Make major projects last

Status: Draft · Last reviewed: 12 October 2026

Cancelling a major project after substantial spending can mean exit costs, delay, and a new bill for replacement services. Continuing a flawed project can cost even more. Businesses, clubs, and community groups would expect a clear plan and a serious review before changing a shared investment. Public money deserves at least that care.

The Cook Strait ferry replacement is a concrete example. KiwiRail had contracted for new ferries under Project iReX. In December 2023, the incoming government declined further funding as terminal costs rose; KiwiRail's board then wound the project down. After exiting the ship contracts, KiwiRail reported a final iReX project cost of $671 million in August 2025. No iReX ferries were delivered. The service still needs replacement ships and port work. KiwiRail's 2024 annual report · KiwiRail's final project statement

The cost increase was a real problem to examine. The point is not that every existing project must continue regardless of its merits. It is that a change of government should trigger a transparent, evidence-based decision, with the cost of continuing, changing, or cancelling laid out side by side.

This idea at a glance

The problem: Major public investments can lose money and time when a later government reverses them without a clear comparison of options.
The proposed change: Set a lasting service goal, test the project before committing, require 75% support from all MPs for a qualifying major new financial commitment, and publish an independent comparison before major cancellation or redesign.
Cost and funding: Independent reviews, public reporting, and parliamentary scrutiny take time and money; the amount would depend on the project's size and needs an estimate before the rule is finalised.
Who benefits: Taxpayers, service users, communities, and businesses planning around public infrastructure could gain more predictable delivery.
Who bears a cost or risk: A 75% vote could delay or block a needed investment. A cross-party deal could also protect a poor project if scrutiny becomes too deferential.
Evidence and alternatives: The iReX wind-down shows the potential financial stakes; it does not prove that a 75% vote would have produced a better decision. An alternative is to strengthen Treasury's business-case and Cabinet approval process without adding a project-specific parliamentary vote.
What could change our minds: If this process delays urgent corrections or fails to reduce avoidable losses, we would narrow or revise it.

A continuity test for major investments

For long-lived national projects, we propose:

Agree on the public need first. Publish a ten-year or longer service goal, such as safe and reliable Cook Strait connections, before choosing a particular contract or design. This is the waypoint; governments may debate the best route. Invite public and cross-party input early.
Show the full commitment. Before major contracts are signed, publish the whole-life cost, benefits, key risks, funding plan, delivery stages, and the cost of exit where commercial confidentiality allows. Independent reviewers should test the assumptions.
Seek a wider mandate for a major new commitment. For a project meeting a clear, published threshold, obtain support from 75% of all MPs before the binding financial commitment is made. This would be a proposed project-specific approval in addition to the annual Budget, not a vote on every procurement decision. The threshold, treatment of commercially sensitive details, and route for urgent needs still need design. See the wider proposal.
Set review gates in advance. Name the cost or performance changes that would require a fresh decision. A project should be able to adapt when evidence changes, without being reset for party advantage alone.
Compare every option before reversing course. If a new government wants to stop or redesign a committed project, publish an independent comparison of continuing, changing, and cancelling. Include remaining costs, exit payments, delay, service effects, and the cost of the replacement plan. Money already spent should be disclosed, but should not by itself decide what to do next. A redesign that creates a new qualifying major commitment would return for a 75% vote.
Explain the decision in Parliament. Hold a public select-committee hearing, publish the government's reasons and the alternatives, and track delivery of the replacement plan in the annual accountability report.

Cross-party agreement would give a project a better chance of surviving an election, but it cannot guarantee that every future government will keep it. The public should be able to see whether changing course serves the country's long-term interest and what it will cost.

Read the wider governance proposals · Suggest a project to examine