Govt was advised by Treasury not to buy rail-enabled ferries
Minister for Rail Winston Peters announcing the Cook Strait ferry replacement plan back in March. Photo: RNZ
Treasury advised the government not to buy rail enabled Cook Strait ferries three weeks before it announced it would.
On March 31 the government announced it would buy two new Interislander ferries to be delivered by 2029 to replace the current aging fleet.
It came in wake of Finance Minister Nicola Willis having pulled the plug on the previous government's Cook Strait mega ferry plan named iReX in 2023.
The ships announced in March would be 200 metres long and rail-enabled, which meant rail freight could be rolled on and off them.
New documents revealed under the Official Information Act show that just 20 days earlier, on March 10, Treasury recommended the government buy non-rail-enabled ships.
The agency said the option would be cheaper while achieving the aim of the project.
"There are operational advantages from rail-enablement, but these do not fully offset the increased capital cost."
The Ministry of Transport also cast doubt on the move, and last year a Ministerial Advisory Group recommended the government buy two non-rail-enabled ferries.
Meanwhile the Ferry Holdings Company which was set up in March to lead contractual negotiations with shipyards and ports supported a decision to buy rail-enabled ferries.
"The simplest and most efficient method of moving freight across Cook Strait is by rail-enabled ferries."
In a statement to RNZ Rail Minister Winston Peters said that officials took a narrow approach on the consideration of the ferry options.
"They were effectively on autopilot, believing the government would agree to end 60 years of Interislander connecting road and rail."
Peters said he did not agree with the advice Treasury provided.
"Their advice was so blinkered that it consistently presented its recommended solution as "cheaper" even when their own analysis showed the option we selected had the lowest overall cost and the highest economic value."
Treasury declined to comment on Peters' statements.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
an hour ago
- Scoop
TRAC Applauds Minister For Ignoring Treasury Advice
TRAC applauds the Minister of Rail, Winston Peters for standing up to Treasury's blinkered anti-rail view. Treasury appears to be colluding with the road transport industry in some theoretical belief that road transport is cheap, and, therefore, good for the New Zealand economy. Gareth Dennis, a UK rail engineer and rail advocate says in his book, 'How the Railways Will Fix the Future', '…two strips steel rail, - remain our most powerful yet under utilised tool for societal transformation.' Dennis goes on to say, that there are achievable goals of increasing rail's share of passenger transport to 25% and freight to 40%. TRAC national coordinator, Niall Robertson says, 'Currently, the so-called cheap road transport vehicles weighing over 3.5 tonnes which cause 93% of all road damage pay just 14% of the cost of building and maintaining roads, and get boosts of $4b for pothole repairs and $5b for resurfacing work'. Robertson adds that most Roads of National Significance have benefit cost ratios of about 21c which is very low. Robertson says, 'This is technically a significant loss in transport investment'. TRAC chair, Guy Wellwood feels that Treasury has a myopic, short term view of what is economically good for the country and just look at what is cheap in the short term with little thought for the long term value to the economy. Wellwood says, 'There was a time when New Zealand needed to change its economy to a liberal free market one, but things have changed in the last forty years'. Robertson says, 'We now have an economic system that frets about the 'fiscal deficit', but this is to the detriment of the infrastructure and social deficits which are chronically ignored.' Robertson adds that this short term approach has meant that New Zealand's productivity is continuing to go backwards and wages and salaries are getting lower by world standards'. Wellwood says New Zealand needs to lift its game. He says, 'Rail infrastructure is cheaper than roading infrastructure and a railway from Levin directly to Marton via Foxton and Greatfod would cost $950m with a BCA of $1.57, which compares with the Otaki to north of Levin motorway at a cost of $1.5b with a BCA of just 21c!' Rail should be moving 40% of the freight task, but is doing barely 10% currently. That is fine for treasury as KiwiRail in their trimmed down form offer the Treasury a reasonable return as an SOE, but Robertson says, 'There needs to be a rethink of land transport funding, starting with the removal of the below wheel infrastructure from KiwiRail and that part of the industry be funded through the National Land Transport Fund (NLTF), then offering open access to other railway organisations to offer services that KiwiRail can't or won't offer such as a line to Gisborne'. There is a list of bouquets for rail which are brickbats for road transport that will incentivise motorists to prefer more funding to go to rail and these include; road safety, road congestion, road damage, CO2 emissions, road particulate matter from tyres, brakes and road dust that pollute the air, waterways and oceans, small land footprint as rail can move people and freight using a lot less land, improved green credentials with our trading partners and the fact the 30% of the population require public transport as they are young, elderly, disabled or on low incomes'. Gareth Dennis who regularly speaks on sustainable transport matters, skills and strategy, as well as more specialist engineering subjects and makes a compelling case that railways, 'are capable of carrying tens of thousands of people per hour or tens of millions of tonnes of freight per year on just two strips steel rail'. Robertson adds, 'More road safety, less congestion, smaller road bills, less pollution, better land utilisation, greater green standing with our trading partners and more transport equity and connectivity'. Dennis says, 'Rail is both the past and the future of mass transit. Anyone who suggests otherwise probably doesn't have your best interests at heart'. Dennis also says that we need to,'…counter those generous party donations from the roading lobbies and the trucking companies and put pressure on the Treasury away from short-termism in financial planning'. The Minister of Rail appears to have a profound and insightful grasp of these flaws and has made a very nuanced decision in the interests of the New Zealand people to buy rail enabled ferries.
RNZ News
2 hours ago
- RNZ News
The House: Parliament's reaction to the Middle East crisis
Winston Peters speaking in the debate on a ministerial statement regarding the Israel/USA/Iran conflict. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith Parliament's week began with an assurance that the safety of New Zealanders in the Middle East is the first priority. The tense situation in the Middle East, and indeed, intervention from one of our allies is something that no government could ignore, so when the sitting day began on Tuesday, the first item of business was not Question Time, but a Ministerial Statement from Foreign Minister Winston Peters, followed by debate and questions. Peters emphasised that the government's main focus amidst the tension in the region was to get New Zealanders out of harm's way. "The government is committed to supporting New Zealanders caught up in this crisis," Peters told the House. "Since the beginning of the conflict, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided around the clock, 24/7 consular support to New Zealanders in Israel and Iran-and to their families back home in New Zealand - and will continue to do so." The statement was also peppered with lines advocating for three D words: diplomacy, de-escalation, and dialogue - treading a delicate line of not signalling outright support for either side, citing New Zealand's limited influence in the Middle East. Perhaps as a reaction to accusations of fence-sitting in recent days, Peters finished the statement by offering a list of what New Zealand does and does not want in the region. "We want de-escalation and dialogue. We want a two-state solution, with Israelis and Palestinians living in security and peace side-by-side. We want humanitarian aid to get to those who need it. Ultimately, we want peace. "What we do not want is New Zealanders in harm's way. We do not want ever escalating rounds of military action. We do not want a nuclear Iran. We do not want Hamas holding hostages and terrorising Palestinian and Israeli civilians alike. And we do not want Israel occupying Palestinian land. "Ultimately, we do not want another generation of young people in the Middle East, scarred by conflict, replicating the enmities of today and yesterday. This cycle of conflict, now generations old, must end." Ministerial Statements are used by the government to brief Parliament-and by extension the public-on an unfolding situation or event and explain the government's plan of action in response to it. They resemble a press conference wherein a minister delivers a statement, followed by questions or comments from MPs from other parties, generally spokespersons on the relevant topic. There is a tactical benefit for governments in getting in first and delivering a Ministerial Statement (instead of waiting for the Opposition to request an Urgent Debate), in that you can lead the messaging, and so try to control it. Equally though, there is a benefit to the Opposition from Ministerial Statements - because they are able to both make comments and ask questions. Ministerial Statements are more flexible than either Question Time or Urgent Debates. Labour leader Chris Hipkins generally agreed with Peters' advocation for diplomacy over the conflict saying "there is much in the statement by our Minister of Foreign Affairs that I completely agree with". "We also welcome the possibility of a ceasefire. We also endorse the non-expulsion of ambassadors from countries who have taken actions that we disagree with. "If we want international diplomacy, if we want international dialogue, the role of diplomats has never been more important. We also want to acknowledge the New Zealand Defence Force deployment, and they go with our full support." Opinions diverged over whether New Zealand should have called the US strike on Iran a violation of the UN Charter, with Hipkins asking Peters whether the government believed the strike was in line with the Charter's clause on the right to self defence. Peter continued to tread a delicate line in his reply. "Unlike some, we wait till we get the evidence, and we've said it constantly day-after-day that instead of rushing to judgement, as we were asked this morning by the media, 'Has peace broken out?' - 'No,' we said, 'We're going to trust but verify,' and when we sought to verify we found that what they were saying by way of questioning was wrong. "And in this case, we're going to find out the facts as time goes by. There'll be some days yet-maybe sometime yet-before we can establish as to the immediacy of the problem and the level of deterioration with respect to the Iran position on gaining nuclear capability in terms of weapons." While Hipkins wasn't quite able to milk the committal he wanted from Peters, the two weren't especially adversarial in their exchange. That mood wasn't to last though, with Green co-leader Marama Davidson the other opposition MP to question the minister. After a speech advocating upholding the rules-based order, Davidson asked whether the minister would condemn the Israeli and American strikes on Iran. Marama Davidson speaking in the debate on a ministerial statement regarding the Israel/USA/Iran conflict. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith This question seemed to open the floodgates for a shouting match between the two parties, which perhaps is a lot easier with the new seating configuration in the House (New Zealand First are now close to the Greens, having swapped with ACT to allow the new deputy prime minister to sit next to the prime minister). A Ministerial Statement which began in a relatively statesmanlike fashion then morphed into a political tit-for-tat. "I have to say when it comes to the proxies for Iran that have committed so much terrorism and the loss of thousands of lives, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, with respect to Iran-when it comes to that, the Greens have been not a syllable, not a sound, not a mutter, not a murmur, no condemnation whatsoever," Peters said. "We've condemned all parties, and shouting out like that typically just disposes me to point to that member and say that member's only got one side, and, for the first time ever, she's mentioned Iran's people. Yes, Iran's people have been under 40 years of desperation." After a few minutes of back and forth and argy-bargy, Speaker Gerry Brownlee blew his metaphorical whistle. "Neither party here is displaying the sort of decorum that you'd expect out of Parliament. I refer both sides to Speaker's ruling 150/1, which means that neither side of the House has carte blanche to say whatever they like as a result of a ministerial statement." *RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk.
The Spinoff
3 hours ago
- The Spinoff
Echo Chamber: Government commits to doing not much about the Middle East
He may not be deputy PM any more, but Winston Peters still holds court during question time. Echo Chamber is The Spinoff's dispatch from the press gallery, recapping sessions in the House. Columns are written by politics reporter Lyric Waiwiri-Smith and Wellington editor Joel MacManus. There are two kinds of people in the world: those who wish to fight in the war room, and the gentlemen who know they can't. Conflict in the Middle East has reached a ceasefire, kind of, but the opposition (and, really, the whole country) this week has been eager to hear whether New Zealand will openly support or condemn the US and Israel for their recent airstrikes in Iran. The trouble is, it's not quite clear yet if the missile-shaped cloud over parliament will pass, or whether the cowboy who knows this isn't his first rodeo will ride the bomb to its end. Gee, if only we had one of them doomsday machines. So, given tensions at home and overseas, Tuesday's question time was delayed by foreign affairs minister Winston Peters making a statement on the 'situation in the Middle East'. He had much to say about preferring diplomacy to 'moral outrage' or 'kneejerk reaction[s]' or 'simplistic moral posturing' or just plain 'virtue-signal[ling]'. New Zealand's interests are in peace and a non-nuclear Iran, Peters told the House – it was a long-winded way of saying we're not really taking a side at all. Labour leader Chris Hipkins followed with a more critical take on the situation, that we should prioritise principles over economic interests and allies, though it wasn't as overtly condemning as the speech from the Greens co-leader Marama Davidson, who implored the House to think of the freedom activists in Iran. But for some reason Peters, in his response, was more concerned over the Greens not being critical enough of 'Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis' in light of October 7. 'Really? Really, Mr Speaker?' Green co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick interrupted. 'Look at my track record!' 'I know your track record, it takes five seconds to examine it,' Peters told her. When that was all over, Te Pāti Māori's Tākuta Ferris was first up for oral questions, asking Māori development minister Tama Potaka whether he stood by the government's track record in upholding te Tiriti ('I look forward to a summary of the robust and strident submissions'), then why the Regulatory Standards Bill didn''t mention the Treaty ('kōrero in Cabinet remain confidential'), and whether it would undermine the Crown's Treaty obligations ('this government, through various coalition arrangements, is very committed to upholding Treaty settlements'). Eventually the bill's architect David Seymour – who is currently acting prime minister while Christopher Luxon has meetings in Europe – rose to share his view. 'Does the minister agree,' Seymour asked, 'that if successive governments over the last 185 years had followed the principles in the Regulatory Standards Bill, many of the grievances Māori hold today would never have arisen?' Potaka didn't take the bait. 'I certainly can acknowledge that there are a lot of disproportionate impacts as a result of government actions over the years,' the minister replied. Next up was Greens co-leader Marama Davidson, who was keen to know whether the government would condemn the US's strikes on Iran (as aforementioned, no). As Peters took his time to wax lyrical on rushing to judgment and emerging evidence and letting international courts determine breaches of international law, his NZ First deputy Shane Jones chirped away in his seat. 'Fiction!' Jones cried. 'Democracy!' A faint voice rose from the opposition benches: 'You wouldn't know what democracy is, Shane.' Then it was Seymour's turn to field questions on the cost of living from Hipkins, and the honorary prime minister found there was a perk to this new role: you can kind of just drone on and on and hope no one realises you're just making a speech. Such was the case when Seymour told the House his school lunch programme now had a 67% approval rating – which he revealed as if it were the greatest honour on Earth – before Brownlee had to tell him to reel it in. Seymour, who also celebrated his 42nd birthday on Tuesday with two cakes (which may or may not be wasteful spending), was more blunt when Hipkins questioned him on whether the finance minister or IRD could find a single family that had claimed the maximum $250 a fortnight the government had promised in its FamilyBoost scheme. 'The fact is, it's not our job to go hunting for people,' Seymour replied, to roaring laughter from the opposition benches. The whole palaver ended on a bum note. After Labour's jobs and incomes spokesperson Ginny Andersen interrogated associate social development minister Penny Simmonds on employment figures and the cancellation of state housing projects, the back and forth summoned one of the government's most loyal centre backs, Nicola Willis, who called on the speaker to make an example of the opposition for alleging 'facts that are not factual'. Then, when education minister Erica Stanford rose for a cosy supplementary that would've let Simmonds show off that the government had increased the number of classrooms built since last year, Brownlee decided he'd heard enough. 'I'm absolutely sick of that. We're calling it quits,' Brownlee declared. 'We're all over.'
