Government, Opposition Scrap Over Common Infrastructure Ground
Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop has committed to working directly with the Opposition, when putting together the Government's response to the 30-year infrastructure plan due out next week.
He says that co-operation comes on the proviso that infrastructure decisions are always political in nature - and it did not stop the discussion from repeatedly descending into a fingerpointing tit-for-tat over which government was to blame for what.
Labour housing, infrastructure and public investment spokesperson Kieran McAnulty kicked off the scrutiny week select committee hearing on Thursday afternoon, making an effort to "start on a positive note" on how bipartisanship could work for infrastructure policy, suggesting that would provide more certainty to the sector.
"I agree," Bishop said. "That's part of the reason why we campaigned on a 30-year national infrastructure plan being developed in government."
The plan has been developed independently by the Infrastructure Commission since late 2023 and is due to be launched at Parliament next week, with the government required to respond within six months.
Bishop said he planned a Parliamentary debate, so all the political parties' views could be included in that response, but McAnulty wanted more.
"At the moment, frankly, the attitude of some ministers of bipartisanship is, 'We'll work with you, if you agree with us', and I don't think that's good enough," he said, garnering an emphatic "yeah" from Green MP Julie Anne Genter.
Bishop said completely depoliticising infrastructure was not possible, which was to be expected in a democracy.
"You know, if we all agreed, this would be a fairly boring place," he said.
McAnulty agreed with an agreement to disagree.
"We think some of the things you've done are stupid... what I would like to see is a commitment," he said. "There's an opportunity there to work with the other side to actually identify where there is broad agreement and include that in your response."
More than just a debate, he wanted the response to include an explanation of which infrastructure projects the government and opposition parties agreed on.
Bishop: "I'm happy to commit to that now. Just making the obvious point ... we may not always agree.
"For example, you guys have got to figure out where you're at on PPPs, for example, because you've had about nine different positions.
McAnulty: "We know where we're at with that."
Bishop: "You sure?"
McAnulty: "Yes, I am actually... this is one of the things that I'm actually trying to avoid, right, is that we can't help ourselves.
"This is the game we're in. We talk about bipartisanship, but we also take every opportunity to have a crack at each other."
Bishop: "Well, you just said some of the stuff we've done was stupid."
McAnulty: "Exactly my point, we can't help ourselves."
Bishop said parties could agree on a lot, when it came to infrastructure, and "sometimes there's a bit more heat than light in this debate".
McAnulty said he did not think the public would know that.
The minister pressed on, deferring to Infrastructure Commission chief executive Geoff Cooper to explain the projects expected across the country from about 110 organisations, including all but 14 of the country's councils.
The result was a list showing investment worth $206 billion, broken down by region and sector, which Cooper said started to paint a much clearer picture of investment.
"The point is to have... almost a single source of truth for what's in the pipeline," Bishop said.
Committee chair Andy Foster - a former Wellington mayor - said the information should be included in councils' long-term plans and they should be contributing. Bishop had an easy solution.
"Well, if they don't do it, we can just mandate that they do it - but I'd rather not, because that takes time and money," he said. "I'd rather they just do it."
"Enough of those mandates for councils," interjected Labour local government spokesperson Tangi Utikere.
"We make them do all sorts of things for the right reasons and this would be the same thing," Bishop responded.
Clashes over cancellations
While the first half hour was not entirely bonhomie, unicorns and rainbows, the verbal finger pointing was surely on show in the second half of Bishop's appearance.
McAnulty asked if the minister accepted cancelling projects across successive governments had affected sector confidence.
"Depends exactly what you're talking about," Bishop said. "I accept that, after 2017, the radical change in direction of the National Land Transport Plan at the time had a significant impact."
"So you're willing to say that one government cancelled projects that had an effect, but you're not willing to concede that you guys cancelling projects has?" McAnulty responded.
Bishop said it showed the limits of bipartisanship.
"Our view was that they're the wrong projects for the country, he said. "Depends which one, but generally too expensive, not good value for money, in some cases undeliverable.
"It was the right thing to do to say, 'You know what, we're actually just not going to proceed with that'."
Genter said many council projects were also defunded under the coalition and the iReX ferry replacement could have been rescoped, rather than dumped.
Predictably, this kicked off a four-minute cancellation-measuring contest - which government cancelled more projects? Who cancelled more projects that were already contracted?
"You can have an intention to do something, it doesn't mean it will end up happening," Bishop concluded - or seemed to. "The last government lived in fiscal fantasy land."
"Only because your government made a decision to give billions of dollars to landlords," Genter fired back.
Foster was eager to move on, asking Bishop about whether Kāinga Ora had managed to bring social housing build costs down to the same level as private developers - a topic well traversed in the last scrutiny week in December.
The minister did not have the latest numbers, "because this is not the vote Housing and Urban Development estimates", but the agency was making "good progress" and would report back on that publicly.
He and Utikere then argued some more over the roughly $250 million allocated for cancellation of the ferries contract - whether that was part of Bishop's responsibilities - with Bishop saying it belonged to Rail Minister Winston Peters and Utikere saying, when they'd asked Peters, he'd referred it to Bishop.
Utikere: "And the minister doesn't even know ... that's very disappointing."
Bishop: "Yes. So's your behaviour."
Utikere:"No, it's not actually, minister, my behaviour is about scrutinising the executive - that is our responsibility.
"It is disappointing that you don't know the answer to just over a quarter of a billion dollars' worth of taxpayers money that has been set aside in your Budget."
Foster stepped in again, suggesting Bishop's answer was that it was best for his ministerial staff to provide an answer and they did. Treasury deputy secretary Leilani Frew said negotiations for the ferry contract exit were still continuing, as well as wind-down costs.
The discussion soon wound down too - after a series of patsy questions and a discussion about the causes of 15,000 fewer people being employed in construction. Bishop argued it was an expected side-effect of bringing down the official cash rate, which would - in turn - have the biggest effect on reinvigorating the sector,
McAnulty argued housing could be an avenue for stimulating growth.
In the end, the public got a commitment to bipartisanship. Whether it lasts remains to be seen, but investors watching this scrappy select committee may be hesitant to bet the house on it.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
36 minutes ago
- Scoop
NZ Is Trailing Its Allies Over Palestinian Statehood – But There's Still Time To Show Leadership
It's now a week since Prime Minister Christopher Luxon announced his government had begun to formally consider New Zealand's position on the recognition of a Palestinian state. That leaves three weeks until the United Nations General Assembly convenes on September 9, where it is expected several key allies will change position and recognise Palestinian statehood. Already in a minority of UN member states which don't recognise a Palestinian state, New Zealand risks becoming more of an outlier if and when Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom make good on their recent pledges. Luxon has said the decision is 'complex', but opposition parties certainly don't see it that way. Labour leader Chris Hipkins says it's 'the right thing to do', and Greens co-leader Chloë Swarbrick has called on government MPs to 'grow a spine' (for which she was controversially ejected from the debating chamber). Former Labour prime minister Helen Clark has also criticised the government for trailing behind its allies, and for appearing to put trade relations with the United States ahead of taking a moral stand over Israel's actions in Gaza. Certainly, those critics – including the many around the country who marched during the weekend – are correct in implying New Zealand has missed several opportunities to show independent leadership on the issue. The distraction factor While it has been open to New Zealand to recognise it as a state since Palestine declared its independence in 1988, there was an opportunity available in May last year when the Irish, Spanish and Norwegian governments took the step. That month, New Zealand also joined 142 other states calling on the Security Council to admit Palestine as a full member of the UN. But in a subsequent statement, New Zealand said its vote should not be implied as recognising Palestinian statehood, a position I called 'a kind of muddled, awkward fence-sitting'. It is still not too late, however, for New Zealand to take a lead. In particular, the government could make a more straightforward statement on Palestinian statehood than its close allies. The statements from Australia, Canada and the UK are filled with caveats, conditions and contingencies. None are straightforward expressions of solidarity with the Palestinian right of self-determination under international law. As such, they present political and legal problems New Zealand could avoid. Politically, this late wave of recognition by other countries risks becoming a distraction from the immediate starvation crisis in Gaza. As the Israeli journalist Gideon Levy and UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese have noted, these considered and careful diplomatic responses distract from the brutal truth on the ground. This was also Chloë Swarbrick's point during the snap debate in parliament last week. Her private members bill, she noted, offers a more concrete alternative, by imposing sanctions and a trade embargo on Israel. (At present, it seems unlikely the government would support this.) Beyond traditional allies Legally, the proposed recognitions of statehood are far from ideal because they place conditions on that recognition, including how a Palestinian state should be governed. The UK has made recognition conditional on Israel not agreeing to a ceasefire and continuing to block humanitarian aid into Gaza. That is extremely problematic, given recognition could presumably be withdrawn if Israel agreed to those demands. Such statements are not exercises in genuine solidarity with Palestinian self-determination, which is defined in UN Resolution 1514 (1960) as the right of peoples 'to freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development'. Having taken more time to consider its position, New Zealand could now articulate a more genuine statement of recognition that fulfils the legal obligation to respect and promote self-determination under international law. A starting point would be to look beyond the small group of 'traditional allies' to countries such as Ireland that have already formally recognised the State of Palestine. Importantly, Ireland acknowledged Palestinian 'peaceful self-determination' (along with Israel's), but did not express any other conditions or caveats. New Zealand could also show leadership by joining with that wider group of allies to shape the coming General Assembly debate. The aim would be to shift the language from conditional recognition of Palestine toward a politically and legally more tenable position. That would also sit comfortably with the country's track record in other areas of international diplomacy – most notably the campaign to abolish nuclear weapons, where New Zealand has also taken a different approach to its traditional allies.
RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
Bill to ban protesting outside private homes passes first reading
Standing in for Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith, James Meager said the bill would be a welcome relief to many MPs, officials, and other individuals who had been targeted. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone Legislation to make protesting outside someone's home an offence has passed its first reading at Parliament. The bill would apply to demonstrations directed at a specific person outside their private residence, considering factors like how 'unreasonable' the protest is. Labour, the Greens, and Te Pāti Māori opposed the bill, expressing concerns it could override the right to freedom of protest, and there were existing tools police could use. Standing in for Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith, James Meager said the bill would be a welcome relief to many MPs, officials, and other individuals who had been targeted. He said the bill was a balance of rights and freedoms. "The protection of New Zealanders' privacy is fundamentally important in our society, as is the ability to protest. The government upholds both of these values," he said. Meager said the public's right to protest was protected by the Bill of Rights Act, but demonstrations outside homes could impede on someone's right to privacy. "Unreasonable, disruptive intrusions into people's private spaces are simply unacceptable," Meager said. The government believed existing legislation did not clearly reflect the importance of privacy in the context of demonstrations, meaning police had difficulty in applying offences like disorderly behaviour. The offence would only apply if the protest was targeted at a specific person outside their private residence, meaning marches that passed by someone's house would not be covered. Time of day, duration, the demonstrators' actions, noise levels, and distance to the premises would also be factors in determining the offence. Despite Labour leader Chris Hipkins earlier expressing his concerns that protest had become personalised, Labour did not support the bill. Labour's Duncan Webb. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone Its justice spokesperson Duncan Webb said the bill "chips away" at free speech rights, and New Zealand could not call itself a liberal democracy while passing legislation that prohibited demonstration. "The point of political action is to disrupt. It is not to be nice, it's not to be convenient. Protest is disruptive, that's what a protest is." Webb acknowledged other MPs have experienced people acting inappropriately outside their residences, but the legislation was targeted to suppress political action. "If that's your problem, the easy fix is actually to fix the offence of disorderly behaviour, and make it clear that disorder that flows into a private premise can in fact still amount to that offence." The Green Party also opposed the bill. MP Celia Wade-Brown said threats to people's safety or their families' safety were unacceptable, but the new offence had a disproportionate punishment. "Three months in prison, $2000 fine, this is not a parking ticket." Te Pāti Māori MP Mariameno Kapa-Kingi. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith Te Pāti Māori MP Mariameno Kapa-Kingi said if police felt they could not apply existing legislation to remove someone behaving unreasonably outside another's home, then police should "check their practice." Speaking in support of the bill, ACT's Todd Stephenson accepted there were two competing rights in the legislation, but the Select Committee phase would be a chance for a discussion about how the balance could be struck. "It's worthwhile at least going through the Select Committee process and uncovering what powers the police do or don't have currently, but they're saying they don't have sufficient powers." Casey Costello from New Zealand First said it was a "sad, sad indictment on our democracy" that the legislation was even needed. "We know we have politically motivated groups who will purposely release private residential addresses of elected officials, of businesspeople, in order to invoke an intimidatory approach to dealing with decisions." Costello disagreed it was a limitation on protesting, but a protection for people's privacy. "It is absolutely reasonable to say that we will ensure that voices can be heard, but my children, my mother, my family will not have to bear the price of the decisions or the public position that I hold," she said. The Justice Committee will now consider the bill, and will report back within four months.
Scoop
an hour ago
- Scoop
Labour Commits To Bringing Back Gang Patches
Labour has finally announced its first law and order policy with Peeni Henare confirming they would repeal the gang patch ban, National's Justice spokesperson Paul Goldsmith says. 'In a Tamaki Makaurau byelection debate last night, Peeni Henare confirmed Labour will return to the bad old days of gangs taking over towns and frightening New Zealanders. 'This is shocking, but hardly surprising from a party so soft on crime. Labour has once again shown how out of touch they are with everyday Kiwis. 'On numerous occasions, Chris Hipkins has committed to keeping National's gang patch ban. He needs to be clear with New Zealanders – does he have any policies of his own, or is his plan dictated to him by Te Pāti Maori and the Greens? 'Banning gang patches has been an integral part of our plan to restore law and order, which we know is working. There are 28,000 fewer victims of violent crime than when we came into Government. Allowing gangs to once again behave as if they're above the law, puts all that at risk.' Using Scoop for work? Scoop is free for personal use, but you'll need a licence for work use. This is part of our Ethical Paywall and how we fund Scoop. Join today with plans starting from less than $3 per week, plus gain access to exclusive Pro features. Join Pro Individual Find out more
