In March this year, Straits Shipping, operators of the Bluebridge Cook Strait ferries, announced the purchase of a new ferry. The nearly 28,000 tonne Livia, built in 2008, was bought to replace the 28 year-old Strait Feronia, in service with Bluebridge since 2015. 

 

The Livia arrived in Wellington earlier this month and began service on the Cook Strait run this week. No terminal renovations have been required in either Picton or Wellington to accommodate the Livia, which will carry around 375 passengers and 200 cars. Morgan Stanley Infrastructure, owners of Straits Shipping since 2022, have not disclosed the Livia's purchase price nor how long the purchase negotiations took.

 

In sharp contrast to Bluebridge's apparent time-frame for replacing the Strait Feronia, back in 2018 the then Labour/New Zealand First coalition government launched the IREX project to replace the publicly owned Interislander line's three aging ferries. Three years later, in June 2021, Kiwirail, the operator of the Interislander ferries, signed a contract with Korea's Hyundai Mipo shipyards to build two new rail enabled ferries. They were projected to enter service in 2026. The cost of the project was estimated to be $1.45 billion.

 

But just over two years later, by the time the current National/Act/New Zealand First coalition had taken office, the project's cost had more than doubled to $3.1 billion. There were estimates the cost could even climb as high as $4 billion by the time the ships were delivered.

 

However, the massive explosion in costs was not related to the ships - their cost remained relatively static - but in the costs of upgrading shoreside facilities on both sides of Cook Strait to accommodate the new ferries. It was therefore no real surprise that the new government cancelled the project and went back to the drawing board, looking for a "Toyota Corolla rather than a Rolls Royce solution" as Finance Minister Nicola Willis said at the time.

 

Earlier this year, the government announced a revised programme for building two new rail-enabled ferries to be in service by 2029, with substantially pared back shoreside facilities. As part of the plan, the trouble-plagued 26 year-old Aratere will be withdrawn in a few weeks. Its withdrawal will mean there will be no rail-enabled ferries on Cook Strait, until the new ships arrive in 2029. By that time, the Interislander's two remaining ferries, Kaiārahi and Kaitaki, will be 31 and 34 years old respectively. They will be long overdue for replacement - only the Tamāhine has served longer on the Cook Strait route, from 1925 to 1962.

 

And, in sharp to contrast to Bluebridge, Interislander's ferry replacement programme will have taken just over eleven years, assuming no further delays. Also by 2029, Bluebridge's other ferry, the 500 passenger, 200 car, Connemara, will be coming up for replacement. But even then it will still be younger than Interislander's ferries are today.

 

Bluebridge and the Interislander have an almost equal share of the Cook Strait passenger and vehicle traffic. Together, they are a vital transport link between the North and South Islands. It is in the interests of both the travelling public and the freight and transport industries that they provide a safe and reliable service across Cook Strait. Yet both have had their share of incidents with their ships in recent years, raising concerns about the age and resilience of the ferries.

 

Given this concern, and the lengthy nature of Interislander’s current ferry replacement programme, there must inevitably be questions about the durability of the Cook Strait service until the new ferries arrive in 2029. While Bluebridge has future-proofed its operation, at least for the medium-term, by the acquisition of the Livia at the mid-point of its life, the same cannot confidently be said for the Interislander. Kaitaki and Kaiarahi are already old ships, with the prospect of at least four to five years more service, without major incident, ahead of them. That is a bold assumption.

 

Whereas Interislander’s keenness to buy new ferries for the first time since the building of Aratere in 1999 is understandable, it stands in sharp contrast to Bluebridge’s strategy of purchasing mid-life ships and turning them over every decade or so. With the cost blow-outs associated with the original IREX project and the delays associated with the refocusing of the ferry replacement programme, taxpayers might be forgiven for wondering whether the more short-term approach of Bluebridge has greater merit.

 

Livia’s first Cook Strait crossing this week, just a couple of weeks after arriving in New Zealand, and just over four months after its purchase, will add fuel to that question.

 

 

 

National Prime Ministers seem to have a thing about Wellington.

In 2013 then Prime Minister John Key raised the ire of Wellington’s community and business leaders when he told an Auckland audience that the capital city was “dying” and that “we don't know how to turn it around.” He subsequently offered “an unreserved apology” to anyone his remark had offended, adding that “actually Wellington's an extremely vibrant place.”

This week, Key’s protégé, Christopher Luxon has been engaged in a mutually unedifying spat with Mayor Tory Whanau over her Council’s spending priorities, claiming the city’s new convention centre was “loss-making” and specifically criticising a new $2.5 million public toilet block which comes complete with what the Council describes as “beautiful lighting” to help reduce anti-social behaviour.

Meanwhile, those hoping that the coming local body elections would lead to a return of common-sense politics and a focus on basic services now that Whanau has withdrawn from the contest will likely be as disillusioned as ever after recent developments. The circus looks like carrying on, whoever is elected.

Centre-right challenger Ray Chung’s mayoral campaign has been all but blown out of the water by Whanau’s revelation of a salacious e-mail about her he sent to some Council colleagues just over two years ago. Chung says he was not aware personally of the extraordinary allegations against Whanau, because his e-mail was based on a conversation with a neighbour about the neighbour’s son, while out walking his dog. He had not checked further for accuracy before passing the story on to colleagues.

Not only does this incident show how lacking in judgement Chung is, but it also reflects extremely poorly on his capacity to provide the effective leadership the city so desperately requires. Nor is it the first time Chung has been accused of making wildly inaccurate comments about Council colleagues and staff that have subsequently proven unfounded.

Moreover, Chung’s “apology” was anything but. It took several days to be forthcoming after the email was revealed, with Chung offering frankly pathetic excuses about technical problems putting the video message together. Even then, the words of apology were lost in Chung’s claims that the whole incident was part of a dirty politics campaign against him, which he was calling out.

Chung’s mayoral campaign is supported by a team of candidates, running under the oxymoronic banner, Independent Together. There is a shadowy group of political operatives behind them that has apparently already put together a dossier of derogatory material for its candidates to use against other candidates, something Chung claims to know very little about. Perhaps his team would be more accurately titled Inept Together!  

Since Whanau withdrew from the mayoral campaign it has been genuinely assumed that former Labour leader and senior Cabinet Minister Andrew Little would walk into the mayoralty in her absence. While this may yet be the case – and no doubt Chung’s conduct over the last week will have strengthened his chances – Little is so far also falling short of offering Wellington the mayoral leadership it needs.

After the upheaval of recent years and given the mess the currently dysfunctional Council is in, Wellington needs a Mayor who will stand above petty party politics and give the city unifying, consensual leadership. Little is not yet demonstrating he can do this.

The botched and inaccurate attempts by Independents Together to portray Little as not prepared to commit to putting the city’s interests ahead of the Labour Party are little more than an example of the dirty politics Chung says he does not support. Nevertheless, there is whispered concern in some Labour ranks that Little is not sufficiently distancing himself from his Labour past, especially given the increasing public distaste for the influence of party politics in local government.

This column has previously made the point that to achieve a sustainable and durable Mayoralty Little needs to build support across the city, including in the leafier suburbs that have been ignored by recent Councils. Relying on core Labour voters to elect him would simply continue the divide which has afflicted Wellington for too long.

Little is an intelligent and effective politician who could provide the leadership the city so desperately and urgently needs. While he is absolutely entitled to his own political views and allegiances, he needs to put these in the background while he promotes issues of concern to all those living in Wellington. However, so far, he looks and sounds too much like a traditional Labour candidate to inspire confidence he can do that.

With Chung ‘s self-inflicted implosion, and the lack of any other credible mayoral candidate, the focus is now more strongly than ever on Little. With just over twelve weeks until the local body elections, there is still plenty of time for Little to align his campaign with all of Wellington city.

Otherwise, his likely election will not be the breath of fresh air many had hoped for. Wellington has had enough of the polarised Council politics of recent years and desperately needs a unifying Mayor. Now, more than ever, Little must show he has the capacity and the will to be such a Mayor.

If he cannot do so, the election will produce just more of the same, and Wellington’s Council circus will continue.

 

 

Phase Two of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the government’s response to Covid19 and its effects got underway this week, with the commencement of the hearing of public submissions.

According to the Commission chair, Grant Illingworth KC, the focus of this aspect of the inquiry is to hear from the public about their experiences, including the impacts on "social division and isolation, health and education, and business activity.” It will also " hear from experts about the key decisions and their consequences, and lessons to be learned from what happened."

There will be a further phase of the inquiry next month, to hear from key decision makers who "led and informed" the government's response to the pandemic.

Already there have been calls for former Prime Minister Dame Jacinda Ardern to return from the United States to give evidence to and be cross-examined by the Royal Commission, but it is not yet clear whether she will do so. Current Labour leader, Chris Hipkins was vague when interviewed about whether Ardern would appear, even though he says he met her in London last week. Ardern has subsequently said that she will be happy to “provide evidence” to the inquiry but she has so far shied clear of confirming that means she is willing to appear in person.

As the person who led New Zealand through the pandemic crisis, and received wide international acclaim for her performance, there is no question that Ardern should front up at the New Zealand inquiry. Failure to do so, given the subsequent national division over the pandemic response, would send all the wrong signals, and would diminish the credibility currently attached to her government’s overall Covid19 performance. Appearing before the inquiry would be a clear acceptance of public accountability for actions taken in the national interest during a national crisis. She owes it to New Zealanders – her “team of five million” – to do so.

But whether Ardern decides to front or not, there are clear signs that her Labour Party colleagues are not impressed by the public phases of the inquiry now getting underway. They seem clearly uncomfortable with having to explain and justify their actions to an independent Royal Commission. Hipkins has already dismissed the new stages as being designed to “achieve a particular outcome, particularly around providing a platform for those who have conspiracy theorist views."

While he says he will co-operate with the inquiry and answer all the written questions put to him, he would not commit to appearing in person if asked to do so. “I don’t want to see happen … a whole lot of theatrics. I’m very interested in engaging with them on how … we can capture the lessons … [but] the terms of reference are certainly far more political than the first one,” he said.

As with Ardern, Hipkins should appear before the inquiry. He was one of the most senior Ministers involved in the then government’s response, and will forever be associated with some of its more controversial measures like the MIQ scheme, restrictions on family reunification in stressful circumstances and the ridiculous short-lived suggestion in late 2021 that Aucklanders might have to get prior government permission for the time of day and dates on which they could leave for the summer holidays. Whatever his concerns about the terms of reference, Hipkins, like Ardern, owes it to all those who suffered through MIQ or not being able to join dying loved ones in their final few hours to front up and publicly justify those actions.

There is a third person who should similarly be required to front before the Royal Commission and that is the former Director-General of Health, Sir Ashley Bloomfield. Although the former government was ultimately solely responsible for the various decisions taken, many of those decisions were based on advice provided by Bloomfield. Moreover, during the period of the pandemic, Bloomfield enjoyed a level of access to both the Prime Minister and the whole Cabinet that has not been shared by any other public servant in New Zealand’s history. The unique nature of his role at that time makes him more accountable for the decisions taken than any other senior public servant would normally be.

A key element of Ardern’s, Hipkins’ and Bloomfield’s success during the pandemic was that they all displayed a consistent level of confidence that they were making the right decisions in the best interests of all New Zealanders. That portrayal of confidence played a key role in getting New Zealanders onside and generally complying with the various measures put in place, despite the considerable disruption to their own lives and circumstances.

Given that level of unprecedented upheaval and restriction on personal freedom – greater even than wartime – which people went along with because they believed it was for the greater good, it is now far from unreasonable for New Zealanders to expect Ardern, Hipkins and Bloomfield to appear before the Royal Commission to explain their actions in a way that they would not and could not do at the time.

Only then will the Royal Commission be sufficiently informed to report on “lessons to be learned from what happened.”

 

Symbolism over substance is a well-established political art. Sometimes symbolism is a substitute for decisive action, sometimes it is a way of signalling a future policy intent that for various reasons cannot yet be achieved. On other occasions, it is a simple diversionary tactic, designed to distract attention from policy failure elsewhere.

A recent good example of symbolism over substance is New Zealand First’s proposed Bill to ban the display of any flag or emblem other than the New Zealand flag on government buildings. This is all part of New Zealand First’s “war on woke” and is obviously aimed at prohibiting the display of Tino Rangatiratanga and LGTBQ flags on public buildings, something its anti-woke constituency would likely approve of.

But whatever one thinks of that policy, it hardly requires an Act of Parliament to achieve it. A directive to relevant chief executives would do just as well, but that would remove the drama of dealing with such a non-issue by legislation, which would in turn detract from the public attention the policy is seeking to gain.

It is reminiscent of the early 1980s when the then Education Minister Merv Wellington became obsessed with every school having a flagpole and flying the New Zealand flag daily. He even went as far as promulgating Regulations setting out the dimensions and material of the flag and specific rules about its display. Rather than being seen as an assertion of national spirit and patriotism, as the Minister hoped, the policy quickly became an object of ridicule, detracting from the many more serious educational issues around at the time. Once he was no longer Minister, the policy disappeared.

If history is any guide, New Zealand First’s flag policy, should it even make it to legislation, will not survive either. But it will reinforce New Zealand First's credentials with the “anti-woke” brigade it is seeking to appeal to, in just the same way its earlier, but never implemented, policy on gender-specific toilet access was designed to.

But New Zealand First are not the only party playing the symbolism over substance card. Earlier this week National announced plans for an instant fines approach to dealing with shoplifters. The rhetoric was strong, but the details and the timing remain vague. Not surprisingly though, the plan has been widely welcomed by small businesses who have been adversely affected by increasing shoplifting levels in recent years. For many, the symbolic effect was enough – at last the government was recognising there was a problem to be resolved.

However, it is still far from clear how the instant fines system being suggested will work (a correspondent to Wellington’s Post asked how people who resorted to shoplifting because they could not afford to pay could cope with an instant fine), or what level of Police resources will be dedicated to it. And nor it is clear when the necessary legislation will be introduced and passed.

Still, it all looks like strong government, even if the details are still uncertain. And so, it serves its political point, which was, after all, the primary objective. The government has put its stake in the ground, and, even better from its point of view, entrapped the Opposition into opposing it. It has won the symbolism battle on shoplifting, but it remains to be seen whether it will be as successful with the substance.

The other side of this coin is when politicians refuse to acknowledge the substance of an issue and wallow instead in the symbolism surrounding it. In an extraordinary outburst this week, the normally considered Chris Hipkins told a radio host that the reason ram raids were no longer a media issue was because “your Tory owners at NZME have just decided not to put it on the front page anymore. It’s still happening, it’s just NZME have decided that it’s not in the Government’s best interests and they do the National Party’s singing for them and so they’re not covering it as much anymore.”

Unfortunately for Hipkins the facts tell a different story. In 2022, there were 714 ram raids reported. The following year – when Hipkins was Prime Minister – that figure dropped to 495. However so far this year it sits at just 45, a more than 90% fall on the figure of Hipkins’ time. That, not media ownership prejudice, is the reason they are not getting the coverage they used to, but Hipkins will be hoping his media bashing will resonate with his die-hard supporters and so detract attention from the facts.

The danger here is not so much that politicians favour symbolism over substance from time to time. That is part and parcel of the political game which every politician engages in when it suits them. The problem is when the politician is revealed to have no other modus operandi than symbolism over substance, and when that becomes their sole end.

Voters quickly spot such cant and discount those politicians accordingly.