Latest news with #JulieAnneGenter
NZ Herald
2 days ago
- Business
- NZ Herald
Government's $6b infrastructure push faces criticism from the Opposition
The projects would create thousands of jobs and lift productivity by getting people and freight to their destinations quickly and safely, Bishop said. But Green Party infrastructure spokeswoman Julie Anne Genter said spending billions of dollars on roading projects would not solve the country's productivity crisis. 'They're trying to distract from the fact their actions cancelling heaps of projects has led to a crisis in the construction industry here in Aotearoa, where last month almost a third of business liquidations were construction companies. 'The coalition Government has cancelled far more projects than any other government that I'm aware of. They cancelled the ferries, they've cancelled lots of public house builds, and other decisions they've made to cut public spending have led to a longer and deeper recession. 'This is really a Government trying to govern with PR stunts and slogans, and no real commitment to solving the challenges we're facing.' Green Party infrastructure spokeswoman Julie Anne Genter. Photo / Mark Mitchell A majority of New Zealanders wanted to take action on climate change, so getting off fossil fuels and on to more sustainable transport was a win-win that would do more for productivity, she said. Willis said the projects due to get under way included new roads, hospitals, schools, high-tech laboratories and other government buildings. 'That means spades in the ground, jobs throughout the country and a stronger economy.' Improving New Zealand's infrastructure was critical to growing the economy and helping with the cost of living, Willis said. Luxon said the Government was 'on the side of the Kiwis who need roads to get to their jobs at the crack of dawn, deliver essential goods like food and get their kids to school'. He said the Government would partner with the private sector 'where it made sense'. 'We're obviously doing a huge amount of investment ourselves as Government, but it's a combination of both of those things.' Labour's infrastructure spokesman Kieran McAnulty characterised the announcement as nothing more than a distraction. 'Just this morning ... the Associate Housing Minister [Tama Potaka] finally admitted the Government's policies have contributed to an unprecedented rise in homelessness and the best distraction they can come up with is an announcement of an announcement – I think that speaks volumes,' McAnulty said. 'There's nothing new in today's announcement. People knew that was happening, and some of it was actually started under the previous government. What the infrastructure sector actually want is certainty ... because we've already lost 15,000 workers in construction, many of them have gone to Australia, and every week we've got civil construction firms going under because of the lack of work. Labour's infrastructure spokesman Kieran McAnulty. Photo / Mark Mitchell 'Today's re-announcement isn't going to help any of those people. 'It would have been preferable for the Government to announce new work, or bring projects and maintenance work forward to give firms confidence and certainty, so they can either keep their workers or attract them back.' References to private investment and collaboration rang hollow, McAnulty said. 'We've been hearing the Government talking about public-private partnerships since the day they came in – we still haven't seen any of them signed or under way. I'd like to see the Government actually come up with something tangible. 'Announcing things and making a big deal about things that they already had been announced or under way under the previous Government is not going to give people the certainty they want.' Infrastructure New Zealand chief executive Nick Leggett welcomed the announcement, which he said came at a time when the industry was 'bleeding capability'. Infrastructure New Zealand chief executive Nick Leggett. An Infrastructure New Zealand survey found 65% of firms had reduced staff over the past 12 months, and nearly half had lost workers to overseas markets. 'New Zealand has an infrastructure deficit, and we need our skilled workforce here to close it.' He said the country has a 'perennial problem' with start-stops when it comes to building infrastructure, and he wanted to see a more 'bipartisan approach'. Leggett acknowledged the projects announced were not new, but said the industry association's focus was on the increase in projects under way by December this year, compared to last year. 'And we're hopeful that in December of 2026, there'll be even more work. 'We've got very skilled, professional people in different parts across the infrastructure industry that are keen to get their teeth into those projects announced today, some of them, of course, have been paused or cancelled previously. But the point is they're going to be in the market quickly.' He wanted to see more work on smoothing out the infrastructure pipeline. 'What we need to do is get agreed on what the pipeline looks like and never have the kind of stops we've seen in the last decade or so that pause or cancel projects. 'Our economy needs this stimulus, and it needs these projects so people can get health and education results and be able to move around on transport projects that actually get built rather than just get argued over.' The full list of projects due to get under way this year includes: Hutt Valley Te Whare Ahuru Acute Mental Health Unit, Wellington Kidz First and McIndoe Building Recladding, Middlemore Hospital, Auckland Linear Accelerators Replacement, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland Dunedin Hospital Sterile Services Unit, Dunedin Plant Health & Environment Capability Laboratory, Auckland Plant Health & Environment Capability Laboratory, Auckland Papakura District Court Interim Courthouse, Auckland Waihoehoe Road Upgrade, Auckland SH22 (Drury) Corridor Upgrade – interim works, Auckland SH29 Tauriko – Ōmanawa Bridge – Bay of Plenty SH1 Ōtaki to north of Levin, Horowhenua SH2 Melling Interchange, Wellington SH76 Brougham Street, Canterbury Rolleston Access Improvements – Package 1, Canterbury Parliamentary Library – south building and underground carpark seismic strengthening & rebuild, Wellington School property projects across the country, including classrooms, upgrades, redevelopments, learning support satellite classrooms, administration blocks and gymnasiums The Government said there was also a small number of 'significant projects' which could not be named for 'a range of commercial reasons', but were included in the $6b total. – RNZ
Scoop
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Haka In The House: What Will Te Pāti Māori's Protest Mean For Tikanga In Parliament?
Article – The Conversation Time is apparently running out for the three Te Pāti Māori MPs whose haka in parliament during the Treaty Principles Bill debate last year attracted huge international attention. Parliament's Privileges Committee has summoned the MPs to appear on Wednesday (April 23). But given their previous resistance to fronting up, it seems unlikely they will. The committee is investigating whether the haka broke parliament's rules. The MPs say they don't think they'll get a fair hearing because the committee won't allow legal representation or evidence from an expert in tikanga Maori. According to Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngawera-Packer, this 'is a display of power designed to silence us'. But the case is about more than possible breaches of parliamentary protocol and standing orders. It also asks serious questions about our liberal democracy in general. Everybody needs to express themselves freely and without fear. So, when MPs leave their seats and come close to their opponents, does it cross a line? That was certainly the ruling last year when Green MP Julie Anne Genter was censured for crossing the floor and confronting another MP. Perhaps there is still good reason for New Zealand following the British parliamentary tradition of the government and opposition benches being two and a half sword lengths apart. But it has already been established that haka are allowed in parliament. The real questions are how, when, why and according to which rules or tikanga? The problem with 'partnership' According to the political philosopher Nancy Fraser, democracy should support every citizen to participate in public life equally: [Justice] requires social arrangements that permit all members to participate in social interaction on a par with one another. So that means they must be able to participate as peers in all the major forms of social interaction. If parliament and the democratic system belong equally to everyone, then everyone should be able to say this ideal matches their experience. In other words, people have one voice of equal value, not just one vote. This is why the appropriate use of haka in parliament needs to be worked out. At one level it is about people being able to express their ideas in ways that make sense to them and the people they represent. At a deeper level, the issue revolves around who actually 'owns' parliament. Everyone? Or everyone except Māori people and their representatives? Does everyone have a voice of equal value? Part of the problem is the notion of 'partnership' between Māori and the Crown proposed by the Court of Appeal in 1987. Well intentioned as it might have been, this also created an 'us and them' way of thinking. In this sense, the Crown and its institutions are seen as separate or foreign to Māori – as belonging to other people. If that's the case, parliament can't then belong to everybody or reflect everybody's customs and ways of being. But if parliament belongs to everyone and sovereignty is not simply the oppressive authority of a distant king, but rather the shared property of every citizen, then the haka belongs as a distinctive form of political expression. It becomes part of the tikanga of the parliament. Tikanga Māori in practice However, tikanga is not simply about how parliamentary procedure deals with haka, waiata or the Māori language itself. As an authority on tikanga, Hirini Moko Mead, put it, the concept is a set of beliefs and practices associated with procedures to be followed in conducting the affairs of a group or an individual. These procedures, as established by precedents through time, are held to be ritually, are validated by usually more than one generation and are always subject to what a group or an individual is able to do. Like parliamentary standing orders, tikanga is procedural and grounded in broader principles of justice and ethics. Legal scholars Māmari Stephens and Carwyn Jones describe how tikanga prioritises relationships, collective obligations and inclusive decision-making. The Māori concept of wānganga or 'active discussion', Jones has written, is a framework for robust debate to enhance mutual understanding, but which doesn't necessarily require consensus. Tikanga Māori and deliberative democracy The idea that political decisions should be based on reasoning, listening and serious reflection is known as deliberative democracy. It's basically the opposite of outright majority rule based on 'having the numbers', which sometimes happens without any debate at all. Political theorists Selen Ercan and John Dryzek define deliberative democracy as being about putting communication at the heart of politics, recognising the need for reflective justification of positions, stressing the pursuit of reciprocal understanding across those who have different frameworks or ideologies. If that is true, then shouting across the parliamentary debating chamber doesn't help. Nor does using the haka to intimidate. But using it to make a fair and reasonable point, to which others may respond, is essential to a parliament that is genuinely a 'house of representatives'. Tikanga Māori and deliberative democratic processes offer complementary ways of working out what this could mean in practice. Dominic O'Sullivan, Professor of Political Science, Charles Sturt University and Adjunct Professor Stout Research Centre, Victoria University of Wellington and Auckland University of Technology., Charles Sturt University
Scoop
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Haka In The House: What Will Te Pāti Māori's Protest Mean For Tikanga In Parliament?
Article – The Conversation As the deadline approaches for Te Pti Mori MPs to appear before the Privileges Committee, the place of tikanga in our democratic institutions is the real issue. Time is apparently running out for the three Te Pāti Māori MPs whose haka in parliament during the Treaty Principles Bill debate last year attracted huge international attention. Parliament's Privileges Committee has summoned the MPs to appear on Wednesday (April 23). But given their previous resistance to fronting up, it seems unlikely they will. The committee is investigating whether the haka broke parliament's rules. The MPs say they don't think they'll get a fair hearing because the committee won't allow legal representation or evidence from an expert in tikanga Maori. According to Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngawera-Packer, this 'is a display of power designed to silence us'. But the case is about more than possible breaches of parliamentary protocol and standing orders. It also asks serious questions about our liberal democracy in general. Everybody needs to express themselves freely and without fear. So, when MPs leave their seats and come close to their opponents, does it cross a line? That was certainly the ruling last year when Green MP Julie Anne Genter was censured for crossing the floor and confronting another MP. Perhaps there is still good reason for New Zealand following the British parliamentary tradition of the government and opposition benches being two and a half sword lengths apart. But it has already been established that haka are allowed in parliament. The real questions are how, when, why and according to which rules or tikanga? The problem with 'partnership' According to the political philosopher Nancy Fraser, democracy should support every citizen to participate in public life equally: [Justice] requires social arrangements that permit all members to participate in social interaction on a par with one another. So that means they must be able to participate as peers in all the major forms of social interaction. If parliament and the democratic system belong equally to everyone, then everyone should be able to say this ideal matches their experience. In other words, people have one voice of equal value, not just one vote. This is why the appropriate use of haka in parliament needs to be worked out. At one level it is about people being able to express their ideas in ways that make sense to them and the people they represent. At a deeper level, the issue revolves around who actually 'owns' parliament. Everyone? Or everyone except Māori people and their representatives? Does everyone have a voice of equal value? Part of the problem is the notion of 'partnership' between Māori and the Crown proposed by the Court of Appeal in 1987. Well intentioned as it might have been, this also created an 'us and them' way of thinking. In this sense, the Crown and its institutions are seen as separate or foreign to Māori – as belonging to other people. If that's the case, parliament can't then belong to everybody or reflect everybody's customs and ways of being. But if parliament belongs to everyone and sovereignty is not simply the oppressive authority of a distant king, but rather the shared property of every citizen, then the haka belongs as a distinctive form of political expression. It becomes part of the tikanga of the parliament. Tikanga Māori in practice However, tikanga is not simply about how parliamentary procedure deals with haka, waiata or the Māori language itself. As an authority on tikanga, Hirini Moko Mead, put it, the concept is a set of beliefs and practices associated with procedures to be followed in conducting the affairs of a group or an individual. These procedures, as established by precedents through time, are held to be ritually, are validated by usually more than one generation and are always subject to what a group or an individual is able to do. Like parliamentary standing orders, tikanga is procedural and grounded in broader principles of justice and ethics. Legal scholars Māmari Stephens and Carwyn Jones describe how tikanga prioritises relationships, collective obligations and inclusive decision-making. The Māori concept of wānganga or 'active discussion', Jones has written, is a framework for robust debate to enhance mutual understanding, but which doesn't necessarily require consensus. Tikanga Māori and deliberative democracy The idea that political decisions should be based on reasoning, listening and serious reflection is known as deliberative democracy. It's basically the opposite of outright majority rule based on 'having the numbers', which sometimes happens without any debate at all. Political theorists Selen Ercan and John Dryzek define deliberative democracy as being about putting communication at the heart of politics, recognising the need for reflective justification of positions, stressing the pursuit of reciprocal understanding across those who have different frameworks or ideologies. If that is true, then shouting across the parliamentary debating chamber doesn't help. Nor does using the haka to intimidate. But using it to make a fair and reasonable point, to which others may respond, is essential to a parliament that is genuinely a 'house of representatives'. Tikanga Māori and deliberative democratic processes offer complementary ways of working out what this could mean in practice.
Scoop
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Haka In The House: What Will Te Pāti Māori's Protest Mean For Tikanga In Parliament?
Time is apparently running out for the three Te Pāti Māori MPs whose haka in parliament during the Treaty Principles Bill debate last year attracted huge international attention. Parliament's Privileges Committee has summoned the MPs to appear on Wednesday (April 23). But given their previous resistance to fronting up, it seems unlikely they will. The committee is investigating whether the haka broke parliament's rules. The MPs say they don't think they'll get a fair hearing because the committee won't allow legal representation or evidence from an expert in tikanga Maori. According to Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngawera-Packer, this 'is a display of power designed to silence us'. But the case is about more than possible breaches of parliamentary protocol and standing orders. It also asks serious questions about our liberal democracy in general. Everybody needs to express themselves freely and without fear. So, when MPs leave their seats and come close to their opponents, does it cross a line? That was certainly the ruling last year when Green MP Julie Anne Genter was censured for crossing the floor and confronting another MP. Perhaps there is still good reason for New Zealand following the British parliamentary tradition of the government and opposition benches being two and a half sword lengths apart. But it has already been established that haka are allowed in parliament. The real questions are how, when, why and according to which rules or tikanga? The problem with 'partnership' According to the political philosopher Nancy Fraser, democracy should support every citizen to participate in public life equally: [Justice] requires social arrangements that permit all members to participate in social interaction on a par with one another. So that means they must be able to participate as peers in all the major forms of social interaction. If parliament and the democratic system belong equally to everyone, then everyone should be able to say this ideal matches their experience. In other words, people have one voice of equal value, not just one vote. This is why the appropriate use of haka in parliament needs to be worked out. At one level it is about people being able to express their ideas in ways that make sense to them and the people they represent. At a deeper level, the issue revolves around who actually 'owns' parliament. Everyone? Or everyone except Māori people and their representatives? Does everyone have a voice of equal value? Part of the problem is the notion of 'partnership' between Māori and the Crown proposed by the Court of Appeal in 1987. Well intentioned as it might have been, this also created an 'us and them' way of thinking. In this sense, the Crown and its institutions are seen as separate or foreign to Māori – as belonging to other people. If that's the case, parliament can't then belong to everybody or reflect everybody's customs and ways of being. But if parliament belongs to everyone and sovereignty is not simply the oppressive authority of a distant king, but rather the shared property of every citizen, then the haka belongs as a distinctive form of political expression. It becomes part of the tikanga of the parliament. Tikanga Māori in practice However, tikanga is not simply about how parliamentary procedure deals with haka, waiata or the Māori language itself. As an authority on tikanga, Hirini Moko Mead, put it, the concept is a set of beliefs and practices associated with procedures to be followed in conducting the affairs of a group or an individual. These procedures, as established by precedents through time, are held to be ritually, are validated by usually more than one generation and are always subject to what a group or an individual is able to do. Like parliamentary standing orders, tikanga is procedural and grounded in broader principles of justice and ethics. Legal scholars Māmari Stephens and Carwyn Jones describe how tikanga prioritises relationships, collective obligations and inclusive decision-making. The Māori concept of wānganga or 'active discussion', Jones has written, is a framework for robust debate to enhance mutual understanding, but which doesn't necessarily require consensus. Tikanga Māori and deliberative democracy The idea that political decisions should be based on reasoning, listening and serious reflection is known as deliberative democracy. It's basically the opposite of outright majority rule based on 'having the numbers', which sometimes happens without any debate at all. Political theorists Selen Ercan and John Dryzek define deliberative democracy as being about putting communication at the heart of politics, recognising the need for reflective justification of positions, stressing the pursuit of reciprocal understanding across those who have different frameworks or ideologies. If that is true, then shouting across the parliamentary debating chamber doesn't help. Nor does using the haka to intimidate. But using it to make a fair and reasonable point, to which others may respond, is essential to a parliament that is genuinely a 'house of representatives'. Tikanga Māori and deliberative democratic processes offer complementary ways of working out what this could mean in practice. Dominic O'Sullivan, Professor of Political Science, Charles Sturt University and Adjunct Professor Stout Research Centre, Victoria University of Wellington and Auckland University of Technology., Charles Sturt University
