Summary

  • Local government accounted for 24 of the Infrastructure Priorities Programme’s 48 first-year assessments; central agencies and Crown entities accounted for 18, and other applicants for six.
  • The IDA took effect on 1 November for central-government investments under CO (23) 9. Te Waihanga has published no date or eligibility rule for a comparable route outside central government.

Analysis

Local-government projects made up 24 of the IPP’s 48 first-year assessments. On 1 November 2026, Investment Decision Assurance (IDA) began covering central-government investment under Cabinet Office circular CO (23) 9. Te Waihanga says it will consider a route beyond central government only after the new process succeeds. No local intake date or eligibility test has been published.

That gap changes what a council can plan. An investor cannot schedule a submission, budget for an assurance review or check whether a proposal meets the process rules when no route or timetable exists. The old Infrastructure Priorities Programme (IPP) accepted proposals from central and local government, private organisations and individuals; it stopped taking applications after Round Three.

The successor has a price and sequence for its central-government investors. Treasury assigns a risk tier. High-risk investment must pass six IDA reviews priced at NZ$75,000 each, or NZ$450,000 before GST for the full set. Targeted reviews and action-plan follow-ups cost extra. The checkpoints run from strategic need and options through delivery and the investment decision to service readiness and promised benefits. Reviewers advise whether to proceed, pause, revise or stop; the authorised investor decides. A negative result triggers ministerial reporting, an action plan within 20 working days and a follow-up within three months.

Te Waihanga’s June 2026 update reported nearly 150 proposals submitted since 2024 and 47 endorsements. Treasury’s separate first-year tally records where the 48 completed assessments came from: 24 local-government projects, 18 from central agencies and Crown entities, and six from other applicants. One count is completed assessments; the later update tracks proposals and endorsements. Read together, they show the breadth of the old intake and the narrower scope of its successor.

The useful public records now are concrete: the first IDA reviews linked to final investment decisions, the fees actually paid, and a published intake rule for applicants outside central government. That rule needs an accountable owner, eligibility test and start date. Those records will show whether the replacement process remains a central-government lane or becomes a route local investors can actually enter.

Sources