Sitting date: 9 Dec 2025

PUBLIC WORKS AMENDMENT BILL

First Reading

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Local Government) on behalf of the Minister for Land Information: I present a legislative statement on the Public Works Amendment Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon SIMON WATTS: I move, That the Public Works Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Transport and Infrastructure Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 14 May 2026.

New Zealand has an infrastructure deficit. The Public Works (Critical Infrastructure) Amendment Act was passed in August to help address this by speeding up land acquisition for critical infrastructure projects. I now present further reforms to the Public Works Act 1981 that will improve the public works system as a whole.

The Public Works Act enables central and local government to acquire and manage private to deliver projects for public benefit. It is a crucial mechanism that supports public infrastructure projects and also enables the construction of roads, schools, and hospitals. However, the Act is outdated and requires modernisation to fulfil the needs of current and future New Zealanders and to support New Zealand's economic growth.

The bill makes targeted amendments to improve the Act's efficiency, effectiveness, and clarity in relation to land acquisition. The bill does not change the Act's processes for disposing of land no longer required for a public work. The changes made by the bill were informed by an expert advisory panel, and, on behalf of Minister Penk, I wish to thank the members of the panel for their input.

The bill better enables a joint approach to project delivery. Central and local government will now be able to coordinate land acquisition for connected public works. They will also be able to acquire land should they need to relocate third party infrastructure if that third party could otherwise acquire the land for a public work. The bill will enable Transpower to initiate acquisition negotiations and undertake some public works processes without having to rely on ministerial approval. However, compulsory acquisition powers will remain with the Minister for Land Information. These changes will support Transpower to upgrade and build the infrastructure necessary to meet the Government's energy goals of doubling supply of renewable energy.

The bill maintains the Crown's practice of avoiding acquiring Māori land where it can and introduces additional safeguards in an acquisition process should it arise. Compulsory acquisition of protected Māori land will be jointly decided on by the Minister for Land Information and either the Minister for Māori Crown Relations or the Minister for Māori Development, depending on the type of protected Māori land. The minimum negotiation period for acquiring Māori freehold land with more than four beneficial owners or vested shareholders is extended from three to six months.

This bill retains requirements for negotiations in good faith. After providing owners of land with an estimate of compensation based on a valuation carried out by a registered valuer, landowners can only object to land being taken at the Environment Court. The bill makes targeted amendments to improve the efficiency of objection processes. Where a designation is in place, the Environment Court will not be able to consider whether adequate consideration has been given to alternative sites, routes, or other methods. This will reduce certification with the Resource Management Act processes. And I also note that changes to the resource management framework are being progressed alongside this bill, and officials will keep an eye on those reforms to identify any impacts on this Act, including for objections or designation requirements.

The bill clarifies that compensation matters are not within the scope of the Environment Court's objection proceedings as they are instead handled at the Land Valuation Tribunal. And objection proceedings will also be streamlined by requiring objectors to state the grounds for objection in line with matters provided by the Act. These changes will not apply to the recently enacted amendments for critical infrastructure projects where landowners can make submissions to the Minister for Land Information or local authority in this case, rather than objecting at the Environment Court. It also will make changes in regards to compensation provisions, which will recognise the need for fair, equitable, and consistent compensation settings for an effective public works system.

The bill also introduces provisions and acquisition processes to enable faster acquisition of land to support emergency recovery. This will support timely and efficient restoration of damaged public works or their functions following an emergency. Currently, bespoke legislation is required to speed up acquisition processes following significant emergency works and events, which delays recovery.

Lastly, the new regulation-making powers of the Act can require the Act's users to provide information to Land Information New Zealand, who must also report annually to the Minister on the operation of the Act, and this will support the public works system's long-term effectiveness by helping identify and respond to barriers to efficiency.

The bill modernises the Act's delegation clause by relying on the Public Service Act's general power of delegation, and these provisions, of course, would enable the Public Works Act powers to be delegated to agencies that frequently use the Public Works Act. However, compulsory acquisition decisions remain with the Minister for Land Information.

With all that, and I appreciate the hard and diligent work by Minister Penk for this very excellent bill, I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Labour will be cautiously supporting this bill to select committee. We are aware that the Public Works Act has been around for a long time and has been a very important tool for Government, for councils, and for infrastructure projects. Things have moved on in some areas, and some things have got stuck in others. So it is timely to review this. But given the current, I guess, climate of the coalition Government, we have some major concerns. I think no one can dispute the objective of developing infrastructure around the country, and the Government's made a lot of noise about that. In fact, the previous Government had a fast-track process for genuine infrastructural improvement and housing, so the concept is one that we support, but the safeguards are the ones where we kind of end up in dispute on.

Faster delivery of public works—that's a great ideal. We have the Resource Management Act changes, which I guess will look pretty much like the effort that Labour put in—they say with additional property rights. Well, I'm not going to get into that at the moment, but property rights are at the heart of the Public Works Act and the Act has always respected and upheld property rights over land—usually, land—that is required for infrastructural development. That has been one of the things that has had broad support across the House for.

Hūhana Lyndon: Towns, cities, infrastructure all on whenua Māori.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: So the legislation, as I say, will go from this House into select committee. There will be many, many issues. I hear a little bit of chirping on my left here about Māori land. We accept that there have often been some challenges around the Public Works Act and around dealing with Māori landowners. It's more complex than a single individual, although even individuals, as we've seen on some projects, have dug their heels in and actually been difficult to work through to a resolution, which has meant the delay in many, many worthwhile projects around the country.

We are concerned about Māori rights and the ability of multiple Māori landowners—who have the right to have a say over a piece of land and have often been allocated land under a settlement regime and then the Crown comes knocking on the door asking for that land again. There are a number of safeguards: firstly, one that isn't always in place is that Māori-owned land will be valued as though it was freehold land. I think that there'll be precedence taken from this that Māori will appreciate down the track but it's not to dwell on at this point other than to say there are some references to and some safeguards in this legislation to acknowledge the difference for Māori landowners, and we will be clearly investigating that at the select committee stage.

The Crown and local authorities do need to, as I said before, get on and acquire some land, often for roading, but the other specific reference in this piece of legislation is to Transpower. Transpower is, of course, the lifeline for electricity distribution through the country. We support the upgrades that will mean electrification. What we don't support is the privatisation. So that's one of the things that we will be thoroughly investigating to make sure that we don't add powers to the Minister or to Government through the Public Works Act or this amendment that allow Transpower to get on and build whatever they like and then charge back to electricity users a capital charge on that. As we already know, we have in the electricity sector some super-profits going out off the back of monopolistic behaviour. So scrutinising the provisions for Transpower will be one of the things that Labour in Opposition will be doing.

They say there has been targeted consultation to develop this up. We're hoping that there are no major glitches in this, as I say, other than oversight that we will be looking for through the select committee process. The Environment Court have had their wings clipped and, in my view, won't be able to look at alternatives. These are some of the areas of concern that Labour has. We'll be working with other Opposition parties to make sure this piece of legislation does deliver progress, not just profits for a few.

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. I stand on behalf of Te Rōpū Kākāriki and, of course, oppose what is coming through the pipeline right now. We've had RMA reforms; now we've got fast track, and we've got public works takings. Where is the natural justice—where is the natural justice—for a landowner? Whether you are Māori or general title, where is the natural justice? As we've heard already, there's support on this side of the House, yet you can't even go to the Environment Court. You can't go to the Environment Court when you have concerns. Rather, you have to go to a Minister or local body, who have probably already made up their mind in terms of a predetermined outcome, and give them a submission—a submission that hopefully they might listen to your concerns as a landowner.

Public works has cast a dark shadow across Aotearoa for generations, and we cannot forget the way in which public works takings have established towns, cities, hospitals, schools, endowment lands, harbour board lands—you name it; Māori lost it, and we were never compensated. We were given a paraikete whero, and we were cast aside and were meant to exist on reserve lands that never even happened; kia ora Nelson Tenths—kia ora. When we come into the House and we say, "this is for the good of all New Zealand", "this is critical infrastructure", and "this is for emergency response", well, often, Māori have already experienced this raupatu through the Public Works Act, and, now, it's coming for all Joe Public of Aotearoa. That's the disappointment that we have on this side, over here. Property rights do matter—absolutely—Māori mai, Pākehā mai, tauiwi mai. When I think about the 489 landowners from Waipū over to Whangārei and beyond—from Te Hurihanga a Kawharu, aka the Brynderwyns—there is a huge footprint of landowner loss for the four-lane highway that this Government puts up as some awesome solution for Tai Tokerau.

Andy Foster: You support it.

HŪHANA LYNDON: No—a four-lane highway should not be an excuse to raupatu 489 landowners who are now sitting in limbo. May I introduce Auntie Linda [holds up image], on the front page of the Northern Advocate on Saturday, raising the fact that their whānau have had intergenerational connection to their farm; to where her father's ashes are buried; to the fact that they have planted natives; and they have orchards growing, as well as an awesome, productive farm. They are now in limbo alongside all of these landowners. Even Whangārei district councillors are at risk of losing their land. What do we tell Auntie Linda and all the landowners who are at risk for the public good, for this critical infrastructure and for a four-lane highway that is going to run smack-bang through. Their entire farm is going; their entire whenua, their intergenerational connection, where their mokopuna have been raised and will inherit this farm, is now gone. Now, what we have is that, somehow, they have to put a submission in to a Minister because they can't go to the Environment Court. It's been a tāhae of the process. There is no fairness in what is coming through in this legislation. Allow the landowner to go to the Environment Court—someone who does not have a predetermined outcome for the good of all New Zealanders. Auntie Linda has to go to a Minister and beg to protect their whenua.

I don't know how many members of this Whare have lost their lands, but I know I have, and my

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Whangārei-tererenga-parāoa, is covered with public works takings. This whānau here is front-line, ground zero, public works takings 2025 and beyond. These landowners are calling, and they are meeting—I've got heaps of emails now from landowners all concerned at the fact that they will be sacrificed for a four-lane highway. Where is the informed consent? Where is the consent of these landowners to even have a chance to survive and protect what little bit of whenua that they might have? No, you're going to give them and incentive payment and say, "If you're an early taker, here you go; here's your paraikete whero. Take it and move on." Well, you tell Auntie Linda's mokopuna—where is their tomorrow? They're going to have to go and move to town—

Simon Court: Four lanes.

HŪHANA LYNDON: —or find somewhere else.

Simon Court: Four lanes to Auckland.

HŪHANA LYNDON: No, no, no—you can yell as much as you like and try to contradict what I'm sharing, but this is lived experience. This is lived experience when you have a town built on top of you and endowment lands that took all the whenua for the purposes of Whangārei Boys' High School. You don't even have a clue of the depths to which we oppose this.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The member's time has expired.

SIMON COURT (ACT): For decades the Public Works Act has worked on 1980s' principles and processes while New Zealand is crying out for 21st century infrastructure. This bill finally updates the system so we can build the roads that that member so loves, energy networks, and public facilities. Kiwis rely on these things, and they don't want to be drowning in paperwork and process in order to get them.

ACT supports these reforms, which are speeding up delivery and protecting property rights of all citizens, including Māori, and providing for fairer compensation. Infrastructure delays aren't just frustrating, are they, everyone? They are pushing up the cost of living, because every unnecessary month of red tape adds to higher rates, higher taxes, and higher prices for everything we use and consume.

This bill moves us closer to an efficient transparent regime that treats landowners with respect, unlike that member, and holds Government agencies to account. Emergency land acquisition of course should not require a new Act of Parliament every time a disaster strikes, right, Ayesha Verrall? You know all about disasters. ACT backs a predictable, rules-based system that safeguards the rights of property owners, delivers infrastructure, and helps clean up after a disaster, even in extraordinary circumstances. The ACT Party commends this bill to the House.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Thanks, Madam Speaker. The Public Works Act (PWA) is an important and necessary piece of legislation, and this bill is updating that legislation. When I first looked at it, it looked a little bit like déjà vu, because we had a little bit of a look at the PWA earlier in this term.

Taking private property compulsorily is a big deal. It should be used sparingly, where that property is required—required—to deliver specified infrastructure for the benefit of our wider community.

We've already heard from the member for the Green Party that the connection to land is really, really important, and it's much more for many people than just simply a mere financial asset. She certainly described the connection of her whānau to land, in her instance. But for many people, too—for all New Zealanders—sometimes it is a home. Sometimes it is a place of memories, a place where you shared time with family and friends. Maybe it's where your children grew up. It's a place of emotion; of connection, of blood, sweat, and tears in terms of investing in a property, the work you've done, the trees you've planted, and all those projects big and small. It's a place to stand. It's a place of connection. It's a place—tūrangawaewae, if you like.

But sometimes there is a community need which says that compulsory acquisition is required. As I said, taking land compulsorily is a big deal. It should only be done when absolutely needed. It should be done fairly and in good faith, transparently, empathetically, and with good engagement.

The bill, as I read it, does that. It expands the ability, for example, to use incentive payments. It also recognises the significance of that compulsory acquisition by lifting the compensation payments when compulsory acquisition is absolutely required.

As we've just heard from Simon Court, we also need to make sure that we have an efficient process so that we as a nation can deliver essential infrastructure in a timely, cost-effective way with maximum certainty.

This Government, of course, is working very, very hard to reduce unnecessary bureaucratic impediments everywhere. This is just part of that, which is essential to lifting our collective living standards.

I note the inclusion of a restriction on the Environment Court considering alternative options only where there is a designation already in place—in other words, there's a lot of work already been done to decide that that piece of land, that particular area, is required for that piece of infrastructure.

It's good to see the provision for collaboration between agencies, so we don't have different agencies—maybe local government, central government agencies—who are having to do things twice. We want to do things once and do things effectively and efficiently while doing them empathetically and transparently with the landowners who are affected.

It's also really pleasing to see the specific inclusion of Transpower. It seems weird that Transpower wasn't already considered there, because, I mean, if you think about essential infrastructure, I don't think there's any more essential infrastructure than the national grid. I had a meeting the other day with somebody in the energy industry who said that the energy industry represents just 3 percent of our GDP but, without it, the other 97 percent wouldn't operate either. So it's 3 percent, but it's also 100 percent. Without electricity, we would have no economy.

It's also pleasing to see provision for the use of the Public Works Act in an efficient way in terms of emergency recovery.

I look forward to, as the chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, to receiving submissions on the bill, considering submissions on the bill and to, in time, reporting the bill back to the House. I commend it to the House.

ORIINI KAIPARA (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe.

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

A person's blood is nourished by food, a person's sustenance derives from the land and soils.

Of all the bills before us this week, this is the most terrifying to all Māori. To Māori, public works is synonymous with raupatu—confiscation. Ruapekapeka, Rangiriri, Rangiaowhia, Ōrākau, Pukehinahina, Maungapōhatu, Parihaka, Waeranga a Hika, Wairau, Waikato, Takaparawhau, and even Ihumātao. The list is endless, and this bill ensures it continues. It reaches into our whenua, our histories, our wāhi tapu and whakapapa with the same heavy hand that began confiscation Māori land under the first Public Works Act in 1864.

Yes, today's version is an improvement on the last, but its intent remains the same: it is another form of raupatu. Every hapū in Aotearoa has felt the Public Works Act. There is no part of this country where Māori have not been pushed aside or built over in the name of public good.

The clearest example is highways, just like Hūhana Lyndon explained before. Highways are the sabre of raupatu—straight lines, cutting through whenua, displacing whānau, and destroying wāhi tapu. Look at Waikanae. Wī Parata gifted much of the township to the people of Aotearoa—a profound act of generosity. Yet, his own whānau later became casualties of public works takings. If that is the legacy of public works for a whānau that gave so much, then what hope is there for Māori with little ancestral lands left—and for the mokopuna who dream of returning to their papatipu, their ancestral lands.

Whenua is not a commodity to Māori; it is whakapapa, it is identity, and it is a sense of belonging. As kaitiaki, it is innately Māori to care for and to preserve our whenua and our taiao for the next generations. We do this not just by occupation, but through our way of life; our reo, our tikanga, and our whanaungatanga. It is where we lay our bones and what effectively makes us tangata whenua.

You can sit and listen all day to the Government celebrating smoother, faster, more convenient land acquisition processes, but it comes at the expense of tangata whenua. Even shifting notices fully online puts many whānau, especially our kaumātua, at risk of not being notified at all. That is how wāhi tapu get bulldozed. That is how urupā are disturbed. That is raupatu in 2025: not with muskets, but with policy settings and website notifications.

You cannot compensate whakapapa, you cannot replace papatipu, and you cannot claim to honour Te Tiriti while making Māori land something the Crown can price and take at will. It does not matter how much compensation the Crown offers if Māori can never say no. Allowing one Treaty partner to confiscate the land of another is a gross violation of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and of hapū rangatiratanga.

This bill opens the door for takings to support fast-track projects—projects rammed through without consultation, immune from court challenge, and invisible to the public. Now, the Crown can seize any land, whether communities agree to it or not, for developments that nobody asked for.

This is how communities are destroyed. This is how whakapapa is severed. This is how mana motuhake is extinguished, and mokopuna are left with no whenua, no tikanga, and no identity. This is how colonisation is entrenched in 2025.

It goes without saying, Te Pāti Māori vehemently opposes this bill. We do not commend it to the House. We urge this Parliament to destroy it. And to every member who speaks proudly about iwi settling historic grievances, walk your talk and shut this bill down, because the only thing it guarantees is that those same wrongs will happen again. Kia ora.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): I commend this bill to the House.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for this opportunity to talk to what is just the first reading of the Public Works Amendment Bill, and I say that because we have been rushing bills through all stages in urgency—the second reading, committee stage, and third reading all at once with substantial Amendment Papers in the process.

We have heard why I think it's important to note that this bill is going to a select committee. We've heard two very passionate speeches about the importance of Māori land and land owned by Māori, their whenua, and how taking that is particularly meaningful, particularly in the context of the history of Aotearoa when so much has been taken. And we know that. This bill is going to go to a select committee. It's a Government bill, so it's going there.

There were some very real concerns raised. We heard about consultation requirements and everything being electronic. Not everybody has a computer. Everybody here might have lots of computers, lots of devices, but not everybody does. So perhaps this is something that the select committee can look at to see whether some amendments are needed to require additional types of consultation, maybe for some land classes, maybe for everyone; maybe it depends on where you are in the country, I don't know. But I hope the select committee will look at that issue and other issues as well.

Raised in those speeches was the importance of your rohe, your whenua. If specific land needs to be taken for something—and I won't get into the arguments; these are hypothetical projects that I'm sure will have some sort of value—and it's going to mean that people who have already lost a lot of land will have no land or hardly any land, then surely there are mechanisms that can be looked at to provide additional land if whenua is the real issue there. So I really hope that the select committee—it' not one that I'm on—does look at what I know will be a lot of submissions on this topic, and I encourage everybody to come with a very open mind and be very cognisant of that history. Don't just rubbish and talk about the importance of four-lane roads to Auckland.

Whilst roads are very important in that part of the world to the economy and we've got all sorts of problems with the roads and with climate change and thinking about how we transport things around the country, please, I say to the Government members, listen to those concerns and have an open mind and see. I'm sure it will be within the scope of the bill to come up with solutions for that, because there are other elements of this bill that are doing some good things. We've heard that the Public Works Act is an old, clunky piece of legislation and the settings in it have not been updated for some time. So issues like the amount of compensation that people get when their land is taken are things the bill is looking to change.

I commend the use of a review group that I'm sure has had a lot of expertise in this legislation. I used to work around the edges of it, and the time periods were exceptionally long if people didn't agree with the compensation arrangements or they didn't agree to their land being taken. It's fair enough that people don't want their land being taken and that there must be some way for there to be a process. That's important. However, the Public Works Act process as it stands at the moment is clunky.

So that again is another reason why Labour wants these things to be discussed in a sensible way at a select committee. I note this issue of the Environment Court not looking at alternatives, and I presume that's because under the Resource Management Act (RMA), if you have a designation, then you already have to go through that alternatives test. And I would like the select committee to look at whether that aligns with the work that Labour did with the Natural and Built Environment Act, which updated all the designation provisions that are now back in the RMA. I'm advised that these all go into this this Government's Planning Bill as well—that all that work could have been done two years ago, and that those improvements are in the new legislation. Hopefully, that is something that that select committee will also look at.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): This bill will make the land acquisition process faster but also fair. This will see a better outcome for the landowner and help reduce the cost of building infrastructure. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to begin by echoing what my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking said, when she opened, because we've been here, debating so many bills in all-stages urgency—some of which really didn't need to be debated under urgency. But it's actually quite refreshing to be taking a call on the first reading of a bill that is actually going to make it to a select committee. So I do want to acknowledge that and begin with that.

I do also want to say, in my opening, that some of those bill that we did debate under urgency all stages were things like the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill, which was a bill that was ostensibly about increasing supermarket competition but was actually about increasing ministerial powers and reducing environmental protections. When we didn't vote for that bill, we got slapped around by members on the Government benches who claimed that members on this side of the House were anti-progress, for some reason, or anti-development or anti-infrastructure or anti – strengthening our economy. I want to point out that the reason that we are supporting this bill to select committee stage, at least, is because we're not any of those things; it's because we do actually support strengthening the economy, we do support building infrastructure. We, in fact, supported the construction sector much more than this Government has, which is why we have seen losses to the tune of—what is it?—tens of thousands. It is 20,000 jobs in the construction sector alone that have been lost.

Hon James Meager: Thanks, Labour!

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: No. Thanks, James Meager to your Government and decisions that your Government has made to stop building, to stop construction. Many of us on this side of the House have been meeting with those from the construction sector. So you might sit there and heckle and say "Blame Labour."; that's not what the construction sector is saying, just FYI. They have all left the country and left to Australia, largely, because there are many more opportunities there for construction because this Government has stopped all te building jobs. So it's nice to see that, for once, they're taking a step towards supporting infrastructure and the construction sector.

We're happy to support it to select committee, as my colleagues on this side of the House have said, this is the review of the Public Works Act that I understand hasn't been reviewed for something like 30 or 35 years. So it's probably about time that there was a review done. It was reasonably targeted. It is about the delivery of public works. So we're reasonably supportive around this.

We do have some questions about the so-called streamlining amendments in this particular bill, and that is partly because of what I started with—that when they pass so many bills under all-stages urgency, it is difficult to make sure that the laws that they are making are actually fit for purpose.

We have some questions around Māori rights, as well. It's been raised by other colleagues on this side of the House. That is also largely because of the erosion of trust between this Government and Māori, because so much of what they have done and passed has suppressed Māori rights. So of course we want to interrogate this bill at select committee and make sure that this doesn't do that, as well. The one thing that I will note, that my colleague the Hon Damien O'Connor noted as well, is that there is a requirement that Māori freehold land is valued as if it were general land when it's acquired for a public work. So that gives us, I guess, some level of comfort. But, again, as Rachel Brooking said, if there are other implications for Māori land for whenua Māori, then we want to make sure that it is teased out, that it is interrogated very well at the select committee stage.

Finally, the point that I'll make is around the impending resource management (RM) reform. We know that this Government had decided, two years ago, to chuck out all the work that Labour in Government did, to only come up with two other bills—the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill—that do, largely, what Labour was going to do, but shifts the emphasis to property rights, which, of course, we don't necessarily agree with. I would like to see what the impacts—

Hon Rachel Brooking: And take away Māori rights.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: —of that RM reform—and take away Māori rights, as my colleague Rachel Brooking said; absolutely right—is on this planning bill, as well. Ultimately, they do deal with some similar things, as well. We will be looking out for all of that at the select committee stage.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): I commend the bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Public Works Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 102

New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 21

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.

Instruction to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Local Government): I move, That the Public Works Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 14 May 2026.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be agreed to.

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Motion agreed to.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Can I ask members in the House to remember that when a vote is being taken, it is done in silence. You'll note that the Clerk often has to use his earpiece, and it makes it really difficult with the background noise.

Members, we are now breaking for the dinner break, and will resume at 7 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 6.01 p.m. to 7 p.m.

© Scoop Media