Young families are the clear target of Labour’s election-year Budget, but its flagship promise – cheaper childcare – will not kick in until next year.

The 2023 Budget — billed as a “no frills” affair — is set against a volatile economic backdrop with the government now forecast to return to surplus a year later than expected.

In a statement, Prime Minister Chris Hipkins said his first Budget would provide relief from the sharp cost of living without exacerbating inflation “as tax cuts would”.

“Budget 2023 isn’t fancy, nor should it be . . .  it’s a carefully calibrated package that deals with the here and now pressures, while also laying the foundation for real long-term benefits.”

‘Support for today’
The Budget extends cheaper childcare to parents of two-year-olds, giving them access to 20 hours a week of free early childhood education (ECE). That support currently kicks in for children from the age of three.

For eligible families, the extension could save them more than $130 a week in childcare costs for an extra year.

They will have to wait, however, until March next year — critically after the election — for the $1.2 billion package to come into effect.

Speaking during the lock-up at Parliament, Finance Minister Grant Robertson told RNZ the delay was primarily due to administrative reasons.

From July this year, public transport will be made free for all children under 13 and will remain half-price for passengers aged 13 to 24. That initiative is costed at about $327 million over four years.

The existing discount on bus, train and ferry fares will expire for most other people at the end of June, except for Community Service Card holders. As signalled, the accompanying fuel discount will finish at the same time.

Most prescription medicine will be made completely free from July, with the government scrapping the current $5 charge at a cost of about $619 million over four years.

‘Building for tomorrow’
The government has committed $71 billion of infrastructure spending over the next five years — that is money for building schools, hospitals, public housing, roads, etc. The spend is up about 60 percent from the $45 billion spent over the previous same period.

On top of that, another $6 billion has been set aside for a National Resilience Plan with an initial focus on future-proofing road, rail and other infrastructure wiped out by extreme weather.

Three new multi-institution research hubs will be set up in Wellington at a cost of $451 million. Each will focus on a different subject: Climate change, health, and technology.

A new 20 percent rebate will be made available for game development studios who spend at least $250,000 a year in New Zealand as an incentive to keep them from moving abroad. Individual studios will be eligible for up to $3 million a year in rebates.

Tax, tax, tax
As promised, the Budget does not include any major new taxes or tax cuts, but it does increase the trustee tax rate from 33 percent to 39 percent — in line with the top personal tax rate.

Revenue Minister David Parker said the discrepancy was currently allowing super-wealthy taxpayers to funnel their income through trusts to avoid paying their fair share of tax.

Both Inland Revenue and Treasury had recommended the change when Labour introduced the new top personal tax rate in 2021.

The trustee tax hike is estimated to raise about $350 million a year, beginning in April next year.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

A new $100 million apartment complex is coming to Manukau — Auckland’s heart of Pacific communities.

But you’ll have to be aged at least 55 to get in.

Kāinga Ora is expected to start construction of the 123 apartments in Osterley Way in March. The 16-storey tower will include 94 one-bedroom and 29 two-bedroom apartments.

• READ MORE: Other NZ housing crisis reports

The government said it was necessary to target targeting specific age groups to match an increasing demand from “older customers”.

“Kāinga Ora recognises our older customers have specific housing needs, which we are addressing through senior housing developments such as the proposed project in Manukau,” regional director for Counties Manukau Angela Pearce said.

Pearce said one in five of the agency’s homes in Counties-Manukau had someone over 65 living in it, while 670 of its homes in the area were occupied by sole tenants in the same age group.

“With an aging population, Kāinga Ora recognises the importance of dedicated senior housing where our older tenants can live well, feel safe and secure, both in their homes and the community.”

Two years on state house list
Maureen O’Meara, 75, spent two years on the state house waiting list and was renting a two-bedroom unit in Pakuranga for $420 a week until earlier this year.

“I had $17 left a week after paying the rent,” O’Meara said. “Being on a pension and paying market rent meant I didn’t have a lot of money left to live on.”

O’Meara managed to find somewhere more affordable in May after she was put in touch with Haumaru Housing, a joint venture between Auckland Council and the Selwyn Foundation.

But O’Meara said the Manukau development reflects an increasing number of people reaching retirement without a home.

“And I think there’s going to be a need for more places like it,” she said.

Age Concern Auckland chief executive Kevin Lamb said it’s important the development was close to public transport and community facilities.

“We think it’s high time older people had accommodation that is new and more appropriate for their needs.”

Big part of pension on housing
Recently-released research by Te Ara Ahunga Ora Retirement Commission showed superannuitants still paying rent were more likely to be spending 40 percent or more of their pension on housing.

While long-term trends suggest more older New Zealanders are likely to still be renting in their retirement.

Te Ara Ahunga Ora director of policy Dr Suzy Morrissey said with declining home ownership rates there was a growing need for public housing and accommodation for those aged 55 and over.

“When NZ Super was introduced, it was with the underlying assumption that those accessing it would be mortgage-free homeowners,” she said.

“Today, the reality is very different. There are declining home ownership rates, more people needing to continue working longer because they still have mortgages to pay, are paying rent, or haven’t been able to save enough to retire.”

• Auckland is currently in the middle of the local body elections with a Pacific candidate, Fa’anānā Efeso Collins, one of the two top contenders for mayor of the super city.

Critics of New Zealand’s new $4.5 billion global warming plan to help New Zealanders into electric vehicles and hybrids say a significant cheque for the Clean Car programme is sending the wrong message about the role cars play in the country’s future.

Victoria University of Wellington’s environmental studies Professor Ralph Chapman said — electric or not — cars were still heavy on the wallet and on the environment.

“The sheer carbon emissions associated with running cars, the life cycle of a car and all the infrastructure that goes with it — like highways and more spread-out infrastructure for water and waste water … when you start to add it all up, cars are pretty much a disaster.”

• READ MORE: NZ’s first Emissions Reduction Plan spends $2.9b from Emergency Response Fund
• Government plan to tackle climate change to be revealed
• NZ Herald environment writer Simon Wilson: ‘It’s a massive step. But not enough.’
• Other reports on NZ’s climate action

Professor Chapman said there were still carbon emissions that went into making EVs and the like, as well as the emissions involved in importing them to New Zealand.

“The whole model has to change, rather than just encouraging people to go to a slightly more efficient car.”

Professor Chapman said the alternative option of scrapping an old car in return for money towards buying a bike or using public transport was a good move.

Free Fares lobby disappointed
Free Fares, which is lobbying the government to make all public transport free, is also disappointed in the scheme.

A spokesperson for the group said the wider Emissions Reduction Plan was “a continuation of an individualised culture and a focus on car ownership” rather than public transport, “which is what we need”.

Low-income families who scrap their old car will get funding to buy a low-emitting vehicle in a $569 million scheme, one of the big-ticket items in the government’s first Emissions Reductions Plan.

The money will not just be for electric vehicles – it could also help buy an e-bike or could be in the form of public transport vouchers.

But there was very little detail released about the scheme, such as who exactly will be eligible and – critically – how much financial help they would get.

New Zealand’s first Emissions Reduction Plan. Video: RNZ News

A pilot will be rolled out for 2500 households first, before an expansion of the scheme in about two years’ time.

Climate Change Minister James Shaw yesterday said it would follow a similar scheme which was introduced in California.

Those who took part in one scheme there got about $NZ15,000 off the price of a new or second hand EV.

“Notoriously challenging” says MIA
But even if a similar discount was offered here, it would still be costly, and “notoriously challenging”, the Motor Industry Association (MIA) said.

Chief executive David Crawford said the cost of new EV imports started at $40,000 and went upwards of $80,000, whereas used models started at about $20,000.

“If it is a new EV, their prices are quite high; would [eligible people] be able to afford debt servicing the difference? The price gap for a new EV can still be big,” Crawford said.

New Zealand has many old cars still being driven around; they pollute more and aren’t as safe so the MIA said it was supportive of moves to get more of them off the road.

The Motor Trade Association (MTA), which represents mechanics and repair shops, wants the government to go further than the $569m scheme, and roll out a scrappage model for everyone.

Its energy and environment manager Ian Baggott said it would be a challenge for the government to determine the criteria for scrappage.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

The public’s cry for a safe, affordable and efficient public transport system in Papua New Guinea’s capital Port Moresby has been finally heard.

Following almost 10 years of planning and preparations, the National Capital District Commission’s Eda City Bus Service started operations today.

The service will pursue a modern city bus transport model operating in eight routes across the National Capital District, all of which are not currently serviced by the Public Motor Vehicle (PMV) minibus operators in the city.

• READ MORE: Other PNG public transport reports

Speaking at the inauguration event yesterday NCD Governor Powes Parkop said it had been a long time in planning and it was good to finally make it a reality.

“It is high time that we create a sustainable, reliable, safe and efficient public transportation system in our city and today we are creating a baseline that will set the pace for our city’s public transportation to be taken to new levels of efficiency, one that we can build on from and make it even better,” he said.

The bus service will be charging everybody K1 (NZ42c) from point A to point B and will be servicing routes following a set schedule.

Each schedule for each route is available at bus terminals where the public can easily access.

With the aim of achieving safe and efficient transportation, there will be safety, security and revenue officers on board each bus to ensure passengers are safe and adhere to set regulations.

The routes include:

• Route 1: Gerehu – Red Hills – Morata Swamp- 8 Mile junction – 9 Mile junction – Bomana Junction;
• Route 2: Gerehu – Ela Beach – Baruni – Badihagwa;
• Route 3: Ela Beach – Sir Hubert Murray Stadium – Poreporena Freeway – Gordons Courts Roundabout;
• Route 4: Gerehu- Sir William Skate Highway – Magani Crescent Road, Morata Junction – Wagani Tokarara Bustop- Tokarara Market – Koura way- Sir Hubert Murray Stadium; and
• Route 5: 9 Mile – Manu bus stop – 8 Mile – Erima – 7 Mile – Saraga Market – Dogura Junction – Tuna Bay Junction – Taurama Barracks – Vadavada

According to Acting City Manager Ravu Frank there are two phases to this transport system.

The first phase which begins today will be a cash system where people pay money and get tickets for the first six months and the second phase will begin after where the system will transit into a cashless operation using cards.

The Eda City Bus Service is not the first public transport system to be introduced in Port Moresby.

In the 1960s a similar initiative called Port Moresby Bus Company was operating under the then city authority and providing a service until it was liquidated in 1981.

City partnership offered PMV operators
Meanwhile, the NCDC has invited PMV operators in Port Moresby to partner in upgrading the standard of public transport in the city.

Governor Parkop called for expressions of interest stating that there was room for everyone to work together and benefit while providing this essential service to city residents.

“I want to announce that we have a specific offer for the PMV operators to be part of this service going forward,” he said.

“The details of this will be announced later but the essence of this offer in partnership is this: NCDC will set up a business limited called Eda City Bus Limited.

“Eda City Bus Limited will be initially owned by NCDC but we will diverse the shares, including making offers to the operators and the owners who are current or even inviting investors from overseas, especially those who have experience who knows how to deliver this type of service providing both service and sustainability and if we can make profit too that is a bonus.”

However, the bus operators must meet the following requirements in order to qualify for this partnership.

• Maintain and operate quality and neat buses;
• Complete routes and adhere to timetables;
• Make it safe for passengers on board;
• Support Eda City Bus Service branding; and
• Follow the terms of the ticketing system.

Claudia Tally is a PNG Post-Courier reporter. Republished with permission.

In recent weeks, barely a day has gone by without Christopher Luxon demonstrating the chasm of ability that exists between the leaders of Aotearoa New Zealand’s two major political parties. When his latest gaffe (on public transport funding) was politely pointed out to him by a NZ Herald journalist, Luxon replied: “I haven’t really thought too deeply about it, to be honest.”

Maybe that should be National’s next election campaign slogan: “Thinking Is For The Liberal Elite: Vote National!” For a party that claims to disdain mediocrity, National appears to have elevated a prime specimen of it to its top position.

Before the public transport gaffe slides down the memory hole, it is worth keeping in mind what Luxon actually said. As he told the NZ Herald: “Fundamentally, it [public transport] has got to stand on its own merits…”

• READ MORE: Other articles by Gordon Campbell

When reminded public transport has been heavily subsidised in modern times, Luxon admitted he had not thought deeply on the subject. “I haven’t thought too deeply about it, to be honest. I think the bottom line is, we want to encourage more mode shift,” he said…

”Public transport needs to stand on its own feet, it can’t be subsidised or underwritten right? It has to be able to build its own case.”

What are we to make of stupidity on this scale? Leave aside the fact that public transport already stands on its merits, by providing a public service, and by helping to combat climate change.

Leave aside the fact that roads and politicians — and Air New Zealand, both now and while Luxon was CEO — are also all heavily subsidised.

Look instead at the extra costs the public would be facing from what Luxon is proposing. Transport Minister Michael Wood has spelled out some of them:

“Under Luxon’s plan a multi-zone bus fare in Auckland would go from $12.60 to $31.50, in Christchurch a $4.70 trip would become $11.75, a train ride in Wellington would go from $19 to $47.50, and superannuitants would no longer be able to use their SuperGold Card to catch off-peak and weekend public transport.”

In all likelihood, Luxon would not really follow through and do what he just said. His modus operandi is gradually becoming clear. It follows this basic pattern: what Luxon says is almost beside the point, since the gaffe (once it has been detected by other people) will be quickly followed up by a scrambled attempt to conceal the meaning his words plainly conveyed.

Essentially, the details are merely the window dressing for the slogans that take up most of the rentable space inside his noggin. Such as: Government Bad, Private Sector Good. Regulations Bad For Business, Open Slather Good For Business. Unions Bad. Farmers Good. Landlords Very Good. Climate Change Hurt My Head.

Footnote: All the same, Luxon is posing as the champion of the people fighting the cost of living pressures. Yet that pose is wildly inconsistent with what he has actually been advocating, and opposing.

As Clint Smith has pointed out, the list includes :

Luxon’s cost of living policies: – oppose the Winter Energy Payment – oppose the minimum wage hike – oppose the benefit increase – oppose Fair Pay Agreements – increase public transport prices – $2 tax cut for typical Kiwi taxpayer – $18,000 tax cut for him.

Luxon’s cost of living policies:
– oppose the Winter Energy Payment
– oppose the minimum wage hike
– oppose the benefit increase
– oppose Fair Pay Agreements
– increase public transport prices
– $2 tax cut for typical Kiwi taxpayer
– $18,000 tax cut for him

— Clint Smith (@ClintVSmith) April 12, 2022

Gendered double standards
The double standard involved here is breathtaking. If a female politician said something as laughable as Luxon’s proposal on transport subsidies and defended it on the basis that she hadn’t thought about it too deeply, she would never survive the fallout.

She would be roundly damned as a scatterbrain and a show pony, and deemed plainly unfit for higher office.

Yet because Luxon is a man in a suit, and because he is the leader of a National Party that has always been suspicious of conspicuous intelligence, he is being enabled to continue on his bumbling way.

Jacinda Ardern on the other hand, is held to a different standard. Obviously, there is and should be a range of opinions on whether her government is doing the right thing. Even people who routinely vote Labour criticise it on the details and pace of change it is currently overseeing.

However, much of the most vehement criticism levelled at Ardern has little to do with policy detail and a lot to do with her gender. Her competence — which includes a command of detail across the whole range of government activity, and an ability to communicate the details succinctly — is commonly held against her.

In an excellent article on Stuff last week, Michelle Duff tackled that issue head on:

Two years into the pandemic, there is talk about the new normal. Here’s what that looks like. It is open misogyny, visible on every platform and supported and promoted by upvotes on Reddit, laughing emojis on Facebook, comments about “that woman” on LinkedIn, and someone who looks like your Aunty referring to the PM as “Cindy” and calling her a “c…”.

It is targeted and increasingly violent misogynistic abuse and threats – illustrated by but not limited to the escalation in gendered hatred directed towards Ardern – being directed at public-facing women from central and local body politicians to journalists, public servants, academics and chief executives.

Ardern is (a) the most prominent and (b) the most consistent target of the gendered hatred that Duff is talking about. Yet as Duff reports, the abuse and the escalating threats have a wider context:

The amount and tone of gendered disinformation and misogynistic abuse online has exploded since last August, constituting both a national security threat and a human rights issue that authorities are struggling to combat. It appears to be part of a concentrated effort to suppress women’s participation in public and political life, borne from far-right ideology designed to oppress women that has spread to a more mainstream audience.

“There’s an increase in the amount, and there’s an increase in the intent, and that’s to control and punish women who challenge male dominance, the Prime Minister but all women,” says Disinformation Project lead Kate Hannah. It is worse for women of colour and wāhine Māori, gender minorities and disabled women, she says.

It is a spectrum of abuse, and at one end it begins with the denigration intentionally conveyed by the use of the term “Cindy” to refer to the Prime Minister. As Duff says:

Some might find this funny, but its aim is to diminish. Massey University senior lecturer Dr Suze Wilson, who studies leadership, says no-one called John Key “Johnny,” or Chris Luxon “Chrissy,” in an attempt to infantalise or belittle them. “Right from the outset you had people saying, ‘I don’t want to be told what to do by that woman,’ with an element of ‘how dare she tell me what to do.’ That had to pre-exist for this to be possible.”

But that was petty compared to now. “What’s really tipped it is the more violent rhetoric. The straight out abusive terms, the c-word, the horse-face, the threats to kill. “It comes from this idea that if any woman comes into a position of power she’s not acting as a ‘good’ woman should — and that’s why this doesn’t only come from men, it comes from people who cleave to more traditional idea around gender roles…”

Like most of the rhetoric that characterises the anti-vaxx movement, the gun lobby and other parts of our public discourse, these extremes of politicised misogyny have been imported here from the United States — a country where religious beliefs permeate the perceptions of what are seen to be the appropriate gender roles.

I’m not implying that this alarming trend — and the double standard it entails — is the fault of Christopher Luxon. But he is definitely a beneficiary of it. Because if politics was a level playing field, Luxon wouldn’t be standing a chance against Ardern. On every conceivable measure of ability, he simply isn’t in her league.

Footnote: On that point, Luxon is often dismissed as being a John Key clone. That’s a mistake. Because what Luxon has been proposing are very hard right policies, and not the moderate centrism that enabled Key to be seen as an amiable, grinning placeholder acceptable to a wide range of voters.

Instead, Luxon and David Seymour are trying to inject policies into the political mainstream that over the past 30 years, have enjoyed only about 5-10 percent support at most. It isn’t a stretch to regard their “small government” extremism as having more than a little in common with the “That bitch can’t tell me what to do” extremism mentioned above.

Gordon Campbell is an independent progressive journalist and editor of Scoop’s Werewolf magazine. This article has been republished with the author’s permission.

As the number of Fiji’s covid-19 positive cases continues to rise, there is obvious discomfort and great concern among many Fijians.

This is to be expected. When you consider the recent easing of border restrictions in strategic areas around the country, there will be some sense of trepidation.

We may fall back on the advice and reassurance of the Ministry of Health and Medical Services, however, it is still difficult for many people to accept the recent turn of events. The rising numbers are worrying.

• READ MORE: More Fiji covid crisis articles
• Fiji’s covid navy cluster still rises as nation records 28 new cases

They are a major concern. Interestingly, in the face of the rising numbers sits questions on adherence to physical distancing rules, and common sense.

There will be issues hovering around public transportation for instance, social gatherings, and funerals.

We learn that public service vehicle (PSV) operators are saying people need to adhere to covid-19 restrictions and social distancing requirements.

This reaction comes in the wake of concerns raised about crowding on PSVs in the Lami, Suva and Nausori containment zone.

It is frightening to note the rise in numbers. However, we can be buoyed by the fact that we know what to do to keep the virus away.

Fiji Bus Operators Association president Nisar Ali said information on social distancing protocols has been widely disseminated and people should follow them.

It was everybody’s responsibility, he pointed out, to ensure that when travelling on public service vehicles, they maintained social distancing.

Drivers, he said, could only tell the travelling public to distance themselves and enforcement was done by the Land Transport Authority and the Ministry of Health and Medical Services.

Fiji Taxi Association president Raben Singh said the same protocols introduced when covid-19 first came applied to taxis.

He said no one would be allowed into taxis without a mask and passenger numbers were now limited.

“Drivers are even selling masks to help facilitate their travel, but people should not be moving around unnecessarily.”

In the face of all these rules, police spokeswoman Savaira Tabua said they would continue to restrict movements of people despite the uplifting of borders.

“Our officers are manning checkpoints to ensure restrictions are followed,” she said.

“We would also like to encourage the public to be responsible. We will not be everywhere, therefore, their support is needed.”

The onus really is on us as individuals to make sound decisions daily. It is unfortunate that many people are not adhering to physical distancing rules when they board buses and cabs. The question is how do we ensure this is done though!

This certainly isn’t the time to be living dangerously. It’s clear that the cluster that attended a funeral recently came off as a major spreader of the virus.

It is a tough ask, but we can only hope that Fijians consider this when farewelling loved ones moving forward.

It is frightening to note the rise in numbers. However, we can be buoyed by the fact that we know what to do to keep the virus away.

The challenge is to be vigilant. Thousands of Fijians depend on us all making the right decisions daily.

The Fiji Times editorial, 3 June 2021. Republished with permission.

As the covid-19 coronavirus infections continue to rise seemingly unabated, Papua New Guinea’s National Pandemic Response Controller David Manning has acted to tackle a root cause of the public health crisis – public motor vehicle (PMV) drivers, crew and their passengers.

On Tuesday, Papua New Guinea reported a total of 351 new covid-19 cases, raising the national total of confirmed cases to 4109, reports The National.

This is an increase of 1021 cases over a period of six days.

• READ MORE: Other PNG covid crisis reports

There were also two new deaths, raising the death toll to 39. And Police Commissioner Manning issued a stern warning to all owners, operators, drivers and crew of PMVs nationwide to strictly comply with covid-19 protocols or risk being pulled off the road and deregistered.

“I am giving PMV owners and operators until 4pm tomorrow [Wednesday] the opportunity to get masks and hand sanitisers, and proper equipment for cleaning buses while in operation,” he said.

“They are also to ensure all passengers who board their vehicles were masked.

“By 4pm, PMVs who did not follow these simple measures will be pulled off the road.

“The buses and trucks will be impounded and they may lose their licences to operate.

‘Duty to follow protocols’
“PMV operators, drivers and crew members have a duty to follow all covid-19 health protocols and ensure their passengers comply as well.

“We all need to do our part to mitigate and stop the spread of the virus.”

A total of 60,680 people in PNG have been tested for the covid-19. Of these, 4109 tested positive.

The samples pending results at the laboratory stood at 2539.

Of the 351 new cases on Tuesday, 51 percent were asymptomatic.

This meant that many people did not know they had the virus and were passing it onto others unknowingly.

Symptoms include coughing, fever, headache, shortness of breath, sore throat, chills and muscle aches.

The new cases came from 11 provinces: Western (166), National Capital District (84); Eastern Highlands (39); Morobe (20); Southern Highlands (17); Western Highlands (9); East Sepik (6); New Ireland (4); Jiwaka (3); Gulf (1); and, Enga (1).

Two new deaths
The two new deaths were from Western – a 52-year-old man – while the other, also a male, aged 44, came from Jiwaka.

This is Western’s second confirmed death due to the covid-19 and Jiwaka’s first.

Four exported cases were detected for PNG with two identified in hotel quarantine in Sydney, New South Wales.

The third case was detected in hotel quarantine in Cairns, Queensland. He travelled from Western.

The fourth case was detected in hotel quarantine in New Zealand.

Western began reporting cases since last year and is the province with the second highest reported confirmed cases, registering its first death on Monday.

Commissioner Manning sent his condolences to the family, saying: “It is not easy to report the deaths.

‘Take care of yourself’
“We encourage everyone to take care of yourself.

“Please, I urge everyone to ensure they are following the health measures in the Niupela Pasin.

“This message is not only for the people living in towns and urban areas.

“It is for everyone, including those living rural areas.

“The virus is spread from person to person and in a country like ours, most people do not come for tests until they are sick, and by that time, the virus has spread to other people.

“Therefore, we do not know how far it has spread to the rural areas.”

The National articles are republished with permission.

In recent days, Papua New Guinea’s Prime Minister Peter O’Neill has announced his resignation, failed to formally resign, and is now taking legal action to prevent a parliamentary vote to remove him from office.

For most of PNG’s more than eight million inhabitants, today will not be substantially different from any other day. It will be a day of toil, hardship, humour, love, fear – and of negotiating how to survive in PNG’s villages and squatter settlements.

There are crises aplenty in the lives of these Papua New Guineans, but most won’t be worrying too much about the crisis unfolding in the nation’s capital, Port Moresby.

READ MORE: If there’s one thing Pacific nations don’t need, it’s yet another infrastructure investment bank

Yet, this dispute is dominating the waking hours of the educated urbanites and social media commentators there and in the country’s major centres – as well as a small group of people watching PNG from Australia, and elsewhere.

Will Peter O’Neill really resign? Will he somehow manage to cling to the prime ministership? Will he leave, only to be replaced by one of his allies through whom he could continue to exercise power?

A reshuffling of political cards
While we acknowledge the divide between the great majority of struggling Papua New Guineans and PNG’s elites, we should not minimise the importance of the current crisis engulfing the country.

O’Neill’s departure has the potential for a wholesale shift in the policy direction taken by PNG’s government.

It could result in PNG moving away from the big spending on major projects of the past few years, which many Papua New Guineans see as having benefited Port Moresby at the expense of everywhere else in this still largely rural nation.

But the suspicion of at least some informed Papua New Guinean observers is that it will result only in the rearranging of the deck chairs. A reshuffling of the cards that will lead to another privileged insider, another member of PNG’s political class, taking over the PM’s role from the mostly unlamented O’Neill.

Rural citizens are disenfranchised and disengaged
Despite their apparent failure in Australia’s recent federal election, most people would still agree that polls and surveys are a valuable way of gauging popular opinion.

One of the more curious (and frustrating) aspects of PNG’s public affairs is that there has never been a successful attempt to conduct systematic and reasonably reliable opinion surveying.

This means that it is basically impossible to say with any certainty what “the average Papua New Guinean” thinks about O’Neill and the current political crisis. We don’t really know if O’Neill’s departure would be celebrated, or mourned.

PNG’s geographical challenges, along with inadequate transport and communication structures, suggest that most people will hear the news of Port Moresby politics at several removes.

Should they feel sufficiently energised to want to act on what they hear – well, events will have moved on by that time.

Most Papua New Guineans living in villages, in highland valleys, islands, or other remote places, are disenfranchised, and certainly disengaged, from what goes on in Port Moresby.

The same observation could be made about the people who live in the mushrooming settlements in Port Moresby, Lae, Mt Hagen, and other centres. Even if they are notionally urban dwellers, their connection with the complexities of these events is remote.

So we tend to rely on what we hear from the city residents who are more engaged in public life, and especially those who are social media-savvy.

City-dwellers resent O’Neill
What this group thinks about the O’Neill situation is fairly apparent. Ever since he replaced the ailing Sir Michael Somare as Prime Minister in 2011, resentment against O’Neill has been expressed in a range of forums (including social media, to the annoyance of O’Neill and his supporters).

The wave of anger has built over the years since then, and has crested recently with the revelations about O’Neill’s involvement with the Oil Search-UBS loan affair, which many regard as confirming every suspicion they held about the Prime Minister’s character.

The A$1.2 billion loan from the Swiss UBS bank, which enabled the PNG government to buy shares in Oil Search Ltd, was, in the words of PNG’s Ombudsman Commission, “highly inappropriate”. It was undertaken in the face of contrary advice from PNG’s then Treasurer, Don Polye, whom O’Neill sacked.

Anti-O’Neill sentiment over the years failed to garner much support from the Members of PNG’s National Parliament. Until very recently, O’Neill’s People’s National Congress (PNC) and its coalition partners dominated the House.

Crucially, and mostly driven by the UBS revelations, this has now changed.

The prime minister is becoming increasingly isolated as more parliamentarians defect from the O’Neill party to join the disparate collection of MPs who are gathering at one of Port Moresby’s luxury hotels.

While some social media commentators reckon that his recent “resignation” may be merely a ploy, it is looking like the game might be up for Peter O’Neill – unless through the cunning and political adeptness he is known for, he is still able to turn the tables on his political enemies.

At the time of writing, O’Neill is pursuing action in the PNG Supreme Court over the legality of a “vote of no confidence” in his government.

Leadership not the only crisis
There is a crisis in PNG at the moment. Indeed, there are several. The country is suffering from significant health issues, ranging from the reappearance of TB and polio to the inadequacy of its pharmaceutical and medical supplies.

In October, the people of Bougainville may vote to secede from the rest of the country, of which they have been part since 1975.

The billions of kina spent on development has largely been confined to the cities, and most Papua New Guineans have experienced little change in their living standards over the past four decades.

These are the real challenges facing PNG, and the current leadership crisis in Port Moresby might – or, as some fear, might not – produce a meaningful response to them.

• Dr Jonathan Ritchie is a senior research fellow at Deakin Universityi in Victoria. The author would like to acknowledge the contribution of Brime Olewale to this story. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.
• Parliament erupts in chaos
• More PNG stories

Through the jointly funded project with the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA) and Tranzit Group, Auckland University of Technology (AUT) will add the 38-seat, plus standing, passenger bus to its fleet of shuttles operating between AUT’s three Auckland campuses.

Vice-Chancellor Derek McCormack told AUT News that 2016 being the hottest year on record brought into focus the need to find more ways to address the human contribution to climate change.

“Putting a single electric bus on the road might be a humble step, but it signals AUT’s willingness to embrace technology, and work in partnership to help find solutions to the challenges faced by our city and beyond,” he said.

Discussions about building the bus are underway and it is hoped to have it in service in the first half of this year. It is likely that the chassis and EV components will be built in China and the body will be built in New Zealand.

The project was announced recently by Minister of Energy and Resources Judith Collins as part of EECA’s Low Emissions Vehicle Contestable Fund which aims to help accelerate the uptake of electric vehicles, helping to transform our fleet and reduce carbon emissions from road transport.

The trial will make it possible for AUT and Tranzit to study the battery technology and determine what infrastructure and expertise is required to run a large EV urban bus fleet in New Zealand.

“With significant investment in NZ urban bus fleets occurring, AUT and Tranzit findings will be shared with the transport industry in the hope that the uptake of large EVs in New Zealand is seen as a viable replacement to current diesel buses,” said Tranzit Group’s managing director Paul Snelgrove.

Building and operating the electric-powered bus is in line with several of AUT’s sustainability goals including those that cover demonstrating leadership, research and partnership, and operations.

Auckland City Harbour News reported that two electric buses were set to hit Auckland’s roads in a trial part-funded by the government.

Auckland Transport has been awarded up to $500,000 for the trial and about $300,000 for electric vehicle charging infrastructure.

Funding has also been provided to install 60 electric vehicle charging stations at parking facilities around Auckland.

If you live in or visit the seats of Grayndler and Sydney, you can’t help but be aware of the issue of the WestConnex toll road that is beginning to carve up neighbourhoods with massive dusty constructions sites and the forced acquisition of hundreds of homes and parks.

The $16.8 billion project is meant to be about solving traffic congestion – a claim disputed by expert traffic planners, the City of Sydney, and 16,000 community groups and individuals who sent submissions to the NSW Department of Planning. More than 99 percent of these submissions objected to the whole project. The NSW government approved it anyway.

This presents a political problem for local Federal MPs Anthony Albanese and Tanya Plibersek. Labor – including leader Bill Shorten and Shadow Minister for Infrastructure Albanese – supports WestConnex.

The convincing wins of Greens candidates in Newtown and Balmain at last year’s NSW state election was partly attributed to a rejection by voters of Labor’s support for Westconnex.

This was a perfect time for Labor to engage in a post election rethink of its policy. There is plenty of expert evidence on which it could rely to argue that WestConnex is a waste of public funds and will not solve traffic congestion. It will saddle Western Sydney with tolls for generations.

Instead, Labor has kept supporting the project, which is why it remains a burning issue across Sydney’s inner west.

In this campaign, Albanese and Plibersek and their teams began by trying to convince voters, including by direct phone calls, that WestConnex is only a state issue. However, anyone who looks at the WestConnex website will see that it involves a partnership between the NSW and Australian governments. $3.5 billion in Federal funds have already been allocated to the project.

COf this, a $2 billion loan and at least $300 million in grant money is still to be paid over. Community groups WestConnex Action Group, No WestConnex, and the City of Sydney are campaigning for the federal funds and construction to be stopped, at least until a federal audit of the project is over.

Albanese told a packed Balmain Town Hall in May that he would not attempt to block the funds although he would not support additional funding. He failed to answer a question on what evidence Labor’s support for WestConnex is based on, and left the meeting for another appointment before it had ended.

WestConnex and the Federal election
I’ve been researching the WestConnex story, including Federal parliamentary debates on the issue, for more than 18 months. So when I read the pamphlet that Albanese distributed across the entire Grayndler electorate before the July 2 Federal election, I was surprised to see this:

Many locals have also raised their concerns over WestConnex with me. I share these concerns which is why I have raised the issue of WestConnex specifically in relation to problems of financing, planning, lack of community consultation and the impact of the WestConnex project within the community, more than 30 times in Parliament.

Judge for yourself, but I understood that to mean Albanese shared concerns of the electorate about WestConnex and that he had raised these concerns on behalf of his community in Parliament more than 30 times.

A review of the 16000 submissions reveals that key community concerns include; traffic congestion, granting construction contracts to companies before an Environmental Impact Statement was completed (which, by the way, was eventually done by AECOM, a company with record of misleading traffic studies), pollution, loss of parks and biodiversity, dislocation of communities, loss of housing and heritage buildings, underpayment of those whose homes have been acquired, poor community consultation and secrecy.

Although I don’t agree with some Labor policies, I expected that the basic content of its leaflets would be factually accurate but this statement did not ring true.

I began with a search of Hansard. It revealed 23 occasions on which Albanese had made a speech mentioning “WestConnex” and one occasion when he raised the issue in a Committee. I asked two people familiar with the tricky Hansard search engine to do the same search and they confirmed my results.

So I decided to write to Albanese.

I wrote:

As a journalist, I have covered WestConnex extensively since December 2014. I was somewhat surprised by your statement, so I did a search of Hansard. I’ve identified 23 occasions on which you have mentioned Westconnex in Parliament and one occasion in a Committee hearing in 2015.

I have not been able to identify any other occasions when you have specifically raised concerns about ‘community consultation’ and very few references to what could be described as ‘impact of the WestConnex project within the community.’

I intend [to]publish an article about your statement. I wish to make sure that my search of Hansard has thrown up correct results. If you have information or research suggesting that my search is wrong, I would appreciate it if you or your staff could send me a list of more than 30 occasions on which you raised your concerns about WestConnex by 9 am on Monday.

On Sunday, I attended a rally of hundreds of residents protesting against WestConnex and calling for a halt to the funding. Albanese made a brief appearance to talk to people one on one and walk a dog. He declined an invitation to speak at the rally.

Later on Sunday, I received this reply from Albanese.

Dear Wendy,

It is remarkable that you would claim to be acting as a journalist rather than a campaigner for a political party, but I guess how you reconcile that with the journalists’ code of ethics is a matter for you.

I have raised the issue of Westconnex as a member of the House of Representatives on at least 33 occasions. Further, as a member of the Joint House Committee on Public Accounts and Audit, I have raised the issue many times at public and private hearings. As you may know this Committee provides Parliamentary scrutiny of the Australian National Audit Office and the ANAO has announced an audit into Westconnex. I note the Greens political party have not sought to participate in that Committee.

I do not anticipate these facts will alter the partisan nature of your contribution.

I will return to the question of ethics.

The language in Albanese’s reply was noticeably different from that in the pamphlet. The words “raised….  in parliament” were missing.

By then I had identified seven questions that Albanese had asked in Parliament mentioning ‘Westconnex’ so that brought my tally to 30.

For example, a year after the Abbott government was elected in September 2014, Albanese asked the Minister for Infrastructure Warren Truss why there were no bulldozers and cranes for big projects as the Coalition had promised in opposition. Truss assured him that work on WestConnex would begin soon. Another question just asked for a list of infrastructure.

On other occasions in 2014 he asked whether residents would be consulted or given information about WestConnex. He was told, as you would expect, that this would occur. I can’t find anywhere where he pursued widespread concern about the flawed consultation process or secrecy surrounding WestConnex.

In fact, after analysing all his interventions I concluded that if his claim was intended to communicate that he had raised community concerns on more than 30 occasions, it is false.

In September 2014, Parliament debated changes to Infrastructure Australia. In this context Albanese complained several times about traffic congestion that would be caused by the project in St Peters, Newtown and Haberfield near the WestConnex route. This was in the context that  Labor “were of the view that there is a real argument to extend the M4 to city. It is absurd that it is some considerable distance from the city and then people after being on the M4 hit a traffic jam.” He referred to contributing “$25 million to the WestConnex project to make sure that it got up to speed” when he was the Minister for Infrastructure. In October 2014, he told Parliament that the “M4 has to take people to the city  – that policy was right then and right today.”

Building WestConnex to the CBD is Labor’s policy. It is a concept that has almost no community or planner support. Labor has never explained where the giant portals would be along the route and where the tunnel would emerge in the CBD. Albanese also said WestConnex New M5 should go to Port Botany, an idea which has more support. But he never explained what route it would take to get there or what suburbs and scarce open space and endangered species would be affected.

On October 30, 2014, he complained that the Abbott government had granted a $2 billion concessional loan that had been paid to the NSW government before a cost benefit analysis. This is the first sign of a big ‘misunderstanding’ by Albanese that the loan had already been transferred to NSW. He continued to complain in parliament that it had been ‘made available’. In fact, no agreement was signed until last year and not a cent has been transferred.

New Matilda confirmed this with the Department of Infrastructure on April 26 and the Minister for Roads Paul Fletcher confirmed it again on June 2.  Last year, when concerned residents raised it at a Labor party forum in Arncliffe, Albanese told them it had been ‘prepaid.’ This was before the loan agreement had even been signed.

I do not know if Albanese genuinely misunderstood or if he was merely looking for a way to criticise the process of the project without actually opposing it. But only when confronted with the evidence at the recent Balmain Town Hall meeting did he accept that the money has not been paid. He then said that if he wins Grayndler again, he would not attempt to stop the $2 billion loan being passed to the NSW government. Greens candidates Jim Casey promised to do “everything in his power” to stop it.

This year, more details were released about WestConnex Stage 3. It became clear that a third part of the Grayndler electorate in Rozelle and Balmain would be badly affected. Albanese accepted an invitation to a community meeting. Just before parliament was adjourned on May 4, 2016, he made a short speech expressing his concern. But his focus was on ‘uncertainty’ in the community, not the strong opposition to the project and its impacts.

On three occasions, Albanese has mentioned Vince Crow a constituent who got two letters on the same day, one stating that his house would be resumed and another that it wouldn’t. He has never spoken about the hundreds of people who have lost their homes in St Peters or Haberfield or the destruction of heritage homes. He has never mentioned the pollution that will threaten the health of residents and children, not just in inner Sydney but in south west Sydney as well. He hasn’t mentioned the contracts being let before the EIS was completed or the farcical community consultation, concerns that have been expressed thousands of times in submissions. He has not referred to independent reports providing evidence that tollways such as WestConnex will not solve Sydney’s traffic congestion.

If less informed voters have got the impression from his leaflet that he has supported his community on WestConnex or communicated its impacts to the broader public, they would be wrong. It is true to say that on several occasions he has expressed concerns about uncertainty, planning processes, and traffic congestion.

Journalism, politics and ethics
It is the job of journalists to hold politicians accountable for their statements.

Albanese raises the issue of my integrity. I know from experience he is thin-skinned so I was not surprised by his response.

As I have explained on my own website, I am an activist and a journalist. If you ever read the Daily Telegraph, you’ll know that many journalists are activists for particular political causes, but those who work in the mainstream media don’t usually disclose it. I do where relevant – see the bottom of this story. I apply the ethics of my union, the Media Arts and Entertainment Alliance.

I am also a long term supporter but not a member of the Greens. My reasons include their anti-corruption stance, donations reform in NSW, support for those experiencing miscarriage of justice, support of public education, resistance to the privatisation of TAFE services at a time when Labor was supporting privatisation, opposition to coal mining, coal seam gas, and to fossil fuel subsidies.

I support their strong feminist program including decriminalisation of abortion, support for equal rights in every sphere including equal marriage. Unlike Labor and the Liberals, they opposed the Federal Intervention in the NT, which I also strongly opposed. Last but not least, I would not consider voting for any party that condones what I regard as concentration camps on Nauru and Manus and our inhumane refugee policies.

I have campaigned for both Jim Casey for Grayndler and Sylive Ellsmore for Sydney and endorsed Senator Lee Rhiannon in tomorrow’s election.

But that’s not going to stop me being a reporter.

Road lobby donations to WestConnex
Facts do matter, so I have been delving a little deeper into why it might be that Labor got locked in so early to the WestConnex project.

There has been a perception that it is all about votes in Western Sydney. Labor politicians may have convinced themselves of that but a small No WestConnex poll suggests that support is not strong and a case could easily be made that $16.8 billion would be better spent on public transport rather than roads.

Democracy for Sale, a project associated with Senator Lee Rhiannon, published a report just before the Federal election showing donations from big road industry companies over 15 years.

Support for roads has been built through donations over a long period.  Over 15 years, major companies associated with the industry have donated more than $15 million with Labor receiving slightly more than the Coalition, probably because there were more Labor governments in power during the selected period. Macquarie and Leighton Contractors ( now CIMIC), both of which are heavily involved in WestConnex, have been the biggest donors.

Since the GFC, NSW reforms banning developer donations in 2009, along with the publicity around the corrupting influence of donations, have seen a reduction in donations, but the timing of more recent Leighton donations is interesting.

The Gillard Labor government went to the polls in August 2010. It was always going to be a tightly fought contest.

Leighton’s annual return for 2010 – 2011 shows that the company made a $50,000 donation to Federal Labor on July 7, 2010 and further donations to Federal Labor totalling more than $10,000 between July and April 2011. On July 7, Leighton also made a donation of $70,000 to the Federal Liberal Party and on July 30, $5,500 to the Federal Branch of the National Party and a further $10,000 on August 27 and $1,750 before June 2011.

The NSW LNP government was elected in March 2011 and then Premier Barry O’Farrell set up Infrastructure NSW, which was chaired by ex-LNP Premier Nick Greiner. In October 2012, Infrastructure NSW recommended a 33km tollway system which it called WestConnex.

On January 28, 2013, the then Shadow Minister for Infrastructure Anthony Albanese announced $25 million to “advance the WestConnex project”. The NSW government invited a number of companies to work on the business case that would justify WestConnex.

Despite the corruption allegations and the company’s record of being involved in failed tollways, Leightons was one of several companies that was invited to be part of the planning and development of WestConnex. This was a key moment in a number of decisions through which the O’Farrell government attempted to make the project a political fait accompli.

Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon raised the issue of donations and WestConnex tollway company political donations in February 2013 when she told the Senate, “The ears of politicians have been successfully bent by the likes of the motorway construction companies… companies like John Holland, Leighton, Thiess and Macquarie Bank have given big donations to the major parties. The public do not know if deals are done behind closed doors, but there is the perception that MPs are favouring private road building businesses at the expense of public transport.”

In the March 2013 budget, Labor included $1.8 billion for the WestConnex. One of its conditions was that it should go to the Sydney CBD. The LNP opposition promised $1.5 billion. In 2013, Leighton Contractors and its subsidiary Thiess were awarded more than $4 million dollars to work on early plans to justify WestConnex.

Analysis of Leighton’s donations for 2012/2013 shows that several donations during this critical period totalled $7272 to Federal Labor. The pro-tollway Tony Abbott led opposition also received $2450 in donations to the Federal Liberal Party branch, $2,200 to the Tasmanian Liberal Party and $909 to the Nationals. In 2013/2014, Leightons donated a further $10,700 to Federal Labor with the Liberal party only receiving $3000.

But the Democracy for Sale report reveals some fascinating detail about the politicians who were directly funded by Leighton in early years. Unfortunately later donation returns do not include such detail.

In 2005/06, Leighton executives attended a private dinner with the then Liberal Minister for Foreign Affairs Alexander Downer, a fundraising lunch with Labor’s Kim Beazley, lunch and dinner with then Liberal shadow Minister Chris Hartcher, who retired in 2014 after NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption investigated his involvement with Liberal party donations, a dinner with then ALP MPs Paul McLeay and Michael Costa, dinner with National Party MP Warren Truss, and a boardroom dinner with Victorian ALP ex-Premier Steve Bracks. There was also a private dinner with Wayne Swan and Peter Garrett, lunch with former LNP Defence Minister Kevin Andrews, dinner with Queensland Labor ex-Premier Peter Beattie and a NSW Labor cabinet dinner for which $5000 was paid.

In 2006/2007, Leighton’s donations returns record that the Shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen’s Prospect Campaign received two donations totally $2700 and Labor’s now Deputy Leader Tanya Plibersek Election Fund received $1800. In the same year, Tony Abbott’s Warringah campaign received $1000. In 2007/2008, Leighton’s donations return shows that then Labor Minister Martin Ferguson’s campaign account received $3000 in September 2007, and the current Shadow Labor Minister for Communications Jason Clare’s campaign received two donations of $2000 in July and August 2008.

Transfield Services, which has since been acquired by Ferrovial, a major player in tollways, also provide some earlier details of support for particular politicians.

The donations return for Transfield Services in 2010 recorded that in March 2010, the NSW ALP organised a fundraising lunch with Labor Treasurer Wayne Swan and the Minister for the Status of Women Tanya Plibersek, at which Transfield Services donated $2,500. On June 7, 2010 Transfield Services attended a dinner with then Labor MP and now Opposition Leader Bill Shorten and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Anthony Albanese and donated $2500. Two weeks later, Transfield attended a dinner for PM Julia Gillard at which a further $5000 was donated. A week later a further $1000 was donated at an NSW ALP budget dinner. On June 5, 2012 Transfield Services donated $5500 to the North Sydney Business Forum, a business political funding associated with then North Sydney Liberal MP Joe Hockey.

It is likely that donations to the Coalition and Labor have had far more influence on transport policy than the concerns of ordinary citizens.

Just before the Federal election, Albanese pulled in ex-Prime Minister Paul Keating for an old style boots and all attack on the Greens at a Labor campaign meeting in Grayndler. I found this ironic because just 30 years ago, I was one of several Fairfax journalists who published an expose on the links between Keating and the property industry in NSW. Our attempts to expose ALP corruption in NSW so angered Keating that it led him to punish Fairfax by allowing Rupert Murdoch to take over the Herald and Weekly Times in 1987. This delivered News Corporation the dominance that allows it to so unfairly campaign against Bill Shorten and the Labor team today – except Albanese, of course. News Corp is campaigning to SAVE ALBO, providing him commentary space and a whole front page promotion to kick of his campaign for Grayndler. I wonder why?

Wendy Bacon, who lives in Newtown, a community heavily affected by this roading project, is a supporter of the Greens and endorsed Lee Rhiannon for reelection — she succeeded. Both Labor’s Anthony Albanese and Tanya Joan Plibersek were also reelected. Bacon supports the WestConnex Action Group. This article was first published by New Matilda and is republished here with permission.