Every party. Eight asks. On the record.

1. 1.1

   New Zealand needs a long-term national economic ambition that names its priority growth sectors and the infrastructure needed to support them.

   Somewhat agree
2. 1.2

   Once set, that ambition should align infrastructure, investment and policy settings across government behind its priority growth sectors.

   Somewhat agree
3. 1.3

   New Zealand’s long-term economic ambition should be developed through a national economic compact that brings together government, business, iwi, unions, local government and communities to agree shared economic priorities.

   Neutral
4. 1.4

   Parliament should establish a cross-party Infrastructure Group to build lasting, cross-term consensus behind the ambition.

   Strongly agree

In their words

Achieving genuine economic prosperity is the great challenge driving the National Party. We have spent the past three years undertaking a significant reform programme to fix the underlying, systemic issues holding our country back. Our approach is to create an enabling economy that says “yes” more often so that all sectors – including those where New Zealand has a competitive advantage, like abundant renewable energy – can succeed.

Our new planning system is a once in a generation opportunity unleash [sic] growth. Our education reforms will enable Kiwi kids to reach their full potential. Our Going for Housing Growth policy will improve housing affordability and unlock productivity. And our competitive business settings like Investment Boost will lead to more jobs, higher wages, and better living standards. Together these changes will set New Zealand up for success in the 2030s and beyond.

National didn’t just reform – we delivered. This term, we started construction on over $20 billion worth of central government funded infrastructure, delivered over 1,600 new classrooms and 8,500 net new social homes. Eight hospital renewals and rebuilds are currently underway and six Roads of National Significance will be under construction by early 2027.

This is on top of over 30 projects approved through Fast-track which has been used by iwis, businesses, local government, central government, and communities all across the country.

National will keep the momentum going.

1. 2.1

   A 12-year infrastructure programme, covering both asset maintenance and new growth-enabling projects, should be legislated.

   Neutral
2. 2.2

   The Public Finance Act should be amended to enable government to commit to a funding envelope for the programme of up to 12 years.

   Somewhat disagree
3. 2.3

   Projects should be independently assessed and ranked on consistent cost-benefit grounds before entering the 12-year infrastructure programme.

   Strongly agree
4. 2.4

   Funding should only be committed to a project once its design and cost estimates are mature enough to be reliable.

   Strongly agree
5. 2.5

   The full programme, including which projects missed out on funding and why, should be tabled in Parliament.

   Somewhat disagree
6. 2.6

   The programme should be reviewed every three years, at the midpoint of each Parliamentary term, rather than reset with every change of government.

   Somewhat agree
7. 2.7

   Materially advanced infrastructure projects should not be cancelled without a transparent assessment of the sunk costs, cancellation costs, future restart costs and impacts on market capability.

   Neutral

In their words

Evidence from the Infrastructure Commission is clear – over the last 20 years, the share of our GDP invested in infrastructure has ranged from 5.0% to 6.5%, with an average of 5.8% across government and the private sector. This puts us in the top 10% of OCED [sic] countries for infrastructure spend.

The quantum of spend is not our problem, it’s how we spend our infrastructure dollar and what we spend it on. Over the last three years, National has led work on getting the basics right and building bipartisan consensus on how we plan, select, fund, finance, deliver, and look after our infrastructure. You can’t have a 12-year infrastructure programme (certainly not one that is legislated) without having robust, detailed, sector-specific plans.

Right now, we aren’t there. But we are putting the laws, rules, and settings in place that could get us there in time. This includes legislating for asset registers, asset management plans, and long-term capital plans; reforming the land transport funding and oversight system; shifting assurance for infrastructure projects to the independent Infrastructure Commission; creating a new assurance function for asset management plans and long-term plans; and setting capital allowances based on Kiwis’ infrastructure needs.

Fixing the fundamentals of our system is the single best thing we can do to build a pipeline of credible, value for money, and deliverable projects that endures political cycles.

1. 3.1

   A dedicated Growth Infrastructure Fund should be established to support growth-enabling infrastructure projects that can generate a financial or economic return, so its capital base is replenished and grows over time.

   Neutral
2. 3.2

   The Fund should be administered by an autonomous Crown entity, governed by a board with commercial investment and infrastructure experience.

   Neutral
3. 3.3

   The Fund should be capitalised through a mix of mechanisms, such as asset recycling, dedicated revenue streams, Crown contributions and infrastructure-related levies.

   Neutral
4. 3.4

   Proceeds generated by the Fund should be retained and reinvested in the Fund, rather than returned to general Crown expenditure.

   Neutral
5. 3.5

   Fund-supported projects should be assessed for PPPs, concessions, institutional investment or other partnership models, to identify the best way to pay for and deliver them.

   Neutral

In their words

When it comes to funding our infrastructure, National’s view is that we need to make better use of demand management tools (e.g., water meters, time-of-use pricing) and user-pays tools (e.g., tolling) to help pay for network/economic infrastructure. We also need to make smarter choices when selecting infrastructure projects funded by taxpayers.

Public infrastructure in New Zealand has historically been primarily funded by taxpayers or ratepayers. But our reliance on this blunt approach has led to perverse outcomes including congestion, run-down assets, inefficient investment, and the unresponsive provision of enabling infrastructure to support growth.

National has progressed a significant amount of work so that local and central government have better tools for funding infrastructure and know how to use them. This includes Treasury’s Funding and Financing Framework, the refreshed Public Private Partnership blueprint, the improved Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act, and the new Development Levies system. In particular, we have made significant progress on funding tools in transport including more flexible tolling rules, exploring toll concessions, passing time-of-use charging legislation, and transitioning New Zealand’s entire vehicle fleet to Road User Charges.

1. 4.1

   The Public Finance Act should be amended to mandate asset management for all public agencies, including asset registers, lifecycle plans, performance monitoring and renewal strategies.

   Strongly agree
2. 4.2

   A $100 million Strategic Asset Management Capability Fund should strengthen asset registers, data systems and lifecycle planning across central government, local government and council-controlled organisations.

   Strongly disagree
3. 4.3

   Resilience planning should be embedded as a core requirement of asset management, not treated as a separate exercise.

   Strongly agree
4. 4.4

   Asset management performance and capability uplift should be reflected in chief executives’ performance agreements and remuneration.

   Strongly agree
5. 4.5

   There should be a published annual asset management report that benchmarks agencies on their renewal investment against depreciation, asset condition, and asset performance.

   Strongly agree

In their words

National is the Party that made asset management sexy. Before we came into office, no one was talking about it, or it was only mentioned in passing. Now, arguably, asset management is front and centre.

Evidence from the Infrastructure Commission is clear – New Zealand should be spending 60 cents of every infrastructure dollar on maintaining and renewing existing assets. This is because the post-war assets built between the 1950s and 1990s are wearing out faster than they are being replaced and – if we are honest with ourselves – we’ve done asset management poorly in the public sector for decades. Crown agencies and entities need to treat asset management as core business because it is core business, not a ‘nice to have’ with a contestable fund.

Over the last three years, the National-led Government has progressed a comprehensive asset management work programme including Asset Management Guidance and Performance Indicators published by the Infrastructure Commission, a public sector Community of Practice to boost capability, and the Government’s commitment to introduce legislative requirements in the Public Finance Act 1989 for asset registers and asset management plans.

1. 5.1

   New Zealand’s infrastructure agencies should be reviewed to ensure they are fit for purpose, fulfilling the right roles and coordinating effectively across the system.

   Strongly agree
2. 5.2

   A dedicated central procurement and delivery entity, with genuine commercial infrastructure expertise, should lead procurement and delivery for all projects over $50 million.

   Somewhat disagree
3. 5.3

   Quarterly, independent reporting on infrastructure delivery performance should be published, including cost, schedule, achievement of milestones and how quickly approved funding is put to work.

   Strongly agree

In their words

Successive governments of all stripes and Crown agencies/entities have a lot to answer for when it comes to the state of our infrastructure system and its performance, especially capital-intensive agencies and Treasury. National is up for greater scrutiny.

Setting up a dedicated central procurement and delivery entity for all projects over $50 million would most likely have the unintended consequence of grinding central government projects to a halt in the short-to medium-term. Having one agency deliver everything from roads to hospitals, schools, courts, police stations, defence accommodation, and social housing could be more disruptive, costly, and complicated than the theoretical gains. Any consolidation of delivery functions should be carefully thought through and subject to robust advice.

National does however agree that there is merit in considering dedicated (potentially consolidated) infrastructure delivery agencies separate from policy functions, like the New Zealand School Property Agency. The Government also has Crown Infrastructure Delivery which delivers projects for central government agencies that don’t deliver as BAU.

National strongly agrees on receiving and publishing high quality investment information. This term, National markedly improved Treasury’s Quarterly Investment Reporting (QIR) which, among other metrics, outlines how much spend is going out the door; the ratio of agencies’ actual versus planned expenditure; contract conversion; and a summary of high-profile, high-risk projects in delivery. QIR is proactively released on Treasury’s website.

1. 6.1

   Councils should have access to new locally-retained revenue tools to fund growth infrastructure, for example value capture, congestion charging, visitor levies, a bed/accommodation levy, targeted rates, or a share of GST.

   Somewhat agree
2. 6.2

   Long-term funding agreements should be available to cities and regions and tied to agreed growth and reform outcomes, such as city or regional deals.

   Somewhat agree
3. 6.3

   New Zealand should review the balance of decision-making between central and local government, with a view to devolving greater powers and responsibilities to cities and regions.

   Somewhat agree

In their words

The National-led Government has progressed, improved, or introduced several revenue tools for local government. We have introduced the $400 million Incentives for Growth Fund, where all councils will be rewarded for every dwelling consented; legislated to enable time-of-use charging; and provided funding to the regions through the Regional Infrastructure Fund, including around $200 million for flood protection.

In terms of improving tools – we have made the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act much more workable for councils and developers, and – most critically – we have done significant work on replacing the failed development contributions regime with a development levies system that will enable councils to properly recover the costs of growth.

In addition, we are campaigning on an International Visitor Levy reset, which will give councils a direct return from the visitors they host, including to help them pay for infrastructure pressures.

National wants to work more effectively with local government too, which is why we campaigned on City and Regional Deals in 2023. So far, we have signed deals with Auckland and Western Bay of Plenty, with more to say soon.

Within the context of the new planning system – which will be effects-based, embrace standardised zoning, and be far more permissive and enabling – we are also open to devolving greater powers and responsibilities to cities and regions.

1. 7.1

   New Zealand should have a Minister for Water, with clear Cabinet-level accountability for delivery and ongoing implementation of water reform.

   Somewhat disagree
2. 7.2

   A Water Chief Engineer role should provide independent technical leadership, national design standards and coordination across water entities.

   Somewhat disagree
3. 7.3

   A Water Ombudsman should resolve unresolved customer complaints, advocate for consumers and provide independent dispute resolution alongside the Commerce Commission’s regulatory oversight.

   Somewhat disagree
4. 7.4

   Water service entities should be subject to price-quality and performance regulation, backed by a mandatory five-year independent review of the Commerce Commission’s water regulatory regime.

   Somewhat agree

In their words

Local Water Done Well (LWDW) is delivering. Every mainland council has an approved Water Service Delivery Plan. Five new water organisations are currently operating and 13 more launch within the next year, which will serve 75% of New Zealanders. The Minister of Local Government is the Minister responsible for water services and holds Cabinet accountability.

Strong regulatory discipline has also been built into LWDW from the start, with the Commerce Commission in charge of regulating water organisations. From February 2026, the Commission has had information disclosures in place and from 2027 it will have revenue ringfencing. Price-quality regulation, performance regulation (which has been imposed on Tiaki Wai for the next 10 years), complaints reporting, a service quality code, and mandated dispute resolution are also available through regulations. In addition, since April 1, 2025, Watercare has operated under an interim charter that includes maximum annual revenue allowances, service quality standards, and pricing requirements.

The Water Services Authority is setting national engineering and wastewater standards.

1. 8.1

   New Zealand’s renewable energy advantage should be unlocked as a priority for national economic growth and prosperity.

   Strongly agree
2. 8.2

   New Zealand should have a long-term National Energy Plan that aligns infrastructure investment, generation development and industrial growth with national economic objectives.

   Neutral
3. 8.3

   New Zealand needs a deliberate, long-term demand-side energy policy, with settings and incentives that drive electrification and growth in demand for renewable energy.

   Somewhat agree
4. 8.4

   Energy policy and regulation should enable investment in generation and network capacity ahead of demand, so energy supply can keep pace as demand grows.

   Strongly agree

In their words

National is focused on delivering secure, affordable energy for all New Zealanders. In a more volatile world, energy security is economic security. Labour’s reckless oil and gas ban left us short of gas and paying more for power. We scrapped it, introduced a suite of new and improved National Direction to boost the delivery of infrastructure and renewables, and fast-tracked eight major renewable projects so far – totalling nearly 990 MW of new generation capacity, which is enough to power approximately 322,000 households annually.

Taking a step back, National has helped unleash the biggest renewables boom in a generation.

Our vision is abundant energy of every kind, with renewables firmed by gas and strategic reserves, so a dry year is managed, not a crisis. Stronger competition under National is already putting downward pressure on bills, and this is what National remains focused on.

1. 1.1

   New Zealand needs a long-term national economic ambition that names its priority growth sectors and the infrastructure needed to support them.

   Strongly agree
2. 1.2

   Once set, that ambition should align infrastructure, investment and policy settings across government behind its priority growth sectors.

   Strongly agree
3. 1.3

   New Zealand’s long-term economic ambition should be developed through a national economic compact that brings together government, business, iwi, unions, local government and communities to agree shared economic priorities.

   Strongly agree
4. 1.4

   Parliament should establish a cross-party Infrastructure Group to build lasting, cross-term consensus behind the ambition.

   Strongly agree

In their words

Labour’s plan is about backing New Zealand’s potential and creating secure, well-paid jobs here at home. Our first-term focus areas include productive industries, clean and affordable energy, skills and technology adoption, and modern, resilient infrastructure. The New Zealand Future Fund is the first step, and we will work in partnership with business, iwi, unions and communities. Infrastructure is too important to be a political football. Labour has committed to a genuinely collaborative, bipartisan process that brings the opposition, local government and business into the room, rather than every party taking a different project list to each election.

1. 2.1

   A 12-year infrastructure programme, covering both asset maintenance and new growth-enabling projects, should be legislated.

   Neutral
2. 2.2

   The Public Finance Act should be amended to enable government to commit to a funding envelope for the programme of up to 12 years.

   Neutral
3. 2.3

   Projects should be independently assessed and ranked on consistent cost-benefit grounds before entering the 12-year infrastructure programme.

   Somewhat agree
4. 2.4

   Funding should only be committed to a project once its design and cost estimates are mature enough to be reliable.

   Somewhat agree
5. 2.5

   The full programme, including which projects missed out on funding and why, should be tabled in Parliament.

   Somewhat agree
6. 2.6

   The programme should be reviewed every three years, at the midpoint of each Parliamentary term, rather than reset with every change of government.

   Somewhat agree
7. 2.7

   Materially advanced infrastructure projects should not be cancelled without a transparent assessment of the sunk costs, cancellation costs, future restart costs and impacts on market capability.

   Somewhat agree

In their words

Cancelling and restarting projects with every change of government has cost New Zealand dearly in delays, blown-out budgets and lost skills. Labour won’t repeat that stop-start cycle. Aside from the proposed LNG import terminal, a Labour Government will honour infrastructure that is contracted, underway and already funded. We backed the National Infrastructure Plan as broadly the right path, and want Crown projects to go through the Infrastructure Commission’s independent assurance process. Assessment should capture the full value of an investment, including resilience and wellbeing. Any longer-term funding commitments must sit within Labour’s Fiscal Strategy.

1. 3.1

   A dedicated Growth Infrastructure Fund should be established to support growth-enabling infrastructure projects that can generate a financial or economic return, so its capital base is replenished and grows over time.

   Somewhat agree
2. 3.2

   The Fund should be administered by an autonomous Crown entity, governed by a board with commercial investment and infrastructure experience.

   Somewhat agree
3. 3.3

   The Fund should be capitalised through a mix of mechanisms, such as asset recycling, dedicated revenue streams, Crown contributions and infrastructure-related levies.

   Somewhat disagree
4. 3.4

   Proceeds generated by the Fund should be retained and reinvested in the Fund, rather than returned to general Crown expenditure.

   Strongly agree
5. 3.5

   Fund-supported projects should be assessed for PPPs, concessions, institutional investment or other partnership models, to identify the best way to pay for and deliver them.

   Neutral

In their words

Labour’s New Zealand Future Fund will invest in infrastructure and innovative Kiwi businesses. It will be seeded with Crown assets plus an initial capital contribution. It will be independently governed by the Guardians of the Super Fund, with no ministerial power to direct individual investments. Seeded assets will be protected in law from sale, and dividends will be ring-fenced and reinvested to build national wealth. Labour opposes privatising strategic infrastructure. We will work alongside the private sector to get projects built, while keeping strategic assets in public hands.

1. 4.1

   The Public Finance Act should be amended to mandate asset management for all public agencies, including asset registers, lifecycle plans, performance monitoring and renewal strategies.

   Somewhat agree
2. 4.2

   A $100 million Strategic Asset Management Capability Fund should strengthen asset registers, data systems and lifecycle planning across central government, local government and council-controlled organisations.

   Neutral
3. 4.3

   Resilience planning should be embedded as a core requirement of asset management, not treated as a separate exercise.

   Strongly agree
4. 4.4

   Asset management performance and capability uplift should be reflected in chief executives’ performance agreements and remuneration.

   Neutral
5. 4.5

   There should be a published annual asset management report that benchmarks agencies on their renewal investment against depreciation, asset condition, and asset performance.

   Somewhat agree

In their words

Looking after what we already own is basic good government. New Zealanders deserve hospitals that don’t leak and schools that are warm and dry. Labour has backed the broad direction of the National Infrastructure Plan, which prioritises maintenance and renewals and calls for stronger asset management planning and reporting. Resilience must be built in from the start: extreme weather is becoming more frequent, and failing to prepare now will cost far more later. Any new funding, including a capability fund, would need to meet Labour’s commitment that every policy is fully costed and funded.

1. 5.1

   New Zealand’s infrastructure agencies should be reviewed to ensure they are fit for purpose, fulfilling the right roles and coordinating effectively across the system.

   Neutral
2. 5.2

   A dedicated central procurement and delivery entity, with genuine commercial infrastructure expertise, should lead procurement and delivery for all projects over $50 million.

   Neutral
3. 5.3

   Quarterly, independent reporting on infrastructure delivery performance should be published, including cost, schedule, achievement of milestones and how quickly approved funding is put to work.

   Somewhat agree

In their words

Labour’s focus is on getting things built, not another round of public sector restructuring every time the government changes. We want the Infrastructure Commission to play a stronger role, with Crown infrastructure going through its independent assurance process to give the sector confidence and certainty. Labour supports greater transparency, including an independent Parliamentary Budget Office to analyse the government’s books and every party’s commitments. We will also give small businesses a fairer shot at government contracts, including breaking up big contracts where it makes sense.

1. 6.1

   Councils should have access to new locally-retained revenue tools to fund growth infrastructure, for example value capture, congestion charging, visitor levies, a bed/accommodation levy, targeted rates, or a share of GST.

   Somewhat agree
2. 6.2

   Long-term funding agreements should be available to cities and regions and tied to agreed growth and reform outcomes, such as city or regional deals.

   Somewhat agree
3. 6.3

   New Zealand should review the balance of decision-making between central and local government, with a view to devolving greater powers and responsibilities to cities and regions.

   Neutral

In their words

Councils need sustainable funding for the responsibilities central government passes on to them. Labour supported the time-of-use charging legislation, and we’re happy to work with councils that want tools like a bed levy. That’s their decision, and they’re accountable to their communities for it. But Labour won’t impose new charges like tolling the existing Auckland Harbour Bridge to pay for a new crossing. We’ll work with local government as a genuine partner, including on a long-term Auckland infrastructure plan with bipartisan support. We’ll also back simplification that doesn’t cost communities their voice.

1. 7.1

   New Zealand should have a Minister for Water, with clear Cabinet-level accountability for delivery and ongoing implementation of water reform.

   Somewhat disagree
2. 7.2

   A Water Chief Engineer role should provide independent technical leadership, national design standards and coordination across water entities.

   Neutral
3. 7.3

   A Water Ombudsman should resolve unresolved customer complaints, advocate for consumers and provide independent dispute resolution alongside the Commerce Commission’s regulatory oversight.

   Somewhat agree
4. 7.4

   Water service entities should be subject to price-quality and performance regulation, backed by a mandatory five-year independent review of the Commerce Commission’s water regulatory regime.

   Somewhat agree

In their words

Fixing New Zealand’s ageing water infrastructure is a generational challenge, and Labour has long warned about the pressure it puts on rates. When in government, Labour legislated for Commerce Commission price-quality regulation of water services, a minimum service code and an independent consumer disputes resolution scheme. Strong consumer protections matter for households facing rising water bills. Labour has also committed to ending the stop-start cycle of wholesale policy reversals. Our focus is on making sure water services are safe, affordable and properly regulated, and we’ll work with councils and the sector on the right settings.

1. 8.1

   New Zealand’s renewable energy advantage should be unlocked as a priority for national economic growth and prosperity.

   Strongly agree
2. 8.2

   New Zealand should have a long-term National Energy Plan that aligns infrastructure investment, generation development and industrial growth with national economic objectives.

   Somewhat agree
3. 8.3

   New Zealand needs a deliberate, long-term demand-side energy policy, with settings and incentives that drive electrification and growth in demand for renewable energy.

   Somewhat agree
4. 8.4

   Energy policy and regulation should enable investment in generation and network capacity ahead of demand, so energy supply can keep pace as demand grows.

   Strongly agree

In their words

New Zealand can be a renewable-energy superpower, creating skilled regional jobs, strengthening energy security and helping bring down power bills. Labour’s first-term focus will be to accelerate renewable generation and storage, so the benefits of cleaner, more affordable energy are shared more widely. SolarSaver will help more households, renters and communities harness the sun by reducing upfront barriers to solar and battery technology. Labour will oppose costly choices that risk locking New Zealand into imported fossil fuels, and will expect major new electricity users to contribute fairly to the renewable infrastructure they require. Labour’s full energy policy will be released ahead of the election.

1. 1.1

   New Zealand needs a long-term national economic ambition that names its priority growth sectors and the infrastructure needed to support them.

   Strongly agree
2. 1.2

   Once set, that ambition should align infrastructure, investment and policy settings across government behind its priority growth sectors.

   Strongly agree
3. 1.3

   New Zealand’s long-term economic ambition should be developed through a national economic compact that brings together government, business, iwi, unions, local government and communities to agree shared economic priorities.

   Strongly agree
4. 1.4

   Parliament should establish a cross-party Infrastructure Group to build lasting, cross-term consensus behind the ambition.

   Somewhat agree

In their words

Any long term direction must make climate mitigation and adaptation a priority in order to be relevant. Priority growth sectors cannot come at the expense of climate or biodiversity, or they will not serve us long term. Iwi, communities, local government and government are essential partners for long term consensus about the direction of our country. Business can particiate [sic], but we would not want large incumbants [sic] to have more voice than SMEs, startups, and public sector organisations.

1. 2.1

   A 12-year infrastructure programme, covering both asset maintenance and new growth-enabling projects, should be legislated.

   Somewhat agree
2. 2.2

   The Public Finance Act should be amended to enable government to commit to a funding envelope for the programme of up to 12 years.

   Somewhat agree
3. 2.3

   Projects should be independently assessed and ranked on consistent cost-benefit grounds before entering the 12-year infrastructure programme.

   Strongly agree
4. 2.4

   Funding should only be committed to a project once its design and cost estimates are mature enough to be reliable.

   Somewhat agree
5. 2.5

   The full programme, including which projects missed out on funding and why, should be tabled in Parliament.

   Strongly agree
6. 2.6

   The programme should be reviewed every three years, at the midpoint of each Parliamentary term, rather than reset with every change of government.

   Strongly agree
7. 2.7

   Materially advanced infrastructure projects should not be cancelled without a transparent assessment of the sunk costs, cancellation costs, future restart costs and impacts on market capability.

   Somewhat agree

In their words

The full impact on (and costs) of greenhouse gas emissions, fossil fuels, and climate adaptation, as well as public health impacts of projects should be included in the benefit cost analysis and assesmement [sic] of cancellation costs. Cost benefit analysis needs to take an evidenced-based approach to forecasting greenhouse gas impacts.

1. 3.1

   A dedicated Growth Infrastructure Fund should be established to support growth-enabling infrastructure projects that can generate a financial or economic return, so its capital base is replenished and grows over time.

   Somewhat agree
2. 3.2

   The Fund should be administered by an autonomous Crown entity, governed by a board with commercial investment and infrastructure experience.

   Somewhat agree
3. 3.3

   The Fund should be capitalised through a mix of mechanisms, such as asset recycling, dedicated revenue streams, Crown contributions and infrastructure-related levies.

   Somewhat disagree
4. 3.4

   Proceeds generated by the Fund should be retained and reinvested in the Fund, rather than returned to general Crown expenditure.

   Somewhat agree
5. 3.5

   Fund-supported projects should be assessed for PPPs, concessions, institutional investment or other partnership models, to identify the best way to pay for and deliver them.

   Strongly disagree

In their words

The Green Party is sceptical about the abillity [sic] of PPPs to provide value for the public. It has proven difficult to fully transfer the risk to the private partner when it comes to delivery of public infrastructure, especially with regard to new highways but also wastewater treatment plants, like Moa Point. In most cases, Crown borrowing and more conventional procurement will be more affordable and mean quicker delivery, because PPPs involve a lot of contract negotiation and take longer to procure.

1. 4.1

   The Public Finance Act should be amended to mandate asset management for all public agencies, including asset registers, lifecycle plans, performance monitoring and renewal strategies.

   Strongly agree
2. 4.2

   A $100 million Strategic Asset Management Capability Fund should strengthen asset registers, data systems and lifecycle planning across central government, local government and council-controlled organisations.

   Strongly agree
3. 4.3

   Resilience planning should be embedded as a core requirement of asset management, not treated as a separate exercise.

   Strongly agree
4. 4.4

   Asset management performance and capability uplift should be reflected in chief executives’ performance agreements and remuneration.

   Strongly agree
5. 4.5

   There should be a published annual asset management report that benchmarks agencies on their renewal investment against depreciation, asset condition, and asset performance.

   Strongly agree

No written answer to this section.

1. 5.1

   New Zealand’s infrastructure agencies should be reviewed to ensure they are fit for purpose, fulfilling the right roles and coordinating effectively across the system.

   Strongly agree
2. 5.2

   A dedicated central procurement and delivery entity, with genuine commercial infrastructure expertise, should lead procurement and delivery for all projects over $50 million.

   Strongly agree
3. 5.3

   Quarterly, independent reporting on infrastructure delivery performance should be published, including cost, schedule, achievement of milestones and how quickly approved funding is put to work.

   Strongly agree

No written answer to this section.

1. 6.1

   Councils should have access to new locally-retained revenue tools to fund growth infrastructure, for example value capture, congestion charging, visitor levies, a bed/accommodation levy, targeted rates, or a share of GST.

   Strongly agree
2. 6.2

   Long-term funding agreements should be available to cities and regions and tied to agreed growth and reform outcomes, such as city or regional deals.

   Strongly agree
3. 6.3

   New Zealand should review the balance of decision-making between central and local government, with a view to devolving greater powers and responsibilities to cities and regions.

   Strongly agree

In their words

The Green Party has always championed local decision making and properly funding local government.

1. 7.1

   New Zealand should have a Minister for Water, with clear Cabinet-level accountability for delivery and ongoing implementation of water reform.

   Somewhat agree
2. 7.2

   A Water Chief Engineer role should provide independent technical leadership, national design standards and coordination across water entities.

   Somewhat agree
3. 7.3

   A Water Ombudsman should resolve unresolved customer complaints, advocate for consumers and provide independent dispute resolution alongside the Commerce Commission’s regulatory oversight.

   Somewhat agree
4. 7.4

   Water service entities should be subject to price-quality and performance regulation, backed by a mandatory five-year independent review of the Commerce Commission’s water regulatory regime.

   Somewhat agree

No written answer to this section.

1. 8.1

   New Zealand’s renewable energy advantage should be unlocked as a priority for national economic growth and prosperity.

   Strongly agree
2. 8.2

   New Zealand should have a long-term National Energy Plan that aligns infrastructure investment, generation development and industrial growth with national economic objectives.

   Strongly agree
3. 8.3

   New Zealand needs a deliberate, long-term demand-side energy policy, with settings and incentives that drive electrification and growth in demand for renewable energy.

   Strongly agree
4. 8.4

   Energy policy and regulation should enable investment in generation and network capacity ahead of demand, so energy supply can keep pace as demand grows.

   Strongly agree

In their words

https://www.greens.org.nz/manifesto_2026

1. 1.1

   New Zealand needs a long-term national economic ambition that names its priority growth sectors and the infrastructure needed to support them.

   Somewhat agree
2. 1.2

   Once set, that ambition should align infrastructure, investment and policy settings across government behind its priority growth sectors.

   Somewhat agree
3. 1.3

   New Zealand’s long-term economic ambition should be developed through a national economic compact that brings together government, business, iwi, unions, local government and communities to agree shared economic priorities.

   Somewhat disagree
4. 1.4

   Parliament should establish a cross-party Infrastructure Group to build lasting, cross-term consensus behind the ambition.

   Neutral

In their words

ACT supports getting the settings right so people and businesses can invest and build with confidence. That means removing unnecessary regulatory and planning barriers, providing better infrastructure procurement, funding and financing tools, and ensuring core infrastructure can be planned and delivered responsively as demand and expected growth emerge.

ACT does not support governments picking winners by deciding which industries or sectors should grow and directing policy and infrastructure investment accordingly. Get the settings right and let the market decide where the opportunities are.

1. 2.1

   A 12-year infrastructure programme, covering both asset maintenance and new growth-enabling projects, should be legislated.

   Somewhat disagree
2. 2.2

   The Public Finance Act should be amended to enable government to commit to a funding envelope for the programme of up to 12 years.

   Somewhat disagree
3. 2.3

   Projects should be independently assessed and ranked on consistent cost-benefit grounds before entering the 12-year infrastructure programme.

   Somewhat agree
4. 2.4

   Funding should only be committed to a project once its design and cost estimates are mature enough to be reliable.

   Strongly agree
5. 2.5

   The full programme, including which projects missed out on funding and why, should be tabled in Parliament.

   Neutral
6. 2.6

   The programme should be reviewed every three years, at the midpoint of each Parliamentary term, rather than reset with every change of government.

   Neutral
7. 2.7

   Materially advanced infrastructure projects should not be cancelled without a transparent assessment of the sunk costs, cancellation costs, future restart costs and impacts on market capability.

   Strongly agree

In their words

ACT supports greater long-term certainty but does not consider a fully funded 12-year programme realistic. Governments will legitimately disagree about priorities, fiscal constraints will change, and new information and competing opportunities will emerge.

The better driver of continuity is robust and transparent system settings that drive value for money and therefore make political interruption harder to justify. That means prioritised asset management, disciplined cost-benefit analysis, mature costings, independent assurance, and visibility of opportunity costs. This focus is broadly reflected in ACT’s transport policy.

1. 3.1

   A dedicated Growth Infrastructure Fund should be established to support growth-enabling infrastructure projects that can generate a financial or economic return, so its capital base is replenished and grows over time.

   Somewhat agree
2. 3.2

   The Fund should be administered by an autonomous Crown entity, governed by a board with commercial investment and infrastructure experience.

   Neutral
3. 3.3

   The Fund should be capitalised through a mix of mechanisms, such as asset recycling, dedicated revenue streams, Crown contributions and infrastructure-related levies.

   Somewhat agree
4. 3.4

   Proceeds generated by the Fund should be retained and reinvested in the Fund, rather than returned to general Crown expenditure.

   Somewhat agree
5. 3.5

   Fund-supported projects should be assessed for PPPs, concessions, institutional investment or other partnership models, to identify the best way to pay for and deliver them.

   Strongly agree

In their words

With the right structure, a hypothecated fund has some merit where it helps protect infrastructure funding from being redirected to other priorities. The right structure means ensuring Crown capital is working as effectively as possible – for example, there is a legitimate question about whether taxpayers need capital tied up in businesses such as Quotable Value when New Zealand faces significant infrastructure needs.

Responsibility for any such fund should sit in the most appropriate place within a rationalised public service, with strong commercial expertise and the ability to bring in private capital, PPPs, and other partnership approaches.

1. 4.1

   The Public Finance Act should be amended to mandate asset management for all public agencies, including asset registers, lifecycle plans, performance monitoring and renewal strategies.

   Strongly agree
2. 4.2

   A $100 million Strategic Asset Management Capability Fund should strengthen asset registers, data systems and lifecycle planning across central government, local government and council-controlled organisations.

   Somewhat disagree
3. 4.3

   Resilience planning should be embedded as a core requirement of asset management, not treated as a separate exercise.

   Strongly agree
4. 4.4

   Asset management performance and capability uplift should be reflected in chief executives’ performance agreements and remuneration.

   Somewhat agree
5. 4.5

   There should be a published annual asset management report that benchmarks agencies on their renewal investment against depreciation, asset condition, and asset performance.

   Strongly agree

In their words

ACT supports clear requirements on infrastructure agencies to understand asset condition, maintenance and renewal needs, backed by transparent reporting and accountability. Agencies cannot credibly make the case for new capital investment while allowing existing assets to deteriorate through poor stewardship.

ACT has supported existing Government work progressing stronger long-term investment and asset-management requirements and independent assurance. The focus should be on embedding those disciplines and holding agencies to them.

1. 5.1

   New Zealand’s infrastructure agencies should be reviewed to ensure they are fit for purpose, fulfilling the right roles and coordinating effectively across the system.

   Strongly agree
2. 5.2

   A dedicated central procurement and delivery entity, with genuine commercial infrastructure expertise, should lead procurement and delivery for all projects over $50 million.

   Somewhat agree
3. 5.3

   Quarterly, independent reporting on infrastructure delivery performance should be published, including cost, schedule, achievement of milestones and how quickly approved funding is put to work.

   Strongly agree

In their words

ACT has helped deliver significant improvements this term, including rationalising the infrastructure and investment management system, establishing NIFFCo, and strengthening independent assurance over infrastructure-intensive agencies.

ACT remains focused on stronger scrutiny of major projects and their scope—that is clearly reflected in our transport policy, which would require major projects to publish the lowest-cost safe option alongside the preferred option so additional scope must demonstrate additional value. ACT wants to address the lacking Crown project-management function and capability needed to scrutinise scope consistently across major projects.

1. 6.1

   Councils should have access to new locally-retained revenue tools to fund growth infrastructure, for example value capture, congestion charging, visitor levies, a bed/accommodation levy, targeted rates, or a share of GST.

   Somewhat agree
2. 6.2

   Long-term funding agreements should be available to cities and regions and tied to agreed growth and reform outcomes, such as city or regional deals.

   Somewhat agree
3. 6.3

   New Zealand should review the balance of decision-making between central and local government, with a view to devolving greater powers and responsibilities to cities and regions.

   Somewhat agree

In their words

ACT has long supported equipping councils to better deliver on strategic priorities within a clear, tight mandate focused on the basics, including by leaving them with more of the revenues generated in their own areas. ACT’s City & Regional Deal and GST-sharing policies were included in the Coalition Agreement, and have largely been delivered through the Government’s City & Regional Deals framework and Incentives for Growth Fund.

Government takes enough through the likes of GST and the International Visitor Levy without layering on things like bed taxes.

1. 7.1

   New Zealand should have a Minister for Water, with clear Cabinet-level accountability for delivery and ongoing implementation of water reform.

   Somewhat disagree
2. 7.2

   A Water Chief Engineer role should provide independent technical leadership, national design standards and coordination across water entities.

   Neutral
3. 7.3

   A Water Ombudsman should resolve unresolved customer complaints, advocate for consumers and provide independent dispute resolution alongside the Commerce Commission’s regulatory oversight.

   Somewhat disagree
4. 7.4

   Water service entities should be subject to price-quality and performance regulation, backed by a mandatory five-year independent review of the Commerce Commission’s water regulatory regime.

   Somewhat agree

In their words

ACT supports clear accountability, strong technical capability and effective consumer protection in water services, but does not support adding to New Zealand’s government spaghetti junction with bespoke Ministers and new institutions for every issue.

ACT wants to rationalise government and get the settings right so existing functions are performed properly, rather than treating additional layers of bureaucracy as a solution.

1. 8.1

   New Zealand’s renewable energy advantage should be unlocked as a priority for national economic growth and prosperity.

   Somewhat agree
2. 8.2

   New Zealand should have a long-term National Energy Plan that aligns infrastructure investment, generation development and industrial growth with national economic objectives.

   Somewhat disagree
3. 8.3

   New Zealand needs a deliberate, long-term demand-side energy policy, with settings and incentives that drive electrification and growth in demand for renewable energy.

   Strongly disagree
4. 8.4

   Energy policy and regulation should enable investment in generation and network capacity ahead of demand, so energy supply can keep pace as demand grows.

   Strongly agree

In their words

ACT’s objective is abundant, reliable and affordable energy. We support settings that make it easier to invest in generation and networks, including removing planning and connection barriers, opening transmission to private investment, and ensuring networks can respond to credible growth in demand.

ACT takes an agnostic approach to technologies and industries: government should not centrally plan which should grow or engineer demand to produce a preferred mix. Get the settings right and let investors and consumers respond. Network investment should anticipate credible demand where justified, but demonstrate value for money against alternatives such as batteries, flexible connections and demand response.

1. 1.1

   New Zealand needs a long-term national economic ambition that names its priority growth sectors and the infrastructure needed to support them.

   Strongly agree
2. 1.2

   Once set, that ambition should align infrastructure, investment and policy settings across government behind its priority growth sectors.

   Strongly agree
3. 1.3

   New Zealand’s long-term economic ambition should be developed through a national economic compact that brings together government, business, iwi, unions, local government and communities to agree shared economic priorities.

   Strongly agree
4. 1.4

   Parliament should establish a cross-party Infrastructure Group to build lasting, cross-term consensus behind the ambition.

   Strongly agree

In their words

NZ First prioritizes wealth creation and long-term economic strategy over short-term political cycles. As set out in our 2023 Coalition Agreement, we established a National Infrastructure Agency to coordinate government funding, connect investors, and prioritize regional and national projects of significance. We also champion a binding 30-Year Population Plan to align long-term infrastructure investment directly with national population targets, natural growth, and critical skill needs.

1. 2.1

   A 12-year infrastructure programme, covering both asset maintenance and new growth-enabling projects, should be legislated.

   Strongly agree
2. 2.2

   The Public Finance Act should be amended to enable government to commit to a funding envelope for the programme of up to 12 years.

   Strongly agree
3. 2.3

   Projects should be independently assessed and ranked on consistent cost-benefit grounds before entering the 12-year infrastructure programme.

   Strongly agree
4. 2.4

   Funding should only be committed to a project once its design and cost estimates are mature enough to be reliable.

   Strongly agree
5. 2.5

   The full programme, including which projects missed out on funding and why, should be tabled in Parliament.

   Strongly agree
6. 2.6

   The programme should be reviewed every three years, at the midpoint of each Parliamentary term, rather than reset with every change of government.

   Strongly agree
7. 2.7

   Materially advanced infrastructure projects should not be cancelled without a transparent assessment of the sunk costs, cancellation costs, future restart costs and impacts on market capability.

   Strongly agree

In their words

NZ First opposes political whim and wasteful expenditure in infrastructure. We cancelled projects like Auckland Light Rail and Let’s Get Wellington Moving to refocus capital on proven, cost-effective infrastructure like the Heavy Rail spur to Auckland Airport and 13 Roads of National Significance. We support rigorous, independent cost-benefit analysis and transparent multi-year funding pipelines to ensure taxpayers get real value and regional New Zealand receives resilient, long-term infrastructure.

1. 3.1

   A dedicated Growth Infrastructure Fund should be established to support growth-enabling infrastructure projects that can generate a financial or economic return, so its capital base is replenished and grows over time.

   Strongly agree
2. 3.2

   The Fund should be administered by an autonomous Crown entity, governed by a board with commercial investment and infrastructure experience.

   Strongly agree
3. 3.3

   The Fund should be capitalised through a mix of mechanisms, such as asset recycling, dedicated revenue streams, Crown contributions and infrastructure-related levies.

   Strongly agree
4. 3.4

   Proceeds generated by the Fund should be retained and reinvested in the Fund, rather than returned to general Crown expenditure.

   Strongly agree
5. 3.5

   Fund-supported projects should be assessed for PPPs, concessions, institutional investment or other partnership models, to identify the best way to pay for and deliver them.

   Strongly agree

In their words

NZ First has a proven track record of creating hypothecated regional growth vehicles, from the $3 billion Provincial Growth Fund to the new $1.2 billion Regional Infrastructure Fund established in our 2023 Coalition Agreement. We strongly support leveraging private, institutional, and state capital such as directing NZ Super Fund investments into domestic infrastructure, to build wealth-generating assets without privatizing strategic state assets.

1. 4.1

   The Public Finance Act should be amended to mandate asset management for all public agencies, including asset registers, lifecycle plans, performance monitoring and renewal strategies.

   Strongly agree
2. 4.2

   A $100 million Strategic Asset Management Capability Fund should strengthen asset registers, data systems and lifecycle planning across central government, local government and council-controlled organisations.

   Strongly agree
3. 4.3

   Resilience planning should be embedded as a core requirement of asset management, not treated as a separate exercise.

   Strongly agree
4. 4.4

   Asset management performance and capability uplift should be reflected in chief executives’ performance agreements and remuneration.

   Strongly agree
5. 4.5

   There should be a published annual asset management report that benchmarks agencies on their renewal investment against depreciation, asset condition, and asset performance.

   Strongly agree

In their words

NZ First believes maintaining existing assets is as critical as building new ones. We prioritize resilience across our roading, rail, water, and energy networks. Amending the Public Finance Act to enforce asset management and lifecycle planning aligns with our commitment to open, accountable government. We support dedicated capability funding and benchmarking to ensure public agencies treat infrastructure as long-term national investments rather than depreciating liabilities.

1. 5.1

   New Zealand’s infrastructure agencies should be reviewed to ensure they are fit for purpose, fulfilling the right roles and coordinating effectively across the system.

   Strongly agree
2. 5.2

   A dedicated central procurement and delivery entity, with genuine commercial infrastructure expertise, should lead procurement and delivery for all projects over $50 million.

   Strongly agree
3. 5.3

   Quarterly, independent reporting on infrastructure delivery performance should be published, including cost, schedule, achievement of milestones and how quickly approved funding is put to work.

   Strongly agree

In their words

In the 2023 Coalition Agreement, NZ First championed establishing a National Infrastructure Agency to centralize procurement, connect global/local investors, and oversee project delivery. We are committed to removing bureaucratic bottlenecks by replacing the RMA with streamlined planning legislation and establishing a ministerial fast-track one-stop-shop consenting process for regional and national projects of significance to deliver projects on time and within budget.

1. 6.1

   Councils should have access to new locally-retained revenue tools to fund growth infrastructure, for example value capture, congestion charging, visitor levies, a bed/accommodation levy, targeted rates, or a share of GST.

   Strongly agree
2. 6.2

   Long-term funding agreements should be available to cities and regions and tied to agreed growth and reform outcomes, such as city or regional deals.

   Strongly agree
3. 6.3

   New Zealand should review the balance of decision-making between central and local government, with a view to devolving greater powers and responsibilities to cities and regions.

   Strongly agree

In their words

NZ First believes regional New Zealand generates the nation’s wealth and deserves a fair share of infrastructure investment. We support returning 50% of Crown mineral royalties to regions of source, exploring local revenue-sharing tools, and eliminating double-taxation like GST on rates. Regional deals and long-term central-local funding partnerships ensure councils can support growth without overburdening local ratepayers.

1. 7.1

   New Zealand should have a Minister for Water, with clear Cabinet-level accountability for delivery and ongoing implementation of water reform.

   Somewhat agree
2. 7.2

   A Water Chief Engineer role should provide independent technical leadership, national design standards and coordination across water entities.

   Strongly agree
3. 7.3

   A Water Ombudsman should resolve unresolved customer complaints, advocate for consumers and provide independent dispute resolution alongside the Commerce Commission’s regulatory oversight.

   Strongly agree
4. 7.4

   Water service entities should be subject to price-quality and performance regulation, backed by a mandatory five-year independent review of the Commerce Commission’s water regulatory regime.

   Strongly agree

In their words

NZ First repealed Three Waters co-governance to restore democratic local control and replaced Te Mana o te Wai in RMA planning to balance environmental health with the practical needs of communities and productive sectors. Through the Regional Infrastructure Fund, we are slashing red tape on regional water storage, irrigation, managed aquifer recharge, and flood protection schemes, while re-establishing local Catchment Boards to manage stream resilience.

1. 8.1

   New Zealand’s renewable energy advantage should be unlocked as a priority for national economic growth and prosperity.

   Somewhat agree
2. 8.2

   New Zealand should have a long-term National Energy Plan that aligns infrastructure investment, generation development and industrial growth with national economic objectives.

   Strongly agree
3. 8.3

   New Zealand needs a deliberate, long-term demand-side energy policy, with settings and incentives that drive electrification and growth in demand for renewable energy.

   Strongly agree
4. 8.4

   Energy policy and regulation should enable investment in generation and network capacity ahead of demand, so energy supply can keep pace as demand grows.

   Strongly agree

In their words

NZ First views energy security as a fundamental pillar of national sovereignty. In coalition, we committed to doubling renewable electricity generation and facilitating net-metering for distributed solar. To protect Kiwis from power shortages and cost-of-living spikes, we restarted offshore gas exploration as a transitional fuel, established a Fuel Security Plan, and are exploring strategic geological hydrogen and Marsden Point refinery opportunities.

1. 1.1

   New Zealand needs a long-term national economic ambition that names its priority growth sectors and the infrastructure needed to support them.

   Strongly agree
2. 1.2

   Once set, that ambition should align infrastructure, investment and policy settings across government behind its priority growth sectors.

   Somewhat agree
3. 1.3

   New Zealand’s long-term economic ambition should be developed through a national economic compact that brings together government, business, iwi, unions, local government and communities to agree shared economic priorities.

   Strongly agree
4. 1.4

   Parliament should establish a cross-party Infrastructure Group to build lasting, cross-term consensus behind the ambition.

   Strongly agree

In their words

Te Pāti Māori understands that access to infrastructure is key toward unlocking economic opportunities across our remote and rural communities.We agree that developing a long-term National Economic Growth Strategy that aligns infrastructure, investment and policy settings behind shared national objectives and opportunities for current and future generations. Te Pāti Māori is not anti-growth – we are anti exclusion and anti-inequity. The local, regional and national experiences of tangata whenua with infrastructure in Aotearoa is sobering; often the subject of land confiscation “for the greater good of the nation/region”.

While there can be scepticism within Māori communities about infrastructure development, Māori communities also understand that accessible infrastructure is also key toward ensuring whānau can remain on their kāinga, particularly where their kāinga reside across our remote and rural areas.

1. 2.1

   A 12-year infrastructure programme, covering both asset maintenance and new growth-enabling projects, should be legislated.

   Somewhat agree
2. 2.2

   The Public Finance Act should be amended to enable government to commit to a funding envelope for the programme of up to 12 years.

   Somewhat agree
3. 2.3

   Projects should be independently assessed and ranked on consistent cost-benefit grounds before entering the 12-year infrastructure programme.

   Somewhat agree
4. 2.4

   Funding should only be committed to a project once its design and cost estimates are mature enough to be reliable.

   Somewhat agree
5. 2.5

   The full programme, including which projects missed out on funding and why, should be tabled in Parliament.

   Strongly agree
6. 2.6

   The programme should be reviewed every three years, at the midpoint of each Parliamentary term, rather than reset with every change of government.

   Strongly agree
7. 2.7

   Materially advanced infrastructure projects should not be cancelled without a transparent assessment of the sunk costs, cancellation costs, future restart costs and impacts on market capability.

   Strongly agree

In their words

While we agree that cost-benefit analyses should be conducted to inform decision-making, we do not accept that a pure fiscal analysis alone will be sufficient toward developing and realising the benefits of infrastructure. As above, our starting position is that Te Tiriti and equity analyses should also inform decision-making in order to safeguard and protect against inequities across communities of interest.

Te Pāti Māori also agrees that accountability and transparency reporting– including to Parliament – is critical over the long-term so that communities have greater certainty and clarity of infrastructure development across their local and regional areas.

1. 3.1

   A dedicated Growth Infrastructure Fund should be established to support growth-enabling infrastructure projects that can generate a financial or economic return, so its capital base is replenished and grows over time.

   Somewhat agree
2. 3.2

   The Fund should be administered by an autonomous Crown entity, governed by a board with commercial investment and infrastructure experience.

   Somewhat agree
3. 3.3

   The Fund should be capitalised through a mix of mechanisms, such as asset recycling, dedicated revenue streams, Crown contributions and infrastructure-related levies.

   Strongly agree
4. 3.4

   Proceeds generated by the Fund should be retained and reinvested in the Fund, rather than returned to general Crown expenditure.

   Strongly agree
5. 3.5

   Fund-supported projects should be assessed for PPPs, concessions, institutional investment or other partnership models, to identify the best way to pay for and deliver them.

   Somewhat agree

In their words

Te Pāti Māori is cautious about governance boards which comprise commercial discipline alone and the potential for slide toward privatisation. For balance, our view is that strong commercial discipline obligations and expertise should also be matched with competency in Te Tiriti o Waitangi, Kaitiakitanga and mātauranga Māori as a collective responsibility of the boards.

Regarding mixed funding mechanisms; we agree that a range of tools and mechanisms should be explored to ensure funding certainty of infrastructure projects nationwide, noting inequities across our regions. We also believe that those hapū and iwi who express an interest in contributing toward and partnering on infrastructure development should be enabled as a part of rangatiratanga over their rohe/takiwā.

1. 4.1

   The Public Finance Act should be amended to mandate asset management for all public agencies, including asset registers, lifecycle plans, performance monitoring and renewal strategies.

   Somewhat agree
2. 4.2

   A $100 million Strategic Asset Management Capability Fund should strengthen asset registers, data systems and lifecycle planning across central government, local government and council-controlled organisations.

   Somewhat agree
3. 4.3

   Resilience planning should be embedded as a core requirement of asset management, not treated as a separate exercise.

   Strongly agree
4. 4.4

   Asset management performance and capability uplift should be reflected in chief executives’ performance agreements and remuneration.

   Somewhat agree
5. 4.5

   There should be a published annual asset management report that benchmarks agencies on their renewal investment against depreciation, asset condition, and asset performance.

   Strongly agree

In their words

Te Pāti Māori agrees that greater transparency reporting and oversight across the system is conducive toward better decision-making. Therefore, we agree that primary legislation (Public Finance Act) should be amended to enable this. Agencies and chief executives should also be required to report on asset management performance that is publicly available.

We also wholeheartedly agree with integration of resilience planning with asset management in order to combat and guard against the looming threats of climate change.

1. 5.1

   New Zealand’s infrastructure agencies should be reviewed to ensure they are fit for purpose, fulfilling the right roles and coordinating effectively across the system.

   Strongly agree
2. 5.2

   A dedicated central procurement and delivery entity, with genuine commercial infrastructure expertise, should lead procurement and delivery for all projects over $50 million.

   Strongly agree
3. 5.3

   Quarterly, independent reporting on infrastructure delivery performance should be published, including cost, schedule, achievement of milestones and how quickly approved funding is put to work.

   Somewhat agree

In their words

Te Pāti Māori supports a whole-of-system approach and review of how infrastructure is developed and delivered in Aotearoa.

We agree that leadership from central government as stewards across many overlapping systems is critical toward ensuring a joined-up approach to infrastructure, including through realising the benefits that come with economies of scale and greater borrowing power.

1. 6.1

   Councils should have access to new locally-retained revenue tools to fund growth infrastructure, for example value capture, congestion charging, visitor levies, a bed/accommodation levy, targeted rates, or a share of GST.

   Somewhat agree
2. 6.2

   Long-term funding agreements should be available to cities and regions and tied to agreed growth and reform outcomes, such as city or regional deals.

   Neutral
3. 6.3

   New Zealand should review the balance of decision-making between central and local government, with a view to devolving greater powers and responsibilities to cities and regions.

   Somewhat agree

In their words

We agree that a range of tools and mechanisms should be explored and made available to councils to ensure funding certainty of infrastructure projects nationwide, noting inequities across our regions. We also believe that those hapū and iwi who express an interest in contributing toward and partnering on infrastructure development should be enabled as a part of rangatiratanga over their rohe/takiwā.

While our starting position is that local solutions should be promoted in order to realise the benefits of infrastructure development, Te Pāti Māori is of the view that some kind of “back-stop” must exist at a more strategic, nationwide-level; meaning that central government would continue to play a role. This is important given that all citizens is [sic] Aotearoa are still owed obligations by the State, including infrastructure provision and access to critical lifeline services.

1. 7.1

   New Zealand should have a Minister for Water, with clear Cabinet-level accountability for delivery and ongoing implementation of water reform.

   Strongly agree
2. 7.2

   A Water Chief Engineer role should provide independent technical leadership, national design standards and coordination across water entities.

   Strongly agree
3. 7.3

   A Water Ombudsman should resolve unresolved customer complaints, advocate for consumers and provide independent dispute resolution alongside the Commerce Commission’s regulatory oversight.

   Strongly agree
4. 7.4

   Water service entities should be subject to price-quality and performance regulation, backed by a mandatory five-year independent review of the Commerce Commission’s water regulatory regime.

   Strongly agree

In their words

We agree that clear Cabinet-level accountability for delivery and ongoing implementation of water reform is critical toward tackling strategic, nation-wide challenges in developing and delivering water infrastructure.

As a part of transparency reporting and oversight, we also agree with and are open to exploring options for a Water Ombudsman armed with the necessary powers required to provide regulatory oversight.

We wholeheartedly agree that the Commerce Commission must play a role in regulating water, including specific equity considerations on pricing between communities; particularly remote and rural communities who are generally underserved by water infrastructure and services.

1. 8.1

   New Zealand’s renewable energy advantage should be unlocked as a priority for national economic growth and prosperity.

   Strongly agree
2. 8.2

   New Zealand should have a long-term National Energy Plan that aligns infrastructure investment, generation development and industrial growth with national economic objectives.

   Strongly agree
3. 8.3

   New Zealand needs a deliberate, long-term demand-side energy policy, with settings and incentives that drive electrification and growth in demand for renewable energy.

   Somewhat agree
4. 8.4

   Energy policy and regulation should enable investment in generation and network capacity ahead of demand, so energy supply can keep pace as demand grows.

   Somewhat agree

In their words

Te Pāti Māori’s recently announced energy policy outlines our commitment to an integrated national energy plan.

Our energy policy sets out our bottom-line commitment to transitioning toward renewable energy and to become the first fully-electrified country in the world.

Our key point of difference on energy is that our Te Pāti Māori energy policy is grounded in energy sovereignty and devolution through Māori, local and community ownership of energy infrastructure.

1. 1.1

   New Zealand needs a long-term national economic ambition that names its priority growth sectors and the infrastructure needed to support them.

   Somewhat agree
2. 1.2

   Once set, that ambition should align infrastructure, investment and policy settings across government behind its priority growth sectors.

   Strongly agree
3. 1.3

   New Zealand’s long-term economic ambition should be developed through a national economic compact that brings together government, business, iwi, unions, local government and communities to agree shared economic priorities.

   Somewhat agree
4. 1.4

   Parliament should establish a cross-party Infrastructure Group to build lasting, cross-term consensus behind the ambition.

   Somewhat agree

In their words

Opportunity supports establishing a clear national growth trajectory by putting Te Waihanga’s 30-year National Infrastructure Plan into law. De-politicising long-term planning through an independent Te Waihanga ensures sector alignment survives political cycles.

1. 2.1

   A 12-year infrastructure programme, covering both asset maintenance and new growth-enabling projects, should be legislated.

   Strongly agree
2. 2.2

   The Public Finance Act should be amended to enable government to commit to a funding envelope for the programme of up to 12 years.

   Strongly agree
3. 2.3

   Projects should be independently assessed and ranked on consistent cost-benefit grounds before entering the 12-year infrastructure programme.

   Strongly agree
4. 2.4

   Funding should only be committed to a project once its design and cost estimates are mature enough to be reliable.

   Strongly agree
5. 2.5

   The full programme, including which projects missed out on funding and why, should be tabled in Parliament.

   Strongly agree
6. 2.6

   The programme should be reviewed every three years, at the midpoint of each Parliamentary term, rather than reset with every change of government.

   Strongly agree
7. 2.7

   Materially advanced infrastructure projects should not be cancelled without a transparent assessment of the sunk costs, cancellation costs, future restart costs and impacts on market capability.

   Strongly agree

In their words

We must end the practice of running 50-year public assets on 3-year political cycles. Opportunity’s policy locks Te Waihanga’s 30-year plan into legislation and requires a public Bill in Parliament to cancel major infrastructure projects over $250 million. Crucially, our policy also mandates that 60% of public infrastructure investment is protected for maintenance and renewals. Deferring maintenance is simply off-balance-sheet borrowing that compounds costs for future generations.

1. 3.1

   A dedicated Growth Infrastructure Fund should be established to support growth-enabling infrastructure projects that can generate a financial or economic return, so its capital base is replenished and grows over time.

   Strongly agree
2. 3.2

   The Fund should be administered by an autonomous Crown entity, governed by a board with commercial investment and infrastructure experience.

   Strongly agree
3. 3.3

   The Fund should be capitalised through a mix of mechanisms, such as asset recycling, dedicated revenue streams, Crown contributions and infrastructure-related levies.

   Strongly agree
4. 3.4

   Proceeds generated by the Fund should be retained and reinvested in the Fund, rather than returned to general Crown expenditure.

   Somewhat agree
5. 3.5

   Fund-supported projects should be assessed for PPPs, concessions, institutional investment or other partnership models, to identify the best way to pay for and deliver them.

   Somewhat agree

In their words

Opportunity proposes raising up to $60 billion over 10 years through a dedicated Infrastructure Fund, utilizing sovereign Crown debt rates to keep interest costs under 1% of GDP rather than relying on expensive private financing models. To ensure long-term solvency and fairness, we support empowering councils and delivery entities with targeted user-pays tools—including value capture, congestion pricing, visitor levies, and development contributions—so that beneficiaries contribute directly to capital costs

1. 4.1

   The Public Finance Act should be amended to mandate asset management for all public agencies, including asset registers, lifecycle plans, performance monitoring and renewal strategies.

   Strongly agree
2. 4.2

   A $100 million Strategic Asset Management Capability Fund should strengthen asset registers, data systems and lifecycle planning across central government, local government and council-controlled organisations.

   Somewhat agree
3. 4.3

   Resilience planning should be embedded as a core requirement of asset management, not treated as a separate exercise.

   Strongly agree
4. 4.4

   Asset management performance and capability uplift should be reflected in chief executives’ performance agreements and remuneration.

   Strongly agree
5. 4.5

   There should be a published annual asset management report that benchmarks agencies on their renewal investment against depreciation, asset condition, and asset performance.

   Strongly agree

In their words

New Zealand ranks last among 33 OECD nations for maintaining existing infrastructure assets. Public agencies running major assets without comprehensive asset registers is unacceptable management. Opportunity will enforce strict asset visibility and lifecycle planning across all Crown and local entities. By ring-fencing 60% of capital allocations for renewals and publishing 100-day, 12-month, and 3-year public scorecards, we will hold asset owners accountable for preventing structural decay.

1. 5.1

   New Zealand’s infrastructure agencies should be reviewed to ensure they are fit for purpose, fulfilling the right roles and coordinating effectively across the system.

   Strongly agree
2. 5.2

   A dedicated central procurement and delivery entity, with genuine commercial infrastructure expertise, should lead procurement and delivery for all projects over $50 million.

   Strongly agree
3. 5.3

   Quarterly, independent reporting on infrastructure delivery performance should be published, including cost, schedule, achievement of milestones and how quickly approved funding is put to work.

   Strongly agree

In their words

Capability, standardization, and procurement skills across central and local government must be systematically upgraded. Opportunity will elevate Te Waihanga into an empowered National Infrastructure Agency with mandate over project pipeline coordination, standard procurement frameworks, and delivery oversight. Independent quarterly performance reporting and public progress scorecards will drive commercial discipline, eliminate unnecessary redesigns, and ensure capital works are delivered on time and within budget.

1. 6.1

   Councils should have access to new locally-retained revenue tools to fund growth infrastructure, for example value capture, congestion charging, visitor levies, a bed/accommodation levy, targeted rates, or a share of GST.

   Strongly agree
2. 6.2

   Long-term funding agreements should be available to cities and regions and tied to agreed growth and reform outcomes, such as city or regional deals.

   Strongly agree
3. 6.3

   New Zealand should review the balance of decision-making between central and local government, with a view to devolving greater powers and responsibilities to cities and regions.

   Somewhat agree

In their words

Local government currently bears the heavy load of growth infrastructure while central government captures the majority of resulting tax revenue. Opportunity will rebalance this by providing councils with capital grants alongside new locally-retained revenue mechanisms—including congestion pricing, value capture around transport nodes, visitor levies, and targeted rates, as well as a share of GST on high quality new builds. This guarantees sustainable local funding without pushing regional ratepayers to breaking point.

1. 7.1

   New Zealand should have a Minister for Water, with clear Cabinet-level accountability for delivery and ongoing implementation of water reform.

   Neutral
2. 7.2

   A Water Chief Engineer role should provide independent technical leadership, national design standards and coordination across water entities.

   Somewhat agree
3. 7.3

   A Water Ombudsman should resolve unresolved customer complaints, advocate for consumers and provide independent dispute resolution alongside the Commerce Commission’s regulatory oversight.

   Somewhat agree
4. 7.4

   Water service entities should be subject to price-quality and performance regulation, backed by a mandatory five-year independent review of the Commerce Commission’s water regulatory regime.

   Somewhat agree

In their words

Addressing New Zealand’s massive three waters deficit requires structural balance-sheet separation and long-term financial capability. Opportunity favours independent, arms-length technical oversight under an expanded Te Waihanga framework rather than creating new Cabinet portfolios. We support Commerce Commission price-quality regulation to protect consumers, enforce rigorous asset condition reporting, and ensure water providers systematically fund asset renewals.

1. 8.1

   New Zealand’s renewable energy advantage should be unlocked as a priority for national economic growth and prosperity.

   Strongly agree
2. 8.2

   New Zealand should have a long-term National Energy Plan that aligns infrastructure investment, generation development and industrial growth with national economic objectives.

   Strongly agree
3. 8.3

   New Zealand needs a deliberate, long-term demand-side energy policy, with settings and incentives that drive electrification and growth in demand for renewable energy.

   Strongly agree
4. 8.4

   Energy policy and regulation should enable investment in generation and network capacity ahead of demand, so energy supply can keep pace as demand grows.

   Strongly agree

In their words

Abundant, low-cost renewable energy is New Zealand’s ultimate competitive advantage. Opportunity’s energy strategy focuses on accelerating generation and grid capacity ahead of demand, streamlining consenting for clean generation, and supporting rapid industrial and transport electrification. Unlocking clean energy security lowers operating costs for businesses, reduces household cost-of-living pressures, and powers sustainable long-term economic growth.