The long-term National Infrastructure Plan is in Government hands.
At the time of going to press, we have only seen the draft plan but it is comprehensive with feasible and realistic solutions and applications, says Mike Bishara who publishes Infrastructure, Property, Build and Industrial Safety over seven media platforms
These are desperate times in a weak economy — albeit said to be improving as was predicted last year and now amended to this year. There are stark coalition differences among our governors on both sides of the fence.
The excellent National Infrastructure Plan contains all the unintended signals of being the catalyst for a perfect storm in an election year. There are parliamentary-mandated responses to the Plan required just as electioneering hots up.
Our ridiculous three-year parliamentary term cycles allow few long-term and country-defining projects to gain traction. The Plan is up for debate in an environment where there are 160,000 unemployed workers and record liquidations on the books.
What could go possibly wrong? What odds that it will go the way of all other brave attempts to establish a non-partisan, infrastructure pipeline. Just when an old fashioned “Great Depression” type solution is called for by using the opportunity to embrace infrastructure projects offering 1000s of new jobs and upskilling opportunities.
The Plan is representative, clearly focused and well thought out. It most certainly does not deserve the same fate as the string of pipeline plans previously struck down by partisan politics, electorate priorities and stall tactics little short of total inertia.
“Our cities need housing so that our children have a place to call home,” the report says. “Transport networks provide accessibility to jobs and are essential to get goods to businesses and our doorsteps. Transmission and distribution lines carry the electrons that power our lights and heat our homes. A network of schools keeps our children learning, while hospitals take care of our sick.”
Other infrastructure is often less front of mind the reports says — court houses, police stations and correctional facilities are essential to the rule of law that makes commerce possible and our defence estate and flood protection infrastructure stands by preparing for the worst.
“To do this we need to develop a shared, long-term view of our infrastructure expectations and priorities.” The key words are shared and long-term.
The Plan was submitted to the Minister for Infrastructure, Chris Bishop at the end of 2025. He is also Minister of Housing, Minister for Infrastructure, Minister Responsible for RMA Reform, Minister of Transport and Leader of the House.
Under current legislation, the Minister must table the Plan in the House of Representatives “as soon as practicable” after receipt. Government resumes 27 January and awaits the Minister’s definition of practicable. The final version will be published on the Te Waihanga website once it has been officially tabled in Parliament.
Once the Plan is delivered, the Government has 180 days to formally respond which puts it into July or August and a few months ahead of a general election.
The report pulls no punches.
“We spend more than most on infrastructure. Over the last 20 years, New Zealand spent an average of 5.8 percent of GDP on all types of infrastructure. That’s around $4500 a year for every person in the country, putting us in the top 10 percent of the OECD for infrastructure investment over the last decade.
“We don’t get enough for our infrastructure dollar. The quality of our infrastructure lags relative to what we spend on it. High-level comparisons suggest that New Zealand is in the bottom 10 percent of OECD countries when it comes to the ‘bang for buck’ we get from our infrastructure spending.
Central government oversees its own performance through the Investment Management System, which is a part of the overall Public Finance System says the report.
“But while it sets rules for itself, it doesn’t always live by those rules. Central government decides on what to invest based on how much it can spare in its Budget, instead of needs and the quality of potential projects.
Half of all proposals for investment in both the 2023 and 2024 Budgets did not have a business case. Over half of all capital-intensive agencies do not have robust, comprehensive asset registers in place or adequate plans for looking after existing infrastructure, the report says.
“But we also put hurdles in our way. Our regulatory system is complex: we have 1175 land-use zones across 68 territorial authorities. Japan has 13. We spend $1.3 billion every year just on consenting infrastructure. The cost of managing traffic during construction has surged in recent times.”
In addition, the Plan says Infrastructure planning is often short term and reactive, rather than long term and strategic. Projects are announced before it’s certain that they’re affordable and deliverable.
Half of the large projects seeking funding through central government’s annual Budget lack business cases to demonstrate that they’re ready to fund.
“Maintenance funds, which should provide a steady, ongoing stream of work, may get diverted to new builds. Consequently, efforts to recruit, develop, and retain a skilled workforce are stretched.
Household affordability is under strain while fiscal pressures are intensifying for government. New Zealand has been running structural deficits and with no changes, our net core Crown debt is forecast to reach approximately 115 percent of GDP in 2050 and continue to climb.
Local authorities are nearing debt limits, the reports says, with trends driven in part from some big changes to New Zealand that “will not relent. In 1960 we had seven workers for every retiree; by 2075 that ratio will be 2:1.”
The report says we need to lift our game by reducing costs or easing the regulatory environment. It might also mean taking a more commercial approach to infrastructure whereby we vastly lift the bar on project quality, finding new projects that households and businesses will be willing to pay more for.
