My war with the NZTA: Part One

So let me see if I’ve got this straight: the government’s response to public fury and exasperation at the wasteful, disruptive and mostly useless traffic management racket is to set up a hotline where people can report excessive road cone use? God save us.

I predict this pathetically feeble non-solution, announced this week, will achieve one-fifth of SFA because hardly anyone will bother ringing an 0800 number to dob the traffic management racketeers in.

People will rightly be deeply sceptical about trying to engage by phone with an anonymous and remote bureaucracy, knowing they’re likely to be left hanging on the line for ages before anyone answers – and that their complaint will go nowhere anyway, disappearing into a yawning black hole. People are profoundly distrustful of hotlines, and with good reason.

And perhaps it’s just as well if no one bothers using the service. Given that it’s hard to drive more than 10 km on any state highway without seeing forests of road cones, interminable temporary speed limit signs and traffic management trucks holding up traffic, often for no discernible reason, the line would be clogged 24/7.

More to the point, however, the hotline is a contemptible copout that places the onus on us citizens to deal with the problem of sclerotic, cone-choked roads when the real responsibility lies with the politicians themselves.

They allowed the traffic management monster to run rampant and it’s their responsibility to cut it down to size, starting with a root-and-branch cleanout of the New Zealand Transport Agency from board level down – which would mean defenestrating the chair, former National Party leader Simon Bridges – and the imposition of a new corporate culture that emphasises consideration for road users ahead of do-nothing jobs and profits for the traffic management racketeers.

Prime minister Christopher Luxon and Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Brooke van Velden (whose title gives you a rather large clue to where things started going wrong) both admit that excessive traffic management is a plague upon the land.

“You can drive around this country at different times of the day and you’ve got whole roads shut down, no one is doing any work and the cones are frankly just clogging up the joint,” Luxon said at his post-Cabinet press conference on Monday.

Setting aside the fact that no politician should ever feel the need to use that flatulent and empty word “frankly” in an attempt to sound tough, since we’re entitled to assume they’re always expressing their genuine opinion, we should probably at least be grateful that Luxon has finally cottoned on to an issue that’s been driving New Zealand road users mad with frustration for years.

For her part, Van Velden says the issue of a “sea of cones” was brought up at almost every public meeting she attended on a recent road trip. So why has it taken so long for the government to wake up, and why it has responded with such a timid, half-arsed response?

Instead of faffing around with useless hotlines, the government should be asserting its authority by getting tough on the NZTA. After all, the traffic management racket wouldn’t – couldn’t – exist without the NZTA’s endorsement and approval.

What we’ve got here is a cosy, symbiotic relationship between the NZTA, roading contractors and traffic management companies. Over the past 10 years or so the latter have proliferated like … well, like road cones. This unholy three-way alliance is holding the country hostage and playing us all for suckers.

And what’s the government’s solution? A bloody hotline. Good grief.

I don’t mind admitting this has become personal for me. I do a lot of driving. Over the past three years I’ve covered every region and every provincial city in the country with the exception of Invercargill (the closest I got was Gore). And every time I set out on a road trip I brace myself for the delays and disruptions that I know are inevitable. 

We go along with this costly and unnecessary pantomime because we’re passive, compliant people. That was shown during the Covid pandemic, when we meekly fell into line with authoritarian controls that, in retrospect, are now acknowledged as oppressively over the top (and yes, I admit I was one of the fall-into-liners).

Traffic management depends on that same deference to authority. The NZTA and its traffic management bullies wield the power and we have little choice but to do as they instruct. I mean, what are your options when you’re forced to make a wholly unnecessary one-hour detour (as I did not long ago) or crawl at 30kmh through road works that have been in progress for months and even years and where nothing is happening? You can only fume impotently.

Sure, you could abuse the traffic management people standing around in their hi-vis vests (standing or sitting around being quite literally what they do most of the time, usually staring at their smartphones). But what would that achieve? They’re certainly a big part of the problem, but they didn’t cause it. The fault lies with the NZTA bureaucrats, who are safely insulated from public wrath; and beyond them, with the politicians who allowed the grotesque traffic management racket to flourish in the first place and only now are waking up to the great bloated nuisance it has become.

Oh, but I forget; the politicians have taken bold and decisive action: they’ve set up a hot line to report excessive use of road cones. Problem solved, then.

Looking for some facts to substantiate my jaundiced view of the hi-vis highwaymen, I recently asked the NZTA to provide me with figures showing the proportion of the national roading budget devoted to traffic management. I had seen speculative estimates ranging as high as 40 percent, which struck even me as unlikely.

Extraordinarily, it turns out that the NZTA has not historically separated out traffic management costs from its overall expenditure. This in itself suggests slack budgetary management and a remarkable lack of concern about how public funds are spent.

I would have thought that the cost of traffic management was the type of significant information NZTA board members would expect to have at their fingertips. That they apparently didn’t think to routinely request it every year doesn’t inspire confidence in their competence.

The NZTA told me, however, that it had recently undertaken a project – as if the thought had only just occurred to it – that sampled its contracts, and from this it was able to calculate average TTM (temporary traffic management) costs. These indicated that TTM over the past three years accounted for between 9 and 9.5 percent of total spending on road maintenance, operations and capital contracts. 

At first glance, that may not sound outrageous. But when you look at it in dollar terms, a different impression takes shape. 

In the years 2021-24, NZTA spent $786 million on traffic management. $786 million! That was out of total state highway costs of $8.4 billion. In 2023-24, the cost of TTM was put at $317 million (assuming the NZTA got its calculations right).

It goes without saying that $786 million buys a helluva lot of road cones, high-vis vests and expensive trucks and utes and with their ostentatious flashing lights. This may explain why so many of the trucks and utes appear to be new. 

It’s also clear from the NZTA response to my inquiry that there’s no systematic collection of reliable information relating to the cost of traffic management. That’s how I interpret the NZTA’s statement that “We have collected TTM actual and physical works costs from suppliers for a sample of contracts where costs were recorded and accurate, and we have calculated TTM costs percentages accordingly.”

Here’s an obvious question: if the NZTA doesn’t have complete and accurate records showing what TTM is costing, as that statement suggests, how can it know whether it’s getting its money’s worth?

You might think that a switched-on board of directors would want to know whether the money was effectively spent. Has any work been done on costs versus benefits? Does the NZTA have any idea how many lives have been saved or serious injuries avoided by its road-cone control freakery?

If any research has been done, let’s see it. If it hasn’t been done, why not?

Has anyone bothered to weigh the supposed safety benefits of the traffic management racket against the incalculable delay, frustration and inconvenience caused to road users? And I don’t just mean hapless private motorists like me.

Infuriating though it is to have my travel constantly disrupted, the far more serious impact is on commercial traffic. God alone knows the cumulative economic cost of holdups in the supply chain caused by trucks and tankers sitting idle for long periods at temporary red lights, forced to make detours or made to drive at ridiculous speeds through long sections of road works where nothing is happening.

The counter argument, of course, is that roads are part of our essential infrastructure and must be kept in good condition. That requires maintenance work. People understand that and will accept a reasonable amount of inconvenience. But it bears repeating over and over again that the contagion of traffic management New Zealand-style is a new phenomenon.

For decades our highways were built and maintained, often in very challenging places, without the need for heavy-handed traffic management, forests of road cones and lots of bullying trucks with flashing lights. We did it then. What makes it impossible now?

Part Two to come ...

Part 

Why shouldn't ACT have a go? The Left's been at it for decades

David Seymour’s announcement that ACT may stand candidates in council elections triggered a discussion on Nick Mills’ talkback show on Newstalk ZB this morning about whether political parties should get involved in local government. But that mischievous genie escaped from the bottle a very long time ago.

The Labour Party has long regarded local politics as fertile ground, both at district and regional levels, and always fields a slate of Wellington City Council candidates with the party’s formidable organisational resources behind them.

Frank Kitts, Wellington’s longest-serving mayor (1956-74), was elected on the Labour ticket; so were Jim Belich and Fran Wilde. Four of the current councillors owe their loyalty to Labour, though only one (Teri O’Neill) acknowledges her allegiance in her profile on the council’s website.

Wellington Regional Council chair Daran Ponter is a Labour man too, as is Lower Hutt mayor Campbell Barry. So Labour is a powerful force in local government, though it largely flies under the radar in terms of public visibility.

Then there are the Greens. Wellington got its first Green councillor, Stephen Rainbow, way back in 1989. Rainbow has moved a long way politically since then, shifting to the libertarian right to the extent that the current government felt comfortable appointing him as chief human rights commissioner, but there has been a more-or-less constant Green Party presence at the Wellington council table in the past few decades – to say nothing of two disastrous Green mayors, Celia Wade-Brown and Tory Whanau (who is Green in all but official designation).

So what about the other side? For decades Wellington had the conservative Citizens’ and Ratepayers’ Association, which was widely viewed as a National Party proxy. Its main purpose was to keep Labour out of power, in which role it was often successful. Sir Michael Fowler was a popular Citizens’ mayor (1974-83) and the Citizens’ Association often commanded a majority around the council table. But Ian Lawrence (1983-86) was the last Citizens’ mayor and the Citizens’ Association now seems defunct, not having stood a candidate since 1997. National itself has never stood candidates in council elections.

So now ACT is thinking about having a go – and why not? We should brace ourselves for howls of outrage, but ACT would only be doing what the Left has done (and very effectively) for decades.

Polkinghorne unchastened

In the New Zealand Herald this morning, Steve Braunias reports on the opening of the inquest into the death of Pauline Hanna, wife of Auckland ophthalmologist Philip Polkinghorne.

The circumstances of her undignified death are well known, having been exhaustively reported when Polkinghorne went on trial last year for her murder. He was acquitted, but the law still requires that an inquest be held.

Braunias reports that before yesterday’s hearing, Polkinghorne “teased” the officer in charge of the murder investigation. “Oh,” he said. “I thought you’d be working at Countdown,” he told Detective Sergeant Chris Allen – the clear implication being that he didn’t deserve to keep his job as a cop.

We don’t know whether it was said with a smile or with malice, but either way it will probably confirm the impression the country had formed of Polkinghorne during the trial – namely, that he’s an arrogant prick with a massive sense of entitlement.

Most men in Polkinghorne’s situation, having had their appalling behaviour exposed during a sensational trial that generated headlines for weeks, would have felt chastened. They would have been relieved at the not guilty verdict, gratefully taken it as a win and left matters to rest rather than rake over the coals.

But not this raging egotist, apparently. He has scores to settle.

A lamentation for hard news photos and the people who took them

My wife’s not exactly an avid sports fan, but she was moved to remark on a brilliant Associated Press photo on the back page of today’s Wairarapa Times-Age. It shows New Zealand cricketer Kyle Jamieson flat on his back, staring goggle-eyed as the ball rolls away from him moments after he’s missed a crucial catch in the final of the 2025 Champions Trophy against India. The expression on his face registers shock, dismay and disbelief.

My wife commented that it was a terrific photo and I agreed. It suddenly occurred to me, looking at it, that the only really striking photos we see in the print media these days are of sport. The hard news picture, as it’s known in the trade, is almost a relic of the past.

The defining events of our time – the 1951 waterfront dispute, the Wahine disaster, the 1981 Springbok tour protests, to name just three – were captured forever on film by great photographers.

I had the honour and privilege of knowing some of them – people like Barry Durrant and John Selkirk at the Dominion, Phil Reid and Ian Mackley at the Evening Post. There are countless others I could mention.

They were hungry and competitive. They lived for big stories and would go to great lengths to get the right shot from the right angle at the right moment. The best of them had an almost uncanny ability to anticipate situations before they happened and strategically position themselves.

A famous example was the picture taken by Barry Durrant of the moment in 1968 when a blast of explosives blew away the last wall of rock in the underground tailrace connecting Lake Manapouri and Deep Cove – part of the Manapouri power project.

A party of dignitaries had assembled for the occasion but Durrant didn’t go for the obvious picture of cabinet minister Ralph Hanan pushing down the plunger to set off the explosion. Instead he turned his camera on the observers, hoping to capture the expressions on their faces.

He got more than that. The tunnellers had over-estimated the amount of explosives needed to do the job and the massive blast blew the safety helmets off the heads of the official party. Durrant was one of half a dozen photographers present but he was the only who got the shot of the shock wave blowing the VIPs’ hard hats off.

As news editor of the Dom in the 1980s, I could be confident that each day would produce at least one standout picture for the front page. There was fierce competition among the photographers (we had five or six) for the prestige of a front-page byline.

Now the old-school news photographer is an almost extinct species, like so many other casualties from the golden age of print (in fact almost literally extinct, since newspapers now use the pompous term “visual journalist”).

Reporters are expected to take their own pictures. Some do their best, but it’s not the same.

There are still a handful of skilled and dedicated news photographers around, but they are pitifully few. Our major newspapers are largely dependent on static or stock shots to illustrate their stories. You can go days, even weeks, without seeing an authentic hard news photo. Ones that make you mutter "wow", such as this morning's sports pic, are even rarer.

What happened? Some of the best photographers were “let go”, to use a ghastly euphemism, during the serial industry retrenchments that accompanied the shock of the digital revolution. I know of one who ended up working as a postie; another who bought a motel. They were a huge loss, one that accelerated the gradual and painful decline of newspapers.

 

A tip for Luxon: ignore your media coaches

Commenting on Christopher Luxon’s inability to express himself clearly and honestly, Stuff columnist Janet Wilson, a former National Party communications adviser, opined recently that the prime minister errs by concentrating on “talking points” – “learning by rote to a point where he is nothing but a talking robot” – and struggling to “meaningfully engage in conversation”.

But who’s at fault here? I suspect the reason politicians like Luxon get into trouble is that they rely far too much on media coaches. They are schooled to stick to pre-determined “talking points” which quickly become clichés and jargon that voters see straight through.

Luxon is hardly the first politician to fall into this trap. And though she’s harsh in her criticism of him, I believe people like Wilson (who runs her own media training firm) are part of the problem.

Communications advisers are a relatively recent phenomenon that has contaminated the political process by getting in between politicians and the public and blurring their message. They are obsessively risk-averse and wield altogether too much influence. Some politicians, and I suspect Luxon is one, become far too dependent on them and afraid to trust their own judgment and instincts (assuming they have any).

Previous generations of politicians didn’t have this problem; they spoke directly, said what they thought and were generally respected for it, even if people didn’t agree. Their message wasn’t filtered through layers of obfuscatory flim-flam.

Some politicians still operate that way. Winston Peters is an example and so is David Seymour. Chris Hipkins too gives the impression that he gives genuine and spontaneous responses to questions, though he’s politically far more astute than Luxon and much more nimble.

Of course there remains the possibility that the reason Luxon sounds shallow, unconvincing and unsure of himself is that he’s shallow, unconvincing and unsure of himself. Even so, he could hardly do any worse if he ignored whatever media advice he’s getting.

When principle sinks in a swamp of legalism

In a past life, many years ago, I informally sought advice from a highly respected Wellington lawyer, the late Sandra Moran, over a legal issue that had been weighing on my mind.

It involved what I thought was an important point of principle, and I vividly remember Sandra warning me off by saying, very emphatically: “It costs a lot of money to establish a point of principle.” I didn’t have a lot of money, so I didn’t proceed.

At the time, I was astonished by what Sandra said. Surely principles are at the heart of the law and should be promptly and decisively confirmed by the courts? Of course I was naïve. Judges are generally restricted to applying the law as it’s written. Points of principle may be established in the courts, but often only after years of legal argument.

I was reminded of that this morning while reading NZME court reporter Ric Stevens’ account in the New Zealand Herald of a case that has been dragging on for years and is still far short of resolution.

It’s a case that cries out for justice, but the law keeps getting in the way.

Ida Hawkins’ 16-year-old daughter, Colleen Burrows, was raped and murdered by a gang associate on a Hawke’s Bay riverbank in 1987. One of her killers, Sam Te Hei, served 31 years in prison. A younger co-offender was released in 1998.

After he was paroled, Te Hei succeeded in a claim against the Crown for breaches of his rights while in jail. He was awarded $17,664.

In such circumstances, the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (PVC) Act entitles victims of a crime to claim some or all of the money awarded to the criminal. Ida Hawkins did so and initially succeeded. She went to the Victims’ Special Claims Tribunal and was awarded $15,000 for emotional harm – paltry compensation for the anguish of losing a teenage daughter in appalling circumstances and then being harassed and intimidated by the Mongrel Mob, but at least she would have had the satisfaction of knowing Te Hei had been prevented from profiting out of his murderous act.

You can probably predict what happened next. Te Hei (or more precisely his lawyers) successfully appealed to the High Court on the basis that another piece of legislation – the Deaths by Accidents Compensation Act 1952 – didn’t create a right to damages for emotional harm, and this remedy was not available under the general law either.

Mrs Hawkins then went to the Court of Appeal, where her case was heard in the middle of last year. The court’s decision was released this week – too late for Mrs Hawkins, who died last July. In the meantime another daughter, Tracey Peka, obtained a court order allowing her to continue the legal fight.

Stevens’ story in the Herald describes the 34-page judgment from the Court of Appeal as “largely technical”. The veteran court reporter wrote: “It represented a win for the family in the sense that it upheld their appeal and kept their case alive, even as it found against some of their arguments.

“The court said that Hawkins did not have a claim under the Deaths by Accident Compensation Act for her emotional injury. Nor could she make a wrongful death claim under common law [law developed by the courts rather than decreed by Acts of Parliament], and the PVC Act did not provide a standalone basis for her claim either.

“However, the justices said: ‘We have … concluded that Mrs Hawkins may have a common law claim for her mental injury arising from the circumstances of the rape and death of her daughter Colleen. If she does, it appears that such a claim would be confined to exemplary damages.’ ”

Did the court then determine that Mrs Hawkins (or her family, given that she’s no longer alive) was entitled to Te Hei’s ill-gotten gains, or at least a share of them? Oh no, that’s not how the system works. The court referred the matter back to the Victims’ Special Claims Tribunal which had heard the case in the first place.

The appeal judges said they were sending the case back for reconsideration and suggested the tribunal might seek further evidence and call for written submissions. They noted that the case involved complex legal issues.

So here we are, five years after the decision that gave rise to Mrs Hawkins’ claim, and the case will again get swallowed up by the system. For how long? That’s anyone guess. Common law evolves at a glacial pace and we’re expected to just be patient while Their Honours deliberate.

To use the vernacular, the Court of Appeal judges kicked the can down the street - in fact possibly beyond that into the long grass.

There will be more dry legal argument and more lawyers’ fees. In the meantime Mrs Hawkins has died and I imagine costs will have more than eaten up any compensation she might have been able to look forward to had she lived. Indeed I would imagine that arguments over costs have the potential to keep the case grinding on even longer.

This seems a case of an important principle being lost in a swamp of nitpicking legalism. While judges and lawyers debate arcane points of law, a terrible injustice goes uncorrected.

Most reasonable people would have no difficulty deciding that Mrs Hawkins’ entitlement to compensation for harm and wrongdoing far outweighs that of her daughter’s murderer, but that’s not how the system works.

It should be simple, but it isn’t. Sandra Moran was right.

Marching blindly into the post-journalism era

Herewith, two unrelated (or perhaps not) examples of the insidious bias that pervades the mainstream Western media. Neither is necessarily of any great consequence on its own, but each is telling in its own way.

■ In a 470-word story on the jailing of former US senator Bob Menendez following his conviction on bribery and corruption charges, the BBC could find no room to mention that he was a senior Democrat.

You can be sure that if he was a Republican, i.e. a Trumpist, we would have been told in the first few lines.

The BBC’s story did mention that Menendez’s son was a Democratic congressman, but that was all.

Inadvertent oversight? Hmmm.

We were told that Menendez, who accepted bribes from foreign governments, notably Egypt, was a former chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee – but still no mention of his party.

And if you clicked on a link to the BBC’s earlier story about his conviction last July, you learned that Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer called for Menendez to resign. But even then there was nothing to indicate that Schumer was talking about a member of his own party, and readers could have been excused for assuming Menendez was a Republican. 

The headline read Senator Bob Menendez found guilty in bribery scheme. It’s dollars to donuts that if he was from the other side of the aisle, it would have said: Republican senator found guilty in bribery scheme.

Only towards the bottom of that 687-word story was there any indication that Menendez was a Democrat, and even then it wasn’t explicit.  

There are two possible explanations here. One is that the BBC’s stories were written and edited by journalists so incompetent or amateurish that they didn’t think Menendez’s party affiliation was significant.

The other is that the BBC (which is taxpayer-funded and therefore has a special obligation to be politically neutral) decided the Democratic Party should be spared the embarrassment of being associated with a corrupt senator. Either explanation is unacceptable, but the second is the far more plausible one.

■ An Associated Press report refers to Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta and other technology companies “trying to ingratiate themselves” with the Trump administration.

I’m sure that’s exactly what the loathsome Zuckerberg and other tech titans were doing, but it’s not the function of an AP reporter to tell us. There should be no place in a straight, factual news account for a loaded word such as “ingratiate” unless the reporter is quoting someone. 

A competent reporter, by simply conveying the facts of the story, can leave it to readers to decide for themselves whether Zuckerberg is cravenly sucking up to the White House. Readers are capable of drawing their own conclusions and should be left to do so without being led by the nose. But news stories are now often fatally contaminated by casual, pervasive bias and the intrusion of reporters’ personal judgments.

To allege that someone is trying to ingratiate himself involves such a judgment. Such things used to be the domain of editorial writers and columnists expressing what was clearly identified as opinion. But in 2025, all reporters consider themselves editorialists and the dividing line between "news" and comment has been all but erased.

When I read any “news” story about American politics, my eye goes straight to the bottom to identify the source. If it’s from AP, the Washington Post or the New York Times I know not to assume that it’s balanced and accurate (and by “accurate”, I mean not distorted by the omission of any relevant facts or background information that might not align with the reporter’s perception).

The Washington Post and the New York Times are entitled to spin the news as they think fit and accept the consequences, even if they compromise their credibility in the process. Their subscribers can always opt out if they don’t like what they’re reading. But wire services such as AP operate in a different context.

Because they are usually co-operative enterprises that supply news to media outlets from all points of the political compass, wire services have traditionally been careful to avoid any hint of bias. New Zealand’s own much-lamented NZPA was always rigorous in observing editorial neutrality. But that rule has been jettisoned at AP, whose reporters clearly feel no compunction about feeding the news through an ideological filter. AP political stories come heavily larded with journalists’ own perceptions which are invariably hostile to the political Right.

Stories about Trump, for example, routinely refer to his “lies” and “falsehoods”. These are terms that previous generations of news reporters would never have used unless they were quoting someone. They would have presented the facts and left it to readers to decide for themselves whether the president had a flagrant disregard for the truth (which is clearly the case, but I’m permitted to say that because this is an opinion piece).

The frequent use of the disparaging terms "far right" and "extreme right", to denote all but the mildest and least threatening politicians on the conservative side of the spectrum, is another means by which leftist journalists reveal their ingrained priggishness.

The now-habitual intrusion of personal opinion into “news” coverage isn’t just a breach of traditional journalism rules. On a purely pragmatic level it’s crazy because it accelerates public distrust of an already failing media industry.

It appears not to have registered with American journalists that Trump won the presidency despite overwhelming media opposition. The message was clear: the US mainstream media have rendered themselves largely irrelevant.

When journalists have fallen so clearly out of step with the public mood, they need to re-evaluate themselves. But there’s no sign of that happening, and so journalism blindly continues its determined and suicidal march into the post-journalism era.