New Zealand can learn from Canada's success in infrastructure planning and execution

NZ Herald

2 hours ago

One year, it is public-private partnerships. The next, collaborative contracts.
But maybe the method is not the issue.
A recent fact-finding delegation to Canada, led by Infrastructure New Zealand, saw senior industry specialists learn how their counterparts in Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal get it done, and it provided some stark comparisons with how we do things here.
Infrastructure New Zealand strategy and engagement manager Katie Bradford.
Canada has been quietly proving that success does not come from sticking to one model. What matters more is getting the right people around the table early, setting clear goals and working together with trust and flexibility. The approach should fit the project, not the other way around.
In Canada, builders and planners are brought in early. They help shape the project before any concrete is poured. That avoids confusion, cuts delays and keeps plans on track.
The Canadians also break big jobs down into manageable parts so work can begin sooner and progress continues while decisions are still being made.
In New Zealand, we tend to over-complicate things. The process slows down, prices go up and contractors walk away.
The Canadian experience suggests we need to streamline decisions and keep projects moving. Time is not just money, it is momentum.
Our public servants are expected to deliver major projects with very little support. When things go wrong, they wear the blame. When things go right, there is little reward. That kind of pressure discourages bold thinking.
Canada does it differently. It invests in training, encourages teamwork between public and private sectors and rewards strong leadership.
If we want brave projects, we need to back the people leading them. Canada starts with a clear national purpose. It asks how infrastructure can support housing, jobs, climate goals and long-term resilience.
In Canada, the total cost of a project includes the money it will take to run and maintain the asset over decades. This long-term thinking leads to smarter choices.
Things such as better drainage systems or large-scale heating infrastructure may cost more up front but save much more in repairs and upgrades in the long run.
In New Zealand, we focus too much on keeping the initial price low and reducing the project scale or features as budgets come under pressure. This often creates bigger bills later.
Construction companies want clear rules and manageable jobs. In Canada, projects are being restructured to attract more bidders by offering smaller, clearer scopes of work. This brings more competition, better prices and stronger delivery.
The Canadians know government funding is not enough. They are finding new ways to pay for infrastructure. One method involves using rising land values near new train stations to help fund those stations. In Montreal, this helped build a major light rail network.
We should explore similar tools here. That includes working with iwi and private investors on housing, water and transport projects.
Canada is showing how strong partnerships with indigenous communities can deliver better outcomes for everyone, offering shared ownership, real decision-making roles and a fair share of the benefits. New Zealand has an opportunity to lead the world in this space.
The Canadians talk about infrastructure to grow the country. They highlight the jobs created, the communities connected, and the benefits delivered.
Here, we talk about cost and mainly ignore the benefits. We need to shift the story and show the real value of what we build. An annual 'infrastructure benefits' report could help the public see why these investments matter.
There is no perfect way to deliver infrastructure. Every method has its problems, but Canada's experience shows that steady improvement, good leadership and the courage to keep learning can make all the difference.
Infrastructure New Zealand is an advertising sponsor of the Herald's Infrastructure report.