Still No Ferries As First Of Old Fleet Retire
Nicola Willis botched the original ferry deal, failed to secure a new deal and then ran away from the mess she made,' Labour transport spokesperson Tangi Utikere said.
Two old and ageing ferries are going to have to work double time because of this Government's failure to get a ferry deal.
'Nicola Willis botched the original ferry deal, failed to secure a new deal and then ran away from the mess she made,' Labour transport spokesperson Tangi Utikere said.
'Winston Peters now has to watch the current rail-enabled ferry retire four years before he's promising replacements. He hasn't even secured a new contract, we are no clearer on cost, but he's claiming replacements will arrive in 2029. How can New Zealanders trust that without any details?
'I feel for the workers set to lose their jobs because of this Government's ferry failures, but job losses seem to be run-of-the-mill under this Coalition.
'Labour's ferries would have arrived next year. In time to replace the ageing fleet so taxpayer's money wasn't being spent on ongoing maintenance of the old fleet and job losses would've been avoided.
'Winston Peters claiming he doesn't want to pay to maintain use of the rail-enabled Aratere, when he's getting two decades-old ferries to do double the work is ridiculous.
'At this rate we'll have no ferries left before he even signs a contract for new ones. Who will retire first, the current fleet of Cook Strait ferries, or Winston Peters?' Tangi Utikere said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
an hour ago
- NZ Herald
Letters: Voting should be made easier, not more difficult
Vivien Fergusson, Mt Eden. Seymour's style David Seymour may not physically resemble Donald Trump, but his insulting, dismissive attitude towards those unlikely to support his party is strikingly Trumpian. Last month Seymour personally attacked eminent scholars who opposed his Regulatory Standards Bill, labelling them individually as 'victim of the day'. This week he calls New Zealanders who do not enrol to vote well before election day 'dropkicks'. The Act Party is the tail that wags this dog of a coalition and Seymour's divisive methods threaten our democracy in the same way as Trump's behaviour has brought the United States democracy into disrepute. Andrea Dawe, Sandringham. Food safety If Food Safety Minister Andrew Hoggard signs off on proposal P1055 by food authority FSANZ to redefine gene edited foods as 'Non-GMO', it will be a betrayal of consumers' basic right to know what we are eating. The minister says that removing tracing and labelling of GE food will make food cheaper, but the promise rings hollow. New Zealanders are paying record prices for butter because other countries are willing to pay more for quality products. How does taking away labelling of GE food and the right to choose change that? Jon Carapiet, Sandringham. Price of butter If 'Nicky no butter' sounds more annoying than 'Nicky no boats', Nicola Willis enigmatically reminded us she wasn't an expert on pricing at Fonterra but ... the price of butter is expected to fall. Really, how would she know? Funnily enough I thought her only expertise was in English literature not financial stuff. If 80% of the price is global pricing and 15% is GST then how can the 5% be even significant from retailers like supermarkets? More like a dropkick's chance of landing in a cow pat in 'footy' terms. Willis is an 'expert' at disguising the truth. Let's be honest it's her forte - not playing footy. The Nats are proud of how fast they've satiated the farming lobby shopping list of requests. Nine of 12 ticked off in half a term. Hasn't she done well. They're not going to put downward pressure on the local butter price any time soon. How idiotic you think they are claiming they would actually bring down the cost of living? Buttering up farmers is in a Nat's nature. Butter literally lubricates the electoral process. All you 'dropkicks' that don't vote know that. Steve Russell, Hillcrest. The real cost of food The angst over the increased food prices exposes the social expectation – something akin to a divine right – that food must be cheap. In New Zealand there is an unreasonable argument that because we have a strong agricultural sector then, somehow, we deserve cheap – even subsidised – food. In one of his last papers, renowned geographer, the late Professor Tony Allan (of King's College, London) persuasively argued that the price of food does not cover the true cost of food production. All political ideologies, Allan says, 'have imposed a system in which farmers deliver food at well below its real cost'. As a result, the price of food fails to cover costs incurred by the environment and public health. These costs, in economic speak, are 'externalised' outside the food price and are ultimately paid by the taxpayer. When we demand 'cheap food', we are selfishly saying that it's okay for the real cost of food to be borne elsewhere. Whether that is borne by farmers not being able to cover their input costs or tolerating environmental degradation or having poorer public health due to an inadequate diet. Don't be fooled; cheap food is a misnomer. We all pay the real cost of food – one way or another. Dr Murray Boardman, Dunedin. Passport changes I read with interest the decision to list English first on New Zealand passports, ahead of te reo Māori. This seems like a return to common sense. Wasn't it established some time ago that English should take precedence on official documents and government department signage to reduce confusion and ensure clarity for the majority? While te reo Māori is an important part of our heritage and deserves recognition, it is simply not widely understood — either within New Zealand or overseas. There is certainly room for Māori language to be included, but not as the primary language on key documents like passports, which are used internationally. English has long served as the clear, functional language for nearly all New Zealanders and for global communication. Unfortunately, some of the recent language and policy changes seem to complicate matters rather than make everyday life easier. It's worth asking: what is actually being achieved by introducing such confusion into areas where clarity is essential? Alan Walker, St Heliers. Vape regulations I cannot believe that a Government with the power to pass laws without due process has thrown themselves prostrate before the might of the vape industry and dropped the 2023 vaping regulations. This retraction as the 'best way to resolve the legal case' taken by Mason Corporation against them smells rotten. Casey Costello used the argument that the regulations were based on limited evidence to justify their withdrawal. I would have thought regularly sucking something into your lungs that is not meant to be there is sufficient, until evidence can be supplied to confirm or not the safety of these devices. Alan Johnson, Papatoetoe. Climate reparations The historic statement by the International Court of Justice that countries are obliged by international law to tackle climate change, and warning that failing to do so could open the door for reparations, will result in joy for all those who have been spending their lives protesting unsuccessfully for action. It will also see fear for governments and corporations who have been deliberately misleading us about the biggest issue of our time. Does this mean that protesters will not have to wave their placards to get action on climate issues, probably not, but they will be able to threaten court action as well and climate criminals will be well advised to listen. However, it's unlikely that they will be held accountable as countries have not ceded sovereignty to any UN agency's which means we are relying on moral pressure, and that may not work. The invasion of Ukraine was a shock to Western nations and illustrated the need to reform the UN Security Council and the first step is to remove the power of veto. NZ could take a leadership role in this as we are vulnerable in all areas, perhaps we could offer to cede some sovereignty to the United Nations if they provide protection from all large countries, who will not be named. Dennis Worley, Birkenhead. Why Putin? Why would one want to make a film about Putin with a list of war crimes as long as your arm and the murder of his critics along the way? It is bound to bring every sadistic man and his dog out of the woodwork and would be better off - much as the case of Adolf Hitler - best forgotten, and for that reason is bound to be a flop. If the powers to be that make movies were serious about making money which they clearly aren't, why not a film about the life of Donald Trump which would be a guaranteed box office sell out. Gary Hollis, Mellons Bay. A quick word The court ruling found that nations have a legal responsibility to aggressively reduce their emissions, and that failing to do so would open the way for impacted nations to seek reparations. It specifically lists the production, use, exploration and subsidies of fossil fuels— both current and historic. Our continued, bipartisan failure to address our responsibility to our neighbours and our grandchildren now will have financial implications. We must act immediately to meet our Nationally Determined Commitment (NDC) to limit temperatures to less than 1.5C above preindustrial levels. Ian Swney, Morrinsville. Wellington councils are considering forming another Super City like Auckland. Can't they see from Auckland's experience it doesn't work and just turns into a huge unwieldy monster that chews up ratepayers' money for no results. Then it splits itself into subdivisions like Auckland Transport (AT), Watercare etc who run their own little fiefdoms and answer to no one and embark on their own pet projects. Don't say you weren't warned. Jock MacVicar, Hauraki. We are told that the proposed changes to voter registration will speed up the result of the election. Please remind me how long it took for the 2023 coalition agreement. Gregory Cave, NZ
Otago Daily Times
2 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Peters challenged on tobacco links
Public health researchers at the University of Otago have called on the prime minister to show some leadership and remove the tobacco and vaping portfolio from New Zealand First, following allegations the party has been colluding with tobacco giant Philip Morris. Documents from a Radio NZ investigation show Philip Morris provided NZ First with a draft piece of regulation which the deputy prime minister at the time, Winston Peters, supported. They show NZ First assured Philip Morris they would "put that draft into the policy mix". Mr Peters said the documents referenced were more than six years old, and the attempt to attack NZ First was "old, stale, repetitive, and utterly baseless". The allegation comes after NZ First list MP and Associate Health Minister Casey Costello led the repeal of the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Act 2022. It effectively scrapped laws aimed at slashing tobacco retailers, removing 95% of the nicotine from cigarettes, and creating a smokefree generation by banning sales to those born after 2009. University of Otago Aspire Aotearoa Research Centre co-director and public health researcher Prof Janet Hoek said the fact the documents were six years old was "neither here nor there", because NZ First had repeatedly denied having any connections with the tobacco industry. The revelation raised questions about how easily companies were able to access politicians, and the kind of lobbying that went on behind closed doors. "The challenge that he [Mr Peters] has to address is that there have been allegations that he's been dealing with tobacco companies and using their documents to inform policy. "None of his statements, none of his rebuttals, address that concern. "What we need is some transparency — some actual evidence showing that these allegations that have been put forth in the documents don't stand, and that's not what he's been able to provide. "I think he really needs to be held to account here." She said Mr Peters' instinctive response was "attack is the best defence". "I think there's actually a real question about integrity of the political process here, and what people want to feel is that politicians are acting in the best interest of the country, not the best interest of the tobacco company." Prof Hoek said the "discrepancy" was further decreasing trust in the government, and called on Prime Minister Christopher Luxon to assert some leadership and removed the tobacco and vaping portfolio from NZ First, and entrust it to a politician without alleged links to tobacco giants. "We know that tobacco companies operate in the shadows by lobbying politicians. "What these documents reveal are claims that tobacco companies are not just lobbying, they are writing policy. "The New Zealand public will be disgusted to learn that is how the party that should be promoting public health is allegedly behaving." Fellow Aspire co-director Prof Richard Edwards said the repeal of New Zealand's world-leading smokefree legislation prompted a huge outcry from communities affected by smoking, health organisations, health professionals and public health experts. "The repeal raised questions about influence of the tobacco industry. "Subsequent industry-friendly policies like tax cuts for heated tobacco products only increased those concerns, and the recent revelations of close links between NZ First and Philip Morris suggest these concerns were well-founded." He called for the urgent reintroduction of the repealed measures, which were very likely to rapidly reduce the enormous harm from smoking, and protect future generations from smoking. Asked to respond to the accusations, a spokesman for Mr Peters pointed to a social media post online. In it, Mr Peters said the documents referenced were more than six years old, and the "attempt to attack NZ First is old, stale, repetitive, and utterly baseless". He said multiple government departments had themselves proactively reached out to "big tobacco" for direct feedback and advice on tobacco legislation. He accused Radio NZ of being "clearly lefty biased", and their "bottom-of-the-barrel attack reporting" had caused New Zealanders to lose trust in them and switch to other stations. "The smokefree legislation that we implemented is working," he said. "New Zealand First is proud of the smokefree legislation, which is backed by Action for Smokefree 2025 (ASH), that we have implemented and that we are still implementing."
Scoop
15 hours ago
- Scoop
The Value Of Youth MPs Put Under A Question Mark
Every three years young aspiring politicians flock to the Beehive for the Youth Parliament. Their debates are fiery and passionate, but are they ultimately pointless? A former politician says change is needed to the Youth Parliament system if it's to stay relevant. MP-turned political commentator Peter Dunne says the scheme isn't just "a rag-tag collection of young people coming together for a couple of days to play at being MPs", but if the event is going to be taken seriously, more consistency is required around its processes. That's not the case at the moment, in everything from how the teens are selected to the quality of the mentorship they're getting. The tri-annual event usually passes under the media radar, but this year's event was overshadowed by what a handful of Youth MPs said was censorship of their speeches. Dunne says he could understand the intention behind the message from the Ministry of Youth Development, which asked some students to remove parts of their speeches where they lacked political neutrality, but the issue could have been handled better. In the end, none of the students were stopped from making their speeches, even if they didn't make the changes. Youth Parliament has been held every three years for the past three decades and is described by the government as, "a unique opportunity for young New Zealanders to learn first-hand about our democracy, influence government decision-making, and have their voices heard". In many ways it's like the real thing, with MPs selecting teens to represent them for a couple of days in Parliament where they debate, give speeches and discuss fictional legislation. Dunne says often the young adults outshine the older MPs. "The contrast has usually been between the impeccable behaviour of the youth MPs and the somewhat unruly behaviour of their adult counterparts," he says. The first Youth Parliament was held in 1995 and initially was just a couple of days. Now the programme has expanded, running from April to August and Dunne questions how much teens take out of those extra two months and 29 days. "And more importantly, what weight is attached to that? They've got no formal status in the community, so what role can they play?" he asks. Dunne says much of what the young aspiring politicians learn and do is dependent on the MP they are mentored by. "In some cases they won't do very much, in some cases the MP will work actively with them and assign them a particular project," Dunne says. There also aren't any rules around how MPs select their mentee. Some get applicants to write essays, this year David Seymour held an election, and Dunne says a couple just shoulder tap the kids of a mate. "The time is right to have a proper review into its function and purpose, including the role of the Youth MPs, how they're selected and what are reasonable expectations of them. "Because I think that with a much clearer focus the youth parliament can play a much greater role than it has done to date," Dunne says. Oscar Duffy, representing List MP Melissa Lee became interested in politics last year when his nan was in hospital. "She's a Māori lady and she didn't have the best experience ... so that was a pretty key driver in me being interested in what's going on. "Obviously there's so much tension between Māori and the Crown ... and that affects my family really directly," he says. Duffy agrees that the degree of mentorship varies. He spent substantial time working on projects in his community and in Lee's Mount Albert office but says others didn't have the same experience. "[Ministers] have no time right? Ministers are so busy, I roomed with Simeon Brown's Youth MP and he didn't really see Simeon a lot, if at all," he says. Duffy sees youth parliament as an opportunity for those interested in politics to get an insight into the system. He says everyone attending this year had a keen interest in advocacy and change-making, but he admits that at times some see their role as more important than it is. "There's just a lot of politically charged people in one room. "Putting them all in the same room is great and it gets everyone talking to each other and firing off really good initiatives ... but yeah I guess some of them do think they are a bit more important than they are which is a shame because they probably should be more important and have more of a say," he says. But if he could change one thing Duffy would raise the age bracket because he thinks 16 is too young. "Even just move it up one year, 17-19, so there's more first year uni students who have been through high school, who have seen the whole system," he says. Check out how to listen to and follow The Detail here.
