Transport minister Phil Twyford is under fire again, and is facing calls to be sacked over delays around Auckland’s light rail system. Should he stay or should he go? Alex Braae assesses the arguments. 

The drums are beating for Phil Twyford. The failure to get the government’s Auckland light rail plans out the door, and the possibility Twyford misled the public in the process, have led to calls for either his resignation or sacking.

However, that doesn’t mean Twyford’s political demise is inevitable. Sometimes ministers survive turbulent weeks intact, and sometimes they’re forced out before anyone has seriously suggested the possibility. Iain Lees-Galloway faced down repeated calls for his resignation over the decisions he made in the Karel Sroubek saga, while Twyford himself immediately offered his resignation (and was stripped of responsibility for Civil Aviation) when he was snapped using a cellphone while his plane was taxiing. These matters are unpredictable, and depend on political calculations as much as those around policy.

So, should Phil Twyford stay or go? Here are the two competing cases, broken down into the various arguments that will be thrown around over the next few days.

Go

This was Labour’s big idea for how to cut through the Gordian knot of Auckland’s traffic congestion. It would have taken cars off two crucial and frequently clogged roads – the Southwestern motorway and the Northwestern motorway. Twyford’s insistence on hearing out the Super Fund bid to build light rail has caused interminable delays to it actually getting started, and commuters deserve better.

Stay

Hang on, isn’t it the job of ministers to weigh up competing options so as to find the best one? These are hugely complicated projects, and delays are inevitable if you want the best possible decisions to be made. What a waste it would have been to get a couple of years into the construction of a project that turned out to be inadequate.

Go

Phil Twyford has been accused of misleading the public. NZ Herald columnist Matthew Hooton made this claim last week, saying the Super Fund’s bid to build their version of the mass transit network was clearly solicited. That cut against repeated claims that the Super Fund bid came entirely off the organisation’s own bat.

Stay

Phil Twyford has declared this allegation totally wrong and defamatory. Either way, does it actually matter much? Is this not simply one of the eggs that might need to be broken to make the ministerial omelette, as it were? And again, if it results in a better outcome being achieved, then don’t the ends justify the means? This is government, and government in the real world is sometimes messy and complicated.

Go

Come on, this is being far too generous. This is twice now that Phil Twyford has been tasked with rolling out a Labour policy which promised to be transformational. And just like with Kiwibuild, this has dented the credibility of the government as a whole. These debacles are directly in his portfolios, and being a minister means wearing that responsibility when things go pear shaped.

Stay

Why would you get rid of someone overseeing a complex project right in the middle of crucial decisions being made? It is impossible to imagine that Phil Twyford hasn’t learnt useful things over his two years as minister of transport – surely that knowledge is best put to use by keeping him on as minister of transport? Besides, Twyford is a big vision sort of guy, and the government needs that. In fact if not for big visions, what’s the point of anyone going to the trouble of getting into government at all? We should all want our politicians to aspire to more than simply keeping things ticking over.

Go

The Royal Navy once shot an admiral in the 18th century, ostensibly according to Voltaire “to encourage the others.” For PM Jacinda Ardern to get rid of Phil Twyford would show that she’s serious about incompetency not being acceptable. While former minister Clare Curran was sacked for improper diary keeping, there was plenty of speculation that she was sent packing for not being up to the job. Twyford deserves the same.

Stay

Which lucky sailor would get to be the next admiral of the ship? Julie Anne Genter might have done a fairly competent job in her limited areas of responsibility as associate transport minister, but the confidence and supply agreement between the Greens and Labour would make promoting her a messy business. Is there anyone in Labour’s ranks who would be up to it? Kris Faafoi and Deborah Russell (an Auckland MP, at that) are both talked about as potential senior ministers, but that would be a huge step up.

Go

Why wait? Two years of failure is long enough. Jacinda Ardern’s credibility is on the line here.

Stay

Phil Twyford is one of Labour’s top five. The jobs he was given were central to what Labour promised the country. To remove him now would be a huge admission of failure, and would basically mean the PM telling the country that her decision to put him in had been wrong. That would arguably dent Jacinda Ardern’s credibility even more.

A compromise …?

Could there be a wider reshuffle in which responsibility for various aspects of transport gets split up among a few different people? After all, it’s how the government managed to get Megan Woods the title of minister of housing, with Twyford shuffled diagonally downwards to become the minister for urban development. Don’t rule this out as being the best available for the PM.

Won’t happen

A reshuffle so close to the election? It’s just under a year away, and the government are navel gazing about who gets to sit in which chair? Surely not.

Or could it?

The election is just less than a year away, and no matter which poll you consult, the opposition is really only a small swing away from taking back power from the coalition. Imagine being a one term government because Aucklanders felt let down by Phil Twyford.

An open letter signed by more than 150 New Zealanders under 30 who specialise in biological or environmental science says the current law hinders efforts to tackle the climate crisis, and urges the Greens to change their position and take a lead on reform.

A group of more than 150 young New Zealand scientists has laid down a challenge to the Green Party to revisit its position on genetic modification.

In an open letter, the signatories urge Green Party members and MPs to take a lead in overhauling strict legislation, enacted 16 years ago, that regulates GM research. To do so is urgent, they argue, in light of the climate crisis.

“Climate change is one of the greatest crises in human history, and our current law severely restricts the development of technologies that could make a vital difference,” reads the letter.

GM based study in New Zealand was bridled by “one of the toughest regulatory environments in the world for this field of research”, they write. “We believe that GM based research could be decisive in our efforts to reduce New Zealand and global climate emissions as well as partially mitigating some of the impacts of climate change.”

The letter – read it in full here – is signed 155 people under 30 who either have or are studying for a PhD or Masters degree in biological or environmental science. It pokes a stick at a potential hornet’s nest for the Green Party, pitching members who are staunchly opposed to genetic engineering against the more resolutely “evidence-based” camp keen to see science deployed in the fight against climate change.

The Greens had been targeted, according to the open letter, “because of a history of leading in science based policy such as climate action, even when that path is difficult.”

Responding to the letter, the Greens’ spokesperson for science and technology, Gareth Hughes, said: “We’re comfortable with keeping GE in the lab but we’re always open to a facts-based public conversation about GE.”

Green Party policy calls for “keeping genetic research organisms completely contained in a secure indoor laboratory” and “prohibiting genetically modified and transgenic organisms that are intended for release into the environment or food chain”.

The signatories say that the existing 2003 law is a handbrake on GM related research in areas including agricultural efficiency, carbon capture, and the production of alternative proteins.

“The existing regulation in New Zealand inhibits application of advances such as these, blocking not only the development of green technology, but the potential for a just transition away from extractive and polluting industries. New Zealand has the opportunity to be a world leader in such a transition: for example, the development and demonstration of effective technologies to reduce agricultural emissions could have an international impact and set an example for other countries.”

The letter notes that among those calling for a public discussion around reforms to genetic modification laws are the expert panel on gene editing set up by the Royal Society Te Apārangi, which reported back in August, the prime minister’s chief science advisor, and the interim climate change committee.

The Greens have been “strong advocates of both climate action and evidence based policy informed by science”, concludes the letter.

“In this light we call upon its members, supporters, ministers, and MPs to add their voices to the cause of a science-based approach to climate, on behalf of the people and environment of both Aotearoa and the world.”

Approached for comment, the Green Party leadership directed questions to science and technology spokesperson Gareth Hughes.

“We acknowledge the letter and appreciate the message,” Hughes told The Spinoff in an email.

“We’re comfortable with keeping GE in the lab but we’re always open to a facts-based public conversation about GE to ensure our environment and species are protected and consumers are safe and informed.”

Hughes noted that the prime minister’s chief science adviser, Juliet Gerrard, had “recently pointed out that GE regulation isn’t just a scientific question, it has ethical and economic dimensions too. Risks to New Zealand’s fast-growing organics sector and national agricultural reputation need to be considered.

Gerrard has also said, however, that New Zealand’s existing law on genetic engineering is “not fit for purpose”. Speaking to the Spinoff shortly after her appointment, she said: “The act was written before the technologies we’re discussing were even invented. So I think what we need to do is have a calm look at sorting out the language and the legal and regulatory framework.”

Her predecessor as PM’s science adviser, Sir Peter Gluckman, has gone further, saying, “If our country does not periodically consider how to use or not use evolving technologies, we run the risk of becoming a backwater with a declining competitive position. We must to find a way to have ongoing conversations about fast moving and evolving technologies; burying our heads in the sands of short-termism can have serious long-term costs.”

An expert panel, cited by the letter writers, set up by Royal Society Te Apārangi to consider implications of new technologies which allow more controlled and precise gene editing, called for “an overhaul of the regulations” and “an urgent need for wide discussion and debate about gene editing within and across all New Zealand communities”.

Hughes added: “There are emissions reduction practices available right now without needing hypothetical, future GE-based technologies. We believe regenerative and organic agriculture is a better future for New Zealand and our environment.

“Green Party policies are developed by our members and any change would have to come from the membership.”

The strength of divergent views within the Greens bubbled to the surface last week, when a member went public over a rejected op-ed submission to the party magazine, Te Awa.

In the proposed piece, which he provided to the NZ Herald, GE opponent and non-toxic pesticide developer Chris Henry had called for the resignation of James Shaw, writing: “We simply cannot have someone weak on the issue leading the political side.”

He had been motivated by an appearance by Shaw on Q&A, in which the Greens co-leader said he would be “led by the science” in assessing the arguments for GM technology in reducing methane emissions in agriculture.

The editor of the magazine, which is independent from the party caucus, told Henry: “Your piece conflicts with many of our principles and values when it asks for James’ resignation. The Green Party’s non-violence and appropriate decision-making principles preclude me from publishing your article. You have chosen a confrontational and violent approach to getting attention to your concerns.”