ACT Welcomes Draft Plan To End Infrastructure Whiplash
ACT is welcoming the release of the draft National Infrastructure Plan today by the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission.
"This plan is a game-changing step toward getting the best-value infrastructure projects built, at the right price and on time," says ACT Leader David Seymour.
"A fundamental problem with our approach to infrastructure planning has been a political cycle shorter than the project cycle. When decision-makers change, infrastructure priorities are jerked around by political whiplash, leading to costly stops and starts on major initiatives like Auckland rail projects, roading, schools, and hospitals.
"The plan, once finalised, will deliver exactly what ACT has campaigned on: long-term infrastructure planning and prioritisation, smarter funding and financing, efficient delivery of critical projects, and better maintenance of assets.
"Instead of going back to the drawing board every time there's a change of political guard, future governments will be able to draw from an established pipeline of planned and costed projects.
"New Zealand ranks in the top 10% of OECD nations for infrastructure spending but the bottom 10% for outcomes. The infrastructure industry has been denied the certainty needed to bring in the investment, equipment, and talent they need to get the big stuff built efficiently.
"This plan aligns with ACT's coalition commitment of regional deals between central and local government to ensure funding certainty. Meanwhile, Simon Court has advanced the refresh of the Public-Private Partnership policy and introduced a new strategic leasing policy so that once projects are identified the private sector can play its part in finance and delivery.
"Simon's work to replace the Resource Management Act with a less bureaucratic system based on property rights also feeds in to make development faster and more affordable. Without ditching the RMA, projects will continue to be held up for years of arguments about effects that we already know how to manage well.
"Crucially, the Infrastructure Minister is seeking cross-party engagement on the Plan. I hope all parties will engage in good faith, because cross-party agreement means certainty for industry, which in turn means more projects get built on time and New Zealand becomes a richer, more industrious, more prosperous place to live."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
2 hours ago
- Scoop
Winston Peters Apologises For Calling Te Pāti Māori MP Tākuta Ferris A 'Dickhead' In The House
New Zealand First leader Winston Peters has apologised for calling Te Pāti Māori MP Tākuta Ferris a "dickhead" in the House, but is questioning whether the word is offensive. The Speaker will review the incident, and report back to the House on Thursday. Peters was answering questions from Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson on behalf of the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries, Shane Jones. "Does he think it's hypocritical that last year Aotearoa pledged $16 million to the Global Fund for Coral Reefs, yet this year we've had the largest coral by-catch event in 15 years, dredging up to six tonnes of ancient coral from the sea floor?" Davidson asked. "No such pledge was made by any such country as named by that questioner," Peters responded. Peters has repeatedly bristled at other MPs referring to the country as Aotearoa. The Speaker, however, is no longer hearing points of order over the use of the word. "Are you sure?" asked Ferris. "Yes, I am positive. Unlike you, you dickhead," Peters responded. The comment could be heard on the hot mic, and has been recorded in Hansard, the official record of things said in the House. Ferris later raised a point of order. "I've witnessed many times in this House disparaging comments being made between sides, and I'm quite sure that being called a 'dickhead' would fall in line with that tikanga of the House," he said. The Speaker said he had not heard the allegation until Ferris brought it up, and encouraged Peters to withdraw and apologise. Peters initially refused to apologise, arguing that Ferris had not raised the matter of offence. Ferris said he had taken personal offence, so Peters apologised. "On the basis that when I was trying to get my thoughts together on the answer to Marama Davidson's questions, he was interrupting me. I apologise for calling him what I said he was." ACT leader David Seymour also raised a point of order regarding Ferris' Toitū Te Tiriti t-shirt, and whether the Speaker would reflect on his earlier ruling around political motifs and branding in the House. In 2024, Gerry Brownlee banned ACT MPs from wearing party-branded pins in the debating chamber. Brownlee told Seymour he would reflect on the matter. As the matter was now in the hands of the Speaker, Peters would not answer questions about the incident on his way out of the House. The New Zealand First leader is often critical about the language used by other MPs. But in this case, he questioned whether the word he used was offensive. "Is it bad language?" he asked reporters. Peters instead said it was "wrong" that another MP was interfering with him being able to hear a question.
Scoop
2 hours ago
- Scoop
'Once-in-a-generation' National Infrastructure Plan sets vision for next 30 years
The draft National Infrastructure Plan is challenging the government to "lift its game" on project planning, saying it has often been "short-term and reactive". The strategy has been developed by the infrastructure commission, Te Waihanga, laying out the key areas in need of attention over the next three decades. Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop acknowledged the invocation and said the recommendations aligned with the government's priorities. Bishop cited the proposed shift towards user-pays, spatial planning, and better asset management and maintenance. "The government is determined to improve New Zealand's infrastructure system and to work alongside the industry and other political parties to establish a broad consensus about what needs to change," he said. The commission's chief executive Geoff Cooper said New Zealand spent a greater percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) on infrastructure compared to other high-income countries, but was in the bottom 10 percent for the value from that spend. "To ensure New Zealanders are getting the infrastructure services they need, it's critical that we get smarter about how we invest," he said. "A National Infrastructure Plan can help, showing where our infrastructure dollar will have the greatest impact in meeting New Zealand's future needs." The plan contains a "Priorities Programme List" of 17 projects, six of which relate to the Defence Force. As well, it endorses the upgrade of the Reserve Bank's cash centre and vault, and the redevelopment of Hawke's Bay Regional Prison. The commission said more investment would be needed over the next three decades in hospitals and electricity, while changes would be required in land transport investment. The draft plan laid out a litany of problems with the existing approach, including that infrastructure projects were announced before establishing whether they were affordable or achievable. "Half of the large projects seeking funding through central government's annual Budget lack business cases to demonstrate that they're ready to fund. "Maintenance funds, which should provide a steady, ongoing stream of work, may get diverted to new builds. Consequently, efforts to recruit, develop, and retain a skilled workforce are stretched" It said New Zealand needed to get smarter about infrastructure planning, and suggested easing the regulatory environment or taking a "more commercial approach". "It's time to start fixing up our essential infrastructure assets, rather than seeing them breaking under our feet because we didn't set aside money for maintenance. "It's time to invest in infrastructure that will lift our productivity and cut our carbon emissions. "It's time to do new projects right, rather than dreaming big and seeing them constantly delayed, rescoped, and cancelled because they're too big for us to afford." The plan will now go out for consultation with a final version to be published by the end of the year. Speaking at a symposium at Parliament on Wednesday morning, Bishop said the independent plan would succeed only if it was accepted and adopted by successive governments. "This is not the... coalition government's plan, this is New Zealand's plan. We will all be better off if we follow its recommendations," Bishop said. He also use his speech to take a whack at "14 laggard councils" which had not yet lodged bids with the infrastructure pipeline. "I'm going to be writing to them, saying that they need to get on board," Bishop said. "My own view is we do need to get away from the rhetoric of needing a bipartisan pipeline, and instead we need to start talking about building bipartisan consensus on the idea that governments of all flavours should use best-practice to plan, select, fund and finance, deliver, and look after our infrastructure." Infrastructure New Zealand chief executive Nick Leggett described the plan as a "once-in-a-generation" opportunity. "The draft Plan is a clear-eyed assessment of the infrastructure challenges facing New Zealand, our historic under-performance and provides a solid pathway for improvement, particularly from our government agencies," he said. "If we don't face up to this now, there will be real pain for our future generations." Leggett said the association particularly supported the design of a "steady project pipeline" to allow providers to invest in their workforce. Labour leader Chris Hipkins said the plan was a welcome contribution. "If we can agree some shared priorities, we can avoid this flip-flopping cycle where everything just takes too long and costs too much." Hipkins expected there were some assumptions in the plan that would be tested over the consultation process, and there would still be some debate over who pays for what. "Even in transport, we have partial user-pays for public transport at the moment. There's probably going to be some differences between Labour and National, in particular about where we think the balance of that should rest."
RNZ News
2 hours ago
- RNZ News
Regulatory Standards Bill: 30 hours allocated for public submissions on Act Party leader's bill
David Seymour also hit out at online campaigns denouncing the bill. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii ACT Party Leader David Seymour is defending the Regulatory Standards Bill getting only 30 hours of public submissions allocated. Te Ao Māori News has reported the Finance and Expenditure Committee made the decision to allocated a maximum of 30 hours for public submissions on the Regulatory Standards Bill. Submission on the bill closed on Monday, which has been introduced to Parliament in various forms on three separate occasions; first in 2006, then 2011 and 2021. Speaking to media, Seymour said the bill was "probably the most consulted on bill this century" given it would be the bill's fourth time through the house. But, Labour's Regulation spokesperson Duncan Webb said it was the "most rejected bill we've ever seen" and Seymour wanted to "slip it through under the radar". Seymour said the point of select committee was to get information to the committee so they could write better a bill, not a "referendum". "There's never been a bill that has had more consultation, more study, more debates, more deliberation this century than the Regulatory Standards Bill," Seymour said. "If people really believe that 30 hours is not enough time to hear all valid views about it, then I don't think they're taking it seriously." The ACT leader also hit out at online campaigns denouncing the bill and providing guides on how to make a submission - particularly from Greenpeace. "Let's be honest, most of these people who have submitted have gone and clicked on a series of false statements put out by the likes of Greenpeace, and that's all they've done," Seymour said. "These are not people that have read the bill or have something to say about it. So, if the idea is that because basically, Greenpeace ran an email recruitment campaign, there should be more listening, I don't think that's true." In response, Greenpeace spokesperson Gen Toop said Seymour comments were a "pathetic attempt" to "delegitimise" opposition to the bill. "Seymour has gone from calling people bots to smearing academics , and now he's trying to sideline people who have turned to trusted civil society organisations like Greenpeace to assist them in having their voices heard," Toop said. Toop said it was a "travesty" that there would only be 30 hours for people to be heard in by Select Committee and the bill would insert "far-right ideology" into the law making process. "Everyone deserves to have their voices heard on this bill, whether they had help with their submission or not," Toop said. Opponents could be summed up as "never have so many, been riled up, by so few, over so little substance," Seymour said. "I don't believe there's ever been a bill in this Parliament where every single written submission has been heard. A lot of people make written submissions and they ask not to be heard. That's normal." Seymour said. Duncan Webb. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone Labour's Duncan Webb said the bill had so far been "rejected every time" and Seymour did not want the bill to go through a full process. "He wants to slip it through under the radar. It's ridiculous. He's got a truncated select committee process. It should be heard fully. There are thousands of people who want to be heard," Webb said. "I like to think we live in a democracy where we give as many people as much voice as we can." Webb said there would be too many submission to go through the process "indefinitely" but 30 hours was "derisory" and "insulting". "It's undermining of people having a decent voice." Asked how long public submission should go for, Webb said 100 hours for the Fast Track Bill and 80 for the Treaty Principles Bill was an "indication". Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
