King Charles decommissions royal train after 156 years of service
King Charles III has accepted it's time to decommission the train, whose history dates back to Queen Victoria, because it costs too much to operate and would have needed a significant upgrade for more advanced rail systems, Buckingham Palace said on Tuesday.
"In moving forwards we must not be bound by the past," said James Chalmers, the palace official in charge of the king's financial affairs. "Just as so many parts of the royal household's work have modernised and adapted to reflect the world of today, so too the time has come to bid the fondest of farewells, as we seek to be disciplined and forward-looking in our allocation of funding."
The train, actually a suite of nine railcars that could be hitched to commercial locomotives, would be decommissioned sometime before the current maintenance contract expired in 2027. That would bring to an end a tradition that dates back to 1869, when Queen Victoria commissioned a pair of special coaches to accommodate her travels.
The decision was announced during the palace's annual briefing for reporters on the royal finances.
ADVERTISEMENT
The royal family would for the fourth consecutive year receive public funding of £86.3 million (NZ$194.4 million), including £34.5 million (NZ$77.7 million) to fund the remodelling of Buckingham Palace, in the 12 months through March 2026.
This money came from a mechanism known as the Sovereign Grant, which set aside 12% of the net income from the Crown Estate to fund the official duties of the king and other members of the royal family.
The Crown Estate was a portfolio of properties owned by the monarch during his reign. The properties were professionally managed and the king could not dispose of the assets.
The Crown Estate ias one of the many relics of Britain's feudal past. King George III, who ruled during the American Revolution, surrendered management of the crown lands to Parliament in 1760 in return for a fixed payment from the Treasury.
The royal finances remained a topic of public debate, with Charles pledging to slim down the monarchy and cut costs as he sought to ensure the institution's survival.
Buckingham Palace was quick to point out that while the Sovereign Grant has been unchanged for the past four years, inflation has eroded its value. If the grant had increased in line with inflation, it would have been about 106 million pounds this year, the palace said.
The basic grant was supplemented with £21.5 million (NZ$48.4 million) of income generated by properties outside the Crown Estate. This income increased by £1.7 million (NZ$3.8 million), driven by a record year for visitors to Buckingham Palace and special tours of the newly renovated East Wing.
ADVERTISEMENT
Craig Prescott, a constitutional law expert at Royal Holloway, University of London who focused on the political role of the monarchy, said funding for the royals was relatively small when compared to the overall cost of the British state and it provides tangible benefits for the country.
"It's something that puts Britain on the world stage in a way that few other things do," he said, noting that Queen Elizabeth II's funeral was the largest gathering of world leaders in history and the coronation was broadcast around the world. "It's one of those things that people think about when they think about Britain."
Over the past year, Charles travelled to Australia and attended the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Samoa — his first as the organisation's head. The royals also took centre stage at the 80th anniversaries of D-Day and V-E Day, which marked the end of World War II in Europe, and welcomed the leaders of Japan and Qatar as they made state visits to the UK.
Overall, the royals made 1900 public appearances in the UK and overseas. Some 93,000 guests attended 828 events at the royal palaces.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Spinoff
2 hours ago
- The Spinoff
David Seymour's hypocrisy over drugs and poverty
The state should spend more on pharmaceuticals like Wegovy because of the benefits to society as a whole, says the deputy prime minister. So why does he refuse to apply the same logic to other forms of spending? On Tuesday, as the weight-loss drug Wegovy finally became available on prescription, Act leader David Seymour renewed his call for more to be done in just about the only area of government spending he likes: pharmaceuticals. We must, he argued, consider the 'whole of society' benefits from this spending, because without such analysis the state will – in his view – always underinvest. Which would be fine, were it not for the colossal hypocrisy of his opposition to such analysis elsewhere. Let us rewind briefly. In an interview with RNZ's Guyon Espiner last year, Seymour argued that, when it comes to pharmaceuticals, governments could save money by spending money. Not only was a new drug good for the individual, 'but it would probably increase their ability to work and pay tax, reduce the need for [welfare] benefits, reduce their admission to hospital and save money in a bunch of other ways'. Unless government did that 'whole of society costing', future spending on pharmaceuticals would be 'pretty tapped out'. This is not an unreasonable argument. The problem is Seymour's refusal to apply it to other forms of spending – notably, those that might tackle child poverty. In a press release last September, Seymour dismissed Treasury analysis that reaching our child poverty reduction goals – to halve hardship, in crude terms, by 2028 – would take around $3 billion a year. The last government had increased welfare spending by more than that amount yet child poverty was 'virtually static', he argued. Seymour's analysis is flat-out wrong: official data showed very clearly that the big welfare spending increases, notably the 2018 Families Package, led to a noticeable drop in child poverty and the number of kids going hungry. The only real problem was that, when the pandemic hit, Labour didn't continue down the same path and do more to cushion the impact on the poorest New Zealanders. More than that, though, Seymour's argument ignores the fact that a genuine 'whole of society' approach would commit a government to spending vast sums tackling child poverty. Early-years hardship, after all, shows up in later-life damage: children born into poverty typically have worse school results, and lower employment rates and earnings, creating a drag on economic productivity more broadly. They're more likely to be on benefits, they experience twice the rate of heart disease of richer kids, and they require higher spending on health, housing support and criminal justice. Economists have produced various estimates of the total cost this imposes on society. The Poverty by Design conference last year heard that researchers had put the cost at 1-2% of GDP in Britain, 3.8-4.5% of GDP in Canada and as high as 5% of GDP in America. In New Zealand, the estimates – from roughly a decade ago – were around 3% of GDP (Infometrics in 2011), upwards of 3.5% of GDP (Analytica Auckland in 2010), 2.8-3.7% of GDP (the Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty in 2012), and 3.8-4.6% of GDP (the Child Poverty Action Group in 2011). Child poverty has, admittedly, fallen since then, so the lower estimates are probably the most accurate. But even today, hardship in New Zealand is roughly the same as the European average, and a 2022 OECD study of 24 European countries suggested the cost of child poverty was typically around 3.4% of GDP. Applied to the New Zealand economy, which was worth $415 billion last year, that figure implies child poverty costs us about $14 billion annually. If we take seriously this 'whole of society' approach – to use Seymour's words – we could justify spending a genuinely enormous amount of money to slash child poverty rates. Even just the increased tax take – generated from healthier and more productive workers – would cancel out the cost to government in the long run, quite apart from the wider benefits. The only possible counter-objection is that even if tackling child poverty is so important, direct government spending is not the way to do it. But the evidence says otherwise. Although we can't rely solely on the state putting more money in families' bank accounts, it is an extremely effective form of action. Decades of evidence show that when you lift family incomes, parents generally spend it on things that benefit their children. And the results are impressive. Just US$1,000 extra a year in family income, for instance, closes up one-quarter of the achievement gap between poorer and richer kids. In long-term US research, state payments made to families decades ago show up in adults' better health and higher earnings. The government recoups so much tax from those more productive adults that the payments quite literally pay for themselves. Of course an anti-poverty strategy can't rely on welfare alone. Where possible, people should be supported to earn more through paid work. But even that, the evidence shows, requires greater investment in vocational education, mental health services and other welfare-to-work supports. (We also shouldn't forget that four in 10 poor children have a parent in full-time work; as it stands a job is not a guaranteed route out of hardship.) But when people don't have the option of paid work – when disability rules it out, child-raising has to come first, or individuals just need help getting their life back together – then they will need higher welfare payments to support themselves and their children in dignity, and to avoid all the damage that poverty can inflict. Not that Seymour, of course, finds such arguments persuasive. Whereas he cannot blame cancer patients for their situation, he can blame poor parents for theirs, and this harsh moral judgment overrides the investment case. As do political pressures: in his interview with Espiner, Seymour notes that his Epsom constituents regularly complain to him about pharmaceutical underfunding. And those constituents are, of course, some of the richest in the country. Taking a 'whole of society' approach to funding cancer drugs is very much on their radar. Doing the same for child poverty? Not so much.
Otago Daily Times
3 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Parliament must be final arbiter on Treaty
We are witnessing a tussle between the courts and Parliament as to who is in charge. Likewise we are seeing a struggle to establish whether Parliament is sovereign and whether we are all equal before the law. The Treaty Principles Bill was the first cab off the rank to address these issues. That has been relegated to history. Now we have before Parliament the Regulatory Standards Bill which is likely to become law. These two Bills have much in common. They have both been described by those who don't like them as likely to destroy all we hold dear in New Zealand. They both speak of principles and how they should be applied. They both speak to the idea that all in New Zealand should be treated equally by our laws. They also both attempt to put into legislation clarity about what the government intends, which reduces the opportunity and duty of the courts to interpret what was meant. The Regulatory Standards Bill comes with an explanatory note which describes its aim as to reduce the amount of poor and unnecessary regulation by increasing transparency and clarity about where legislation does not meet particular standards. It is also intended to bring the same discipline to regulatory management that we have for fiscal management. Whether it will achieve these things is arguable. However, some of the criticisms are not entirely fair. This Bill is criticised for not protecting public health, the environment or Māori rights. It would be a big ask indeed if this Bill, or indeed any Bill, were to attempt to provide such protections. It has been criticised for treating property rights as above social good in various areas. We have for many years had rules about how the government can legally take over people's property and when, and how proper compensation works. This Bill does not change that situation. The underlying role of the Regulatory Standards Bill is to give guidance as to what good legislation looks like, using principles which are for the most part unexceptional. The Bill does not stop the government of the day passing ill-thought-out, bad or otherwise not best practice legislation. It merely obliges reports which allow the public to understand that it is, or may be, poor legislation. Why this Bill causes concern to some is partly founded on the idea that the principles these reports would be based on include that all people should treated equally. This concerns those who consider the Treaty to require different laws for different New Zealanders. The other major concern is that providing clarity around whether the legislation is good legislation highlights the effect of producing legislation which is fluffy and unclear. This provides a gap which allows the courts to interpret legislation in whatever way they choose. For some, the idea of the courts determining what the law should be is preferable to parliament deciding. Both of these concerns are gathered together in criticism of this Bill being against the Treaty principles, which concerned people do not seem to want clarified by legislation. To confuse matters further, there has been a hold on the Treaty settlement between the Crown and Ngapuhi, on the basis that the Crown is not prepared to do a deal which contains the idea that Ngapuhi does not accept parliament as sovereign. How it makes sense to for either party to accept that one party does not have the power to commit to the settlement is confusing at best. The High Court has decided (in a case against the Marlborough District Council) that councils are not treaty partners from a legal standpoint: they are only obliged to follow the requirements of the Local Government Act. The councillors around the Dunedin City Council table have attempted to add value by telling the government what laws it should pass and why local bylaws should not be subject to being flagged if they are not objectively robust and well thought out. This is all unhelpful when the general basis of our laws in New Zealand is the government makes laws, courts make decisions about how to apply the laws, and if Parliament does not like the interpretation it clarifies what it meant by passing new laws. Sooner or later we have to get to a position where Parliament is the final arbiter on what the Treaty obliges government and local government to do. It would also be helpful if we accept that we are all entitled to be told if Parliament is proposing unclear and otherwise poor laws. Parliament has turned down the opportunity in the Treaty Principles Bill of having a referendum on how we all think the principles in the Treaty should be interpreted. But we still need to engage with the issue of who does decide, whether it be Māori, Parliament or the courts. Whatever we decide will be a change from the current arrangement where the courts are left to decide about issues around our Treaty privileges, obligations and duties. Leaving it to the courts to decide by Parliament making laws that are unclear is not the best answer. We do not all have access to the court systems, with or without state sponsored funding. We all do have a vote. • Hilary Calvert is a former Otago regional councillor, MP and Dunedin city councillor.
Otago Daily Times
3 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Opinion: regressive Super step
The debate over raising the New Zealand Superannuation (NZ Super) age has sparked widespread concern and for good reason. While proponents argue it's necessary for fiscal sustainability, evidence shows such a move would be deeply unfair and regressive, disproportionately harming vulnerable communities. This concern has been expressed to me by constituents in South Dunedin, Green Island and in Mosgiel, where a large portion of the population includes retirees and workers from physically demanding industries. Raising the superannuation age would have a particularly harsh impact. Economist Craig Renney highlights the human cost behind the numbers. Raising the super age to 67 would mainly benefit wealthier, predominantly Pākehā New Zealanders, who hold the largest KiwiSaver balances and accumulated wealth. In contrast, Māori, Pasifika, and those in physically demanding, lower-paid jobs — with fewer savings— would suffer the most. The disparity is stark: a Pākehā male might lose about 15% of expected superannuation, but a Māori male, facing shorter life expectancy, could lose 25%. This is not just a financial issue but one of equity and social justice, as raising the retirement age would worsen inequalities by penalising those who have worked hardest and lived shortest. Much of the talk about NZ Super's "unaffordability" is overstated. Treasury data shows we currently spend about 4.4% of GDP on superannuation, much less than countries like Germany (10%), France (13.4%), or the OECD average (7.7%). Even with an ageing population, projections suggest only a modest increase of about 1% of GDP by 2050. This indicates no fiscal crisis demanding drastic cuts or raising the super age. Instead, it reflects a manageable cost aligned with the commitment to dignified retirements for all New Zealanders. NZ Super is more than a payment; it's a social insurance policy preserving dignity and choice for seniors. While means-testing might seem appealing, it introduces inefficiencies and administrative burdens, especially as seniors' needs grow more complex. Universal superannuation effectively addresses rising pensioner poverty, soaring housing costs and the reality that many seniors rent or struggle with energy bills. Targeted support risks missing those in need or arriving too late. Te Pāti Māori's call to lower the super age for Māori reflects real disparities in life expectancy and work conditions. Although Labour opposes different super ages by ethnicity, raising the age would disproportionately harm Māori and Pasifika communities. Acknowledging these disparities is essential to crafting policies that reduce inequality. Raising NZ Super's age is a regressive policy that would deepen inequality and hurt the most vulnerable. As a society, we must decide whether to support seniors who have contributed throughout their lives or penalise them for circumstances beyond their control. This debate must ensure NZ Super remains a cornerstone of social justice.
