The debate about privatising state assets has reared its head again, with calls by the ACT leader for the government to sell off more assets to help balance its books and the Prime Minister’s now typical vaguely ambiguous, non-committal response.

However, it is largely yesterday’s debate, more reminiscent of the late 1980s and early 1990s than today. At that time, there was a case for the government to divest itself of many assets and businesses that successive governments had acquired over time, only to see their performance fail to improve significantly under government ownership.

However, those days have gone. Many of those entities have been sold, but that process has been the subject of ongoing criticism because the sales themselves were botched.  The net result was often a worse business and service outcome. In some instances – railways and Air New Zealand, for example – a subsequent government has had to buy back the assets to prevent their total collapse.

In any case, as many analysts, including Sir John Key, have pointed out, there are not that many assets remaining that it would appropriate to sell in part or in whole, and that the economic impact of doing so is unlikely to be substantial. So, all we are really left with is what Sir Michael Cullen would have described as an “ideological burp” from the ACT Party.

However, that is not to say that there is not a strong case for considering the performance of some of the government’s largest business assets. That performance can certainly be improved.

Housing is a good example. There has long been a tradition, famously initiated by the first Labour Government in 1938, of comprehensive public housing provision by the state to help people in need. Today, the government’s housing agency, Kāinga Ora – Homes and Communities, owns around 72,000 rental properties across New Zealand. It is the country’s largest landlord. In addition, local authorities own around 14,000 rental properties. Taken together, central and local government agencies provide rental accommodation for around 400,000 people.

But the system is not without substantial problems. Although the waiting list for public housing has been declining, Ministry of Social Development figures still show more than 22,000 people waiting an average 344 days to get into public housing. Differing eligibility criteria between Kāinga Ora housing and local authority housing mean the situation is uneven across the country. Because of those variable standards, the quality of accommodation provided is also often uneven and not well-suited to the needs of tenants.

The original premise of state housing was that it would transitory, to help people through difficult circumstances. That has been long lost sight of. Concessional rental rates and non-fixed-term tenancies mean that for many tenants public housing has become a long-term way of life, rather than a transition, often shutting out deserving cases on the waiting list.

Maintenance of the housing stock has been a perennial problem, leading previous governments and councils to sell properties, rather than invest in their upgrading. Successive governments have sold more than 31,000 state houses in recent years. On the other hand, more than 16,000 new houses have been added to the government’s stock since 2017, and a further almost 2,700 are planned to be built over the next eighteen months, with 3,000 existing homes being upgraded. Even so, total public housing stock is still declining.

All this raises the question of whether there is a better way for managing the country’s under-pressure central and local government housing stock more consistently and even-handedly. Consideration should be given to bringing the entire central government and local government public housing stock under onje organisation – a revamped Kāinga Ora – Homes and Communities. The new Kāinga Ora could then be more sharply focused as a property management company. It would be required to utilise the skills and expertise of the private sector home construction companies, advertising the homes of one’s dreams on television every night, to help better manage the existing stock and plan the future development of public housing in New Zealand.

This is not a new idea, even if it has fallen into disuse in recent years – it was, after all, a partnership between Fletcher Construction and the first Labour Government that enabled the design and building of the state housing programme from the late 1930s.

The same model of involving the private sector in the operation, management and upgrading of government property could equally be applied to other areas where the government is struggling to manage and maintain substantial property portfolios – schools and hospitals, for example. Here again, the government could establish a separate property management company, drawing on relevant private sector asset management expertise to maximise the government’s return on its health and education assets and improve overall economic performance.

The focus on this new entity would be on the buildings and would exclude the delivery of health and education services and staffing so as not to compromise the continued public ownership of those services. It would be solely about managing public assets better.

Discussion around these concepts, and how they could be applied to the contemporary public benefit, appeal as far more relevant than reverting to yesterday’s ideological prescriptions the way the ACT Party is.  

This week, the rituals that herald the start of each Parliamentary year begin.

Both the major parties are holding their traditional two-day start-of-year Caucus retreats. National is meeting in Hamilton and Labour is in Palmerston North. Caucus retreats rarely yield anything of value but are useful mechanisms for demonstrating Party bonhomie and outward unity, especially after tough times like a Cabinet reshuffle, or a demoralising return to Opposition after years in government. The overriding impression both parties will want to leave after their retreats is that they are fired up, confident and ready to face the challenges of the political year which begins in earnest when Parliament resumes next week.

But before too much of the hot air generated at the retreats fades away, the parties will dutifully trek to Ratana Pā for the commemoration services this weekend of the 152^nd anniversary of the birth of Tahupōtiki Wiremu Rātana, founder of the Rātana Church and political movement. Again, the process follows a set ritual – the separate formal welcome of the government and opposition parties onto the marae, followed by the often-frank speeches on the paepae, refreshments and the farewell.

When Parliament resumes next week, the first item of business will be the presentation of the Prime Minister’s Statement, which is supposed to set out the broad thrust of the government’s legislative plans for the year ahead. That is followed by a debate, lasting up to 13 hours, and spread over several days, ostensibly on the Statement’s contents, but wide-ranging over any aspect of the government’s performance, and other matters besides.

That process will be more drawn out this year because after resuming next week, earlier than in recent years, Parliament will go into a one week recess the following week to allow for the annual Waitangi Day Commemorations to take place.

At the end of the debate on the Prime Minister’s Statement, there will be the first vote of confidence of the year, which the government will need to win to continue in office. Then, both the House and the select committees can settle into their respective work patterns for the year ahead. As this is the second year of the government’s term it is also likely to be its busiest. Last year was about a new government settling into its work and developing the legislation necessary to give effect to its policy programme. Next year will be about tidying up loose ends and battening down the hatches before the election, due sometime in the latter quarter of the year.

This year will also be the time when Members of Parliament start to think about their futures and whether they wish to seek a further term at next year’s election. Typically, around a quarter to as third of Parliament stands down (either voluntarily or involuntarily) at each election. It will therefore not be unexpected to start to see a stream of upcoming retirements announced from around the middle of the year.

There is an added complication this year. In March, the Representation Commission is due to release draft new electorate boundaries for the 2026 election for public consultation. They will be finalised by August. The law currently fixes the number of electorates in the South Island at 16. However, this year because of the increase in the South Island’s population recorded in the 2023 Census, the number of North Island electorate seats will be reduced by one to ensure North Island electorates remain approximately the same population size as their South Island counterparts.

There has been speculation that because of wider population changes in Wellington and Auckland either the Epsom or Ōhāriu seats may be abolished, which would have implications for both the sitting members for those electorates. In Wellington, the three existing electorates of Rongatai, Wellington Central and Ōhāriu are all under the new electorate population quota making it difficult to see how all three can be retained. It is a similar story in Auckland with Epsom and its near neighbours all below the new quota.

Whatever happens, there will be ramifications beyond the electorate eventually chosen for abolition, which nearby MPs will weigh up when deciding whether to stand again, unless of course they are able to flee to the safety of a good place on the party list. From the end of the coming year, all parties will be starting to reveal the new candidates they have attracted to run both in electorates and on the party list in 2026.

There are two other unusual features to watch for in the first half of 2025. Around the end of May, pursuant to the Coalition Agreement, David Seymour will replace Winston Peters as Deputy Prime Minister until the next election. While that transfer is expected to go smoothly, the interesting point to watch will be whether it leads to any change in the dynamic of relationships within the Coalition, particularly since Peters, with a clear eye to the next election, has promised to be more assertive in pursuing New Zealand First’s interests once freed of being Deputy Prime Minister.

Second, and over the same period, will be the select committee process regarding the Treaty Principles Bill. How that proceeds, both in terms of how the submissions eventually chosen to be heard by the committee are treated, and the nature of the evidence presented, will be extremely testing, even if the Bill remains headed for eventual defeat. Unless it is carefully and wisely managed, the process has the capacity to completely dominate and thereby derail much of the rest of the government’s programme.

Once those items have been dealt with, the second ritual aspect of the Parliamentary year – the procedures around the presentation of the Budget and the scrutiny and accountability processes associated with that – kick in and will see Parliament through until it rises just before next Christmas.

 

As a turbulent political year draws to a close some observations can be made about the state of the various parties and some of their personnel.

Within the National Party, this year has seen the emergence of Chris Bishop as not just one of the government’s key Ministers, with a range of new initiatives across his various portfolios, but also the go-to person when things do not go to plan. In that regard, he looks set to reprise the role of Minister of Everything, pioneered by Sir Bill Birch during the Bolger government, and developed to the ultimate degree by Steven Joyce in the last National-led government.

Erica Stanford has been National’s best performing Minister during the year. She has always managed to appear competent and professional, and on top of her brief. At the same time, she has shown, with her handling of the Abuse in Care inquiry outcomes, that she has the appropriate levels of compassion when required to balance her cool competence. Judith Collins continues to be National’s quiet achiever across a varied range of portfolios, and never putting a foot wrong.

On the other hand, Shane Reti has been the biggest disappointment. He has failed to achieve any of the government’s commitments on improving the public health system, despite retaining the soothing and reassuring bedside manner expected of a doctor. He must surely be a leading candidate for demotion when the first Cabinet reshuffle occurs next year.

Chris Hipkins has been Labour’s most consistent and persistent performer throughout the year. His contributions have generally been sensible and thoughtful, although constrained by the policy time-warp his party seems to be entering. Against the odds, it is becoming more likely that he could lead Labour into the next election, although whether he can achieve victory remains another question altogether.

However, Hipkins has been handicapped throughout the year by the largely somnambulant performance of the rest of his colleagues, many of whom have been dormant since before the last election. Others would best serve Labour’s interests by staying asleep, altogether. (Wille Jackson’s consistently buffoonish rants, and Aysha Verrall’s supercilious smugness come to mind.)

During 2025, Labour will need to start to cull many of the time servers and deadwood wasting space on its backbenches to get in shape to be competitive at the 2026 election.

As ACT leader, David Seymour has enjoyed a good year. While other ACT Ministers – notably Karen Chhour – have impressed, Seymour’s persona, built around his unflinching commitment to the controversial Treaty Principles Bill has largely shaped the party’s image, although not led to any significant increase in potential voter support. His challenge will be to maintain the momentum he has generated, once the Treaty Principles Bill bites the dust next year, and his elevation to the position of Deputy Prime Minister around the same time should assist in that regard.

Winston Peters’ durability and political stamina has been remarkable, and his wiliness has been an asset for the government during its first year. Next May, he will step down from his third stint as Deputy Prime Minister, shortly after his 80^th birthday. He says this will leave him plenty of time to campaign for New Zealand First’s re-election in 2026.

However, Shane Jones’ impatience to succeed Peters as party leader is beginning to show and may get in the way of any wish Peters has to lead New Zealand First into the next election. Jones is also no spring chicken and has made no secret of his interest in New Zealand First’s top job, whenever it should become vacant.

As far as the Green Party is concerned, this has been the year of Chloe Swarbrick. Through the most tragic and unexpected circumstances she has led the party through its most difficult year. Her drive and determination have sustained her thus far but maintaining that level of intensity over the next two years will be challenging. At the same time, she may need to curb her mounting tendency to appear to be talking down to people and hectoring them on policies the Greens feel passionately about.

Te Pati Māori has succeeded at becoming Parliament’s self-styled disruptor by making itself unpopular with everyone but its core constituency, which appears to be growing. This potentially creates a longer-term problem for Labour if it sees Te Pati Māori as a possible future partner in government. Labour could well consider it is becoming too hot to handle as a government partner, in much the same way as Helen Clark dismissed an earlier incarnation of the party as “the last cab off the rank” in 2005. On the other hand, Labour may have no path to government, other than with Te Pati Māori, although that may put at risk some of Labour’s more conservative support.

Finally, Parliament's best performer – as opposed to politician of the year – has been Speaker Gerry Brownlee who has performed his role with the patience, wisdom and dignity that critics might not previously expected of him.

That ends the observations this year. It is now time to wish everyone a happy Christmas and a rewarding 2025 ahead.

As the government begins its second year in office there has been much comment about the leadership style and tone of Prime Minister Christopher Luxon.

By his own admission he is a not a career politician. There have been occasions when that lack of political experience has shown. Much has been made of his corporate background, and his penchant for still speaking like a business leader (for example, referring to voters as customers in a recent interview, before correcting himself), and his personal wealth.

Most of this criticism is unfair, because in other ways, Luxon has proved himself to be a quick political learner. He defied most expectations at the time he became National’s leader in 2021 by transforming what was a disorganised rabble then into a viable government in waiting by 2023.

After Labour’s chaotic last three years in office after 2020, Luxon’s election commitment to get New Zealand “back on track” resonated with enough voters to make him Prime Minster after the shortest Parliamentary apprenticeship ever.

Nevertheless, commentators questioned whether he could make the transition from corporate chief executive to Prime Minister, especially when he launched a series of chief executive-style quarterly action plans.

In the first few months, it did not seem to matter. The government was getting on doing things, principally dismantling much of Labour’s legacy. They seemed to be working to a plan and to know what they were doing.

But then came the Budget and the apparent broken promise over funding new cancer drugs. Luxon had committed to funding these in the election campaign. There was surprise that Luxon had not seemed to appreciate the anger of those who felt betrayed by the lack of funding in the Budget.

Luxon moved quickly to correct the omission and eventually delivered a funding package which went well beyond National’s original promise. But to those who were affected it looked more like a hurried backtrack.

However, that was nothing compared to the furore over ACT’s Treaty Principles Bill. While Luxon is correct that such compromises are an inevitable part of MMP coalition government, he is under fire from all sides of the debate for his approach. To some he has been too weak, appearing mealy-mouthed by supporting the Bill’s introduction, but pledging to vote against it later. To others, he has been deliberately insensitive to the damage the Bill is causing to racial harmony in New Zealand. Recent disparaging comments about his leadership from both his coalition partners have not helped either.

The debate on the Treaty Principles Bill goes to the heart of Luxon’s leadership style and tone.  Despite his critics, he is content with the stand he has taken, resolute in his commitment that the government will vote the Bill down when it returns from the select committee next year. He does not appear too worried about what may happen in the meantime, because of his confidence in the ultimate outcome.

In many senses, the tension around the Treaty Principles Bill could have been managed better, or possibly defused slightly, had Luxon at any point given a considered speech about his view of the future direction of Crown/Māori relations, including the role and place of the Treaty. But that is not his style leading some to conclude he is not all that interested in the issue.

From the outset Luxon has been more focused on policy outcomes than reciting lofty policy intents so beloved by his immediate predecessors. That has served him well so far, but as the year has progressed, and the economy has not responded as positively as expected with rising unemployment and more people on benefits, it could be argued that the government needs to start painting a clearer picture about the country’s medium-term prospects and how these will be achieved.

At no stage since he became Prime Minister has Luxon delivered a major speech setting out the sort of country he wants to see New Zealand become over the next twenty years or so, and the various policy choices, over a range of issues, that we need to be taking to get there. It is hardly surprising therefore, given this lack of overall context, that as the tough times continue, more and more New Zealanders are feeling the country is heading in the wrong direction. Now is the time for the Prime Minister to set out a clear sense of direction for voters feeling uncertain about their futures.

Luxon’s mentor, Sir John Key, like Helen Clark before him, always portrayed a clear sense of purpose about what they wanted for New Zealand, which, whether one agreed with them or not, sustained their governments in the tough times, as well as the good ones. That cannot be said at present, which is why the current government is increasingly in danger of being regarded as directionless.

A narrative is beginning to emerge that the government is flinty faced and uncaring. If that view takes firm hold over the next few months, it may prove very difficult to dispel before the next election, no matter how the economy performs.

Luxon and his senior Ministers are clearly convinced they are on the right path to getting the country “back on track” and will likely stick to their task. But, as 2025 unfolds, it will be important to keep doubting New Zealanders onside.

That will be a critical test for Luxon's still developing – but quickly improving – political communication skills.

 

Wellington’s controversial and embattled Mayor Tory Whanau deserves some political credit for the content of the $400 million savings package she steered through her fractious Council this week.

With one or two exceptions - most notably the Botanic Gardens' iconic Begonia House which is threatened with demolition - many of the pet projects that have divided councillors for so long have been saved, at least for now. The Mayor has even managed to protect her beloved plan to pedestrianise the city’s famous Golden Mile from Courtenay Place to Lambton Quay, thus preserving at least some of her Green credentials. Earlier, she had declared her Golden Mile project sacrosanct, at the same time as she was calling on every other councillor to set aside their own personal wish lists as they grappled with the city’s mounting financial problems.

However, while the Mayor can claim some credit for this week’s decisions, the Council still has a long way to go on its journey towards fiscal rectitude. The $360 to $400 million of savings projected in this week's decisions are still well short of the $530 million of potential savings identified by Council officers. Whether they will be enough to satisfy both the government's recently appointed Crown Observer and ultimately the Minister of Local Government remains to be seen. And those decisions still need to be confirmed by the full Council which has a remarkable track record of overturning committee recommendations on important financial decisions. It should be remembered it was the full Council that overturned the original decision to sell the Council's shareholding in Wellington International Airport which precipitated the current financial crisis over funding the city’s Long-term Plan. 

In many senses the Council’s task has only just begun, and much ground remains to be recovered before it is likely to be seen by both Crown Observer and the Minister as operating in a responsible and fiscally sustainable way. While the Mayor can feel some satisfaction at the limited progress to date, her fist-pumping "we've got this" comment at the end of the meeting was both gauche and foolishly premature, giving the chronic erratic unpredictability of her supporters on the Council.

The endangered Begonia House and the slavish determination to proceed with the Golden Mile project in their own way highlight why Mayor Whanau’s Council is so ridiculed. The Begonia House was gifted to the city in 1961 by the family of the industrialist Sir Walter Norwood. It has been a popular site for visitors and local people since then. However, the removal of carparking on nearby streets because of the Council’s obsession with installing cycleways had made the Begonia House more inaccessible, and the cafeteria business associated with it less viable. The Council’s solution, therefore, is that the Begonia House has had its day and should be demolished, arousing the ire of many Wellingtonians. In the view of the councillors supporting the Mayor, it is a symbol of Wellington’s past, out of step with the cycle and pedestrian friendly future they see for the city. The idea that the Begonia House should be handed over to private enterprise to run efficiently, and that more carparking should be provided to improve access to it, is complete anathema to their intentions.

The Mayor’s determination to proceed with her Golden Mile project, come hell or high water, is in a similar vein. At first glance the proposal to pedestrianise the Golden Mile, save for buses and cycles is an attractive one. But it has stirred up a hornet's nest amongst inner city businesses. Many are already struggling to regain customers after Covid19 and the long period of people working from home. On top of this there has been the general economic slowdown and the impact of public sector redundancies. Many businesses have already closed, while others are teetering on the brink. They fear the Golden Mile proposals will be the final straw. 

For its part, the Council has appeared singularly uninterested in their plight, sticking doggedly to its determination to rid the central city of cars to make it more pedestrian and cycle friendly, in line with its overall vision. The fact that the city’s existing character will likely be changed irreparably, at the cost of many long-standing businesses seems to matter little to Mayor Whanau and the tight,  out of their depth,  clique of councillors around her. All that matters to them is that the city will appear a little greener, even if it ends up a shell of its former self.

Still, for a Mayor for whom nearly everything has gone wrong in the last two years, this week’s Council decisions are a rare and welcome win, even if they are perpetuating the wrong direction the city has been heading in. But if they are confirmed when the Council finalises its long-term plan, they still offer little prospect of immediate relief to beleaguered ratepayers reeling from substantial rates hikes this year and the prospect of more to come. For them, two options remain: in the short-term there is the wishful hope that the Crown Observer will be able to install some sense of wise spending and financial discipline into the Council. However, the longer-term and far more likely option remains that voters, tired of the incompetent shenanigans, will resolve the issue for themselves when they vote in next year’s Mayoral and Council elections.

The Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 gave legal status to the Treaty, a mere 135 years after it was signed. Since then, it has often been referred to as our country’s founding document. In the absence of a written constitution, the Treaty is New Zealand’s equivalent to Britain’s Magna Carta or the United States’ Declaration of Independence, influential documents on the course of a nation’s history, but without formal constitutional status.

As such, it guides, but not dictates, so many of our national actions. In that sense, it is very much a living document, subject to constant discussion and debate, which is healthy in a modern, pluralistic society like ours. The oft-quoted ruling of Chief Justice Sir James Prendergast in 1877 that the Treaty was a “simple nullity” because it had not been incorporated into New Zealand’s law was itself nullified by the 1975 legislation giving legal standing to the Treaty.

The starting point for any discussion about the role and purpose of the Treaty today needs to be what was the intent of those who developed it back in 1840, not what various interests today think should have been their intent. Dame Claudia Orange’s authoritative book, The Treaty of Waitangi, has described events at Waitangi in the days immediately before the Treaty was signed, and the debate amongst the Māori chiefs present. Their focus was on both ensuring that their authority would not be eroded by sharing power with the British, and that their lands would be protected.

Article Two of the Treaty “confirms and guarantees to the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand and to the respective families and individuals thereof the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties which they may collectively or individually possess so long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession” and was the basis on which the chiefs agreed to sign the document on 6 February 1840.

Although it was to be more than a century before the Treaty was enshrined in law, there were references to its provisions in some early laws, most notably the Native Rights Act 1865 which established the Māori Land Court. But following Prendergast’s 1877 ruling on a land dispute between a Māori landowner and the Church of England, the strength of Article Two protection gradually weakened, even though Māori continued to challenge what was happening. Prendergast’s ruling created a bind – because the Treaty was not part of New Zealand law, little could be done to uphold the rights and protections it provided. The dilemma was highlighted in the 1938 case of Te Heuheu Tūkino v Aotea District Māori Land Board, where the judge ruled that while there was validity in Te Heuheu Tūkino’s case, according to the Treaty, it was not binding on the Crown because the Treaty was not considered to be part of New Zealand law.

Following the 1975 legislation which rectified this inconsistency, the Court of Appeal determined in 1987 that there were principles to be followed when it came to interpreting the Treaty and any claims for redress that may be made under it. These were that the Crown (the government) had a duty to act reasonably and in good faith; that it had the right to govern and should make informed decisions; and that it should remedy past grievances. The Court ruled that the Crown had an obligation to ensure active protection of Māori interests, and that Tino rangatiratanga, the right of Māori to continue to exercise self-determination, should be recognised. These principles have been summarised as the “three Ps” – partnership, participation and protection. – generally consistent with what the original signatories thought they were agreeing to in 1840.

The history of the Treaty since 1840 has been chequered. There have been occasional lurches to the extremes – Prendergast in 1877, for example, or perhaps even the pace of change under the Ardern government. The current debate about the Treaty Principles Bill is another such move.

At first glance, the Bill’s main provisions (that the Government has the obligation to govern for all New Zealanders; that it will protect all New Zealanders property rights; and treat everyone as equal under the law with the same rights and duties) may seem innocuous. But under the Bill of Rights Act and the existing common law, those basic rights are already established and upheld, making the Treaty Principles Bill unnecessary.

The Bill’s provocation is far less its content than its perceived intent. It is not about providing a reasonable framework within which the original intent of the Treaty and the legal principles accompanying it can be applied to the betterment of all New Zealanders, as that already exists. Rather, it effectively renders the Treaty itself redundant by transferring its content to a separate form altogether. In that sense, it is a modern version of Prendergast’s 1877 ruling.

In another context, it would be unthinkable if a contemporary British government decided to rewrite Magna Carta, or a United States administration decided the Declaration of Independence needed to be re-interpreted (although under the incoming Trump administration who knows what might happen). The same applies with the Treaty of Waitangi. It may be imperfect, incomplete in some respects, or not always upheld as intended. But for all that, it remains the document on which our nation was founded.

The Treaty is therefore our modus operandi for common nationhood. It is not about the dominance of one signatory over the other, but as Norman Kirk said many years ago, about how we all live together in these islands. In that regard, the Treaty Principles Bill is simply the wrong answer to a question that does not properly exist.

The division, misinformation and dislocation it is causing in many quarters is not justified by either our history or the blinkered determination of those seeking to win narrow partisan political points.

 

Last week the government announced plans to build two new tunnels in central Wellington to ease traffic congestion. One will be a second tunnel through Mount Victoria to improve the flow of traffic to the eastern suburbs and Wellington International Airport. The other will be alongside the existing Terrace tunnel to improve traffic flows into the city from the north. 

On cue, the Green Party MP for the eastern suburbs’ electorate of Rongotai, Julie Anne Genter, announced her vehement opposition to the plans. All the tunnels would do is encourage the proliferation of cars entering and travelling across the central city, (despite the fact there is no alternative) when the emphasis should be on getting cars out of the city and encouraging more cycling and reliance on public transport, she argued.

The Green leaning Wellington City Council and Mayor are already a national laughingstock because of the way in which their obstinate insistence on adding cycleways to the city’s narrow inner-city streets is driving businesses and customers away.  The Council has become so dysfunctional that the government appointed a Crown Observer this week in what looks like a forlorn attempt to get things back on track.

Genter's intervention last week over the tunnels plan was a chilling reminder to Wellington residents of how determined her Green Party Council colleagues are to thwart any significant roading infrastructure development in the city.  But it seems that that point was not lost on the National and Labour parties who have announced this week that they are working towards a bipartisan approach to infrastructure development.

Such an approach makes sense. New Zealand is widely acknowledged to have a significant infrastructure deficit because plans by successive governments over the years have often stalled due to a lack of long-term political agreement and the uncertainty that has caused. After a visit to New South Wales earlier this year the Prime Minister noted enviously that there was a long-term political consensus between the state’s Labor and Liberal parties about the state’s future infrastructure requirements that were not turned upside whenever there was a change of state government. It seemed then to be only a matter of time before he sought to broker a similar agreement between National and Labour here.

This week’s announcement that National and Labour have reached broad agreement on new rules for Public Private Partnerships they hope will attract greater investment in infrastructure development is a positive, if still conditional, first step. Much still needs to be done to flesh out the details, let alone identify, then bring to fruition, any specific projects. Although what National describes as “a slow tentative march towards greater bipartisanship on infrastructure” will take time, it is nonetheless encouraging. After more than forty years of political division on infrastructure projects from the Clyde Dam to the Puhoi to Warkworth motorway extension more recently, the joint recognition that what Labour describes as “swings in priorities each election cycle” are not helping resolve the infrastructure deficit is a welcome political about-turn.

It is probably just a coincidence that National’s and Labour’s broad agreement was announced just a week after the Wellington tunnels decision and the Green Party’s response, but it does change the political component quite considerably. A broad agreement between the two main parties, regardless of which one is in power at the time, will not only provide greater certainty to potential investors in future Public Private Partnerships, but will also neuter the ability of the Green Party to stymie the development of such projects.

On that basis, taxpayers might be spared repetition of the types of infrastructure delays that have plagued Wellington in recent years. For example, a short seven hundred metre inner-city bypass first proposed in 1963, was not built until 2007. The second Mount Victoria tunnel debate has been going on since Wellington International Airport opened in 1959. Similar lengthy debates have plagued infrastructure developments in other parts of the country.

At one level, this week’s agreement between National and Labour is a pragmatic recognition that there needs to be a better way to address the country’s current serious infrastructure deficit, and that carrying on as at present is no longer credible. It should also lead to a greater recognition among potential Public Private Partnerships investors that the New Zealand environment now looks set to become more conducive to such projects.

At another level the political advantages to both National and Labour are undeniable. For National, which is always been more infrastructure inclined, and its partners ACT and New Zealand First, infrastructure upgrades will now be able to be progressed with more certainty that they will not be upended by a future change of government.  Labour, for its part, will be less constrained than it has been in recent years to commit to future Public Private Partnerships.

However, it would be premature to pop too many champagne corks just yet. Politicians have a notorious ability to back out of agreements if the circumstances no longer suit them or become too politically awkward. Despite the apparent current mutual goodwill, the worth of this week’s agreement will only become obvious when the first jointly agreed infrastructure project is announced.

In that regard, the Green Party’s opposition to Wellington’s proposed new tunnels may prove to have been the straw that broke the camel’s back.