During the summer break, central government goes into hibernation, very little happens, and few press statements are released. Those that are circulated are often controversial, distributed in the hope that they will be overlooked while the public has other things on its mind. During the last break, a statement from NZTA was released about the pending start-up of the pedestrian crossing/traffic lights on SH1 leading to Wellington Airport. The bill is $2.4 million, about 25% of which was paid to consultants. The statement suggested that one of the main reasons for this project was that people wanted safer roads. How right they are. Safer roads: start with fixing up the potholes and other defects that are getting worse every day. This should be the main priority.

I recall that the person who made this statement may well have been the same one who, when the project was announced despite more than 70% of those who responded to the ‘consultation’ document indicating they did not want a crossing at the location, responded with a comment along the lines of, ‘Well, the same people who did not want the crossing also said they wanted road safety improvements on SH1, and this is SH1.’

Then we read about the government purchasing land in Rotorua to build 350 houses. This is despite its rejection of a plan from a private developer to develop 80 building lots on the same site in 2019 because of the potential for the development to increase the flood hazard for properties further downstream.

Then there was the revelation that Wellington’s two tugs were not suitable for ocean salvage following the incident with the Interislander ferry, Kaitaki, in Cook Strait, which should be a concern to anybody who travels these waters. This revelation mirrors that made after the Wahine disaster in 1968 when the two World War 2-era steam tugs in Wellington, the Taimoa and Tapuhi, were deemed unsuitable and replaced some years later. Is history repeating itself? I hope not.

As expected, the departure of Jacinda Ardern as prime minister had mixed reactions. However, what she did or did not do in the job is now history, just as this opinion will be after it is published. Nothing we can do will undo what happened. No doubt, political analysts and commentators will be hard at work analysing and developing their theories and stories. I am certain a book about her premiership will already be in the making. This may or may not reveal things we never knew, but the least we can do now that she has decided is to let her and her family get on with their lives and let history be the ultimate judge.

The new cabinet is an interesting mix, and again, history will judge whether the new PM has made the right choices. But I wonder, reading through the list, if he considered the observation advanced by Laurence J. Peter in 1969 that “People in a hierarchy tend to rise to a level of incompetence”, known as the Peter Principle. Essentially, people often get promoted to higher positions based on success in previous jobs until they reach a level where they are no longer competent. In other words, skills developed in one job do not necessarily translate to another. This principle is often seen in government appointments, and I am sure that if you think about this, you will know of situations where the principle also applies.

It was interesting to see the government do a U-turn on the fuel excise tax and RUC after telling us they would expire at the end of January and there would be no extensions. As I have said previously, it must be an election year.