The approach that can solve NZ’s infrastructure problems
Wednesday, 18 March 2026
Geoff Cooper is chief executive of the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission.
OPINION: New Zealand has an infrastructure problem. For decades, we have built in response to short-term pressures rather than planning for the future.
Investment has often followed crises, electoral cycles, or headline projects rather than a consistent, system-wide view of what the country requires. Frequently, the result is worn out infrastructure and uneven investment.
These pressures will only get worse. Our population is ageing; central and local government are facing financial constraints; productivity growth is flat; and natural hazards – as 2026 has already made clear – are becoming more frequent and severe.
At the same time, our water networks, hospitals, defence estate and other infrastructure assets are visibly under the strain of deferred maintenance. The numbers are unequivocal: we cannot fund everything at once. The national infrastructure pipeline includes nearly 12,000 projects in planning valued at $275 billion (as of September 2025). Over two-thirds of total project value ($193b) remains without full funding commitments, largely driven by a small number of megaprojects.
Read more:
Infrastructure boss: Tolls and charges needed before new projects
National Infrastructure Plan: Hospital spending should double
The recently released National Infrastructure Plan makes it clear – looking after what we already have is our largest challenge. Over the next 30 years, the cost to replace our existing infrastructure will average around $20b each year. This is the megaproject we cannot avoid.
Renewing ageing assets rarely attracts headlines, but it represents the most significant infrastructure commitment facing New Zealand over the coming generation. Putting it off will only make things worse. It looks like hospital wards closed due to seismic risk, slow rebuilds following natural disasters, and beaches closed from sewage leaks. Deferred maintenance does not save money – it shifts higher costs and lower service standards into the future.
New Zealand needs an ambitious approach to meet rising demands in health and energy. Hospital investment will need to more than double over the next decade as our population ages and electricity use will need to increase 60% by 2050 to electrify and grow our economy.
Nowhere are the trade-offs more visible than in land transport. Since 1990, we’ve invested more in this sector than in electricity, gas and health combined. On a per capita basis, investment is around 400% higher than it was in 1990. Accelerating from here will create an affordability challenge.
The $56b of planned roads over the next 20 years would cost an additional 49 cents per litre of petrol tax – in addition to the 18 cents pencilled in by 2028. That’s a tall order, made more difficult by the sort of oil price shocks currently before us.
The plan demonstrates a more affordable path forward. With adequate project staging and sensible cost management, it should be possible to deliver a multi-modal transport programme that is responsive to need, affordable and that the country can maintain over time.
The plan’s approach probably means changing how the land transport system works. It must be clearer who pays, with stronger independent scrutiny and improved cost control. Establishing economic regulation or other independent oversight, which is already used in sectors like electricity and telecommunications, could lift efficiency and accountability.
Cost control and value for money is needed across almost all public infrastructure. We will not get the healthcare we need at $2-3b per hospital. Law and order becomes strained if we’re spending $2 million per prison cell, as does our transport system with new roads at $50m per lane kilometre.
Some costs are unavoidable. New Zealand’s geography, geology, and exposure to natural hazards will always pose challenges. But others are within our control. Good project assurance, a focus on capability and workforce, and a stable, enabling approach to resource management can help us deliver quality projects more affordably.
Infrastructure investment can rise even with tight public finances. But it requires higher-quality projects that enough New Zealanders are willing to pay more for.
In the early 20th century, around 90% of ratepayers volunteered to pay (through referenda) for billion-dollar electrification schemes because they recognised the benefits of moving from candles to lightbulbs. Targeted, well-timed investments that lift productivity and economic capacity can justify the added debt and increased maintenance costs – but we need to choose carefully.
New Zealand is one of the biggest spenders on public infrastructure among high-income countries, yet we rank near the bottom for the value we get in return. This should be strong motivation to raise the bar.
The National Infrastructure Plan provides a clear way forward. It is not a promise to build everything, but a framework for making hard choices transparently and consistently. Putting its recommendations into practice would provide greater certainty for the construction sector and the public.
We have the means to catch up. By prioritising renewals, improving oversight, controlling costs, and focusing on high-value investment, we can meet the infrastructure needs of New Zealanders, not just today, but for generations to come.