How New Zealand achieved cross-party agreement on its infrastructure plan

Owning the need for something better

To ensure ambitious ideas could be delivered, the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission (NZIC) and Hon. Minister Bishop, Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Transport, took steps to change the decision-making landscape.

Both decided to champion the need to address the real challenges with infrastructure, outlined by the plan.

The commission identified gaps in the systems and how to address them, while Bishop identified political imperatives.

This revealed topics that were not spoken about as part of public conversation, helping to raise awareness of their value. It also identified that consensus was something stakeholders wanted to agree on.

Topics included:

• fixing the wider system of infrastructure
• identifying capital budget constraints
• understanding the existing asset base
• building institutional capacity and strengthening accountability
• assessing affordability

Creating a plan that appeals to all stakeholders

Political parties may not agree on every project, so it is better to focus on wider issues that affect all stakeholders.

A shared understanding of the real issues helped stakeholders and political parties recognise challenges that needed to be addressed, whether it be now or in the future.

These were challenges that affected the lives of every citizen.

As Geoff outlined, using select committees was a good way to talk about key issues as multiple political parties were present.

While there were many issues to disagree on, consensus was achieved on the need to use best practice to guide decision-making and achieve benefits for society and the economy.

Building credibility with stakeholders

High-quality and reliable data helped to build credibility in planning.

Over four years, the commission produced between 90 and 100 studies, contributing to a mature set of analyses on topics of interest, including robust datasets to improve planning.

This has enabled New Zealand to play with a ‘straight bat’ where honest insight and feedback was shared, as Cooper says.

Bishop’s response to the plan echoed this: ‘governments of all flavours should use best practice to plan, select, fund, finance, deliver, and look after infrastructure.’

Geoff mentioned that conversations about what the data meant for different political parties were invaluable.

Landing difficult messages

Reliable information revealed trade-offs in an honest way.

This showed stakeholders' decisions were not made in an unconstrained world, and this mattered most for projects of direct public interest such as transport.

Geoff highlighted the road capital programme exceeded what the user would pay for it, and it was important the commission speak to its funding and prioritisation.

Credibility helped to land information on how it could be staged and funded, sometimes over a longer period to deliver it.

Furthermore, visibility over the project pipeline aided the involvement of the public.

Using communication to build relationships

The commission took steps to maintain stakeholder relationships.

It had conversations with political parties, government departments, and the public through a variety of channels throughout the development of the plan.

Hannah mentioned that speaking on important topics that are relevant to the public can help to start a conversation and create a case for change.

Ultimately, it encouraged greater transparency, where all stakeholders, including political parties, were able to better understand what it meant for them and ask different questions overall.

She also said, ‘if your public becomes more informed, your media becomes more informed, and then you start having a more informed conversation’.

Lessons for other governments

1. Create a sense of purpose across political parties and stakeholder groups.
2. Focus on wider cross-cutting issues, as political parties will not agree on individual projects.
3. Show why infrastructure matters to political parties and other stakeholders.
4. Communicate key findings and decisions widely to create transparency.
5. Build credibility to convey difficult messages and trade-offs