Application of the Better Decisions Better Outcomes Approach When Developing a Portfolio Business Case to Build Place-Based Resilience
Case study: How to achieve a resilient Wellington?
Rodney Barber, Barber Associates
4 August 2025
Purpose of this case study
This illustrative case study demonstrates how the Better Decisions Better Outcomes approach can be applied to develop a place-based Portfolio Business Case and show how to measurably achieve a resilient Wellington.
Over the last 7 years, we (Barber Associates) have successfully applied Better Decisions Better Outcomes, domestically and internationally, in a suburb, district, and region. Critically, we’ve learnt that the approach’s successful application requires relational leadership from public, private, non-governmental organisation, and community leaders.
Relational leadership emphasises strong relationships across leaders representing diverse interests but aiming for common longer-term goals. It contrasts with transactional leadership that focuses on short-term goals.
Benefit of using the Better Decisions Better Outcomes approach
The Treasury, the Auditor-General, and Cabinet have all said we lack long-term thinking, we aren’t truly listening to communities, and we’re approving plans without the evidence to back them.[1]
The 2024 Cyclone Gabrielle review made it clear – “Resilience-building must be community-led and tailored to each community, and communities must have the support and resources to allow them to create their resilience-building approaches”.[2]
We need to shift from:
· transactional to relational public value leadership
· short-term wins to long-term impact
· detailed siloed planning to more holistic thinking.
The Better Decisions Better Outcomes approach can help us make those shifts.
Context for this case study
This case study is based on the application of Better Decisions Better Outcomes within the public investment management system (shown in Figure 1). Leadership, capabilities, and principles are applied in the Think lifecycle phase of the system to develop a place-based Portfolio Business Case. A place can be a suburb, district, city, or nation.
The Portfolio Business Case uses the five-case model to determine the best public value wellbeing and infrastructure programmes that are commercially viable, affordable, and achievable.[3]
Figure 1: Public investment management system
Figure 2 shows the six decision stages in each of the Think, Plan, Do, and Review phases of the public investment management lifecycle and how they correspond to the equivalent phases in budget, policy, and procurement decision-making processes.
· Stage 0 – Start-up: Establish a portfolio and decide the right programmes to achieve the vision.
· Stage 1 – Start-up: Establish each programme and decide the right projects to improve the outcome.
· Stage 2 – Initiate: Begin a project to formally engage the market to improve services.
· Stage 3 – Implement: Start the project to implement the improved services.
· Stage 4 – Do: Manage the improved service.
· Stage 5 – Review: Review how well the project was implemented and evaluate whether expected benefits were realised.
Figure 2: Decision stages in the Think, Plan, Do, and Review phases of the public investment management lifecycle
Use this case study as a guide
This case study is a guide for suburbs, districts, regions, and nations to develop a place-based Portfolio Business Case to show how to measurably achieve a more resilient town, city, or region.
Case study: How to achieve a resilient Wellington?
Overview:
After applying Better Decisions Better Outcomes in New Zealand and internationally and seeing the state of Wellington, we decided to develop a Portfolio Business Case for Wellington so the public and decision makers could see what it could look like.
Better Decisions Better Outcomes helps a city to assess its capabilities and vulnerabilities as defined by the government’s resilience guidelines.[4] The approach can be used to empower the city to develop its resilience by addressing the unique needs in its geographical area. The approach’s success is because it is relationship based, reflecting that connections are the heart of a city and that a city’s residents can learn and act together to achieve a common goal. In a resilient city, everyone thrives.
Approach
Better Decisions Better Outcomes supports a robust assessment of the city’s current state, agreement to a collective vision, and development of potential solutions for building the city’s resilience (as set out in the strategic and economic cases of a Portfolio Business Case).
It makes sure decision makers engage with the right people (who) in the right way to think together to develop a way forward evidenced by a business case (what). The business case informs a start-up decision (when) that gives confidence that the vision (why) can be achieved (impact).
Participating decision makers are a combination of public, private, non-governmental organisation, and community leaders.
Better Decisions Better Outcomes has five development stages, the first four of which inform the strategic and economic cases of the Portfolio Business Case.
1. Establish governance and alignment: Decision makers:
o agree to think in a holistic, systematic, and relational way for the medium to long term
o confirm a vision and the programmes needed to achieve that vision
o agree the principles to apply the Better Decisions Better Outcomes approach
o agree how to baseline existing performance
o nominate people to attend the following stages and establish a Business Case Team that maximises local capabilities
o agree how to engage with the public and participate with the community.
2. Develop capability: Barber Associates explains the process, capabilities needed, and principles to the participants.
3. Identify and develop the portfolio: Barber Associates facilitates the thinking for each community resilience and infrastructure programme.
4. Create and assess the portfolio: Barber Associates facilitates the prioritisation of programmes.
5. Plan and finalise: Barber Associates coached participants to develop the remaining cases (commercial, financial and management) for the Portfolio Business Case.
As part of stage 1, the decision makers confirmed the vision of “a resilient city”.
Decision makers agreed the programmes to achieve that vision would be based on the areas covered by the government’s National Disaster Resilience Strategy. That strategy includes social, cultural, economic, and environmental resilience as well as infrastructure resilience. The strategy’s model of a resilient nation is illustrated in Figure 3.[5]
Figure 3: Model of a resilient nation – resilience areas
We agreed to baseline existing performance using the indicators in each domain of The Treasury’s Living Standards Framework aligned to the resilience areas.[6] In addition, we nominated participants to attend the following Better Decisions Better Outcomes stages, including the capabilities needed and to be built in stage 2.
We confirmed the principles to be applied:
· transparency
· navigating ambiguity with courage
· learning from others
· being intentional
· communicating deliberately.
We selected the relevant indictors from each of The Treasury’s wellbeing domains and aligned them to the relevant resilience areas. This gave us a baseline of each area, which we used to define the programmes.
Recommendations
After following the five stages of the Better Decisions Better Outcomes approach, our recommendations are as follows
1. Confirm the wider context in which we are operating (discussed in Strategic Case – context)
2. Confirm the case for change to achieve our vision by 2030 (discussed in Strategic Case – case for change)
3. Note status quo activities continue to be funded and undertaken on a business-as-usual basis (discussed in Economic case – identifying the best public value option)
4. Note the range of options, called Survive, Revive, and Thrive, to improve outcomes to achieve the vision (discussed in Economic Case)
5. Note the preferred option is the Thrive option, but given its high delivery risk , we propose undertaking the Survive option for 3 years, then the Revive option for 3 years, and then the Thrive option (discussed in Economic Case)
6. Note the Survive option is affordable based on the pre-Budget funding envelope from 2025 to 2029 for finalisation in the Budget (discussed in Financial case for the Survive option)
7. Note the Survive option is commercially viable and achievable with capability development planned for the next 6 months
8. Approve the “start-up” decision
9. Note the required Programme Business Cases will be prepared, reflecting public participation, to inform an “initiate” decision to then secure investment interest from other investors
10. Note the required Business Cases , reflecting the level of investment interest, will inform an “implement” decision to secure the investment decision and commence implementation.
Strategic case – context
We analysed a variety of mainly government sources, focusing on economic, environmental, natural environment, social, cultural, and governance resilience.
Economic resilience
In 2025, The Treasury stated that real gross domestic product growth of around 3% is expected over the next 3 years, led by the primary export sector.[7] It is unclear how Wellington will participate in primary export–led growth.
Wellington’s competitive advantage includes its proximity to government; its research and science cohort; universities, peak bodies, and not-for-profit organisations; and the healthcare, culture, and media sectors.
Environmental resilience
Local communities are usually the first responders to a disaster, especially in the first 7 days of a disaster occurring. Wellington Region Emergency Management promotes home readiness and leads the post–7-day response. Government leads the recovery.
Natural environment resilience
Climate change is any change occurring to the planet’s climate whether:
· natural – the Earth’s orbit around the sun, the output of energy from the sun, the ocean’s natural cooling and warming cycles, and the constant variability in volcanic activity, or
· anthropogenic – the human impact on the Earth’s climate whether due to fossil fuels emitting greenhouse gases; carbon dioxide, which traps heat; aerosol releases; or land alteration from agriculture and deforestation.
The response to climate change must involve both mitigation and adaptation.
· Mitigation aims to prevent climate change or reduce the degree to which the climate is changing (for example, to reduce emissions in the long term). This means considering the environmental impacts of different investment options in any economic, transport, water, housing, and energy programmes so trade-offs are clear before investment decisions are made.
· Adaptation aims to reduce the negative effects of future climate change. It could mean an environmental programme to make Wellington a better place to live by growing people’s ability to easily access the natural environment, making that a point of difference for Wellington.
The Ministry for the Environment suggests the negative trends in the environment are stabilising or reversing because of how people manage land and what flows into freshwater, the flows of rivers and streams into the marine environment, and our actions that affect the air. The ministry considers the country has major challenges ahead from extreme storm and weather events driven by the growing impacts of climate change.[8]
Social resilience
Differences exist across different groups within society, causing factors that reduce trust and cohesion. Thirty percent of adults report no connection to their neighbourhood and 20% report not engaging with family or friends on a weekly basis.[9] While reported loneliness has increased, issues with mental health and connection may be most acute for young people or other minority groups.[10]
In its report, the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Terrorist Attack on Christchurch Masjidain stated, “Communities we spoke with wanted to see greater social cohesion and told us about their wish for closer community connections to help all people feel safe and welcome”.[11]
Social cohesion has direct benefits, including people leading happy, rewarding, and participatory lives with increased productivity. Importantly, it also means people are less likely to become radicalised towards extremist and violent behaviours, including terrorism.
Recommendation 37 of the Royal Commission was to:[12]
Create opportunities for regular public conversations led by the responsible minister – the Minister for Social Development and Employment – for all New Zealanders to share knowledge and improve their understanding of:
a) social cohesion, including social inclusion, and the collective effort required to achieve these; and
b) the value that ethnic and religious diversity can contribute to society.
Lessons from COVID-19 reflected that many public submitters were concerned about the ongoing effects of the pandemic period on social cohesion, trust, and collective identity in Aotearoa New Zealand.[13]
Cultural resilience
To give practical effect to te Tiriti o Waitangi requires Māori to have genuine opportunity and space to exercise tino rangatiratanga over taonga (article 2) and exercise kāwanatanga to govern in good faith and actively protect Māori interests as citizens (article 1).
Governance resilience
Each political party draws on a different combination of ideological elements to guide its decision making. It appears that all parties and ideologies have an openness to a coordinated community approach to collectively improve outcomes with the support of local, regional, and national decision makers.[14]
The Treasury has highlighted the next steps to focus on:
· Grow the pie bigger and slice it differently.
· Develop sustainable collective rather than individual wellbeing; draw on local intelligence to develop solutions rather than just imposing them top down; work with Māori to honour te Tiriti; build resilience recovery, not just response; plan for the medium to long term, making trade-offs explicit and using The Treasury’s cost–benefit analysis tool (CBAx) as well as the Living Standards Framework.
We need to be cognisant of the NGO sector’s report Time to Shine, Time to Take Stock, Time to Shape Our Future, which highlighted the sector’s needs, including meeting demand, creating new ways of connecting, and building greater collaboration with other organisations and a voice for influence.[15]
Strategic case – case for change
We need to take all the above views across the resilience areas into consideration in our case for change.
Our vision is a resilient city, and our mission is to build resilience by working together using our different strengths. Our view is that the true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members. A community can be resilient if a holistic and sustainable approach is taken to its people. A resident, particularly a vulnerable one, is more confident if their community is resilient.
We aspire to five principles (or priorities).
1. People find fulfilment in community relationships, rather than simply in consumption and leisure.
2. People understand their role within society rather than being a collection of individuals.
3. People are free to help others, rather than wanting freedom from others.
4. There is competition and cooperation.
5. The focus is on building community rather than simply material wealth.
We regrouped our resilience areas into:
· community resilience, comprising economic, social, environmental, and cultural resilience (building community resilience is the top priority)
· disaster resilience (achievable only once we have community resilience)
· speaking with our voices (a form of governance resilience only possible once all other areas are resilient).
For each resilience area, we reflected on the trends from community survey data gathered each October since 2019.[16] This annual survey asks residents questions based on the wellbeing indicators in the Living Standards Framework Dashboard,[17] which have been aligned to the resilience areas in the National Disaster Resilience Strategy.[18]
The overall outcome is to make Wellington resilient by maintaining its capabilities and eliminating vulnerabilities, so all resilience indicators have an average score of at least 80% by 2030.
For each resilience area we identified an objective, existing arrangements, and the business needs as set out in Table 1.
The existing arrangements describe the capabilities (which have an average score of at least 60%) and vulnerabilities (which have an average score less than 60%) based on the current trend of the annual community surveys since 2019.
Economic case – identifying the best public value option
To improve community and disaster resilience and speak with our voices into decision making, we:
· considered a variety of options to achieve an exuberant economy, a stunning environment, a thriving social community, and vibrant cultures
· considered options for the city to survive, revive, and thrive
· considered the enabling infrastructure required for the city to survive, revive, and thrive (discussed in Appendix 1)
· consolidated the three options – Survive, Revive, and Thrive – and considered the costs and benefits of each option
· determined a preferred option and preferred way forward.
As explained later in this section, the preliminary preferred “public value” option is Thrive. However, to be affordable and achievable, this option will be phased by starting with Survive for the first 3 years, then Revive for 3 years, and then Thrive thereafter.
Potential solutions by resilience area
Community resilience
Each option achieves a level of economic resilience:
· Survive: Productivity is enhanced (maximise services sector).
· Revive: Knowledge oriented products and services are developed (maximise knowledge sector).
· Thrive: The partnership between private and public leaders and tertiary institutions is leveraged (maximise research sector).
Several local and central government regulations would need to be changed before starting the Revive or Thrive option to achieve economic resilience.
Each option achieves a level of environmental resilience:
· Survive: Mitigation only.
· Revive: Mitigation plus adaptation “critical” environment projects.
· Thrive: Mitigation plus adaptation “desirable” environment projects.
Several local and central government regulations would need to be changed before starting the Revive or Thrive option to achieve environmental resilience.
Each option achieves a level of social resilience:
· Survive: Services are organised and targeted to people who need them (that is, social investment).
· Revive: Services are well organised and easier for people to find and use.
· Thrive: Services are led by the community, designed around people’s needs, and easy to access.
A coordinated community model was developed for the Revive option to better coordinate the delivery of social services, build connections, enable people to find support in times of crisis, improve mental health, and improve work–life balance.
Several local and central government regulations would need to be changed before starting the Revive or Thrive option to achieve social resilience.
Each option achieves a level of cultural resilience:
· Survive: Awareness – community workshops and training to build respect and understanding with storytelling to showcase cultures with music, dance, food, and customs.
· Revive: Knowledge – open conversations where people from different backgrounds can share stories, beliefs, and values; address misunderstandings; and build community to speak into decision making.
· Thrive: Application – working together to build unity through action on joint projects.
Several local and central government regulations would need to be changed before starting the Revive or Thrive option to achieve cultural resilience.
Disaster resilience
A coordinated disaster resilience model was developed for the Revive option to prepare the community to respond to a disaster. As we build community resilience, we will start implementing this model.
Speaking with our voices
As we build community resilience, we will engage with residents about how best to provide local intelligence to inform government and industry decision making.
Summary of the options
The three options can be summarised as follows.
· Survive
o Improve the economy through productivity.
o Mitigate environmental impacts.
o Improve delivery of social services that are organised and targeted to people who need them.
o Improve cultural awareness.
· Revive
o Improve the economy through knowledge-oriented products and services
o Mitigate environmental impacts plus undertake adaptation through “critical” environment projects.
o Improve the delivery of social services, which are well organised and easier for people to find and use.
o Improve cultural knowledge.
· Thrive
o Improve the economy by leveraging partnerships between private and public leaders and tertiary institutions.
o Mitigate environmental impacts plus undertake adaptation through “critical” and “desirable” environment projects
o Improve delivery of social services that are led by the community, designed around people’s needs, and are easy to access.
o Improve cultural application.
Compared with doing nothing that is, maintaining the status quo), each of the three options:
· incurs costs to improve economic, environmental, social, and cultural outcomes with the infrastructure required
· incurs costs for enabling infrastructure such as transport (land, air, and sea), water (potable, stormwater, and wastewater), housing, energy, communications, and community facilities
· achieves benefits from economic, environment, social, and cultural perspectives.
Preliminary cost–benefit analysis of the three options
A preliminary cost–benefit analysis of the three options (with the status quo as a comparator) is summarised in Figure 4. The colour coding is as follows:
· Red represents the most negative assessment.
· Amber means a moderate assessment.
· Green means the most positive assessment.
Figure 4: Preliminary cost–benefit analysis of the Survive, Revive, and Thrive options
In summary, Figure 4 shows:
· the status quo has a low benefit–cost ratio with low non-monetisable benefits
· Survive has a moderate benefit–cost ratio with low non-monetisable benefits and low delivery risk
· Revive has a moderate to high benefit–cost ratio with moderate non-monetisable benefits and moderate delivery risk
· Revive has a high benefit–cost ratio with high non-monetisable benefits and high delivery risk.
Therefore, the preliminary preferred “public value” option is Thrive.
Preliminary preferred option – Thrive
To be affordable and achievable, the preferred option Thrive will be phased:
· Phase 1: Survive for 3 years
· Phase 2: Revive for 3 years
· Phase 3: Thrive thereafter.
Survive will be delivered using a hybrid approach with stakeholders and partners (likely a hybrid of Agile and Waterfall delivery methodologies, depending on the nature of the changes to be made).
Enabling regulatory and legislative changes are required before the “initiate” decision for the relevant programmes of work. (Subsequent programme business cases will identify the projects that will make up each programme.)
Figure 5 maps the Survive programmes based on priority, benefit, risk, and scale, including dependencies.
Figure 5: Phase 1 Survive option – portfolio of programmes
We have scheduled the Survive programmes as shown in Figure 6 and identified the decision makers at each decision stage.
Figure 6: Phase 1 Thrive – Survive programmes and decision stages
Commercial case – Survive option
The Portfolio Business Case informs a stage 2 procurement decision (equivalent to the “start-up” decision) (see Figure 7).
Subsequent business cases will specify our requirements and plan our approach to the market to seek a:
· stage 4 procurement decision to plan the approach to the market (equivalent to the “initiate” decision)
· stage 5 procurement decision to select a supplier (equivalent to the “initiate” decision) to negotiate and award a contract.
Figure 7: Procurement lifecycle decision stages
Our procurement strategy will follow good practice
Our procurement strategy will follow good practice and current standards. It will align with Government Procurement Rules, probity protocols, and partnering models with regards to procurement planning, approaching the market, contracting, managing contracts, and then review.
Procurement decision making will align with the principles of government procurement:
· Plan and manage for great results.
· Be fair to all suppliers.
· Get the right supplier.
· Get the best deal for everyone.
· Play by the rules.
We have also considered opportunities for collaborative procurements.
Our needs and early analysis of the market
Our needs for each Survive programme are based on our initial analysis of the capacity and capability of the market; we have not yet not determined our requirements or engaged with the market:
· Economic: In building and technology there is a strong market with many suppliers, so we will take an open, competitive two-stage approach, including social procurement.
· Environment: There is a strong market with few suppliers so we will take a closed competitive approach.
· Social: There is no market, but many suppliers are willing so we will take an open cooperative and shape-the-market approach
· Cultural: There is no market, but many suppliers are willing so we will take an open cooperative and shape-the-market approach.
· Transport: There is a strong market, so we will take an open competitive two-stage, approach including social procurement.
· Water: There is a strong market with few suppliers so we will take an open competitive single-stage approach, including social procurement.
· Housing: There is a moderately sized market that is willing, so we will take an open cooperative approach.
· Energy: There are strategic arrangements with existing suppliers, so we will take a direct sourcing approach.
· Communications: There are strategic arrangements with existing suppliers, so we will take a direct sourcing approach.
· Community facilities: There are strategic arrangements with existing suppliers, so we will take a direct sourcing approach.
Each subsequent Programme Business Case will specify the requirements, plan the approach to the market, and describe the procurement plan, potential risk allocation, potential payment mechanisms, contract management, and accountancy treatment for the specific programme.
Impact on the financial statements
Based on rough order cost estimates, the expected cash flows required can be determined. They include depreciation, inflation at 5% per year, and the cost of capital at 5% per year, plus a contingency of 50% to represent optimum bias.
Funding availability
We considered a variety of funding options for the Survive option:
· user pays
· central government taxes
· rates
· private sector pays.
Initial assessment of affordability
The funding required by each programme is set out in in a separate document. (Not included)
Management case – Survive option
For the management case, we outline our approach to governance, benefits management, risk management, change management, and assurance and evaluation.
Portfolio, programme, and project management strategy and framework
We will maximise capability and smartly procure any specific capability required to successfully deliver this work.
We will use proven methodologies that are the most appropriate to deliver the work.
We have developed an outline plan with key milestones.
We have identified the capability required, including for stakeholder engagement, business case development, benefits management, risk management, change management, and assurance and evaluation
Governance
We have outlined the governance structure together with roles and responsibilities.
Benefits management
We have a benefits strategy that sets out the arrangements to identify, model, plan, and track potential benefits. The strategy includes a framework that assigns responsibility for the realisation of each benefit.
Risk management
Our risk management strategy is based on international best practice standard ISO 31000:2018 Risk Management – Guidelines.
The strategy promotes a strong risk culture (and therefore capability) where risk is acknowledged, discussed, shared, and managed so we will be responsive to risk
Our risk management framework sets out the requirements and responsibilities for good risk management at a portfolio level.
Change management
Our business change delivery framework comprises five stages: start-up, initiate, change preparation, managing, and reinforcing. This business case informs the start-up decision.
We will be using a change framework. The change management outline plan is based on the change readiness and implementation framework.
We have customised the Agile theory of change approach to incorporate our change management strategy principles, which are:
· focus on the process
· focus on purpose, context, and alignment
· prioritise learning – learning for what, for whom, and what kind
· be locally led – change is locally led by the people in the community
· think compass, not map – it is more important to have a compass for navigation because any kind of plan will change during the journey.
The change management framework, using the change management strategy, has two main components:
· Stakeholder matrix: We have identified our community of action who we need to actively engage with, listen to, and deliver while shaping the confidence of decision makers.
· Stakeholder impact analysis: We have identified a medium impact on decision makers and advisors and a high impact on the community of action and public. We will proactively and collectively engage the community of action and public in the thinking, planning, doing, and reviewing.
Assurance and evaluation arrangements
This investment proposal has been assessed as high risk using The Treasury's Risk Profile Assessment tool and moderation process. A Gateway Gate 0/1 review has been carried out on this Portfolio Business Case as well as an independent quality assessment. This business case reflects the review team’s feedback.
We have an assurance and evaluation strategy to provide the governance with confidence that the portfolio is being well managed and the expected benefits will be delivered and risks managed.
We have adopted the Three Lines Model as advocated by the Auditor-General:
· first line – compliance with day-to-day management processes and controls, including quality management
· second line – the presence of effective management, governance, and oversight arrangements
· third line – exercising the use of independent (external third-party) assurance that the governance body can obtain.
In accordance with the assurance and evaluation framework we have developed an outline of our assurance plan:
· Internal assurance: The business case was developed according to The Treasury’s Better Business Case methodology. The Business Case Team provided internal advice and guidance and the Assurance Team provided assurance advice and guidance. We use good practice methodologies and are overseen by the Portfolio Management Leadership Group.
· Independent assurance: This assurance includes Gateway reviews, independent assurance, a mobilisation review, health checks, a post-implementation review, and a post–realisation review.
Lessons from other type initiatives and our responses
We are actively heeding three lessons from other large-scale initiatives:
· Getting the right foundations in place: This change is being led from the top. We have a clear vision and roadmap for achieving it. We will identify the regulatory changes needed and invest in the right capability from the start.
· Getting started: We have started in a low-risk way. We use simple clear language, have a commitment to funding for the long term, and will be transparent and publish significant information. We support strong delivery practices.
· Focusing on outcomes and benefits: We focus on delivering outcomes and benefits and understand that no matter how good our planning is, things will go wrong and change over the life of the programmes.
Appendices
Appendix 1: Enabling infrastructure
As set out in the economic case we have considered the enabling infrastructure required for the city to survive, revive, and thrive, summarised below
Transport infrastructure
Current state
The current state of Wellington’s transport network is as follows:
· The land transport network is partially integrated. In terms of meeting standards, bus services are a high standard, rail is a moderate standard, and roads are a minimum standard. In terms of optimisation, bus services are highly optimised while rail and road are moderately optimised.
· The sea transport network is partially integrated, meets moderate to high standards and has moderate optimisation.
· The air transport network is partially integrated, meets moderate to high standards and has moderate optimisation.
Future state
We have considered enabling transport infrastructure options as follows:
· Survive: Partially integrated network at a moderate standard and moderate optimisation.
· Revive: Partially integrated network at a moderate standard with high optimisation.
· Thrive: Fully integrated at a high standard with high optimisation.
Water infrastructure
Current state
Wellington City’s three waters (potable, storm and waste waters) are fully integrated but meet only minimum to moderate standards with significant infrastructure age and condition and leakage challenges. They are moderately optimised. Also:
· potable water meets health regulations
· stormwater has high offsite disposal, and low onsite and recycle
· wastewater has high offsite disposal and low recycle.
Future state
Before considering whether to maintain, upgrade, or replace infrastructure, consideration needs to be given to the options at a network level. A phased water solution needs to be delivered by public and private sector leaders with more commercial finance, less regulation, and enabling government investment.
The options in a predominantly urban area are:
· Survive: Fully integrated with storm water high offsite/low onsite disposal and recycle; and wastewater high offsite disposal and low recycle; all at moderate standard and optimisation.
· Revive: Fully integrated with storm water moderate offsite/moderate onsite disposal and recycle; and wastewater moderate offsite disposal and moderate recycle; all at moderate standard and optimisation.
· Thrive: Fully integrated with storm water moderate offsite/moderate onsite disposal and recycle; and wastewater moderate offsite disposal and moderate recycle; all at high standard and optimisation.
Housing infrastructure
Current state
Wellington City operates a partly integrated system, meeting minimum to moderate standards, and it is moderately optimised with room for improvement in energy performance and affordability.
Housing is low density with some medium density housing and minor high density housing. The housing stock is predominantly detached, with some semi-detached, terraced, or townhouses. The average housing age is around 43 years, indicating most of the residential stock is ageing and likely requires ongoing maintenance or upgrades. Approximately half of the housing stock is privately rented and half privately owned; there is minimal social housing.
Housing is delivered in distinct pathways through a hybrid market–social model:
· private rental and owner–occupied homes are delivered by industry (property developers) within central, regional, and local government regulations
· social housing supporting vulnerable residents is delivered by industry (property developers) and non-governmental organisations within central, regional, and local government regulations.
Future state
Before considering whether to maintain, upgrade, or replace infrastructure, consideration needs to be given to the options at a system level.
The options in a predominantly urban area are:
· Survive: Partly integrated, low to moderate density, at moderate standards and optimisation
· Revive: Fully integrated, moderate density, at moderate standards with moderate optimisation
· Thrive: Fully integrated, high density, at high standards with high optimisation
Energy infrastructure
Current state
Wellington City operates a partly integrated and decentralised energy network. While electricity and gas are both available and coordinated regionally, the systems are managed by separate entities (eg, Transpower and Wellington Electricity for electricity and Powerco for gas), and integration across energy types (eg, with transport, housing, or local renewables) is limited. There is no single unified energy platform or system managing all sources and uses.
Wellington City’s energy network meets moderate standards and is moderately optimised due to:
· ageing infrastructure – parts of the network are old and increasingly vulnerable to failure
· seismic risk – the city’s earthquake-prone geography poses ongoing resilience challenges
· limited renewable integration –uptake is low of local solar or distributed generation
· grid constraints – some areas face capacity and reliability issues, especially during peak demand
· decentralisation without coordination – growing decentralised systems lack strong integration, reducing efficiency
· slow uptake of smart technologies – delays in adopting smart grids and meters hinder optimisation and responsiveness.
Future state
Before considering whether to maintain, upgrade, or replace infrastructurem consideration needs to be given to the options at system level.
The options in a predominantly urban area are:
· Survive: Partly integrated network at moderate standards and moderately optimised
· Revive: Fully integrated network, at moderate standards with moderate optimisation
· Thrive: Fully integrated network at high standards with high optimisation
Communications infrastructure
Current state
Wellington city’s communications network is partly integrated and decentralized. It relies on independent operators and diverse infrastructure across fixed and mobile service with limited coordination across platforms. While reliability and coverage are strong, full integration and strategic coordination are still evolving. Emerging cyber resilience frameworks indicate a growing focus on strengthening the sector. Wellington city’s communications network meets moderate standards and is moderately optimised as not all residents have the same quality of access, and the non-alignment of systems to support real-time decision-making and data-sharing across the public sector.
Future state
Before considering whether to maintain, upgrade or replace infrastructure consideration needs to be given to the options at system level. The options in a predominantly urban area are to:
Survive: Partly integrated network at moderate standards with moderate optimisation
Revive: Fully integrated network, at moderate standards with moderate optimisation
Thrive: Fully integrated network at high standards with high optimisation
Community facilities infrastructure
Current state
Wellington City’s community facilities network is partly integrated, with some coordination across Council-owned venues, schools, and community groups, but overall delivery remains fragmented due to decentralised ownership, inconsistent planning, and limited cross-sector collaboration.
Wellington City’s community facilities network meets moderate standards and is moderately optimised. While the network supports a diverse range of services there is:
· fragmentation across council, iwi, NGOs, and private providers,
· underutilisation in some areas and overuse in others,
· aging infrastructure needing upgrades or renewal and
· limited digital integration and data sharing for planning and management’
Future state
Before considering whether to maintain, upgrade or replace infrastructure consideration needs to be given to the options at system level. The options in a predominantly urban area are to:
· Revive: Fully integrated network, at moderate standards with moderate optimisation
· Thrive: Fully integrated network at high standards with high optimisation
[1] In March 2022, The Treasury stated that “relatively few investment proposals coming through the [central government] investment management system are well-planned … The use of business cases to support investment decision-making is variable”: The Treasury, He Puna Hao Pātiki | 2022 Investment Statement, 2022, p 53. In September 2024, Minister of Infrastructure Chris Bishop warned Cabinet that “investment proposals are coming to us for approval before they are ready, and without sufficient evidence to support our decision-making”: P Pennington, Treasury warns government about overspend, poor planning on major infrastructure projects, RNZ, 29 November 2024.
[2] M Bush, Hawke’s Bay Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Response to Cyclone Gabrielle, Bush International Consulting, 2024, p 63, citing Foundation for Rural and Regional Renewal, Three-year study identifies ways to strengthen community resilience to disasters, media release, 14 September 2021.
[3] The five cases form the Better Business Cases framework: strategic case (is there a need for investment?), economic case (does the investment offer value for money?), commercial case (is the investment viable?), financial case (is the investment affordable?), and the management case (is the investment achievable?): The Treasury, Better Business Cases, webpage, last updated 11 July 2025.
[4] New Zealand Government, 2019, National Disaster Resilience Strategy | Rautaki ā-Motu Manawaroa Aituā, Ministry of Civil Defence & Emergency Management.
[5] New Zealand Government, National Disaster Resilience Strategy: Rautaki ā-Motu Manawaroa Aituā, Ministry of Civil Defence & Emergency Management, 2019, Figure 4, p 20.
[6] The Treasury, Our Living Standards Framework, webpage, last updated 12 April 2022.
[7] The Treasury, Budget Economic and Fiscal Update 2025, 2025, p 3.
[8] Ministry for the Environment and Stats NZ, in Our Environment 2025 | Tō Tātou Taiao, 2025.
[9] The Treasury, Social Cohesion in New Zealand (analytical paper 22/01), 2022, p ii.
[10] The Treasury, Wellbeing and Mental Health: An analysis based on the Treasury’s Living Standards Framework (analytical paper 19/01), 2019.
[11] Royal Commission of Inquiry, Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Terrorist Attack on Christchurch Masjidain on 15 March 2019, vol 1, 2020, p 11.
[12] Royal Commission of Inquiry, p 760.
[13] Royal Commission of Inquiry into COVID-19 Lessons Learned, Lessons from COVID-19 to Prepare Aotearoa New Zealand for a Future Pandemic: Main report, phase 1, 2024.
[14] Unpublished research from Victoria University of Wellington.
[15] Centre for Social Impact, Hui E!, Philanthropy New Zealand, and Volunteering New Zealand, Time to Shine, Time to Take Stock, Time to Shape Our Future: A survey of Aotearoa New Zealand’s community sector on the impacts of COVID‐19, Centre for Social Impact, 2020.
[16] Newlands Resilience Group, Survey Result 2019–2024.
[17] The Treasury, Living Standards Framework Dashboard, webpage, no date.
[18] New Zealand Government, National Disaster Resilience Strategy: Rautaki ā-Motu Manawaroa Aituā, Ministry of Civil Defence & Emergency Management, 2019.
