Category: Politics

Source: Radio New Zealand

Winston Peters has been accused of “pure racism” in Parliament by Labour leader Chris Hipkins, who has called out National ministers for failing to combat or challenge it.

The Greens say Peters is scapegoating migrants, while ACT’s David Seymour – his own Cabinet colleague – says Peters is simply seeking attention.

The condemnation came following Parliament’s Question Time on Wednesday when the NZ First leader singled out a Green MP for his Rarotongan heritage.

Green MP Teanau Tuiono had used the word “Aotearoa” to refer to New Zealand while asking questions about climate aid in the Pacific.

It prompted Peters to interrupt: “Why is [the minister] answering a question from someone who comes from Rarotonga to a country called New Zealand -“

Speaker Gerry Brownlee cut him off to object to noise from other MPs in the debating chamber.

Hipkins then leapt to his feet: “Members in this House are equal. For a member of the House to stand up and question whether someone is entitled to ask a question because of their country of origin is pure racism, and you should’ve stopped him in the beginning.”

Brownlee said he did not hear Peters’ remark, but would review the transcription later.

Peters then completed his question, asking why somebody from Rarotonga had decided “without any consultation with the New Zealand people” to change the country’s name.

In response, Brownlee said that was “not an acceptable question at all”.

“I want that to be the last time that those sort of questions are directed so personally at members of this House,” Brownlee said.

Tuiono has both Māori and Cook Islands Māori heritage but was born in New Zealand.

Hipkins calls out ‘ugly side’ to politics

In a speech to Parliament shortly later, Hipkins decried an “ugly side to New Zealand politics”, calling out “outright race-baiting” and “direct racism” being expressed in the debating chamber.

“Attacks on our Chinese and Asian communities in New Zealand, attacks on our Indian communities in New Zealand, and just today, attacks on whether those who have Pasifika heritage are entitled to ask questions in this house.

“And what have we heard from the government side on those attacks? Absolutely nothing.”

Hipkins said National ministers needed to “combat and challenge that racism” during this year’s election campaign, saying it was “totally unacceptable” for them to “say nothing and do nothing”.

“They are quite happy to stand by while members of their own government attack our Chinese community, our Indian community, our Pasifika community, migrants to New Zealand who work damn hard and contribute to New Zealand, and it’s an absolute disgrace.”

Hipkins said government ministers should celebrate diversity and not cast aspersions on it.

Speaking to reporters later, Hipkins said Peters’ behaviour “had no place in government and Parliament” – but he still would not say whether Labour would be prepared to work with NZ First after the election.

“I’m going make judgements about those things closer to the election, but I’ll call out bad behaviour when I see it.”

Greens call Peters ‘Temu Trump’, Peters says he doesn’t care

Addressing reporters outside Parliament, Tuiono said Peters was using “culture wars” to distract from the real harm he was causing New Zealanders.

“Just like Trump, he’s not very good with geography,” he said. “He just needs to get an atlas. A bilingual one preferably.”

His Green colleague Ricardo Menéndez March said Prime Minister Christopher Luxon had failed to show leadership by allowing Peters – “a Temu Trump” – to spread anti-migrant sentiment.

“It’s migrant scapegoating… it’s emboldens people outside of these four walls who wish to cause harm on our migrant communities,” Menéndez March said.

Speaking afterwards, ACT leader and Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour said he would never make such comments but would leave others to judge them for themselves.

“Do I like those comments? No. Would I make those comments? No. But I think if we all go on a 2019-style witch-hunt, we’re actually just fuelling it,” he said.

“If we all get ourselves in a lather, giving them the attention that they want, then that’s just as bad.”

In response, Peters told reporters Hipkins was talking “utter nonsense” and he did not care about Seymour’s views.

“How can somebody from another country who’s come to New Zealand decide to change my country’s name?” Peters said.

When told that Tuiono was actually born in New Zealand, Peters said, regardless, the Green MP claimed to be a “Cook Islander”.

“I would never go to the Cook Islands and start changing their name, would I?”

Peters said he was regularly being “literally mobbed” by New Zealanders on matters like the use of the word Aotearoa.

“I’m not indulging fools here. Let me tell you something: stand back and watch the polls go.”

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 Infrastructure Commission has moved to clarify its suggestion around tolling the Auckland Harbour Bridge, with the government considering whether a toll will help pay for a new Waitematā Harbour crossing.

The government has been at pains to stress no decisions have been made around tolling the existing bridge, and the Infrastructure Commission said it was not specifically recommending a toll over options like targeted levies.

In the National Infrastructure Plan, published on Tuesday, the Infrastructure Commission said new revenue would be needed to help fund a new crossing, and a $9 toll on the existing bridge and the new crossing could raise between $7 billion to $9 billion.

On Tuesday, Transport Minister Chris Bishop said it was a “big decision” for the country to make, and a decision he would not get ahead of.

Infrastructure Commission chairperson Geoff Cooper told RNZ the plan highlighted that given New Zealand already invested a large proportion of its infrastructure spend in transport, there was a need to increase user revenues if additional major projects were to be added to the network.

“This could mean increasing existing charges, introducing new charges like tolls, or investing in ways that increase usage and growing the revenue base,” he said.

He said the Waitematā Harbour crossing was one such example where the consideration was needed, and for projects that could not proceed within existing funds, new revenue mechanisms, which could be tolls, target levies, or other charges, should be investigated.

“To illustrate a scenario for what this might look like, we present high-level analysis that a $9 toll on both new and existing crossings could raise up to $7-9 billion to help pay for the crossing,” he said.

“However, we have not undertaken a detailed comparison of alternative revenue options, and hence we do not specifically recommend a toll over options like targeted levies. Ultimately it will be up to decision-makers to decide on the best mechanism for paying for new infrastructure such as this.”

Finance minister Nicola Willis said a $9 toll was a “completely hypothetical scenario”.

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

Children are still no safer than when Malachi Subecz was murdered, according to a new report from the Independent Children’s Monitor.

It is the second review of the implementation of the recommendations from a report into Malachi’s death, and has showed little progress has been made.

Malachi died of a blunt force head injury in Starship Hospital 2021, and weighed just 16 kilograms because he had been starved.

A report into his death by the late Dame Karen Poutasi in 2022 found five critical gaps in the system, and made 14 recommendations.

One of those recommendations was for the Independent Children’s Monitor to review the recommendations themselves.

In 2024, its first review found a “disappointing and disheartening” lack of priority given to them, and committed to review them again.

Just as it did with the prior review, the Independent Children’s Monitor looked at the responses to the report, and the implementation of actions agencies set for themselves.

The 2025 review, titled Towards a stronger safety net to prevent abuse of children, found that little had changed.

“There continues to be a high proportion of reports of concern from professionals that do not result in further action by Oranga Tamariki and where tamariki and rangatahi are not seen,” it said.

The review engaged with a wider range of agencies than in 2024, including Corrections, Early Childhood Education providers, and representatives from agencies and non-governmental organisations that were party of multi-agency response teams responding to police callouts for family violence, or to reports of concern made to Oranga Tamariki.

It also spoke to Oranga Tamariki staff.

“Kaimahi from agencies and services, including Oranga Tamariki, continue to tell us they are concerned about the risk to tamariki and rangatahi,” the report said.

“System settings have not changed, gaps remain and tamariki and rangatahi are still no more likely to be seen by Oranga Tamariki now than when Malachi was killed.”

The gaps Dame Karen found in 2022 were:

• When sole parents are charged and prosecuted, the needs of dependent children are not well enough identified
• The process for assessing risks to a child is too narrow and one-dimensional
• Agencies and services are not proactively sharing information, despite having the ability
• A lack of professionals’ and services’ reporting of risk of child abuse
• The system allows children to remain “invisible” even at key moments

Her report also made 14 recommendations, including combining medical records to make them available for health workers working with children, and increased education and public awareness.

Initially, the government did not accept all of Dame Karen’s recommendations outright, wanting further advice on five of them, including mandatory reporting of children at high risk of harm.

In 2025, the government decided it would accept the remaining recommendations.

The report acknowledged this was a “first step” but now “careful and thoughtful” implementation was needed.

“Until change happens on the ground and in communities, tamariki will continue to be no safer. As this review finds, the gaps identified by Dame Karen have not closed and tamariki continue to fall through the safety net.”

Progress since the previous report had been slow, and while better visibility and reporting of concerns were important, it could only go so far.

“Even once all the recommendations have been implemented, it would not solve the fundamental problem – Aotearoa does not yet have a child protection system that is always able to respond when needed.”

The report noted a further 24 tamariki had been killed by someone who was supposed to be caring for them, since Malachi’s death.

While it did not go into the specifics of those children’s lives and circumstances, it found 11 were known to Oranga Tamariki before their deaths, and 19 of the alleged perpetrators were known to police in varying ways.

At the time the Independent Children’s Monitor was conducting the report, police had completed 10 family violence death reviews, with a further 12 in progress. Oranga Tamariki had completed seven child death reviews, and two more were in progress.

“Police and Oranga Tamariki, for the most part, undertake reviews in isolation from other agencies. Their reviews focus on internal practices rather than broader systemic issues,” the report said.

A coroner’s report released last week found everything possible went wrong for Malachi in the last six months of his life, with opportunities to identify the abuse and torture he suffered not picked up by those who could have intervened.

Coroner Janet Anderson found similar gaps to Dame Karen Poutasi, which were also found by the oversight agencies.

Even back in 2022, Dame Karen said her findings were not new.

“Implementing the Poutasi recommendations may make tamariki and rangatahi at risk more visible, but to make them safer, Oranga Tamariki and the wider child protection system must be able to respond when needed,” the 2025 report said.

Oversight agencies call on government to go faster

The Independent Children’s Monitor, Arran Jones, said 18 months on from the first review, three years on since Dame Karen’s report, and four years since Malachi’s death, work was “just beginning,” and until change happened on the ground and across all communities, tamariki would continue to be no safer.

“Our review also found that even if everything Dame Karen said was needed to close the gaps is done, we are not confident that Oranga Tamariki will be able to respond appropriately,” he said.

The oversight agencies, including the Independent Children’s Monitor, the Ombudsman, and the Children’s Commissioner, called on government agencies to act faster.

“The stark truth that 24 children – most of them babies – have died through abuse by the person meant to be caring for them must shock us into action. The lives of other children depend on it,” said Children’s Commissioner Claire Achmad.

The Chief Ombudsman, John Allen, said the findings raised the important need for cross-agency collaboration, but acknowledged there were green shoots out there, pointing to an in-person hub pilot at the Oranga Tamariki national contact centre, and its work with community-based providers.

“Community led organisations know the whānau well and are better equipped to intervene early and provide immediate support while at the same time taking pressure off the wider system,” he said.

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

Two new medicines for people with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia could be on the way, with Pharmac proposing to fund venetoclax with ibrutinib or with obinutuzumab.

If accepted, the combination therapies could be available as first line treatments from 1 May 2026.

Associate Health Minister David Seymour said CLL was not curable, but the right treatment meant patients could live longer.

They would help patients achieve longer lasting remission and avoid the need for traditional chemotherapy, Seymour said.

He said Pharmac heard from the blood cancer community these combination therapies would make a big difference for people with CLL, “especially when used at the beginning of treatment”.

It comes after public backlash following Budget 2024 failing to include promised funding for more cancer drugs, forcing the government to subsequently announce an extra $604 million for Pharmac over four years.

Since then, the government has funded seven blood cancer drugs, but in September 2025 some blood cancer patients were still saying the government was breaking its promise on life-saving drugs.

Blood Cancer New Zealand said at the time only 180 patients benefited from that uplift, less than 1 percent of all New Zealanders with a blood cancer.

On Wednesday, Seymour said people currently paying privately for these combinations could receive funded treatment in a private hospital, provided they meet the funding criteria at the time they began treatment.

“These combination medicines will be the second and third cancer medicines available in private clinics.

“When Pharmac fund a new cancer treatment, people already paying for that treatment privately are forced to make a very difficult choice: spend their savings to continue private treatment undisrupted, or transfer to a public hospital,” Seymour said.

He explained that patients had told Pharmac it was hugely disruptive and caused “significant stress during an immensely difficult period”.

Health Minister Simeon Brown said the government was committed to improving treatment and care for New Zealanders with cancer, including blood cancer.

“This announcement means more Kiwis with blood cancer will have access to medicines that improve their quality of life and help them live longer, fuller lives.

“We are also significantly expanding stem cell transplant services for patients with blood cancers and related conditions, helping more people access critical, life-saving treatment sooner.”

Consultation opens on Wednesday, and closes Wednesday 4 March. If approved, funding would begin from 1 May 2026.

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

Imposing tolls on the existing Harbour Bridge won’t raise enough revenue to cover long-term costs of a new crossing, the editor of an advocacy website says.

The Infrastructure Commission has suggested a toll as high as $9 to help pay for a second crossing.

Greater Auckland editor Matt Lowrie told Morning Report that the estimated revenue from the toll is between $7 and $9 billion, while the projected costs of the crossing could exceed $20b.

When the bridge was first opened in 1959, motorists had to pay 2 shillings and 6 pence, a figure the Commission said equalled around $9 in 2025.

Tolls were removed in 1984.

Lowrie said while a second crossing is needed to provide more capacity, other payment options could be considered.

He also agreed that tolling both crossings was necessary because just tolling the new one meant people would simply continue using the existing bridge.

That would see a “multi-billion dollar piece of infrastructure … sit unused”.

Lowrie suggested a lower toll be implemented to see the impact of it.

He said the addition of the Northern Busway in 2008 had delayed the need to spend billions of dollars on a harbour crossing as the uptake from commuters had taken the pressure off the existing bridge.

Whether a toll was introduced or not, Lowrie said Aucklanders would end up paying the bulk of the cost through a road tax or fuel taxes being raised.

But the majority would come from Crown investment – and that had to be weighed up amongst the need for improvements to hospitals and schools, he said.

On Tuesday, Transport Minister Chris Bishop said the new crossing would be the biggest infrastructure project New Zealand has ever done.

While the new crossing would be tolled, a question remained over whether the existing bridge would be tolled as well.

“We are working our way through that. That’s a very big decision for the country to make,” he said.

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

Imposing tolls on the existing Harbour Bridge won’t raise enough revenue to cover long-term costs of a new crossing, the editor of an advocacy website says.

The Infrastructure Commission has suggested a toll as high as $9 to help pay for a second crossing.

Greater Auckland editor Matt Lowrie told Morning Report that the estimated revenue from the toll is between $7 and $9 billion, while the projected costs of the crossing could exceed $20b.

When the bridge was first opened in 1959, motorists had to pay 2 shillings and 6 pence, a figure the Commission said equalled around $9 in 2025.

Tolls were removed in 1984.

Lowrie said while a second crossing is needed to provide more capacity, other payment options could be considered.

He also agreed that tolling both crossings was necessary because just tolling the new one meant people would simply continue using the existing bridge.

That would see a “multi-billion dollar piece of infrastructure … sit unused”.

Lowrie suggested a lower toll be implemented to see the impact of it.

He said the addition of the Northern Busway in 2008 had delayed the need to spend billions of dollars on a harbour crossing as the uptake from commuters had taken the pressure off the existing bridge.

Whether a toll was introduced or not, Lowrie said Aucklanders would end up paying the bulk of the cost through a road tax or fuel taxes being raised.

But the majority would come from Crown investment – and that had to be weighed up amongst the need for improvements to hospitals and schools, he said.

On Tuesday, Transport Minister Chris Bishop said the new crossing would be the biggest infrastructure project New Zealand has ever done.

While the new crossing would be tolled, a question remained over whether the existing bridge would be tolled as well.

“We are working our way through that. That’s a very big decision for the country to make,” he said.

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 is seeking advice on whether to bring in a toll on the existing Auckland Harbour Bridge, to help pay for a second Waitematā Harbour crossing.

The Infrastructure Commission has suggested a toll as high as $9, a figure the Transport Minister says would be a “big decision” to make.

The government continues to mull over its options as to what a new crossing would look like, such as a tunnel or second bridge.

In the newly-released National Infrastructure Plan, the Infrastructure Commission said new revenue would be needed to fund the crossing.

High-level analysis suggested a $9 toll “on both new and existing crossings” could raise between $7 billion and $9 billion, depending on the tolling period.

“Higher tolls may not raise more revenue, as they would divert too many users and erode viability, and tolling only the new crossing would sharply limit revenue,” the Commission wrote.

“Other funding mechanisms are possible, but would likely require non-users to contribute funding which may not be considered equitable or favourable.”

When the bridge was first opened in 1959, motorists had to pay 2 shillings and 6 pence, a figure the Commission said equalled around $9 in 2025.

Tolls were removed in 1984.

Transport Minister Chris Bishop said the new crossing would be the biggest infrastructure project New Zealand has ever done.

While the new crossing would be tolled, a question remained over whether the existing bridge would be tolled as well.

“We are working our way through that. That’s a very big decision for the country to make,” he said.

Bishop said he would not get ahead of any decision, and the government was working through it in a “methodical and comprehensive way” as the Commission said it should do.

“We’re working our way through quite a complicated series of funding questions and financing questions around the second harbour crossing. It will be a very large infrastructure project. All large infrastructure projects have to be paid for. So we’re working our way through that.”

He said “in theory,” a new crossing should be able “wash its own face, financially,” due to the number of vehicle movements.

ACT leader David Seymour, an Auckland-based MP, said $9 per trip added up to $90 a week for some people who would already be trying to pay “tough” bills.

“I think you’re going to struggle with that level of price. But you could imagine that maybe at a peak hour, when it was mostly buses and ridesharing, maybe for a part of the day. But I don’t think making everybody pay $9 with no alternative is going to fly.”

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

Source: Radio New Zealand

The government has introduced legislation so the welfare system can legally claw back payments when someone has been backpaid for an ACC claim.

Social Development and Employment Minister Louise Upston moved a motion of urgency to introduce the Social Security (Accident Compensation and Calculation of Weekly Income) Amendment Bill shortly after 7.30pm.

It comes after a significant High Court ruling against the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) on the recovery of welfare payments late last year.

The ruling said MSD couldn’t require people to pay back supplementary assistance they’d received (like accommodation supplements and winter energy payments) once they had been paid back-dated compensation from Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC).

For context, many people claim support from MSD while they wait on cover from ACC and once ACC grants cover, it then pays the person backpay for weekly compensation.

In the meantime, the person may have received support from MSD while they were waiting on cover from ACC.

In these situations, ACC automatically reimburses MSD for the main benefit and up until now, MSD was also requiring people to repay any supplementary assistance payments received during the backpay period.

At the High Court Justice Grice held that while the law allowed ACC to reimburse MSD for the main benefit, it did not extend to supplementary forms of assistance designed to meet essential costs.

Speaking at the bill’s first reading this evening, Upston said the legislation clarified the law on the impact of ACC payments on welfare entitlements, given the High Court decision conflicted with “long standing policy intent and operational practice”.

She said there were two main main cohorts of ACC compensation recipients in the welfare system: people who receive ACC and welfare assistance at the same time and people who receive welfare assistance while they wait for ACC to decide on their entitlement

“Under the current situation, as interpreted by the courts, the latter group, who receive lump sum payments, are treated more generously than the former.

“They are in effect receiving two forms of income support to address one need. This also means these clients can remain eligible for assistance which only beneficiaries receive, such as the Winter Energy Payment.

“This would not result in fair treatment between these groups and isn’t in line with the policy intent.

“The government has a duty to fix this situation and clarify the law, so it aligns with the longstanding intent of policy,” Upston said.

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

Source: Radio New Zealand

Political parties are already squabbling over the extent to which either side will back a bipartisan approach to transport projects.

The first ever National Infrastructure Plan lays out an independent roadmap for infrastructure investment in the coming decades.

Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop said the coalition will consider the plan and report back on its formal response in six months’ time.

Labour leader Chris Hipkins said his party had offered to work with the government in the coming months, before criticising the coaliton’s prized Roads of National Significance (RoNS) programme.

The plan pointed out the major transport project pipeline had grown much faster than the funding available to deliver it, with government ambition far exceeding the revenue likely to be available over the coming years.

“It is a fairly carefully guarded criticism of the RoNS programme and it’s a legitimate criticism,” Hipkins said.

“Billions of dollars of investment without proper business cases, without real consideration of the benefits and the costs of those projects. We do need to take that seriously.”

Bishop said the 17 Roads of National Significance had been planned to “shape the nation and drive growth and productivity” and would not be rolled out all at once.

“The construction market cannot cope with 17 roads being built all at the same time and some of them aren’t even ready to be built straight away anyway.

“We’ve always said that they will be sequenced and prioritised in a way that is logical for the market and in terms of deliverability and cost benefit ratios. I think the point the commission makes is a really good one.”

On his call for a bipartisan approach to infrastructure, Bishop said any suggestion Labour had been left out of the loop on the the Commission’s plan was untrue.

“It’s been a bit frustrating to be honest to hear Chris Hipkins, he might have said on RNZ this morning, that the government’s developed a plan that the Labour Party has had nothing to do with.

“They have been briefed extensively throughout the plan. No one may have mentioned that to him, which is an issue for him, but there have been extensive engagements with the Labour Party.”

On a second Auckland harbour crossing, Bishop said he was committed to working on a project that would last beyond the three year electoral cycle.

“I’ve said for a year now that we’ll be making that decision as part of a joint approach with the Labour Party because any change of government will want to see that project through.

“I haven’t had formal advice on it but whatever ends up being built, will be tolled. The question is whether or not the existing connection is tolled. That’s a very big decision and we’re taking advice on it.”

Hipkins said a second Auckland harbour crossing was well overdue and his party would work with the government on a long term plan.

“It’s well and truly time for us to be putting in place active plans to do that. We’re talking about a decade or two to do that. This is a long term project so the more we can approach that with bipartisanship the better for the country.”

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

Source: Radio New Zealand

• The Infrastructure Commission has released the country’s first National Infrastructure Plan
• Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop requested the plan and is pushing for cross-party buy-in
• The plan sets out 16 recommendations, and 10 priorities for the next decade

The country’s first National Infrastructure Plan has landed, laying out an ‘affordable’ plan to tackle the country’s infrastructure woes.

The 226-page report discusses “formidable challenges” to New Zealand’s roads, water pipes, power lines, hospitals, schools and courts.

It said building and maintaining infrastructure was becoming more expensive as climate change was making the natural hazard risks more severe.

On top of this, much of what had been built in the past decades was wearing out and needed to be replaced, the report said.

Infrastructure Commission chief executive Geoff Cooper said the plan set out a practical, affordable pathway to deliver the infrastructure the country needed over the next 30 years.

“While the plan looks at the long term, it’s clear that we need to take action now. Weather events and infrastructure failures make very clear the importance of investing to renew and build resilience into the networks that sustain our way of life.

“We can’t keep doing what we’ve always done. Each year we invest just over $20 billion on infrastructure, yet on a dollar-for-dollar basis we achieve less than many of our more efficient international peers.”

Cooper said the plan was “ambitous, but centred on affordability” to give decision makers a clear, system-wide picture of where pressures were emerging and where investment would deliver the greatest value.

The National Infrastructure Plan’s 16 recommendations (detailed version below)

1. Needs-based capital allowances

2. Land transport funding and oversight

3. Long-term investment planning

4. Predictable government funding signals

5. Multi-year budgeting

6. Asset management performance reporting

7. System-wide assurance

8. Asset management assurance

9. Investment readiness assurance

10. Project information coordination

11. Stable resource management framework

12. Integrated spatial planning

13. Optimised infrastructure use

14. Accelerated electricity investment

15. Coordinated workforce development

16. Public sector project leadership

Cooper said the plan charted an affordable way to meet a diverse set of infrastructure demands over time and identified how to best prioritise and sequence a large programme of significant investments such as roads, rapid transit, and hospitals.

“The plan demonstrates a fundable and affordable programme of works that futureproofs existing services, while incrementally building on the network as the country grows and develops,” he said.

“A plan by itself won’t change anything. The National Infrastructure Plan charts the course, but progress depends on how decision-makers, delivery agencies, industry, and communities use the plan to do things differently.

The National Infrastructure Plan’s 10 priorities for the next decade (detailed version below)

1. Lift hospital investment for an ageing population

2. Complete catch up on renewals in the water sector and restore affordability

3. Implement time of use charging and fleetwide road user charges

4. Prioritise and sequence major land transport projects

5. Manage assets on the downside

6. Prioritise adequate maintenance and renewals

7. Identify cost-effective flood risk infrastructure

8. Commit to a durable resource management framework

9. Commit to upzoning around key transport corridors

10. Take a predictable approach to electrify the economy

Responding to the release of the report, Bishop said delivering and maintaining better infrastructure was a key part of the coalition’s plan to fix the basics and build the future.

“The government has spent a lot of time in the last two years making a start on fixing the basics of our system, but there is a lot more to do.

“The Investment Management System has been strengthened, long-term investment plans are beginning to be developed, and ministers are demanding higher quality information from agencies.

“We have launched a comprehensive programme of work to improve asset management in the public sector.”

Bishop said the coalition would study each of the recommendations carefully and publish its response to the plan in June 2026.

“As part of our response to the National Infrastructure Plan I intend to engage with other political parties in Parliament.

“Infrastructure Commission officials will make briefings available to parties who wish to take a deeper dive into the detail behind the recommendations, and I will be writing to Parliament’s Business Committee seeking time for a special debate on the plan.

“Infrastructure lasts for generations. Where we can build durable consensus, we should.

“Fixing the basics and building the future of New Zealand infrastructure is central to lifting living standards and driving our prosperity. The National Infrastructure Plan is a great contribution to this shared agenda for everyone in New Zealand. Now it is up to all of us to do the hard work required to turn ambition into delivery.”

The commission consulted on a draft plan last year before giving the final report to Bishop on 22 December 2025.

The National Infrastructure Plan’s 16 recommendations (detailed version)

1. Needs-based capital allowances: Ensure fiscal strategy and capital allowances are informed by the commission’s independent assessment of long-term needs and agencies’ infrastructure asset management and investment plans.

2. Land transport funding and oversight: Reform the land transport funding and investment oversight system to ensure financial sustainability and enhance economic and social outcomes by aligning investment expectations with available revenue and strengthening efficiency and accountability in delivery.

3. Long-term investment planning: Introduce legislative requirements for capital-intensive central government agencies to prepare and publish longterm investment and asset management plans aligned with the government’s fiscal strategy.

4. Predictable government funding signals: Extend the horizon over which governments plan their infrastructure funding intentions and communicate these intentions to agencies and the public.

5. Multi-year budgeting: Adopt multi-year budgeting arrangements that leverage and reinforce high-quality infrastructure planning, delivery and asset management practices.

6. Asset management performance reporting: Require, through legislation, capital-intensive central government agencies to report on asset information and asset management performance, including progress against their investment and asset management plans.

7. System-wide assurance: Establish a consolidated assurance function that provides ministers with a system-wide view of infrastructure planning, delivery, and asset management performance and risk.

8. Asset management assurance: Establish an assurance function for capital-intensive central government agencies covering asset management and investment planning activities.

9. Investment readiness assurance: Strengthen investment assurance by applying a transparent, independent readiness assessment to major government-funde investment proposals.

10. Project information coordination: Require all infrastructure providers to maintain up-to-date data in the National Infrastructure Pipeline and strengthen arrangements for improving data quality over time.

11. Stable resource management framework: Commit to maintaining a stable legislative framework for resource management that enables infrastructure development while managing environmental impacts.

12. Integrated spatial planning: Ensure spatial planning within the resource management system aligns infrastructure investment with land-use planning and regulation.

13. Optimised infrastructure use: Set land-use policies to enable maximum efficient use of existing and new infrastructure.

14. Accelerated electricity investment: Establish clear, consistent, and coordinated government policies to accelerate electricity infrastructure investment that supports economic growth and emissions reduction.

15. Coordinated workforce development: Align workforce development planning and policy with infrastructure investment and asset management plans and the commission’s independent view of longterm needs.

16. Public sector project leadership: Strengthen public sector project leadership through a consistent, system-wide approach to appointing, developing, and supporting infrastructure leaders.

The National Infrastructure Plan’s 10 priorities for the next decade (detailed version)

1. Lift hospital investment for an ageing population: Increase investment as a share of GDP to address ageing population demands and maintenance backlogs through clear long-term planning.

2. Complete catch up on renewals in the water sector and restore affordability: Sector affordability can be restored through national guidance on demand management, resourcing the economic regulator and providing assurance over investment proposals.

3. Implement time of use charging and fleetwide road user charges: This is essential for improving the efficiency of our urban road networks, particularly in congested cities.

4. Prioritise and sequence major land transport projects: Restore affordability by timing major road and rapid transit investments based on demonstrated demand and cost benchmarking, while using low-cost and targeted improvements first to lift network performance.

5. Manage assets on the downside: Actively plan for declining demand scenarios arising from changing demographics, technology and climate change, and explore asset recycling opportunities within portfolios to maintain value and affordability.

6. Prioritise adequate maintenance and renewals: Central government agencies must prioritise adequate funding to prevent asset deterioration and costly reactive fixes.

7. Identify cost-effective flood risk infrastructure: Climate change will intensify flooding and impact infrastructure, requiring effective community risk management approaches.

8. Commit to a durable resource management framework: New Zealand needs a durable legislative framework with spatial planning and national standards that can evolve through incremental amendments.

9. Commit to upzoning around key transport corridors: This will lead to more efficient use of water and other networks and maximise the value of transport infrastructure investments.

10. Take a predictable approach to electrify the economy: Achieving electrification and net zero carbon targets requires predictable market rules and policy settings rather than non-commercial government investment in electricity supply.

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