John McDonald supplies a copy of his feedback on the Public Works (Critical Infrastructure) Amendment Bill, sent to Parliament’s Transport and Infrastructure Committee on the 13 June 2025.
For feedback on the bill as it worked its way through Parliament, John McDonald raised the following concerns:
- This version of the bill would allow a minister (or council Chief Executive) to take private land for fast-track projects without going through a court process.
- The impacted landowners will have limited opportunities to object to the land taking to a independent decision-maker, with the Minister or council Chief Executive making the final decisions.
- Landowners are to be offered “premium” compensation payments to encourage them to cooperate with the taking of their land. However, those “premium” payments are capped and due to “betterment”-style arguments they might be the only compensation those landowners receive.
- The bill is unclear whether these new land-taking powers are strictly limited to the current list of fast-track projects; or whether new projects could be added by future bills and future governments. The lack of clear ‘sunset’ clause is concerning.
- Impacted landowners will receive a threatening form letter (titled “Notice of intention to take land for critical infrastructure project”) and be given only 10 days notice to respond.
- The bill appears to give “arbitrary powers to chief executives of the local authorities in a dubious way with minimal scrutiny”.
- Many of the “fast track” projects are roads, although one project is a residential development.
- The lines between public works and for-profit corporate ventures has been blurred with public-private partnerships, toll roads, privatised utilities.
- Will we be treated as “equal before the law” when a government has partnered with another entity operating for private gain?
The full version on John McDonald’s feedback document can be found at this link.
Quotes
“This bill is a threat to private property rights and appears to be an attempt to enhance the ability for governments to take land in a non-consensual fashion by what is effectively executive decree.”
“The current bill appears to be an attempt to give excessive and unaccountable power to the Executive Branch of central government and to the chief executives operating within local governments”
“Removing the ability for victims of government ‘land taking’ schemes to object to the Environment Court is concerning from the perspective of maintaining well-established rights to due process and natural justice. The bill’s aim of removing the right to an oral hearing through the modification of subsection 25(7) is also concerning for similar reasons. This change of process and any attempts by government to restrict well-established rights might put governments in breach of Article 14 (1), Article 17, and Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.”
“The proposed Schedule 2B is a threatening form letter (titled “Notice of intention to take land for critical infrastructure project”) which could cause significant distress to landowners, residents, occupying parties, and/or tenants. In two different parts of the form letter it only gives the recipient 10 days notice to respond. That is insufficient time to respond to a threat of losing one’s home, land, or livelihood in a bureaucratic process.”
Dr John McDonald-Wharry on the Public Works (Critical Infrastructure) Amendment Bill, sent to Parliament’s Transport and Infrastructure Committee, 13 June 2025.
Video
The full version of John McDonald’s document can be downloaded using this link.
John McDonald’s presentation to the Select Committee can be found at this link (2025/06/19 -TI Part 5 at the 28 minute mark).
https://vimeo.com/showcase/10758273?video=1094606253
For those interested in this issue, John recommends the people watch the entire video of the last set of the day’s speakers. It gives a good representation of the many viewpoints and concerns about the bill. The “industry association” called Infrastructure New Zealand was an outlier as they express their enthusiasm for the taking of private land (and more land that strictly necessary for the infrastructure project… as extra land is desired for “urban regeneration”, “place-making” and to “modernise”).
[The content of any Opinion Pieces or Open Letters represents the views of the author and the accuracy of any content in a post labelled Opinion or Open Letter is the responsibility of the author. Posting of this content on the CityWatch NZ website does not necessarily constitute endorsement of those views by CityWatch NZ or its editors. CityWatch NZ functions to provide information and a range of different perspectives on New Zealand’s cities and local councils. If you disagree with or dispute the content, CityWatch NZ can pass that feedback on to the author. Send an email to feedback@citywatchnz.org and clearly identify the content and the issue.]
Further reading on this issue
KPMG International Publication – “The Great Reset: Emerging trends in infrastructure and transport”
Shaw’s Bird Park, the road, and the Council: A bureaucratic nightmare in Hamilton
