Heather du Plessis-Allan critiques the proposed second Auckland Harbour crossing as a politically motivated pre-election stunt, citing past failures and lack of sustainable funding.
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.
Heather Dupacy Allen. Now, I don't know about you, but I'm taking this latest talk of a second Auckland Harbor crossing with a gigantic grain of salt. So the development today is that Chris Bishop has revealed the government will announce its preferred option for a second crossing by mid-year. So I suppose you could say sort of July-ish, June, July-ish, and they will decide between a tunnel or a bridge. And while I really want to get excited about it, because Auckland needs this crossing, and Auckland has been waiting decades for this crossing, I cannot get excited because I can see what's going on here. It's election year, and National is in danger of losing Auckland, which means, you know, potentially coming quite close in the election, as in losing the potentially the election. Unlikely, but possible. So the easiest way to win favour in Auckland is to promise something big and shiny like a bridge. Have we been here before? Yes, we have. Do you remember Michael Wood's boomer bike bridge to Birkenhead? Where are we with that? We spent $51 million plus on consultants and in the end it got ditched. Now I have a strong suspicion that whatever it is that Chris Bishop announces mid-year will go exactly the same way. Because we cannot afford it. I want us to be able to afford it because we need it, but Chris Bishop is already scaling back on the roads of national significance that he announced before the last election, because we don't have the funding for those roads. Because we haven't pushed up the fuel excise tax in what will shortly be seven years. So if we don't have the funding for those roads, why would we have the funding for this bridge? Now, unless unless there is committed funding and an absolute rock solid commitment from Labour to continue with the project if they were to win the election or subsequent elections, I think that we can see this for what it is. The cheapest and easiest pre-election trick to play on Aucklanders. For more from Heather Dupacy Allen Drive, listen live to News Talks Ed B from 4 p.m. weekdays or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.
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.
past project as cautionary example
Perspective with Heather du Plessis-Allan: Take the Auckland Harbour crossing talk with a grain of saltSpotted something wrong on this page? Report a correction.
