For decades, nobody bothered to check. Now someone finally has.
Three weeks ago, the Infrastructure Commission delivered New Zealand’s first National Infrastructure Plan. It spent two years producing something no previous government had thought to ask for: a proper account of what we have.
The Commission’s findings were not cheerful.
New Zealand has spent around 5.8 percent of GDP on infrastructure annually, among the highest in the OECD. Yet it ranks near the bottom for efficiency. For asset management, it comes fourth last. For “Accountability and Professionalism,” it is dead last.
Over the years, only half the central government agencies that manage major public assets have maintained proper records of those assets, or how to maintain them.
Nobody kept track of the condition of our schools, hospitals, courts or prisons. The defence estate has accumulated a maintenance backlog of $480 million.
Half of all spending proposals in recent Budgets have arrived without even a business case. One might call this faith-based asset management.
The state of our infrastructure has become a matter of belief rather than knowledge. But there are advantages, too.
You cannot be accused of neglecting assets you did not know you had. Nobody can prove a pipe was deteriorating without data on the pipe. And without a long-term plan, you retain glorious flexibility to spend money on whatever catches your eye.
The Commission documented what all those years of comfortable neglect had left undocumented. Parliament held a special debate on its findings last week.
All parties agreed that infrastructure was far too important to be left to everyday politics. Instead, they would think in decades. They would build durable, bipartisan consensus based on hard data.
But then, Government MPs promptly championed projects in their own electorates. Opposition MPs attacked the government’s priorities. One noted that a proposed expressway would cost the equivalent of seven Dunedin Hospitals. Another defended it as long overdue.
New Zealand’s first attempt at generational, bipartisan consensus lasted roughly thirty minutes. Establishing the habit might require a bit more practice.
Still, the Commission’s work confirmed one thing. We are world-class at spending money on infrastructure.
Now we just need to find out what we spent it on.
Dr Oliver Hartwich is the Executive Director of The New Zealand Initiative think tank. This article was first published HERE.
The Commission’s findings were not cheerful.
New Zealand has spent around 5.8 percent of GDP on infrastructure annually, among the highest in the OECD. Yet it ranks near the bottom for efficiency. For asset management, it comes fourth last. For “Accountability and Professionalism,” it is dead last.
Over the years, only half the central government agencies that manage major public assets have maintained proper records of those assets, or how to maintain them.
Nobody kept track of the condition of our schools, hospitals, courts or prisons. The defence estate has accumulated a maintenance backlog of $480 million.
Half of all spending proposals in recent Budgets have arrived without even a business case. One might call this faith-based asset management.
The state of our infrastructure has become a matter of belief rather than knowledge. But there are advantages, too.
You cannot be accused of neglecting assets you did not know you had. Nobody can prove a pipe was deteriorating without data on the pipe. And without a long-term plan, you retain glorious flexibility to spend money on whatever catches your eye.
The Commission documented what all those years of comfortable neglect had left undocumented. Parliament held a special debate on its findings last week.
All parties agreed that infrastructure was far too important to be left to everyday politics. Instead, they would think in decades. They would build durable, bipartisan consensus based on hard data.
But then, Government MPs promptly championed projects in their own electorates. Opposition MPs attacked the government’s priorities. One noted that a proposed expressway would cost the equivalent of seven Dunedin Hospitals. Another defended it as long overdue.
New Zealand’s first attempt at generational, bipartisan consensus lasted roughly thirty minutes. Establishing the habit might require a bit more practice.
Still, the Commission’s work confirmed one thing. We are world-class at spending money on infrastructure.
Now we just need to find out what we spent it on.
Dr Oliver Hartwich is the Executive Director of The New Zealand Initiative think tank. This article was first published HERE.
6 comments:
Faith based.....huh. it reeks of far too many incompetent failed lefties entering govt/ council as a last resort as they cant do anything else. A competency test to get into these roles would practically clean them all out....simple solution folks.
It’s tone at the top. Look at the ferry cost blowout and delay from National’s incompetence. All for politics!
For as long as we have legislative rule by a random collection of party animals we can expect a continuation of the Monty Python circus that our Parliament has become.
Talking about ferries. After a major earthquake in either the South Island or and Wellington, exactly where are the ferries going to tie up. Wellington wharf will be in ruins, obviously. Picton will be just as bad. We need terminals in New Plymouth, Napier and several down the South Island. Two ferries will not be enough, you can not start rebuilding cities and infrastructure with two ferries.
Do people think we will not be having any more major earthquakes!
Anon 9:23 - You’re not making much sense. The ferry cost blowout was enormous under Labour. It would have required expensive port infrastructure upgrades in addition to the high cost of the over-specced ferries themselves. The delay by the current govt was necessary to unpick Labour’s ridiculously expensive option and replace it with a practical, cost effective alternative.
I agree the labour ferries were over the top. It’s not just the ferries that are the problem, it’s where to dock them after a major event whilst doing it at an economic price. Nothing will be cheap but the various port companies can slowly build the necessary infrastructure.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.