There is a common thread to political parties’ policies and their public statements in the infrastructure policy debates – all of them now seem to agree that New Zealand needs a stable, bipartisan pipeline of work, write Brendan Cash (Partner) and Miles Rout (Solicitor) from Dentons.
The election is now imminent. The last election produced a change of government and cancellations and reannouncements that followed that contributed to a significant slowdown in the sector.
Hopefully, the election will not lead to such a slowdown this time. Labour and the Greens wrote forewords broadly endorsing the Government’s formal response to the 30-year National Infrastructure Plan. Labour has also said it would amend, rather than repeal, the new planning legislation, although it would give Ministers less discretion over fast-track approvals. The prospect of a planning framework that both major parties are prepared to live with is promising for the sector.
In this article we summarise the main political parties’ announced infrastructure-related policies and spending promises, as of late October 2026.
National
National’s pitch is the most conventional. It has promised $800 million in its first post-election Budget for the Belfast to Pegasus Motorway and Woodend Bypass, an 11-kilometre northern extension of the Christchurch Northern Motorway, and $1.75 billion in Budget 2028 for stage one of Mill Road, a four-lane, 21.5-kilometre corridor between Manukau and Drury, with construction to begin in late 2028.
The party has also promised to continue its programme of systems reform, such as shifting from fuel excise to road user charges for all, which will also involve a shift to electronic road user charges (RUC) tracking and payment. One might hope that this will result in reduced administrative costs for contractors.
National has also promised to finish the new planning system. At this stage, the party’s full ‘Infrastructure Manifesto’, which Minister for Infrastructure Chris Bishop promised in August would be released ‘soon’, has yet to appear.
Labour
Labour has not said a lot about infrastructure at the time of writing and its transport policy has yet to be released. What it has said points towards restraint.
The party has committed not to increase fuel excise during its first term, and has said that spending from the National Land Transport Fund (NLTF) would be scaled to the funding available.
Labour has also said it will pay for its public transport fares cap from the NLTF. The implied trade-off is a smaller pipeline of projects paid for from that fund. The party does have a policy directed at the civil contracting workforce: an expanded Apprenticeship Boost covering five new trades from July 2027, including road construction and water and sanitary engineering.
Labour has promised that it will not cancel projects that have been signed up before the election. It has also said it won’t repeal the new planning legislation. This should mean that, if there is a change of government, it will be less disruptive to the pipeline of work than some previous changes have been. Early-stage roading projects without contracts in place are likely to carry the greatest risk here.
The Greens
The Green Party proposes $7.42 billion of rail investment including a pilot Auckland–Wellington overnight service, an extension of Te Huia to Tauranga, the return of the Southerner between Christchurch and Dunedin, $900 million into Wellington metropolitan rail, and $2.5 billion for level crossing removal in West Auckland. On top of that sits $13.65 billion for light rail or bus rapid transit in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch, with the mode left to the Infrastructure Commission’s preferred option.
These numbers depend, of course, on there being a change of government and what the Greens and (presumably) Labour prioritise in any negotiations. The Greens would reallocate NLTF money away from roads and into rail. Whether that is viable, given Labour’s commitments around the NLTF, is unknown.
New Zealand First
NZ First has proposed up to $100 billion for a multi-decade fund to build infrastructure. It has not explained how the fund would be structured or financed, however. The party’s other policies include requiring roads, pipes, water and wastewater approvals to be in place before residential Fast-track approvals are granted, establishing a special economic zone at Marsden Point with relief from planning regulation, and committing $1 billion to map energy, geothermal and CO₂ storage sites.
Again, NZ First’s proposals will be dependent on what the parties prioritise in negotiations and what gets past the Minister of Finance, if the government is returned.
ACT
ACT’s policy is framed around getting more from existing spending. It would protect maintenance and renewal funding in the NLTF so that it cannot be diverted to new capital projects and would require councils to fund repairs and maintenance before undertaking street redesigns.
The party’s “build for growth” proposal would require major growth areas to have funded transport capacity plans and use traffic level triggers so that roads arrive with growth rather than after it. ACT also proposes a $6-a-day infrastructure surcharge on temporary work visas, which it expects to raise about $80 million a year.
ACT’s consenting policies would exclude purely spiritual and religious effects from consenting decisions, ban compulsory religious observances as consent conditions, and replace Te Mana o te Wai with specific freshwater quality standards.
These types of policies – not involving big spending commitments – may be the most likely to survive coalition negotiations.
Opportunity
Opportunity’s policy is the most systemic and is aimed at the problem of political churn. The party would put the 30-year National Infrastructure Plan and pipeline into legislation, elevate the Infrastructure Commission into a National Infrastructure Agency that coordinates funding and delivery as well as planning, and require some major projects to pass an enabling Bill with a full select committee process before proceeding.
It would require that 60 percent of future infrastructure spending be put towards maintenance and fund the programme with up to $60 billion of additional borrowing over ten years through a New Zealand Infrastructure Fund, absorbing the Local Government Funding Agency. Councils would be given new tools to finance infrastructure, including congestion charges, visitor levies and value capture.
As with any minor party, these policies depend on its negotiating position. However, with the possibility of Opportunity being the kingmaker, it may be in the best position to negotiate its policies of all the minor parties.
What it means for the sector
There is a common thread to both the parties’ announced policies and their public statements in the infrastructure policy debates. Every party now seems to agree that New Zealand needs a stable, bipartisan pipeline of work.
The Infrastructure Commission’s work has become a reference point across the political spectrum. Whether those sentiments survive a change of government and result in more stable work for the industry remains unknown. Contractors should also watch for National’s Infrastructure Manifesto and Labour’s transport policy in the final weeks of the campaign.
© Dentons. Dentons is a global legal practice providing client services worldwide through its member firms and affiliates. This publication is not designed to provide legal or other advice and you should not take, or refrain from taking, action based on its content. Dentons does not accept any liability other than to its clients, and then only in relation to specific requests for advice.
For specific advice, contact your legal advisor or the Major Projects and Construction team at Dentons on (04) 472 7877.
A close-run race