Budget 2025 decisions 'strange and unnecessary'
Labour leader Chris Hipkins has trashed the government's priorities in the Budget, and said his party will work toward restoring pay equity (file photo).
Photo:
RNZ / Samuel Rillstone
Labour's leader has used his second speech in a series of regional conferences to attack the government's budget as a series of "strange and unnecessary decisions".
Addressing party faithful in Wellington on Saturday afternoon, Chris Hipkins said some of those decisions included scrapping the Dawn Raids reconciliation programme and axing a key part of the pest eradication programme Predator Free 2050.
As well as "spending $33 million on a boot camps policy that not only failed last time but is failing again right now, ending contracted emergency housing, and scrapping the Māori housing programme and stopping some families getting Best Start, which helps mums with new babies".
Hipkins said the coalition government had also cut funding for RNZ, "while funding the local journalism it railed against at the last campaign".
The changes to pay equity, signalled to save $12.8 billion over four years, were "a disgrace", he added, saying his party would not stop fighting until pay equity is restored. However he said it was too early to put a figure on how much it would cost to reverse that move, saying a lot could change in two years.
On Friday Labour's finance spokesperson told RNZ the party would find the nearly $13 billion needed to reverse the law change, but Hipkins hedged more cautiously in his latest statements.
"The government still haven't released the breakdown yet of how that $13b figure was even arrived at," he said, "so what we've said is that we'll reverse the changes, and we'll find the money to do that. But we're not in a position to write a budget that wouldn't take effect till two years from now, right today."
Labour's plans included rolling out new policies in the second half of the year, Hipkins said, but he was staying tight-lipped on the details:
"We'll be focused on jobs, health and homes, so there'll be more policies in those areas, and I've also said that we will be releasing our tax policy before the end of this year."
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter
curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
17 minutes ago
- RNZ News
KiwiSaver providers hope public support for contribution increases will see default rates move higher
Financial Services Council chief executive Kirk Hope. Photo: RNZ/ Dan Cook KiwiSaver providers are hoping public support for increased contribution rates could provide the incentive to push them still higher. The latest RNZ-Reid Research poll included questions about the changes to the KiwiSaver scheme announced in the Budget. From 1 April next year, the default contribution rate for employers and employees will rise to 3.5 percent. The following April, it will be 4 percent. But the government will halve the credit it offers to people who contribute at least $1042 a year to their KiwiSaver, to a maximum $260.72. It will not be available to people earning more than $180,000. The poll showed a total of 61.2 percent of respondents supported the contribution change, 21.4 percent opposed it and 17.4 percent were not sure. Among National voters, almost 80 percent supported the change. But only 23.7 percent of total voters supported the move to halve the contribution rate, and fewer than half of National supporters. Fisher Funds chief investment officer Ashley Gardyne said he was not surprised by the findings. He said we should not stop at 4 percent plus 4 percent, and should push towards higher contribution rates. "I think it's really positive we've seen the contribution rates increase, and ultimately if we want people to get to the right amount of savings in retirement those rates do need to move up through time." He said the Australian model, where contribution rates slowly lifted over a number of years, could be one to follow. "They took a really long-term, 10-year approach of increasing contributions by a little bit every year. The reality is it's tough to find extra money in your pay cheque to put into KiwiSaver but it is really important long-term as well to make sure you end up in the right position for retirement. "Having a long-term vision like that is really important." Read more: Australia soon to be second in world for retirement savings as superannuation pool soars Kirk Hope, chief executive of the Financial Services Council, which represents KiwiSaver providers, agreed the results were expected. "We've known for some time that in terms of contributions those will be relatively well received. Obviously it's a bit tougher if the government contribution is being halved or in some cases removed that's not going to be particularly popular, the key thing is the government continues to contribute something." He said there should be a bipartisan agreement about a long-term strategy for retirement income. He said it was also worth discussing other steps the government could take, such as adjusting the tax settings. "Other changes the government might be able to make to the tax system in the future to continue to incentivise particularly savings and even up the playing field between savings and investment and housing. That's some fundamental shifts in the tax system." Ana-Marie Lockyer, chief executive at Pie Funds, said it was good to see that most people supported the contribution increase. "In terms of the halving of the government contributions we need to acknowledge the government faced some hard choices as a result of the tight fiscal environment. But I believe we should be offering more incentives for Kiwis to save for their retirement, not fewer. "Reducing the government contribution is more likely to impact the retirement balances of lower income earners - a group who deserve the same opportunities as everyone else." She said even a reduced contribution of $261 a year could grow to more than $40,000 over a person's working life. "I think what's more important than the dollar amount of the government contribution is the number of Kiwis who don't receive it, either because they're not eligible or they're not contributing enough. "While it's a good thing that the government contributions are now available for 16- and 17-year-olds, I think the government missed a trick by not extending it to the increasing number of over-65s who are still working, whether by choice or necessity. "What's probably more concerning is the thousands of KiwiSavers missing out on the MTC government contribution each year because they're not contributing enough to qualify, leaving millions of dollars on the table. "So the poll is actually a timely reminder for people to ensure they've contributed at least $1043 by 30 June in order to receive the full government contribution of $521 - before it reduces to $261 next year." Finance Minister Nicola Willis says the changes will help Kiwis save more. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii A spokesperson for Finance Minister Nicola Willis said the changes to KiwiSaver were designed to help Kiwis to save more and make the scheme more fiscally sustainable. "For example, an 18-year-old earning the minimum wage of just under $49,000 a year who invests in a balanced fund can expect to have almost $910,000 in KiwiSaver at age 65. Under the old settings it would have been about $732,000. "The results are similar for most other people. The Retirement Commissioner estimates the changes will increase retirement savings for about 80 percent of KiwiSaver members." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Newsroom
25 minutes ago
- Newsroom
Parliament warned of dangerous precedent set by MPs' suspensions
'Vindictive', 'unprecedented', 'disproportionate', 'arbitrary' – some of the words used by opposition MPs to describe the punishment handed down by a majority of Parliament to three Te Pāti Māori MPs. The MPs' Treaty Principles Bill haka was 'utter contempt', 'orchestrated' and 'breaking the rules', Government MPs replied. Among the impassioned speeches and barrage of interjections was a considered warning from Labour Party MP and former Speaker of the House Adrian Rurawhe. In a rare speech to the House, the senior Māori MP urged those from National and Te Pāti Māori to change their positions or risk setting a dangerous precedent that would see parliaments of the future 'without a doubt' reach for extreme penalties to punish opposition MPs. On Thursday, Parliament's debate on the punishments recommended by the Privileges Committee resumed after being postponed during Budget week. Last November, a collection of opposition MPs performed the haka Ka Mate in response to the first reading of the Treaty Principles Bill, while the party vote was being counted. During the haka, four MPs left their seats, and Te Pāti Māori co-leaders Debbie Ngarewa-Packer and Rawiri Waititi, along with MP Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke, advanced towards the Act Party. The behaviour was referred to the Privileges Committee, which considers conduct of MPs and recommends any punishments it deems necessary. Parliament then has to vote on whether or not to accept the recommended punishment. The committee has a tradition of reaching unanimous decisions – an acknowledgement of the influence of the committee, and the importance of reaching consensus on a decision that impacts the democratic process. But that didn't happen in this case. While the Government members – who hold a slim majority – recommended a seven-day suspension for Maipi-Clarke and 21-day suspensions for both Ngarewa-Packer and Waititi, the Labour Party, Green Party and Te Pāti Māori each put forward a differing view. Since then, opposition parties have questioned the rationale behind Government members – which include former deputy prime minister Winston Peters and Attorney-General Judith Collins – recommending this level of punishment (the longest previous suspension was three days). On Thursday, the unprecedented nature of the punishment was again a central feature of the debate, and Rurawhe warned those on the other side of the House about the dangers of using their majority to impose such a penalty on a minority, opposition party. 'It's demonstrably clear to me that it is the Government that is punishing the members today, not the Parliament,' he said, pointing to the lack of consensus. 'That is a dangerous precedent.' The interjections and barrage of retorts from across the House that had been a constant throughout the previous debates stilled as Rurawhe said the Privileges Committee would have a new precedent; a new range of penalties to use against members who erred in the future. 'You can guarantee that. You can also guarantee that governments of the day, in the future, will feel very free to use those penalties to punish their opponents.' The Labour MP warned members opposite him that just because they sat on the government benches today, did not mean they would be there in the future. They too, could face this level of punishment from the parliamentary committee, now the doors had been swung wide open. During Rurawhe's speech, Green MP Steve Abel could be heard yelling 'kangaroo court'. When it was his turn to speak, Abel referred to the suggested punishment as 'not only unprecedented—it is disproportionate, procedurally flawed and democratically dangerous'. Meanwhile, Greens co-leader Marama Davidson said the decision by the committee was a 'blatant power play', which was 'parading in disguise at upholding process'. 'These dangerously precedent-setting, convention-destroying, consensus-ignoring, Tiriti-trampling, racism-whistling, democracy-mocking, narrowly supported recommendations from the Privileges Committee bring this House into more disrepute than any haka ever has.' Throughout the debate, Labour went to pains to differentiate its position from Te Pāti Māori. Those who spoke from Labour – including leader Chris Hipkins, Duncan Webb, Willie Jackson and Rurawhe – acknowledged Te Pāti Māori had knowingly broken the rules they'd signed up to, and agreed they needed to face a punishment that involved suspension for the co-leaders, but decried the process and outcome that followed. As one of the two major centrist parties, Labour MPs called for moderation. 'I think, in order for this to move forward, two parties need to change their position: Te Pāti Māori and the National Party,' Rurawhe said. Meanwhile, Labour's Jackson – someone who was often unyielding and had been kicked out of the House as a result on more than one occasion – called on Te Pāti Māori to compromise and apologise. But Te Pāti Māori pushed back, with Ngarewa-Packer saying her party was not moderate. 'We are not the incremental party; we are the transformational party, because our people are hurting so much and so are our communities. We don't have the luxury of time to do this incrementally. We all came in and said that we would be the unapologetic Māori Party.' Later, Waititi said those in Labour were constrained by being part of a 'majority Pākehā' party, and 'chained' to party politics. Winston Peters talks tā moko and DNA Speeches from most Government MPs were subdued in comparison, with members of Act, National and NZ First calling for respectful debate, respect for the rules and respect for others in the House. Again, the Speaker of the House had ordered for the public gallery to be closed for the debate. Meanwhile, Acting Deputy Prime Minister and NZ First leader Winston Peters used his speech to call Te Pāti Māori MPs 'extremists who act with utter contempt and ignorance of the process that has been accomplished'. When senior National Party ministers cleared the front benches soon after the debate kicked off, Peters moved from his new seat across the House to occupy in the Prime Minister's chair. Christopher Luxon was not in the House on Thursday afternoon – as was his usual practice – and Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour was in the UK to argue the moot 'no one can be illegal on stolen land' at the Oxford Union debate. On at least two occasions Peters alluded to the theory of blood quantum, asking both Tākuta Ferris and Ngarewa-Packer about their DNA: 'What is your DNA? Mr Ferris, what is your DNA, because it ain't by a majority Māori. Stop bull-dusting your people.' At one point, Peters referred to Waititi's tā moko in response to an interjection from the co-leader: 'The one in the cowboy hat who hates colonialism – the one that's shouting down there, with the scribbles on his face; the guy that's got half the South Island hanging around his neck – can't keep quiet for five seconds.' Waititi responded to Peters' comments, explaining his stetson belonged to his grandfather – a member of the C company or 'Ngā Kaupoi' (the Cowboys). 'And the scribbles on my face represent the many of our ancestors that have been the victims of state-sponsored terrorism from this House.' Then Waititi held a noose aloft in the House. The co-leader acknowledged the prop might be confronting, then spoke about the disproportionate and wrongful punishment faced by his ancestors. 'Our tīpuna endured muskets, land wars, the theft of whenua, and being beaten for speaking our reo – a 21-day benching is nothing on their sacrifice.' Rawiri Waititi and Winston Peters went head to head, with the Te Pāti Māori co-leader holding up a noose in the House. Photo: Laura Walters Government MPs said one of the aggravating factors in the haka performed by Te Pāti Māori was what they considered an attempt to intimidate other MPs and their belief that when Ngarewa-Packer pointed to the Act MPs, she was simulating a 'finger gun'. Both Ngarewa-Packer and Waititi said that was a misinterpretation; that the Government was perpetuating a myth of Māori violence. Labour leader Chris Hipkins has previously said he also believed that was what Ngarewa-Packer was doing. 'We haven't created the violence here,' Waititi said. 'We will not be silenced. We will not be assimilated. We will not be subjugated. And we make no apology for being absolutely unapologetically, unfettered, unbridled, Māori human beings.' The co-leaders, along with Maipi-Clarke, spoke to media both before and after the debate, saying they believed this process and the outcomes showed the Privileges Committee was no longer fit for purpose, adding that the Government had abused its power in the committee for political gain. It's not about haka Takuta Ferris was the first to speak on behalf of Te Pāti Māori, and did so in defence of the haka. The mana of taonga, like haka, would never be diminished, he said. 'Not by ignorance or bigotry, nor pettiness or spite; that the enduring heartbeat of our tīpuna, that pulses in the manawataki of every haka their descendants perform, will never be stopped.' But Ferris said the debate was not about haka. 'It is not about a suspension. It's not about the interruption of a vote. It is, at its heart, about the fact that this House continues to ignore Te Tiriti o Waitangi, that this House continues to ignore Māori sovereignty, and that this House continues to ignore all of the constitutional rights that flow forth from those two things,' he said. 'You see, deep down, under layers and layers of intergenerationally refined colonisation and assimilation, this debate is about the eternal struggle for the survival of the Māori people and the survival of those people as Māori.' Like Ferris, others agreed the debate was not about the haka. Act MPs Parmjeet Parmar, Nicole McKee and Karen Chhour said the debate was not about haka, but about respect – respect for other people and respect for the office MPs held, and the duty that came with it. 'When I came to this place and I took the oath, I promised to abide by the rules of this House,' Chhour said. 'I may not agree with all the rules of this House, but I agreed to that when I stood here four-and-a-half years ago and took that oath.' NZ First minister Casey Costello said the debate wasn't about haka, it was about the rules of Parliament, and Te Pāti Māori had knowingly broken those rules. 'Hana Maipi-Clarke is a glorious individual, but she was put forward in this issue … Choices were made in that. This was not a spur-of-the-moment issue. This was an orchestrated attempt, and that could have easily been facilitated within the rules of this House.' It's a bit about tikanga Meanwhile, Labour MP Arena Williams said the debate wasn't about haka, or even disorder, 'it's about that discomfort that happens when Māori protest in a way that the House hasn't learned to accommodate'. Williams said it was a dark day for the Parliament. The world, as well as MPs' families at home, were watching. 'This is not the standard that we hold ourselves to. But let it not be the unravelling either. Let's learn from this. Let's bring tikanga into our practice. Let's do our best to understand it, so that we can represent the people who need us.' The debate on the report took place against the backdrop of a broader discussion around the role of tikanga in Parliament. Te Pāti Māori argued in its written submissions to the Privileges Committee that tikanga needed to be considered when evaluating whether they had broken Standing Orders – the rules of Parliament. 'The haka that we performed in response to the introduction of the Treaty Principles Bill was not only a valid form of debate to this piece of legislative nonsense that sought to do violence to te Tiriti, it was also an action that was totally consistent with Tikanga Māori, the first law of Aotearoa,' Waititi, Ngarewa-Packer and Maipi-Clarke wrote in their joint submission. 'The coalition government laid the challenge to Māori first by taking this abhorrent piece of unconstitutional legislation to the vote. We responded to that challenge and we had a constitutional right to do so in the form of a haka as a taonga protected under Article Two of te Tiriti. The rules of this House, the Standing Orders and even the legislation passed by this house must all bend to the constitutional supremacy of te Tiriti.' MPs from the governing parties have pushed back against this argument, saying that while tikanga does have a role in Parliament, the standing orders don't allow for what Te Pāti Māori did – interrupting a vote. They have said it is the fact of interrupting the vote, not how it was done, that was the problem. Speaker Gerry Brownlee said he expected Parliament's Standing Orders Committee to look at how tikanga is reflected in Parliament, as part of its regular review of the rules. Photo: Marc Daalder 'One of [Te Pāti Māori's] arguments was that tikanga Māori and haka are not matters for the Privileges Committee to consider. On this the Committee agrees with them: it is not there to set or debate the rules of Parliament but rather to uphold the rules as they are, not as people may wish them to be,' committee chair and National Party minister Judith Collins said in her speech on the report before the Budget. 'It is not about the haka. It is not about tikanga. It is not about the Treaty of Waitangi. It is about following the rules of Parliament, that we are all obliged to follow and that we all pledge to follow.' Even Speaker of the House Gerry Brownlee, who called the proposed sanction 'very severe' and 'unprecedented', has grumbled about Te Pāti Māori's tikanga argument. 'It's hard to take seriously deep concerns about disrespect for the Treaty when there is such huge disrespect for the Parliament itself shown in that submission,' he told Newsroom in April. However, Brownlee has also indicated support for reforming Standing Orders to clarify how tikanga Māori, including haka and other actions, can be integrated into Parliament's rules. 'I don't think that any one group inside New Zealand should be insisting that their way of doing things is the most appropriate for all, and that's why, on that basis, it is worth looking at the Standing Orders to see what changes might be necessary to reflect that wider interest in the proceedings of Parliament,' he said. 'On that basis, I think there is some consideration that needs to be given to the way in which an adaptive Westminster system, which is what we have with MMP, and the way in which every Westminster-based parliament is slightly different to reflect more of a particular country's needs and requirements. It's not an unreasonable thing.' But there has been considerable confusion in the halls of Parliament about how, exactly, this reform might occur. Work to consider tikanga began in the Business Committee, which oversees the day-to-day logistics of running Parliament, but it was decided this was not the right venue for the conversation. Newsroom understands some parties expected Brownlee to set up a special group or committee to consider the issue, with many thinking Labour MP and former Speaker Adrian Rurawhe would (or was already) the chair. On Tuesday, however, Rurawhe told Newsroom he hadn't heard anything about the effort from Brownlee himself. 'The last I heard was there was going to be an invitation to go to Standing Orders Committee, but that hasn't happened yet. I think it's at more of an intent stage than actually progress being made. My name's been mentioned quite often, mostly incorrectly,' he said. However, previous attempts to extract information and context from Rurawhe, including on the work he is understood to have begun during his time as Speaker, had been rebuffed. Adrian Rurawhe – a former Speaker and senior Māori MP – has joined a debate he could no longer avoid. Photo: Marc Daalder The Standing Orders Committee oversees Parliament's rules and also reviews the full rule-set each term. It's not clear whether the work would be a standalone item of business or wrapped into the regular standing orders review, which has yet to begin. On Thursday, members of both the Green Party and Te Pāti Māori referred to a specific tikanga committee, while Labour's Jackson recommended Rurawhe be asked to lead the work in that space. However, they did not elaborate on this idea of a standalone group or sub-committee. Brownlee this week declined an interview on the matter, but a spokesperson said 'the work is progressing' and confirmed the intended venue was the Standing Orders Committee. But exactly what the confluence of Standing Orders and tikanga might look like is still up in the air. Moreover, this would be a big piece of work to get right and the clock was ticking with less than 18 months left in the Parliamentary term and a summer break in between. If a review of how tikanga was incorporated or better reflected in Parliament was to be completed this term, all six parties would need to come to the table. Given the tenor of the debate and the vast differences between party ideology, it was hard to see a scenario in which the whole of Parliament was able to agree on a constructive way to amend the laws of Parliament to reflect what the Supreme Court considered to be the first law of the land. The message from Labour's Jackson was that it couldn't, really. 'Te Pāti Māori want to express our culture when the reality is this: this is a tikanga Pākeha place. That's a reality. There ain't no tino rangatiratanga here,' Jackson said last month. Parliament was not the marae, but the challenge was to get Māori culture imbued in Parliament in order for tangata whenua to be accepted as a partner to the Crown. While last month, Jackson described this as a 'challenge' and a 'journey', on Thursday, he appeared resigned to the idea that this would never eventuate. 'The reality is if you want to kōrero Māori you can speak Māori all day and night. You want to sing, if you want to do the haka, you can do all of that. Is it enough? No, it's not enough. But in terms of tikanga Pākehā, I think we have to accept that that's the reality of this place.' Another vehicle for change In lieu of a committee, made up of senior MPs from all parties, hashing out a different modern-day version of a Westminster system that more authentically reflected tikanga, Parliament's youngest MP was working on another possible avenue. Last month – the day the Privileges Committee debate was supposed to take place – Maipi-Clarke submitted a member's bill to the ballot, which would include Te Tiriti o Waitangi in the Constitution Act, mandate that all MPs undertake training in respect to te Tiriti o Waitangi, and that Parliament develop and maintain a te ao Māori strategy. Speaking in the House on Thursday, Maipi-Clarke's described herself as 'a quiet person by nature'. She acknowledged that she had been largely absent from the debate on this issue since she initiated the haka last November. 'I came into this House to give voice to the voiceless,' she said – her voice catching with emotion. 'Is that the issue here? Is that the real intimidation here? Are our voices too loud for this House? Is that the reason why we are being silenced? Are our voices shaking the core foundation of this House, the House we had no voice in building?' Maipi-Clarke said it wasn't a 'left or right issue'. 'This is about getting the foundations right first, to move forward as a country.' Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke initiated a haka last November that set this six-month process in train. Photo: Sam Sachdeva On Thursday evening the 22-year-old MP picked up her packed bags and left the Parliamentary precinct alongside her co-leaders, MP Takutai Tarsh Kemp and party staffers and supporters. But before that, she said that until te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations were understood and entrenched Parliament would continue having this debate. The process has lasted more than six months, from when the haka was performed in November to when the members were referred to the Privileges Committee in December, through the hearing and deliberation process to when the report was released in May and then to the final debate and vote in June. In the final 45 minutes of the debate in Parliament, party members moved around the House with MPs and party whips from governing and opposition parties hunching beside seats, talking in hushed tones. If the debate had not concluded on Thursday, it would have resumed at the end of June. All parties decided they wanted to draw a line under this and move on. In the end, the governing parties voted to accept the committee's recommendations, without compromise.
RNZ News
32 minutes ago
- RNZ News
New Plymouth council to undertake safety audit of new cycleway
Devon Intermediate School principal Jenny Gellen says the cycleway is an accident waiting to happen. Photo: RNZ/ Robin Martin A safety audit has been ordered for a controversial cycleway that has divided opinions in New Plymouth, with a view to identify improvements that can be made to the design. Contractors began installing 4 kilometres of concrete separators for the dedicated cycleway earlier this year and most have been in place since April. The $3.8 million NZTA Transport Choices project along Devon Street West and South Road was developed in conjunction with the New Plymouth District council and fully funded through the Transport Agency. New Plymouth mayor Neil Holdom said the cycleway was always going to be controversial, with submissions on the project being split 50/50 for and against. "Once construction has been completed our team will undertake a safety review to assess the new layout, feedback from road users and the views of residents living along the route. "I have asked our team to report back following that process to provide council with any options available to improve the design." Since the beginning of the installation of the concrete separators, which have been nicknamed Tim Tams due to their resemblance to the popular biscuits, there has been a flood of complaints. Residents and businesses have griped about lost car parks, motorists have hit the raised separators damaging tyres and wheel rims, and others have said they couldn't pull over to allow emergency services through because of them. NZTA director of regional relationships Linda Stewart said it was important to note the new cycleway was not yet complete. "We are not aware of any significant safety concerns with the cycleway construction at this stage. "Once it is complete any new roadway layout then has a 'transition' period where it is monitored, and adjustments or fine-tuning is carried out. Equally, road users also take a period of adjustment to new road layouts including cycleways, signalised intersections etc." Stewart said NZTA had worked closely with NPDC on the design and construction phase of the project and would continue to do so in the post-construction phase." North Taranaki Cycling Advocates member Elric Aublant says the concrete separators remind vehicles to stay in their lane. Photo: RNZ/ Robin Martin Devon Intermediate School principal Jenny Gellen, whose school was meant to benefit from the cycleway, said the concrete separators were too many in number and too large. "You'd actually have to be driving a quite high-set car, anything that's lower to the ground you're going to take out the bottom of your motor and I don't know what's going to happen to your tyres." The principal had even more serious concerns about the layout of a new pedestrian crossing at Belt Road, a short distance from Devon Intermediate, which was mainly used by West End primary school pupils. It now featured two car parks on the road side of the cycleway separator. "So, students can be standing on the pedestrian crossing with cars parked out in front of it and the students can't been seen by the cars coming down the road ... and the students have to be well out on the pedestrian crossing before they can see the cars. "I have a serious concern that that's actually an accident waiting to happen and it won't be a pretty one." Principal Jenny Gellen says she has serious concerns about road safety. Photo: RNZ/ Robin Martin North Taranaki Cycling Advocates Group member Elric Aublant rode his bike every day along South Road on his commute to town until recently moving house. He said the previous, painted-on cycling lane wasn't adequate. "Even when there was quite a decent shoulder space, there were a lot of cars running inside the bike lane, so really not giving cyclists enough space." Aublant had been back to try the new dedicated lane and liked what he saw. "And, so yes, the concrete blocks some people think it is quite an issue because people are hitting them, but I personally think it's a good separation and it's actually forcing drivers to stick to their lane and share the road with other users. "And, yeah, it's a much more safe, more pleasant commute on that road now." He hoped that as people became more familiar with the cycle lanes more would get back on their bikes and try them out. Emergency services providers had a mixed views on the cycleway separators. FENZ Taranaki district manager David Utumapu said it made its concerns known during the submissions process. "We advised the council that we were concerned that traffic might not be able to clear the lane when an emergency vehicle is behind them. "It seems to us that people are not always sure what to do when we're behind them, and few seem willing to drive over the lane separators, leaving a narrow gap on the centreline for our trucks to use." Police did not raise concerns about the cycle lane separators and Hato Hone St John area operations manager Blair Walton said it took part in the 2023 public consultation on their installation and "had no concerns at the time". "As it's early days we're monitoring the situation and how the new layout is working in practice." NZTA's Linda Stewart said concrete cycleway separators had been used safely internationally and in New Zealand. Guidance on the safe use and design of separators was on its website. "To achieve the space for the cycleway, essentially one side of parking was removed. The separators effectively act as a parked car in most respects. Drivers can continue until there is a gap in the separators where it's safe to pull over and stop." Council's major projects and planning manager Andrew Barron said the cycle lane separators were designed to best-practice standards. "Similar cycleways have been installed in other cities across the country. "We understood that there would be a settling-in period as drivers get used to the changed road layout. The separators themselves are not causing the accidents. "We appreciate that previously, drivers could use the cycle lane to manoeuvre into and this ability has been removed to increase the safety of cyclists." Barron said the approved designs allowed most cars, as well as emergency vehicles, the ability to negotiate them as the road width had in most instances stayed the same. "The separators are low enough for most cars to straddle without them hitting the bottom of the car." Construction of the cycleway was due to be complete later this month. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
