Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop announced that a National Infrastructure Agency (NIA) would commence work in December as part of a suite of reforms, largely modelled after Australia.
The new agency will be formed by expanding Crown Infrastructure Partners, which currently manages the delivery of several billion dollars' worth of government projects.
Bishop said the exact size of the NIA has not been finalised but it was expected to have around 60 staff and an operating budget of $26 million, that's a 50% headcount increase and 44% funding boost.
In return, the agency will solicit private sector investment proposals, collaborate with Crown agencies on privately financed projects, manage central government infrastructure funds, and continue existing CIP work.
Examples of central infrastructure funds include the National Land Transport Fund, the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Fund, and the Housing Infrastructure Fund.
Bishop said establishing the NIA is part of broader efforts to simplify and reorganise the central infrastructure system, which he described as "confusing" and plagued by "duplication and inefficiency."
Other responsibilities have also been shuffled around. The Infrastructure Commission will continue acting as the Government’s independent advisor on long-term strategy.
The Treasury will assume the commission’s responsibility for developing public-private partnership policies, reporting to and supporting the Infrastructure Minister.
Rau Paenga, also called Crown Infrastructure Delivery, will help government agencies with low capabilities deliver their infrastructure projects.
Thirty year plan
Bishop has tasked the Infrastructure Commission with leading the development of a 30-year pipeline of projects that will outline New Zealand’s long-term needs and plan investments for the next 10 to 15 years.
It will include an assessment of what infrastructure NZ needs and can afford, an overview of upcoming projects over the next decade, an independent review of possible projects, and policy reforms that could improve development and maintenance of infrastructure.
Bishop said it was important the plan had bipartisan support, or else it wouldn’t have the long-term stability the construction industry has repeatedly asked for.
To keep the opposition involved, the Minister has written to the infrastructure spokespeople of each party and invited them to a formal briefing by the Infrastructure Commission. He plans for these briefings to be held twice a year, on an ongoing basis.
There will also be an annual debate on the plan in Parliament, to thrash out areas of agreement and disagreement between parties. However, the infrastructure plan itself will be set independently by the Commission.
“Building consensus on infrastructure won’t be easy, but I am taking concrete steps to bring other parties on the journey, because, quite frankly, it is the right thing to do,” Bishop said.
Hard sell?
This bipartisan approach may be a hard sell, given that the Coalition Government scrapped a long list of policies and investments initiated by the previous Labour Government.
Even while still in opposition, Bishop and his party backed out of a bipartisan housing policy agreement after some caucus members became worried about losing their electorate seats.
In an op-ed published prior to Bishop’s announcement, Green Party infrastructure spokesperson Julie-Anne Genter said he talked “a big game” but didn’t back it up.
He talked about the infrastructure pipeline certainty but the Government had scrapped Kāinga Ora’s public housing build, water infrastructure plans, and the new Cook Strait ferries, she said.
These decisions have meant the Crown has stopped building houses, worsening an already serious downturn in the sector, and local councils have been sent back to the drawing board on water and zoning plans, further delaying related investments.
Plus, the coalition withdrew from a transport partnership with Wellington City Council, forcing a scramble to save some projects. And, it cast doubt over Auckland City’s pipeline by removing a fuel tax needed to fund future projects.
Shortly after becoming Transport Minister, Simeon Brown instructed Waka Kotahi to halt all work on cycling and walking initiatives that it was not contractually bound to complete.
It is difficult to pivot from that and immediately expect bipartisan buy-in for a new infrastructure pipeline that may not align with the opposition’s political priorities.
66 Comments
Build a couple of cycle lanes in the middle of a hostile roading environment, then wonder why bikes don't show up to pootle up and down the only safe space? Interesting logic.
Maybe instead of upgrading the HVDC cables connecting the two islands, we could just float a bit of copper in the middle of the strait and then extend it when that isolated bit of wire reaches capacity?
This shouldn't really be a problem for commuting (read:employed/employeer) traffic should it? Perhaps for the low paid who are struggling. For any yopro, an e-bike is a very attainable purchase. You can get them for a grand now. Usually the biggest barriers to increased bike uptake are:
1) disconnected cycleways/poor cycleways (Where they've just painted a line on some crumbling footpath).
2) confidence to navigate with heavy car traffic where cycleways are non-existent.
3) natural resistance to change.
You can't really change the last one. That's just human. The other two can be fixed but require political will. Personally I'd be interested in exploring a user-pays aspect to remove the politics from this infrastructure. A 1% tax perhaps on all bikes and biking accessories that goes to a dedicated pool of funds that can be bid for by councils to use on biking projects.
How about terrain, weather and age as disincentives?
I live in Dunedin: steep hills, poor roading, challenging weather and an ageing population.
Prying good public transport out of the regional and local councils would improve our quality of life more than being offered an e-bike. The places where cycling is more viable are backed by good public transport and the deserted urban cycleways here would better service us by being used as public transport corridors - an idea floated by councillors before the work was begun was driverless electric buses on a fixed loop that ran the length of the flat parts of the city, but that was essentially shouted down by special interests.
Dear Labour, we cancelled your projects, even the worthwhile ones, but please don't cancel ours.
You fed the public a compelling story of a 30-year pipeline as well when setting up InfraCom 5 years ago. Now it's our turn to set a new one up. I hope the public didn't take our pre-election rant on inefficient bureaucracy in Wellington to heart.
I've just seen the promo pic and read what he called it - Nation Building.
Utopia: season 2 trailer (youtube.com)
You couldn't make this stuff up
If they want the oppositions support they will need to meet them in the middle somewhere. But they are no where near that at the moment, it’s hard to see it happening.
It would be fantastic for NZ if it did happen, but I think they would have been better off trying to agree in the first 100 days rather than just cancel everything.
No, it won't.
Because: The Infrastructure Commission will continue acting as the Government’s independent advisor on long-term strategy.
Bollard chairs it. An economist, and I don't rate his savvy, either.
So no, it hasn't aprayer.
each year lets have a fist fight.... maybe it will be a better outcome, at least I will be able to bet on it
this will be a three year govt, by then we will be sick of them and all the Liebour crowd in the last screw up we voted out will be gone.
if NACT are going to sell SOE sell now, do allt he stuff you cannot reverse in liebours first 100 days, you made this game up, you are warned
I know it's an unpopular opinion, but I suspect 3 Waters was our last chance. Until central government owns the assets, and hence the problems and is thus required to concentrate on that, we have no hope of fixing our infrastructure deficits. No one needs a holiday highway if you can't flush the toilet when you get there, and all the beaches are no-swim zones as a result. Local councils own the infrastructure that really matters and central government (this one anyway) wants to walk away from the responsibility to remedy that.
Or have I missed something?
Some councils have managed their assets perfectly fine, others not so much. Ratepayers need to engage in local government more and rebuild the community mindset. Too many councils currently are making silly decisions as the locals either don't know what they're up to and keep the councillors in check, or actually take the time to put forward new ideas or feedback on current ideas, or even vote on options presented, therefore the decisions made are not always representative of the majority. Centralising asset management would result in the likes of folks in Auckland making decisions for provincial areas of which they have no idea of the impact on.
All Councils make silly decisions in the name of growth/development - ACC included;
https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/08/27/hundreds-of-new-homes-in-auckland-su…
If councils didn't own the 3 Waters assets, they have much more thinned down balance sheets - we wouldn't then need to pay CEs $300K+ per annum to manage what was left over (planning, governance and community/recreational parks and assets) and huge layers of local bureaucracy would be transferred to central government to manage. The thing about centralised management of assets is that you hire the engineering/technical resource in-house, whereas each of our 67 local authorities (not counting the 11 regional authorities) have to hire-in that expertise from the private sector. Far, far more expensive and far, far more unaffordable for smaller LAs.
And you don't get the idiot/parochial decision-making as in the above example in that the jobs of the decision-makers are not dependent on local support for growth/development.
They're proving that 'leaving it to the market' didn't work.
Which is pretty much the end of Bollard's ethos.
They will come up with a growth-projecting plan - PLAN, mark you - and fail to see the signs all around them, that growth is leaving us at an accelerating rate.
We won't even keep up with parrying entropy; business cases will have to make heroic assumptions - and the collapse (think 2008 on steroids; I've read Crisis and he didn't have a clue, even after the event) will overtake events anyway.
If they did a crash course on the Limits to Growth, on real sustainability, and included EROEI, then maybe, just maybe, they might be applicable. As it is, and particularly given current incumbents...... they haven't a prayer.
growth is leaving us at an accelerating rate
It is indeed. Hardin's solutions to the tragedy of the commons was two fold: either markets or regulation. We went all-in on markets - and are paying the price (a price no one can afford) now.
Re-regulation I suspect, will by necessity, accompany de-growth.
I like horses, sure there are bad eggs, but most horses are nicer then the average human.
As an insurance policy I have a few, but until then lets focus on looking for more gas and oil.... I am sure there is a bit undiscovered in NZ
and it can only be worth more aye PDK
Has he come up with anything practical yet? Aside from the exponential growth is unsustainable, growth is bad, growth is caused by people, build gas chambers chain of logic.
Seems to be banging the same old drum.
We all got the idea in the first thirty seconds. And that was appreciated by all. But the ability to move the discussion forward and evolve with the times is absent.
... you're right ... for 225 years the Malthusians have been dead wrong ... Club of Rome , dead wrong ... Paul Erhlich , dead wrong ... and yet , the tin foil hat brigade persist with their apocalyptic drum beating & wails of woe ... 225 consecutive years of being 100 % wrong , but they maintain the faith ... if only the Warriors league team had fans that dedicated ...
Yes, he has.
But you decided not to listen
We need to do low-tech (therefore locally fixable) solar-energy capture. And derivatives, like wind and water-power. And work out food-production and distribution beyond fossil energy (probably means Auckland gets largely abandoned - just sayin). Most likely we'll see a reversal of rural-to-city (given that the latter was courtesy of FF).
But I suspect what you are really saying, is that if I can't come up with something which maintains your present level of comfortable consumption, I should be ignored. That's really your POV, no?
Good work. Glad I have finally managed to nudge you into the practical. Keep it up.
As I stated already, you introduced the point to me and many here, and it was received. I have of course questioned things you have stated which don't add up, are incorrect or don't consider recent developments.
Just pointing out what I have observed, and many others on here have observed.
And no, you know nothing of me, my history, my level of consumption or my POV. It would pay not to assume.
... can you keep a secret ? ... it's not very popular around here to be an optimist , so just between you and me , there is no " upper limit to growth " ... ssshhhh .... even now I can hear the clatter of the hobnailed boots of the resident Malthusian Luddites as they come to kick the snot out of us ... say it loud , say it proud : " there are no upper limits to growth " ....
There are always limits - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_Atlantic_northwest_cod_fi…
I'd love them to have a look at a link between the mass plantations of pine forests in the region, and the scallop populations around Nelson/Marlborough. Every heavy downpour the level of topsoil washing out to the bays and sounds must have a significant part to play in their ability to thrive, as there's a constant level floating off the seabed. Interesting link thanks :-)
When there s a decent bus service, people use it. Where we are in Stoke, there is a bus every 15 mins to Nelson or Richmond. Usage is going up. And we have not replaced a car that was breaking down. And now the thought process is around getting somewhere without using the car.
Can we not add more checks and balances here to get critical projects separated from the election cycle?
Some stuff was garbage - light rail - but we do need to replace the Cook St ferries.
I think if governments had hard caps on what they could commit to that would bring some focus, but anything committed to would have to be built.
Politicking on our short election cycle is going to kill this country.
There's a big tourism impact from faulty ferries as well as the freight. I had a colleague take heir car up to Wellington and had to leave it there for a month or two when they had multiple ferries out of action, and they were booked up forever in advance as a result trying to fulfil existing paid voyages. Both Wellington and Picton businesses lose out on income from this.
No.
How can people decide to blame a convenient 'other', then one-eyedly pile accusations as if fact?
She - just like Obama - had not chance to turn the dial more than a smidge. The System - overarching drive for economic growth - rallied the Bernays-taught social-media thuggery, and she had to resign. Too much money/power/ego at stake.
The joke is that the way of like you laud/crave, is coming to an end. Labour were looking - albeit through a glass, darkly - to address the future, not the past. Time is running out, and the present mob will waste more - probably most of what is left.
Funny how history goes in circles, especially 'living memory' So they are bring back, in effect , the old Ministry of Works...with out, for now the top heavy wasted it eventually evolved into. (as does any government dept.) And with contractors rather than its own staff.
Seems education and health tending to go back old school to tried and tested over the centuries. But of cause, heaven for bid, everything gets a new name No way would any polly admit the way stuff that was done, 40 or even 3500yrs ago could work today right?
I think in the old days , they just ignored any idiots in the higher offices , and got on and did the job. Can't do that nowadays with all the paper trails .
not to say all higher ups were idiots , there was a wealth of talent . Just no way of seperating them from the idiots.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.