If looks could kill, Winston Peters would be dead

Friday, 13 December 2024

Join the conversation in comments below

ANALYSIS: If looks could kill, Winston Peters would be dead.

But instead the new minister for rail was railroading his coalition partners on Thursday, claiming he would fix the Government’s Cook Strait ferry problem where others had failed.

It capped off a strong week for Peters, who is ending the year with momentum. But his success has come at a cost to his coalition partners, Finance Minister Nicola Willis in particular.

Willis was plainly unimpressed by Peters’ behaviour on Thursday, as the deputy prime minister spoke dismissively about her attempt at a plan to procure two new Interislander ferries.

Her comments were curt. Her glare, as Peters trumpeted in the House about “a united Government” finding a solution, was ice cold.

'I'm delighted that I've learnt about link-spans, berths, ports, ships, ship specifications and, now, someone who's even more enthusiastic about those things gets the opportunity to talk about them in great detail,“ Willis told reporters.

It was apparent on Wednesday the Government had not reached agreement on the ferry decision, when the big non-reveal was delivered by Willis and Peters exactly a year after Labour’s $3.2 billion iRex ferry replacement project was cancelled.

There was only a concept of a plan, though Willis had identified a “viable proposition”. Two 200-metre “rail-compatible” ferries that could be acquired within an undisclosed funding envelope, come March.

A new Crown-owned company would be created to procure new ferries and private ferry operators would be considered in a fig leaf to ACT. Peters has subsequently effectively kiboshed the idea of private operators.

While Cabinet had agreed on this much, the Government had not resolved to actually order the ferries, yet.

That’s because Willis’ plan lacked one key ingredient: Peters’ approval.

So instead, Peters had been made Minister for Rail to find what he has called a “more viable” ferry solution before March.

The bonhomie of Wednesday -- Willis said she had “enjoyed working” with Peters on the project -- was shortlived.

Come Thursday morning, Peters was distancing himself from Willis’ work in an interview with The Post, saying he was informed of the policy work but not involved in the past year, and that he had fewer than three hours notice of Willis’ announcement.

“Those plans are all on hold. There’s a new minister – well the old minister’s come back. We’re starting as fresh as we can, and we’re in day one,” he said.

“There are far more viable propositions that are yet to be considered.”

Willis, no doubt hearing and reading Peters throughout Thursday morning, was blunt come the afternoon.

“I've done my bit. I've come up with a plan that is deliverable, that is costed, that Cabinet has agreed to, and now the minister for rail is going to test that plan and come up with his option,” she said.

“So if he doesn't come up with something, I can look New Zealanders in the eye and be confident there is a plan ready to ensure we have safe, reliable ferry crossings.”

How will Peters do it? He has been cryptic as ever about this -- apparently he has been talking with contacts, who are confidential, and knows it is possible.

He is also being coy about what a better option would actually be. In one interview, he suggests the ferries “need” to be rail-enabled, unlike Willis’ “viable proposition”. In another interview, he says it is simply an option “in the mix”.

There’s risk involved for Peters. If he fails as promised to produce a better option within the funding envelope by March, Willis is ready.

Of course, the veteran politician is playing with a strong hand. The funding envelope has not been disclosed, meaning the public may never be sure whether the outcome fits within it. And there’s only a vague sense of the ferries and overall project that Willis prefers.

So whatever results, Peters could claim he played a critical role.

Hence, he says with confidence: “The wisest options will be the ones we decide upon in the end.”