Julian Wood

By Julian Wood - 09/03/2017

Julian Wood

By Julian Wood -

Like what you're reading?
Share it around.

Or just highlight the part you like...

Current goals of regional development policy in New Zealand

What are the current goals of regional development policy in New Zealand?

Identifying the current goals of regional development policy is tied to the task of understanding broader government goals and objectives. This is because the goal or goals of regional development policy in New Zealand have often been subsumed within wider economic and social goals and objectives. Regional development goals have also shifted dramatically over time in response to economic realities, past policy failures or successes, political will and the priority given to regional development within these wider economic and social goals.

We have identified four significant regional development paradigm shifts since the reform period (broadly 1984 onwards), as outlined in Table 2 below.

TABLE TWO: PARADIGMS OF NEW ZEALAND’S REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT POLICY GOALS POST 1984

Source: Silverstone et al (1996), the following Cabinet Papers [CAB (00) M17/1 D], [Cab Min (06) 7/22],[CAB Min (11) 31/11] and MBIE Website: http://www.mbie.govt.nz/info-services/ business/business-growth-agenda and Dalziel and Saunders (2005); Schöllmann and Nischalke (2005).

Historical paradigms: Macroeconomic stability within “Rogernomics”

The first paradigm shift was the reform process itself, particularly the removal of the range of earlier regional development initiatives (largely tax breaks, subsidies, and minimum prices) aimed at rebalancing regional economic development and growth. The New Zealand Government focused on macroeconomic stability via fiscal prudence and transparency, achieving and maintaining low inflation via the independent Reserve Bank, and boosting competition largely via macro tools like the promotion of trade agreements. As Professor Paul Dalziel points out, regional economies were fundamentally overhauled within this new economic framework.[9]

More specifically, as outlined by economist Brian Silverstone and his colleagues, starting in 1983, for example, wide-ranging industry protections were peeled back (partly signalled earlier as an aspect of the Closer Economic Relations (CER) free trade agreement with Australia). Import licencing was phased out, as were export performance tax incentives. As Steven Stillman and colleagues write, “[i]ncluded here was the removal of supplementary minimum prices for farming activity and the ending of the eggs, milk and wheat producer boards in 1984.”[10] Alongside this, the New Zealand dollar was floated in 1985, following a devaluation in 1983. In 1986, import tariffs were reduced from an average of twenty-eight percent to five percent. Over 1985 to 1987, the government first corporatised and then privatised a range of State Owned Enterprises. In 1990, following the establishment of regions, regional councils and TAs, this corporatisation extended to a range of local authority trading enterprises in the regions. Wage and employment settlements, once agreed upon as part of wider industrial development policy, were in 1991 placed within an individual contract basis. Being a member of a trade union, once compulsory, was now up to individual choice. The changes, as we now know, led to a range of divergent regional and individual outcomes.[11]

Historical paradigms: Foster sustainable regional economic development within the wider Growth and Innovation Framework

The second major paradigm was partly a response to some of the divergent regional outcomes and institutional structures that appeared via the reform process as part of “an approach based on making the most of what the region has rather than solely a vehicle for transfers from prosperous to less prosperous regions.”[12] This was under the newly-appointed Minister of Economic Development, Jim Anderton. The Government’s goal in regional development, as part of the wider Growth and Innovation Framework (GIF) was “to facilitate and promote sustainable regional economic development to help regions respond to local opportunities.”[13] This framework was developed to “build partnerships between central government and regions for sustainable, locally driven, economic development.”[14]

The policy rationale behind the government’s regional development approach was four-fold: first, the lack of co-ordination of central government activities that impacted on regional development; second, New Zealand’s small size combined with a dispersed population led to an atomisation of local authorities which resulted in insular thinking and development and direct competition between local communities; third, a number of regional resources being underutilised; and fourth, a combined lack of strategic focus on sustainable economic development.[15] It was largely based on “Third Way” thinking, tending “to favour bottom-up and region- specific policy actions,”[16] and, as outlined by Dalziel, “[drew] on the experience of the OECD Local Economic and Employment Development programme.”[17]

Its flagship intervention was the Regional Partnership Programme (RPP), but it also included the Clusters Development Programme, the Regional and Industry Development fund, and the Polytechnic Regional Development Fund, as well as a range of smaller capability building initiatives. The first Major Regional Initiative (MRI) carried out under the GIF framework was the Waikato Innovation Park. Other regional initiatives included the Forestry and Wood Processing strategy carried out in Tairawhiti on the East Coast that led to the establishment of the Forestry and Wood Processing Centre of Excellence in Rotorua. By 2003 it included the Auckland Sustainable Cities Programme (ASCP).[18] This led to the creation of the Government Urban and Economic Development Office (GUEDO) in Auckland in 2006.

Historical paradigms: Make Auckland a world-class hub and attract globally competitive firms within the wider Economic Transformation Agenda

The third major paradigm shift occurred in 2006, as the overall GIF framework was replaced by the Economic Transformation Agenda (ETA). This agenda had an overall goal “to improve per capita income through innovation and raising productivity in an environmentally sustainable way.”[19] Within this agenda, and largely under the sub-theme of “growing globally competitive firms,” it was stated that “the government’s goal for refreshed regional policy is to improve the quality of the regional business environment to support the development, attraction and retention of globally competitive firms.”[20] The RPP and MRI funding were transformed into the newly-named Enterprising Regions fund and Enterprising Partnership fund and the regional boundaries were re- aggregated down from 26 to 14 regions, which largely aligned these with existing regional council boundaries. It also dovetailed with the reform of the Local Government Act 2002, which introduced the requirement for long- term (ten-year) Council Community Planning, with a broadening out of the co-ordination of regional development activity acknowledging the wider role of the Ministry of Social Development, the Department of Labour, the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology, and the Tertiary Education Commission in shaping the regional business environment.[21]

The most significant aspect of the ETA however, was a new regional development goal to make Auckland “a world- class hub of innovation and internationalisation.”[22] The theoretical underpinning was to ensure that our largest city could act as a global growth pole (or node) for New Zealand and to unlock potential agglomeration forces.[23] It built on the earlier ASCP but with a more specific focus on Auckland being a globally competitive city.

This focus on Auckland turned the traditionally- assumed goal of regional development policy on its head. This was because it was focused on ensuring the successful growth of the economic centre of gravity in New Zealand, namely Auckland, rather than focusing on the performance of lagging regions. In some respects, this was a response to an underlying argument that Auckland was underperforming in its key role as a growth hub for New Zealand.[24] Major initiatives included the Metropolitan Project Action Plan, reviewing Auckland Governance (with the eventual super-city outcome), and a raft of Auckland Transport projects.[25]

Contemporary paradigm: “Build a productive and competitive economy” where “all regions have an opportunity to grow and prosper”

The fourth major paradigm shift in regional development goals occurred in 2012, when all regional policy was subsumed and aligned within the current Government’s Business Growth Agenda (BGA). This is our current paradigm, where the overall goal of the BGA is, as outlined in the “Towards 2025” document, “[t]o build a productive and competitive economy” and to ensure “that business has the motivation and confidence to invest in New Zealand.” It is a package of policy responses to the identified problems of New Zealand’s poor productivity performance: a decrease in New Zealand’s international competitiveness, slow growth in GDP and exports, and the concentration of New Zealand’s growth in the non- tradable sector.[26]

One of the major regional interventions in the Business Growth Agenda has been the rebuild of Christchurch following the devastating 2011 earthquakes. It is a direct regional intervention aimed at responding to a natural disaster, but also provided New Zealand with significant infrastructure investment following the Global Financial Crisis.

Besides the focus on Christchurch, all other regional development policy is now fully subsumed into the wider business growth framework and acts as part of the of the overall growth agenda. Underlying the BGA as a general policy framework is the notion of regional economic growth as an indicator of regional success. For example, in outlining what “economic success” looks like by 2025, the BGA includes an explicit regional reference to “an economy where all regions have an opportunity to grow and prosper.”[27] This is tied within the wider goal of ensuring “that business has the motivation and confidence to invest in New Zealand,” with the ultimate goal to “[b]uild a productive and competitive economy.”

Regional development policy is spread across the six key foci of the 2015 refresh of the BGA (export markets; innovation; investment; natural resources; skilled and safe workplaces; and infrastructure). A selected summary of the major regional policy initiatives included within the Towards 2025 BGA is outlined below in Table 3.

TABLE THREE: MAJOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES INC;UDED IN THE 2015 BUSINESS GROWTH AGENDA: TOWARDS 2025

Source: Author-selected regional development summary from the MBIE “Towards 2025 Report” focusing on major regional initiatives from the “Building Export Markets Chapter”, the “Building Innovation Chapter”, the “Building Investment Chapter” and the “Building Natural Resource Chapter” available at Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment: http:// www.mbie.govt.nz/info-services/business/business-growth-agenda/towards-2025 accessed on 27 September 2016. Note the “build skilled and safe workplaces chapter” and “build infrastructure chapter” were unavailable at time of printing and hence the goals and regional initiatives are taken from the Towards 2025 Report and information publically available from the MBIE website.

The Regional Growth Programme (RGP)

The theoretical genesis of the RGP is to be found in earlier regional initiatives including the review of the Regional Partnership Programme (RPP).[31] In 2013 MBIE created both the Regional Economic Activity Reports, partly in response to the findings of the review and a need to improve the knowledge of the regions’ strengths and advantages. In the same year they also joined with Treasury and NZIER to produce the Regional Government Expenditure Report.[32] The reports gave weight to the persistent regional disparities in household income, youth NEET rates and employment rates that exist in a number of the regions. Alongside this the expenditure report provided the “first ever snapshot and analysis of estimated central government spending for each region in New Zealand.”[33]

The eventual RGP was initially aimed at “identifying and responding to economic growth opportunities in regions that face persistent economic challenges but have strong growth potential.”[34] The RGP was also given “a particular focus on developing the Māori economy” via the alignment (where appropriate) of the RGP to the Māori Economic Development Strategy.[35] This led to the commissioning of a number of independent regional growth studies in Northland, the Bay of Plenty, and Manawatū-Whanganui.[36]

Aligning well with the OECD’s modern regional development paradigm (as outlined in Table 4 below), the RGP is not a top-down approach, or solely a bottom- up approach (like the RPP). Instead it focuses on ways in which central government can work “in partnership with…regional stakeholders, such as businesses, iwi and Māori, economic development agencies and councils.”[37] Part of this has been the independent commissioning of the regional growth studies and then the establishment of both regionally based steering groups (largely consisting of central/local government as well as iwi/ Māori) and technical advisory groups (that largely consist of business people from the region under study).

Regional governance groups are tasked with leading the regional action and implementation plans with central government support. MBIE officials report that it is proving to be a “highly iterative” and “bespoke” approach which, as per the review of the RPP, would suggest is requiring a significant investment in trust and capability building.[38] Not only do the “…Action Plans provide a catalyst for central government agencies to work more closely with each other and with each region,”[39] the governance groups aim to ensure private sector involvement is leveraged to ensure the long-term viability of initiatives. It would also seem that splitting the governance groups and action groups enables different participation and implementation timeframes to be accommodated, and that this is an advance on earlier RPP initiatives.

While there is scope for additional funding within the RGP in general, the focus has been on better co-ordination of existing funding or harnessing the flexibility that already exists within existing discretionary funding.[40]

MBIE officials report that in taking a partnership approach to regional development, the RGP “has built significant social capital, regional buy-in, and provides a platform for longer term more structural discussions.”[41] The bespoke and spatially-focused nature of the RGP is highlighted by its regionally diverse partnership and ownership structures alongside the spatial range of initiatives arising out of the diverse regional action plans. The ongoing ownership/funding and implementation of the regional action plans will be the next challenge.

Key to evaluating the overall outcome of the RGP or even individual initiatives within the regional action plans is to understand clearly what each is intending to do and its fit within the wider regional development goals of the current BGA.

Summary of current paradigm’s regional development goals

Overall, our analysis suggests there are five current regional development goals (either explicit or implicit) within the current regional development paradigm:[42]

  • Goal 1 – to maximise the economic growth of all the regions in New Zealand. All regional development policy is now part of an overall business “growth” agenda focused on productivity and competiveness. Regional success indicators include “an economy where all regions have an opportunity to grow and prosper”[43]
  • Goal 2 – to ensure Auckland in particular grows well to become an international globally competitive city. This focus originated within the ETA in 2006, and while this goal is implicit rather than an explicit part of the BGA, it still appears to be a key part of the overall growth agenda of the country[44]
  • Goal 3 – to further link the regions to the global economy either via Auckland or directly via the raft of innovation, investment, or immigration policy as a way of enhancing the long-term growth of regions
  • Goal 4 – to support “the quality of life in all parts of New Zealand,”[45] both via the BGA and through the interaction of Treasury’s Living Standards Framework and Better Business Case model as a basis for funding major regional initiatives within the RGP
  • Goal 5 – to increasingly use bespoke place-based regional development initiatives as part of the RGP to maximise the growth potential of regions within the programme.

TABLE FOUR: TRADITIONAL AND MODERN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PARADIGMS COMPARED

The current regional development focus within the BGA, and the outworking of the RGP, maps well within what has become known as the new (or modern) paradigm of OECD regional development policy (see Table 4 below). This new paradigm is characterised by the goal of competitiveness and equity and is focused on solving the lack of regional competitiveness by a general framework that taps into underutilised regional potential through regional programming.

Adapted from OECD (2009) cited in Philip McCann, “The UK Regional–National Economic Problem: Geography, globalisation and governance” Regions and Cities, (Routledge, 2016): 85 and OECD, Regional Development Policies in OECD Countries, (OECD Publishing, Paris, 2010): 13.


This is an extract from Julian’s research paper “Growth Beyond Growth | Rethinking the Goals of Regional Development in New Zealand” Discussion Paper. (Released 2017) 

READ MORE IN THIS SERIES

READ THE WHOLE PAPER

ENDNOTES

[1] See Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, Business Growth Agenda, accessed on 30 November 2016, http://www.mbie.govt.nz/info-services/business/ business-growth-agenda.
[2] Andrea Schöllmann and Tobias Nischalke, “Central Government and Regional Development Policy: Origins, Lessons and Future Challenges” in Economic Development in New Zealand: The Dynamics of Economic Space, ed. James E Rowe (Ashgate Publishing, England: 2005): 48.
[3] See Cabinet Minute [CAB Min (06) 7/22] cited in Office of the Minister for Industry and Regional Development, Boosting the Impact of Regional Economic Development: Detailed Changes (2007): 3.
[4]See Cabinet Minute [CAB (00) M17/1 D].
[5]See Cabinet Minute [CAB Min (06) 7/22] cited in Office of the Minister for Industry and Regional Development, “Boosting the Impact of Regional Economic Development: Detailed Changes” (2007).
[6]See Cabinet Minute [CAB Min (11) 31/11].
[7]Some argue this is an endogenous regional development approach that seeks to build each region on its inherent comparative and competitive advantages.
[8]Schöllmann and Nischalke, Central Government and Regional Development Policy: Origins, Lessons and Future Challenges, 48.
[9]The Auckland Metropolitan report shifted the Auckland Regional Economic Development Strategy towards action. It also uncovered that Auckland’s governance was inadequate to coherently deliver Auckland’s overall development. See David A. Wilson, The Metropolitan Auckland Project: a step-change in governance and regional economic development in a city-region (PhD. Diss., Auckland University of Technology, 2016).
[10]Paul Dalziel, “Well-being Economics and Regional Science,” Australasian Journal of Regional Studies 18, no. 1 (2012): 64. The current regions and local councils with broad environmental responsibilities were created in this period under the Resource Management Act 1991. As Malcolm McKinnon also highlights, following the Countries Act, Provinces had been abolished and a plethora of ad hoc governance structures emerged. These were now consolidated into 86 multi-purpose local authorities. These regions differed from earlier provinces in that they were largely based on water drainage basins. Malcolm McKinnon, “Colonial and provincial government – After abolition,” Te Ara – the Encyclopaedia of New Zealand, accessed 9 September 2016, http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/colonial-and-provincial- government/page-5.
[11]Steven Stillman, Malathi Velamuri, and Andrew Aitken, The Long-Run Impact of New Zealand’s Structural Reform on Local Communities, Motu Working Paper 08-11 (Motu Economic and Public Policy Research, 2008).
[12]Outlining this change is beyond the scope of this paper but interested parties can start with: Brian Silverstone, Allan Bollard, and Ralph Lattimore eds., A study of Economics of Reform: The Case of New Zealand, (North-Holland: 1996); and Steven Stillman, Malathi Velamuri, and Andrew Aitken, The Long-Run Impact of New Zealand’s Structural Reform on Local Communities (2008).
[13]Cabinet Economic Development Committee, “Sustainable Development”, May 2000 cited in “Integrating Employment, Skills and Economic Development: New Zealand”, Paul Dalziel, report to the organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development by the AERU Research Unit, Lincoln University, (2007): 2.
[14]Schöllmann and Nischalke, Central Government and Regional Development Policy: Origins, Lessons and Future Challenges.
[15]Paul Dalziel and Caroline Saunders, “Regional Partnership for Economic Development” in Economic Development in New Zealand: The Dynamics of Economic Space in ed. James E. Rowe (Ashgate Publishing, England: 2005); Schöllmann and Nischalke, Central Government and Regional Development Policy: Origins, Lessons and Future Challenges.
[16]Schöllmann and Nischalke, Central Government and Regional Development Policy: Origins, Lessons and Future Challenges, 48. See also Cabinet Minute [CAB (00) M17/1 D].
[17] Bob Jessop, “The Rise of Governance and the risk of Failure: the case of Economic Development” (UNESCO, 1998) cited in Schöllmann and Nischalke, Central Government and Regional Development Policy: Origins, Lessons and Future Challenges, 49.
[18]Schöllmann and Nischalke, Central Government and Regional Development Policy: Origins, Lessons and Future Challenges, 50.
[19]As Paul Dalziel and Caroline Saunders outline: “this was a three-year partnership involving the Auckland region’s seven local councils, the Auckland regional council and a number of government agencies… [with] a series of projects… …under six work strands: Transport, Urban Form, Design and Development, Regional Child and Youth Development, Regional Settlement Strategy, Sustainable communities, and Urban centres and Economic Performance.” Dalziel and Saunders, Regional Partnership for Economic Development, 6.
[20]See Cabinet Minute [Cab Min (06) 7/22]
[21] Office of the Minister for Industry and Regional Development, Cabinet Economic Development Committee: Cabinet paper, Boosting the impact of Regional Economic Development: Detailed Changes (2007): 1, accessed on 11 October 2016, https://www.beehive.govt.nz/Documents/Files/cabinet-paper.pdf.
[22] Office of the Minister for Industry and Regional Development, Cabinet Economic Development Committee: Cabinet paper Boosting the impact of Regional Economic Development: Detailed Changes.
[23] [CAB Min (06) 7/22] cited in Boosting the impact of Regional Economic Development: Detailed Changes, Office of the Minister for Industry and Regional Development, Cabinet Economic Development Committee: Cabinet paper, (2007): 3.
[24] The theoretical underpinning of growth poles originates from François Perroux but became increasingly popularised by Michael Porter in the early 1990’s. François Perroux, “Economic space: theory and applications”, Quarterly Journal of Economics 64 (1950): 90-97. This has been further enhanced by developments in new economic geography, see, for example, Paul Krugman, “Increasing returns and economic geography” Journal of Political Economy 99, no.3 (1991): 483–99. For the New Zealand context see James E. Rowe, “Lessons Learned and Future Directions” in Economic Development in New Zealand: The Dynamics of Economic Space, ed. James E. Rowe, 230; and Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment New Zealand and Local Government New Zealand, “NZ Core Cities – Research summary” (2012), accessed on 16 January 2016, http://www.mbie.govt.nz/info-services/sectors-industries/regions-cities/research/core-cities-research
[25] As outlined by Geoff Lewis and Steven Stillman, “measures developed by two non-governmental organisations have suggested that Auckland is “underperforming” relative to other regions in New Zealand. Geoff Lewis and Steven Stillman, “Regional Economic Performance in New Zealand: How Does Auckland Compare?” New Zealand Economic Papers 41, no. 1, (2007): 29-68.
[26] See Cabinet Minute [Cab Min (06) 7/22]
[27] Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment, The Business Growth Agenda 2015/16 -Towards 2025, accessed on 26 September 2016 http://www.mbie.govt.nz/ info-services/business/business-growth-agenda/pdf-and-image-library/towards-2025/mb13078-1139-bga-report-00-intro-09sept-v9-fa-web.PDF.
[28] Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment, The Business Growth Agenda 2015/16 -Towards 2025, 5.
[29] The rationale for these research institutes is that “[t]he proposed new research institutes would support innovation in the regions by maximising the unique business, technology, and economic growth opportunities in these areas.” Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment, “Investigating regional research institutes,” accessed on 1 December 2015, see http://www.mbie.govt.nz/info-services/sectors-industries/regions-cities/investigating-regional-research-institutes
[30] See Steven Joyce,”$761.4m for Innovate New Zealand,” beehive.govt.nz, accessed on 30 November 2016, https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/7614m-innovative- new-zealand.
[31] Immigration New Zealand, as part of MBIE, can award applicants 30 of their required points if the applicant locates outside Auckland. For business applicants, Immigration New Zealand can award up to 40 of the required points for business investment outside Auckland. In addition, immigration skills shortages category or points available for skilled migrants are also based on feedback from regions on their skill shortages. See Immigration New Zealand, “Ammendments to the Immigration New Zealand Operational Manual: Amendment Circular No 2015/08” last accessed 22 February 2017, https://www.immigration.govt.nz/documents/ amendment-circulars/amendmentcircular201508.pdf
[32] This highlighted that the RPP could be improved by: improving key stakeholder buy-in; improving the knowledge of the regions strengths and advantages; strengthening overall trust between stakeholders; strengthening regional development networks; and providing better co-ordination of all stakeholder resources including that of business. Business involvement was shown under the RPP to often operate on a need for early results which was often at odds with process requirements for government and iwi. See Schöllmann and Nischalke, Central Government and Regional Development Policy: Origins, Lessons and Future Challenges, 53-54.
[33] The economic activity report presented “economic data on New Zealand’s 16 regions… highlight[ing] trends, challenges and opportunities for each region.” Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment, “Regional Economic Activity Report: 2015,” (2015): 12. Accessed on 16 October 2016, http://www.mbie.govt.nz/info-services/ business/business-growth-agenda/regions/documents-image-library/rear-2015/min-a003-rear-report-lr-optimised.pdf.
[34] John Stephenson, “Regional government expenditure: Estimates of core crown spending by region,” April 2013, accessed on November 25, 2016, http://www.mbie. govt.nz/info-services/sectors-industries/regions-cities/research/regional-government-expenditure-report.
[35] Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment, “Regional Economic Activity Report: 2015,” (2015): 13. accessed on 1 November 2016, http://www.mbie.govt.nz/ info-services/business/business-growth-agenda/regions/documents-image-library/rear-2015/min-a003-rear-report-lr-optimised.pdf.
[36] This focus on building the Māori economy can be seen in the development of the Māori Economic Development strategy and action plan(that draws on all six streams of the BGA for initiatives).
[37] The Technical Advisory groups existed for the original growth studies and have not been included in the development of Action Plans or the second round of regions. Private sector involvement is part of the action plan and implementation processes with each region having its own governance arrangements. Typically, there is one governance group and a number of working groups within each working plan area. Based on conversations with Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment officials and feedback received through the academic review process of developing this paper.
[38] Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment, “Regional Growth Programme” last accessed 29 November 20167, http://www.mbie.govt.nz/info-services/sectors- industries/regions-cities/regional-growth-programme.
[39] Based on conversations with Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment officials and feedback received through the academic review process of developing this paper.
[40] Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment, “Regional Growth Programme”, accessed on 12 January 2016, last updated 29 November 2016, http://www.mbie. govt.nz/info-services/sectors-industries/regions-cities/regional-growth-programme.
[41] In the Bay of Plenty, Opotiki Harbour Development Project: the Government grants up to $3 million to validate the proposal to create a year-round harbour entrance and construct a commercial wharf. This will be done in parallel with industry testing of a 3800ha offshore marine farm. See Radio New Zealand News, “New plan to boost BoP jobs, investment”, 29 October 2015, accessed 20 January 2016, http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/regional/288296/new-plan-to-boost-bop-jobs,- investment. In West Coast/Greymouth: Ultra-fast broadband rollout and a range of regional roading projects including the Taramaka replacement bridge, a $3 million government investment in the Old Ghost Trail and $10 million toward New Zealand’s 10 Great walk. See House of Representatives, Order paper and questions, Questions for oral answer, 4, Regional Economies, Investment, Jobs and Growth, Volume 710, (2015): 8426, accessed on 21 January 2016, http://www.parliament.nz/ en-nz/pb/business/qoa/51HansQ_20151202_00000004/4-regional-economies%E2%80%94investment-jobs-and-growth.
[42] Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment feedback on draft regional development paper (personal communication, 2 November 2016).
[43] Some of these goals hark back to the Economic Transformation Agenda.
[44] Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment, “The Business Growth Agenda 2015/16 -Towards 2025,” (2015), accessed on 26 September 2016, http://www. mbie.govt.nz/info-services/business/business-growth-agenda/pdf-and-image-library/towards-2025/mb13078-1139-bga-report-00-intro-09sept-v9-fa-web.PDF Emphasis added by author.
[45] John Key, in his State of the Nation address 2016, said that:“It’s good to kick off the New Year here in Auckland-NewZealand’s gateway city. It’s home to one third of Kiwis, it’s our biggest commercial centre and our shopfront to the rest of the world. Every region of New Zealand is crucial to our growth and progress. But on New Zealand’s behalf, Auckland is competing with Asia-Pacific’s great global cities. It’s our version of Sydney, Singapore or Shanghai. Lifting our standard of living requires strong and enduring global relationships, because we won’t get rich selling to ourselves. New Zealand must expand its global supply chains, attract more investment and develop new markets. As Prime Minister, I work every day to lead an open and confident country that backs itself on the world stage. Auckland is at the forefront of that.” Stacey Kirk, “Live: Prime Minister John Key’s state of the Nation,” Stuff News, (2016), accessed on 30 November 2016. http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/ politics/76289984/Live-Prime-Minister-John-Keys-State-of-the-Nation.

Post Tags:
Julian Wood

By Julian Wood -

Like what you're reading?
Share it around.

Or just highlight the part you like...

Want to know more about Maxim Institute and what we do?

Find out more

SIGN UP TO OUR NEWSLETTER FOR UPDATES FROM THE MAXIM TEAM

FORUM (monthly eNews)Event Invitations