National Infrastructure Plan sets vision for next 30 years
The strategy has been developed by the infrastructure commission, Te Waihanga, laying out the key areas in need of attention over the next three decades.
Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop acknowledged the invocation and said the recommendations aligned with the government's priorities.
Bishop cited the proposed shift towards user-pays, spatial planning, and better asset management and maintenance.
"The government is determined to improve New Zealand's infrastructure system and to work alongside the industry and other political parties to establish a broad consensus about what needs to change," he said.
The commission's chief executive, Geoff Cooper, said New Zealand spent a greater percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) on infrastructure compared to other high-income countries, but was in the bottom 10 percent for the value from that spend.
"To ensure New Zealanders are getting the infrastructure services they need, it's critical that we get smarter about how we invest," he said.
"A National Infrastructure Plan can help, showing where our infrastructure dollar will have the greatest impact in meeting New Zealand's future needs."
The plan contains a "Priorities Programme List" of 17 projects, six of which relate to the Defence Force. As well, it endorses the upgrade of the Reserve Bank's cash centre and vault, and the redevelopment of Hawke's Bay Regional Prison.
The commission said more investment would be needed over the next three decades in hospitals and electricity, while changes would be required in land transport investment.
The draft plan laid out a litany of problems with the existing approach, including that infrastructure projects were announced before establishing whether they were affordable or achievable.
"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"
It said New Zealand needed to get smarter about infrastructure planning, and suggested easing the regulatory environment or taking a "more commercial approach".
"It's time to start fixing up our essential infrastructure assets, rather than seeing them breaking under our feet because we didn't set aside money for maintenance.
"It's time to invest in infrastructure that will lift our productivity and cut our carbon emissions.
"It's time to do new projects right, rather than dreaming big and seeing them constantly delayed, rescoped, and cancelled because they're too big for us to afford."
The plan will now go out for consultation with a final version to be published by the end of the year.
Infrastructure New Zealand chief executive Nick Leggett described the plan as a "once-in-a-generation" opportunity.
"The draft Plan is a clear-eyed assessment of the infrastructure challenges facing New Zealand, our historic under-performance and provides a solid pathway for improvement, particularly from our government agencies," he said.
"If we don't face up to this now, there will be real pain for our future generations."
Leggett said the association particularly supported the design of a "steady project pipeline" to allow providers to invest in their workforce.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
4 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Kiwis moving to Australia: Incomes, house prices and interest rates compared
It means houses in major Aussie cities cost about 6.5 times the typical salary compared with eight times in New Zealand. Even Sydney comes out ahead of Auckland, with its houses at 8.5 times the price of typical city salaries compared to 9.2 times in the City of Sails. And there are other pain points for New Zealanders. The Herald estimates Kiwis pay around $839 or 42% more at the pump each year for every 14,000km driven. Yet it isn't all good news in Oz. Sydney resident and former Aucklander Keitah Tuleitu's family were hit hard by a curveball last year. Having lived in Australia for seven years, they earlier told the Herald they had been feeling comfortable and planning to buy a house in 2024. Instead, they spent much of the year raiding their savings. 'I would say 2024's been a struggle because my husband did lose work for a period of time,' Tuleitu said when the Herald checked back in this week. It's a reality check that backs warnings from property commentator Nick Goodall of analysts Cotality for Kiwis to look beyond headlines about salaries. Goodall cautions that the big salary advantages from industries like mining can create the impression that every job is better paid in Australia and advises people to look closely at opportunities and hidden costs when pursuing their chosen professions. The exodus has worried many New Zealand commentators. The Herald's business editor at large, Liam Dann, has been warning of a brain drain as New Zealand's young, trained and educated people move to Australia. While new migrants from other countries are replacing many of the Kiwis who go to Australia, experts believe this creates a churn in jobs as people come and go and the most experienced are lost. Winners and losers: City-by-city comparisons Looking deeper into Australia's affordability advantage, some cities stand out as potentially better opportunities for Kiwis than others. Mining hotspot Darwin emerges as the ultimate financial sweet spot, boasting the highest salaries at $173,000 (NZD) yet the cheapest house prices at just $588,000, according to Australian National University income data and Cotality house prices. At the other extreme, Dunedin residents earn barely half what their Darwin counterparts make – resulting in a staggering $93,000 income gap between the highest and lowest-paid cities. Tauranga delivers another shock. Its $690 weekly rents now exceed Melbourne's $670 – a regional New Zealand city outpricing one of Australia's largest metropolises. The city salary pecking order tells a harsh story for New Zealand. All five top-earning cities sit across the Ditch, while New Zealand's best, Wellington, manages only sixth place, according to ANU and Infometrics' NZ income data. Comparing public servant hotspots, Canberra's residents typically earn $154,000 compared with Wellington's $134,500 – a $20,000 gap between the two capital cities. Adelaide leads the property growth with 7.8% in annual house price gains, while Wellington has suffered the steepest decline at minus 6.2%. New Zealand's Christchurch and Dunedin offer the cheapest rents in either country at $550 weekly – but Infometrics income data shows residents earn just $90,000 and $80,500 respectively. Keitah Tuleitu with her extended family. She's made Sydney home despite tough times last year. Pros and cons of life over the Ditch Cotality's Goodall said Kiwis are being drawn not only by better wages but also by a more optimistic feeling in Australia about the economy. Australia has weathered the downturn better than New Zealand, where unemployment has risen faster as house prices have stayed flat, he said. Kiwis have repeatedly listed higher salaries and strong economic prospects as the top attractions when talking to the Herald. Maths teacher Liam McMahon told in 2023 how he scored an instant $31,000 pay rise just by moving to Melbourne from Hamilton. Architect Kyle Anaru started 'accumulating savings straight away' after moving to the Sunshine Coast in 2023, while beauty therapist Bridget Jane told last year how she and her fiance left Queenstown on the hunt for salaries that better matched house prices. But Goodall's 'not all rosy' warning has also shone through in Herald conversations. Anaru was among Kiwis saying how hard it could be to find rentals, while Jane had to live far from Melbourne's centre for affordable rent and talked about a more high-pressure working environment in Australia. Teacher McMahon was also among many missing 'family, friends and Hamilton day trips', while others miss New Zealand's culture. Tuleitu, meanwhile, highlighted how the highs and lows can come in both countries. In 2023, she told the Herald how higher Sydney salaries had meant her family were living 'comfortably' while still donating to their church. It was in contrast to the struggle her parents had gone through in New Zealand, she said at the time. However, their recent struggles had forced them to 'pick' at their savings and reset their goals. Nevertheless, with most of her family having joined her in Australia, she has become an Aussie citizen and says she isn't coming home any time soon.
NZ Herald
10 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Covid-19 pandemic handling returns to headlines, with Labour under scrutiny
What truly put the wind at the Government's back this week was the unexpected exhumation of half-buried relics from the Covid era – a period Labour may prefer was left entombed in the sediment of public amnesia. The first, was last Thursday's Treasury Long Term Insights Briefing (LTIB). The report was actually into how best to manage economic shocks: should the Government spend up, or leave it to the Reserve Bank? Treasury reckoned managing shocks was mostly best left to the Reserve Bank – a conclusion it published in a draft report some months ago. What was new were details of Treasury's advice to the former Government of its advice during the pandemic. Two short sections in particular noted that Treasury advised the last Government to ease up on the stimulus in 2022, and another section detailed the consequences of this: a large structural deficit and risks of inflation. With Finance Minister Nicola Willis off in London, exchanging knowing grimaces with Chancellor Rachel Reeves over their mutually dreadful fiscal headaches – left-right ideological niceties be damned – it was Bishop's opportunity to don the acting finance minister cap and have lobbed at him volley after volley of low patsy questions on the report, giving him ample opportunity to sermonise on Labour's alleged fiscal sins. Bishop first cleared his blocked throat during the very first question of the week on Tuesday, Labour leader Chris Hipkins, pointedly interjecting that this was clearly 'audition number one' for Luxon's job. Hipkins wasn't wrong about it being 'number one'. Come Wednesday, it was Nancy Lu's turn to take to her feet and ask Bishop what economic reports he'd been reading, to which he replied he was not yet done with Treasury's gripping LTIB. On Thursday, the lucky backbencher was Catherine Wedd, who asked the same question: what reports had the minister (officially Willis, but in practice, Bishop) been reading on the state of the economy. Bishop replied, 'Oh, I haven't been able to stop reading Treasury's long-term insights briefing.' Another MP, Tom Rutherford piped up, 'What did it say?' Bishop replied, testing the limits of MPs' obligation to be truthful in the House, 'it's a great read'. It's not a bad parliamentary tactic: Grant Robertson often used it to highlight his successes and the Opposition's shortcomings. Bishop's effort this week worked wonders in cheering an otherwise gloomy backbench. In Question Time this week Chris Bishop revealed a passion for reading Treasury documents. Photo / Mark Mitchell Willis and Bishop have done a clever job in giving the impression Treasury's LTIB was mostly about slamming Labour for the Covid response – it's true, that's what's new in the final version vis-a-vis the earlier draft, but overall, the backward-looking part of the report is a small part of the whole. Labour's responses are as interesting as the report itself. Leader Chris Hipkins dismissed it as 'spin', former Robertson staffers Craig Renney and Toby Moore had more detailed critiques. Renney, posting to his Substack, quoted Michael Cullen to describe report as an 'ideological burp' and decided to skewer the conclusion that managing economic cycles was primarily the job of the Reserve Bank. In Renney's view, the whole government is responsible for managing the economic cycle. If this is left to just the Reserve Bank, its focus on inflation would mean that other, distributional impacts become neglected. Hammering inflation somewhere means hammering the economy everywhere. To be fair to Treasury, its report does briefly touch on fiscal policy's ability and obligation to smooth the bluntness of monetary policy. That's worth pursuing in more detail, particularly given the experience New Zealand had during the pandemic, in which the Reserve Bank's money-printing played arsonist to the housing market, before the bank guiltily and belatedly doused the inferno in a series of rate rises so blunt in their asphyxiating cruelty they cast thousands on to the dole queue, and shunted thousands more into the airport departure lounge. Moore's piece, published in the Herald, was more of a right of reply to Treasury. He resurfaced papers he first received as a staffer in Robertson's office and which were subsequently published in the Herald to note that as late as Budget 2023, Treasury was still advising Robertson to spend yet more money – not on Covid stimulus, but via his operating allowance, the pot of money to fund ongoing cost increases in departments and to pay for new things, like removing the $5 prescription charge in that Budget. In that Budget, Robertson actually spent slightly less than Treasury told him, not more. In that Budget, as for all of Robertson's Covid Budgets, the advice to spend more was consistent with the economic forecasts continually being revised in the right direction. This meant more money flowing in, allowing the Government to spend more money while returning to surplus in a creditable timeframe. The trouble with these forecasts is that they were wrong – and badly wrong. The economy did not grow nearly as much as hoped, tax revenue fell – and the effect was compounded, tax revenue as a share of the smaller economy was smaller than forecast too. The spending still happened, but we're still waiting on the money to pay for it. There were, then, two obvious flaws, given just passing detail in Treasury's report: the first is that Treasury's forecasts were badly wrong, the second was that Robertson did not show enough caution when he relied upon Treasury to put his Budgets together. That telling of the story is no less interesting to either side, but it has a different moral lesson: the solution to the fiscal problem really is, as Willis says, growth. If the economy had grown to where Treasury earlier forecast it would grow to, we'd be in surplus and reducing the debt ratio by now. A Treasury graph plotting which fiscal years have run counter- and pro-cyclically. Graph / Treasury Treasury quietly dropped another paper this week – this time by one of its economists, with the usual disclaimer that it does not necessarily represent the views of Treasury as an organisation. It pondered whether governments were running pro-cyclical or counter-cyclical fiscal policies, with the latter generally preferred because it allows the Government to moderate the economic cycle. Cullen gets the biscuit for running the most counter-cyclical budgets, Bill English and Steven Joyce get good marks too. Robertson's first term gets a pass, but not the second. The report only goes up to the fiscal year 2024, which was the year of a Labour Budget and National mini-Budget, but some back-of-the-envelope maths from the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update would suggest the Budgets for the last and the current fiscal years will be counter-cyclical – the first since 2019, a cautious vote of confidence in approval to Willis' economic management. The week ended on another blast from the past. The Covid-19 Royal Commission announced Labour ministers would not be appearing before the inquiry in person. Labour itself only found out the commission was going to announce this change a few minutes before it did so – the coalition seemed to have more warning, with each of the three parties putting out damning press releases shortly afterwards. Polling shows the public is clearly on the coalition's side and wants the ministers to appear, but they won't. The refusal led the news for 24 hours and is a good reminder to Labour the public haven't put the pandemic to bed quite as much as the party would like. Labour is proud of its Covid record but the fact the ministers won't appear in public allows the Opposition to argue, with some conviction, that perhaps Labour actually isn't – and its Covid record, particularly on economic matters, is really as embarrassing as the Opposition would like the public to believe. It's a dilemma for the Labour ministers, some of whom probably wouldn't mind appearing and defending themselves. One of the ex-ministers probably will be appearing in public in the near future – and, unlike Jacinda Ardern, will probably spend a lot of that time talking about Covid and money: Robertson's memoir Anything Could Happen is out later this month. There's a good chance some of these questions will get an airing in any promotional tour, and the book itself.
NZ Herald
10 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Covid-19 inquiry: Kiwis disagree with Jacinda Ardern, Chris Hipkins not fronting public hearing, poll results show
New Zealanders disagree with former Labour ministers refusing to give evidence in a public session as part of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Covid-19 pandemic. A minute from the commission this week confirmed Dame Jacinda Ardern, Chris Hipkins, Grant Robertson and Dr Ayesha Verrall had refused to
