The foreword to the response, as one might expect, was penned by Minister for Infrastructure Chris Bishop. However, following that were equally as supportive statements by Labour’s infrastructure spokesman Kieran McAnulty and his Green Party counterpart Julie Anne Genter.
While the government and Opposition are not quite in lock-step on this issue they are, more or less, singing from the same song sheet.
Most importantly, the commission hoped for a bi-partisan approach to commissioning and building infrastructure, one which placed the country’s needs first and foremost rather than whatever the politically expedient need of the day was.
It appears to have got its wish.
Mr McAnulty said that while Labour and National would never agree on every minor detail, that was no reason to withhold support from the direction of travel.
‘‘The prize here is bigger than any single policy. This is a framework durable enough to survive changes of government, so the sector can plan, invest, train and hire with confidence.’’
Ms Genter’s support was more measured — the Greens support long-term investment in infrastructure, but predominantly with the eye towards decarbonisation.
‘‘Climate change cannot be treated as political football,’’ she said.
‘‘It is a reality that is already impacting existing infrastructure, and will shape our near and long-term energy, transport and water infrastructure needs.’’
Mr Bishop called that ‘‘the kind of mature approach to infrastructure that New Zealand needs and deserved’’; he said the government fully supported 13 of the commission’s recommendations and the other three in principle.
Among other things, the government will develop a 30-year National Infrastructure Plan; continue to support National Infrastructure Funding and Financing Limited (an investment portal for overseas infrastructure investment), improve education and health infrastructure and invest more in electrification.
The plan means more investment in roads, but it also means more spending on risk mitigation work such as stopbanks and other flood defences. It will also mean bringing water infrastructure up to scratch, although the expense of that alone will make that noble ambition problematic.
Other recommendations are already, broadly, under way. Parliament is considering Resource Management Act reform to improve the consenting framework — something that Labour has given some measure of cautious support for, albeit it still wants to see what devils may lie in the details.
The government is also in the throes of establishing MCERT — the Ministry of Cities, Environment, Regions, and Transport, a merger of various government departments, including the ministries of the environment and transport,.
Much of the management and oversight involved in making the plan a reality is anticipated to rest on its shoulders, and remains to be seen if it is up to such heavy lifting.
Something which must also be considered is the needs of provincial and rural New Zealand, and how to balance that against the big cities. Of the funded and unfunded projects in the National Infrastructure Pipeline, 40% of them are in Auckland — and probably fair enough too, given a third of New Zealanders live there.
However, a quarter of Kiwis call the South Island home, and just 11.6% of pipeline funding is destined for it. Otago and Southland combined receive 4.3%.
Yes, things are being built in the South — the new Dunedin hospital is the most obvious example of that — but healthcare is not the only vital infrastructure component needed.
New Zealand spends a lot on infrastructure – around 5.8% of GDP — but the OECD ranks the country fourth-last for asset management.
Mr Bishop said it is now up to all of us to do the hard work required to turn ambition into delivery. The multi-party commitment to the infrastructure plan is a good start.
