New Zealand Government’s Plan to Transform Infrastructure and Asset Management by 2030

Good morning, everyone.

I’d like to thank Murray Pugh and the team at Apōpō for hosting this event and inviting me to speak.

I’d also like to acknowledge our international friends from the Global Forum for Maintenance and Asset Management, and World Partners in Asset Management including members from Japan, France, Canada, the UK, and South Africa. It’s great to be speaking with you. I’m sorry I couldn’t be there in person – last minute plane changes.

I remember dialling into Apōpō’s annual conference in Christchurch last year. Now, I’m not trying to make this a tradition/habit, and if I’m still around next year, it would be great to see you all in person.

Last year, I announced the Government’s work programme to improve infrastructure asset management and performance. Today, I want to give you an update on this work.

Then, I want to make a small announcement on advancing better corridor management and underground asset data.

But before I get into it, I want to go over the once-in-a-generation reform programme this Government is driving across planning, housing, earthquake-prone building laws, construction materials, education, infrastructure funding and financing, and more.

This Government is driving real change.

It’s clear to me that previous Governments of all flavours have put tough issues like poor asset maintenance, poor infrastructure performance, and low productivity in the too-hard basket.

Even worse – some Governments have irresponsibly thrown billions at problems or projects instead of fixing the fundamentals.

But I’m not going to do that.

And that’s not what this Government is about.

Achieving genuine economic prosperity is the great challenge driving this Government.

New Zealand is nowhere near as wealthy as we sometimes like to think we are.

Currently, our GDP per capita, on a purchasing power parity basis, is about the same as Slovenia, Lithuania, Poland, and the Czech Republic. Now, they went through 40 years of communism.

Our great challenge as a country is how we lift our long run growth rate and productivity – which are main determinants of prosperity.

And that is what we are tackling through fixing underlying systemic failures that have accumulated and festered over the last 10 to 30 years.

We are putting in a new planning system to replace the failed Resource Management Act once and for all. This is projected to save $13.3 billion in administrative and compliance costs over the next 30 years and increase GDP by at least 0.56 per cent annually by 2050.

Our new planning system is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to unleash growth. We are making the most of this by progressing Local Government reforms, and establishing the Ministry of Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport (MCERT). The intention here is to ensure both local and central governments are easier to work with.

23 projects have been granted consent under our Fast-Track legislation – including three in the Waikato – representing thousands of jobs and billions in investment.

In infrastructure funding and financing, we are making it easier for cities to grow both up and out through tools where growth pays for growth. This includes updating the Infrastructure Financing Act so that greenfield developers can get economically viable projects off the ground without being held back by council debt limits and balance sheets. We are also replacing the failed Development Contributions regime with Development Levies – a new flexible funding and financing tool to match our new flexible planning system.

In education, we are reversing the 30-year experiment on our kids of pretending that basic knowledge and facts don’t matter. We’re restoring standards, teaching the basics, and focusing on achievement. Minister Stanford has significantly reduced the cost of a classroom – down from $1.2m to as low as $620k.

We are also reversing wealth destructive earthquake prone building legislation, opening-up competition in building materials, and tackling joint and several liability.

We’re finally sorting the Holidays Act. And major reforms are underway to employment law and health and safety.

Now, these changes don’t happen overnight, nor are their benefits felt immediately.

This approach isn’t about ‘sugar hit’ economics, and, although it’s not always popular, it’s the right thing to do.

The changes we are making are foundational, beneficial shifts to our economy that we should have implemented years ago.

They will set the country up for long-term success.

I truly believe that if we follow through with these reforms, the 2030s will be New Zealand’s decade.

It’s important we get on with fixing our infrastructure system and fixing our country.

Asset Management Work Programme Now, I’ll go over where we are at on our central government asset management work programme.

The objective of this programme is to provide safer and more reliable infrastructure services to New Zealanders; and to achieve better value for money by making the most of what we have.

This work is taking place across two phases.

Phase 1 is about providing clarity on what ‘good’ looks like and ensuring that there are better tools and guidance to help central government agencies succeed.

Phase 2 is about driving more fundamental changes to system settings.

Phase 1 Phase 1 is largely complete and was rolled out in 2025. It includes: •    The Infrastructure Commission’s Public Investment Management Assessment of New Zealand.•    Detailed asset management guidance from the Commission, which was released in December last year.   •    And a Community of Practice for public service asset management professionals, which the Commission and Apōpō run together.As part of Phase 1, the Government committed to investigating the feasibility of a National Underground Asset Register.

More on that soon.

Phase 2 Now, Phase 2 will largely be informed by the Government’s response to the National Infrastructure Plan, which was publicly released in February this year.

The Plan has 16 recommendations, and 10 priorities for the decade ahead.

When it comes to asset management, the Commission makes it clear that New Zealand has lots of work to do.

This case for change is supported by international findings that we rank fourth to last in the OECD for asset management.

To drive better infrastructure performance, the Commission makes several recommendations to strengthen central government’s Investment Management System (IMS) including: •    Strengthening the Public Finance Act to require agencies to periodically develop proper long-term investment and asset management plans.•    Strengthening reporting requirements to lift transparency over asset management outcomes and spending and maintenance and renewals. •    Establishing oversight and independent review or audit requirements for asset management and investment planning and performance. •    Explicitly incorporating assessments of bottom-up infrastructure needs, including spending on asset management and renewals, into fiscal strategies.•    And strengthening incentives for better asset management practice by, for example, linking investment decision making to agency asset management capability or ringfencing depreciation funding.  We have already taken steps to improve the IMS by strengthening assurance for central government-funded infrastructure – ahead of the Government’s formal response to the Plan in June.

Strengthening Investor Assurance Since coming into Government, the Minister of Finance and I have been concerned by the quality of information provided on infrastructure including what we own and its condition, the forward investment pipeline, assurance on individual projects and programmes, and agency performance.

When it comes to assurance, there are multiple project review tools across the investment system that serve slightly different purposes and have different assessors, information requirements, reporting formats, and outputs.

However, none of these tools provide Ministers with unapologetically strong, clear, and actionable assurance that is focused on substance – as opposed to bureaucracy – so that we can make well-informed investment decisions.

We want experts to give us their free and frank advice; is it a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’?

Instead, it seems the modus operandi is to let investments move through the system and let bad projects gain momentum – until it’s too late – wasting tens or hundreds of millions of taxpayer money on Business Cases and early design and feasibility work for phantom projects.

Multiple assurance products like the Infrastructure Priorities Programme and Gateway Reviews are also causing duplication and overcomplication for both Ministers and agencies.

Put simply, there are too many assurance tools, but none of them do what is needed – support ministers to make good decisions.

This is alarming considering it’s Ministers who ultimately make these significant investment decisions. It’s clear change is needed.

So, Cabinet has agreed to strengthen assurance for central-government funded projects, with a focus on infrastructure.

This is being progressed through five changes.

Firstly, on 1 November 2026, we will transfer responsibility for providing external investment assurance on central-government-funded infrastructure proposals from the Treasury to the Infrastructure Commission. This will allow Government to leverage the Commission’s expertise and independence.

This means the Commission will analyse all major infrastructure investments funded by central government including hospitals, schools, prisons, courthouses, and more.

Treasury will continue to lead policy across the Investment Management System and provide holistic advice to Ministers on investments - including on prioritisation, sequencing and fiscals.

Secondly, Government has agreed to establish a formal assurance function for asset management and long-term investment plans, which will apply to capital-intensive central government agencies and other entities.

The Commission will be responsible for running the ruler over these plans, and the Treasury will be responsible for policy.

Thirdly, going forward, external investment assurance will be focused on what Ministers need to make good decisions on behalf of New Zealanders.

This means simplifying the external assurance space by consolidating existing products like the Commission’s Infrastructure Priorities Programme (IPP) and Treasury’s Gateway Review – taking the best elements of both.

Fourthly, for all Business Cases seeking Cabinet endorsement, Treasury will provide Ministers with a standardised Fitness Assessment that has holistic, high-quality information on proposals.

The assessment will also provide Ministers strategic advice by putting the project in context of the entity’s past performance and the fiscal landscape.

Lastly, to test the quality and credibility of investments, the Infrastructure and Investment Ministers Group will review High-Profile-High-Risk investments, and Long-Term Investment Plans before they go to Cabinet, and monitor delivery after decisions are made.

These changes directly respond to and accept recommendations 7, 8, and 9 in the Plan under the theme of, prioritising the right projects.

For Ministers, these changes mean they can confidently say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to projects and long-term investment plans – early – knowing that their decisions are informed by strong evidence and independent, expert advice.

For taxpayers, these changes mean more projects that meet their needs and represent good value for money. Stronger assurance can also be a tool for the public to hold Ministers to account. If a government funds a project that did not receive a favourable assessment, then that’s a good basis for scrutiny.

For the sector, these changes will mean less stopping and starting of projects as good projects rise to the top, and unrealistic, unfunded projects quickly sink to the bottom.

Of course, central government agencies will need to up their game on asset management plans, asset registers, data collection and reporting, monitoring the condition of assets, long-term investment plans – which likely means getting more capacity and capability in these areas.

The NIP recommends further changes here – so watch this space for the Government’s formal response next month. Now, I’ve heard concerns from agencies about lack of funding for these functions. From my perspective, good asset management is BAU. If agencies can’t fund it out of baselines, then they shouldn’t be infrastructure providers or asset owners.

Central Government holds regulated utilities, and local government to these standards, certainly a higher standard than it does itself, and it’s time that changed.

Government response to the Plan Just taking a step back – it’s important to note that the National Infrastructure Plan is a strategy document and is rightly produced independently from government.

As such, improving our infrastructure system and improving asset management will ultimately be implemented through the Government’s formal Response to the Plan.

Improving corridor management and underground asset data Another issue I have been keen to address is the co-ordination of the work of utility providers in transport corridors.

As I noted earlier, as part of Phase 1 of the Government’s asset management work programme, we are investigating the feasibility of a National Underground Asset Register.

So, last year, I commissioned an independent review from New Zealand Utilities Advisory Group (NZUAG) to investigate options to improve the planning, delivery, and management of work in infrastructure corridors – with a focus on the National Code of Practice for Utility Operators’ access to Transport Corridors.

Today, we are releasing NZUAG’s review.

I’d like to thank Jim Donovan and his team for their good work on this.

Overall, the review found that information on many underground assets is difficult to access, poor quality, or incomplete – and where it does exist, it is under shared.

This is creating disruption and costs that could have been avoided.

Three key costs stand out to me: •    There are 6,000 reported asset strikes annually in New Zealand, with the true number likely much higher. This has an estimated direct cost of $50 million per annum to the sector and generates $1.45 billion in indirect costs to New Zealanders through traffic delays and loss of utility services.•    Unknown assets found on site can also lead to delays and additional costs to the sector. These are estimated to impact anywhere between 4 to 50 percent of projects, creating an additional direct cost of $7 million to $92 million annually. •    Outdated information also creates costs. Design practices relying on outdated utility information are costing industry an estimated $165 million annually, as designers are re-digitising paper or PDF plans as part of the process. The review also found that a lack of works coordination is leading to more disruption in transport corridors than is necessary.

There are frequent examples of newly resurfaced roads being dug up for works soon after other works had just been completed.

I’m told each organisation tends to optimise its own work programme because there are poor incentives to co-plan. This speaks to a broader problem – the system has no teeth and compliance is weak.

The Review shows New Zealand is less developed than several international comparators, with heavier reliance on voluntary, sector-led arrangements.

Compliance with the Code relies largely on voluntary uptake, local interpretation, and relationship-based enforcement. NZUAG, who currently administers the Code, has very few mechanisms to verify data, compel reporting, or address persistent non-compliance.

It’s clear that New Zealand would benefit from a National Underground Asset Register.

BUT a tool like this will only be effective if:•    The register is populated with high-quality data, •    Utility operators and transport corridor managers use it, and – most importantly – •    The system adopts stronger leadership, process, rules, as well as enforcement and monitoring mechanisms to ensure works are better co-ordinated. This requires more fundamental changes beyond an Underground Asset Register.

Announcement Today, I am happy to announce that the Government is taking two initial actions to strengthen corridor management.

Firstly, we are establishing an active, central government system steward for corridor management.

From 1 July 2026, the new Ministry of Cities, Environment, Regions, and Transport (MCERT) will be the lead agency responsible for reviewing and administering the Utilities Access Act, and updating, monitoring, and enforcing the Code that sits underneath.

Secondly, through Budget 2026, MCERT has been given $2.5 million in operating funding to strengthen rules and requirements by reviewing and refreshing both the Utilities Access Act 2010, and the Code.

This funding has come from reprioritisation and is an example of what can be achieved within new organisations that share common functions.

As part of this work, MCERT will complete further policy analysis building on NZUAG’s independent review, and will explore the development of: •    A national utility locating standard, to provide a framework for the collection, classification, and communication of information about underground assets •    Transparency requirements, for example, making it mandatory to report on the number of asset strikes •    Stronger compliance powers, like introducing sanctions, penalties, and fines for non-compliance with the Code•    Compliance incentives, like making funding conditional on meeting rules and requirements•    Training and guidance, building on existing certification and training programmes•    Planned works coordination, by encouraging or mandating further uptake of the National Forward Works Viewer•    A National Underground Asset Register.It’s worth noting that the NZTA Board has already strengthened corridor management by making co-funding of transport projects conditional on the use and publication of a Road Controlling Authority’s Forward Works Programme.

NZTA has also adopted reporting requirements on the extent of works published on the Forward Works Viewer, with full publication expected by 30 September 2027.

This is a good start, but more can be done.

National Underground Asset Register Now, on the National Underground Asset Register – NZUAG’s review concluded that central government should develop one in partnership with the private sector.

However, both NZUAG and officials advise me that this is secondary to policy and potential legislative and regulatory changes in the system– including those to strengthen oversight and enforcement of Code obligations – which could incentivise greater adoption of existing asset register tools in the market.

I’m still keen to progress a register – or something that functions similarly, and I expect MCERT to consider this as part of its more fulsome review of the system.

Conclusion To finish, I’d like to thank Apōpō again for inviting me to speak.

Getting asset management right is one of my top priorities as Minister for Infrastructure.

It’s always a pleasure to get into the detail and progress what may seem like small changes in the scheme of things – but are actually extremely important shifts that will improve the lives of Kiwis through better infrastructure services and improved productivity across New Zealand.

Fixing the infrastructure system is a slow grind, but I’m committed to getting it done.

Thank you.