Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop said transparency was important and he would consider all the Commission's recommendations Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii
The Infrastructure Commission wants all government business cases, budget submissions and advice about infrastructure investments made public by default.
A select committee report out last week shows the Commission warned MPs transparency "really matters" for public confidence, but "has not been very good over a long time period".
The Commission is due to hand over the first National Infrastructure Plan to ministers by the end of the year.
The plan sets out what roads, hospitals, schools, pipes, and power the country needs over the next 30 years, what's planned for the next 10, and how to bridge the gap.
A draft released in July included four transparency recommendations:
- All Crown-funded infrastructure proposals pass through a transparent, independent readiness assessment before funding
- All business cases, Budget submissions, and advice on central government infrastructure investments are published
- Project assurance for central government agencies ensures that risks are well managed.
- Post-completion information on actual project costs, delivery dates and benefits are provided and published in a standard format, enabling comparisons to what was expected when funded
Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop told RNZ transparency was important and he would consider all the Commission's recommendations.
"We'll be looking to be as transparent as possible within the confines of two things. One is traditional budget secrecy, and then the second is commercial confidentiality. If we're dealing with billions of dollars of taxpayer money, people also expect the government to get good deals and to make sure that there's commercial tension when it comes to negotiations."
He said there was some transparency in the system already but there was always more that could be done.
"The biggest thing that I get frustrated by and I know the public gets frustrated by is cost overruns and time delays, so there's a long history across multiple governments, frankly, of projects blowing out in cost and taking much longer than people think," he said.
Bishop was hopeful his changes to the system, which included scaling up the Infrastructure Commission to develop the National Infrastructure Plan and the associated pipeline of projects - published quarterly - would help make more projects uncontroversial.
"It's broken down by central and local government, the private sector is in there as well ... it's broken down by regions, broken down by amount ... 80 percent I would say - probably even higher - of the projects on that list no one's going to disagree with.
"What I'm trying to do is tilt the system towards having a debate around the stuff on the margins, rather than the bulk of the pipeline."
Infrastructure New Zealand chief executive Nick Leggett said successive governments tended to politicise individual projects, and argued better transparency would help.
"The more we can share, the more we can have transparently available for the public and for other parties in Parliament to see and understand why decisions are made, the better.
"We'd get better value for money, we'd get faster delivery over time, and we'd see I think real discipline at sticking to that infrastructure pipeline."
Although constraints may be valid in some cases, Leggett said those excuses should not be overused.
"Where there are commercial terms that shouldn't be made public that's appropriate to keep it safe but we hide behind the veil of secrecy and commerciality far too often."
Leggett pointed to a 2023 Infometrics report estimating New Zealand could save up to $4.7b a year by reducing infrastructure uncertainty, and New Zealand's position in the bottom 10 percent of OECD countries for getting value for money out of infrastructure funding.
He said the main reason project costs and delays tended to 'blow out' was because of changes made between the first business case being signed off and the final design being approved.
"And after, usually, the final design is approved there are massive changes in scope - but we never look back at that. And if you made things more transparent up front, it would be easy to see that when things are slowed or changed during the design or the building process ... why costs eventually end up blowing out.
"There'd be a better discipline among the system and politicians generally at getting it right and getting value for money and not changing scope halfway through."
Opposition parties were also on board.
"Labour has always supported more government transparency, and is open to hearing further from the commission about improving transparency in infrastructure," Labour's Infrastructure spokesperson Kieran McAnulty said in a written statement.
"National has announced a number of major transport projects for example without saying how it plans to fund them."
Green Party Infrastructure spokesperson Julie Anne Genter said the party would urge the government to accept all transparency recommendations.
Green Party Infrastructure spokesperson Julie Anne Genter Photo: RNZ / Angus Dreaver
Like McAnulty, she criticised the government's Roads of National Significance projects - highlighting a speech from Bishop last month that warned of "challenges" delivering the roads and hard choices ahead of how to pay for them.
The costings National previously used were criticised in the lead-up to the election.
Bishop was also unafraid of a little finger-pointing, saying the previous Labour government's $35b to $45b proposal for a second Auckland harbour crossing had only gone through a high-level indicative business case.
"The numbers were frankly pie in the sky and it was really just an announcement dreamed up for a photo op. Now, that sounds like I'm being a bit political, but that is actually just the reality."
He said the coalition recognised a second harbour crossing would be the biggest infrastructure project in New Zealand's history, so had a barge in the harbour to do geotechnical work.
The government would make decisions about whether a bridge or tunnel would be best next year, and would engage with the opposition to ensure the project progressed in case of a change of government.
"We won't be going around saying 'Well, we're going to do this and it's going to cost Y because the reality is, you actually don't know the costs of how much things actually cost until you've gone out and done commercial procurement and got your funding envelope sorted."
Genter said an independent costings unit - which the Greens had previously campaigned on - could be one way to ensure all political parties were more realistic in their spending promises.
The coalition will have 180 days from when the plan is delivered to come up with a response.
Nick Leggett will be hoping the heat of an election campaign does not disrupt what seems like a rare show of political consensus on the need to fund infrastructure - and keep the public informed.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
