Ani O'Brien: Public transport fallacies and middle class welfare

Good intentions are no substitute for good policy, yet questioning expensive subsidies is increasingly treated as a moral failing rather than a legitimate debate about priorities.

Labour’s proposal to cap public transport fares at $20 per week (in Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch; $10 everywhere else) has been touted as a “cost of living” measure, but the policy is politically strategic rather than a solution to a burning problem. It sounds good. Everyone understands that household budgets are under pressure and everyone likes the idea of cheaper transport. Additionally, public transport occupies a privileged position in modern political discourse. It is a left-coded snack they cannot help going back to. Zohran Mamdani in New York made it a cornerstone of his recent campaign to promise “free buses”. But already he has “acknowledged that his plan for fast and free buses isn’t going to happen so fast”.

Kerre Woodham: This is not bold and visionary policy from Labour

They say hope is the last thing to die. And thus it was yesterday when I heard Labour's first policy announcement in months. Give me a reason to vote for Labour – and they didn't. Chris Hipkins and Tangi Utikere announced a cap of some public transport fares —mostly for the cities, mostly for Auckland, where there's already a cap— that cuts off at a lower spending base. Not really the sort of bold and visionary policy you'd hope would come from a party that's been sitting around for years in Opposition, promising policy once the Budget's been released like it's going to be something quite seismic, revolutionary, changing the way we do things. A bit like the bold and visionary Labour of yore.