sign uplog in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Associate Minister of Transport Julie Anne Genter says a target of zero road deaths would be “audacious, but ambitious targets are needed to focus the resources of both central and local government to save lives on our roads

Associate Minister of Transport Julie Anne Genter says a target of zero road deaths would be “audacious, but ambitious targets are needed to focus the resources of both central and local government to save lives on our roads

The Government is investigating setting a target of zero road deaths, the Associate Minister of Transport Julie Anne Genter has revealed.

“I accept that a target of zero deaths would be audacious, but ambitious targets are needed to focus the resources of both central and local government to save lives on our roads,” she says.

The new strategy was unveiled on Monday morning at the Local Government Road Safety Summit in Wellington.

At the moment, there is no long-term target to reduce deaths, or serious injuries, in the road safety strategy.

The road toll over the Easter period was eight – the highest toll in eight years.

Genter says the “ambitious” target of zero deaths on the road has been a success overseas, in countries such as Canada, Sweden and Norway, which all aim for a zero-road toll and have had “considerably lower fatality rates than New Zealand.”

The development of a new road safety strategy will take until September 2019 and be ready for implementation in 2020.

It will outline the steps New Zealand will take to meaningfully reduce deaths and serious injuries over the coming decade.

In the meantime, Genter says the Government intends to push forward with actions where there is strong evidence of effectiveness.

She says the Government’s 2018 Draft Policy Statement on land transport is one way this will be done.

Last week, when unveiling details of the statement, Minister of Transport Phil Twyford said the number of deaths on New Zealand roads was unacceptable.

“The fatality rate per billion kilometres travelled has risen 16% between 2013 and 2016,” he said. 

Genter says the funding boost mooted in the draft statement will have a particular focus on proven safety treatments, like median and side barriers.

“We’re also considering a significant funding boost to deliver safe walking and cycling infrastructure in our towns and cities.”

She says over the next year, the Government will consider a number of options for reducing harm on the road.

“[These] include improving the safety of vehicles entering New Zealand, reducing speeds around schools, and will implement mandatory alcohol interlock device systems for repeat drunk drivers.”

Time for Government to ‘walk the talk’

National says if the Government was serious about reducing the number of deaths on New Zealand roads, it would adopt Wairarapa MP Alastair Scott’s Member’s Bill to introduce roadside drug tests.

He says Genter appears to be refusing to take the advice of officials and experts to adopt roadside saliva testing.

“Local governments know the impact that drugged drivers have on their communities. The Summit today would have been the perfect opportunity to discuss roadside drug testing.

“It’s time for the Government to walk the talk and adopt my Member’s Bill.”

Road deaths

Select chart tabs »

The 'Monthly count' chart will be drawn here.
Source: NZTA
The 'Annual' chart will be drawn here.
Source: NZTA

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.


Gotta laud the girl for her courage - but this will take some serious, and likely unpopular decisions. Take the trucks off the roads for a start. I heard an interview on national Radio with the chap from the Dog and Lemon Guide and he identified then that trucks figure disproportionate in road accident. With most of the trucks gone the condition, of the roads will improve and the cost savings could then be put into a serious upgrade of the national highway system.

Having recently driven in Europe, the overall quality of their roads, even the narrow back roads was generally much better than here. We need to lift our standards.

How are you going to deliver goods - are you aware that NZ economy is heavily reliant upon widely distributed primary production on farms etc? Who is going to replace the massive taxes paid by the trucks?

Did you stop to think at all before you wrote your comment?

I think rather we gotta laugh at the 'girl' for her stupid...

On this note, just putting a question out there for anyone who has the data:

Does NZ's truck fleet pay more in road user charges than the marginal road costs it creates through damage over and above that caused by cars?

I.e. are individual taxpayers subsidising private trucking businesses?

though tucks pay a higher rate of RUCs than lighter vehicles, it is no where near high enough to cover the damage they do. Trucks are heavily subsidised by the general motorist in this regard.

Truckies are not only been subsidised by the general motorist. All motorists, but especially truckies are also being heavily subsdised by ratepayers. The commentary thread down from here covers this point.

Thanks for the source. A very interesting comment on there:

Quote from an Auckland Council document:

“NZTA allocated $1.28 billion to Auckland Transport during the 2012-15 NLTP period
Auckland Transport’s road maintenance and renewal expenditure for the same period was approximately $783 million ($261 million per year) of which NZTA contributed approximately $254 million ($84 million per year)

The $529 million shortfall was funded primarily by Council rates.”

So of AC’s road maintenance budget for the period 2012 to 2015 RUCs and fuel taxes paid a third with ratepayers picking up the rest. This maintenance is primarily required due to the effects of heavy vehicles.

Let’s take a look at just one trucking operation; the proposed expansion of Brookby Quarry.

“Brookby quarry is the most recent quarry in Auckland to propose a major expansion, and as a result it is also the quarry on which Auckland Transport has the most information. The rural local roads surrounding Brookby quarry are not designed to a standard to carry high proportions quarry truck loadings. The degrading effects on these roads are significant and are projected to halve their 25 year design life before needing to be renewed again.It costs $750,00013 per km to renew a local road across its 25 year life where a local road is not being subjected to a high proportion of quarry truck loadings. The road will last its intended 25 year life cycle.

By comparison, Auckland Transport’s Southern Road Corridor Manager has projected that the renewal costs (attached) for the roads surrounding Brookby quarry will increase significantly to $2,250,000 per km over 25 years. This is approximately $37.5 million of additional renewal costs if we include the 20km of road (within a 10km radius) surrounding Brookby quarry that are used heavily by quarry truck

This is a significant adverse effect of the quarry which should be spread fairly across the quarry operator’s customer base rather than being subsidised by Council rates.”

Roads a public good? Maybe, but why should a private company who, through their actions are steadily destroying that public good for profit not be required to meet the costs that they impose on the system? Why should it be the ratepayers?

Quite concerning that we have major parties so ready to socialise this cost of private businesses. And even more, with the East-West Link that didn't stack up on a cost-benefit basis.

Do you know what a train is? Choo Choo and all that. while All trucks may not be able to be taken off the roads, a fair number of them could be. The Clark Labour Government admitted that it was the trucks that causes 95% of the damage done to roads, and that the cost were spread across all road users. And then the last National Government changed the rules to let trucks get bigger! if you drove with your eyes open, you might have noticed a lot of bridges being strengthened to accommodate this change. Who do you think paid for it? Perhaps you should take your blinkers off!

In terms of collecting farm produce and delivering it in the quantities desired from a huge quantity of farms to a huge number of stores trains are not that great an idea. Such was tried in the UK decades ago and didnt work and they have 10 times the population ie better density than NZ. Simple it is a logistics nightmare.

If truckies and motorists in general had to pay the full marginal cost of the road damage, congestion, health and environmental costs they cause then other forms of transport with lower marginal costs would in some circumstances become viable.

For ideological reasons in NZ freight travelling on tracks must pay its full cost but freight travelling on roads is subsidised. It is all a bit of a nonsense.....

It is not just trains, which on a case by case may be more efficient than trucks, cargo bikes in some circumstances are also more efficient for last mile inner city deliveries -as DHL is perfecting.

This is not flakey hippie greenie stuff. This is what hard-nosed profit motivated businesses are doing when transport and land-use frameworks are properly set-up.

Hopefully the new government can clean up some of this mess.

You don't understand how much damage trucks cause. It's probably 95%. Do they pay 95% of the taxes?

The study found that essentially, road damage was related to the 4th power of the relative loads. That means that if one vehicle carries a load of 1,500 pounds per axle and another carries a load of 3,000 pounds on each axle, the road damage caused by the heavier vehicle is not twice as much, but 2 to the 4th power as much (2x2x2x2 = 16 times as much road damage as the lighter vehicle).

@Murray86 , Thank you for pointing this out , one would expect that August body of fools masquerading as a Government would have at least Googled Swedish roads before trying to compare our Road Death Tolls

Unlike SH1 in NEW ZEALAND which mostly a Third World lane , Sweden has its entire road network as full -on dual and triple lane freeways and motorways

sweden does not have it's entire network as dual carriageways, what a load of nonsense. What they do have is far more median barriers on their highway network. Someone we do not have as all the funding as been spent on some short stretches of RoNS motorway.

Does this look like a triple lane freeway?,16.4283786,801m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x465cb2396d35f0f1:0x22b8eba28dad6f62!8m2!3d60.128161!4d18.643501

Boatman you are making stuff up. I had a friend who used to work in Ludvika -a smallish regional town in Sweden. So I google the local highway and it isn't a dual highway and it doesn't have a median barrier.,15.1447903,3a,75y,90h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFf011fAoajoiiy5Nn3zz0w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

A speed limit of 20 kph on all roads in NZ would achieve a zero road deaths... probably


but... I thought that "SPEED KILLS" ?!?

Many small children run over by cars reversing.

Thousands would die of boredom.

Totally agree we should,have a zero tolerance to road deaths.
They are not good for us, so let’s all just get on our bikes seem the COL wants to spend so much more on BIKE LANES.
We don’t need cars to get around nor buses or trains, just BIKES this way I reckon we can keep the road toll down to ZERO!
It is great having this new breed of intelligent politician in power, we are in very good hands now, aren’t we???

Quite right, as a Chch resident no doubt you'll have seen the potential of the new network of bike lanes that's appearing. The Hospital bike parks are fit to bursting these days. It's quite possible to get anywhere in Chch by bike reasonably quickly (often faster than cars) which is a major benefit for the city and the country in terms of reducing energy use and improving health.

p.s. I do realise from your excessive capitals and punctuation you're being sarcastic, but actually you've accidentally pointed out one of the best, most cost effective contributions the new Government can make to transport.

What's a COL, is that baby boomer slang for something supposedly witty and funny?

Coalition of Losers which now appears to have a sub-tribe called LOL or Legion of Losers.

But how are National and Act spending money when they're not in government? Last I heard they opposed bike lanes too. Amsterdam or Copenhagen would be absolute hell for them as people move efficiently around the city on bikes rather than stuck in a traffic jam of cars.

Don't forget the COW : Coalition of Whingers. Think pommy expats.

If I recall correctly Coalition of Losers was the headline from a major Aussie paper when Winston Peters selected NZ's govt last year.

The label seems erroneous seeing as they ended up winning. I thought a more accurate 'coalition of losers' would be the parties who actually lost the election: National-Act-Maori Party.

It is indeed, it's something that the Bitter and Twisted (BaTs) and Coalition of Whingers (CoWs) coined, collectively known as the The Whiny Aged Trolls acronym not required ;)

Solidname, to be fair the lefties are the coalition of whingers on here, they always have been and always will be!
They are the whiners who constantly whine about house prices being too dear etc.

The property bulls are the ones who are generally positive about life, yes they do try to point out how pathetic this Coalition of Nillers (CON) really are.
If you can’t see it then you are pretty deluded!

An acronym for the current government, handed out to the opposition's supporters who don't grasp MMP to put forth whenever ranting - while themselves evidently grouping together as the Collection of Whingers (COW).

Well 9 years proved the last lot were terrible "do nothings" and achieved nothing. So now we have 3 years of "want to do somethings", seems a lot more positive.

Nope cycling kills even professional cyclists so the road deaths would likely still be there for cycling. In NZ cycling injuries & deaths are an astounding number in comparison to the proportion cycling; not in vehicle accidents but the act of cycling itself which while marketed as being healthy often carries a high risk of health issues. Hence we have a lot of cycle race deaths, as well as those who falter on a casual cycle. It is not a pretty result to loose someone or have them disabled by what they are told would be completely safe in ads & by councils. The reality is most people cannot or should not cycle. There are a myriad of reasons e.g. age, disability, work, cargo, medical, family, distance, safety, climate etc but the short answer is most people cannot cycle in NZ.

"The reality is most people cannot or should not cycle". What a total load of codswallop. Those of us that are continuing to cycle well into our seventh decade sadly have far too many experiences of overweight couch potatoes that are no longer with us.

Average car does something like 10000km/year, perhaps half of that (50 hours) on open road, so dropping speed limit to 70 would likely increase that time spend driving by about 20 hours a year on average. For a population of 4.5 million (assuming that everyone is doing about 2500km on highway) that would be about 50million hours wasted.

A human life is about half a million wakeful hours, so dropping highway speed to 70km/hr would be wasting something like 100 human livetimes per year.

Not to mention the massive negative impact on rural economies, destruction of kiwi leisure time activities (forget going to the bach), huge increases in transport costs with 50% more trucks and drivers needed....

Hard to believe that anyone who is actually paid as an expert was stupid enough to propose this as a realistic solution. But their paymasters are lefties so...

Speed limits aren't going to fix anything when the problem is road quality and driver ability.

I regularly do 140-180, in 20 years of driving have not killed anyone or been in any accident.

Because I don't drive drunk, or try to beat the laws of physics, and drive a car that is maintained and can actually safely travel at those speeds.

These comments have just taken the netballers loss off the front page.
There should be a zero tolerance to crime,road deaths,hungry people,kids living in squalor etc.
We all know that it won;t happen,just a sound bite for the press.

Do we want targets that are audacious or realistic? The advantage of the latter is you can sack the Minister of Transport confiscating their pension if they miss the target.
Audacious is easy. Why is Ms Genter so unambitious surely a target of returning people from the dead by driving over corpses would be seriously audacious.

I read an interesting book about changing habits that had the example of a new CEO of Alcoa using the single goal of zero injuries in his company to drive amazing changes.

"Within a year of O’Neill’s speech, Alcoa’s profits would hit a record high. By the time O’Neill retired in 2000 to become Treasury Secretary, the company’s annual net income was five times larger than before he arrived, and its market capitalization had risen by $27 billion"

Hopefully this will lead to some new thinking too.

Read something similar about forestry deaths and accidents in NZ. Everything improved once they set targets.
The difference with Alcoa and our Timber companies is they have leverage over employees - they can insist safety takes precedence over productivity. How can that be applied to every driver trying to get home in time for dinner? OK once you have seen an accident with your own eyes your driving habits will improve but do we need to make attendance at the scene of gruesome accidents compulsory for all drivers?

I think scale is also an issue.

It's a lot easier to look after 500 people spread across a couple of monitored worksites, than it is to cover the millions of daily car trips over the entire country.

Also, even with hard targets, and constant monitoring/improvements. Legitimate accidents can happen. You simply cannot protect every single individual every single second of the day.

Both fair comments. Nonetheless, if your goal is to save lives then setting a 0 death target is not necessarily ridiculous, even if it is essentially unachievable with today's technology. It gives a clear mandate to start hitting the easy wins to make improvements.

I would prefer a realistic target and then tying salary to performance. If the minister of transport does manage to achieve zero deaths with roughly the same road usage then they get a bonus - say $10m. If they miss the target say 20% cut in deaths then they lose half their salary.
To fix the road toll needs political dynamite. Something to make our minister of roads concentrate since they are likely to miss the hard calls: raising driving age to 23, two hours of virtual reality from scenes of accidents plus an evening at the accident ward of a major hospital before gaining a license, no license once superannuation is received, tourists must employ chauffeurs, etc.

Yes it is tragic when somebody dies, and yes Zero would be a perfect number.

But, how much money are we going to spend to try and save an additional 400 people a year. Most of them from themselves.

We need to put this into perspective. We are talking about millions/tens of millions of dollars to be spent on less than 0.01% of the population. Surely that could be better spent elsewhere?

.001%, about 1 in 10000 people die per year on roads, less than 1% of deaths.

Unfortunately I know 3 people that have died from traffic accidents. I certainly wouldn't know 30000 people...

As a counterpoint, I'm 56 and I know no-one who has died in a traffic accident or even had traffic injuries requiring hospital treatment. We must move in different circles.

Well lets say you spend $1 million replacing some stop signs with a roundabout, and lets say that saves 1 life every 3 years. That's potentially 10 lives over the lifespan of the roundabout for a million dollars. Pretty good value really.
Also you seem to be forgetting the cost of the tens of thousands of injuries that happen every year, and even the cost to repair tens of thousands of cars every year.

Granted, valid point about the injuries. I deliberately ignored that as that is not really the intent of the article.

But looking a bit wider. Does the roundabout
a) Stop people driving drunk, and heading around the wrong way
b) Stop someone racing another car and heading around the wrong way
c) Stop someone not paying attention and crashing head on into it.
d) Not looking and pulling out in front of another car.

also - how many deaths are at the same point. 1 every three years, then maybe there is an issue with that corner. Just 1 throughout time, and it would appear to be a waste of money.

My point is that we are at a level with diminishing returns. If it costs $10 mil to save 1 life on the road, but 10 lives from something else, I say spend it on the something else - diabetes/cancer/heart attacks/suicide/etc...

There are always going to be idiots, but not all crashes are caused by idiots (although obviously they make up the bulk of the headlines). Even the best drivers in the world like yourself and Mike Hosking only need to make one simple mistake and they are dead on our roads. But things like median barriers can save you if you happen to make a mistake. They can also save you if an idiot on the other side of the road makes a mistake.
Agree that they need to make sure there isn't a better bang for buck place to spend the money. But I think if you add up the cost of injuries etc it's unlikely.


Let's do it.

You doom and gloom merchants should stop whining and get on board. It might cost a few cents extra tax but the life you save may be your own.


The governments job is not to try and interact on an individual level. They should give us the rules with which we can do it ourselves. Which they have. Most road deaths occur because someone didn't follow the rules.
- Speed
- Drink/drugs
- phone
- Deliberate lunacy

I would pay all my earnings to get my cousin back, but the thing is not one cent would have changed his behaviour the night he got killed.

Well said.

So lets say a drunk lunatic on drugs is speeding and on his phone and crosses the centre line and kills someone close to you, would you still think that median barrier the NZTA could have installed would have been a waste of money?

Come on - that it a pointless argument. Do I want someone close to me to die? of course not.

Are you going to install median barriers across the entire roading network? of course not - so the risk will always be there somewhere.

What about pedestrian separation? your lunatic might nudge the wheel left instead of right - bam, there goes that poor kid walking to school.

The lunatics are out there, and the Government is powerless to stop them.

"Are you going to install median barriers across the entire roading network" - apparently that would cost less than half the cost of the Waikato expressway.


Exactly. Also lets not forget about all of suburbia, people aren't just crashing on the open roads.

How nice will it be knowing you can only go one way in/out your driveway because of the median barrier down the middle.

Do What?

I'd start with this group

Definition of high-risk drivers

For the purposes of these reports high-risk drivers include:
unlicensed and disqualified drivers (including drivers who are forbidden to drive or who have an expired licence or the wrong licence class for the vehicle being driven)
drivers identified as evading enforcement or racing or showing off at the time of the crash
drivers with a blood alcohol level of at least fifty percent over the adult legal limit (i.e.120 mg/100 ml)
repeat alcohol offenders, specifically drivers in alcohol-related crashes who have at least one prior alcohol conviction in the previous 5 years
repeat speed offenders, specifically drivers in speed-related crashes who have at least two prior speeding offences in the previous 5 years, with at least one involving 35 or more demerit points (excludes all speed camera offences)

These categories of high-risk driver are based on those set out in Safer Journeys. However, the detailed criteria used here are based on the data sources which are readily available to the Ministry. The categories in this report also include evading enforcement as a high risk behaviour.

Speed camera offences do not attract demerit points so are not recorded on the driver licence register. For this reason, speed camera offences have not been included in the definition of repeat speed offenders.

Definition of at-fault

At-fault drivers are defined in the crash analysis system (CAS) as the driver deemed to have the primary responsibility for a crash. This is based on the crash movements and cause factors assigned in CAS. It is not based on legal liability or court conviction.

Fatal crashes for the five years 2006–2010
High-risk drivers make up 34% of all at-fault drivers in fatal crashes.
Most high-risk drivers are male (84%) and young, with 54% under 30 years old.
The majority of people killed in high-risk driver crashes are the high-risk drivers themselves (59% of deaths) or passengers with high-risk drivers (29%). On average, each year 15 other road users are killed by high-risk drivers. Five of those deaths are on urban roads.
About half (51%) the high-risk drivers are European and a further 41% are Māori. Under 25 year olds comprise 40% of Māori at-fault drivers compared to 28% for European drivers.
High-risk drivers make up 63% of at-fault drivers crashing at night (10pm–6am). For high-risk drivers 47% of their crashes happen at night, compared to only 14% for other at-fault drivers.
High-risk driver crashes peak markedly at the weekend, with 27% happening on Friday and Saturday nights alone.
For both high-risk and other at-fault drivers, the majority of their crashes happen on the open road (71% and 77% respectively). However, for high-risk drivers a larger proportion of their open road crashes are on locally-controlled roads. These will tend to be lower quality roads and roadsides, and may present more of an enforcement issue than State highways, which typically have higher traffic volumes.

Great post Ex Expat. Seems if we took these few cretins off the road permanently we would cut the road toll immediately by 50%. (if necessary do it in handcuffs)
But instead we will simply lecture the already obedient, spend vast amounts on new signs, and achieve almost nothing.

Disclosure KH, that's a cut and paste from the linked web site.

What I'd like to see is someone analyse the annual toll for cause. The first lesson here appears to be don't ride a motorcycle

Thanks Expat. The other data I am aware of is that 50% of all fatal crashes 'involve' somebody with a criminal conviction. (Was it Sprout who campaigned on that point?). That's an astonishing % given the people around with an actual criminal conviction is still very small (the dickhead factor). So taking them out of the picture would be very effective, much more so than persuading the already careful and considerate which is the current plan.
Moving on the dickhead factor would be profiling and that is considered impossible in our current political climate. So political factors mean folk die.

I was hitch-hiking years ago. From Wn north. The guy who pulled over had JUST got out of Mt Crawford prison. That very day. Ok he was doing a good deed. Good on him for that. However his driving was so erratic and dangerous that I had to make an excuse that I had to get out 5ks down the road. Thankfully he let me go without becoming angry.

Seems to have worked for the Scandis, they target zero deaths and have half the deaths per-capita than we do.

@DTCARTER , of course in Scandanavia they have massive straight dual and triple carriageway Freeways which :-

1) Bypass all towns and cities
2) Have no intersections all entry is done on on- or off- ramps
3) Have a proper medians to avoid ever having a head-on collision

Our State Highway 1 in NZ is a disgrace , its a 70 year old country lane for most of its length , and incredibly dangerous too

I suggest you take a holiday there Boatman.

Yes they do have median barriers. For the cost of Nationals East West link you could put median barriers on the entire state highway network.


Ms Genter is getting way ahead of herself .................we will never have a Road Death Toll as low as SWEDEN until our roads are the same as Swedish Highways .

If State Highway 1 (SH1) was in Sweden it would be a DUAL OR TRIPPLE CARRIAGEWAY HIGHWAY for its entire length .

It would also have NO INTERSECTIONS , all intersections would be overpass or underpass bridges >

So Ms ANTI -ROAD Genter , put that in your pipe and smoke it ............ instead of this dreamland nonsense

Maybe the government could add a 3rd much heftier tax on petrol, maybe $1.00/litre to improve all our roads?


Appreciate the sarcasm, but I think it is a valid issue.

I am pretty much anti all parties/MPs, but see some logic in what National did didn't do over the last 9 years.

Quite simply it costs to much to fix everything.

What will happen when I am taxed 100% and we still need more?


Three turnips. It's a positive utopia! I thought we would just get 1/2 a kumara and some nutritious iron-sand for minerals.

How many deaths occur on SH1? Probably only a small proportion of the total.

Any road carrying the volume of SH1 in Sweden would be a dual carriageway at least ......

Maybe, but the vast majority of deaths in NZ occur on roads that wouldn't be dual carriageways in Sweden either. Making SH1 a dual carriageway end to end won't make much of a dent into our road toll as most of the deaths occur on other roads.

"The development of a new road safety strategy will take until September 2019 and be ready for implementation in 2020."

Good grief, This is how stupid we are , a prime example of being a bunch of idiots running our bureaucracy ... we need 18 months to develop a strategy and another 6-12 months to get ready for implementation ?? .... as if we are preparing to invade the moon and set roading strategy there !! ... so what are the sheeples in the MoT doing everyday??... having chats over coffee tables ??

One would have thought they have done the homework for years and are ready to put a plan together in a matter of few weeks ....

Besides, what f***g strategy?? ... allocate the money, straighten narrow bends known to everyone as death traps, and put some middle barriers on dangerous roads know for high accident rates .... that can be done TOMORROW if we want to save lives.

So does everyone realise now why we are so backwards and the laughing stock of the world ??

We need a “Working Group” and more money to pay them and they will be able to tell us then how we can have zero road deaths!

Want near ZERO deaths , like Sweden ?

Then you will have to build roads like those in Sweden

That means the dualization (at least) of SH1 for its entire length !

That means a 3rd tax on petrol, maybe $1.00/litre ?


The greens will never agree to saliva testing. Just like they resisted Meth being upgraded to being a class one drug.

You have got to laugh ............. the Greens also want smoking of cannabis ( a mind altering substance ) legalised , while we have spent the past 50 years trying to ban smoking of Tobacco


Well tobacco kills you while cannabis doesn't, pretty big difference.


You don't have to smoke it, and users tend to smoke significantly less often than tobacco users. Certainly not free from risks of course, but there are significant costs to the current policy too.


Inhaling green brownies is not advised

They kill you with diabetes instead :)

Mind altering substance - gee for a minute there I was going to say something about alcohol, but then I realised, silly me, people don't consume alcohol to alter their minds, no, not ever, never.

That was probably because they don't want to criminalise drug addiction. Rather, they see it as a health issue. It's a new world.

Nice message to young slightly drunk Suzie at the party when old hairy Brutus offers her the (now legal) meth.

“We’re also considering a significant funding boost to deliver safe walking and cycling infrastructure in our towns and cities.”

I can feel yet another tax looming to pay for it

You cannot walk or cycle in a day from Auckland to Whangarei , but with the congestion on SH1 its not too far off being able to walk there faster .

We need to dualize SH1 as soon as possible

Yvil. Excise is NOT tax and a savage increase to an existing tax is NOT a NEW tax.

Cinders has reiterated that so many times over the last week that she is jolly well just about getting really cross with slow learners like you who still haven't got it.

BS Middleman. Cinders/Pinocchio...""There will be no new taxes or levies introduced in our first term of government beyond those we have already announced."

"Other than Labour's already announced polices - such as cancelling National's planned tax cuts, extending the bright line test to five years, and introducing water and tourist levies - no new taxes or changes will kick in before the next election, Labour said on Thursday.

...Every single one of the commitments that Labour has made for the next term of Government ... all of that work is fully costed for and paid for by existing revenue."


The Genter Girl. She done good.

The use of 'Girl' is considered in some circles to infantalise females. Genter is 38. I'm offended on her behalf. If you're offended at that notion, then I'm offended that your offended that I'm offended. Ad infinitum.

She'd get the reference. To be linked to the Bobby Robson of New Zealand politics is of course such a great compliment that all would be forgiven.

I saw her on the Mt Eden bus before the last election giving volunteers the hurry up over the phone. Gotta love the grass roots politics on that! A couple weeks later she was a Minister. Good kiwi stuff.

Genter attended the People's Republic of Berkeley. They have no sense of humour there.

Sorry, but with the Yank accent I just see her as an unwelcome import, not Kiwi at all. It was poetic justice to see her lose the co-leadership contest to a real Kiwi, one that will hopefully drive the Greens so far left that they dip below 5%.

Your a Kiwi when you say so, Ex Pat....

You can take the woman out of Berkeley, but you can’t take Berkeley out of the woman. I’ve worked with a Berkeley graduate before. Quite distasteful. It’s not an attitude that fits well with mainstream NZ, which is why I imagine the Greens love her, albeit not as much as she thought they did :)

This Government is an utter shambles ...............

Wow, who says 3 years isn't long enough for a Government to think long term and make a move on the big issues!!? At this rate another 8 1/2 years and Labour-Greens will be able to navigate some substantial challenges to the economy as well as a changing world. Feeling very positive about the direction from the 9th Floor.

I know I'm a cheerleader for the present lot. But just wanted to see ACTION. This is part of it.

So this is the Plan people ... everything was costed other than the $11.5B hole ... but the clever way around that is :
"Gloomy Budget warning: State of schools and hospitals worse than expected, says Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern"

Sooooo, in other words, you either have to wait or agree to pay more TAXES ....
Roading is another black hole, in addition to middlemore and other stuff ...

And, of course it is the National's lack of spending in the last 9 years which caused all that ...BECAUSE we did Not have GFC and we didn't borrow to build CrCh 1 and 2 .. and we did not spend anything on anything ... but National had lots of money to spend and they just DIDN'T, while the opposition was snoring on the other benches and suddenly woke up last year.
The coalition of losers is now truly becoming the Coalitions of Liars, deceivers, and Noobs insulting people's intelligence

I will keep posting the link bellow everyday to remind people how incompitant this CoL are:
"In less than six months, the government has burned through most of its provisions for new operating and capital spending. On a five-year basis, there has been $5b for Shane Jones' provincial growth fund, $5.5b for welfare, $2.6b for first-year students, $2b for KiwiBuild, $3.3b for the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, plus a few hundred million for other bibs and bobs. Reversing National's tax cuts will save only $8.4b over five years.
The government now finds itself struggling to meet the demands of nurses, teachers and other key Labour constituencies for pay rises, let alone make the significant new investments in health, law and order, and transport and other infrastructure that the median voters who switched from National to Labour expect."

Edit: nevermind, waste of pixels.

Arf! I just about caught it pre-edit, so you can have a thumbs up from me regardless.

I figured sometimes it's just not worth trying to argue facts when emotions, ideology and allegiance have far more sway.

OK here is a great idea, make it illegal for trucks, buses and any heavy vehicle or anyone towing a trailer to travel in the outside lane. Increase the speed limit in the outside lane ONLY of the motorways to 120km/hr.

Many accidents are caused by people doing stupid things because they are getting frustrated in trying to get to their destination faster and being held up by others going slow. Dangerous overtaking is a killer.

You need to make the roads safer, not lower the speed limits. We should never have roads with just a white line separating cars going 100km/hr in both directions. The roads should be separated with a 10m median like what has been used in recent years on some motorways. I'm sure if you looked at the crash statistics on these roads it would be much lower despite the higher average speeds.

Basic physics really, you die in a crash when you come to a sudden stop