Transport Minister Chris Bishop spoke at the Apopo Congress 2026 (May 21 2026), for infrastructure asset management professionals, on the subject of improved corridor management and underground asset data.
Bishop explained his Government’s central government asset management work programme is aimed at “safer and more reliable infrastructure services” and “better value for money by making the most of what we have”.
This work is taking place across two phases. “Phase one is about providing clarity on what ‘good’ looks like and ensuring that there are better tools and guidance to help central government agencies succeed. Phase 2 is about driving more fundamental changes to system settings.”
Phase one, he says, is largely complete and was rolled out in 2025. It includes the Infrastructure Commission’s Public Investment Management Assessment of New Zealand; detailed asset management guidance from the Commission, which was released in December last year; and a ‘Community of Practice’ for public service asset management professionals, which the Commission and Apopo run together. As part of the first Phase, the Government is investigating the feasibility of a National Underground Asset Register.
Phase two, he says, will largely be informed by the Government’s response to the National Infrastructure Plan, which was publicly released in February this year. The Plan has 16 recommendations, and 10 priorities for the decade ahead, presuming the Government stays in power.
“When it comes to asset management, the Commission makes it clear that New Zealand has lots of work to do. This case for change is supported by international findings that we rank fourth to last in the OECD for asset management.”
The Commission has made several recommendations to strengthen central government’s Investment Management System (IMS) including: strengthening the Public Finance Act, strengthening reporting requirements; establishing oversight and independent review or audit requirements; explicitly incorporating assessments of bottom-up infrastructure needs; and strengthening incentives for better asset management practice.
Bishop says the Government has already taken steps to improve the IMS by strengthening assurance for central government-funded infrastructure – ahead of the Government’s formal response to the Plan last month (June).
“Since coming into Government, the Minister of Finance and I have been concerned by the quality of information provided on infrastructure including what we own and its condition, the forward investment pipeline, assurance on individual projects and programmes, and agency performance.
“When it comes to assurance, there are multiple project review tools across the investment system that serve slightly different purposes and have different assessors, information requirements, reporting formats, and outputs.
“However, none of these tools provide Ministers with unapologetically strong, clear, and actionable assurance that is focused on substance – as opposed to bureaucracy – so that we can make well-informed investment decisions. We want experts to give us their free and frank advice; is it a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’?
“Instead, it seems the modus operandi is to let investments move through the system and let bad projects gain momentum – until it’s too late – wasting tens or hundreds of millions of taxpayer money on Business Cases and early design and feasibility work for phantom projects.”
Multiple assurance products like the Infrastructure Priorities Programme and Gateway Reviews are also causing duplication and overcomplication for both Ministers and agencies, he says. “Put simply, there are too many assurance tools, but none of them do what is needed – support ministers to make good decisions. This is alarming considering it’s Ministers who ultimately make these significant investment decisions. It’s clear change is needed.
“So, Cabinet has agreed to strengthen assurance for central-government funded projects, with a focus on infrastructure.”
This is being progressed through five changes, says Bishop. On 1 November this year the Government will transfer responsibility for external investment assurance on central government-funded infrastructure proposals from the Treasury to the Infrastructure Commission. This will allow Government to leverage the Commission’s expertise and independence. Second, the Government will set up a formal assurance function for asset management and long-term investment plans, which will apply to capital-intensive central government agencies and other entities. Third, external investment assurance will be focused on what Ministers need to make good decisions, and fourth – for Business Cases seeking Cabinet endorsement, Treasury will provide Ministers with a standardised ‘Fitness Assessment’ that has holistic, high-quality information on proposals.
Then, to test the quality and credibility of investments, the Infrastructure and Investment Ministers Group will review High-Profile-High-Risk investments, and Long-Term Investment Plans before they go to Cabinet, and monitor delivery after decisions are made.
“For Ministers, these changes mean they can confidently say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to projects and long-term investment plans – early – knowing that their decisions are informed by strong evidence and independent, expert advice,” says Bishop.
“For the sector, these changes will mean less stopping and starting of projects as good projects rise to the top, and unrealistic, unfunded projects quickly sink to the bottom.”
Corridor management and underground asset data
On addressing the co-ordination of the work of utility providers in transport corridors and the feasibility of a National Underground Asset Register, Bishop released on the day of the Congress (May 21) the NZUAG’s review that was commissioned last year to investigate options to improve the planning, delivery, and management of work in infrastructure corridors – with a focus on the National Code of Practice for Utility Operators’ access to Transport Corridors.
“Overall, the review found that information on many underground assets is difficult to access, poor quality, or incomplete – and where it does exist, it is under shared. This is creating disruption and costs that could have been avoided.”
Frequent examples were of newly resurfaced roads being dug up for works soon after other works had just been completed, he says. “I’m told each organisation tends to optimise its own work programme because there are poor incentives to co-plan. This speaks to a broader problem – the system has no teeth and compliance is weak.
“The Review shows New Zealand is less developed than several international comparators, with heavier reliance on voluntary, sector-led arrangements. Compliance with the Code relies largely on voluntary uptake, local interpretation, and relationship-based enforcement.
“NZUAG, who currently administers the Code, has very few mechanisms to verify data, compel reporting, or address persistent non-compliance.”
It’s clear that New Zealand would benefit from a National Underground Asset Register, says Bishop. “But, a tool like this will only be effective if the register is populated with high-quality data; utility operators and transport corridor managers use it; and, most importantly, the system adopts stronger leadership, process, rules, as well as enforcement and monitoring mechanisms to ensure works are better co-ordinated. This requires more fundamental changes beyond an Underground Asset Register.”
Bishop noted that the NZUAGs review concluded that central government should develop the register in partnership with the private sector. “However, both NZUAG and officials advise me that this is secondary to policy and potential legislative and regulatory changes in the system, including those to strengthen oversight and enforcement of Code obligations, which could incentivise greater adoption of existing asset register tools in the market,” says Bishop.
Corridor management
Bishop then announced two initial Government actions to strengthen corridor management. The first is to set up an active, central government system steward for corridor management under the new Ministry of Cities, Environment, Regions, and Transport (MCERT) that is now the lead agency responsible for reviewing and administering the Utilities Access Act, and updating, monitoring, and enforcing the Code that sits underneath.
The second is through Budget 2026 where MCERT has been given $2.5 million in operating funding to strengthen rules and requirements by reviewing and refreshing both the Utilities Access Act 2010, and the Code.
As part of this work, MCERT will complete further policy analysis building on NZUAG’s independent review, and will explore the development of a national utility locating standard; transparency requirements; stronger compliance powers; compliance incentives; training and guidance on existing certification and training programmes; planned works coordination (uptake of the National Forward Works Viewer); and a National Underground Asset Register.
Bishop adds that the NZTA Board has already strengthened corridor management by making co-funding of transport projects conditional on the use and publication of a Road Controlling Authority’s Forward Works Programme. The Agency has also adopted reporting requirements on the extent of works published on the Forward Works Viewer, with full publication expected by 30 September 2027.