Key Takeaways
- Encouraging signs of bipartisan alignment on planning reform are emerging, with Labour and the Government showing willingness to work together on the replacement legislation for the Resource Management Act.
- A committed pipeline of infrastructure projects over a long period of time could save between $2.3 and $4.7 billion annually, making it an attractive option for all political parties.
- The use of asset recycling, private investment, and public-private partnerships can help stretch public dollars further and get projects built faster.
- Bipartisanship on infrastructure is possible, but it will only endure if both major parties are willing to move beyond inherited ideological battlelines and put faith in the Infrastructure Commission’s 30-year strategy and project pipeline.
Introduction to Bipartisan Alignment
The concept of bipartisan alignment on planning reform is gaining traction, with Labour showing willingness to support the Government’s proposed replacement legislation for the Resource Management Act. This constructive and pragmatic approach is encouraging, especially given the genuine points of debate within the proposed regime. The key to successful bipartisan alignment lies in agreement on direction, combined with robust but workable debate on detail. This approach will be crucial in addressing the nation’s infrastructure needs, ensuring value for money, and maintaining a reputation as a country that can get things done.
The Importance of Long-Term Planning
Research commissioned by Infrastructure New Zealand and completed by Infometrics in 2023 highlights the benefits of a committed pipeline of infrastructure projects over a long period of time. The estimated annual savings of between $2.3 and $4.7 billion make it an attractive option for all political parties. This finding should serve as a catalyst for bipartisan cooperation, with the two major parties working together to provide certainty to investors, local councils, businesses, and communities. The real test of this new alignment will be its ability to survive the pressure of an election campaign, where parties often prioritize short-term gains over long-term benefits.
The Role of the Future Fund
Labour’s proposed Future Fund is a positive step towards addressing the nation’s infrastructure needs. The fund’s purpose is to provide a dedicated investment vehicle, insulated from short-term political pressures, which can help bring scale, discipline, and intergenerational thinking into the system. However, for the fund to be truly effective, it must operate in conjunction with other proven tools, such as asset recycling and private investment. By blending capital from various sources, including public dividends, public capital from the sale or lease of public assets, and private capital, the fund can support the development of new assets that benefit the public, with mixed ownership.
Asset Recycling and Private Investment
Asset recycling is often misconstrued as privatisation by stealth or a fire sale of public assets. However, when done properly, it allows governments to build more critical public assets, sooner and without increasing net debt. The Golden Rule should be that assets are not sold unless new ones are being built. Similarly, the investment of private capital is not a threat to public outcomes when it is well structured. Globally, successful public investment vehicles operate on a commercial footing and invest alongside private partners. The New Zealand public is already open to this idea, and politicians should take note. By embracing blended approaches, the country can stretch public dollars further and get projects built faster.
The Benefits of Public-Private Partnerships
The use of public-private partnerships (PPPs) is another area where bipartisanship is important but remains elusive. PPPs are not a silver bullet to infrastructure procurement problems, but nor are they the villains they are sometimes made out to be. When used selectively and well, PPPs can transfer risk, lock in whole-of-life discipline, and accelerate asset delivery. By ruling out PPPs on principle, the country narrows its options at a time when more flexibility is needed. The real risk is a return to the bad old habits of infrastructure politics, with knee-jerk, headline-grabbing announcements that unravel as soon as government rigour is applied to them.
Conclusion and the Path Forward
Bipartisanship on infrastructure is possible, and the country is closer to achieving it than it has been in decades. However, it will only endure if both major parties are willing to move beyond inherited ideological battlelines and put faith in the Infrastructure Commission’s 30-year strategy and project pipeline. By doing so, the country can build quality infrastructure for the benefit of the whole nation. The party that wins power in 2026 can set up a fund and show an original approach to building and renewing assets, which can last for decades. The infrastructure pressures facing the nation will be solved through practical and pragmatic approaches, not ideological ones. It is time for politicians to put aside their differences and work towards a common goal, prioritising the needs of the country over short-term political gains.