You are subscribed as | Unsubscribe | View online version | Forward to a friend


Insights 24: 4 July 2025
Newsroom: Dr Eric Crampton on intelligence built on a library's ashes
 
NZ Herald: Roger Partridge on lessons in prosperity from the Netherlands
 
The Post: Dr Eric Crampton on dispatches from the Economic Conference
In Memoriam: Emeritus Professor Des Gorman
Dr Oliver Hartwich | Executive Director | oliver.hartwich@nzinitiative.org.nz
The New Zealand Initiative mourns the passing of our esteemed Adjunct Senior Fellow, Emeritus Professor Des Gorman, who died peacefully at home on 2 July 2025, surrounded by his family.
 
Des was a towering figure in New Zealand medicine and a passionate advocate for health reform. His sharp intellect, combined with his gift for captivating storytelling, made him one of our most valued contributors and a pleasure to work with.
 
During his time with the Initiative, Des co-authored two significant reports: Lifting the Lid: A Critical Analysis of the Covid-19 Pandemic Management in New Zealand (2023) and Lifeline for Health: Meeting New Zealand's Need for General Practitioners (2023), both with Dr Murray Horn. He also penned a thoughtful foreword to Dr Bryce Wilkinson's report Every Life Is Worth The Same: The Case for Equal Treatment (2022).
 
Des was a regular presence at our events, speaking at our members' retreat and Health Innovators' Summit, where his charismatic presentations never failed to challenge and inspire. His appearances on our podcast, including discussions on New Zealand's COVID-19 response and health equity, showcased his ability to distil complex issues with clarity and conviction.
 
What set Des apart was his unwavering commitment to bringing world-class healthcare to the disadvantaged. He combined rigorous academic analysis with genuine compassion, always keeping the most vulnerable at the centre of his advocacy.
 
We extend our deepest condolences to his wife Christine, daughters Anna, Sarah and Emily, and his eight grandchildren. Des will be deeply missed by everyone at The New Zealand Initiative and all who had the privilege of knowing him.
 
A service celebrating Professor Gorman's life will be held at St Joseph's Catholic Church, Takapuna, on Wednesday 9 July at 1pm

Hobson’s sledge
Dr Michael Johnston | Senior Fellow | michael.johnston@nzinitiative.org.nz
Activist organisations have an important place in democracy. Politicians must negotiate public opinion, media narratives and coalition agreements. Activists, at their best, passionately argue for principled positions, unencumbered by political considerations. 

It is important, though, for activists to be accurate and honest. Playing fast and loose with facts might garner short-term popularity, but it undermines credibility in the long run.  

Last week, Hobson’s Pledge emailed its supporters accusing Education Minister Erica Stanford of slipping a “radical section” into the Education and Training Amendment Bill #2 (ETAB2). They called her “National’s wokest Minister” and a “sneaky sellout.” Strong words. 

The offending section relates to school board objectives. It requires boards to give effect to the Treaty of Waitangi by achieving “equitable outcomes for Māori students.” Boards must also make sure that tikanga, mātauranga Māori, and a Māori worldview are reflected in schools’ policies and teaching. 

Hobson’s Pledge oppose this clause for good reasons. Poverty, not lack of tikanga in schools, is the main driver of educational inequality for Māori. And schools frequently include karakia in classes in the name of tikanga, arguably undermining the secular nature of public schools. 

The problem is not their objection to the clause, but their claim that Minister Stanford ’slipped it in.’  She did not. It was in the original Act passed by the Ardern government in 2020.   

Speaking on The Platform, Hobson’s Pledge leader Don Brash acknowledged that Stanford did not insert the clause. Yet his organisation told its supporters she did – and it has not published a correction. 

Brash also claimed that ETAB2 elevates the treaty clause “to a matter of prominence, importance and priority.” The opposite is true. 

In the existing Act, all board objectives have equal status. ETAB2 elevates educational achievement to be the paramount objective, relegating the others, including the treaty clause, to the status of supporting objectives. 

Brash said it was beyond his understanding that Stanford did not simply remove the clause. As a former politician, it ought not be.  

Speaking on Newstalk ZB, Stanford said the treaty objective will be considered in an omnibus review of treaty clauses across a broad range of legislation.  

There are numerous references to the treaty in the Act. Stanford is hardly going to winkle them out one at a time. The last thing she needs is a rolling maul of criticism from her political opponents distracting from her agenda to raise educational achievement. 
Going for Housing Growth: How we got into this mess
Dr Benno Blaschke | Research Fellow | benno.blaschke@nzinitiative.org.nz
Housing and Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop released his Going for Housing Growth discussion document last month, promising a new paradigm for planning in New Zealand. The proposals are the latest waypoint in a reform journey spanning nearly a decade. 

We have been here before. Since 2016, each reform aimed at fixing our housing crisis has failed to make a real difference. 

The problem is always the same. It has a name: 'integrated management'. Reforms have struggled to break free from it. 

Here's how it works. Councils guess how many houses people will need. They decide how much land to allow for development. Then they ration that land based on what infrastructure they can afford. 

This makes planning about minimising costs. It treats housing like a government service, not a market good. Citizens cannot offer their land for development to provide what society needs. Instead, council planners decide what is needed, what is allowed, and how to manage the trade-offs. 

Auckland pioneered this approach. Its Unitary Plan in 2016 allowed more housing density. But only where councils were willing to pay for pipes and roads. Development stayed slow. 

The government tried national rules in 2016. Councils had to adopt sophisticated modelling to prove they have provided enough capacity. But only capacity they could ‘service with infrastructure’ counted. The rationing therefore continued. 

Officials tried harder in 2020. They demanded more development faster. But their strategy doubled down on the same approach: Development had to be ‘plan-enabled and infrastructure-ready.’ This created an impossible puzzle. Councils were expected to enable more development but could only do so by paying for all the infrastructure first. 

Each new approach has failed to break away from the infrastructure dependency. Councils continue to limit the pace through their spending plans. 

Chris Bishop has promised finally to deliver transformation, but there is a repeating pattern at play: Ministers display ambition and officials propose technical tweaks, yet planning remains prisoner of council budgets.  

Can government end the cycle of reinforcing what it promises to replace?  

Stay tuned for our upcoming submission on the Going for Housing Growth discussion document next month. 

Listen to part one of our accompanying three-part podcast for deeper discussion.
Bad vibrations
Nick Clark | Senior Fellow | nick.clark@nzinitiative.org.nz
Future historians may seek to understand why early 21st century New Zealand struggled to get value from its infrastructure spending. They will need to look no further than Auckland's achievement in speed bump construction and subsequent destruction. 
 
This week, Stuff revealed that Auckland Transport (AT) spent over $2 million installing seven speed tables (longer speed bumps) in Avondale. A short time later, AT ripped one up again, after residents complained about it causing house-shaking vibrations.  
 
It was a masterclass in how not to do infrastructure, exquisitely timed. Just as the Infrastructure Commission released a draft National Infrastructure Plan warning against exactly these kinds of mistakes, AT provided a textbook example of one. 
 
The draft plan warns against premature project announcements, inadequate business cases, and poor asset management. AT appears to have anticipated these recommendations and done precisely the opposite. 
 
Residents explicitly opposed the speed tables during consultation. AT pressed ahead anyway. When they caused structural vibrations exceeding international thresholds for ‘human comfort’, it quietly removed one. The cost? Over $300,000 per speed table, not including removal costs, which it declined to specify. 
 
Somehow, AT managed to create infrastructure that satisfied nobody. Residents got house-shaking vibrations. Motorists got pointless obstacles. The area’s local councillor called the situation ‘unacceptable’. Even the speed tables must have felt aggrieved, with one of their number demolished barely two years after installation. 
 
This is the same organisation that previously removed two raised crossings in Titirangi for identical reasons, with Auckland mayor Wayne Brown calling it wasted money. AT learned from past mistakes – by perfectly repeating them. 
 
The Commission’s draft plan recommends that infrastructure providers become ‘sophisticated clients’. AT achieved the opposite. It plumbed the depths of unsophistication. It specialised in, and perfected, the art of delivering projects nobody wants. 
 
The draft plan calls for transparent cost reporting. AT quietly conducted a demolition during routine maintenance. While this is less disruptive and costly than a sole-purpose mission, it feels like a homeowner hiding a DIY disaster from neighbours. 
 
The Infrastructure Commission has offered a pathway to better infrastructure outcomes through better planning, consultation, and value for money. AT has offered the alternative:  spending millions building infrastructure that residents explicitly oppose, causes structural damage, and ends up being demolished. 
 
Perhaps there is hope. This debacle offers lessons that could help solve New Zealand's infrastructure problems. The sacrifice of unwanted speed tables might not have been in vain. 
 
On The Record
Initiative Activities: ​ To listen to our latest podcasts, please subscribe to The New Zealand Initiative podcast on iTunes, Spotify or The Podcast App.
 
All Things Considered
Copyright © 2025 The New Zealand Initiative, All Rights Reserved


Unsubscribe me please


Brought to you by outreachcrm