How National “delivers” for NZ

Written By: - Date published: 10:07 am, September 19th, 2017 - 85 comments
Categories: national, useless - Tags: , ,

Ignore deny ignore deny ignore deny crisis! Rinse and repeat.

Herald graphic.

85 comments on “How National “delivers” for NZ”

  1. popexplosion 1

    Don’t bother with govt mantra. So he just started digging… …oops, hole in one. RMA don’t need it. How many people have heard the neolib nonsense and taken it on board!

  2. Strategos 2

    I think the quotes should be around “National” to expose the scam they have pulling on us since 1951.

    • reason 2.1

      Yes but the latest lot of NActs have been doubling down and getting worse …… They are in the thick of it.

      For example, its pretty damning that Judith Collins seems to be benefiting from some of the worst destructive exploitative scandals going on …….

      Be it water …… ” Oravida pays about $500 a year to draw up to 400,000 litres of water a day from the Otakiri Aquifer in Bay of Plenty.” ….

      ” freshwater ecologist Mike Joy said the same thing will keep happening until the government charged for water.” …..”It’s just a free for all for a tiny proportion of New Zealanders, that abuse something that belongs to all of us.”

      Overseas ownership …. and use of tax havens …. ” ”owner of the former Crafar and Synlait farms in Waikato and Canterbury. Milk New Zealand Holding is wholly owned not by Shanghai Pengxin, but by Milk New Zealand Investment, a company registered in the British Virgin Islands.” ……….Chalkie reckons owning New Zealand farms through a Caribbean tax haven may have tax advantages “-

      Giving the fingers to climate change …. Rising volume of New Zealand fresh milk airfreighted to China

      And of course the 80% non compliant Ancient Kauri looting ….

      All problems indirectly show her attitudes and contribution to NZ’s inequality …

      “In either case we might wonder why, when Northland is suffering deprivation and economic stagnation, Maraetai Drive millionaires are allowed to strip the province of its natural resources, tear up its wild places and reap outrageous profits while an apologist Government runs interference in the media.”

  3. EE 3

    This government has run out of gas.

    • The decrypter 3.1

      Fuel light flashing empty-empty. Fill up with Blue Pennant kerosene at the Dipton Four square.

      [lprent: Ummmm – advertising or humour? Let go with humour. ]

    • mary_a 3.2

      EE @ (3) … “This government has run out of gas.”

      Not quite. Still plenty of piss and wind left in Natz.

      The Natz are so full of gas and hot air, they should be able to transport themselves around the country at the moment, without the need for aircraft!

  4. Alan 4

    Labour warned in 2005

    • Andre 4.1

      *Attenborough voice*

      Here we have the unmistakeable stress call of the RWNJ: but, but, Laaaay-burrrrr

    • weka 4.3

      better get on and vote Green then.

      • Antoine 4.3.1

        It seems to me that both National and Labour made the right call

        • Muttonbird

          How do you figure that, Einstein? A part solution was costed at $57m iirc but forecasts are that this failure will cost significantly more than that.

          • Antoine

            Right, but the failure is a 1 in X year event.

            Think of it this way, if it was you personally, would you rather lose $100 now, or maybe lose $200 sometime in the next 30 years (or not)? I’d prefer the latter, I bet you would too.


            • Muttonbird

              I see. This is what passes for planning for Nat supporters.

              • Antoine

                For just about anyone rational in infrastructure?Take the solution with best expected value??

                • tracey

                  Did you factor in environmental damage in your actuarial analysis?

                  • Antoine

                    Wasnt my analysis!

                    • tracey

                      This was ” Think of it this way, if it was you personally, would you rather lose $100 now, or maybe lose $200 sometime in the next 30 years (or not)? I’d prefer the latter, I bet you would too.


                    • Antoine

                      I was just trying to explain to Muttonbird why you might not be willing to spend now to (possibly) save later, is all

                  • faroutdude

                    Environmental damage caused by building a 2nd pipeline?
                    Environmental damage caused by building duplicate Terminal at West Auckland, or increasing storage at Wiri (virtually unconsentable)?
                    This whole (non) issue is one of the most pathetic beat-ups I have ever seen.

                  • alwyn

                    If the backup plan was an second pipeline on a different route it would increase, rather than decrease the risk of environmental damage. After all a second pipeline could also rupture, with a second lot of damage.
                    A second pipeline wouldn’t have reduced any environmental damage that has occurred, of course. The damage, if any, happened when it ruptured. It would only have sped up the ability to fly again more readily.

                    • tracey

                      If? What was it before you analyse it

                    • Brokenback

                      Duplicating the Refinery to Auckland Pipeline is the least desirable option from a point of view of cost and exposure to the same risks.

                      Many don’t realise but the “problem” goes right back to Dawn of neo-liberalism and the war of attrition on public assets .

                      NZ Refining was government owned and viewed , correctly at that time , as a strategic asset.

                      Also the long term [ Government consulted& approved] plan for Auckland’s Deepwater Port development at Te Atatu . Incidentally , the main reason for the high coathanger profile of the Harbour Bridge.

                      Plenty of space was available for Fuel Marine terminal and storage less than 8km from the RAP.

                      However , the Vandals , carrying the TINA Market Banner high , set upon a campaign of trying to remove control and ownership of Ports of Auckland , which but for the fine work of Mike Lee and others would be smoke and ashes by now .
                      Unfortunately , minimising pillaging as opposed to developing a clear , long term plan for Marine Transport & Freight Logistics for the Greater Auckland region has been the primary focus for Ports of Auckland.

                      Wynyard Terminal and tank farm closed , replaced by high rise accommodation and entertainment.
                      Te Atatu peninsula – sold off for low density , sea view housing.

                      The only practicable solution is
                      1/. To establish a Marine terminal on the NW Firth of Thames – Kawakawa bay area.
                      Storage and Tank farm south on the Miranda/Kaiaua flats [ at least 10 m above present sea level] and pipelines to Wiri , via Clevedon valley and to the new inland Port at Ruakura for further storage and possible transport by rail.
                      2/. Increase rail tanker rolling stock , as well as upgrade the Northland Rail line and extend it to Marsden Point .[yes Winnie’s correct ]

                    • alwyn

                      To Tracey.
                      I have no idea what the plan was Tracey. Kirton, with his election hat on simply said there was one but not what it was.
                      An alternate pipeline just seems to be an obvious alternative.
                      Does anyone know what the actual proposal was?

                    • Ross


                      A second pipeline isn’t necessary. You probably already know that.

                    • alwyn

                      To Ross.
                      I wouldn’t really have thought so.
                      However someone from the NZRC was willing to discuss the idea on TV a couple of nights ago.
                      I mentioned it here

                      How National “delivers” for NZ

                • Muttonbird

                  They gambled. And we lost.

                  • Antoine

                    ‘They’ as you call them, gambled lots of times and usually won

                  • alwyn

                    There was a comment by someone from NZRC on TV last night. He pointed out that a backup line from Tauranga would have cost about $250 million. He then asked whether people would have been willing to pay an additional $100/flight to pay for it.
                    Sounds high but I haven’t looked at the numbers.
                    Still I suppose I can paraphrase Clint Eastwood.
                    “Are you willing to pay? Well, are you Punk?”.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      Because extra charges on flights are the only way to pay for it, eh. /sarc. Didn’t you get the memo? TINA isn’t answering your calls.

                    • alwyn

                      To OAB.
                      Sure, but it wasn’t me who was suggesting the possibility.
                      He wasn’t in favour of it mind you.
                      If something like that was required just how would you pay for it, by the way.
                      Surely you are one of those who don’t approve of “subsidies” to business? If anyone except air travellers were to pay for the security of supply to the airport shouldn’t it be those travellers who pay?

                    • Andre

                      Well, at 24 million passengers per year, $100 each would cover that $250 million pretty quickly. But I suppose they’d have to appoint a CEO and management team for the backup system and that’s going to suck an awful lot of cash…


              • adam

                Look at roads Muttronbird, that gives a clear view on national party planning. Or the lack there of…

            • tc

              There’s that short term profit neoliberal thinking where they rather gamble than mitigate risk.

              I’d like to see a more mature, built to last approach for such crucial infrastructure personally.

            • Crashcart

              Not a big fan of insurance then man? I think almost everyone pays a small amount of money now on the off chance that their car/house/life might get fucked up later.

              • Antoine

                It depends on the price! I wouldn’t buy an insurance policy where the yearly premium was half the cost of the car!

                • Muttonbird

                  What are you talking about? It was a one off cost to build some redundancy capacity at Wiri.

                  I do note that Michael Barnett points out that demand at Wiri has increased 30% since 2012 because to the high population increase in Auckland but capacity has not. This is exactly the sort of thing a government should have been planning for and to apply your logic the same wasn’t required in 2005 because Wiri had capacity to spare.

                  • Antoine

                    > What are you talking about? It was a one off cost to build some redundancy capacity at Wiri.

                    Don’t blame me, Crashcart introduced the insurance analogy and insurance has regular premiums

                    > I do note that Michael Barnett points out that demand at Wiri has increased 30% since 2012 because to the high population increase in Auckland but capacity has not. This is exactly the sort of thing a government should have been planning for

                    It is not, it is the sort of thing a pipeline owner should have been planning for!


                    • Ed

                      This government leaves everything to the ‘market’
                      Incompetent fools.

                    • Antoine

                      > This government leaves everything to the ‘market’

                      They absolutely do not, I can think of any number of non-market solutions operating in NZ. They don’t even seem unanimously pro-market (e.g. Steven Joyce seems more like a big government sort of guy).


                • Ross

                  It depends on the price!

                  No, Antoine, it depends on one’s priorities!

                  This Government spent $22 million on a flag referendum that few wanted. For a mere $1.9 million an extra 515 million litres of jet fuel could be supplied to Auckland airport each year. What’s more important?

                  Auckland airport handled about 16.5 million passengers in 2015. At a cost of $1.9 million to secure greater fuel supply, that equates to 11.5 cents per passenger. Do you seriously think passangers are going to complain about paying an extra 11.5 cents per flight?

                  • Antoine

                    I havent quite got my head around the 2m option. I suspect it was a very imperfect mitigation or had major drawbacks or there was some other good reason why it was not adopted. Others will know more about it.

                    • Ross

                      The $2 million option would presumably have provided a buffer…maybe giving the airport a few weeks of fuel that would enable business as usual in the event that the pipeline was out of action for 2-3 weeks. It would not be the answer to a bigger problem that would take months to fix. But it would possibly be a good short-term option and certainly better than the do-nothing option which the Government took.

                    • Antoine

                      Honestly dont know enough to form a view

            • Liberal Realist

              Critical infrastructure? Single point of failure?

              Think of it this way, if it was you personally, would you rather lose $100 now, or maybe lose $200 sometime in the next 30 years (or not)? I’d prefer the latter, I bet you would too.

              Yeah. Nah. Anyone rational would invest to mitigate a single point of failure in critical infrastructure. The fact that this hasn’t happened is pure incompetence.

              • Antoine

                Ha, I bet you would be gobsmacked how many single points of failure there are in critical infrastructure out there.

                And that’s how it should be; it’s often not economic to provide multiple redundancy where the probability of failure is very low and the cost of paralleling the network is high.

                And that’s how it’s going to remain, too, whatever you think.


                • McFlock

                  That’s the problem with the current system: it’s not economic for me to at least have a contingency plan if everyone else except for me will bear the brunt of the costs of that failure.

                  • Antoine

                    Indeed. NZ Refining is losing a bunch of revenue ( and may be prosecuted ( and is also taking a lot of reputational damage. They have plenty of skin in the game.

                    Auckland Airport obviously has even more skin in the game and had plenty of incentive to (a) have its own contingency plans, and (b) get NZ Refining to form contingency plans too.

                    And these incentives have worked: NZ Refining has been prepared to move quickly to repair the pipeline and make alternative arrangements for transporting fuel. I understand work is proceeding apace at the site and international experts are swarming all over the place.

                    Things are working as intended.


                    • Antoine

                      PS I suspect the digging company (Oravida?) will also find it has plenty of skin in the game

                    • Ross

                      Things are working as intended

                      The Government intended to be a laughing stock? Air New Zealand intended to piss off its customers and lose money? NZ Refining intended to harm the environment?

                      With a modicum of planning and expenditure, the severity of these problems could have been reduced.

                      international experts are swarming all over the place.

                      All those whose flights have been cancelled will be delighted to hear that.

                    • Antoine

                      Occasionally bad things happen; it beats blowing all your resources trying to make sure nothing bad ever happens.

                      (Though I agree AIA may be a bit regretful now!)

                    • Ross


                      Who is talking about “blowing all your resources”? As discussed, there was the option of spending $1.9 million per year to increase supply. Yes, that wouldn’t have been a fix in the event of a serious outage but it would have provided some time to fix the problem.

                      It is reported in today’s herald that Auckland airport has about 3 days of fuel at any one time. Which maybe explains why we didn’t hear about this until Sunday even though the problem was known last Thursday. The powers-that-be were possibly hoping for a quick fix.

                    • McFlock

                      The refinery and the airport will probably have some manner of insurance, mitigating their losses. That makes an actual, rather than actuarial, contingency plan less economical. And any compensation claims they face can be lowered in settlement negotiations, or if they’re prohibitive dragged out through the courts.

                      So chipping in for a branch line to use a rail contingecy wasn’t so attractive to the refinery, and having bigger storage tanks of avgas wasn’t so attractive to the airport.

                      Sure, it costs them money, so they want to fix the damage as quickly as possible. But the fact thousands of people are feeling the pinch means that if this is how things are working as intended, the system is fucked up.

                    • Antoine

                      > The refinery and the airport will probably have some manner of insurance, mitigating their losses. That makes an actual, rather than actuarial, contingency plan less economical.

                      At this point the insurer also has skin in the game

                      > But the fact thousands of people are feeling the pinch means that if this is how things are working as intended, the system is fucked up.

                      Disagree. If thousands of people feel pinches only very occasionally, that’s to be expected (unfortunately).


                    • McFlock

                      The insurer has skin in the game, but their model is to win on average. So it’s part of the cost of doing business, and if someone has no contingency plan they just charge more premium.

                      And disrupting thousands of people even only occasionally is not a reasonable expectation. It was only a few years ago large chunks of Auckland had a power cut because of a tree. Now the fuel supply is fucked up because of some jerk with a digger.

                      This is not a reasonable expectation for a city of more than a million people, surely. Sure, if there was an extreme weather event or something, but not just trivial day to day shit on a farm.

          • tc

            That’s the crucial piece, the cost of it going tits up in the future V the current day solution cost.

            Neloberalism always seems to take the approach of boot it to touch, it’s the next crowds problem, it’s alot of money, what about the shareholders, can’t someone else pay, can our lawyers get us out etc….and here we are.

        • One Anonymous Bloke

          How? By not realising exactly how corrupt and greedy Judith Collins is?

    • tracey 4.4

      And voted out in 2008.

  5. greywarshark 5

    This unsatisfactory fuel situation. It must be run by government, useless sods, if private interests ran it in a businesslike fashion this would never have happened. /sarc

    • cleangreen 5.1

      100% greywarshark couldn’t have said it better myself.
      They should have built the rail line as an alternative next to the pipe before now the bloody idiots!!!

      • In Vino 5.1.1

        No, they should have built the railway line OVER the pipeline. That way, no knucklehead profit-gouging kauri log-hunter (apologies to Oravida and anyone connected) would have been able to damage the pipe.

  6. cleangreen 6

    Nothing the National Government have ever done makes any sense here!!

    So we need to fence off anything they say in future after labour takes over with oppostion parties support.

    We need the new Labour lead government to do what the National Government did for nine years by refusing any proposals that any oposition party puts up as they have done.

    It is going to need this control over our need to have them passing all those ammendments to reverse all those bad changes national has made.

  7. Union city greens 7

    Makes the BBC front page

  8. esoteric pineapples 8

    What the opposition with American support does to undermine support for the government in Venezuela, is to create shortages of essential goods during elections like toilet paper and tampons. Obviously, this wasn’t planned in New Zealand’s case, but the effect is likely to be the same.

  9. Adrian 9

    Election week and this really is manna from heaven, or petrol in this case.
    Talk about laugh, Billshit English tells Nat candidates to stay in own electorate,may as well, nobody knows who the fuck they are there either.
    According to some airlines … ” it’s an act of God! ” . Even He thinks it’s time to go Bill.
    You know you’re fucked when even your own God deserts you.

    • Ross 9.1

      Yep even the man (or woman) upstairs doesn’t want a Tory government. 🙂

      You know National’s campaign has been a train wreck when they might be housing a communist spy and it barely rates a mention!

  10. adam 10

    national better managers of the country ——— yeah right…

  11. Yep ,… its coming up summertime, so jump in the car and take a drive… to the end of your driveway and back again.

    Mungo Jerry – In The Summertime ORIGINAL 1970 – YouTube
    in the summertime when the weather is fine▶ 3:35

  12. Ed 12

    On Newshub, Alison Mau asked Judith Collins if her husband wa involved in the company that was extracting the kauri.
    Collins dodged answering.

  13. Ross 13

    It would’ve cost only $1.9 million per year to do something meaningful. Simply overload existing tankers which would produce an extra 515 million litres. That was the advice given to this Government in October 2011. To say they couldn’t afford to pay such a small sum is nonsense – they spent $22 million on a silly flag referendum.

    • Yes ,… yes they did, … didn’t they….

      $22 million on a silly flag referendum.

      That nobody particularly wanted.

      Except John Key.

      And I mean it when I say ‘ nobody ‘ .

  14. Thinkerr 14

    Laissez-faire, free-market neoliberal ideology working for you…

  15. National.

    Rowley Birkin QC – Terrific Snowstorm – YouTube
    Video for Rowley Birkin QC – Terrific Snowstorm▶ 2:07

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Swiss tax agreement tightens net
    Opportunities to dodge tax are shrinking with the completion of a new tax agreement with Switzerland, Revenue Minister Stuart Nash announced today. Mr Nash and the Swiss Ambassador David Vogelsanger have today signed documents to update the double tax agreement (DTA). The previous DTA was signed in 1980. “Double tax ...
    2 weeks ago