Phil O’Reilly: Cyclone Gabrielle - Five principles that should underpin rebuild

Destruction in the Esk Valley almost three weeks after Cyclone Gabrielle hit. Photo / Neil Reid

OPINION:

Following the tragic floods and damage over the past few weeks, debate is quite sensibly turning to not just how we get these devastated communities back on their feet but how we upgrade and build new infrastructure for a future where such events become more frequent and intense. That will be a decades-long process, informed no doubt by what we will learn from the tragic events of the past few weeks but hopefully by what we can learn from what other nations do to upgrade their infrastructure.

We all agree that we have historically under-invested in infrastructure, but we haven’t yet had a proper debate as to why that is the case. And without that, it’s likely we will make the same underinvestment all over again.

In my view, our historical underinvestment is based on an unhappy mix of three big public policy failures. First, we have a bad habit of thinking that the only way of building infrastructure is through taxing the public. Secondly, we seem to think it’s the Government’s role to build everything for us using those taxpayer funds. And third we use planning legislation – the Resource Management Act (RMA) – as our core piece of planning legislation (widely derided as not being fit for purpose) for one of the very jobs it is supposed to assist us to do: building resilient infrastructure for the future.

No other country with whom we would normally compare ourselves does it that way. No wonder we have a problem.

So here are some ideas from countries just like us to help think about how we might start the long journey towards world-class infrastructure for our climate-challenged future.

The first thing that matters is a concentration on economic growth. Growth matters most of all in terms of long-term capacity to build and maintain national infrastructure. A bigger economy can more easily pay for necessary infrastructure. It’s that simple. So, we need to focus on growth and celebrate it because it makes lifesaving and enhancing infrastructure affordable. Nobody would disagree that growth needs to be green and contributing to our net zero carbon future. But growth is critical.

Secondly, we need to make sure all hands are at the wheel in meeting the challenge. Both public and private sector capital needs to be utilised and both domestic and offshore funders need to be welcome. Infrastructure bonds, public-private partnerships (that are real partnerships, not the kind of risk-minimisation exercises we’ve had in New Zealand from successive governments), road tolls, user charges and much more need to be thought about. The idea is that we should make sure that those who are going to use the infrastructure pay for it throughout its lifetime and that the widest range of funders are used. We need to leave a legacy for our children, but it shouldn’t be a free one. That would lead to an enormous cost now when future generations will benefit and should pay their fair share for doing so.

The third idea is to make sure that the right people are doing the work. We need to move on the current ideological opposition to immigration. We will need more builders, engineers, tunnel borers, you name it. They will need to come – at least in part - from overseas and we should facilitate that and encourage them to stay so that they can contribute as citizens too.

Fourth, we should make sure our planning processes are much more amenable to building the kind of infrastructure that we need now and in the future. Our RMA is just not fit for that purpose and the new version of it being proposed may not be either. One important thing we have found out through the recent tragedies is the importance of community leadership at times of crisis. Many of the most difficult decisions are made at the level of communities and towns. We need to ensure that local government and community groups are empowered rather than the opposite, which is what successive governments have done over a long time now.

Fifth, we need to bring more knowledge to the table and make sure we listen. Our Crown research institutes and universities already do a great deal of work in this space, and we need to better fund and coordinate the information so we can all use it effectively. A 2019 Report from Niwa, for example, tells us that across our country more than 19,000km of roads, 20 airports and 700,000 people are presently exposed to river flooding in the event of extreme weather events. What are we doing about that?

And we need to power up independent and credible agencies like our Infrastructure Commission to help build understanding and challenge to the system. We need a broad, agreed and understood direction of travel with an understanding of what things can and should be built. This should also include clarity for the Government and private sector on how to partner properly and energetically in that task.

Finally, we need to get back to viewing infrastructure development as nation-building. We need to lose the kneejerk pettifogging about every new road or tunnel or power pylon or wharf. What we have at present is not working. We just found that out in a big way and at enormous personal and financial cost. We need to all share a vision about what infrastructure could be and how it can keep us safe and prosperous. Starting now.

• Phil O’Reilly is managing director of Iron Duke Partners, a public policy advisory firm. Previously, he was chief executive of lobby group BusinessNZ.