Asset Management Reset: Will the Government’s Infrastructure Programme Help Local Authorities Lift the Standard?

A Necessary Admission

Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop’s recent announcement of a cross government asset management improvement programme represents a welcome moment of honesty. His statement that "we have done asset management poorly in the public sector for decades" is supported by visible symptoms such as deteriorating infrastructure, underfunded renewals, and misaligned investment decisions. The question now is whether this new work programme will catalyse a broader transformation that includes local government, the tier of government that owns and manages the majority of New Zealand’s public infrastructure.

Why Local Government Matters Most in Infrastructure

Photo by Heye Jensen on Unsplash

Although central government owns high value, nationally significant assets such as highways, hospitals, and schools, local government is responsible for the infrastructure that most directly affects New Zealanders on a daily basis. Councils manage extensive physical networks, including:

  • Drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater systems

  • Local and regional roads, footpaths, and street lighting (excluding state highways)

  • Solid waste, recreation, and community facilities such as libraries, parks, and cemeteries.

Together, these represent a significant share of the public infrastructure footprint. According to the Auditor General, around half of all public sector physical assets in New Zealand are held by local government, amounting to tens of billions of dollars in value (2017). Councils maintain over 80 thousand kilometres of road, nearly 88 percent of the country’s road network, and own the majority of underground infrastructure assets. Any serious attempt to improve infrastructure performance in New Zealand must therefore include local government.

The Work Programme: What Is in It for Local Government

The government’s phased plan includes near term actions like updating the Better Business Case and Gateway frameworks, improving asset planning indicators, supporting a community of practice, and exploring a national underground asset register.

Longer term, it proposes a 30 year National Infrastructure Plan, new legislative requirements for investment planning, and refreshed Cabinet guidance.

While focused on central agencies, these initiatives could benefit local government through:

  • Clearer Guidance: Consistent indicators to strengthen planning and performance

  • Capability Support: Shared expertise to help under resourced councils lift standards

  • Better Data: A national asset register to aid coordination and long term investment.

The Current State: Data Gaps, Deferred Maintenance, and Systemic Risk

Many local authorities face significant infrastructure challenges. Accurate asset condition data is often lacking, particularly for buried infrastructure. Where data exists, it is frequently isolated within departments, manually updated, and not integrated with financial systems. This makes it difficult to assess risks, plan renewals, or make evidence based investment decisions.

Under financial pressure, councils sometimes defer renewals or underfund depreciation to avoid rate increases. While politically expedient, this can lead to hidden liabilities and eventual service failure. Investment decisions are too often driven by electoral cycles rather than the long term needs of the asset base.

From Programme to Partnership: Making Reform Meaningful

To be truly transformative, the government’s work programme must reach beyond central government and form a genuine infrastructure partnership with local authorities. Three priorities stand out:

  1. Extend Accountability Tools
    Performance expectations and monitoring systems being developed for central agencies should be adapted for councils. Consistent standards would support better performance tracking and foster transparency.

  2. Support System and Data Modernisation
    Many councils lack the capacity to modernise their asset management systems. Targeted funding or technical assistance, linked to national infrastructure goals, could help upgrade digital tools and improve condition reporting.

  3. Legislative Integration
    Any new investment planning requirements should include local government. Planning and funding mechanisms must be aligned across government levels to ensure coherent and sustainable infrastructure delivery.

Conclusion: Local Authorities Are Central to the Solution

The government’s recognition of longstanding weaknesses in asset management is timely and necessary. But success depends on recognising that the backbone of public infrastructure in New Zealand lies not in central agencies but in local communities, managed by local government. Councils are the custodians of the pipes, roads, and facilities that New Zealanders rely on every day. Unless the reform effort directly includes and supports them, its impact will be partial at best.

This is an opportunity to build a truly integrated infrastructure system, one that connects data, funding, planning, and performance across all levels of government. That is how New Zealand can shift from reactive maintenance to proactive stewardship and ensure infrastructure supports prosperity, resilience, and wellbeing for decades to come.

Toni Kennerley