Toyota brings its commercial range to Fieldays 2025
The spotlight this year is on commercial vehicles and accessories. Toyota says it is celebrating the trusted workhorses that Kiwis use on the job.
Visitors will get to view the likes of the Hilux Hybrid, Land Cruiser 70 and 300, Prado, Hiace, and RAV4.
Andrew Davis, Chief Strategic Officer at Toyota New Zealand said: 'We have a vehicle for everyone. Fieldays is the perfect place to showcase the capability, durability and reliability that Toyota is known for.
'Our commercial line-up is built for the real world, to support the Kiwis who are out there getting the job done.
'We welcome people to come and visit us at site 40 on I road, 11-14 June at Mystery Creek, to find the right vehicle for them.
'Whether you're in farming, forestry, trades, or just love a rugged, reliable ride, Toyota's Fieldays site is the one to visit.
'With vehicles built to work, to last, and backed by Toyota's legendary quality, durability and reliability, there's something for everyone.'
Toyota's Fieldays site also features a comprehensive range of accessories. The team is keeping a few surprises under wraps for the event. However, accessories remain a big part of the Fieldays experience, and Toyota says it has plenty in store.
Toyota's newest Brand Guardian is also attending Fieldays for the first time. Richie McCaw has partnered with Toyota, strengthening its opportunity to connect with New Zealanders in the community. It is engaging at a grassroots level and solidifying its position as the brand with which to partner. Toyota has also recently announced a partnership with New Zealand Rugby.
It welcomes other Brand Guardians as well. These include Willie Apiata, VC, Dame Valerie Adams, Matt Watson, Emma Twigg, Paddy Gower, and David Liti.
Joinging them is the crew from The Weekend Mish. Toyota is giving visitors the chance to meet sporting legends, television personalities, everyday heroes and storytellers who represent the heart of the Toyota brand.
Former Black Fern, Kendra Cocksedge, will also join the team on Thursday, while former All Black and local hero, Stephen Donald, will be at the stand on Friday.
Toyota is making it even easier to drive away in a new workhorse. Buy any new Hilux or select Land Cruiser 70 series model and choose between either $2500 worth of accessories or 3.5 per cent finance.
This Fieldays offer is available now through to 31 August 2025.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
9 hours ago
- NZ Herald
British and Irish Lions tour highlights Australia's rugby revenue advantage over NZ
The past six weeks or so have been one giant commercial flex by Australia, illustrating, through projection, the enormous difficulties New Zealand Rugby (NZR) faces commercialising the full potential of the All Blacks – the world's best-known rugby brand – in a country of just five million people. Beauden Barrett prepares for a shot at goal against the Lions in 2017. Photo / Photosport But the numbers tell a story that is much deeper than population discrepancy, and Australia monetised the Lions tour more effectively than New Zealand ever could, not just because it has almost six times as many people. It has diversified its economy in a way agriculture- and tourism-reliant New Zealand hasn't, and with a growing financial services and manufacturing base, Australia has significantly higher volumes of wealthy types to enable higher ticket pricing. Australia sold 50% more tickets in 2025 than New Zealand managed in 2017, but it made 300% more profit – illustrating that it clearly took a significantly higher yield. Some of this will be because Australia's greater corporate horsepower means it can ramp up hospitality prices, knowing the Mossman set – the high financiers, hedge fund managers, property magnates – have the means and desire to pay, whereas in New Zealand, packages are tailored so they remain affordable to the small and medium enterprises that dominate the business landscape. Australia is looking to attract the investment banking community, New Zealand is targeting the local car dealership. And the Australians had an enormous infrastructure advantage – playing games in stadiums (Perth, Adelaide, Sydney) – that have all either been built or majorly renovated in the past 10 years. The highest individual attendance was 90,000 at the MCG, the lowest 23,000 in Canberra – with the average coming in at nearly 51,000. It has been raining cash in Australia because it has supportive state governments that have seen the value in building stadiums and then spending again to attract major events. This isn't a populist move to appease sports fans to win votes, it's a basic acceptance that the hospitality industry needs all the help it can get and that hotel beds need people sleeping in them. Meanwhile, in New Zealand, the All Blacks are held hostage by political indecision, a seemingly crippling fear within sitting Governments to invest in infrastructure and a general Presbyterian strain of pettiness within the populace that sees the building of modern stadiums and the subsequent pursuit of attracting big events as some kind of moral failing and pathway to irretrievably frivolous lifestyles. The Lions will come here in 2029 and NZR is unlikely to make a significantly larger profit than it did in 2017. The only real difference will be that in 2029, the tour will have access to a new and larger (9,000 more seats than the existing temporary facility) stadium in Christchurch – but that's not going to shift the dial, and unlike Australia, it is an unimaginable prospect that either the national Government or local authorities are going to start throwing cash around to try to attract fixtures. This difference in attitude between New Zealand and Australia around government investment in events was further illustrated this week when Christchurch was announced as the host city of Super Rugby Pacific's Super Round next year. Te Kaha stadium in Christchurch, pictured when it was under construction in August 2024. The Government contributed nothing – apparently reneging on a circa $1m commitment at the last minute. Whereas the Western Australian government has coughed up $5m to bring the Bledisloe Cup to Perth in October. All this makes it at least understandable why NZR is increasingly looking to take the All Blacks offshore to lift its match-day revenue. Last year, NZR made $32m in match-day revenue – but an estimated $5m of that came from playing a test at Twickenham against England, and another estimated $4m-$6m from playing tests in both Tokyo and San Diego. The five domestic tests – two at Eden Park, two in Wellington and one in Dunedin – likely generated between $21m-$23m, a figure that compares with the estimated $22m that is generated by the Rugby Football Union from hosting a single test at Twickenham. New Zealand is punitively small and poorly equipped when set against the commercial ambition of the All Blacks and if fixture allocation was viewed exclusively through a financial lens, the national team would play most of its home tests in Australia, the UK, Japan and the USA. But of course, the view can't be narrowed to that extent, and a raft of considerations come into the mix about where the national team should play, and because of that, the All Blacks may be a significantly more recognisable brand and a superior high-performance outfit to the Wallabies, but they not in the same league when it comes to making match-day money. Gregor Paul is one of New Zealand's most respected rugby writers and columnists. He has won multiple awards for journalism and written several books about sport.
Scoop
15 hours ago
- Scoop
Family Home In Labour's Tax Crosshairs
Press Release – New Zealand National Party Labour crashed the economy, has opposed every measure to get it growing, and has no economic plan except imposing higher taxes on homes, businesses, and savings. Kiwis deserve to know why and how Labour would do this. Labour's refusal to rule out taxing the family home is a frightening prospect for ordinary Kiwis, says National MP Chris Bishop. 'As Kiwis continue to deal with the cost-of-living consequences of Labour's high tax, high spend record, it defies belief that its leader can't rule out piling more costs on Kiwis with a tax on their family home. 'Earlier this month, a former Labour Party advisor publicly confirmed the party had agreed to progress a Capital Gains Tax so it's unclear why Chris Hipkins can't bring himself to explain even the most basic detail. 'Similar to last week when Hipkins had to be corrected by Megan Woods on the party's position on oil and gas, and last month when Kieran McAnulty corrected Hipkins' position on public-private partnerships, it could be that he just doesn't know. Or he might just have to wait for permission from Labour's Policy Council and the Greens. 'Labour crashed the economy, has opposed every measure to get it growing, and has no economic plan except imposing higher taxes on homes, businesses, and savings. Kiwis deserve to know why and how Labour would do this.'
Otago Daily Times
a day ago
- Otago Daily Times
Will axing petrol tax be a game-changer?
Scrapping petrol tax may, or many not, be transformative, Angela Curl and Caroline Shaw write. The way we get around is unfair, and unhealthy. Some people travel a lot, creating disproportionate harms on people and the planet, such as pollution, injury risk and physical inactivity. Others cannot afford to travel enough, missing out on things that are important, such as catching up with loved ones or healthcare appointments, or end up having to forego expenditure on other important things, such as food. Replacing fuel excise duty (or petrol tax) with electronic road user charges for all vehicles — as announced by Transport Minister Chris Bishop last week — offers an opportunity to transform the way we fund and pay for our transport system in a way that works for people and the planet by reflecting the true costs imposed when we use the roads. Bishop said "it isn't fair to have Kiwis who drive less and can't afford a fuel-efficient car paying more than people who can afford one and drive more often." On the whole, we agree. We know that those households with the lowest income drive far less (about 100km a week less) but also have to spend a much greater proportion of their income on getting around (16% of income compared with 9% for higher-income households). Those on lower incomes are also far less likely to be able to afford an electric vehicle with cheaper running costs, instead paying the relatively more expensive petrol tax. However, Bishop's proposal represents a narrow view of the harms, or wider costs, of driving to society. It is largely based on the assumption all vehicles should contribute "fairly" (based on weight and distance travelled) towards road maintenance, operations and improvements. But a pricing structure that also accounts for the costs to our health system of injuries, pollution and physical inactivity caused by the transport system, might also include differential charging for different types of vehicles. For example, we know that SUVs cause more severe injuries to those outside of the vehicle, and while EVs reduce tailpipe emissions, they still contribute to congestion and injury risk. The proposal does suggest that weight, as well as distance travelled, will be factored into pricing; however, it should also consider the damage that heavier and larger vehicles do to people and the environment. A change in the way we are charged for using the roads offers a real opportunity to design a progressive charge that alleviates costs pressures for those already struggling to pay for the driving they need to do, while reducing levels of driving overall. One way to achieve this would be through increasing the rate per km, above a certain amount of kilometres driven. Given the costs involved in running and operating the scheme, and that this needs to be revenue-generating for government, it seems unlikely there will be a reduction in the cost of travel in real terms for everyone. However, if the government is committed to fairness, it needs to ensure costs do not escalate for those who can least afford it and who have few alternatives. The proposed changes to road user charges are most likely to be successful and acceptable if they are accompanied by investment in public transport, walking and cycling and alongside strategic urban planning that supports local access to the things we all need such as shops, schools and sports grounds. The most straightforward way to ensure that charging for using the roads does not force people into situations where they have to forego other essentials is to ensure that it is easy and safe to get around in other ways, or that we do not need to travel as much. For both fairness and health and wellbeing we need to continue to improve travel options other than driving. Bishop presented this as a new way to fund our roads, but we should be taking a more holistic view — this is an opportunity to think about how we fund our transport system. Using revenue raised to reduce the need to drive can make charging for driving more acceptable. Bishop said: "This is a once-in-a-generation change. It's the right thing to do, it's the fair thing to do, and it will future-proof how we fund our roads for decades to come." This policy has the potential to be truly transformative and be part of creating a transport system (not just roads) that is fairer, and healthier for everyone. It can be done. The question is, will it? — Newsroom • Dr Angela Curl is a senior lecturer in the University of Otago department of population health, Christchurch; Caroline Shaw is a lecturer and researcher in the department of public health, University of Otago, Wellington.
