We are also seeing encouraging signs of bipartisan alignment on planning reform. Labour’s willingness to support the intent and overall structure of the Government’s proposed replacement legislation for the Resource Management Act is constructive and pragmatic. There are genuine points of debate within the proposed regime, especially around regulatory takings provisions, but these are matters for scrutiny and refinement through select committee, not reasons to torpedo the entire reform package.
Anyone who thinks functional political bipartisanship is 100% hand-holding all the time, is mistaken. It’s really about agreement on direction, combined with robust but workable debate on detail, be that system or institutional arrangements or the pipeline of projects. For the sake of our infrastructure workforce, for value for money and for our reputation as a nation that can get things done, we must do better in this area.
Research commissioned by Infrastructure New Zealand and completed by Infometrics in 2023 showed us a committed pipeline over a long period of time could save us between $2.3 and $4.7 billion annually. The ears of all political parties should prick up at that one.
The real test of this new and fragile alignment is whether it can survive the pressure of an election campaign.
We are not talking about a multiparty consensus across the entire political spectrum. Expecting the Greens and Act, for example, to find common ground on infrastructure funding models is neither realistic nor necessary. They should, of course, be able to agree much of the time. A hospital is a hospital, a school is a school and we need more of both replaced or built.
What matters for long-term delivery clarity, is that the two major parties, the ones most likely to lead future governments, share enough common ground to provide certainty to investors, local councils, businesses, and most importantly, our communities.
Labour’s proposed Future Fund is, in principle, a positive step. New Zealand First announced intent around a similar policy. It reflects an understanding New Zealand cannot continue to rely solely on annual Crown budgets to fund infrastructure development. A dedicated investment vehicle, insulated from short-term political pressures, could help bring scale, discipline, and intergenerational thinking into the system.
However, for such a fund to be truly effective, it cannot, as Labour proposes, operate in isolation from other proven tools, particularly asset recycling and private investment. It could be a place where capital is collected from all three sources – public dividends, public capital from the sale or lease of public assets, and private capital – perhaps KiwiSaver or iwi. It could then be blended into new assets that benefit the public, with mixed ownership. This will allow us to build more, with better discipline.
Asset recycling is not privatisation by stealth, nor is it some sort of fire sale of public assets. It is about selling or leasing-out mature, lower-risk assets (such as Chorus securities or the QV business owned by Government) and reinvesting the proceeds into new or upgraded infrastructure where the economic and social returns to New Zealand are higher. Australian states, such as NSW, have used this approach to successfully accelerate their infrastructure delivery. So have parts of Europe.
Done properly, asset recycling allows governments to build more critical public assets, sooner and without increasing net debt. The Golden Rule should be that we don’t sell assets unless we are building new ones.
Similarly, the investment of private capital is not a threat to public outcomes when it is well structured. Globally, some of the most successful public investment vehicles operate on a commercial footing and invest alongside private partners. Singapore’s Temasek, for example, is wholly government-owned, but it operates independently, invests commercially and frequently co-invests with private capital to deliver long-term value for Singapore. Polling suggests the New Zealand public is already open to this idea – and ahead of where politicians seem comfortable. Election year gives all parties the opportunity to pitch something different that’ll benefit the whole country.
The lesson is not about copying any one model wholesale, but about being open to blended approaches that in a time of significant balance sheet pressure, can stretch public dollars further and get projects built faster, allowing the public to enjoy the benefits earlier. Christopher Luxon could consider talking up those benefits, rather than simply saying, “asset sales”. He needs to be more sophisticated in his policy thinking and explanation.
While the parties will naturally wish to differentiate themselves this year, the one who wins power in 2026 could set up a fund and show an original approach to building and renewing our assets. If successful, that will last for decades. The infrastructure pressures we face will be solved, over time, through practical and pragmatic approaches, not ideological ones. To sell down some publicly owned farmland that is giving taxpayers a terrible return or to build a hospital that is needed in a provincial area should not be a hill any politician is prepared to die on.
The use of public-private-partnerships is another area where bipartisanship is important but remains elusive. PPPs are not a silver bullet to our 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. When ruled out on principle, we narrow our options at precisely the moment we need more flexibility.
The real risk as we head into the election is a return to the bad old habits of infrastructure politics – knee-jerk, headline-grabbing, with glossy unfunded project announcements that unravel as soon as government rigour is applied to them. That approach may gain short-term political attention, but it costs New Zealand in the long run.
Bipartisanship on infrastructure is possible. We are closer to it than we have been in decades. 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. Then take their hands off and let the system get on and build quality infrastructure – for the benefit of the whole country.
Catch up on the debates that dominated the week by signing up to our Opinion newsletter – a weekly round-up of our best commentary.