Some light at the end of the tunnel?

Chapman Tripp's perspective

By Leigh Kissick, Partner, Chapman Tripp

Among the strongest responses in the 2026 Election Survey is the 94.7% support for a bipartisan, long-term approach to infrastructure planning across housing, tax, welfare, and aging population needs.

It’s a big ask especially in a democracy like ours with a strong competitive culture, and especially as under current polling, three-party or even four-party agreement may be required.

But a big step forward was taken this year when Labour and the Greens wrote forewords to broadly endorse the Government’s formal response to the 30-year National Infrastructure Plan 2026, published on 16 June.

And we note the various undertakings the Labour Party has given in the policy comparison table prepared for this conference.

In relation to Public Private Partnerships (PPPs), Labour is “committed to honouring what is contracted, underway and already funded” and is prepared to use PPPs itself while maintaining public ownership and operation of hospitals, schools, and prisons; it will also amend rather than repeal and replace the Natural Environment Act and the Planning Act.

We don’t want to overstate this.

We expect that some of the amendments to the resource management replacement Acts will be significant – including repealing the regulatory relief provisions (under which local councils have to compensate landowners when specific environmental and heritage protections severely limit the reasonable use of their property), reinstating Whakahono ā Rohe agreements, and winding back some of the Ministerial powers to override environmental limits.

Labour leader Chris Hipkins has also attached some important caveats to the project continuance commitment, such that where there are sharp differences of view, where the business case is contested and where the project is in the early stages – discontinuance still seems the likeliest prospect.

But beneath the project churn and discontinuity that were such a feature of the post-2023 transition, there has been a continuity of direction in terms of the policy framework for infrastructure investment – a key issue for New Zealand.

Examples of policies which have been developed across successive administrations are congestion charging, targeted rates, and fast track consenting (although Labour would allow Ministers less discretion than under the National/New Zealand First model).

Similarly, we would expect that the package of changes now being pursued by the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission and the Treasury to improve the Investment Management System will be continued through the next term, regardless of the election result.

Among the work streams is the Investment Decision Assurance process, announced in April this year in response to recommendations seven to nine in the National Infrastructure Plan and intended to apply from 1 November – six days before polling day.

The Infrastructure Commission is responsible for preparing an Infrastructure Investment Assurance Framework (to replace Gateway and the Infrastructure Priorities Programme) with the objective of optimising “value from new and existing investments and assets for current and future generations of New Zealanders” and providing Ministers and Cabinet with better information on projects in order to make sound infrastructure investment decisions.

In other words, to lift the planning horizon and decision-making well beyond the exigencies of a three-year electoral cycle.

Deloitte's perspective 

Consensus on need, debate on delivery

By Mary Kilkelly, Partner, Deloitte and Trevor Manners, Partner, Deloitte

Energy has emerged as the infrastructure priority for New Zealand businesses. The 2026 Election Survey ranks it as the sector most critical to future growth, reflecting rising concern about whether New Zealand can provide the affordable, reliable, and secure supply needed to support economic growth, industrial demand and increasing electrification.

While businesses and political parties appear largely aligned on the need for significantly greater energy capacity, there is far less agreement on the mechanisms required to deliver it. Questions around the future energy mix, funding models, regulatory settings, the role of private capital, and the allocation of risk remain unresolved. These are the issues that ultimately determine whether projects proceed, investment is unlocked and capacity is delivered.

The challenge now is providing the market with sufficient certainty around funding and delivery pathways to support investment decisions. Clarity on how projects will be funded, and how risks and returns will be shared, is essential to developing robust investment cases and turning ambition into investment.