The article critiques the government's $1.2 billion Roads of National Significance programme, highlighting concerns over excessive costs, political motivations, skewed regional investment, and manipulated benefit-cost ratios that undermine economic rationality and equity.
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.
I mean, I think I think you can look at resilience and all I think it can guide lots of things. So I think energy, absolutely. Um I think uh security, absolutely. Uh I mean this stuff obviously costs money, and that's where the government's going to find itself in a tricky position, although obviously there's a bit of difference between capital spending and operational spending. But I think if they wanted to undertake some pretty bold capital projects around stuff like energy, yeah, now is the time that they can do it, and they would be more likely to have support from the public for some really big capital projects because people could say actually we can't rely on the world being the kind of benign strategic environment that it has been for the last 20 or 30 years.
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.
using economic rhetoric to attack opponents' proposed expenditures
The Huddle: Should we make the All Blacks travel in premium economy if they lose?Spotted something wrong on this page? Report a correction.
