Chris Bishop: Infrastructure Minister on the Infrastructure Commission's 30-year draft plan

The Infrastructure Minister agrees we're getting bad value for money and need trans-government systems to improve.

The Infrastructure Commission's released a 30-year draft plan revealing its first look at how New Zealand needs to invest in our future. 

Chris Bishop told Mike Hosking half of all capital-intensive government agencies don't have asset registers, so don't know what they own or how to maintain it.  

He says what all parties need to agree on is focusing on asset maintenance, because we don't look after what we've already built.   

LISTEN ABOVE 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Morning. So another crack the big picture infrastructure this morning
from the Infrastructure Commission, who's latest report tells us we
spend too much for very little return. This is a
thirty year draft plan. Chris Bishop, Infrastructure Ministers with us,
Good morning, Good morning. The comments yesterday about how useless
we are, do you reckon in your capacity here and
now you can actually move the needle?

Speaker 2 (00:22):
Yes, I do, and I'm intending to do that over
the next eighteen months. In fact, we've done quite a
lot already to improve the system, but there's a long
way to go. As you said, it's a thirty year problem.
We're in the top ten percent for spend. Everyone says
we don't spend enough. We actually spend a truckload on
infrastructure across local and central government. We get very bad
value for money from that spend. We're in the bottom
team percent for value for money in the OECD. So
we've got to improve.

Speaker 1 (00:42):
So the trans government thing that you talked about yesterday
as well, do you think that's real that someone's going
to pick up and run with your idea so it's
not your idea, it's everyone's idea. Do you think that's
real or realturistic.

Speaker 2 (00:53):
No, I think we can do it. And one of
the things I talked about yesterday was moving away from
the sort of rhetoric that we needed by partisan pipeline.
We do need that, but I pointed out at the
summer yesterday and I put it out all the next
the things we're going to start in the next six months.
If you look at the list, I don't reckon any
political party in Parliament will disagree with anything that the
government is spending money on. You've got Malling, You've got

(01:14):
Otachi to north of starting, You've got a couple of
government capital projects starting. Everyone's going to agree on that.
The issue is not that. The issue is you, I reckon.

Speaker 1 (01:22):
So the issue is let me just counter it for
one moment, and I don't want to, but I have to.
They will say I want some trains and some trolleys
and some cycle lanes and I'll need the money for that.
And once I'd love to build your road, but now
that I've got all that stuff, I can't afford your road.
And that's how it's going to unfold, isn't it.

Speaker 2 (01:38):
I reckon. There'll be a bit of debate between the
Greens and National and things like that, and labor on
things like cycle ways. Right, so national government is never
going to be as into cycle ways as a green
government as for example. So but eighty percent ninety percent
of this part one week and agree on. What we
do need to agree on are things that the people
have been saying for thirty years. We need to do.
Focus on asset maintenance. We have neglect that. That's folk.

(02:00):
We have rotten hospitals, we've got mold in our schools,
you know, police stations falling apart around the country because
we don't look after what we've already built. So there's
a whole range of recommendations in there around that. I'll
tell you one thing that shocked made that I learned
half of central government capital intensive agencies do not have
an asset register. What I mean by that is they
don't even know what they own and they don't know

(02:21):
what the state of what they own is. Now it's
ridiculous when you think about it, because we say to
local government and they get a bad rap. But we
say to local government, this is legislated. You've got to
do a ten year capital plan, you've got to do
a long term asset maintenance plan, and there are some
performance standards you've got to meet. We don't even do
this do that for ourselves in central government, so things

(02:42):
like that. It's got to change.

Speaker 1 (02:43):
Tell you what is changing. And congratulations this fifteen stories
in Auckland. That's sort of overriding councils. Get them out
of the way, get on with this stuff. But is
someone wanting to live on floor thirteen next to a
railway station? If you build it, will they come?

Speaker 2 (02:59):
Absolutely, there's a huge demand out there. It's not going
to happen straight away like it's you know, we're going
to make the council do it, and they'll do it
by October, which is good progress by the way, But
it's not like, you know, next next week or something,
there's going to be like a big apartment by Kingsland
train station. But over the next three, five, ten years.
This is the way people want to live, or at
least the way some people want to live, right. Some

(03:20):
people want to live in a single story house in
the suburbs. That's all good, We need more houses like that.
Some people want to live in a terrace house, that's fine.
Some people young people are older couples, the kids have
moved out They just want a nice apartment by a
train station. And here's the thing. We're building this five
billion dollars sea rail link. It's going to be rapid
transit for Auckland. But Kingsland train station is going to
have trains running through it every five minutes at peak.

(03:41):
It's going to be phenomenal. People are going to want
to live near the station, get a coffee on the
way of the train.

Speaker 1 (03:45):
Chris, you've taken the pills. Have you seen the trains
in Auckland lately? They don't run. There are no trains
in Auckland. They're permanently not on.

Speaker 2 (03:52):
Well. The part of the reason for that is that
they're getting ready for city rail links. So I'm not
pretending it's going to be perfect right away from day one,
but there's a huge event going into upgrading the lines
down to train so we can get ready for it.

Speaker 1 (04:03):
Right, are you ready for this morning scandal?

Speaker 2 (04:06):
Look?

Speaker 1 (04:07):
Hit me, Hit me with that far now, Aura, right, farner,
Aura give money to pacifica Medical Association group. What do
they do with that money?

Speaker 2 (04:14):
Chris, I'm sure you to tell me.

Speaker 1 (04:18):
They fund Moana Pacifica, the rugby team. Now I'll ask
you this in your capacity as minister formerly a Minister
of sport. What the hell is an agency that's supposed
to uplift the community? Firstly, it's a race based funding,
which you said you'd stop. Why are they funding professional sport?

Speaker 2 (04:34):
Yeah, it's a complex. Is this funding picture a because? Well,
because you've got funer aora that the fun Aura groups
do all sorts of different things and sometimes it's quite
difficult to untangle the contracts a set as delivery from
everything house. So is it I'm with you.

Speaker 1 (04:50):
Well, well you're in charge with Chris, you're the government
who is going to fix all of this a year
and a half and why are we discovering this this morning?

Speaker 2 (04:57):
I'm not a judge of that, but I know that
my colleagues are looking at it because I agree with
you in principle, and I'm sure they are looking at it.

Speaker 1 (05:04):
But as Minister of Sport, which you were, did it
not bother you or did you not know that professional
rugby teams in a country with no money were being
funded by an agency that's supposed to on a race
based way it will process uplift their community.

Speaker 2 (05:19):
Yeah? I found it strange. Well, what did you do
about about it well. As I say, there are contracts
in place, and as I say, disentangling all of the
various different funding streams that go into final or from
some of the money that goes out the door, as
we've discovered in other areas I'm thinking of the other
issues that we've cropped up is not as easy as

(05:42):
it sounds.

Speaker 1 (05:42):
I appreciate your time, Chris Bishop, and you got caught
there slightly. Now, the other aspect of this is the
charity aspect. So the company or the business or the
charity specific medical association group is a charity, so they
don't are they charity? When you fund a professional rugby team,
are you a charity still? And if that rugby team

(06:05):
didn't exist without your funding, are you still a charity? Jeez,
there's a lot of questions on this morning, Mike. So
the saga continues with Maray getting more and more money
to do well. It's not just Marrio's specifica to do
what they want. When is it going to stop? Not
a bad question, it's I think, as you heard Chris say,
it's more difficult than you think.

Speaker 2 (06:23):
For more from the Mic asking Breakfast Listen Live to
news Talks, it'd be from six am weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio