A plan typically answers straightforward questions: what is needed, what should be done first, and why.  

This month, Ministers will receive the Infrastructure Commission’s 30-year National Infrastructure Plan. It will not answer those questions – although not because the Commission has failed. It will have done exactly what it was tasked with doing.  

When the Commission was created in 2019, Parliament gave it a telling mandate: to “co-ordinate, develop and promote an approach to infrastructure.” Note the verbs. Co-ordinate. Develop. Promote. Not “decide.” Not “prioritise". Successive governments have honoured those limitations scrupulously. 

The draft Plan, released in June, runs to 160 pages. It assesses long-term needs. It catalogues projects already in agency pipelines. It offers 19 recommendations on funding, delivery and asset management. “Maintenance” features prominently. All good stuff.  

After a round of submissions, the final Plan is on its way to the Beehive. But it will not identify which projects should proceed first. Or second. Or ever. 

The Commission has been refreshingly candid. Its Infrastructure Priorities Programme “should not be considered as a prioritised list.” The Plan “reflect[s] back what’s already happening, rather than proposing new projects.”  

It is like calling a stocktake a blueprint. 

Across the Tasman, Infrastructure NSW took a more old-fashioned approach. Its 2012 State Infrastructure Strategy was described as “the first ever prioritised and costed long-term infrastructure strategy” in the state’s history – mainly because it contained priorities and costs. 

The Infrastructure Commission has never been given that mandate. It can advise and assess. But it cannot say, “build this first.” That would stray into territory our system has chosen to avoid. 

Ministers have 180 days to respond. So do not expect answers until mid-2026. And even then, do not expect to be told what to build. At least not yet. 

Labour created a system that could not prioritise. National has preserved it. We have bipartisan consensus on not prioritising. What could be more Wellington?  

To be clear, the Commission should not decide what gets built. That is properly a political choice.  

But government should not have to navigate without a map. 

Infrastructure New Zealand suggested the Plan “needs to look more like a plan.” Minister Bishop has said he wants “the 30-year plan... to mirror what happens in Australia.” All that remains is to give the Commission the mandate to do this.