Infrastructure planning for the future
Auckland Light Rail would have cost taxpayers $15 billion, with advice showing the cost could increase to $29.2 billion.
Transport Minister, Simeon Brown MP
14 January 2024
Introduction
With depressing predictability, since another new Government has come to power, cancellation of infrastructure projects have been announced - Auckland's Light Rail project; 3Waters; Te Aka Whai Ora (the Māori Health Authority); and it has indicated that Auckland's second harbour crossing is also for the chop. This government is not alone. With each election cycle, infrastructure plans are condemned and new plans proposed.
The Infrastructure Commission released its Build or maintain? New Zealand’s infrastructure asset value, investment, and depreciation, 1990–2022 research paper on 23 February, with the following:
The benefits that we experience from infrastructure services today depend upon past decisions about how to plan, build, and maintain infrastructure assets. Similarly, our current decisions will affect the quality and quantity of infrastructure services for future generations.
When releasing the report, the Commission observed that New Zealand's investment in infrastructure as a percentage of GDP is in the top 20% of the OECD, but the cost of that investment, in terms of what is achieved for that money, is in the bottom 10%.
We could do better.
Essential Infrastructure
So what is essential infrastructure, and to what extent should governments get involved in their supply?
At its most basic, the necessities of life arguably come first, followed by the protection of life, liberty and happiness and the functioning of a society and economy (and deserving of special protection for national security). The more difficult, and political, question arises as to the extent of Government involvement; an issue which has come into sharp focus following the reforms of the 1980s.
The list might look like this:
- safe drinking water, and wastewater and stormwater treatment and disposal - poorly managed by local government
- food supply - a cost of living crisis
- electricity - market driven pricing with limited long term planning
- housing - in crisis
- health - poorly managed by DHBs and with an investment and staffing crisis
- education - under reform (again)
- internet and telecommunications - meeting demand, with limited resilience (eg following Cyclone Gabrielle)
- transportation - poor investment in alternatives to cars
- banking and finance - record profits for overseas owned banks
- emergency services - limited Government financial support
With each "unprecedented" event over the last decade or so - for example, the Christchurch earthquake of 2011; the Kaikōura earthquake of 2016; the Christchurch mosque shootings of 2019; the torrential rainfall on Auckland's Anniversary weekend and Cyclone Gabrielle in 2023 - the "resilience" of our essential infrastructure has been found wanting.
This lack of resilience, or more accurately redundancy, has been compounded in public sector by under-investment, and in the private sector by investment in the larger urban areas where the return is greatest. We have a history of penny-pinching, and leaving the future for others to sort out.
What is becoming apparent is that while our infrastructure assets might meet the demands of more affluent consumers, and the dividend and capital growth requirements of investors, there is limited investment in the redundancy required to meet extreme events, or the demands of future generations.
Long term infrastructure planning?
If the politics is removed from infrastructure investment, and planning for each of the items listed above considered objectively, I suspect that a sensible plan for future development would be relatively easily established. The Infrastructure Commission's calculations of the infrastructure deficit may be daunting, but that is hardly an excuse for inaction.
The answer must be to carry out that exercise with cross government and cross party consensus, establishing what investment is required, what it would cost and prioritising it on what we can afford. Once (if) that plan can be agreed, then it should be from the electoral cycle by a long term planning commitment of, say, a 10 year cycle.
I agree that this idea is unlikely to gain support from any current political party, but continuing with the status quo is not at all appealing. I suspect that there would be little disagreement over what is needed, but that is sadly disconnected with what might get those in charge elected.