Latest news with #NationalInfrastructurePlan
NZ Herald
6 days ago
- Politics
- NZ Herald
NZ infrastructure: Bishop, McAnulty seek consensus for long-term planning – Fran O'Sullivan
Successive governments have announced unfunded projects, allowed business-case costs to balloon and cancelled each other's pet projects. National's National Roads of Significance was gone under Labour after the 2017 election. Auckland Light Rail was cancelled after National formed its Government in 2023. Sunk costs are lost. Break fees also result when it comes to a major cancellation like the Cook Strait ferry contract. This impacts on the taxpayer, who is 'tailend Charlie' for this money-wasting nonsense. But it also has an impact on how potential investors view New Zealand. So, it is long past time to grow up. Refreshingly, it appears this younger generation of political opponents are prepared to do exactly that. The two politicians are of a similar age, Bishop being 41 and McAnulty 40. While it may be a step too far (for their bosses) to characterise their relationship as a political bromance, they do deal with each other frequently. Bishop is Leader of the House and McAnulty holds the Shadow Leader role. At the conference, McAnulty kicked off by saying Labour has been consistent in the stance it will honour any contract that has been entered into if it becomes Government after the 2026 election. Bishop distinguished bipartisanship from forming a 'bipartisan pipeline'. 'Instead, move towards the idea that we need bipartisan consensus on the idea that governments of all flavours should use best practice to plan, select, fund and finance, deliver and look after infrastructure. 'That's not the case at the moment, and that's what I'm working hard to fix.' Both committed to finding a consensus, Bishop saying the National Infrastructure Plan will only be successful if it's accepted and adopted across successive governments over the long term. McAnulty replied: 'We can't be naive about it. You're never going to get a situation where the National and Labour parties are going to agree on every single aspect and every detail of every project.' However, they could find bipartisanship when it comes to the overall framework. One confronting issue is the short election cycle of three years. Former Irish Taoiseach (Prime Minister) Leo Varadkar sympathised with New Zealand politicians' plight of having to shepherd major projects through within a three-year parliamentary cycle. 'Four years is better. I think five is probably optimum,' he told the symposium, pointing out that when you're a year out from an election, 'all that politicians are thinking about is the election, understandably'. 'So that really gives you two years to govern, and it might take the first few months just to get things up and running … I believe there's some discussions about making it four. I think you should do that. You should definitely make it five if you can.' New Zealand is likely to get a chance to vote next year in a referendum on the introduction of a four-year term. Varadkar – who spoke via video link - served two terms as Taoiseach, from 2017-20 and 2022-24. Through the Project Ireland 2040 plan, the budget for investment in public infrastructure more than doubled during his time as Prime Minister from under €6 billion (about $9.5b at 2017 exchange rates) a year to more than €12b a year with major investments in transport, rural broadband, energy, climate action, healthcare and education. Like Varadkar, Singapore's Andrew Tan also advised that a bipartisan approach to forming national infrastructure strategies and an associated programme is essential. Tan is a former managing director at Temasek International, a former chief executive of the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore and a former Principal Private Secretary to former Singapore Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew. 'Like Singapore, New Zealand's ability to attract foreign investments, talent and innovation to the new areas of the economy will be key drivers of future growth. 'You can't win across every field, but you can focus on some key sectors where you have the right to win. 'Government can and should take the lead in setting national objectives with the backing of the private sector.' If rationality can be injected here, why stop with infrastructure? At the Herald's Mood of the Boardroom last year, Finance Minister Nicola Willis and Labour's finance spokesperson Barbara Edmonds agreed to have a discussion about the sustainability of New Zealand's current superannuation system. That came unstuck when it became clear Willis wanted to put the age of eligibility on the table. Time for more adults in the room?
NZ Herald
04-08-2025
- Business
- NZ Herald
Cutting red tape key to NZ's infrastructure success
These days we find it difficult to get consent for a solar farm. Not even build it, just to get permission to build it. Click here for an alternative view: Julie Anne Genter: Time to prioritise public good over private gain In my view, New Zealand is at an inflection point and we have two choices. One option is we grow slowly – or not at all. We muddle along, take years to make tough decisions, react to things as they come up, and just largely accept the status quo. I call this managed mediocrity. At worst, it is managed decline. The other option is that we make the tough decisions that successive governments have put in the too-hard basket — on planning, housing markets, transport pricing, and more. We take advantage of our extraordinary natural competitive advantages – like cheap, renewable energy – to accelerate growth, increase our standard of living and make us better off than we are today. Achieving this prosperous future won't just magically happen. As I've said before, we need to start saying 'yes' a lot more, and 'no' a lot less. This is especially true for infrastructure. Chris Bishop. Photo / Getty Images Throwing money at the problem won't fix things, because our current system is too inefficient. Despite being in the top 10% of high-income countries for infrastructure spend, we are in the bottom 10% for outcomes. In reality, this looks like poor bang for our buck, funding gaps, cost overruns, delays, and – often – worn-down assets that don't do their job. It isn't good enough. The only way to fix our problems is to get the underlying system settings right, and that's what I've focused on as Infrastructure Minister: developing a National Infrastructure Plan, improving funding and financing, sorting out consenting and planning, improving education and health infrastructure, and strengthening asset management and resilience. These priorities are in response to what I've heard from industry and infrastructure experts, both in New Zealand and overseas. National Infrastructure Plan (NIP) Last month, the Infrastructure Commission released the draft NIP. As Minister for Infrastructure, I hear regularly that what New Zealand needs is a long-term infrastructure plan that transcends political cycles. I agree. A plan will give the private sector more certainty so that they can invest in people and equipment. But a plan is only as good as it's execution. So, the NIP will only be successful if it is – at least in part – accepted and adopted across successive governments over the long term. It's worth noting that this isn't our first plan. New Zealand had infrastructure plans in 2010, 2011, and 2015. Depressingly, some recommendations in these older plans are identical to those put forward in this plan, more than a decade later. I'm thinking of things like agencies completing 10-year capital plans and making better use of pricing tools. What differentiates this plan is that it has been developed independently by the Infrastructure Commission – separate from the government of the day. The NIP is not this Government's plan. It's New Zealand's plan. Each political party in Parliament was offered a briefing on the NIP. I'm really pleased that most parties accepted the offer and have had one or more meetings with the Commission. Building greater consensus on infrastructure is, unfortunately, not as simple as different political parties getting in a room and convincing each other of the other's view. That's not realistic. Instead, consensus will be enabled by strong systems and institutions, robust investment frameworks, high-quality evidence of our infrastructure needs, and advocacy for projects and policies from a better-informed public. That's what this plan is about. People also often say, we need a bipartisan infrastructure pipeline, as if that will solve all problems. We do have a robust infrastructure pipeline. The Commission has been running it for more than five years, and it's been progressively improved over that time. The pipeline has more than 8000 initiatives underway and in planning, from 114 contributing organisations. It represents more than $200 billion in investment value – with over $110b of the pipeline having a funding source confirmed. I suspect that almost all of the projects underway right now are supported by everyone in Parliament. It's the high-profile and high-cost disagreements that make the headlines. But it's the low-profile and often low-cost projects that actually make New Zealand. My own view is that we need to move away from the rhetoric of needing a bipartisan pipeline and instead build bipartisan consensus on the idea that governments of all flavours should use best-practice to plan, select, fund and finance, deliver, and look after infrastructure. That's not the case at the moment and it's what I'm working so hard to fix. Improving Infrastructure Funding and Financing An important priority is improving infrastructure funding and financing. Currently, infrastructure is primarily paid for by taxpayers or ratepayers. This makes sense for some infrastructure like schools and hospitals, but our reliance on this blunt approach has led to challenges like congestion, run-down assets, and the unresponsive provision of enabling infrastructure – contributing to unaffordable housing. In 2024, the Government released a suite of frameworks and guidance – like Treasury's Funding and Financing Framework and a new market-led proposal process – to help the Crown be a smarter owner and purchaser of infrastructure services. This year, I announced five changes to New Zealand's funding and financing toolkit including improving the IFF Act and shifting councils from Development Contributions to a new Development Levy system. These changes will move us to a future state where councils can fully recover the costs of housing growth, and where infrastructure providers can recover costs of significant and city-shaping projects. And today, at the Building Nations summit, I will be announcing a shift in our approach to road user charges. Improving the consenting framework Arguably, the biggest improvement we are making to the infrastructure system is fixing the Resource Management Act (RMA). Consenting takes too long, costs way too much, and makes delivering the infrastructure we need too difficult. We are on track to replace the RMA with new legislation next year. Our new system will be effects-based, embrace standardised zoning and be far more permissive and enabling – while also protecting the environment. An independent analysis by Castalia estimated the new system could reduce compliance and administrative costs by $14.8b – potentially removing about 10 Transmission Gullys-worth of red tape from the economy. It will be a game changer. Better asset management is a key recommendation of the draft NIP. Everyone knows if you don't paint the weatherboards on your house, the wood will rot. Billion-dollar infrastructure is fundamentally no different. Unfortunately, due to decades of diverted maintenance spending, lack of asset registers, and lack of asset management plans, we have schools with leaking roofs, sewage leaks in our hospitals, asbestos in police stations, service outages of commuter rail, and mouldy defence accommodation. Strengthening asset management and resilience In May this year we started a work programme that will improve asset management in central government. We are considering fundamental changes such as legislatively requiring agencies to prepare and publish long-term Asset Management and Investment Plans, and to report on their performance. Regulated utilities and local government are legislatively required to do these things – I don't see why central government thinks it should hold others to a higher standard than it does itself. A couple of weeks ago the Minister for Economic Growth and I released an infrastructure update showing that more than $6b of government-funded construction is due to start between now and Christmas. Workers will start construction on $3.9b of roading projects – like Melling and Ōtaki to north of Levin, $800 million of school property projects, and a range of health projects and other government buildings. Some people said that these projects were 'already announced'. They missed the point. A non-trivial number of these projects were funded all the way back in 2016-2020 – but never started construction. As Government, we are getting on with building infrastructure — not just announcing it. And we're fixing the system, to help build and maintain better infrastructure for all Kiwis. Chris Bishop is the Minister for Infrastructure and National MP for Hutt South.
NZ Herald
04-08-2025
- Business
- NZ Herald
New Zealand needs a cultural shift in infrastructure planning
A sober reminder of the scale of our challenge came in June with the release of the draft National Infrastructure Plan from the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission Te Waihanga. The plan lays bare a troubling paradox; between 2010 and 2019, New Zealand's investment in infrastructure represented the highest proportion of GDP among OECD nations, yet we ranked near the bottom of the OECD for return on that investment. In short, we're not getting bang for our buck and we need to do much better. Part of that comes down to how hard it is to build things here. Over recent years, the time and cost of securing planning approvals, designations and resource consents has risen significantly. We often hear frustration about the layers of complexity, duplicated processes and the inability to get timely decisions. Unfortunately, the consequences are felt by everyone stuck in traffic or using our deteriorating public assets. The good news is that change is under way. Infrastructure New Zealand policy director Michelle McCormick. This year alone, we've seen a steady stream of initiatives to modernise the infrastructure system. The Government has begun reshaping the regulatory landscape with a major legislative reform programme. We have seen commencement of the new Fast-track Approvals legislation, which should help accelerate some critical projects by aligning all consents and other regulatory approvals via a one-stop-shop. A new National Policy Statement for Infrastructure will, for the first time, provide consistent national direction for how infrastructure is planned and delivered, alongside other important resource considerations. This will mean a more consistent approach and treatment of critical infrastructure, especially for national network operators such as NZ Transport Agency Waka Kotahi (NZTA), KiwiRail and Transpower, or other infrastructure owners and operators who currently need to convince 67 different councils of the need for asset development and standard maintenance activities. Phase two of the reform to the Resource Management Act (RMA) includes long-overdue updates to 14 existing and seven new national direction instruments. Infrastructure-related settings changes include telecommunications, renewable electricity generation, electricity transmission standards and the going-for-housing-growth package. These may sound like technical changes, but they matter. They help create certainty and reduce unnecessary duplication and overly bureaucratic approval processes. They also speed up decision-making, all while ensuring environmental standards are maintained. A cultural shift is also needed. For too long, our infrastructure system has been set up to say 'no' by adding hurdles and rarely removing them. The Resource Management Act has spawned 30 years of complex rules and fragmented planning across the country. While the current amendments and new and updated National Direction instruments will help, what is needed is a new planning and environmental management system that enables good projects to proceed, with appropriate safeguards. Getting to 'yes, with conditions' must become the norm. That won't happen overnight. Improving the rules is just one piece of the puzzle. We also need high-quality, timely environmental monitoring so decisions are based on reliable data. Reform of the Environmental Reporting Act is on the table and it's vital that this leads to better, more transparent information to support infrastructure decision-making. Importantly, the Government is also looking at ways to align regional spatial planning, improve housing development processes and introduce nationally standardised zones. This will help reduce the endless local variations that currently make infrastructure delivery so complicated and costly. As the Minister for Infrastructure has pointed out, 'across New Zealand, there are 1175 different kinds of zones. In the entirety of Japan, which uses standardised zoning, there are 13 zones'. New Zealand is special but I don't think we are that special. Simplifying the field, removing unnecessary over-complication and making the rules clearer for everyone can ease the way for infrastructure development and address at least one of the causes of our high project costs. The avalanche of legislative change is progressing. Work on the replacement RMA in the form of two new acts is well under way but is unlikely to be completed this parliamentary term. These changes will lay the building blocks for a better system, but installing a new regime that has cross-party support is critical. Our system settings must keep improving, the reforms we make must be implemented properly and we must hold on to the momentum for change. These are complex shifts and signal a new maturity in how we think about infrastructure; not as stand-alone projects solving isolated problems, but as part of our broad economic and social fabric. The reality is that system reforms don't get people excited like seeing shovels in the ground, but in many ways, they are even more essential. The way we regulate, plan, consent and deliver infrastructure in New Zealand is riddled with complexity, delay and cost. This doesn't just hurt the Government and our local councils, it harms every New Zealander getting to work, waiting for a hospital bed or learning in a substandard classroom. Many of today's changes won't be visible to the public immediately, but they are essential if we want to lift our performance, attract investment and deliver the infrastructure New Zealanders require over the long term. Infrastructure New Zealand is an advertising sponsor of the Herald's Infrastructure report.
Scoop
07-07-2025
- Business
- Scoop
Manawatū Projects Play Central Part In New Zealand's Future Infrastructure Strategy
The release of the Government's 30-year draft National Infrastructure Plan has delivered a strong vote of confidence in Manawatū's strategic importance to Aotearoa's future. Of the 17 nationally significant projects identified, six are located in Manawatū, a clear signal of the region's role in driving economic growth and resilience. These include: • Upgrades to NZDF facilities, housing, and roads • Continued development at Linton Military Camp • Completion of the Ohakea Base expansion • The vital enhancement of freight connections through the Manawatū Regional Freight Ring Road 'These long-term investments not only support regional growth — they underpin the strategic importance of Te Utanganui, Central New Zealand's Distribution Hub,' says Robbie Woods, Te Utanganui's Programme Director. 'They represent the next chapter in building a resilient and future-ready national logistics network.' Located in the heart of the country, Manawatū is home to a significant proportion of New Zealand's defence operations. With Linton Military Camp and RNZAF Ohakea Base located here, the region is a key centre for both military readiness and the national supply chain. 'Development of the Manawatū Regional Freight Ring Road is one of the most critical enablers of supply chain resilience in New Zealand,' adds Robbie Woods. 'It is the next step in the national corridor that includes Te Ahu a Turanga and the planned Ōtaki to North of Levin Expressway, connecting central New Zealand to the capital, and enabling the movement of goods, people, and defence capability.' The National Infrastructure Plan strongly aligns with the vision for Te Utanganui – a nationally significant programme of integrated projects that will accelerate economic growth and unlock new regional and national opportunities. CEDA and its regional partners support the draft plan and urge others to do the same, recognising the need for a strategically integrated pipeline of projects that position New Zealand for a stronger, more connected future. A recently commissioned economic impact report on Te Utanganui highlights the scale of potential benefit at both regional and national levels and the Indicative Business Case for the Manawatū Regional Freight Ring Road is now underway. 'We have the plan. We have the momentum. Now is the time to back this investment and make it happen,' said Robbie Woods. KEY MESSAGES Te Utanganui is a future-focused programme of coordinated investments that will make New Zealand's freight network faster, safer, and more resilient - supporting economic growth across the country. Expansions to the business zones within Te Utanganui are attracting private investment and creating high-quality, large-floorplate industrial land, allowing logistics businesses to co-locate, operate 24/7, and lift productivity. With major NZDF facilities located here, the investment will support defence mobility and logistics, cementing Manawatū's role as a strategic hub for both military readiness and commercial freight. Unlocking Freight Efficiency Through Manawatū The Manawatū Regional Freight Ring Road is the linchpin of Te Utanganui, enabling faster, more efficient movement of goods and reducing congestion in urban areas creating safer roads. With major NZDF facilities located here, the investment will support defence mobility and logistics, cementing Manawatū's role as a strategic hub for both military readiness and commercial freight.
Otago Daily Times
04-07-2025
- Health
- Otago Daily Times
Exploring diligently throughout Question Time
When I get back from leave, I am going to have to find out if the HR department is in cahoots with the government. The two occasions I took a break last year coincided with one of Prime Minister Christopher Luxon's two visits to Dunedin, and the other with Health Minister Simeon Brown's trip to town. So naturally as soon as I headed out the door last week Mr Brown was back in Dunedin again for another hospital announcement — one slightly more palatable than the last one. I still have some way to go to beat my much-respected former boss Audrey Young: her holidays had such a spooky habit of coinciding with party leaders being rolled that it came to be known as "the curse of Audrey" — but it's still a little frustrating. So having missed all the fun, let's go back in time to Parliament's last sitting week, and Wednesday's Question Time, which may have set a record. Of the 12 questions, a quarter were asked by southern MPs ... although maybe only a third of those elicited anything which might have been of any interest to their constituents. First up was Act New Zealand Southland list MP Todd Stephenson, who got to ask the acting Prime Minister — who, coincidentally, just happened to be his party leader David Seymour — the hardy perennial of whether he stood by all his government's statements and actions? Spoiler alert: yes, he did ... particularly the NZ Infrastructure Commission's freshly announced National Infrastructure Plan. Mr Stephenson followed up by asking about access to new medicines — which the man who is also an associate health minister with responsibility for drug-buying agency Pharmac was more than happy to talk about — and then GPs (ditto). It was going so well, but Mr Stephenson then incurred the Speaker's wrath by asking his leader to comment on comments made once upon a time by the little-remembered Labour MP Charles Chauvel about the Regulatory Standards Bill. "No, that's not something you [Mr Seymour] can make any comment on whatsoever. So sit down and have another go at the question," the Speaker harumphed. Fair play to Mr Stephenson; he found a cunning way around the Speaker's edict by asking if the acting PM agreed with any statements that he had recently seen in relation to the Regulatory Standards Bill. "Well, I do, as a matter of fact," Mr Seymour replied with glee, before embarking on the sort of answer which makes Gerry Brownlee turn puce. Q10, from National Waitaki MP Miles Anderson, was much more benign, as he asked Agriculture Minister Todd McClay about the government's plan to ban full farm-to-forestry conversions — as covered in last week's Southern Say. No alarms and no surprises here, as Mr McClay gave a suitably apocalyptic answer to Mr Anderson's question: "What is the impact on rural communities of whole farm-to-forest conversions?" Q11, from Labour Taieri MP Ingrid Leary to Associate Housing Minister Tama Potaka on proposed changes to the Retirement Villages Act, was when things got really interesting. She wanted to know if the draft legislation would include "provisions for repayments but not mandate them". This is a topic close to Ms Leary's heart (she has a member's Bill in the ballot on just this subject), not to mention thousands of retirement village residents and their families affected by the issue. Most villages operate under an occupation rights (ORA) agreement system, whereby residents buy the right to live in what might well be their final home, but not ownership of it. That sum is then held until the ORA ends. An ORA does not come cheap — in the realm of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Which is high, true, but which may also be fair enough in some circumstances: villages are expensive to build and costly to run. But an ORA comes with associated bonds and fees, and gruesome tales abound of residents, or their families, being obliged to pay fees after moving to a higher-care unit or dying. Also problematic is the process of getting out of an ORA. The village will usually claim a portion of the ORA as an "exit fee" and then resell the ORA. However, that right may well have accumulated a considerable capital gain in the intervening period — something that the former ORA owner cannot benefit from. Many, and Ms Leary is one, think this effectively means villages are enjoying an interest-free loan from their residents — albeit that they receive a secure and comfortable lifestyle and residence for their golden years. Consumer has been running a campaign for years on the issue of what it sees as unfair retirement village contracts; Mosgiel's Brian Peat, president of the Retirement Village Residents' Association, has also been hot on the topic for a number of years. Mr Potaka has bad news for Ms Leary, saying that the Northern Advocate article on which she has based her question had been incorrect Undeterred, she then asked if Mr Potaka would commit now to mandating fair repayment times and terms. "There are a number of matters that we are considering as part of a broader reform of this matter, including dispute resolution protections, and a wide range of consumer protections and various matters, including those that the member referred to, will be considered and are still under active consideration," Mr Potaka replied reassuringly ... but not reassuringly enough for Ms Leary, who pointedly followed up with: "What other sectors are there where people have no control over when someone pays them back their own money?" That was quite a broad and open question, Mr Potaka replied, but he could say that the government was "responsibly reviewing" a wide variety of matters, including consumer protections for elderly folks living in retirement villages. Would that include, perhaps supporting a law change which would require operators to give residents their money back within three months, Ms Leary wondered, knowing full well that such a Bill existed. "If the member is asking me to jump in front of Cabinet and make decisions by way of a question and answer session, I will not be doing that," Mr Potaka said. "What I will be doing is diligently and professionally undertaking my responsibility as associate minister of housing to explore these issues and bring these matters through the policy decisions and, ultimately, to this fine chamber." But whether that exploration makes anyone happy is a question for another day.
