None of it was funded by raising taxes. None of it was funded by taking on more debt.
New South Wales raised more than A$50 billion between 2012 and 2024 by selling or leasing assets the state did not need to own and channelling the proceeds into a dedicated infrastructure fund. The approach is called “asset recycling” – and research found that 61 per cent of residents supported it once they could see the infrastructure being delivered.
New Zealand faces the same problem NSW faced in 2011. The Crown sits on a $600 billion balance sheet, yet the country cannot fund the infrastructure it needs.
Most of the Crown’s assets support public services – roads, schools, hospitals, and social housing.
But bolted on is a $24 billion assemblage of commercial enterprises. Stakes in electricity generators and an airline. A bank. A courier company. A television network. 112 farms.
$24 billion is equivalent to more than a dozen major new hospitals.
Treasury Secretary Iain Rennie has warned the country will not grow its way out of its fiscal difficulties. The Prime Minister has called for a more mature conversation about state asset ownership – though subsequent comments cast some doubt on whether that extends to ownership of the national airline.
This week, The New Zealand Initiative released Renovating the Nation, a report proposing that New Zealand adopt the NSW model. The report recommends the Crown sell commercial assets it does not need to own and channel proceeds into a ring-fenced National Infrastructure Fund.
New Zealand has tried asset sales before. Voters remember what was sold, not what the proceeds achieved.
NSW succeeded where New Zealand failed because of three safeguards we should copy. They ring-fenced proceeds so the money could not vanish into the government’s coffers. They ensured additionality so proceeds supplemented rather than replaced normal capital budgets. They chose projects from a menu – independently verified by the NSW infrastructure commission – rather than on political whim.
The Infrastructure Commission’s National Infrastructure Plan confirms the scale of New Zealand’s infrastructure deficit – but the Commission has no mandate to recommend infrastructure priorities. The report explains how to close the gap.
An election looms in November. Voters deserve to know where the parties stand on meeting the nation’s infrastructure needs. The blueprint is ready.
Roger Partridge is chairman and a co-founder of The New Zealand Initiative and is a senior member of its research team. He led law firm Bell Gully as executive chairman from 2007 to 2014. This article was first published HERE
New Zealand faces the same problem NSW faced in 2011. The Crown sits on a $600 billion balance sheet, yet the country cannot fund the infrastructure it needs.
Most of the Crown’s assets support public services – roads, schools, hospitals, and social housing.
But bolted on is a $24 billion assemblage of commercial enterprises. Stakes in electricity generators and an airline. A bank. A courier company. A television network. 112 farms.
$24 billion is equivalent to more than a dozen major new hospitals.
Treasury Secretary Iain Rennie has warned the country will not grow its way out of its fiscal difficulties. The Prime Minister has called for a more mature conversation about state asset ownership – though subsequent comments cast some doubt on whether that extends to ownership of the national airline.
This week, The New Zealand Initiative released Renovating the Nation, a report proposing that New Zealand adopt the NSW model. The report recommends the Crown sell commercial assets it does not need to own and channel proceeds into a ring-fenced National Infrastructure Fund.
New Zealand has tried asset sales before. Voters remember what was sold, not what the proceeds achieved.
NSW succeeded where New Zealand failed because of three safeguards we should copy. They ring-fenced proceeds so the money could not vanish into the government’s coffers. They ensured additionality so proceeds supplemented rather than replaced normal capital budgets. They chose projects from a menu – independently verified by the NSW infrastructure commission – rather than on political whim.
The Infrastructure Commission’s National Infrastructure Plan confirms the scale of New Zealand’s infrastructure deficit – but the Commission has no mandate to recommend infrastructure priorities. The report explains how to close the gap.
An election looms in November. Voters deserve to know where the parties stand on meeting the nation’s infrastructure needs. The blueprint is ready.
Roger Partridge is chairman and a co-founder of The New Zealand Initiative and is a senior member of its research team. He led law firm Bell Gully as executive chairman from 2007 to 2014. This article was first published HERE
2 comments:
You clearly missed the nsw assets being funded by china as you were touring
Perhaps the other question is why it costs so much to build anything. Two billion for a basic hospital. A train system in Auckland that is second only to New York on construction costs.
So maybe we could first look at why we get so little for our money, before selling everything to just throw it away.
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.