Perspectives from the Building Nations conference

The Boffa Miskell group attending the Conference came away positive about the direction of long-term planning; but clear that progress depends on sustained funding, better asset stewardship, political consistency, and more integrated thinking.

We left the Building Nations Conference cautiously optimistic about New Zealand’s infrastructure outlook, and with a greater appreciation of the funding, planning and delivery challenges ahead. Infrastructure New Zealand’s election-year manifesto provided a useful focus, identifying water and energy, and empowering cities and regions, as the priorities that matter most.

Water emerged as a key theme, with speakers emphasising that water infrastructure is an enabler of economic growth, community wellbeing and environmental resilience. The discussion highlighted the need for long-term asset management, investment certainty and infrastructure planning that supports future development and productivity.

Related to this was the need to move from thinking about individual projects to thinking about interconnected infrastructure systems. Several speakers reflected on international examples where long-term success had been achieved not through isolated projects, but by maintaining alignment between planning, funding, governance, delivery and desired outcomes over multiple decades. Successful infrastructure systems are built around shared objectives rather than standalone assets. This systems-based approach has particular relevance for New Zealand, where transport, water, energy, resilience and environmental outcomes are often considered separately, despite being deeply interconnected.

Economic commentary was a source of encouragement, and we recognise that significant opportunities remain across infrastructure and the wider economy. However, our optimism is tempered by government debt constraints and the substantial gap between what New Zealand needs and what it can currently afford. Simply put, there's not enough money to do everything we need to do. The infrastructure sector will have to “do more for less”; and that means prioritising investment carefully and considering a wider range of funding mechanisms.

One of the strongest messages was that operational expenditure may be a bigger problem than capital expenditure. The public sector needs to invest more consistently, and perform better, in maintaining the infrastructure assets New Zealand already has. It was concerning to hear that some agencies do not have reliable asset registers, long-term asset plans, or a clear understanding of what they've got and what is depreciating. Without that information, investment decisions risk becoming reactive and poorly targeted.

This is relevant for Boffa Miskell, as our work often sits on the capital side of planning and designing new or replacement infrastructure. The conference prompted reflection on the value of looking after assets better, and for longer. 

Better stewardship would extend asset life, improve performance, strengthen resilience and help reduce the funding gap for new infrastructure. By enabling more informed investment decisions and a shift from reactive responses towards strategic, system-wide management of public assets, it would support a more balanced approach that values maintenance, adaptation and renewal alongside high-profile new projects.

But, we quickly realised something was missing in most discussions.

If we are talking about the infrastructure that will underpin New Zealand's future success, then we should be talking about both built infrastructure and natural infrastructure. Rivers, wetlands, forests, coastal environments, and green urban spaces are national assets that deliver real economic, environmental, and social value. They improve resilience, help manage climate risks, support biodiversity, and contribute to the wellbeing of our communities. In many cases, natural infrastructure can complement or reduce the need for traditional built infrastructure while delivering multiple benefits at the same time. We’ve seen that across many of the historic projects Boffa Miskell has delivered, and it’s an increasing focus for our work.

We were encouraged by signs of common ground between the main political parties, particularly around major investments and the big-ticket items. This suggests that greater cross-party agreement may be possible. Nevertheless, short electoral cycles remain a significant risk. Changes of government can result in projects being reconsidered, delayed or abandoned; weakening the infrastructure pipeline and making long-term workforce and capability planning difficult.

We strongly support a long-term, well-planned and funded, natural and built infrastructure programme extending well beyond any single political term.

Norway, Sweden and Denmark, for example, have 12-year funded plans approved by Parliament. New Zealand needs a similar commitment to certainty and continuity. This would allow funders, councils, consultants and contractors to plan their investment with greater confidence.

Transport discussion at Building Nations often focused on making better use of existing networks rather than continually expanding them. The Auckland Strategic Motorway Plan’s message that “we can’t keep building more roads” resonated strongly with us. Time-of-use charging, dedicated busways and better integration with rail can be practical ways to increase capacity and improve the performance of existing infrastructure.

Boffa Miskell is confident that people can change their travel behaviour when attractive alternatives are available, because we’ve seen it happen. The Northern Busway is an exemplar that “if you’ve got a good service, people will use it.” The City Rail Link’s anticipated network-wide capacity uplift in Auckland reinforces the value of transport investment that improves the operation of the wider system rather than delivering an isolated asset.

Spatial planning is another major area of opportunity. It’s an integrated approach that aligns closely with Boffa Miskell's multidisciplinary capabilities and creates opportunities for us to help councils and infrastructure providers make more informed decisions. But spatial planning remains superficial if it is treated primarily as a mapping exercise.

Some conference discussions stayed at a general level and did not fully explain how meaningful spatial planning would be governed, funded, and translated into delivery. We advocate for spatial plans that integrate infrastructure, environment, water, ecology, landscape, culture, history and the human element. Spatial plans should be living resources that gain additional layers of knowledge over time and help communities understand not only where growth will occur, but how places will function and what people will experience today and in the future.

Climate adaptation, green infrastructure and social infrastructure should be integral to national and regional spatial planning, rather than secondary additions to transport and construction programmes. This broader view would produce more resilient outcomes and better reflect the interdependence of infrastructure, communities and the natural environment.

This is where Boffa Miskell has an important role to play. We work at the interface between infrastructure, development, environmental management, and place-making. Our contribution is often helping clients and communities achieve multiple benefits; recognising that economic prosperity, environmental quality, and community wellbeing are not competing objectives. They’re outcomes that can and should be pursued together.

Across many conference sessions, regulation and process were seen as sources of frustration. One session challenged the legitimacy of systems that are “better at saying no than finding ways to say yes.” We know that slow consenting, excessive process and repeated business-case work can obstruct delivery without necessarily producing better decisions. At the same time, we believe that faster processes must retain appropriate environmental and community safeguards. The challenge is not simply to remove regulation, but to develop clearer, more proportionate systems that support good projects and resolve issues earlier.

Unsurprisingly, Artificial Intelligence was a hot topic at Building Nations; and viewed as both an opportunity and a risk. From what we heard at the conference, we are confident that Boffa Miskell is well-prepared in this space; and we recognise the need for well-structured data, safe working environments, and appropriate guardrails. We left feeling reassured that across our organisation, we are already undertaking the right actions and asking many of the right questions.

The conference’s most immediate benefit was relationship-building. Building Nations brings together senior people from councils, construction companies, engineering firms and infrastructure organisations – most of whom are our long-term clients and collaborators.

We came away from Building Nations positive about the direction of long-term planning, stronger public transport, improved spatial planning, and the growing recognition of maintenance and asset stewardship. Our concerns centre on whether New Zealand has the funding, political consistency, asset knowledge, and delivery systems required to turn great ideas into outstanding results.

The opportunity is substantial, but progress will depend on planning further ahead, maintaining existing assets better, integrating natural and built systems, and aligning investment with long-term economic, environmental and community objectives. New Zealand’s greatest challenge is no longer identifying projects; but creating the systems capable of consistently delivering the outcomes we want.