Government considers Crown contributions to partnership projects
PPPs were considered for court construction, but not included in Budget 2025.
Photo:
RNZ / Anneke Smith
Government agencies are looking into how the Crown could put capital directly into Public Private Partnership projects.
This is among moves to get try to get more partnerships underway to build a wider range of public infrastructure, from courts to health facilities.
Minutes from the NZ Transport Agency show it has explored direct Crown contributions to PPPs for several months.
Treasury said these were used in other countries to improve value for money or project outcomes.
Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop said PPP guidelines due out later this year would show how to consider Crown contributions.
"The inclusion of a Crown capital contribution will be considered on a project-by-project basis throughout the business case and procurement processes," Bishop said.
Officials did not believe legislative or regulatory change would be required to implement contributions.
A
blueprint to change PPPs
was put out late last year, as the Government sought to get the private sector, including international companies, enthused about investing.
"The blueprint signalled that their use would be carefully considered on a project-by-project basis," Treasury said of the contributions.
At the Government's infrastructure investment summit in March, PPPs were raised as an option in health.
PPPs to build three new courts in Waitākere and Rotorua, and a Māori Land Court in Rotorua were initially considered by justice officials, but the courthouse builds did not receive funding in Budget 2025.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero
,
a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
11 minutes ago
- RNZ News
Glyphosate health issues to be debated in High Court
The ELI is challenging the EPA's 2024 refusal to reassess glyphosate and glyphosate-based substances. Photo: AFP The judicial review hearing - which is expected to last two days - will see ELI challenge the EPA's 2024 refusal to reassess glyphosate and glyphosate-based substances. There had been significant scientific research on the herbicide since it was first introduced to New Zealand about 50 years ago, Environmental Law Initiative senior legal advisor Tess Upperton said. That was the grounds ELI used in their formal request for a risk reassessment, but the EPA refused last year, prompting the judicial review set to be heard today and tomorrow. Upperton said while the EPA had reviewed some aspects over the years, such as looking at carcinogenicity of glyphosate in 2015, there had never been a full risk assessment, which is the usual protocol when a new product is first approved for use. "That's largely because it was first approved in the 1970s. We have asked the EPA for a record of that original risk assessment. They don't have a copy of that. They don't know what it is." Since then, RoundUp and the more than 90 other glyphosate based formulas sold in New Zealand had been "grandfathered through successive regimes," she said, even though some of the glyphosate-based formulas have been found to have additional ingredients that amplify glyphosates toxicity. In 2021, the EPA issued a "call for information" to assess whether there were grounds to reassess the use of glyphosate. "It went out to the public and asked industry, NGOs, lay people, how do you use glyphosate? What do you see as the risks? And they got a lot of useful information back, but that isn't providing scientific evidence of what the risks are, which there's a lot of information about overseas." She said there was a dearth of domestic studies, particularly on the impact on indigenous species in Aotearoa. "Certainly when we submitted our request to them providing significant new information and asking them to take the good hard look that hadn't been taken domestically before, we were surprised they said no. "There's a wealth of new published peer-reviewed, well conducted research on glyphosate and there are new studies coming out all the time." The bid for a risk assessment did not directly relate to a proposal being considered by the Ministry for Primary Industries , which could see the amount of glyphosate allowed on some crops increased exponentially , but Upperton says one assessment feeds into another, and ELI believed any reassessment of the MRL should wait until after the EPA had conducted a full risk assessment. The government was proposing increasing the MRL from 0.1 milligrams per kilogram for wheat, barley and oat grains to 10 milligrams per kilogram, and 6 milligrams per kilogram for peas. The MRL is partially based on a permitted daily exposure for food (PDE), which was set by the EPA's predecessor, the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA), more than 20 years ago. A public submission period which closed in mid-May saw the ministry receive more than 3100 submissions on the proposal. A spokesperson said it was too soon to have analysed the large of submissions, or to give a timeframe for that to happen. ELI was not calling for an immediate ban on glyphosate, and any possible controls coming out of a reassessment would be up to the EPA and based on scientific conclusions, Upperton said. New Zealand is one of the most permissive regulators of glyphosate globally, including allowing glyphosate use in settings where it's banned elsewhere - such as a pre-harvest desiccant on crops, a practice prohibited in the European Union, she said. Several European countries have banned the domestic sale of glyphosate, restricting its use to regulated agricultural and commercial settings, while in the United States, the manufacturer of the leading glyphosate-based herbicide, Bayer, pulled RoundUp from the residential market itself in an effort to pre-empt further litigation, which has seen the company pay billions of dollars to settle cases over potential links to cancer , with another 67,000 cases pending. Last year, the European Union approved glyphosate use for another decade after member states deadlocked for a second time on the issue, but a number of European countries, including France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Austria and Germany have partial bans in place. Multiple challenges to the decision are before the European Court of Justice. "There's a whole spectrum of regulation out there. Some countries have banned it, some have restricted its use. New Zealand is at the really permissive end of the spectrum in terms of those with developed regulatory systems, we use a lot of it and everyone can use it, which is quite unusual." The human health impacts of glyphosate are disputed. In 2015, the World Health Organisation's International Agency for Research on Cancer found glyphosate was a probable carcinogen and found strong evidence for genotoxicity, or the ability to damage DNA. One of the grounds to trigger a reassessment is the existence of significant new information about the effects of the chemical, which was the route ELI took in it's request. "There's a whole wealth of new, published, peer reviewed, well conducted research out there about glyphosate, and there's new studies coming out all the time, it's a really developing area." Upperton felt there were two reasons for burgeoning body of evidence on the possible health impacts of glyphosate. "Firstly, long term or chronic effects take a while to show up and into evidence. So if we've had glyphosate now for about 50 years in our populations, those effects are going to be more and more widely felt, but the other primary reason is that when these chemicals are introduced, the assessment of them is reliant on studies of their toxicity, for example, that are conducted by industry itself. "Which makes sense - they should be looking into the safety of their own products - but they also have a very clear direct financial interest in these things being approved. It does mean - and it has been borne out in relation to several different substances, including glyphosate - their studies might focus on less real world effects and more in the laboratory where it doesn't really represent how it would be used In the real world. "It's not to discount industry studies in their entirety, but in ELI's view, independent science is also important because it's a check on that kind of inherent conflict of interest that industry has." The inability to sue companies in the same way as some other jursidictions - Bayer has spent more than US$11 billion settling close to 100,000 lawsuits in the United States, and is attempting to have legislation passed in some states to shield it from future litigation, while reportedly considering dropping the product altogether - meant New Zealanders had to rely even more on the EPA, she said. "You can't sue someone for using glyphosate, or getting sick from glyphosate in New Zealand because of the bar on personal injury claims - that actually makes us more dependent on our regulator to step in and do these things because we can't take these actions in private capacities. We have to use the EPA and ask the EPA to do its job, which is really what this case is about." The situation also highlighted a "wider issue for the EPA and for environmental regulation in Aoteaora generally" which was the under resourcing of the EPA, Upperton said. "ELI is not saying the EPA needs to ban glyphosate tomorrow - we recognise that there's a lot of competing interest and resources at play here. What we want to do is is put it on the radar, put it on the list of things to be thought about, because there is a really big backlog of chemicals that need to be looked at by the EPA. I recognise they aren't resourced to be adequately doing their job at the moment." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
The Spinoff
20 minutes ago
- The Spinoff
What Chris Bishop's decision on Plan Change 14 means for Christchurch
Minister of RMA reform Chris Bishop has responded to Christchurch City Council's alternative proposals around its district plan. His decisions have consequences for transport and house prices as the southern city grows. Where will future housing growth in Christchurch go? Will new houses be built on the outskirts of the city, or close to the centre? A decision by RMA reform minister Chris Bishop made earlier this month goes some way to answering these questions. Bishop rejected the majority of changes Christchurch City Council had wanted to make to its district plan (called Plan Change 14), which were an alternative to changes that had been recommended by the city's independent hearings panel in 2024. The council had accepted the majority of the panel's recommendations in December 2024, including building heights of 14 metres in all commercial centres, higher limits in certain areas, higher buildings in walking catchments around shopping centres and removing character protections in some areas. But, the council proposed alternatives for 20 of the changes it did not accept, which had to be approved by the RMA minister. One was having ' sunlight access ' as a factor when considering new housing; essentially saying that because of Christchurch's lower latitude compared to cities in the North Island, buildings shouldn't be allowed to be built as high because they would block sunlight for neighbouring homes. Campaigners against the nationwide building height increase in urban areas used the slogan 'stop daylight robbery'. The council proposed lower heights of buildings in Christchurch than the MDRS (Medium Density Residential Standards) mandates, to make the amount of sun access even. Bishop rejected this alternative request, as well as limits to high-density specifications in the suburbs of Riccarton, Linwood and Hornby, which all have big populations and commercial centres as well as historic housing, and therefore good potential for intensification but also residents with concerns about growth. However, he approved three of the suggestions, including further intensification around designated suburban centres like Barrington in Spreydon. Christchurch City Council had initially rejected the previous government's efforts to make intensification rules consistent across the country through the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD) in 2022, wanting a custom approach rather than a national standard. However, despite multiple time extensions, Christchurch eventually had to go through the process of adopting policies 3 and 4 of the NPS-UD, which focus on intensification in urban areas, as well as the MDRS. 'Together, these decisions will enable a greater level of development in and around Christchurch City's urban centres,' said Bishop in a press release announcing his decision. 'This doesn't feel like the best outcome [for our city],' said Christchurch mayor Phil Mauger in a press release responding to Bishop's decision. 'In putting these decisions forward to the government, we obviously wanted to get all of our alternative recommendations approved. So, to only have three of them get the tick is a kick in the guts.' Sara Templeton, a councillor for the Heathcote area who is also running for mayor, said the minister's decision was not unexpected, and now it was time to get on with it. Christchurch needed more housing to accommodate future growth, she said. 'Christchurch is forecast to increase by 30,000 people in the next decade – that's the size of Timaru,' she said. 'We can't keep sprawling onto the productive soils around Christchurch.' Residents associations were supportive of Christchurch City Council having a custom district plan, and disappointed by Bishop's decision. 'If there is a housing supply shortage, it's probably in those sorts of properties in the inner city, which are slowly disappearing,' said Tony Simons, a representative of a group of residents associations, as reported by RNZ. 'What Chris Bishop has decided is to let developers build what they want, pretty much where they want, and that's a shame.' The urbanist group Greater Ōtautahi supported Bishop's decision, saying the changes would allow walkable communities in areas like Riccarton and Papanui; much of the growth is around shopping centres. 'Allowing more homes where people want to live is an important step for the future of Ōtautahi. This means that people are able to live with dignity in a home that is more affordable,' said Greater Ōtautahi chairperson M Grace-Stent in a press release. The whole process raises questions about how local and central government interact, and whether the government is truly embracing 'localism'. 'My preference is for central government to let local gov know the outcomes it wants and hold local government to account for heading in that direction,' Templeton said. This would allow councils like Christchurch to make sure a more 'strategic' approach was adopted as the city intensified housing, ensuring new housing was concentrated in areas where amenities and public transport already existed. 'When we sprawl, it increases rates for residents over time,' said Templeton, who wants transport planning to be aligned with housing intensification. 'Growth in areas without transport means more cars on the outskirts, more driving through neighbourhoods, more traffic at rush hour.' Christchurch City Council hasn't approved the MDRS, and currently has until the end of the year to do so. However, that looks likely to change; a bill revising the current Resource Management Act (RMA) was introduced with a provision that councils could opt out of the MDRS if they had provided for 30 years of housing growth in their district or unitary plans. Followin g Auckland Council's decision not to approve intensification around rapid public transport corridors like the City Rail Link stations, the environment select committee recommended amendments to the bill that would still allow Auckland and Christchurch to opt out of the MDRS, but require them both to follow 'bespoke' processes that would mandate more intensification around urban centres and public transport hubs.
RNZ News
26 minutes ago
- RNZ News
A new era in flight takes off in Hamilton
New flights to Australia from Hamilton Airport are taking off this morning. File photo. Photo: Supplied Hamilton will once again have an international airport, with flights starting to and from Australia today. (Left to right) Joshua Wikiriwhi-Heta from Ngaati Hauaa and Hamilton Airport chief executive Mark Morgan at the blessing on 3 June. Photo: Supplied Hamilton mayor Paula Southgate said it would be a total game changer for the city. "Direct flights into Hamilton open up huge opportunities, whether it be business, tourism, or leisure," she said. The new flights were announced in September 2024 . Jetstar will fly 188-seater A320 Neo aircraft both ways between Sydney and Hamilton (four days a week) and the Gold Coast and Hamilton (three days a week). Southgate was not worried that it might become a direct one-way-door out of the city and across the Tasman for residents. She said people were just happy to be able to have a holiday in Australia without having to go to Auckland first. "This will be easier for them to go and visit friends and family and to do business in those big cities, and easier for them to go and enjoy some of the events and attractions Australia offers." Zealong Tea Estate general manager Sen Kong said that had also been the message he had heard from staff. "Some have been quite vocal in terms of how much more convenient it's going to be in order to contact with their friends and family, it also an opportunity to visit a market with a lot more convenience." He said having an international airport again signalled Waikato as a region of growth. Hamilton Airport group general manager operations Ben Langley, inside the new international terminal as it was being built. Photo: Supplied "This city is ready for a lot more visitors and a lot more business to come its way. I think it's a great opportunity all together and I hope the region and all the people understand the importance of it." Hamilton Business Association chief executive Vanessa Williams said only about 3 percent of the money currently spent in Hamilton city was from international visitors. "I think that we will see quite a difference now having Jetstar flights and having Australians being able to come into Hamilton so much easier - I'm expected that that value of the overseas market-spend will increase here." It has been 13 years since Hamilton has had trans-Tasman flights, and Hamilton Airport chief executive Mark Morgan said creating a new international airport for New Zealand was not for the faint of heart. "It's quite a major process to have the government and crown agencies agree to stand up a border," he said. Morgan thought a lot had changed demographically and economically in the region in the last decade, which made him confident the international service would not fizzle out this time. "If we talk about the Waikato Region, it's had significant growth in the last decade. As we know Hamilton city is now the fastest growing city in New Zealand, the upper North Island is now the economic powerhouse of New Zealand and if we refer loosely to the golden triangle, the vast majority of New Zealanders now live in the upper North Island," he said. Morgan said reintroducing the flights took work from both the airport and the airline. "Ultimately the airline decides where they are going to fly, and airlines do a lot of work in terms of understanding the economics of new routes," he said. This would including looking at demographics of the region and whether the Waikato is a market it could support and grow. "We as well, as an airport company, do our own work around understanding the attractiveness of various routes," said Morgan. The airport will also help provide airport resilience to the whole upper North Island. Morgan points to a situation over Easter as an example of the need for another airport which can receive international visitors. A couple of aircraft were diverted to Hamilton due to weather that weekend but because Hamilton did not yet have an international border in place, the airlines could only take safe haven on the ground until they could fly back to Auckland for processing through customers. "Had we had the border in place we could have been more effective in looking after the customers on board those aircraft," Morgan said. He thought the government and others were beginning to recognise the importance of the upper North Island, of travel resilience, and having an alternative for airlines. His Excellency Dr Daniel Soper (right), Australian High Commissioner, visiting the airport, with chief executive Mark Morgan. Photo: Supplied Earlier this month a blessing was held at Hamilton Airport to thank contractors and border agencies and welcome up to 60 new airport-based staff who will work in the international terminal. The terminal will officially open for business today when the first Jetstar flight from Sydney touches down in Hamilton, before boarding passengers and flying back across the Tasman that afternoon. Morgan will be arriving on that first flight, along with Waipa District mayor Susan O'Regan, Hamilton City mayor Paula Southgate and Jetstar chief executive Stephanie Tully. The refurnished terminal includes provision for full border controls provided by government agencies including aviation security, customs, MPI and immigration along with support from police and health services. The terminal will be used by around 120,000 international passengers arriving and departing each year who are expected to spend $45 million per year into the regional economy. Jetstar will be the fourth carrier to operate from Hamilton Airport, joining Air New Zealand, Sunair and Originair. The airport already handles around 360,000 passengers annually with more growth forecast. The first flight out to Sydney is 12.15pm while the first flight from Sydney arrives at 11.15am. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
