The bill edits the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission/Te Waihanga Act 2019 to eliminate the Commission’s role in providing operational “support services” to projects and to insert a new function: providing advice in relation to current and proposed infrastructure projects. It also removes the Act’s definition of “support services” and updates a heading to reflect the new phrasing.
The change follows a transfer of support-service functions to other Crown infrastructure entities on 1 December 2024 and is intended to sharpen Te Waihanga’s remit as a strategic adviser. For agencies, project sponsors, and Crown infrastructure bodies, the amendment clarifies who provides hands‑on support versus who provides high‑level, project‑level advice — with immediate legal effect on the day after Royal assent.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends the principal Act by repealing the definition of “support services,” replacing section 10(f) so the Commission’s additional function becomes providing advice on current and proposed infrastructure projects, and changing the heading above section 10(d) from “Support” to “Project.” The Act comes into force the day after Royal assent.
Who It Affects
The New Zealand Infrastructure Commission/Te Waihanga is the primary entity affected. Other Crown infrastructure entities that took on support functions, government agencies that commission infrastructure work, and project teams seeking operational support will see their roles clarified and reallocated.
Why It Matters
The amendment sets a clearer statutory boundary between delivery-oriented support and strategic advice, reducing legal overlap with other Crown entities. That boundary affects procurement decisions, internal staffing for projects, and where Ministers turn for hands‑on project help versus independent advice.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
This short amendment rewrites Te Waihanga’s remit so the Commission stops being a provider of operational support and becomes an explicit adviser on current and proposed projects. At the statutory level the Bill removes the Act’s definition of “support services” and replaces the specific subsection in the list of additional functions with a concise advisory clause.
It also updates a nearby heading so the statutory text reads consistently.
Practically, the change signals that Te Waihanga will concentrate on strategic, diagnostic, and review tasks rather than resourcing or executing project activities. The explanatory material attached to the Bill points to the transfer of operational support to other Crown infrastructure entities on 1 December 2024; this amendment aligns the Act with that operational shift and reduces the risk of overlapping mandates.Because the Act takes effect the day after Royal assent, the legal boundary between advisory and delivery roles narrows immediately.
That has knock‑on effects for existing contracts and memoranda of understanding that reference “support services”: those instruments may need review or amendment to reflect which Crown body now provides which functions. The Bill does not create a new funding stream or a new governance mechanism for how advice will be commissioned, so those implementation details remain with responsible Ministers and agencies.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Bill repeals the definition of “support services” in section 3 of the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission/Te Waihanga Act 2019.
The Bill replaces section 10(f) so the Commission’s additional function becomes “to provide advice in relation to current and proposed infrastructure projects.”, The heading above section 10(d) is changed from “Support” to “Project,” reflecting the narrower, advisory focus.
The Act comes into force the day after Royal assent, making the statutory change effective immediately upon enactment.
The explanatory note states that support services were transferred to other Crown infrastructure entities on 1 December 2024; this amendment aligns the Commission’s statute with that transfer.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title and effect (naming the amending Act)
Clause 1 simply sets the formal short title: the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission/Te Waihanga Amendment Act 2025. That is a housekeeping provision with no substantive effect on operational arrangements, but it signals this is an amending instrument rather than a standalone regime change.
Commencement — immediate statutory effect
Clause 2 provides that the Act comes into force the day after Royal assent. This makes the textual changes effective immediately upon enactment and removes any transitional gap in the statutory description of roles; however, the clause does not itself allocate transition funding or specify operational timelines for transferring staff or contracts.
Repeal of the definition of “support services”
Clause 4 removes the definition of “support services” from section 3 (Interpretation). That deletion narrows the Act’s language so that no statutory reference remains to the Commission providing practical support; it also affects how other provisions or existing agreements that cite that definition will be read, potentially requiring consequential amendments in related documents.
Substantive change to additional functions (section 10)
Clause 5 changes the heading above section 10(d) from “Support” to “Project” and replaces subsection 10(f) with a new function: providing advice in relation to current and proposed infrastructure projects. Mechanically, this removes an explicit statutory authorization for Te Waihanga to supply hands‑on support to projects and replaces it with a mandate to provide advisory input. The practical implication is a statutory boundary: Te Waihanga’s outputs will be framed as advice and analysis rather than operational delivery.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Infrastructure across all five countries.
Explore Infrastructure in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- New Zealand Infrastructure Commission/Te Waihanga — Gains a clearer, legally defined advisory mandate that lets it prioritize strategic work (large, complex, at‑risk projects and programme reviews) without being encumbered by operational delivery obligations.
- Other Crown infrastructure entities (those that accepted transferred support functions) — Face reduced statutory overlap and clearer entitlement to deliver hands‑on project support.
- Ministers and central agencies — Obtain a designated statutory adviser for high‑level project reviews and risk assessments, improving clarity about where to seek independent analysis.
Who Bears the Cost
- The Commission’s operational staff and functions — May face redeployment, role changes, or loss of in‑house delivery activity as responsibilities are reallocated to other entities.
- Crown infrastructure entities that absorbed support services — Carry the operational burden and associated costs of delivering hands‑on support previously available from Te Waihanga.
- Project sponsors and agencies seeking day‑to‑day support — Might experience transitional friction, contract renegotiations, or short‑term gaps in practical assistance while roles and contracts are aligned with the amended statute.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between the policy goal of avoiding duplicated delivery roles across Crown entities and the practical need for a nimble, capable partner during complex infrastructure delivery: narrowing Te Waihanga to an advisory role reduces overlap and clarifies accountability, but it may leave practical gaps in hands‑on project support or incentivize informal role creep when the government needs operational help.
The Bill tightens statutory language without specifying the operational architecture that will govern how advice is requested, priced, or delivered. “Advice” is a capacious term: it can mean a short memo, a formal review, or a sustained advisory engagement that blurs into project management. The Act removes the defined category of “support services,” but it does not define the scope, deliverables, or performance standards for the new advisory function — leaving those details to policy instruments, MOUs, or administrative practice.
That gap can create practical ambiguity about when Te Waihanga must act and when other entities should lead.
Another practical tension is transitional complexity. Existing contracts, inter‑agency agreements, and procurement arrangements that reference the Commission’s prior support role may need amendment.
The Bill does not allocate transition funding or require a handover plan, so the administrative and cost burdens of realigning workstreams fall to agencies and the Crown entities that already assumed support functions. Finally, by narrowing statutory duties, the Bill makes it easier to argue that Te Waihanga should remain at arm’s length from delivery decisions — but it also increases the risk that, in a crisis, Ministers will expect the Commission to step back into operational support despite the statutory limit, producing informal stretches of the advisory role into delivery.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.