In today's headlines with Wilhelmina Shrimpton, investigations into horror crash continue, Wellington looking at beam e-scooter issues and Oasis are back together.
THREE KEY FACTS:
The National Infrastructure Plan will help guide decision-making by central and local government and give the infrastructure industry more confidence to invest in the people, technology and equipment they need to build more efficiently.
Te Waihanga (NZ Infrastructure) aims to lift infrastructure planning and delivery to improve New Zealanders’ long-term economic performance and social well-being.
In te reo Māori, Te Waihanga means a cornerstone, or to make, create, develop, build, construct, generate.
Rob Campbell is a professional director and investor. He is chancellor at AUT, chair of Ara Ake, chair of NZ Rural Land and former chair of Te Whatu Ora.
There is a theme in public discussion right now about “cross-party” or “apolitical” policies in important areas of our economy. I reckon this is mistaken and even dangerous.
Prominent areas where I have seen this call are transport, energy and health. Pretty obviously important to us all, and equally obviously areas in which there is widespread failure and dissatisfaction.
So it’s not hard to understand why removing major decisions like this from a short term perspective subject to a three year electoral cycle seems attractive.
The physical and relational infrastructure for such areas is long term in its design, construction and operation. The work of planners, investors (public and private) and operators would be more certain and stable. This in turn might produce more efficiency at each point.
In a world where wealth, income, access and power was evenly shared, the sort of world which appears on a planning whiteboard, it would make sense to accept a longer term, non-adversarial approach and not inject uncertainty and volatility into the mix.
The problem is that this is not our world, never has been and is not about to be.
For those in power it always looks as if consensus on such issues is not only desirable but simply logical, if only the agreed position were in line with their currently dominant view. But this is not a neutral view and arguably cannot be. We are not all the same with the same interests.
To take another perspective, a view which was long term and inviolable to short term political change in these areas might be one which, for example, required all major initiatives in these areas to:
- comply with Te Tiriti.
- prioritise environmental health over private commercial gain.
- equitable distribution of benefit.
- prioritise under served geographical areas.
I suspect I may have lost some enthusiasts for cross-party infrastructure policy in this draft. If I haven’t I’m ready to work on it with you Christopher, Winston and David. I reckon we can get Chlöe and Chippy over the line.
But if by non-political infrastructure, the proponents mean infrastructure driven by social cost and private benefit, commerce over environment, cutting across Tiriti obligations and opportunities, favouring big city travel times over rural needs, then I think we might be on different tracks.
I do understand why it would be good if we had united, shared interests. It would make a lot of things fairer and easier. But the hard work has to be done to create that community of interests, not just impose it on one view of the world. It means people with economic, social and political power actually giving up some of that influence.
Many of the people pushing this “non-political” view are thoroughly genuine. They live in a world like John Lennon’s “Imagine”. But to imagine things like this requires looking through and past many inequities, injustices and simply practical realities of life. And you can only do that with a mono-cultural lens.
Rob Campbell.
Others push the idea for a scarcely hidden vested interest, usually a commercial one. Again, typically a mono-cultural interest. Very seldom an interest which is driven by what is best for those without rather than those with.
What that tells you is that the very things which some people are saying should be non-political are the very things which should become more political because they are not based on common interests.
