Have Your Say On 30-year Plan For NZ's Infrastructure Investment
The New Zealand Infrastructure Commission, Te Waihanga, has revealed its first look at how New Zealand needs to invest to get the roads, hospitals, schools and other infrastructure we will rely on to live and thrive over the next 30 years.
The Commission's draft National Infrastructure Plan looks at the infrastructure New Zealand already has and how factors like an ageing population and climate change will drive future demands. It shows what we should be spending and makes recommendations for how we can get better results from this investment.
Te Waihanga CE Geoff Cooper says that compared to other high-income countries, New Zealand already spends a greater percentage of GDP on infrastructure but is in the bottom 10 percent for the value we get 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.
"A National Infrastructure Plan can help, showing where our infrastructure dollar will have the greatest impact in meeting New Zealand's future needs," says Cooper.
We need to be ambitious
"Some of our most essential infrastructure has already been built, but we're not always good at looking after it. Overall, we should be spending around 60 percent of our infrastructure investment on looking after what we've already got," says Cooper.
The way we invest in new infrastructure will also need to change:
We will need more investment in our hospitals. An ageing population means a greater need for hospitals. At the same time, we'll see a relative reduction in demand in the need for new schools and university buildings.
We will need to invest more in electricity. To reach net zero by 2050 we need to increase electricity use by over 60 percent, boosting electricity-using industries and replacing fossil fuel use across the economy.
We will see changes in how we invest in land transport. Investment in land transport - our roads, public transport, and railways - has increased over the past 20 years. In many parts of the sector, the pace of investment is expected to moderate as the population ages and the relative importance of income growth as a demand driver eases.
The cost of responding to natural hazards will rise as we build more infrastructure to higher standards and bring forward renewals following a rising prevalence of extreme weather events.
Improving our infrastructure planning
"As we have heard from many in the sector, infrastructure policy and investment has experienced a lot of churn in recent electoral cycles. This perceived 'stop-start' approach can be costly for large projects and ongoing investment programmes.
"The draft Plan provides recommendations on how we can get a more consistent and affordable approach and clear the way for delivering the infrastructure we need. It also makes recommendations on how we can better prioritise taking care of what we've got and optimise maintenance cycles so that we have more for new infrastructure. These changes can give the sector the certainty it needs to plan ahead, improve productivity, and create the jobs needed to maintain and deliver our infrastructure," Cooper says.
Identifying projects that can make a difference
The draft Plan shares the results of the first round of the Infrastructure Priorities Programme (IPP). The IPP takes proposals through an independent process to prove they offer bang for buck and meet a critical need.
"While endorsed proposals aren't guaranteed funding, they give decision-makers confidence that these proposals have been independently assessed.
"Proposals in the IPP were submitted to the Commission by central government, local government and the private sector.
"We expect the list to grow as we receive submissions over future rounds," Cooper says.
We want to hear from you
"We want the National Infrastructure Plan to help build common ground about our areas of need and what is affordable for Kiwis, giving the Government of the day guidance for making decisions about infrastructure.
"This is too important not to get right and too big a job to do alone. This is why we're seeking feedback now, while the Plan is still a draft. Tell us what you think and what we've missed."
You can read more and have your say on our website ( this page will be updated from 10am Wednesday 25 June): https://tewaihanga.govt.nz/national-infrastructure-plan/feedback-on-draft-national-infrastructure-plan
Some key facts
Over the last 20 years New Zealand's average spend on infrastructure is 5.8% of GDP. Crown investment as a share of GDP accounts for about 40% of this, or 2.5% of GDP.
More recently, between 2010 and 2019, New Zealand spent more per capita than any other OECD country on infrastructure.
The quality of our infrastructure lags, relative to what we spend on it. High-level comparisons suggest that New Zealand has among the lowest infrastructure spending 'bang for buck' in the OECD.
We estimate that for most sectors, simply renewing and replacing what we have will consume the majority of our investment dollars over the next 30 years. For most sectors, this is 60% of infrastructure investment on average, but can be up to 80% in some sectors like education.
After spending on renewals and replacements, we will have between 2% and 3% of GDP left over for new and improved infrastructure each year, or about $10 to $12 billion per year on average.
For central government, this is between 0.5% and 1% of GDP. In dollar terms, this is about $3 to $4 billion per year on average across all types of infrastructure central government provides.
The draft Plan is underpinned by a number of technical reports that have also been published on our website. The Commission has also released assessment information from round one of the Infrastructure Priorities Programme.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
41 minutes ago
- Otago Daily Times
Academic calls out ‘toxic' school
Duncan Connors. PHOTO: PETER MCINTOSH An academic has taken his grievances to Parliament to blow the whistle on the University of Otago's "toxic" Business School. Dr Duncan Connors appeared before a select committee to oppose a law change which would make it easier for employers to sack people. Dr Connors, who was a lecturer in the university's Business School until last year, said his experience showed why the law change was a bad idea. Dr Connors said he departed the institution after reaching a confidential settlement with the university following an 18-month ordeal which had "a serious impact on my health, wellbeing and family life". He had also heard from "many staff members across the Business School and wider university who describe a difficult — and at times, toxic — working environment". "These accounts parallel my own experience and deserve to be heard." The ODT yesterday received calls from three Business School staff, who shared concerns about the culture and alleged bullying. Earlier this year, the Otago Daily Times obtained an inter-department survey of the School of Business' marketing department, which reported low levels of morale as well as bullying and racism. While the sample size was small, the findings were significantly poorer than other departments and the university as a whole when it came to culture and behaviour. Dr Connors has asked for a private meeting with vice-chancellor Grant Robertson to discuss these matters. "It is now at a stage where we need to find a resolution," he told the ODT. "The university is not going to solve these challenges without having the discussion. "This is why I gave evidence — my colleagues deserve to enjoy long, productive careers at an institution of global renown, without feeling compelled to accept a managed exit and settlement as their only way out." The Employment Relations (Termination of Employment by Agreement) Amendment Bill allows for protected negotiations to occur between an employer and an employee to terminate the employee's contract if, for example, the demands of the business means it is imperative to dismiss the employee. Dr Connors urged Parliament not to pass the Bill. "Too many New Zealanders experience difficulties at work not of their own making or choice. The process of redress can become so fraught, so exhausting, that they accept a managed exit or settlement as the only viable option. "This culture of quick redundancies and quiet departures is now embedded in New Zealand's employment landscape. While enabled by the Employment Relations Act 2000, it is not conducive to national productivity or social cohesion. "The proposed Bill would only make this situation worse." Asked about Dr Connors' comments, a university spokeswoman said "the university continues to respect the legal agreement, so will not be making any comment". "The university is committed to reducing risk for all our employees and students and as such has a zero-tolerance policy towards bullying. "Our ethical behaviour policy promotes ethical interactions between members of the university community to provide a safe and respectful environment. "The policy includes the processes for action and where to source advice and support." Dr Connors said despite his ordeal he held no ill will towards the university or his former colleagues. "Otago remains one of the cornerstones of New Zealand's system of higher education, and I continue to value its national contribution."
Newsroom
an hour ago
- Newsroom
New Zealand abandons international fossil fuel pledge
New Zealand's departure from the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance came quietly, but not as a surprise to anyone closely following the Government's fossil fuel policies. Resources Minister Shane Jones says the coalition's fossil fuel plans meant the exit was inevitable. But he also says more formal agreements, like free trade deals with the EU, include wriggle room for matters of sovereign risk, such as national energy supply. Jones saw the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance as a 'women's knitting group' by comparison and said New Zealand's energy needs were significant enough to warrant gas exploration under that 'sovereign risk' provision – meaning other international agreements were not set for some sort of domino effect. As the Government's agenda items began to surface in 2023, chief executive of World Wildlife Fund NZ Kayla Kingdon-Bebb told Newsroom the international community's backlash against its climate policies would be harsher than the Government expected – particularly the National Party. When New Zealand joined the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance in 2021, it was only permitted as an associate member. Full membership hinged on a decision to ban onshore oil and gas exploration. Full members include Denmark, Ireland, France and several Pacific countries including Samoa, Vanuatu and Tuvalu. But coalition agreements between all three Government parties committed to reversing the ban on offshore gas exploration, and $200 million was set aside in Budget 2025 to encourage exploration in New Zealand waters. Legal advice later provided to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade said repealing the 2018 ban on offshore oil and gas 'would likely be inconsistent with the obligations in several of New Zealand's free trade agreements'. The Green Party warned on Tuesday that, based on the assessment of an independent KC, the move breached another international commitment: the Agreement on Climate Change, Trade and Sustainability. This agreement was celebrated by Trade Minister Todd McClay last year as a 'pioneering' endeavour. On Tuesday afternoon, McClay responded to questions from Greens co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick by doubling down on the nation's commitment to its climate targets: 'What it says about this Government is we will meet our international obligations. When we enter into them, we take them seriously.' The following morning, New Zealand was found to have withdrawn from the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance. Swarbrick said the move showed the Government was 'straight up lying to New Zealanders when it talks a big game about renewables'. 'They are handing out subsidies to fossil fuel extraction beginning in a decade, cutting local energy efficiency programmes, breaching our international agreements, and now walking away from long-standing coalitions with historically bipartisan support.' When Simon Watts assumed the position of climate change minister, he said he didn't expect a backlash from the international community as a result of lifting the ban. As recently as November, he told Newsroom that officials assessed New Zealand could stay in the alliance while repealing the offshore ban. But later that month, the co-chair of the alliance, Lars Aagaard, said New Zealand's status would need to be re-evaluated if it repealed the offshore drilling ban. Meanwhile, Jones told Newsroom he'd long thought New Zealand would need to withdraw from the alliance, given the decision to resume oil and gas exploration. A departure had been 'uppermost in my mind' when he spoke to then-energy minister Simeon Brown 'quite some time back'. Jones said 'I would never have agreed for us to join up anyway.' On Wednesday, following New Zealand's withdrawal from the alliance, Watts held his stance about international perceptions, but not about staying in the alliance. Watts said he had received advice that withdrawing from the alliance was 'not going to have any significant impact' on New Zealand's international perception. On June 21, New Zealand's alliance partners were notified the country would be pulling out of the alliance. Watts said these partners had not previously expressed concern over his Government's climate policies. He said the incoming repeal of New Zealand's oil and gas ban was clear government policy, and now he was certain it would pass, withdrawing from the alliance was the right thing. Jones, a longtime advocate for the fossil fuel sector, did not see all obligations as equal. He said the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance was more of a 'women's knitting group' than a firm legal commitment was the climate equivalent of the 'country women's institute'. 'You can go in and out of it.' New Zealand's other commitments were instruments of a different character, Jones said. 'All of these international instruments leave New Zealand with enough wriggle room to address sovereign risks, and we do have challenges towards affordability and security of power.' The Crown Minerals Amendment Bill passed its second reading in November. It was yet to pass its third reading.
The Spinoff
an hour ago
- The Spinoff
The one simple trick to social cohesion? Trust your neighbours more than your MP
At a gathering of global religious, political and cultural experts in Singapore this week, one action has been cited over and over as a key to social harmony. At the International Conference on Cohesive Societies (ICSS), more than 1,000 delegates from around the world have listened to former politicians, academics and digital entrepreneurs speak about the increasing polarisation around the world and what it will take for societies to flourish in a new reality. And the message that keeps coming back around, whether in talks about combatting online extremism, increasing social cohesion or embracing multiculturalism, is almost laughably simple: talk to your neighbours. In April, the Helen Clark Foundation released its commissioned report on social cohesion in New Zealand, which painted a bleak picture of the country as one filled with uncertainty, resentment and dissatisfaction. The worrying headline that emerged in local reporting on it was that New Zealanders were 'less happy than their Australian mates, have a lower sense of worth, and are less satisfied with their finances'. 'On every dimension, New Zealand is falling behind,' said co-author Shamubeel Eaqub at the time, pointing to levels of happiness and financial satisfaction. But there was one area where New Zealanders scored significantly higher than Australians. 'More New Zealanders believe government can be trusted to do the right thing (42% vs 33% in Australia),' read the report's summary. Speaking at the ICCS on the newly released 2025 Southeast Asian Social Cohesion Radar, which aims to track a similar sentiment to New Zealand's own report, Dr Farish Noor pointed out the slight decline in trust in government institutions but an increase in civic mindedness across the region. A decline in trust in the state is not inherently a cause for concern, he posited, or a suggestion of decaying social cohesion. In fact, when coupled with a rise in civic-mindedness or community engagement, it was actually a positive. 'Ultimately the state can't be a micro-manager,' he said. 'You have to trust your own neighbours and people.' Ideally there'd be an increase in both trust in the government to do the right thing and trust in our neighbours, but on its own, an increase in what's known as 'horizontal trust' is a positive thing, said Noor. In New Zealand, one's satisfaction with their financial position and trust in government appeared to have an inverse relationship with community engagement and trust. Of the respondents in the New Zealand social cohesion report, Māori and Pasifika were more likely to have had to skip meals due to finances, were more concerned with crime in their neighbourhoods and were least trusting of the government, but were also more likely to be happy, more likely to have helped out someone they didn't live with in the past four weeks, more likely to be part of a community group and more likely to view their neighbourhood as a place where a diverse range of people got along. This apparent contradiction was mirrored in the Southeast Asia social cohesion radar, which showed there was no connection between political systems (or civil liberties) and social cohesion. One very clear signifier of disenchantment in the New Zealand report, however, was age. Those aged under 30 were most likely to feel unstable financially, as well as isolated and disconnected from community. Younger people have reported higher levels of loneliness compared to older people for generations but as the first generation to grow up entirely with the internet, there are new concerns about young people's likelihood of finding real-life community later in life. A recent trend on Tiktok has been young users having their minds blown by the phrase 'the price of community is inconvenience'. The words adorn videos of neighbours moving furniture together, young women getting ready for a birthday they really can't be bothered attending, and cross-generational friendships. The moral? Sometimes being a part of something bigger than yourself means making sacrifices or compromises for the sake of maintaining community. This is the crux of the issue being tackled at the ICCS. Building horizontal trust relies on human-to-human interaction – whether it's speaking over the fence with your neighbour, dropping a friend to the airport or making small talk with the supermarket checkout operator. It depends on exposure, in mundane ways, to people different from ourselves in order to find connection and a common goal (to happily live alongside one another). So how do we do that when digital advancements are removing these opportunities at every turn? In an earlier panel, former ICANN CEO Fadi Chehade predicted that by the time there are 10 billion humans in the world, there will be 100 billion artificial agents representing them. AI 'advocates' who can negotiate on our behalf for better insurance, or work with other people's artificial agents to coordinate schedules. You potentially wouldn't have to speak to another person ever again. A representative from Google then spoke of the developments to its Gemini AI assistant tool and how there would soon be a version specifically for children under 13. There was extensive talk of the role of regulation and governments in fostering community and limiting harmful content on social media platforms in order to create resilient digital systems. No one suggested any of this would increase social cohesion, simply that they would be necessary to reduce the current growing harms. Instead, the one solution for increasing social cohesion that everyone – former politicians, economists, tech experts, dignitaries – could agree on was just to be a real-life neighbour to those around you while you still know how to. Apparently nothing breeds trust, connection and empathy like regular human exposure. As social media expert Benjamin Lee was spoke about the impenetrability of online forums and the resentment they breed, a group of women at the table next to me in the cavernous hotel ballroom started a whispered conversation. I couldn't understand what they were saying but I could certainly hear them over the top of the panel speakers. It was distracting and, if I'm honest, really annoying. I wouldn't have had to listen to them if I was watching the livestream of the event from my hotel room instead. But if I'd done that, I'd have had no idea they existed at all.
