Politics 🗳️ NZ Politics

[wizard of Tauranga]

Cutting through the politics on both sides, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that Labour would likely have changed or stopped the project as well if they’d stayed in Government. The budget had blown out from $775 million to nearly $4 billion, with KiwiRail itself warning ministers that costs could continue to rise.

By November 2023, Treasury was openly flagging major risks. They noted the project’s NPV was significantly negative, meaning the financial case had effectively collapsed. Treasury advised ministers to seriously consider alternative options, because the project was no longer commercially viable without massive Crown support. In plain terms, Treasury was not supporting the idea of continuing with the project in its existing form.

Labour repeatedly criticised KiwiRail too:

• Chris Hipkins said Cabinet was “not fully informed early enough” about the scale of the seismic and infrastructure issues.
• Labour MPs said KiwiRail had mismanaged key parts of the project.
• They stated KiwiRail’s internal project governance was weak and not up to the standard expected for a multi-billion-dollar programme.

Given all of that, it’s hard to believe Labour would have simply carried on. The project was in deep trouble, Treasury was signalling red flags, and Labour clearly wanted to distance from KiwiRail’s handling of it.

To defend the project as it stood is to suggest that critics know better than Treasury’s analysts and the ministers who were already expressing concern. It was a mess — one Treasury was uncomfortable with, and one Labour was clearly preparing to walk away from.

Only those down left wing rabbit holes ignore all this…


Can supply sources but you can search it all yourself and those that followed it all, know this all to be true.

 

[John Nick]

Cutting through the politics on both sides, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that Labour would likely have changed or stopped the project as well if they’d stayed in Government. The budget had blown out from $775 million to nearly $4 billion, with KiwiRail itself warning ministers that costs could continue to rise.

By November 2023, Treasury was openly flagging major risks. They noted the project’s NPV was significantly negative, meaning the financial case had effectively collapsed. Treasury advised ministers to seriously consider alternative options, because the project was no longer commercially viable without massive Crown support. In plain terms, Treasury was not supporting the idea of continuing with the project in its existing form.

Labour repeatedly criticised KiwiRail too:

• Chris Hipkins said Cabinet was “not fully informed early enough” about the scale of the seismic and infrastructure issues.
• Labour MPs said KiwiRail had mismanaged key parts of the project.
• They stated KiwiRail’s internal project governance was weak and not up to the standard expected for a multi-billion-dollar programme.

Given all of that, it’s hard to believe Labour would have simply carried on. The project was in deep trouble, Treasury was signalling red flags, and Labour clearly wanted to distance from KiwiRail’s handling of it.

To defend the project as it stood is to suggest that critics know better than Treasury’s analysts and the ministers who were already expressing concern. It was a mess — one Treasury was uncomfortable with, and one Labour was clearly preparing to walk away from.

Only those down left wing rabbit holes ignore all this…


Can supply sources but you can search it all yourself and those that followed it all, know this all to be true.

While I agree with a lot of what you say there's a shitload of very expensive and safety orientated extras that have been neglected.

 

[Inruin]

Cutting through the politics on both sides, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that Labour would likely have changed or stopped the project as well if they’d stayed in Government. The budget had blown out from $775 million to nearly $4 billion, with KiwiRail itself warning ministers that costs could continue to rise.

By November 2023, Treasury was openly flagging major risks. They noted the project’s NPV was significantly negative, meaning the financial case had effectively collapsed. Treasury advised ministers to seriously consider alternative options, because the project was no longer commercially viable without massive Crown support. In plain terms, Treasury was not supporting the idea of continuing with the project in its existing form.

Labour repeatedly criticised KiwiRail too:

• Chris Hipkins said Cabinet was “not fully informed early enough” about the scale of the seismic and infrastructure issues.
• Labour MPs said KiwiRail had mismanaged key parts of the project.
• They stated KiwiRail’s internal project governance was weak and not up to the standard expected for a multi-billion-dollar programme.

Given all of that, it’s hard to believe Labour would have simply carried on. The project was in deep trouble, Treasury was signalling red flags, and Labour clearly wanted to distance from KiwiRail’s handling of it.

To defend the project as it stood is to suggest that critics know better than Treasury’s analysts and the ministers who were already expressing concern. It was a mess — one Treasury was uncomfortable with, and one Labour was clearly preparing to walk away from.

Only those down left wing rabbit holes ignore all this…


Can supply sources but you can search it all yourself and those that followed it all, know this all to be true.

I think Grant would have just kept the printing press running

 

[John Nick]

What are they replacing it with for emergency towing etc?

No announcement yet. This is probably something that has been considered unimportant

 

[Inruin]

What are they replacing it with for emergency towing etc?

https://www.maritimenz.govt.nz/public/news/2025/may/interim-emergency-ocean-response-capability-for-cook-strait-announced/#:~:text=There%20was%20good%20news%20for,and%20vessels%20crossing%20the%20Strait.

 

[John Nick]

https://www.maritimenz.govt.nz/public/news/2025/may/interim-emergency-ocean-response-capability-for-cook-strait-announced/#:~:text=There%20was%20good%20news%20for,and%20vessels%20crossing%20the%20Strait.

As I posted earlier this agreement is under consideration to be scrapped early in the NY.

 

[Worried2Death]

As I posted earlier this agreement is under consideration to be scrapped early in the NY.

Snorkels and flippers then John, women and children first

 

[John Nick]

Snorkels and flippers then John, women and children first

Unfortunately Bishop has reported plans to cancel the contract in February rather than later in June
He has also reportedly said that when the new ferries arrive we will have no need for a recovery tug because the ships will be new. So was the Titanic in

 

[Worried2Death]

Unfortunately Bishop has reported plans to cancel the contract in February rather than later in June
He has also reportedly said that when the new ferries arrive we will have no need for a recovery tug because the ships will be new. So was the Titanic in

These are Chinese ones though, not your cheap British junk

 

[John Nick]

These are Chinese ones though, not your cheap British junk

Strangely Korea used to have the best reputation for building ships but are slowly being overtaken by China.

 

[Mr. Brownstone]

These are Chinese ones though, not your cheap British junk

To be fair we don’t have too many icebergs to navigate either

 

[Inruin]

Snorkels and flippers then John, women and children first

The article from MaritimeNZ already says they have a contract until June and are looking at recommendations for a permanent solution, but that won't stop people making stuff up with no links or sources. Seems to be a common theme for some keen to stick the boot in.

 

[John Nick]

To be fair we don’t have too many icebergs to navigate either

Climate change is another thread please Mr B.

 

[John Nick]

The article from MaritimeNZ already says they have a contract until June and are looking at recommendations for a permanent solution, but that won't stop people making stuff up with no links or sources. Seems to be a common theme for some keen to stick the boot in.

Good to see you don't have me on " ignore " these days

 

[Worried2Death]

The article from MaritimeNZ already says they have a contract until June and are looking at recommendations for a permanent solution, but that won't stop people making stuff up with no links or sources. Seems to be a common theme for some keen to stick the boot in.

I'm thinking of investing in this new private user-pays tugboat service they're proposing. Sounds a bit like the tow-truck racket, there's always a way to profit from someone else's misfortune.

 

[MaybeTop8]

I'm thinking of investing in this new private user-pays tugboat service they're proposing. Sounds a bit like the tow-truck racket, there's always a way to profit from someone else's misfortune.

Shane Jones is your man.

 

[Inruin]

I'm thinking of investing in this new private user-pays tugboat service they're proposing. Sounds a bit like the tow-truck racket, there's always a way to profit from someone else's misfortune.

So you prefer the Government pays for the service from a provider rather than procuring a permanent solution that users pay for?

 

[Worried2Death]

So you prefer the Government pays for the service from a provider rather than procuring a permanent solution that users pay for?

It could work, no idea, in the meantime I trust there's some provision for emergency towage capacity before the new unsinkable ferries arrive, seems like a slight oversight if there isn't.

 

[John Nick]

So you prefer the Government pays for the service from a provider rather than procuring a permanent solution that users pay for?

Imo we should have sea going tugs as we have safely obligations for foreign vessel's in our marine areas. Currently we are leasing/hiring and the vessel we are using is from Australia and is not a long-term solution

 

[Inruin]

It could work, no idea, in the meantime I trust there's some provision for emergency towage capacity before the new unsinkable ferries arrive, seems like a slight oversight if there isn't.

The current contract has been extended before, no reason why it couldn't again. Seems to me the article is saying that they are looking for a permanent replacement for the current contracted service. How anyone has taken that to be we aren't going to have any provision I'm really unsure.