels part or all of the benefit is in the public interest, said person may complain to any MP’s CAS (typically their electorate MP or the respective minister), and the CAS must investigate, and if it finds the complaint to have merit, to order the costs be properly apportioned. The agency may appeal the decision to the district or high court, but the respondent will be the office of the MP, not the complainant.
Redefine how public risk is covered
Problem: One of the adverse effects of the leaking home crisis was the determination that as the sole remaining party, under the principle of joint and several liability, territorial authorities were found to be liable for billions of dollars in damages caused by rotting buildings. In response, local governments radically increased the cost of building consents, demanding extreme detail with every risk covered by consultant reports.
This especially is the case where the agency (including local government) perceives a liability risk in making a decision. To reduce their risk, they require consultant documentation that is paid by the applicant. With no cost control, these fees, charges, contributions and levies are passed on to the public, where it becomes a de facto tax. This has now become such a problem that public interest is damaged. For example, affordable housing has been regulated to the point where housing is no longer affordable by 90% of prospective first home buyers and 77% of Kiwis agree home ownership in New Zealand is financially out of reach.
Change: Significantly cut back on User Pays as a revenue source for central and local government. User pays fees must be clearly shown to benefit the applicant.
This change is proposed as part of the Citizen Advocate Services (CAS) described above. On its own initiative, or through citizen-request, CAS may demand a fiscal impact report of any User Pays. CAS may demand a change to the charge (including requirements for private consultants) to require the public benefit is paid by the taxpayer through agency funding. Fiscal impact includes not only charges by the agency and requirements for costly consultants, but also the cost of time and the cost of distracting the people from their work. Time and stress is as much a “tax” as fees, charges, levies, fines and 3rd party charges.
What this policy will do: On a real-time basis as the people encounter regulatory costs that are alleged to benefit the pecuniary interest of the person (user pays) but the person feels part or all of the benefit is in the public interest, said person may complain to any MP’s CAS (typically their electorate MP or the respective minister), and the CAS must investigate, and if it finds the complaint to have merit, to order the costs be properly apportioned.
Fiscal Impact of Regulation
Problem: Regulation is out of control. Rules are made in Wellington with no consideration of the cost, time and hassle that accompany them. The feedback loops that would make regulators aware – if they cared – do not exist. Consultation rarely reaches, must less listens to, the ordinary person impacted by proposed rules. The upshot is making life unaffordable for the majority of Kiwis.
Root causes: At one time, government presumed personal responsibility and regulation existed to control greed, ignorance and mistakes. In the past two decades, primarily in the name of health & safety, regulations have taken on a life of their own.
Regulations can becomes a de facto tax on the public, to such a scale the public interest is damaged. For example, affordable housing has been regulated to the point where housing is no longer affordable by 90% of prospective first home buyers and 77% of Kiwis agree home ownership in New Zealand is financially out of reach.
Change: On its own initiative, or through citizen-request, CAS may demand a fiscal impact report of any new regulation, at any time, including long after the regulation was put into effect when the public becomes aware of the costs. CAS may demand a change to the regulation to lower the fiscal impact, or require the cost is paid by the taxpayer through agency funding, not as user pays unless it can clearly be shown the pecuniary interest is apportioned its respective costs, and the public interest is paid by the public. “Fiscal” includes not only charges by the agency and requirements for costly consultants, but also the cost of time and the cost of distracting the people from their work. Time and stress is as much a “tax” as fees, charges, levies, fines and 3rd party charges
What this policy will do: All regulations must be subject to a validation test and if they fail, are to be eliminated and replaced by valid regulation. The terms health & safety will have precise meanings and require the regulation is written in a way that impacts the bad actors, but does not interfere with the rest of the affected people.
The Public Service
The pubic service has grown in size and at the same time is closing itself off from the people it ostensibly services. Far too many public servants – rebranded as officers, team leaders and senior managers – now take a degree in public service, then build a lifetime career within government, having no real-world experience in the industries they regulate. They have no understanding of the impact of their output on the regulated. Further, they are not held accountable for their errors, omissions or failures, and as their LinkedIn profiles show, they move from one government job to another. This needs to be changed.
Agency Personnel Sabbaticals
Problem: When agency personnel lack “real-world” experience, and are cocooned in a silo culture reinforced by their peers but isolated from public feedback and blowback, they make decisions that adversely impact the people. With the agency-made cultural insulation, they feel no pressure to inform themselves to make good decisions, but instead dig in and use the protections and resources of their agency to frustrate the people.
Need: The policy on fiscal impact addresses the situational matters, but the deeper problem is wilful ignorance. Learning is the cure for ignorance, and it comes through exposure to the persons affected by the agency’s acts (or non-action). The silo protections must be broken down, and this begins with exposing the personnel to the impact of their acts. This is not done by classes or seminars, but by sabbaticals, paid by government, in the field.
What this policy will do: For two months before starting any public service job that has any impact on the public, and one month every second year, the public servant shall be paid to take a sabbatical and work in the sector that is impacted by the acts of their department/team within the agency. The CAS will organise the sabbaticals, and if the volume is too great, additional CAS staff funding shall be provided to MPs to manage such citizen-services.
Personnel Accountability
Problem: Agency personnel are not personally accountable for errors, omissions, failures, fiscal blowout, bad policy, bad planning, bad execution, bad management, waste, inefficiency or bad performance, except in personal matters (e.g bullying, sexual misconduct, etc.). In some cases, as can be seen on their Linked-In profiles, they move to a new job in another agency of government. There are no rewards for risk taking, and no penalties for failure.
Transparency: The internet makes public disclosure of all acts far simpler. Require each agency to post its performance in detail so members of the public may analyse and identify the many ways agencies fail to deliver best practice with maximum value in terms of time, money and stress, including identifying the job titles responsible for the failures.
This will require significant change to privacy, commercial sensitivity and personnel accountability policies.
What this policy will do:
Open Information: Eliminate commercial sensitivity. If a business wishes to do business with the government, it must be prepared to fully disclose the contracts, and all payments available on line. Eliminate privacy as a shield for withholding information. For an agency to claim withholding, it must appeal to the court and pay both its own costs (out of its budget) and those of the people challenging such withholding. Open information is essential for the people to root out bad agency performance
Accountability: When bad performance is discovered, the CAS shall take up the case and identify the responsible personnel. Such findings shall go on the personnel employment record, and shall be considered for all personnel reviews, including salary, promotion, demotion and termination. The record shall be cross-agency so any person applying for any government job shall have their full record, including adverse performance findings, considered for any position funded directly or indirectly by the people.
Elections, Money and Influence
People do not contribute large amounts of money to political campaigns because they love democracy. They expect a quid-pro-quo. Perhaps the most extreme example of this is political campaigns in the USA where it never stops. It is expected of a member of Congress to spend half their time – 4 hours a day or more – raising money for their next campaign. This has not been the case in NZ, but it is increasing. This needs to be changed and with technology its easier to change.
Electoral Reform
Problem: Money buys influence. This creates inequity in government as pecuniary interest trumps public interest
Need: Tax-paid elections – A law on election reform would establish the channels through which all candidates make their pitch, with clear rules to block money for influence.
What this policy will do: The Internet plays a much larger role in elections, and it is the easiest to regulate. The government establishes an election web page provided for free to all candidates. It shall have three tiers
Established parties – parties that have been in Parliament in at least one of the past three terms
Small or emerging parties – parties that can show a membership of 200 or more
Individuals – persons who put their name forth to gain a platform
For tier 1 parties, a tax-funded budget shall be set for hoardings and tier 2 a smaller budget based on membership.
The same shall be provided for mailers and a fixed budget for professional video presentations, paid for and sent by the electoral commission. The videos are recommended to follow the 1-3-18 format, meaning 60 second commercials, 3 minute elevator pitch and the 18 minute TEDx talk with each candidate allowed ten of each set to address the top ten issues in their mind.
Volunteers may door knock and hand out the official mailers, but no other printed matter. Volunteers may assist people in voter registration. Parties may call public meetings, with tier one and two funding for hall rental. Elected officials shall be prohibited from calling official meetings (ostensibly discharging their duties as MP’s) during election season unless specific dispensation is granted by the electoral commission.
No persons may pay for or provide electioneering material outside of the official process, except for advocacy on matters of policy that do not promote a particular party or candidate.
The right of reply to media editorials shall be accorded to any candidate, including Tier 3.
Platforms disallowed as mandates
Problem: During the election, political parties publish lengthy platforms read by very few, and then claim their planks as mandates when elected. This undermines democracy except for platform planks that had a high level of public debate.
Need: As part of election procedural reform, include in the law that platform planks are not mandates unless they had a high level of public debate.
What this policy will do: By placing the intent in the law, mandate claims are delegitimised, and while a party in power may do whatever they want, they risk adverse blowback when they try.
Outlaw lobbying
Problem: Lobbying is the sale of influence. A person develops an inside track within a party, and then crosses over into a consultancy where they charge private persons to gain access to the elected and appointed officials.
Need: People do need access to their elected and appointed officials. Officials need feedback including technical or complex information. Without it bad policy can be made. However this should not come with a price.
What this policy will do: Make lobbying illegal. Expand and fund the office of Ombudsman to include access specialists available to any and all persons. The specialists must be competent (and highly paid) so they can separate out the inappropriate applications from ones with merit. In most cases, merit means public benefit, but it also can mean improving the private sector so it is more competitive – thus indirectly benefiting the public. The specialists would not only evaluate, but would translate applications into the most effective form for an official or representative to digest and act upon. Essentially, the specialists become lobbyists paid by tax dollars.
Corruption is pecuniary interest masked as public interest
When the rotting house crisis hit NZ, the government of the day knew they had to do something. Unfortunately, there were no MPs with much experience in the building industry, and the likewise the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment lacked expertise in construction. They turned to the very industry that had caused the crisis in the first place. While the media and pundits blamed “cowboys”, meaning small, independent contractors with a ute, dog and cellphone, facts showed the failure came from the big players who advocated untreated radiata pine, no-eve buildings and designs that allowed water in, but did not dry out before the wood started to rot and the building began to mould.
Those industries were represented by lobbyists in the form of trade associations, and they took advantage of the ignorance of elected officials and public services in MBIE to write rules that served their pecuniary interest at the expense of home buyers. It hit at every level, and created the affordable housing crisis.
Need for a Public Impact Advocate at the Table
When standards are written, the Committee should include a public-impact specialist, deeply knowledgeable in the particular industry, armed with the power of veto – meaning their role at the committee table is to say No, on behalf of the people who have to pay in time or money because of how the rule is written.
Every committee, department, agency and other government or quasi government agency should have an ex-officio advocate. These the powers must extend not only to when the rule is written, but after the fact, when the public encounters the barrier created by government and makes a formal complaint. Bad rules, complicated rules, rules that require consultants to negotiate simple processes, unfair rules, rules that demand significant delays and rules that can be rewritten to achieve the same outcome without red tape should all be fair game for the public impact advocate.
Independent Authority
The Authority should be funded with tax dollars, and each political party in Parliament shall appoint one representative to the Authority Board to serve four-year terms. The board’s charter should make clear it serves the people, not the politicians or the power structure, and its staffing should seek out well-informed specialists who understand their particular industry but are neither beholden to it, or have an insider’s relationship with it.
The authority should be empowered to actively solicit public feedback where government is seen as the problem not the solution. This includes local government and special entities. It should be granted the power of investigation, where claimed barriers of commercial sensitivity, confidential information or privacy have no standing.
The authority shall have negative authority only – to say no, to cancel. It may identify changes that would not attract a veto, but not impose them. It may however, take matters directly to Parliament with recommendations for new law. The authority should have the right to take personnel matters to the personnel’s senior management. In some cases, bad rules are promulgated by problematic public servants. They may need education, or in a personnel review, found unsuited for the office they hold, or unsuited to work in government. There needs to be a mechanism to identify such people and remove them from positions where they do not serve the public interest.
This practice is an inherent conflict of interest:
We invite organisations that represent the views of a large – usually national – group with a common interest in the area being addressed by the standards solution to nominate a representative for the committee. We review nominations and select committee members from them. Standards NZ
Yet Standards NZ seems oblivious because it is so normal in NZ.
The Fox Guarding the Hen House – (cc) by John Cole, NC Newsline
Case Study: How standards are written
The above quote in the cartoon comes directly from Standards NZ web page on New Zealand standards development. There seems to be no awareness either of the inherent conflict of interest, nor any examination of the outcomes that create barriers to competition and substantially increase costs to ordinary Kiwis.
The policy of Standards NZ is to establish a committee made up of representatives of the trade organisations that advocate for the pecuniary interest of their members. This is a bit like inviting the foxes to design and build the chook house.
The outcome is Fortress NZ, where artificial barriers to overseas competition are erected. NZ’s population and geography is the size of the US state of Colorado, thus companies that make far superior and more affordable products, due to their economies of scale and higher standards (especially in the EU) take one look at NZ and give it a pass – just what the committee members want.
Small scale entrepreneurs try to import better products – such as German made joinery, but the barriers prove insurmountable. BRANZ testing must be conducted and paid for before the small-scale importer can earn their first dollar. The local competition will pull every string they can – and there are many – to thwart the competition. The upshot is the affordable housing crisis. The losers are the struggling class. In the end, many middle-level earners give up and move to Australia.
The same game rigging has stifled the financial markets, where FMA rules tilt the playing field to the big banks and the sophisticated investors. Ditto the food industry, and soon the natural products industry. Even the classic car industry in NZ, that was world-renowned, has been killed by the draconian repair certifier rules.
The affordable housing crisis did not come about by accident. It came about by a perfect storm unintentionally created by government. It is simple to state, hard to fix.
Price:Income Ratio: When the median household price exceeds a 3:1 ratio with median household income, housing becomes unaffordable first for the poor, then at it heads toward 10:1 for the lower middle class as well as young adults, uni graduates with too much debt, elderly who failed to build home equity (by renting or by divorce), older women, Māori, Pasifika and other disadvantaged groups. Eventually society polarises into the haves and the have nots.
The answer is to get the ratio back to 3:1. This means increasing the supply of homes causing the market to drop and aggressively examining every contributing factor that raises the cost of zoning, financing and constructing new homes.
Land Supply: For every new family (net) there needs to be one additional single-family home. When planning was done by civil engineers this happened. When universities started training environmental planners, environmental protection improved, but land supply contracted. Result, higher prices for subdivided land.
Consenting costs and time: Developers say more than half the job of subdivision is securing permission. The RMA does not enable people and communities, it is a cash cow for councils and private planners. Extensive reports do not protect the environment, but they do increase costs.
Requirements: Consenting requirements add to cost without demonstrable benefit. The councils have no checks and balances, so they place demands that developers must do… and pass on to the end customer, meaning higher land prices.
Development Contributions: In theory if a developer makes money and it costs the taxpayer to subsidise the developer profits, the developer should pay a contribution. But in practice, it has become a cash cow for councils and further increases land prices.
Revenue Conflict of Interest: At one time, consent fees were low because the benefit of resource consent compliance was deemed a matter of public interest. Now councils fund their consenting departments through revenue they collect, and senior management pressures staff to generate billings. This has been tested, and it is an abdication of the role of the public service.
Building Consent Liability: Since the leaking home debacle, councils are terrified of liability, thus they set out extreme documentation requirements to ensure they are not exposed. The costs of third party consultants is added to the cost of housing, further raising above the 3:1 ratio.
Lobbying by Pecuniary Interest: Architects, engineers, the Master Builders Association, the many trade associations representing building materials, components and services have successfully lobbied government for monopolistic protection. In the name of health and safety, the rules are designed to supress competition.
Fortress NZ: In a country the size of the US state of Colorado, MBIE has written a building code that requires compliance to NZ standards written by advisory committees comprising of representatives of trade associations. No surprise that this creates insurmountable barriers to competition. What overseas supplier that meets higher international standards will spend the money to secure BRANZ compliance for a market of 5 million people?
This is an essay. Grab a cuppa, settle in for a long read on a laptop or larger. It shows why housing is 10X income, not 3X.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING: How we got into this mess in the first place
The two-decade creation of the perfect storm to make housing unaffordable
Why is housing unaffordable? Bad law, bad regulation, ignorance, legal-corruption, greed & cronyism… a perfect storm 20 years in the making.
Problem
Why housing is unaffordable (a perfect storm)
From Civil Engineers to Environmental Planning grads
About 2o years ago, something happened in district councils. Older civil engineers who administered the RMA began to be forced out by a new generation of university graduates with degrees in environmental planning. Where the old guard focused on infrastructure to ensure greenfield expansion matched population growth, the new breed of planners had been taught to value the environment over rezoning for new housing. The result was predictable. The cost of zoned land rose.
This needs to be fixed. Universities need to rethink the curriculum. Yes, protecting the natural and physical environment is important, but either government has to set a zero-population-growth policy (unlikely) or it has to remove the bias against rezoning greenfield for growth. This can be done (see the post on MarketTowns), but it requires an overhaul of both the curriculum, and the fundamental bias of the faculty.
Then at a policy level, councils need to adopt resolutions that require planning accommodate population growth with a target median house price to median household income of 3:1. If the councils find this too hard, then resolve to ask Kainga Ora to use its powers under the Urban Development Act 2020 to identify and implement new towns.
How Councils are funded
Rates are supposed to fund projects and services the public needs but the private sector will not supply. But there is a limit to what the voting ratepayer can support, a limit lower than what council senior management feels it needs to support its offices, salaries, perks and actual services and long-term investment. User pays is an attractive alternative because it only impacts those trying to do something, such as develop a greenfield into a new tract of homes and shops.
But those costs are passed on to the end buyer; the family buying the home, the business person leasing a shop, office or restaurant. As a result, not only does the cost of the facility increase, but overall prices go up. The reason a cup of coffee costs $5 is not because the cafe is creaming it, but because the landlord keeps putting up the rent to recover the costs in the building, including fees and rates.
There is no way to politely say it. Councils have become greed machines. Senior management resembles budget airlines looking for ways to charge for everything, like 1 kg over weight bags or a window seat. Why? Because the planning and building departments are self-funded. User pays creates an inherent conflict of interest. It’s spiralled out of control.
This needs to be fixed. The basic principle of user pays needs to be limited to demands solely where the benefit falls to the developer. The need for affordable housing is a public benefit where the associated costs should be funded by the taxpayer on a national basis and the ratepayer on a council-jurisdiction level. This requires a law change.
How Building Materials are approved
Decades ago the building industry consisted of skilled tradies who knew how to construct buildings suitable for the NZ climate using proven building materials and methods. Consents were simple and low cost because they relied on an industry knowing what it was doing.
But then corporatism infused itself into the industry. Corporatism is big business hiring efficiency experts to find ways to cut costs to increase profits. Flat roofs and plaster cladding suitable for Mediterranean (read dry, low humidity, no driving rain) climates cost less to build. The industry convinced the government to permit untreated Radiata pine, a sapwood that rots easily, to be used for framing. The upshot was the leaky homes crisis, and the 5th Labour government, whose Minister of Housing was an academic, brought in the Building Act 2004 that caused building consents to skyrocket in price.
The Act required all building materials to be approved. To write the NZBC (NZ Building Code), committees were set up where MBIE invited representatives of trade association to write the drafts. No surprise that the trade associations promoted the pecuniary interest of their members by establishing de facto barriers to competition, both making it too expensive and arduous for superior offshore materials to gain approval for a market the size of the US state of Colorado, and for home-grown entrepreneurs seeking to challenge the established order.
This needs to be fixed. Competitive pricing for building materials is in the public interest, and the cost of approval should be paid by the public, and it should be expedited so approval takes weeks, or months at worst, not years. Overseas approvals should not require replication in NZ, but should be accepted unless it can be shown they clearly do not fit the NZ climate. The building material cartel should be regulated where anti-competitive practices are a crime not only subjecting the business to fines, but holding the responsible personnel criminally responsible.
Further, in establishing advisory committees to write the draft rules, the principles of Wisdom of Crowds (see here) should apply. If trade associations are represented (which does bring industry expertise), they should be offset by consumer representatives skilled in ensuring the proposed rules are solely in the public interest and do not use rules to favour the interests of the trades.
How Building Practitioners are Licensed
In the aftermath of the leaky homes crisis, the large corporates and trades blamed “cowboy builders” when in fact it was the large corporates and the mass-production trades using defective, but BRANZ approved products and building methods. The Master Builders association lobbied for licensing, ostensibly to get rid of the cowboys. The upshot was a tripling of the cost of skilled construction labour.
Some builders quit because they had been attracted to the industry due to a learning disability – they could not read. They were experts at hand work, but could not pass the written tests brought in by the new regime. Others quit because it was all just too hard. Easier to take an indoor job in a building supply store. Those who stayed on logoed Licensed Building Practitioner (LBP) on their new utes, as they found their newly-state-sanctioned careers paid more than many white-collar jobs.
This is now resulting in a new approach to house making. Instead of bespoke construction on site, factory manufacturing that does not require LBPs is rising in popularity. Buildings are now assembled, not constructed, on site using factory-made components, such as FrameCad light-gauge steel panels, with further interest in modular design in which the rooms are made in factories and stacked on site like Lego blocks.
The LBP program needs to be fixed, but the pecuniary interest is so great it is unlikely elected officials will take it on. Instead, the building industry needs to move from the 18th century to the 21st. The whole approach to how the housing market works needs to be reinvented. Mass manufacture of buildings using Computer Assisted Design so they do not look bland or cookie-cutter is the answer. Leave the LBP approach to the bespoke construction industry of homes for the comfortable class who have no problem paying millions.
Solution
How to make housing affordable
Use the Urban Development Act 2020
In the 5th National Government, 2009-17, Building and Construction Minister Nick Smith proposed the Urban Development Act. It proposed to create an Urban Development Authority (UDA) that would bring all aspects of major development projects (matters of national interest) under one authority.
Land acquisition, rezoning, financing, building of infrastructure, building consents and construction that is otherwise a gauntlet of multiple consenting and consulting agencies to the point where over half the cost and effort of real estate development is securing permission
Unfortunately, when the 6th Labour Government took over in 2017, it rebranded the Urban Development Authority as Kainga Ora and turned its focus to state housing for beneficiaries of the welfare system. With the 6th National Government prepared to take power, it is time to revisit the Urban Development Act and use its powers as originally intended.
Don’t tinker with the market, create an alternative
Manipulating the housing market to lower the price to income ratio from 10:1 to 3:1 would be devastating for home owners who would be tipped into negative equity. Increasing median income to 1/3 median house price will not happen in a global economy.
Instead, create new housing markets that target the 3:1 ratio. This is detailed in the post on Market Towns, although it does not have to be limited to that scale or type of development. The UDA powers are the key:
Buy the land at pre-zone pricing (probably rural)
Do not take a capital gain on subdivision
Do not pay the council a development contribution
Infrastructure costs paid by the taxpayer not the council
Set up a pop-up factory to manufacture the buildings
Target total cost to be 3X the projected income of buyers
Where possible cut the cost of living, such as no need for cars.
Under UDA development is in the national interest. This means taxpayer paid, not user pays. Don’t burden the council, but make the development a profit centre for them, meaning it will pay more in basic rates than it will require in council services.
At the entry level, support mobile/modular homes
As discussed in other posts (see here) the 6th Labour Government declared an informal but devastating war on poor people who were leasing and buying mobile homes from the fledgling Kiwi industry.
Some were individuals making one tiny home on wheels at a time. Others were factories turning out dozens per month. Because they were mobile, they were not captured by the perfect storm that made buildings unaffordable. They were small, inexpensive and provided warm, dry, safe and durable adequate housing for people whose alternative was hidden homelessness (living in cars, tents, sheds, garages and overcrowded conditions). Until, reportedly in a cabinet meeting, the elected officials agreed they did not want American style trailer home parks in NZ, which trickled down to MBIE, MFE and MSD as a declaration of war on mobile homes (factory made) and tiny homes on wheels (DIY made).
This needs to be fixed.
Youth: Mobile homes enable the young to get on the property ladder, especially if lease to purchase is an option where 5-7 years rent gains ownership – enough to sell for a downpayment on land and home.
Homeless: They provide a much better alternative than putting a family of four in a hotel room in Rotorua for months or years even.
Tangata whenua: For the whanau on ancestral whenua, they can be manufactured in two weeks and installed on site in two hours while avoiding the problems of bank financing on Māori title.
Urban Pasifika, etc: Especially in South Auckland, certain sectors have large families overcrowded in homes designed for the nuclear family of the 1950s’. Permit mobile homes to be parked next to the family home to take up the excess demand.
Elder/disabled: For the family with a vulnerable elder or disabled adult child, a mobile home can be parked next to the family property to provide a modicum of independence while enabling necessary supervision. When the elder dies, the home is removed
Flood, earthquake: In a civil defence emergency, immediate housing is essential. Having a reserve of mobile homes that can be deployed behind ordinary SUV towing to site in 24 hours provides responsive capacity. Rather than leave in a carpark unused, lease such units to major airports where they serve as first-arrival or last-departure accommodations so they are clean and ready when an emergency arises
Essential workers: In tourist destinations like Queenstown or Waiheke, essential workers are living in overcrowded conditions or in cars or tents. Using Kainga Ora, zone for essential worker camps using mobile homes. Most will be young and for them, this will be a party zone. Ensure it does not spawn cross-boundary conflict.
Cycle Trail accommodation: Long distance cycle trails are becoming a major ecotourism option worldwide. NZ initiated its own version, but the tour operators must collect the riders at the end of the day and bus them to a nearby town. Instead authorise Kainga Ora to use its UDA authority to build mobile home campsites along the trails leased to cycle-tourism operators.
An integrated solution for many of the challenges facing NZ today
If we are serious about climate change, stop issuing resource consents for more transport-based development. Eliminate the need to drive.
Build MarketTowns
In every era but our own, cities, towns, villages and communities were based on some purpose of living that eludes the designers of our own time. People form communities not for justice, peace, defence or traffic, but for the sake of a good life… the pursuit of conviviality, citizenship and artistic, intellectual & spiritual growth.
The social pursuits of a good life shape how a community is laid out, how people encounter each other, how to balance public and private space, and to avoid design that disrupts. And how to make it affordable for all, ending economic polarisation.
The most important policy the 6th National Government can adopt: Of all the solutions listed on governing.nz, this is the one intended to have the greatest, most wide-ranging positive impact, addressing a host of challenges facing the nation, from environment to economic to social and cultural. It is a positive outcome, not a fix.
What is a Market Town?
A Market Town is an ancient development pattern where the social life is based on a self-supporting local economy. A thousand years ago, the basis was local agriculture. Today, technology has vanquished the tyranny of distance, enabling many to earn a living anywhere there is high-speed broadband. A local economy needs about 20% of its workforce to sell local to global (L2G) using the internet to import outside money that then turns locally 5-20 times before it leaves the local economy. With a critical mass of 10,000 people on 200 hectares total (85 hectare urban core surrounded by the greenbelt) the economy supports over 200 local job types from accountants to zero-waste recyclers. None of these jobs require outbound commuting; it eliminates about 8,000 cars on the road.
To get a feel for it, visit the preindustrial car-free towns of Old Europe. They are human-scaled, needing less land while providing a much more vibrant quality of life. The urban core is surrounded by a greenbelt to eliminate cross-boundary conflicts (the neighbours see only trees) and provide open space for local food, harvested rainwater storage, onsite wastewater processing, off-grid solar array, as well as sports and festival fields, a walk-to blue-collar industrial park and a motor-pool/freight depot to ensure the urban core remains car-free.
Until 2020, it was not realistically possible to build a Market Town in NZ. The number of approving agencies created insurmountable obstacles to new forms of development outside the transport-based development framework of almost every district plan in the nation. Seeking to put all under one roof, under the 5th National Government, then Building, Construction, Housing and Environment Minister Nick Smith sponsored the Urban Development Bill that became law in 2020. The 6th Labour government narrowed the focus of the Act to developing state housing, but the needed legislation is on the books. Now with the 6th National Government taking control, no change in law is needed. All that is required is a change of focus by government to instruct the ministry to sponsor the first Market Town as a matter of national interest.
Imagine in AotearoaMallorcaVeronaCadaques, Spain
Characteristics of a Market Town
Details: The 21st century Market Town is a self contained local economy, thus it does not need extended three-waters pipes or widening roads. Its basic qualities include:
About 200 hectares of relatively flat, poor-quality greenfield land near a 2-lane road
Within 85 hectare urban core for about 4,000 3-floor attached townhouses – 10,000 people
Urban core divided into clusters (villages) of about 200 homes / 500 people each
Each village has a central plaza that becomes the community living room with development funded:
Daycare and primary school classrooms on the village plaza
Eldercare facilities for the infirm so they never have to leave their friends and family
Artist Guild Hall that supports about 25 members of the creative class to enrich the community
Village-owned cafe to provide affordable, nutritious, flavourful meals as a means of social bonding
Playground space by the cafe so parents can relax and converse while watching their children
Wharetapu to provide sacred space for celebration of rites of passage, sanctuary and contemplation
Surrounded by a 115 hectare greenbelt to prevent cross-boundary conflicts and site:
Motorpool for all motor vehicles, freight delivery and linkages – no cars in the urban core
Instead of 200 courier deliveries, three tractor trailer trucks deliver all goods once a day
Walk-to industrial park providing blue collar, clean-tech jobs and local manufacturing
Freshwater storage and processing – 100% rainwater harvesting from the urban core
Wastewater processing as a surplus resource with zero waste: biofuel, fertiliser and purified water output
Storm and filtered grey water storage for lower-quality water needs
Solar array and vanadium battery storage to provide 100% off grid energy supply
Sports and festival fields, garden allotments, protected native bush and productive growing
Surrounded by a native flora/fauna protection fence to keep out invasive species
Boundary between urban core and greenbelt includes a wall to keep pets out of the greenbelt
No less than 20% of the jobs/businesses sell local-to-global (L2G) to import money into the local economy
The majority of jobs/businesses are Local to Local (L2L) to facilitate a money turn of 5X to 20X
20% of the housing is parallel market to ensure permanent affordable housing and block gentrification
99% of buildings manufactured in an on-site, pop-up factory; keep price below $1,500/m2 including land
A complete, not elite community, intended to reflect national demographics, welcoming all but criminals
Using companies law, an elected body owned by the people that manages all local affairs
All internal costs self funded. Minimal burden on state services. , takes care of its own
The town builds its own public school classrooms, no capital burden on the Ministry of Education
Such towns inherent have a low tolerance for crime, less burden on Police, Courts or Prisons
Eldercare is internally funded and operated, reducing the state burden of an ageing population
The local economy is structured to keep all able persons employed, with stand-by jobs when needed
The project requires seed funding, but this is repaid with interest. No burden on taxpayers
Ideal setting for attracting high-skill migrants as it offers a high quality of life with low cost of living
From the host council perspective, the town is a profit centre – generating more in rates than it costs
No need to widen the roads because the vehicle movement per day per household (VMD) is below one
No need to dig up roads or expand water or wastewater plants because all waters are managed within
The town funds & builds its own libraries, parks, halls, sports & festival fields, open to the general public
In order to prevent skyrocketing house values, once the prototype is proven, keep building new towns.
In the mid 20th century – the early days of technology – computers were huge, expensive and proprietary, dominated by five global companies. Then the PC came along. It used open architecture in which specialist companies made high volumes of interchangeable parts. Where a mainframe could cost $1 million, a PC cost $1 thousand. That revolution happened began in the USA.
In the 21st century, another behemoth industry is experiencing the same change, this time coming out of China. Whereas large car companies turn out expensive motor vehicles using their own branded and expensive components, in China specialist companies are now producing open-architecture components which can be used to assemble microcars at costs comparable to personal computers.
Waiheke as the first MicroCar Zone
Proposal to Minister for Transport: use your power of permission. It costs nothing, but does a lot of good.
$4,000 not $40,000
High-quality, feature-rich electric microcars are offered online for US$2,000 – about NZ$4,000 landed and cleared for road use – if the law allowed it. NZ can bring in 2 wheel mopeds, but not 4-wheel.
In a recent article, Transport Minister Michael Wood is quoted as saying “The key tradeoff and regulatory issue is around safety,” he says. “They almost all inevitably rate at the lowest safety rating of zero to one star. So that’s the policy challenge.”
Yes, mixing 50 km/h vehicles on 100 km/h roads is unsafe. Just as 30 km/h ebikes and scooters are unsafe mixing with cars on 50 km/h city streets. But there is a way to make the transition. Find a zone where the maximum speed is 50 km/h.
One-Star Car Safe Zones
Find a place where there have been no deaths from car crashes despite that place having the oldest cars, most one-star cars, indeed, the place where old cars come to die: The island of Waiheke.
Waiheke Island roads are mostly posted 30-50 km/h. Five-star safety is about speed; crashing at 80-100 km/h. Unlike the mainland, the whole of Waiheke can be made a 50 km/h max micro-car zone. All the rule has to do is to prohibit microcars going to town on the car ferry.
Vehicles are NZ’s top import ($14.5 billion). NZ must sell milk powder to pay for its cars. Why import motorway-appropriate cars that cost 10-50 times as much as microcars for local, slow-speed transport?
Cut impact of VMDs
Planners rule of thumb is 10 vehicle movements per day per household (VMD). Microcars will cut into VMDs – the short trips. On nice days, walkers will still walk, cyclists will still cycle, but on foul days, they will take the microcar. Bus and train transport are for longer distances, not the micro-trips of micro-cars
Minister Wood argues micro-EVs could be in conflict with the government’s commitment to reducing kilometres travelled by privately owned automobiles – conversely encouraging people who walk, cycle or take public transport to use micro-EVs.
This is silly. People did not stop cycling when ebikes came out, instead a whole new segment of the population started ebiking, cutting VMD.
Waiheke as a MicroCar Zone
The other huge benefit of microcars is to make the roads “wider” without cost. At the Matiatia ferry, imagine repainting lines to change much of the parking space to micro-car size. Currently, Matiatia carpark is full by 8 a.m. Auckland Transport could double capacity by repainting the lines to microcar size… if the Minster says yes!
But then, AT can do more. Invest in daytime solar canopies over the cars to provide daytime charging while the commuters are in town. Commuters will buy microcars.
Microcar make the commuter footprint smaller during rush minute
Microcars reduce road wear.
Microcar have a much smaller smaller environmental footprint when made.
Open architecture components (even batteries) are replaced; thus cars last longer
It has to come from the top
Electric 2 and 3 wheeled mopeds (max speed 50 km/h) are legal in NZ, but not the safer 4 wheeler
Ask NZTA/MOT to make 4-wheel mopeds legal and designate Waiheke Island as the first Local Transport Zone allowing their use on Waiheke roads.
This may require a law change or an order in Council, but do it now.
First Change rules to Import
Add one word to the rule. Where mopeds are defined as 2 & 3 wheel, add 4 wheel. Then set specifications that the motors must be powerful enough to keep up their maximum speed (50 km/h) while ascending a 15° hill so they don’t spawn road rage. Write safety specs appropriate for 50 km/h speed. Work with makers to get microcars safe at 50km/h.
Next, limit use to Safe Zones
Safe zones means zones where the maximum speed is 50 km/h with clear boundaries to ensure they do not stray into unsafe zones. Waiheke Island is the ideal first safe zone. No one has died from car crashes on Waiheke because the roads are 30-50 km/h. It is the ideal place to trial the pilot.
Open-source solves problems
Lithium ion batteries are costly. When they die the then-new $50-80,000 car is worthless. Microcars can take old fashioned lead-acid batteries that are not as efficient, but in a limited distance zone like Waiheke, this is not a problem. With interchangeable parts, micro-cars can be maintained by local people, kept running for decades, thus lowering their eco-footprint.
LFclass: A moped with four wheels and electric motor with a maximum speed not exceeding 50km/h; only permitted to be used in lawfully established Local Traffic Zones (LTZ). Also called a micro-car, with a maximum curb weight not to exceed 500 kg, not including battery weight.
Waiheke Island: Local Transport Zone
LTZ: Local Traffic Zone where Class LF are permitted on road. Waiheke as the first LTZ.
Speed limited to 50 km/h (factory-set by EV controller)
Able to climb hills at speed limit (sufficient power)
Not permitted on ferry (except on trailer/tow truck)
Possibly include Great Barrier Island in the first LTZ
Micro Cars (LSEV – Low Speed Electric Vehicles)
USA
In America, they are called Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEV) and Low Speed Vehicle (LSV) and they are legal on public streets
China
China is the largest manufacturer of micro-cars, using its efficiencies of scale to price them as low as NZ$4,000, landed and ready to roll.
Italy
Micro-cars have been in Italy seemingly forever, and are not only seen in rural areas, but increasingly in historico central urban centres
Utility
Micro cars are not only for people. Small electric vehicles are used in historic zones where streets are narrow and speeds limited.
Regulation
What needs to happen
Two acts by government – one essential, the other desirable:
Essential: MOT to adopt a new class of motor vehicle to permit import and registration of 4-wheel mopeds
Desirable: MOT/NZTA to adopt a new road zone class: local transport zones 4-wheel mopeds are permitted on public roads. Designate Waiheke a LTZ
Why?
New Class: NZ/A has committed to electric vehicles and offers a $8,625 rebate on a new class MA, MB or MC electric vehicle. But with the cheapest new EV over $40,000, this scheme caters to middle-class earners with sufficient income to finance a new car. Further, unlike ICE (internal combustion engine) vehicles, EVs age badly. When the battery range drops, it is not cost effective to replace it. While working class and beneficiaries typically purchase older cars – say 20 years old – EVs will be dead by that time.
In contrast, new 4-wheel micro cars limited in speed to 50 km/h cost a tenth the price of class MA EV ($4,000 on road, finance about $40/week over 36 months*). This makes them affordable by everyone. And if the government decided to keep the new EV car rebate – it is larger than the on-road price of a proposed class LF 4-wheel moped. It would be cheaper to provide a 100% subsidy on a microcar than the current $8,625 subsidy on a class MA EV. And for people who live in low-speed transport zones, such as Waiheke Island, there is no need for a vehicle designed for 100 km/h speeds or 300 km driving ranges.
Further some microcars run on conventional lead-acid batteries, and there is technology in NZ/A (but not active) that can refurbish lead/acid batteries for longer-term use. This means used LF microcars could have long lives, which offers a more sustainable footprint than a 10-year life span MA-EV.
New Local Zones: When a road is engineered for high-speed driving (60 – 100 km/h), some vehicles will drive that speed regardless of the posted speed limit. In NZ/A many such roads are the only way to get around. A small vehicle controller-limited to 50 km/h on a 100 km/h road is at risk of being struck, and is more likely to induce road rage by the faster vehicle. Further, a vehicle designed for 50 km/h will not have the same crash protection as one designed for double or triple that speed.
Overseas, the answer is to designate specific roads as micro-car permitted, something that could be rolled out in NZ/A. However, there is one location that is easier to implement the first local transport zone: Waiheke Island (and possibly Great Barrier Island).
Except for the 60 km/h Onetangi Straight (1.6 km), all roads are already 50 km/h or less. Because it is an island, controls are simple: Do not allow microcars on the car ferry except on a trailer or tow truck. This keeps them on Waiheke.
The benefits are more than lowering the carbon footprint. Waiheke roads are narrow and it is not cost-effective to widen them to national standards. Microcars are narrower and smaller, thus they take up a smaller physical footprint on the narrow road. At the ferry terminal, where parking is insufficient, microcar parking allows more vehicles without claiming more real estate.
Microcars are also much simpler, offering the opportunity for local folks to develop a local microcar industry – not requiring a billion dollar corporation to develop.
* regarding price, by the time add-ons are built in, the final price can be double, but still should be lower than the $8,625 EV subsidy. The core message here is a new LSEV (Low Speed Electric Vehicle) that is affordable by everyone, including those on the benefit, pension or as a first vehicle for a young person.
THE LAW
CURRENT: Class LA – e-Moped with Two Wheels
Class LA ‘Moped’ means a motor vehicle (other than a power-assisted pedal cycle) that has—(a) 2 wheels; and(b) a maximum speed not exceeding 50 kilometres per hour; and(c) (ii) a power source other than a piston engine
Class LA mopeds must meet requirements of vehicle classes LAAren’t required to be regularly inspected for a WoF.Riders can hold any New Zealand driver licence (eg car driver licence) to ride a moped.Must wear an approved helmet.
CURRENT: Class LB – e-Moped with Three Wheels
Class LB ‘Moped’ means a motor vehicle (other than a power-assisted pedal cycle) that has—(a) 3 wheels; and(b) a maximum speed not exceeding 50 kilometres per hour; and(c) (ii) a power source other than a piston engine
Class LB mopeds must meet requirements of vehicle classes LBAren’t required to be regularly inspected for a WoF.Riders can hold any New Zealand driver licence (eg car driver licence) to ride a moped.Must wear an approved helmet.
PROPOSED: Class LF – e-Moped with Four Wheels (Micro-car)
Class LF ‘Moped’ means a motor vehicle (other than a power-assisted pedal cycle) that has— (a) 4 wheels; and (b) a maximum speed not exceeding 50 kilometres per hour; and (c) (ii) a power source other than a piston engine
Class LF mopeds must meet requirements of vehicle classes LF Aren’t required to be regularly inspected for a WoF. Riders can hold any New Zealand driver licence (eg car driver licence) to ride a moped. An approved helmet is not required, but all occupants must wear shoulder/lap belts when in motion Must have:
at least two high/low dipped-beam headlamps suitable for driving on the left side of the road
headlamps must illuminate the road in front for at least 30 metres
at least two brake lights on either side and one higher middle brake light
at least two red rear facing lamps that can be seen from 100 metres away when turned on
electric turn signals with front and rear facing lamps
speedometer
windscreen and windscreen wiper
rear registration plate lamp
at least two rear reflectors that can be seen from 100 metres away when light shines on it
at least two rear view mirrors, including one on each door that gives a clear view behind the vehicle
good quality tyres. Tread pattern clearly visible across at least 3/4 of tread width around entire circumference
a horn that can be heard by other road users from at least 100 metres away (in normal traffic conditions)
mudguards
lap/shoulder seat belts to Land Transport Rule: Seatbelts and Seatbelt Anchorages 2002
motor controller set to not exceed 50 k/hr
sufficient power to go up any incline at the posted speed limit for that incline when fully loaded*
not permitted to be driven on footpaths or cycle lanes unless specifically signposted
not to exceed 500 kg maximum curb weight not including battery weight
* Note: It is recommended not to include a power limit as, for example, is used in the MOT/NZTA definition for ebikes (300 W nominal). Power limits discriminate against heavy persons and tradespeople carrying gear. Further, it is dangerous if the power is insufficient to maintain the speed limit whilst driving up a hill. If the speed limit is 40 km/h up a hill on Waiheke, but the microcar slows down to 25-30 due to a lack of power, drivers behind the microcar will attempt to overtake, creating a dangerous situation. EVs use a controller that limits output, including cutting out or cutting back so the EV will not exceed a pre-set maximum speed. If Waiheke becomes a Local Transport Zone, it is anticipated that an initial buying group would be set up (as was done with the SlowCycles initiative where the motors were custom set to 300W) in which the group would specify NZ compliance , including maximum speed 50 km/h controller setting. This would be verified at the border compliance check.
PROPOSED: Local Transport Zones
Class LF vehicles are only permitted to be driven in designated local transport zones (LTZ). The first LTZ to be established concurrent with adoption of Class LF is the whole of Waiheke Island (and possibly Great Barrier Island). Class LF vehicles are not permitted to be driven on the ferry boats except on a trailer or tow truck. Future LTZ may be designed by territorial authorities and NZTA.
Making Microcars on-road legal in Local Transport Areas
Summary
Cars (what NZTA calls Class MA) are designed to safely travel at speeds in excess of 100 km/h. That safety, performance and comfort comes with a huge economic, social and environmental cost. Cars are designed for high-speed roads. For travel in slow, local transport areas (LTA), cars are overkill – a waste of money and resources with an unnecessarily large footprint. For LTA, new, market-disruptive technology is emerging – new-tech that unfortunately is locked out of NZ by out-dated law & regs.
Today, a major new microcar industry is emerging in China. The car industry is experiencing the motor vehicle equivalent of the personal computer. To explain: In the 1960’s main-frame computers were internal architecture in which all components were proprietary to five major corporations – the equivalent of Toyota, Ford, BMW, Tesla, etc., today. Then in the 1970’s the PC emerged using open architecture in which specialist companies made high volumes of interchangeable parts. Where a mainframe could cost $1 million, a PC cost $1 thousand. What PC’s were to main frames, microcars are to the big-car industry – a market-disruptive shift in technology.
These new electric motor vehicles are solely designed for local transport areas. They are small, low top-speed (50 km/h) and extremely inexpensive (NZ$4,000 landed) with impressive options due to China’s economy of scale. China makes over 2 million microcars per year, with over 10 million on its roads. Microcars are perfect for LTAs.
However, the Land Transport Act 1998 is out of date. It is missing one number: “4” that would enable NZTA to develop regulations allowing 4-wheel microcar for use in LTAs. The Act defines a moped as a motor vehicle that has 2 or 3 wheels; and a maximum speed not exceeding 50 kilometres per hour. If the Act was amended to say 2, 3 or 4 wheels, this would enable NZTA to be responsive without the gyrations required to issue exemptions as it did for NZ Post with its 4-wheel moped, the Paxter.
This paper first seeks to make officials aware of this new technology that can be an important tool in fighting climate change, socio/economic polarisation and traffic congestion. It then proposes changing the rules to allow microcars in these LTAs.
Proposal
That the Minister and/or the Executive Council determine if an Order in Council, or amendment to the Land Transport Act 1998 Part 1(2)(1) Interpretation is required to enable NZTA to develop regulations permitting 4-wheel mopeds (also known as microcars, quadricycles and low speed electric vehicles – LSEV) on NZ roads.
That NZTA designate local transport areas in which microcars (4-wheel mopeds) are permitted to operate on public roads under similar rules to 2/3 wheel mopeds, except instead of motorcycle helmets, 4-wheel have passive safety equipment including seat belts, windscreen and car-type controls such as a steering wheel and foot brakes.
That the first local transport area is the whole of Waiheke Island – allowing NZTA time to develop rules for mainland communities where local roads connect to regional roads – unlike Waiheke where all roads are slow and local, with only ferry linkage.
Terms
Microcar: The technical term is Low Speed Electric Vehicle (LSEV) but LSEV is a mouthful. Also known as quadricycles, 4-wheel mopeds, neighbourhood electric vehicles, the simplest term, to be used herein is Microcar (limited herein to electric powered). A microcar weighs less than 500 kg (excluding battery weight), has four wheels and is designed to be safe at speeds up to 50 km/h – and is set at the factory with a speed limiter so it cannot exceed 50 km/h. An example of a microcar already on NZ roads is the NZ Post Paxter that is permitted by NZTA special exemption.
Local Transport Area (LTA): Common localities limited to 50 km/h (or less) roads with no high-speed roads encroaching into the common locality.
Principle of Governance
The most effective power of Government is the power of permission. Granting permission unleashes private initiative without cost to the taxpayer. Technology constantly evolves, giving people and communities new possibilities, but too often government regulation lags behind – rules become part of the problem. To avoid this, making government responsive to new technology becomes a paramount role of government and a duty of elected representatives to prod ministry officials into action.
In this proposal, new technology speaks to three major government concerns:
climate change & local/regional pollution,
affordable cost of living for struggling Kiwis
urban traffic congestion.
Context
NZ is polarising into two classes – the comfortable class and the struggling class. These classes are not defined by 20th political affiliations. Both the left and right political wings are, by their salaries, of the comfortable class, whereas the struggling class is too busy trying to get by to have time or interest in political identity.
Laws and regulations are made by the comfortable class who seem oblivious to the challenges facing the struggling class. The struggling class buys 20-year old cars. But as NZ shifts to EV’s, when the battery wears out at 10-years, that older car will be scrapped. The clean car rebate is a scheme by and for the comfortable class, but the trickle-down of old cars to serve the struggling class becomes collateral damage.
The top contributor to CO₂ pollution (47%) is the Resource Management Act 1991. This is because every district/unitary plan in NZ is based on the American post-war zoning model in which homes are in one zone, with work, shops, schools and services in other zones. To accomplish the mundane chores of daily life, people must drive.
The answer ultimately it is to build new self-contained communities in which all day-to-day destinations are within walking distance. Indeed, in 2023, there should be no new developments that are transport based – be it car, bus or train.
However, there are many communities that have local transport areas, meaning day-to-day access is on local roads with a 50km/h (or lower) speed limit. These local transport areas do not need $40,000 EV’s with its $8,625 new-car rebate. They are perfect for $4,000 microcars that can be afforded by the struggling class. Indeed, the new-car rebate is higher than the total on-road purchase cost of a new EV microcar.
Waiheke Island is a pure LTA. It also is an environmental leader – first to bring in 2nd generation ebikes and first to promote modern EV’s. It’s ideal for the first LTA.
Need
“Cars turn towns into mincemeat”, wrote A Pattern Language author Christopher Alexander. Cars have a huge physical, social and environmental footprint appropriate for high-speed driving, but overkill for local transport areas (like Waiheke Island).
Cars (NZTA Class MA) cost tens of thousands to buy, consume substantial resources to make and run, with a large physical footprint and dominate due to mega-car-company lobbying power. Cars have their place, but not in local transport areas.
EV’s are not the answer. With big batteries for long range and safety designs for 100+ km/h crashes, they eliminate tailpipe emissions, but not the other damage. Worse, while ICE cars have long lives (average in NZ is over 14 years, making older used cars affordable by the bottom half of NZ society), when the EV battery fails after 10 years or less, the car is scrapped, thus further squeezing struggling Kiwis.
New EVs cost too much for struggling Kiwis. The $8,625 rebate (subsidising middle-class, new-car buyers) is higher than the total cost of a microcar, landed in NZ. Brand new, impressively-featured microcars can be purchased off Alibaba for US$2,000. Put another way, if the rebate was spent on a microcar, it would pay for the microcar with cash left over. This means EVs for everyone, not just the comfortable class.
Microcars make roads “bigger”. Two can be parked in a single parking bay. Their on-road footprint is smaller, thus using less of the road. In places like Waiheke this is important as road-widening is not a realistic option. It could double the ferry carpark capacity with no new land set aside for parking – just paint shorter, narrower lines.
Order in Council or Amendment to the Act?
If Order in Council and legislative amendment were equally easy, amend the Land Transport Act 1998 Part 1(2)(1) Interpretation moped to include 4 wheels as in:
moped is a motor vehicle (other than a power-assisted pedal cycle) that has— (a) 2, 3 or 4 wheels; and (b) a maximum speed not exceeding 50 kilometres per hour; and (c) (ii) a power source other than a piston engine.
However, legislative amendments are not as easy as Order in Council, thus when NZ Post sought to make its microcars (brand name Paxter) legal on NZ roads, it secured a NZTA exemption. The Paxter exemption given would not fit well with the microcar proposal because it included permitting driving on footpaths (appropriate for Posties, but not for everyone) and required motorcycle helmets for drivers. Helmets make no sense when a low speed vehicle has approved seat belts and the physical crash protection of a car body. Seat belts hold the occupants in place, thus the extra 1 kg weight of the helmet creates higher incidence of neck injury because of its inertia. Microcars in slow-speed crashes offer more protection to the rider and passenger of a 2-wheeled moped. Also the Paxter has a motorcycle-type steering system. Today’s Chinese microcars use conventional steering wheels and car-type controls.
Regulation
Once the enabling legislation or Order in Council is sorted to permit microcars use in LTAs, regulations will be needed to ensure the actual designs that are imported are safe on 50 km/h LTA roads. As was seen when Lime e-scooters first came into NZ, there were problems with brakes that caused injuries and ACC claims. This can be easily addressed by clearly setting out NZ standards that must be met for a microcar to pass the border check, with NZS provided to the China factories to ensure vehicles safe for NZ roads. Given the price, all imported microcars are expected to be new.
Power: The current rule for 2/3 wheel electric mopeds sets no power limit, only a maximum allowable speed. The same should apply to 4-wheel moped/microcars. A power limit, such as the 1,500W for mobility scooters, or the 300W for ebikes, clearly was set by a person with little understanding of electrical engineering. Wattage varies constantly, and power caps discriminate against heavy people and tradies carrying tools and supplies. The much simpler regulation – easily enforceable – is to require the controller is set to cut off at 50 km/h. It’s simple and effective.
Speed: Further, the motor should be sufficiently powerful to enable the microcar to maintain the posted speed limit even going up steep hills (16%). If a road has a posted speed of 50 km/h and a microcar slows down to 35 km/h, drivers stuck behind seek to overtake, creating a dangerous situation. The standard should not define wattage, but require the manufacture certify the microcar can maintain 50 km/h on a 16% grade.
WOF: 2 & 3-wheel mopeds are not subject to WOF. 4-wheel should be the same. A WOF inspection is appropriate for high-speed vehicles, where an unsafe car can have catastrophic outcomes, but not for vehicles speed-limited to 50 km/h. While the comfortable class can afford a $75 WOF fee, for the struggling Kiwi, a $75 fee adds one more burden to their struggle to keep food on the table and the lights on.
Recommended Standards
NZTA sets standards for two and three wheeled mopeds. Similar standards should be set for 4-wheelers. Already, most of these features are on even the lowest-cost microcars. Minimum standards should include:
motor controller set to not exceed 50 km/h (cuts off power at 51 km/h)
sufficient power to go up a 16% incline at 50 km/h when fully loaded
not permitted to be driven on footpaths or cycle lanes unless signposted
not to exceed 500 kg maximum curb weight excluding battery weight
note: permit weight limit to be increased by NZTA as technology advances
two dipped-beam headlamps suitable for driving on left side of the road
headlamps must illuminate the road in front for at least 30 metres
two brake lights on either side and one higher middle brake light
two red rear facing lamps that can be seen from 100 metres away when turned on
electric turn signals with front and rear facing lamps
speedometer in km/h
windscreen and windscreen wiper
rear registration plate lamp
two rear reflectors that can be seen from 100 metres away when light shines on it
two rear view mirrors, each of which gives a clear view behind the vehicle
good quality tyres and protective mudguards
horn can be heard by other road users 100 m. away (in normal traffic condition)
lap/shoulder seat belts to Land Transport Rule approved standard
Relation to government priorities
This proposed policy is consistent with the
Zero Carbon amendment to the Climate Change Response Act 2019;
Government concern with rising cost of living (especially local transport);
Concern about urban traffic congestion (too many cars, not enough roads);
Evidence showing Class MA EVs have a significant adverse environmental footprint due to the resources required to manufacture their components.
Local Government: Stop using consents as cash cows
This one is complicated by the fact the RMA was recently changed. However, the principles remain the same. User pays is being abused.
Resource Management Act 1991
18A Procedural principles: Every person exercising powers and performing functions under this Act must take all practicable steps to(a) use timely, efficient, consistent, and cost-effective processes that are proportionate to the functions or powers being performed or exercised;
Section 36AAA Criteria for fixing administrative charges
(1) When fixing charges under section 36, a local authority must have regard to the criteria set out in this section.
(2) The sole purpose of a charge is to recover the reasonable costs incurred by the local authority in respect of the activity to which the charge relates.
(3) A particular person or particular persons should be required to pay a charge only— (a) to the extent that the benefit of the local authority’s actions to which the charge relates is obtained by those persons as distinct from the community of the local authority as a whole;
The RMA has become an important part of funding
In 2022, Herald senior reporter Bernard Orsman wrote a story entitled: $270m budget hole: Aucklanders set for steep rates rises unless big savings found. In it he wrote: Falling revenue from things like resource consents as the economy heads south next year is also adding to the deficit.
If one reads RMA Section 36AAA(2), this is a breach of the law. If the sole purpose of RMA charges is to recover reasonable costs incurred by the local authority in respect of the activity to which the charge relates then falling resource consents should have a neutral impact on the budget.
The only way for an ordinary citizen to learn how actual charges are calculated and charged is to submit an actual consent application and see what happens. The director of a charitable trust focused on affordable housing did this, and the findings were disturbing.
Case Study One: Affordable Elder Housing
On Waiheke Island, the Waiheke Community Housing Trust raised funds to purchase a section to build three affordable elder homes they would lease. The budget saw a 100% budget blowout, due to charges, delays and required consultant reports by the Council. The final straw was a demand for a development contribution. Six months after the project finally opened the trust was forced to sell the property and evict the elderly tenants. Far from enabling the people and communities, Auckland Council disabled them, crushed them, destroyed them.
When Auckland Council was asked to explain how they reconciled their charges to a charitable trust in the context of S36AAA (3) the senior manager for Resource Consenting replied in writing that Auckland Council considers every application to benefit the applicant, even a charitable trust that is intentionally building affordable housing to benefit the community. This raises two questions:
Why would the Parliament in its wisdom include S36AAA(2) if the Council’s position is right?
How does benefit fall to trustees who will not live in the housing?
When the council was asked these questions, they stonewalled.
Case Study Two: Local food and turning waste materials into surplus resources
Having witnessed the Waiheke Housing Charitable Trust debacle, and finding council officers refused to meet with or answer questions in writing as to how the social and environmental challenges could be addressed, the council advised another charitable trust director the only way to engage is to file a resource consent application. Having done so, the outcome was disturbing:
No way to apply for a consent without paying a 4-figure deposit
No controls over how the planners charge against that deposit
The planner charged 333 minutes to reject the application and take it from the deposit
The applicant asked to appeal the charges and was denied in violation of the law
The required appeal report was not written by the council despite numerous requests
It is believed the rejection was in error, but the Council simply stonewalls
It is clear the culture within Council is to “run the meter” in breach of s18(a)
Need for Reform
The proposed Labour reforms of the RMA are not reforms at all, but instead are ways to increase parasitical costs in property development. Real changes would include:
S36AAA(2) enforced. Councils must show charges are fiscally neutral, not funding overhead
S36AAA(3) enforced. No charges to community-benefit initiatives such as housing trusts
S36AAA(3) enforced. No charges for a rejected application (does not benefit the applicant)
S18A(a) enforced. Council must demonstrate efficient and cost-effective charges
Overhaul: A major overhaul of the culture of council planning is necessary. Central government should make it clear consents are not to be a new source of revenue. Further, if the laws need to be untangled to make applications user-friendly (not needing a private planner), enact them. For example, ban negative components where the applicant is required to cite every rule. overlay and national policy and then state it either does not apply or the effects are de minimis. Simple applications should be able to be written by a reasonably literate, non-professional applicant, and the planners instructed to not reject for lack of jargon. If the application misses a point, the planner should have the latitude to add the point and make the approval conditional on the amendment.
Rebalance: The purpose of the RMA is to enable people and communities to provide for their social, economic and cultural well being, health and safety while protecting and preserving the environment. Rebalance the Act by drafting clear instructions to council that:
Enable people and communities, not officers and private planning consultants and experts
Make economic well-being equal to environment in assessment
Same for social and cultural well-being
Define environment in a way that includes human habit
Do not use applicant fees to fund studies (such as required applicant-paid surveys on lizards
For every net immigrant family require (using UDA) one new house to be constructed
Boost the role of the Urban Development Act in doing major development using skunkworks*
Beauty: Finally, add beauty and love-of-place to the purpose of the RMA. NZ is a young country with a transient outlook. As countries mature, people build towns and villages, workplaces and homes not only to keep them warm and dry, but to enable them, and their future generations to enjoy a good life. This is why old Europe is so beautiful and American-style suburbs are so banal.
* Skunkworks is where a large and unwieldy institution like Kainga Ora sets up a small, highly focused team – in this case, using company-law – assigned to accomplish a single outcome – in this case to build new towns. Do not use private developers because their pecuniary interest is not, and will never be, aligned with the public interest. Do not use the civil service because public servants are risk aversive, wasting time, money and burning out good ideas.
Solutions:
Some were individuals making one tiny home on wheels at a time. Others were factories turning out dozens per month. Because they were mobile, they were not captured by the perfect storm that made buildings unaffordable. They were small, inexpensive and provided warm, dry, safe and durable adequate housing for people whose alternative was hidden homelessness (living in cars, tents, sheds, garages and overcrowded conditions). Until, reportedly in a cabinet meeting, the elected officials agreed they did not want American style trailer home parks in NZ, which trickled down to MBIE, MFE and MSD as a declaration of war on mobile homes (factory made) and tiny homes on wheels (DIY made).
