Regulatory Standards Bill: Group of prominent Kiwis – including former Prime Minister – issue open letter against David Seymour legislation
The authors – including Dame Anne Salmond, Sir Geoffrey Palmer and Professor Jane Kelsey
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
9 hours ago
- Scoop
NZ Will Soon Have No Real Interisland Rail-ferry Link – Why Are We So Bad At Infrastructure Planning?
Another week, another Cook Strait ferry breakdown. As the winter maintenance season approaches and the Aratere prepares for its final months of service, New Zealand faces a self-imposed crisis. The government has spent NZ$507.3 million on cancelled iReX ferry plans, the country's fleet has an average age of 28 years, and the earliest New Zealanders can hope for promised replacements is 2029. The Marlborough Chamber of Commerce warns unreliable ferries already shake tourist confidence. Several more years of duct-tape solutions won't help. The recent pattern of breakdowns and cancellations has become so routine that New Zealand risks normalising what should be viewed as a national crisis: a serious infrastructure failure. It is also a textbook example of how short-term political cycles, coupled with chronic under-investment, create far more expensive problems than the ones they promise to solve. Cost blowouts While ministers claim to have spared taxpayers a $4 billion blowout on new ferries, Treasury papers show almost 80% of the cost escalation lay in seismic upgrades for wharves, not in the vessels themselves. Those land-side works will be required no matter what ferries the country eventually orders. Justifying the original contract cancellation, Finance Minister Nicola Willis quipped that iReX was a Ferrari when a Toyota Corolla would do. But the cost of finding a suitable Corolla is adding up fast. Annual maintenance costs are projected to nearly double to $65 million, just to keep the existing ageing ferries running. Additionally, $300 million had to be earmarked to cover fees for breaking the original ferry replacement contract. By retiring the Aratere this year – New Zealand's only rail-capable ferry – the government is also severing the interisland rail link for almost five years. KiwiRail will 'road-bridge' rail freight, an expensive workaround that involves loading train cars onto trucks, putting those trucks on ferries, then reversing the process at the other end. This will increase truck traffic, produce more emissions and add more wear to already strained infrastructure. Forcing more than $14 billion worth of annual freight from rail to road could also negatively affect New Zealand's climate change commitments. Freight moved by rail generates only about 25% of the CO per tonne-kilometre of the same load produced when hauled by truck. The cancelled hybrid ferries would have also cut emissions by 40%. Instead, New Zealand is locking in higher emissions for another half decade or longer. Unrealistic timelines The ferry saga reflects New Zealand's infrastructure problem in a nutshell. The country tends to underestimate costs, create unfeasible timelines, then shows dismay when projects blow up or limp home at double the price. Auckland exemplifies the pattern. The city has seen decades of cancelled harbour crossing proposals and a scrapped light rail project, with nothing to show but consultancy fees. When New Zealand does build –Transmission Gully, for example – the final bill bears little resemblance to initial quotes. The 27 kilometre motorway north of Wellington was nearly 50% over budget and took eight years to build – two years longer than promised. The systematic underestimation of costs reflects a flawed approach to infrastructure planning. Politicians need quick wins within three-year electoral cycles, while infrastructure projects take decades to deliver. Projects are approved based on lowball estimates, with the outcome inherited by another administration. This has crossed party lines and created a system that rewards short-term thinking and punishes long-term planning. Just consider the second crossing for Auckland Harbour. For 35 years, the government has commissioned study after study – from the 1988 tunnel plans to the 2010 business cases – each time backing away when the price tag appeared, or the government changed. The iReX cancellation marks the first time the government has actually signed contracts and then walked away. As with the second Auckland Harbour crossing, each delay has only made the inevitable solution more expensive. Other countries have, to a degree, addressed this problem. Infrastructure Australia, for example, provides independent cost assessments and long-term planning that transcends political cycles. New Zealand's Infrastructure Commission, established in 2019, lacks similar teeth and independence. Ultimately this isn't really about ferries. It's about how New Zealand consistently fails to deliver, on time and at cost, the infrastructure that keeps its economy moving.
Scoop
13 hours ago
- Scoop
LGNZ Urges More People To Run For Council
Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) is calling for more people to put their hands up to stand in this year's local elections in October. Nominations opened yesterday, with prospective candidates required to submit their nomination before the cutoff date of 12 noon on 1 August. To help potential candidates make this decision, LGNZ has produced a handy 2025 candidate's guide. LGNZ also offers a comprehensive range of pre-elected learning materials via its online learning platform, Ākona. LGNZ Chief Executive Susan Freeman-Greene says a hallmark of healthy democracy is when people are willing to represent their community around the council table. 'This year we'll have 1465 seats available across 66 councils, including 66 Mayoral seats and 683 community board seats. There will also be 127 seats up for election across the 11 regional councils,' says Susan Freeman-Greene. 'At the last local election, we had 3119 people standing across 1607 seats across the country; a ratio of almost two people for every seat. Seven mayors were elected unopposed into their roles in the last election, while 40% of members elected for the first time. 'Obviously we'd like to have more candidates standing, as evidence tells us that the more candidates who are contesting a seat, the higher the voter turnout will be. And ultimately, we want more New Zealanders heading to the polls to have their say; the 42% voter turnout at the 2022 local elections was not good enough.' Susan Freeman-Greene says that elected members can come from all walks of life. 'Being an elected member is an important and public role. There's no question it's a demanding job but it's also very rewarding. Every day councils make important decisions that impact future generations – from infrastructure investment like roads, bridges and pipes, to climate resilience.'
Otago Daily Times
a day ago
- Otago Daily Times
Exploring diligently throughout Question Time
When I get back from leave, I am going to have to find out if the HR department is in cahoots with the government. The two occasions I took a break last year coincided with one of Prime Minister Christopher Luxon's two visits to Dunedin, and the other with Health Minister Simeon Brown's trip to town. So naturally as soon as I headed out the door last week Mr Brown was back in Dunedin again for another hospital announcement — one slightly more palatable than the last one. I still have some way to go to beat my much-respected former boss Audrey Young: her holidays had such a spooky habit of coinciding with party leaders being rolled that it came to be known as "the curse of Audrey" — but it's still a little frustrating. So having missed all the fun, let's go back in time to Parliament's last sitting week, and Wednesday's Question Time, which may have set a record. Of the 12 questions, a quarter were asked by southern MPs ... although maybe only a third of those elicited anything which might have been of any interest to their constituents. First up was Act New Zealand Southland list MP Todd Stephenson, who got to ask the acting Prime Minister — who, coincidentally, just happened to be his party leader David Seymour — the hardy perennial of whether he stood by all his government's statements and actions? Spoiler alert: yes, he did ... particularly the NZ Infrastructure Commission's freshly announced National Infrastructure Plan. Mr Stephenson followed up by asking about access to new medicines — which the man who is also an associate health minister with responsibility for drug-buying agency Pharmac was more than happy to talk about — and then GPs (ditto). It was going so well, but Mr Stephenson then incurred the Speaker's wrath by asking his leader to comment on comments made once upon a time by the little-remembered Labour MP Charles Chauvel about the Regulatory Standards Bill. "No, that's not something you [Mr Seymour] can make any comment on whatsoever. So sit down and have another go at the question," the Speaker harumphed. Fair play to Mr Stephenson; he found a cunning way around the Speaker's edict by asking if the acting PM agreed with any statements that he had recently seen in relation to the Regulatory Standards Bill. "Well, I do, as a matter of fact," Mr Seymour replied with glee, before embarking on the sort of answer which makes Gerry Brownlee turn puce. Q10, from National Waitaki MP Miles Anderson, was much more benign, as he asked Agriculture Minister Todd McClay about the government's plan to ban full farm-to-forestry conversions — as covered in last week's Southern Say. No alarms and no surprises here, as Mr McClay gave a suitably apocalyptic answer to Mr Anderson's question: "What is the impact on rural communities of whole farm-to-forest conversions?" Q11, from Labour Taieri MP Ingrid Leary to Associate Housing Minister Tama Potaka on proposed changes to the Retirement Villages Act, was when things got really interesting. She wanted to know if the draft legislation would include "provisions for repayments but not mandate them". This is a topic close to Ms Leary's heart (she has a member's Bill in the ballot on just this subject), not to mention thousands of retirement village residents and their families affected by the issue. Most villages operate under an occupation rights (ORA) agreement system, whereby residents buy the right to live in what might well be their final home, but not ownership of it. That sum is then held until the ORA ends. An ORA does not come cheap — in the realm of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Which is high, true, but which may also be fair enough in some circumstances: villages are expensive to build and costly to run. But an ORA comes with associated bonds and fees, and gruesome tales abound of residents, or their families, being obliged to pay fees after moving to a higher-care unit or dying. Also problematic is the process of getting out of an ORA. The village will usually claim a portion of the ORA as an "exit fee" and then resell the ORA. However, that right may well have accumulated a considerable capital gain in the intervening period — something that the former ORA owner cannot benefit from. Many, and Ms Leary is one, think this effectively means villages are enjoying an interest-free loan from their residents — albeit that they receive a secure and comfortable lifestyle and residence for their golden years. Consumer has been running a campaign for years on the issue of what it sees as unfair retirement village contracts; Mosgiel's Brian Peat, president of the Retirement Village Residents' Association, has also been hot on the topic for a number of years. Mr Potaka has bad news for Ms Leary, saying that the Northern Advocate article on which she has based her question had been incorrect Undeterred, she then asked if Mr Potaka would commit now to mandating fair repayment times and terms. "There are a number of matters that we are considering as part of a broader reform of this matter, including dispute resolution protections, and a wide range of consumer protections and various matters, including those that the member referred to, will be considered and are still under active consideration," Mr Potaka replied reassuringly ... but not reassuringly enough for Ms Leary, who pointedly followed up with: "What other sectors are there where people have no control over when someone pays them back their own money?" That was quite a broad and open question, Mr Potaka replied, but he could say that the government was "responsibly reviewing" a wide variety of matters, including consumer protections for elderly folks living in retirement villages. Would that include, perhaps supporting a law change which would require operators to give residents their money back within three months, Ms Leary wondered, knowing full well that such a Bill existed. "If the member is asking me to jump in front of Cabinet and make decisions by way of a question and answer session, I will not be doing that," Mr Potaka said. "What I will be doing is diligently and professionally undertaking my responsibility as associate minister of housing to explore these issues and bring these matters through the policy decisions and, ultimately, to this fine chamber." But whether that exploration makes anyone happy is a question for another day.
