AM Edition: Top 10 Politics Articles on LiveNews.co.nz for April 22, 2026 – Full Text

Source: New Zealand Government

Good afternoon, everyone. 

I’d like to thank Raveen, Geoff and the entire team at the Infrastructure Commission for their hard work on the National Infrastructure Plan.

I’d also like to acknowledge His Worship, Mayor Wayne Brown; and Rt Honourable Helen Clark.

It’s great to see you here, because fixing New Zealand’s infrastructure system is going to take everyone, from government, to opposition, mayors, local authorities, infrastructure providers, and – quite frankly – all New Zealanders.

Today, I want to talk about:

• the realities of our poor performing infrastructure system
• work the Government has already done to fix the basics of our system – lots of which aligns with the independent Commission’s Plan, and
• building bipartisanship on the Plan.

Then, I am excited to announce decisions Cabinet has made to strengthen assurance for central government-funded infrastructure, ahead of our formal response to the Plan later this year in June.

This isn’t our first Plan, and it’s time to get on with it

Some of you may be thinking – “couldn’t you have waited a few more months before making these changes.”

Well, no.

I have been clear to officials that I want to get on with eminently sensible, evidence-backed recommendations in the NIP. 

It’s important to note that we have been here before. This is not New Zealand’s first Infrastructure Plan. It isn’t even our second or third.

We had plans in 2010, 2011, and 2015.

Some recommendations in these older plans are identical to those in the Commission’s Plan, like making better use of pricing tools and user-pays.

It’s clear previous Governments of all flavours have put issues like poor infrastructure performance, unaffordable housing, and low productivity in the too-hard basket.

Even worse – some Governments have irresponsibly thrown billions at problems or projects instead of focusing on 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 Slovakia, Lithuania, 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 this Government is 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 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) – to ensure both local and central governments are easier to work with. 

19 projects have been granted consent under our Fast-Track legislation representing thousands of jobs and billions in investment.

In housing, we have found a compromise on PC120 that enables abundant development opportunities and allows our biggest city to grow. And, importantly, grow in the right areas that enjoy broad support like around train-stations, busways, and the CBD. 

The evidence officials have provided to me suggests that landing an Auckland plan where you get upzoning around rapid transit stops and central city intensification, will be one of the most significant things we can do, not just for housing affordability, but economic prosperity more broadly. 

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 also driven the average cost of a classroom down from $1.2m to about $620k.

We are 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’ interventions, 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, the 2030s will be New Zealand’s decade.

I came to Parliament to help make our country more prosperous and wealthier, and for all Kiwis to have the opportunities that come from that prosperity. 

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

The Plan is a wake-up call 

Now, I want to get into the findings of the Plan.

Even before becoming Minister for Infrastructure, I regularly heard that: “what New Zealand needs is a long-term infrastructure plan that transcends political cycles”.

I agree – that’s why creating a 30-year Plan was a key campaign commitment for the National Party in 2023. 

Shortly after we came into government, I asked the independent Commission to begin work on this Plan. And now, it’s delivered. 

I’d like to again thank Raveen, Geoff, and the team for their hard work. 

This is not the Government’s Plan; it’s New Zealand’s Plan. 

This independence is crucial because it will take a sustained effort across governments to turn the infrastructure system around. 

I believe the Plan is a wake-up call for many New Zealanders.

The Commission has made a compelling case for change – we face significant challenges. 

• Firstly, we have an aging infrastructure stock as assets built in the post-war investment boom of the 1950s to the 1990s wear out.
• Secondly, we have a significant backlog of maintenance and renewals. 
• Thirdly, our demographics are changing, and we have an aging population.
• Fourthly, the risks and exposure we face from natural hazard events and global shocks will continue to increase. This is a challenge all New Zealanders have felt acutely over the past few months – whether that be through the conflict in Iran, leading to the increased fuel prices and further cost-of-living pressure; or the series of extreme weather events we have faced.

At the exact time we must face all these challenges, we also must face the reality that the systems we currently use to plan, fund, build, and maintain infrastructure are underperforming. 

New Zealand is in the top 10% of the OECD for infrastructure spending, but we are in the bottom 10% for what we get for our spend. 

We rank fourth to last in the OECD for asset management. 

Half of all capital-intensive central government agencies have reported that they do not have robust asset registers or adequate plans for looking after existing infrastructure.

And around half of all proposals for investment in the last five Budgets did not have complete business cases.

On top of this, Central Government agencies often don’t follow rules on basic investment management.  

Since coming into Government, I have also been concerned about the quality and completeness of information Ministers receive to make billion-dollar decisions.

Everyone experiences the flow on effects of our underperforming system including bad value for taxpayer money; funding gaps; over-scoped, gold-plated, palace projects; delays; cost overruns, and – often – worn-down and failing assets that don’t do their job.

I can rattle off too many examples of asset failures like leaky police stations, mouldy military homes, rotting classrooms, and in 2018, a hospital with raw sewage seeping into the asbestos-filled walls.

This is not what New Zealanders expect, and government needs to do better.

Because, we are fast approaching these great, complex infrastructure challenges, but we can’t even take care of BAU. 

I’m calling this the “infrastructure twin headwinds”. 

On one front we have exogenous challenges – things that we can’t easily change like our aging infrastructure assets or aging population. 

Then, on the other front we have underperforming systems and processes for how we plan, fund, build, and look after our infrastructure – which we can and will change.

Getting this right is a must, not a nice to have, if we are serious about growth and lifting the prosperity and living standards of all New Zealanders.

And I’m serious. 

Fixing the basics 

The Government has spent a lot of time in the last two years fixing the basics of our infrastructure system.

It’s encouraging that many of the Commission’s Top 10 Priorities reflect work already underway by the Government.

I’ll quickly touch on some of those. 

Lifting hospital investment for an ageing population – Health New Zealand now has a long-term capital infrastructure plan, and this Government is providing record investment in both capital and maintenance spending for health.

Implementing time-of-use charging and fleetwide road user charges – Legislation enabling time of use pricing was passed last year, and the government is working with Auckland Council on scheme options. We have also begun the transition to Electronic Road User Charges (E-RUC) across the transport fleet.

Prioritise adequate maintenance and renewals – Last year, the Government started work on a comprehensive asset management work programme. Phase 1 of the programme has already provided practical tools and guidance to agencies so that they can up their game. 

Phase 2 is about driving more fundamental change and is being informed by recommendations in Plan like those around legislating for proper asset management plans, asset registers, and performance reporting – as well as having those products independently audited. 

Additionally, in Budget 2025, we gave education significant ongoing additional depreciation funding to maintain and upgrade schools. 

Commit to a durable resource management framework – The Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill are in the House. We know some changes are needed to reflect this Government’s policy ambitions and to get the Bills right – and we are working away on that. We have also provided many briefings to the opposition, so that, where possible, we can build consensus. 

Commit to upzoning around key transport corridors – Through what seems like many trials and tribulations, the Government has landed a compromise on PC120 that enables abundant development opportunities, gives Auckland Council greater flexibility, and allows our biggest city to grow. Importantly, it ensures Auckland upzones and grows around key transport corridors like the 15 train stations that benefit from CRL, busways, and other rapid transit hubs.

These are also the areas that benefit from significant investment from Auckland Council and Watercare – including the central interceptor project, which will be finished later this year.  

I’m grateful to have an advocate of housing and urbanism in Mayor Wayne Brown who backs density like I do. 

On top of this, the Government has done a lot of work to improve data and transparency on infrastructure through strengthened Quarterly Investment Reporting. 

Now, each quarter we know key metrics, like how much spend is going out the door and the ratio of agencies’ actual versus planned expenditure. 

New Zealand has long struggled to turn funding into construction quickly, and the market has made it clear that they want higher quality information on upcoming construction activity. 

The improved QIR now makes it clear which agencies are behind.

The Minister of Finance and I have stressed to Portfolio Ministers the need for accurate reporting and forecasting. 

It’s early days, but this year we are already seeing a reduction in underspends. And we will continue to closely monitor this. 

All of this is a good start, but there is more work to do.

Bipartisanship on the Plan

I know many people are keen to see more bipartisanship in infrastructure. To the extent that that’s possible, I’m up for it. 

That’s why all parties in Parliament were offered briefings from the Commission on the Plan, and why we held a Special Debate on the Plan once it was finalised. 

I also intend to engage with other political parties in Parliament before finalising the Government’s formal response in mid-June. 

I can’t claim to speak for all parties, but I suspect that almost all projects underway right now are supported by everyone.

It’s the high profile and high-cost disagreements that make the headlines. But it’s the low profile and often low-cost projects that make New Zealand.

I’ve long held the view that we should move away from the rhetoric of needing a bipartisan pipeline and instead build bipartisan consensus on the idea that governments of all colours should use best practice to plan, select, fund and finance, deliver, and look after infrastructure.

Problems with infrastructure 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; 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 its Ministers who ultimately make these significant investment decisions. Its clear change is needed.

Today’s announcement on strengthening assurance 

So, today, I can announce that 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.

I know people will ask if this independent assurance applies to NZ Transport Agency projects.

The answer to that is yes, under certain circumstances. Independent assurance will apply to NZTA where funding for a project is sought from central government, outside of the National Land Transport Fund (NLTF). This goes for other entities too. 

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 when it comes to infrastructure, 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 Minister 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 Investment Minister Group will review High-Profile-High-Risk investments, and Long-Term Capital Plans before they go to Cabinet.

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 capital 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 questions and 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, and 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 – watch this space for the Government’s formal response in June.  

Now, I’ve heard concerns from agencies about “lack of funding” for these functions, but from my perspective things like 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.

Fuel crisis and transport 

Before wrapping up, it would be remiss of me not to address the Strait of Hormuz sized elephant in the room. 

The conflict in Iran has obviously impacted the transport portfolio. 

Top of mind for me are a couple of things including Public Transport (PT), and the Roads of National Significance programme. 

On PT – 80% of New Zealand’s bus fleet is diesel. So, in the context of diesel prices going through the roof, this has a flow on effect to the costs of providing PT.

We are working closely with Public Transport Authorities around exactly what those cost impacts are, and whether the Government needs to provide additional support. 

On the revenue side of things, people are driving less – price is working, price is the great rationing mechanism – and people are buying less fuel, so less revenue is flowing into the National Land Transport Fund. 

I’ve also been upfront that the 12-cent increase in petrol tax set for 1 January 2027, is unlikely to go ahead.

This combination will affect funding and delivery timelines for future transport projects. That’s just reality. 

Before the conflict, we were already in a challenging and constrained funding environment as outlined in the Plan. The conflict has made a difficult situation worse. 

We are working hard on a prioritisation exercise. 

There are 17 Roads of National Significance we are committed to, plus progress on the Second Harbour Crossing, plus progress on projects like North-West Rapid Transit and the Airport to Botany Busway. 

These can’t all be built at once – that was never going to happen. And they can’t all be funded at once. So, they were always a long-term pipeline of projects. 

So, we are just working on a prioritisation exercise around what the sequencing looks like over the next 20 years. 

Some projects are ready to go, others will be ready in the next three to five years, and others are off into the distance. 

What I hear from the sector and the public, is that they want a prioritised sequence out over the next few years. Part of the problem with this, is that we haven’t had a pipeline. 

And that’s what I am working very hard on and will have more to say on it shortly.

Conclusion

To finish, I’d like to thank the Infrastructure Commission for inviting me to speak and to congratulate you all on the Plan.

It was a massive effort, and from what I can tell it has been received well across government, the sector, and the public – which reflects your expertise, high-quality insights, and trust you have built since your establishment in 2019. 

I look forward to formally responding to the Plan in mid-June. Then, it will be up to all of us to turn the Plan into reality. 

Thank you.

MIL OSI

Source: New Zealand Government

High country farmers will soon be able to maximise their land use, unlocking economic opportunities and supporting job creation across regional New Zealand, Land Information Minister Mike Butterick says.

The Crown Land Legislation Amendment Bill has been introduced to Parliament today.

Mike Butterick says the Government has listened to the rural community and understand the status quo has placed constraints on pastoral leaseholders, limiting their ability to diversify and respond to changing market conditions.

“The proposed legislation will offer increased flexibility for secondary use activities, which contribute to economic growth and create new jobs.

“Proposals also recognise that other activities can be undertaken together with pastoral farming, and in a way that the inherent values of the unique environment are maintained or enhanced.

“Some of the activities which have been included in the Bill include farm shops selling products grown or reared on farm, hospitality ventures, arable and horticulture activities and renewable energy projects.

“The listed activities will offer leaseholders the opportunity to diversify their income and grow their businesses. Where this occurs, we know there is a flow-on effect to local businesses and communities who benefit. This is always a win/win situation.

“Administrative processes will be streamlined, reducing red tape and providing greater certainty for farmers as they plan for the future. These improvements are intended to let leaseholders focus on farming and innovation, rather than compliance.”

The Government will invite public input on the proposed changes through the Select Committee process.

Mike Butterick encourages all interested parties, including farmers, businesses, and members of the public to share their views and help shape the final legislation.

“The Government looks forward to working with stakeholders to realise the benefits of these progressive reforms.

“This legislation marks a new chapter for high country farming, underpinned by a commitment to economic growth, environmental stewardship, and strong rural communities.”

Note to editor: Legislation can be found here.

MIL OSI

Source: Radio New Zealand

Winston Peters was doing his best to quell concerns there were ructions in the coalition claiming the government was as stable as a “three-legged stool”.

The New Zealand First leader and both National’s leader and deputy all took turns in their Wednesday morning media slots to launch broadsides on their coalition partner before coming together in the afternoon at Parliament to say all was well and stability ensued.

It was Peters who kicked it off on Morning Report saying it would have been wise for Prime Minister Christopher Luxon to have told him he was planning to have a vote of confidence in his leadership at National’s caucus meeting on Tuesday.

Peters said the action was “unprecedented” and not one he supported, because it would have consequences.

Within an hour deputy leader Nicola Willis was on Morning Report saying Peters had a “track record of picking Labour over National, and that’s the risk you run with them”.

Luxon was next, using his weekly interview on Newstalk ZB’s The Country to say Peters was the person who put Dame Jacinda Ardern in charge of the country.

He accused his foreign affairs minister of trying to “scaremonger” and having an “anti-immigrant bias”.

By early afternoon, the ministers, on their way to Question Time, one-by-one declared the coalition was as strong as ever, while taking the opportunity for a potshot here and there.

Luxon said he didn’t need to tell Peters he was calling a motion of confidence in National’s caucus, because it wasn’t important enough to warrant it.

Peters’ argument was that under the no-surprises policy of the coalition agreement it would have been “wise” for Luxon to have given him a heads-up.

In response to that Luxon said, “Well, I just say Winston Peters isn’t backing an Indian FTA that’s delivering billions of dollars to the New Zealand people, and as a result, I don’t take all of his advice.”

Luxon added the two parties together with ACT delivered “strong stable government” and in the case of Peters, “we cooperate where we can and we differ where we must”.

Peters told reporters on his way into the House that he wasn’t worrying about Willis and Luxon saying there was a risk New Zealand First could go with Labour.

“We are actually just getting on and doing our job.”

On him having put Ardern into power, he said: “yeah I put Jim Bolger in power too, I put National in power. I put Helen Clark in power. I mean at the end of the day, it the deal that we did and we kept our word”.

He said the suggestion he was “anti-immigrant” was a “nonsense”.

And on whether he was a “mischief-maker” as Willis had claimed, Peters got the giggles as he declared, “I’ve been a most responsible son and boy doing my best all my young age – to call me a mischief-maker, that’s an outrage”.

Just across from him, Willis was at the same time doubling down on her earlier comments telling media it was a “statement of fact” that in 2017 “given the choice to support a strong National-lead government they chose to make Jacinda Ardern Prime Minister”.

“That’s a fact of history, and I’m simply reminding people of that fact.”

She added, when it came to New Zealand First you “won’t always get what’s written on the tin”.

The other coalition partner in all this, ACT, has for the most part stayed out of the tit-for-tat sledging.

Leader and deputy prime minister David Seymour did weigh in on whether New Zealand First might go with Labour though, saying, “it can be a bit of a lucky dip…but right now we are in a coalition, and we’re fixing what matters for New Zealanders”.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Source: Radio New Zealand

The government says it is shifting oversight of infrastructure projects from Treasury to the independent Infrastructure Commission.

It’s part of several changes to the investment management system, which informs how the government selects infrastructure projects.

Finance Minister Nicola Willis said they’re making the move to ensure proper scrutiny of major projects to help ministers make good investments.

“Since coming into government, the Minister for Infrastructure 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 projects, and agency performance,” she said.

Willis said that as it stood, there were multiple project review tools in use, “but none of them do what is needed”.

“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.

“What ministers need is clear, frankly expressed ‘go/no go’ expert advice on each project.”

Willis said bad projects gain momentum until it’s too late, wasting tens or hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars.

The changes would ensure the better use of the Infrastructure Commission’s expertise in determining whether investments meet a need, represent value for money, and are deliverable, according to a statement from Willis and Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop.

There would also be greater Ministerial oversight of major projects, with the Infrastructure and Investment Ministers’ Group reviewing high-profile, high-risk investments before they go to Cabinet.

Bishop said the changes are direct acceptances of some of the National Infrastructure Plan’s recommendations.

He said they would benefit both ministers and taxpayers with “roads that last, schools and hospitals that meet needs, and projects that are delivered on time and on budget.”

Last month, the Commission laid out its “affordable” plan to tackle the country’s infrastructure woes.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Source: New Zealand Government

The Government is improving how it selects infrastructure projects by making a series of changes to the Investment Management System, to ensure infrastructure meets New Zealanders’ needs, represents value for money, and can be successfully delivered, Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop and Finance Minister Nicola Willis say.

The changes include transferring responsibility for infrastructure project assurance from The Treasury to the independent NZ Infrastructure Commission. 

“We’re improving the information Ministers receive and making sure there is proper scrutiny of major projects to support Ministers in making good investment decisions on behalf of New Zealanders,” Ms Willis says.

“Since coming into Government, the Minister for Infrastructure 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 projects, 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. 

“What ministers need is clear, frankly expressed ‘go/no go’ expert advice on each project.”

“Instead, the current state allows investments to move through the system and lets bad projects gain momentum – until it’s too late – wasting tens or hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars on Business Cases and early design and feasibility on phantom projects.

“Multiple external assurance products like the Treasury’s Gateway Review and Infrastructure Commission’s Infrastructure Priorities Programme are also causing duplication and overcomplication for both Ministers and agencies. 

“Put simply, there are too many external assurance and project review tools but none of them do what is needed – support Ministers to make good decisions.

“This is alarming considering its Ministers who ultimately make these large investment decisions. It’s clear change is needed, and that’s what we are doing.”

Cabinet has agreed to five key changes to the Investment Management System:

Stronger investor-focused assurance: External investment assurance will be focused on what Ministers need to make good decisions on behalf of New Zealanders. This means simplifying the assurance space by consolidating existing products like the Infrastructure Priorities Programme (IPP) and Gateway – taking the best elements of both.
Better use of specialist expertise: Responsibility for coordinating external assurance on central government-funded infrastructure projects will shift from the Treasury to the independent NZ Infrastructure Commission, removing duplication of assurance products and ensuring the Commission’s expertise is used to its full advantage. This means the Commission will look over major infrastructure proposals long before decisions are made, giving Ministers independent, expert advice on whether the investment meets a need, represents value for money and is deliverable. When it comes to the NZ Transport Agency, high-risk projects or those outside of the National Land Transport Fund, will be subject to this assurance
Clearer advice to Ministers: For all Business Cases seeking Cabinet endorsement, Treasury will introduce a standardised two-page ‘Fitness Assessment’ for major investment decisions. This assessment will also play a strategic role by putting the project in context of the entity’s past performance and the fiscal landscape.
New assurance for asset management and long-term investment plans: A dedicated assurance function will be established for capital-intensive agencies, covering asset management and long-term investment planning. The Commission will be responsible for providing assurance on these plans and Treasury will lead policy.
Greater Ministerial oversight of major projects: 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 in the National Infrastructure Plan under the theme of prioritising the right projects, and are part of the Government’s wider work to lift economic growth and improve the performance of public investment,” Mr Bishop says.

“For Ministers, this will mean they can confidently say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to projects, asset management plans, and long-term capital 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 questions and scrutiny. 

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

“Central government agencies will need to up their game on asset management plans, long-term investment plans, and Business Cases – which likely requires getting more capacity and capability in these areas.

“Central Government already holds regulated utilities and local government to these standards, and it’s time we held ourselves to that same standard.

“At the end of the day, this is about getting better infrastructure for New Zealanders. Roads that last, schools and hospitals that meet needs, and projects that are delivered on time and on budget.”

Ms Willis says Ministers need clearer, more consistent information to make good decisions about billions of dollars of public investment.

“For too long, decisions have been made with patchy or inconsistent information, and with too little visibility of delivery risk,” Ms Willis says.

“These changes put Ministers back in the driver’s seat as investors, with better tools to assess whether projects stack up and whether agencies are ready to deliver them.”

MIL OSI

Source: Radio New Zealand

Modelling done for the government on its plans for an LNG terminal did not consider the effect of an international price spike, documents show.

A climate advocate said the decision not to model price volatility was “remarkable” and raised further questions about whether the planned facility was a good idea.

However, officials said although the current conflict in the Middle East had created volatility in LNG prices, longer-term price projections were still in line with the information the government based its decision on.

The government announced in February it would proceed with plans for a liquefied natural gas (LNG) import facility in Taranaki, with the billion-dollar plus cost paid for through an electricity levy.

The proposal, widely criticised at the time, has attracted renewed opposition after Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz prompted the price of fossil fuels – including LNG – to spike.

Gentailer chief executives expressed doubts at the energy sector’s conference last month, prompting Prime Minister Christopher Luxon to say the government would not proceed if the business case did not stack up.

The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) said in a statement last month that the LNG terminal was selected from a shortlist of five options that it considered “timely, feasible and of sufficient scale to meet dry year needs”.

It would also be beneficial to major industrial gas users, who had been forced to limit production or shut up shop altogether in recent years as domestic gas supply dwindled, the ministry said.

The announcement had already had an effect on the prices electricity suppliers were paying for supply later this year, MBIE said.

“While forward prices will move around in response to a range of factors, electricity forward prices dropped substantially in the weeks following the government’s LNG announcement.”

Documents released to RNZ under the Official Information Act outline how consultants contracted by the ministry modelled the effect of an LNG facility on New Zealand energy prices.

The variables they tested included whether two or three coal- and diesel-burning Rankine turbines at Huntly are working over winter, how fast future renewable generation is built, and whether a private joint venture to build gas storage beneath the Tariki gas field in Taranaki goes ahead.

The model tested various scenarios with two international LNG prices: $20 and $25 per gigajoule.

It did not look at any higher pricing.

“[This] modelling has not considered the potential impact of international fuel price volatility,” the document said.

Undertaken before the current fuel crisis, the modelling said that, at the moment, New Zealand’s electricity system was currently “relatively insulated” from international energy prices.

That had been beneficial when international prices, especially LNG, spiked during 2021 and 2023 – when Russia’s invasion of Ukraine affected supply.

International natural gas prices have now increased again, after Iran blocked the Strait of Hormuz, and Goldman Sachs recently said prices could increase by another 50 to 100 percent if the conflict with Israel and the US dragged on.

Lawyers for Climate Action executive director Jessica Palairet said the modelling reinforced “real questions about whether the LNG import facility is going to deliver”.

“The analysis did not consider the risk of international LNG price … which is quite remarkable.”

The model also assumed that supply of LNG would be unlimited and uninterrupted, an assumption that was being tested by the current situation, she said.

An MBIE spokesperson said the current conflict had created only “short-term volatility” in LNG markets,

“LNG futures prices for 2028/2029 remain consistent with the price assumptions that fed into earlier Cabinet analysis on LNG,” they said.

“Importantly, events in the Middle East do not impact the cost of the LNG import facility itself, nor the benefits of having reliable dry year cover in New Zealand.”

The modelling documents showed that having access to LNG had the greatest effect on New Zealand’s electricity system in scenarios where electricity demand was much greater than supply, the Tariki gas storage project did not go ahead, and LNG prices were low.

“If LNG is significantly higher priced than NZ gas, LNG will likely result in cost,” the documents said.

Savings were also much lower when supply and demand was in balance, and if there was additional gas storage available through Tariki – which emails between officials and consultants concluded would have a “high impact”.

An agreement to develop the Tariki project was signed by NZ Energy Corp and Genesis late last year, and early work has begun.

A Genesis spokesperson said there was no timeline yet for “this potential project”.

Significant parts of the documents were redacted, including the introductory pages of the final presentation outlining the results.

Jessica Palairet said what appeared to have been redacted was the full executive summary, including any conclusions the Concept Consulting consultants – who she said were “rell-regarded” – had drawn from the modelling.

“We don’t have the interpretation of the consultants of their own modelling, In some ways, they’re … the most important information in the entire analysis.”

“What’s been redacted appears to be what the modellers actually thought about their model.”

MBIE said those sections of the document, along with multiple smaller redactions, were held back to prevent the “free and frank exchange of opinions”.

Official Information laws allow for such redactions, provided that they are not outweighed by the public interest.

Palairet – who also received a redacted version of the same documents – said her organisation was challenging that decision with the Ombudsman.

“There’s a really strong public interest in releasing the full document. We’re talking about a huge expenditure in the middle of an energy crisis.”

RNZ has laid a separate complaint with the Ombudsman, asking for the redactions to be reconsidered.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Source: Radio New Zealand

The prime minister has unleashed on his coalition partner Winston Peters, saying he was the person who put Dame Jacinda Ardern in charge of the country.

In an interview with Newstalk ZB’s The Country, Christopher Luxon shot back at Peters, who earlier told RNZ he should have been given a heads-up about Tuesday’s vote of confidence at National’s caucus meeting.

Luxon has accused his foreign affairs minister of trying to “scaremonger” and having an “anti-immigrant bias” within New Zealand First and his own belief system.

Peters described the vote of confidence as a bad move, unprecedented, and warned there will be further consequences.

‘Track record’

National’s deputy leader Nicola Willis also launched a broadside, saying he has a “track record of picking Labour over National, and that’s the risk you run with him”.

She took aim at her coalition partner after he earlier told RNZ Luxon was wrong to not warn him of Tuesday’s motion of confidence under the no-surprises clause in the coalition agreement.

The comments from both senior ministers on RNZ’s Morning Report signalled the election campaign has well and truly begun, with Willis also saying Peters was “mischief-making”.

This comes after Luxon took the extraordinary move of calling a motion of confidence in himself at Tuesday’s caucus meeting, following intense media speculation about his position.

While he was successful, the prime minister refused to take questions about it afterwards or say if it was unanimous.

Asked on Morning Report if he should have been warned ahead of the vote, NZ First leader, Winston Peters, said: “It would have been wise to yes, of course.”

“In plain ambit of human relations and cooperation, the answer is of course, yes.”

Peters, whose parliamentary career began in the 1970s, said it was an “unprecedented” move from a sitting prime minister, and not one he supported.

“Because you see, you can tell when the next one’s going to happen. Not initiated by himself, but by others, and just wait for the next round of polls. And that’s the sad thing.

“I mean, this is unprecedented… there are going to be consequences. They’re seriously predictable consequences. But what I was astonished by was that they didn’t seem to understand, sadly, what they were doing. And here we are, part of the coalition, where stability of government all the way to the 2026 election and beyond is the critical component. And this is not helpful.”

Asked if he was essentially telling the National Party – which unlike NZ First, has been sliding in the polls – to get its act together, Peters said: “Well, you’ve phrased it that way, but I don’t disagree with you.”

Peters said a leadership spill would not have voided the NZ First-National coalition agreement, but that it would need to be “reshaped” – and warned National MPs against trying it again.

“You don’t sit here with all your responsibilities without looking at possible scenarios playing out and looking at every alternative. And if it’s like an octopus, the decision-making conclusion’s like an octopus with eight legs – you better understand all eight possible legs, not just three of them, five of them… You’ve got too many people with too little experience giving their views about what the outcome should be. That’s tragic.

Peters said it was important the government get back to the basics of governing “as fast as possible”.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

MIL OSI

Source: Radio New Zealand

New Zealand’s fuel stocks have dipped across the board according to the latest update, but the government says levels are stable and sufficient.

The latest government data accurate to midday Sunday shows 51.2 days of petrol, 41.6 days of diesel, and 47.4 of jet fuel.

That was down by 2.8 days, 3.2 days and four days respectively, compared to the last update published on Monday.

The supplies include more than 15 days of petrol, 12 of diesel and 1.5 of jet fuel on six ships within two days of arrival in New Zealand, and a further 6.6 of petrol, 8.2 of diesel and 19.8 of jet fuel on five ships within three weeks.

The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) said stocks were expected to decline over the next few weeks, but that this was to be expected.

“This is normal and is how fuel companies manage their daily business, with fuel distributed around the country and then replenished by incoming imports. Fuel tanks are not kept at 100 percent capacity all the time.

“This is the sort of variation we would expect to see when international shipping is operating as usual, without the current Middle East situation. Movements remain within expectations and show normal patterns.”

Officials said reassessment of phases under the fuel plan would not be required of ministers.

“MBIE’s advice to ministers is that an assessment is not required, as these changes do not raise any immediate concerns.

“There is currently no indication of fuel supply disruption, and fuel continues to flow normally into New Zealand.”

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Source: New Zealand Ministry of Health

MIL OSI