The government's decision to abandon an LNG import levy and instead place responsibility for energy security and risk management on power companies is defended as a way to reduce electricity costs and improve supply stability, though critics question whether the $1 billion cost会被
Stacked weekly counts; colour by lean. “n/a” covers government and iwi-Māori sources where lean isn't applicable.
How this topic has been named, week by week. A new alias winning out is usually a framing shift.
Verbatim segments from politicians speaking on podcasts and radio shows about this topic. Sourced via the voice-reference library — each speaker has been confirmed manually from their voice clip. Click play to stream the original audio from the publisher, pre-seeked to the moment the quote starts.
So the government's scrapping plans for a levy read tax to pay for the billion dollar LNG import terminal. They haven't been very clear though on how it will be funded. It expects to sign a contract with a provider later in this year. So to talk about this and the funding, I'm joined by Energy Minister Simeon Brown. Hello, Simeon. First of all, why no levy?
Up to 12 framings spread across orientations. Each framing is a short phrase the topic extractor generated to characterise the piece's stance — not a quote from the source. Click through to read the original.
regulatory oversight to prevent price gouging
Simeon Brown: Energy Minister on the Government pressing on with LNG Import FacilitySpotted something wrong on this page? Report a correction.
