Written By:
notices and features - Date published:
5:17 pm, May 1st, 2025 - 33 comments
Categories: greens, jobs, workers' rights -
Tags: Future Workforce Agency, Green jobs guarantee, Mahi Anamata, Ministry of Green Works
Released on May Day, the following is from the Green Party’s website.
——————————————————————————–
New Zealanders should be in control of our economy, our jobs and our future. We don’t need to leave our fate to be decided by international shareholders
From the West Coast of the South Island, to Ohakune, to Tokoroa, in the last year alone, we’ve heard the same devastation driven by the same political decisions to let offshore companies decide the fate of regional communities.
Today, we launched our Green Jobs Guarantee, which will directly create at least 40,000 jobs across this country to rebuild our infrastructure, plant native trees and restore biodiversity, build homes and an economy that we, New Zealanders, own – and can genuinely be proud of.
We’ve done it before and we can do it again. Before politicians took their hands off the wheel of the economy 40 years ago and sold off the assets we all used to own, we had a Ministry of Works. Our Ministry of Green Works builds on that proud tradition, but is future fit for the climate transition.
Our Future Workforce Agency, Mahi Anamata, will actively plan for the skills we need. We’ll revitalise and supercharge the roaring success of Jobs for Nature, and we’ll ensure everyone in this country who wants a good, decent, living-wage paying job will get one.
In a time of global volatility, after a forty-year economic experiment that’s failed regular people and is currently seeing record numbers leave the country, it’s time to take back control and build our resilience.
A better world is possible, and this is how we build it.
Full policy here (PDF).
Climate Change Mitigation comes in many forms.
One not specified
1.coastal shipping
https://www.greenpeace.org/aotearoa/story/nzs-over-reliance-on-roads-for-freight-means-natural-disasters-hit-even-harder-but-there-is-a-fix/
And one which was
2.provincial flood management plans
Various conservation and environment works for the public good are always useful ways maintain the economy in downturns.
"we’ll ensure everyone in this country who wants a good, decent, living-wage paying job will get one."
They mean everyone who is capable of doing a good decent, living-wage job will get one, right?
Unfortunately this takes the form of a Green party press release. As you imply it should be something the govt makes available at every MSD office across the country to sign up to do something in the non profit or public sector for a living wage.
The real complexity there is checking all the organisations wanting to employ such workers are doing public interest work and dont profit individuals financially.
I thought Gareth's point was that everyone who is capable should be required to take one of the jobs whether they want to or not, and he was thus questioning whether the GP sees employment as mandatory or optional
That sounds like a bad faith reading of his comment, because that would be hideous idea.
I don't think it's bad faith, it's just an argument I see a fair bit. But I am completely open to being wrong, I hope he comes back and clarifies.
Hopefully not the current WINZ stance.
That a person MUST take the first job offered, regardless of , abusive or exploitative employers, being a low paid uncertain Mc job, the job preventing a person having time to look for a better position, reducing opportunities to train, get educated for a better job and so on.
Current policy traps people with poor and underpaying, even abusive, employers such as fruit picking contractors and hospitality owners. Sometimes for life.
A GMI is a better option. But I suppose too politically difficult.
No, the question is what if someone wants a job, but isn't capable of doing it?
"but isn't capable of doing it?"
Again, for clarification, do you mean could be capable with some more training, education or support?
No, just not capable of doing a productive job with any reasonable level of support.
That reminds me of the perennial problem disability groups have been shouting from the rooftops forever, which is there are people who will never be in position to engage in employment as we know it, who are destined to lifelong receipt of a benefit, therefore a life of poverty, for no other reason than because of who they are.
Which is why those on the IB should be on the super payment level.
And why they should continue to receive income support (at least the JSB amount) when with a working partner.
Ahh, got ya now.
Well that is how a society is measured, by how it cares for it's most vulnerable.
Something this country needs to pull it's socks up in regards it's performance.
Combines principles and strategy with a simple direct comms style, so no obvious problem. Doesn't mention resilience or sustainability, implying authors averse to buzzwords. Clearly no ad agency advisory input or marketing whizz in the loop.
CLT has been around for a century but a reality checks gives it a tick here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-laminated_timber
Aotearoa has been a pioneer in laminated timber for many years.
Including fire rating LVL beams for extremely large buildings.
Unfortunately plants such as the LVL plant at Marsden point has been run down and sawmills closed. Timber is mostly used as raw logs for export.
It would take a huge effort to restart.
However the tens of thousands of State houses we need is an obvious demand in the first instance.
"Marsden point has been run down and sawmills closed. Timber is mostly used as raw logs for export."
Yep, this is where we end up after the 40 year experiment. Sure, the closures can be justified through the shareholder's lens.
However, if there was an agency that had an overview, an ability to bring several diverse companies into a larger plan, those companies could prosper.
That would mean viewing from a point of view that wasn't beholden to globalism and had a more (the squeamish may want to avert their gaze) nationalist bent.
That and coastal shipping for the provinces
1.take trucks off roads (next 4 years while no rail enabled ferry)
2.have capacity to manage loss of roads to regions
A Green MOW doing this and assisting provinces improving flood protection.
Otherwise a environment and conservation work programme for when there is spare labour.
Looks remarkably like Shane Jones' Provincial Growth Fund which was $3b in the 2017 coalition agreement. Jones' programme delivered for Treaty partners with solid business cases that have gone on to do good things. TPM could come up with something remarkably similar, and then you have a common platform that has already generated results and is very hard for Labour to disagree with.
What I don't like however in this approach is spending $8b on a really low innovation and productivity programme. Infrastructure and essentially tree planting are notoriously low productivity and low R&D. Let's aspire for careers that will attract people back from Australia.
With $8b you could buy back the electricity generators, or most of Fonterra. You have to ask what the best use of $8b of taxpayer funding is for New Zealand.
Some iwi lack the local infrastructure to get housing onto their land.
The current governments idea of their funding infrastructure for property development and then on-selling this as a debt against the housing (lease charges) is an urban construct – given it would be iwi owned land in the regions.
While the government is giving loans for social housing to those who own land, this again will not apply if there is not the infrastructure in place.
So a Green MOW provision of the infrastructure ensures this land is enabled for housing.
Can you give an example?
How? The fund is not yet established.
Infrastructure investment, such as in broadband roll-out, is very productive.
Being able to manage road loss and preventing flood damage is essential to maintaining the existing economy, which is not nothing.
The Green fund is for broadband rollout? I thought National did that 10 years ago.
And roads? There's NZTA and Council funds for that already.
Is this proposal more than a large Jobs For Nature?
It needs a whole bunch more than a media release and a set of bullet points on a website.
1.You claimed infrastructure spending was not productive. I gave an example.
Maintaining infrastructure for the existing economy also has value.
2.Yes, roads are replaced once lost – but this takes time and impacts on the economy. Such as coastal shipping allows them to cope – the navy ship will not always be available. We either have ship/ships available, or have access to one/them when needed.
3.Councils are developing plans for flood protection, but will lack the resources to enact them.
The infrastructure proposed for being spent is unproductive and isn't being paid for by the fund. Irrelevant example.
If this fund is proposed as a part replacement for NLTF then it should say so.
This isn't a policy yet it's a flag-wave while they think about writing one.
Coastal shipping has nothing to do with NLTF.
Many provincial areas cannot afford the cost of flood protection.
Labour agreed to a PGF, sans details.
Ok, but then how would these essential jobs get done? eg tree planting.
How many more volunteer groups planting trees and weeding and watering does New Zealand need? We have thousands. It just sounds like Jobs For Nature again.
Also it depends on the kinds of trees. I don't want to subsidise pine trees when there are plenty of companies doing it already. But I'll sure be up the Lindis Pass this weekend planting tussock and some hardy Meulenbeccia.
https://climateandnature.org.nz/solutions/new-zealand-ecosystems/forests/
from a climate pov, we need a lot more tree planting than volunteers can manage, they already have their hands full.
It *is Jobs for Nature.
If you're not into the mass planting of trees, then isn't the job creation an essential part of the economy?
Many of those voluntary work projects (some near waterways, others in protected areas) often take years because they lack the labour.
Funding that labour changes the time frame.
speaking of Jones, in the 2017 election campaign, the Greens Kiwi Climate Fund policy included this,
no link, it's from a PDF I have on my laptop.
my memory of that election was that because NZF held the balance of power, they were able to take the policy and turn it into the pine plantation scheme that Jones wanted (because jobs/economy mattered more than climate/ecology).
I feel very confident that GP policy will focus on native restoration, and mixed forestry, where land restoration is the priority.
This is great.
This is what I like about the Greens, real hands on stuff that can be pointed at. Better than anything from this regime and better than what I have heard from labour.
The Provincial Growth Fund was popular …in the provinces. Although I heard some criticism of it up North when a mate pointed to several BIG piles of railway sleepers intended for upgraded/maintenance of rail that looks like they wont be used.
A Ministry of Works! Dare to dream. Solar installs on every school to start with.
The concept is there, they need more help with funding.
https://zerocarbonact.nz/new-zealand-schools-leading-the-zero-carbon-movement/