What is Investment Decision Assurance intended to achieve, and does it change accountability?
Investment Decision Assurance provides independent advice to investors on whether an investment is aligned with priorities, offers value for money and can be delivered successfully. It informs investment decisions but does not change existing accountabilities. Agencies, boards, chief executives and SROs remain responsible for delivery and risk management.
What is outside the scope of Investment Decision Assurance?
The scope of Investment Decision Assurance reviews is defined in the Investment Decision Assurance Policy. Investments outside CO (23) 9, local-government and private-sector investments, and Infrastructure Commission ministerial deep dives under separate statutory functions, are outside the stated Investment Decision Assurance scope.
How will medium and low-risk investments be treated?
Investment Decision Assurance reviews are generally optional for medium- and low-risk investments. However, a Minister may require an Investment Decision Assurance review. If requested, the review is mandatory and the Investment Decision Assurance Policy applies.
What types of Investment Decision Assurance review are proposed?
There are three types of review:
- Investment Decision Assurance Point Reviews: Independent assurance reviews at key decision points throughout an investment’s lifecycle. There are six mandatory Investment Decision Assurance Point Reviews.
- Targeted Investment Review (TIR): A review for analysis of specific concerns that could be commissioned at any time.
- Assurance of Action Plan (AAP) review: a follow-up review from an Investment Decision Assurance Point Review as part of the escalation process.
What do the outcome ratings mean?
At the conclusion of the Investment Decision Assurance Point Review, the review team will rate the investment against each of the six key focus areas and assign an overall Investment Decision Assurance review outcome based on following definitions:
- Proceed: the investment is ready to proceed to the next stage.
- Proceed with actions: the investment is ready to proceed to the next stage provided critical recommendations are addressed within an agreed timeframe.
- Pause and revise: the investment is not ready to proceed to the next stage until critical recommendations are addressed.
- Stop or Revert: the investment is not ready to proceed; it is recommended to stop or revert to a previous stage for further development before any investment decisions are made.
What is the benefit of transferring this function to Te Waihanga?
The benefit of Te Waihanga, the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission, delivering assurance reviews for infrastructure investments is that it can apply its specific infrastructure knowledge to those reviews. In conjunction with the revised assurance policy, the goal of this change is to provide better advice to Ministers.
The two assurance frameworks, one for infrastructure and the other for digital, equipment and organisational change, have much in common and are consistent with the overarching assurance policy to ensure coherence across the system. A coordinated view via the Treasury Fitness Assessment will be presented to ensure Ministers aren’t receiving conflicting messages.
Where an investment has multiple investment types, including infrastructure, how will assurance requirements for both be managed?
The investment’s primary type, determined by the Treasury RPA, will identify the lead assurance unit as either Treasury or the Commission. The lead unit will assure the whole investment and involve the other assurance unit or relevant system leaders where needed. Responsibility may transfer to another assurance unit only where:
- the investment’s overall scope has changed substantially
- Treasury confirms a revised RPA rating
- the SRO and both assurance units agree.
What will happen to the IPP process?
We are no longer accepting IPP applications. IPP was paused after Round Three was completed and the lessons learned informed the new Investor Decision Assurance system. Our immediate focus is on developing new assurance processes for central government investments. Once that is successful, we will consider whether a similar approach could be open to infrastructure projects outside central government.
Infrastructure Priorities Programme (IPP)
How will non-central government investment participate?
Our immediate focus is on developing new assurance processes for central government investments. Once that is successful, we will consider whether a similar approach could be open to infrastructure projects outside central government.
The new Investment Decision Assurance process is one of five key changes to New Zealand’s Investment Management System announced in April 2026. What are the other changes?
The five changes cover assurance, advice to Ministers, Ministerial oversight, specialist expertise and long-term planning. You can read the Cabinet paper and find out more, including timeframes, on The Treasury’s website.
Investment Management System Improvements | The Treasury
Why are these changes being implemented?
The changes are intended to give Ministers and Cabinet greater confidence that major investments are needed, offer value for money, are ready to proceed and can be delivered successfully.
How do these changes relate to the recommendations in the Commission’s National Infrastructure Plan?
These changes address Recommendations 7, 8 and 9 of the National Infrastructure Plan:
- Recommendation 7: System-wide assurance. Establish a consolidated assurance function that provides Ministers with a system-wide view of infrastructure planning, delivery, and asset management performance and risk.
- Recommendation 8: Asset management assurance. Establish an assurance function for capital-intensive central government agencies’ covering asset management and investment planning activities.
- Recommendation 9: Investment readiness assurance. Strengthen investment assurance by applying a transparent, independent readiness assessments to major government-funded investment proposals.
Which entities/organisations will these changes apply to?
These changes will apply to the following types of organisations that are also subject to CO (23) 9:
- departments as defined in the Public Finance Act 1989 (PFA)
- the following types of Crown entities as defined in the Crown Entities Act 2004
- statutory entities
- Crown entity companies
- Crown entity subsidiaries
- companies listed in Schedule 4A of the PFA.
What do the changes mean for government agencies?
There are a number of changes for central government agencies related to assurance, Cabinet papers, Gateway reviews and asset management requirements. You can find out more on The Treasury’s website.