Yes of course inferior vessels but highly improbable it will be an inferior return on capital for NZ Inc.
Politics 🗳️ NZ Politics
- Thread starter wizard of Tauranga
- Start date
It already is.
And when/how/how much does the existing infrastructure need to be upgraded - that's aging fast I believe.
What are you talking about?
It's not fit for purpose now. As I posted earlier the current ships have berthing issues with the current infrastructure which regularly causes damage and that may affect timetables and other uncertainties.. All this is variable due to winds tides and conditions. Obviously the ongoing problems and associated costs are impossible to assess.
As I understand Wellington has a MMA ocean going tow enabled tug on some sort of lease arrangement which won't be cheap. Again not calculated for.
But not fit for purpose doesn’t mean multi-billion dollar infrastructure upgrades.
Hey I wasn’t looking for laughs, I wanted to understand your point about inferior return on capital (and then dismiss it to the boundary
)Absolutely but what it does mean is ongoing disruptions for freight and passengers and unbudgeted costs. I would assume that the problem will only be exasperated for the new ferries unless alterations are effected before arrival. Again unbudgeted
Must be talking about Mooloolaba, Nelson
Yes disruptions but cargo and passengers are still getting to where they need to get, just less efficiently. As for infrastructure upgrades, I’d have thought something in the low hundreds of millions would cover it? Napier & eventually Tauranga’s projects would be approximates wouldn’t they?
Nobody has any idea of the cost or if any upgrades will be done. Remember it being done as cheaply as possible. NZ as usual kicking the can further down the road. That's what we do to make the current books look good regardless
There were going to be disruptions regardless.
About $596 million would be for a contract with the shipbuilder to build the new ferries, while $531 million would go towards infrastructure works in Picton, $325 million to be spent in Wellington, and $415 million in management and continengency costs
Govt reveals costs of its new Cook Strait ferries
Rail Minister Winston Peters described the new "no nonsense" infrastructure programme as helping save the taxpayer billions.
My point is that if alterations are not made to the current infrastructure the disruptions will be going on forever.There were going to be disruptions regardless.
About $596 million would be for a contract with the shipbuilder to build the new ferries, while $531 million would go towards infrastructure works in Picton, $325 million to be spent in Wellington, and $415 million in management and continengency costs
Govt reveals costs of its new Cook Strait ferries
Rail Minister Winston Peters described the new "no nonsense" infrastructure programme as helping save the taxpayer billions.www.1news.co.nz
Why wouldn't you want the changes made now and fit for purpose while we have the opportunity.
The original component of the ferry deal was an excellent one, well negotiated for a substantial discount. The cancellation fees and the inferior ferries add up to a higher cost for lesser quality - then again we were promised corollas as I recall so we have those. Just not at a higher cost than the originals, and with the added security concerns being built in China.Hey I wasn’t looking for laughs, I wanted to understand your point about inferior return on capital (and then dismiss it to the boundary
And there is a bill to pay on the infrastructure regardless, so I agree fully with John Nick in terms of kicking the can down the road.
The current government fucked up completely cancelling the original ferries.
Especially when you look at how readily available the money seems to be to increase defense spending and build roads no one has asked for apart from the roading lobby and the fossil fuel folks.
But the new ones are able to navigate areas that the previous governments wouldn't have been able to and the cost of upgrading the infrastructure which is happening is far less than previous as well, which was over engineered by all accounts. It's actually what should have happened n the first place.
As a total package it is a better cost, more versatile with navigating and more appropriate to NZ size.
Yes by at the same time it would have been very stupid to have carried forward with a project forecast to make a low single digit return on capital - funded of course by all of us.
Change of subject sorry but I have just read the article about the proposal of the government to cancel the arrangement for MMA vessel Vision early in the NY. This will affect the overall safety of all the aging ferries. Given the number of close calls in the last couple of years that's very dangerous
What are they replacing it with for emergency towing etc?
- Thread starter
- #21,040
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:
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.
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.
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.
