Recognising a wider range of instruments in section 17 acquisition agreements.

Section 17 provides the foundation for implementing a land acquisition by agreement with specific reference to a ‘transfer instrument’ under the Land Transfer Act 2017 (LTA). The Committee noted that some infrastructure (ie electrical lines) can operate using lesser interests such as easements, without the need for freehold land to be acquired. The section 17 terminology has therefore been broadened to better reflect the range of interests that an authority can acquire, providing alignment with LTA terminology.

Compensation estimates in section 18 notices

The Bill provides a new framework for the section 18 ‘notice of desire to acquire’ process so that owners are provided with an information package before being ‘invited to sell the land’. The information package should describe the nature and purpose of the public work, the reasons for the land requirement, and the Crown / local authority’s obligation to negotiate in good faith. This amendment is a welcome update as it codifies existing best practice.

The Committee has clarified that landowners should be provided with the information package before any invitation to sell the land is issued. The invitation package must include an estimate of the potential compensation being offered for the land, based on a valuation by a registered valuer.

The Committee notes that it may not be possible to determine all forms of compensation that a landowner is entitled to at the time of issuing an invitation to sell. The latest amendment requires authorities to state that owners may be entitled to other forms of compensation. Section 18 also requires owners to be advised if they are liable to pay any betterment for an increase in land value as a result of the public work (or prospect of it), adding greater transparency to the process.

Compulsory acquisition timeframes - section 23

The requirements for issuing a notice of intention to take land under section 23 have been refreshed under the Bill so that only a certified plan (not an approved survey plan) is required for the land take. The Committee has added a new section 23D, which specifies when a section 23 notice would cease to have effect, if the land has not already been taken. In most cases, this will be the anniversary of the date the Gazette notice under section 23 was published, unless a three-month extension is warranted due to consideration by the Environment Court / Ombudsman or it is subject to judicial review (section 23D(1)(c)).

Transpower

The Bill proposes to grant Transpower the power to acquire land directly for its work without having to apply to the Minister for Land Information. This provides a more streamlined process for Transpower to complete national grid expansion and upgrade projects.

The Committee endorsed this proposal but has clarified that Transpower can also rely on the compulsory acquisition process under section 18 in the same way as for other Government works.

Various network utility providers made submissions urging the Committee to extend Transpower’s newfound acquisition powers to other providers. However, the Committee has declined with reference to Transpower’s unique position as the national grid owner and system operator.

An acquiring authority’s ordinary rights to enter land have now been extended to Transpower, by allowing Transpower entry for survey and investigation processes where Transpower has given information to landowners under section 18(2)(a) of the PWA, instead of having to apply for court order where there is no landowner agreement.

Emergency response pathway

One of the Bill’s key amendments is the introduction of the emergency response provisions. These are a direct response to the extreme weather events experienced across New Zealand in recent years. This pathway is only available within two years of an official state of emergency being declared and can only be enacted via an Order in Council.

The Committee endorsed the introduction of these provisions but noted flexibility is needed so that this pathway can be activated by Order in Council for states of emergency that occur since the Bill was introduced on 24 November 2025, in light of the recent severe weather events in January 2026. This would avoid the need to pass specific legislation for those events.

The Committee has also recommended a tighter time limit for reviewing any Order in Council that has been in place longer than five years, by reducing the time limit for review to three years to ensure orders do not remain in place longer than necessary.

While the Committee did not respond with any substantive comment, it did note Gisborne (Unitary) Council’s submission. On the topic of climate resilience and managed retreat, Council stated that it “…supports amendments that improve delivery timeframes for essential infrastructure and recommends that the Bill explicitly recognise the need to plan, invest and build for long-term resilience”. This echoes our previous commentary on the Bill, where we advocated for a more proactive, rather than reactive approach to managed retreat. We hope the topic of managed retreat attracts further discussion at the second reading.

A few compensation-related clarifications and changes have been made by the Committee relating to holding money on trust and the application of incentive payments (additional compensation) under section 72.

Stakeholder process

In circumstances where a landowner doesn't accept a compensation offer within three months, the Committee recommends the funds are held by the agency offering the payment as a contingency until it is finally claimed - instead of the Public Trust. Concerns were raised of a potential decrease in the value of compensation due to the fees and additional costs tied to the Public Trust, which would disadvantage some landowners. Offers are now also required to be open for acceptance for at least three months. 

Incentive payments under section 72

The Bill proposes to introduce incentive payments when a landowner agrees to sell their land prior to the issuance of a section 23 notice. The Committee endorsed this and has provided further clarity as to how the payments apply in different situations, including:

• owners are only entitled to the incentive payment when agreement is reached on all required property for a public work (including a combined project) at the time of agreement; 
• if more land is requested after agreement has been reached, the landowner is eligible for additional compensation; and
• if the land is acquired for a project including both critical and non-critical infrastructure projects, additional compensation payments are payable to landowners at the critical infrastructure project rate. 

The Bill also proposed additional compensation if the land includes the landowner’s principal place of residence. The Committee has clarified any ambiguity in situations where there are multiple landowners; with some living on the property and others who do not. The Bill now provides:

• if any of the landowners are entitled to a land-loss payment, other landowners would be excluded from eligibility for this additional payment; 
• where there is more than one eligible house on the land, more than one home-loss additional payment can be made; and 
  land that is transferred or acquired between the Crown and local authorities would not entitle the Crown or local authority to a land-loss payment.

One of the key amendments under the Bill is the ability for acquiring authorities to acquire land for the relocation of critical infrastructure. The Committee approved the introduction of this new power but has clarified that improvements can be made to infrastructure at the same time as the relocation, enabling time and cost efficiencies.

The Bill proposed a requirement that the Tribunal be satisfied that the party bringing the claim had taken “all reasonable steps” to resolve the dispute using alternative dispute resolution (ADR). The Committee considers that this threshold is too high. It recommends changing the requirement so that claimants must have taken “reasonable steps” as opposed to “all reasonable steps”. It also recommends the form in Schedule 4 be amended so claimants must outline what steps they have taken to resolve the matter through ADR. This recommendation somewhat addresses our concern in our previous article that it was not clear how far a claimant must go to attempt to resolve the dispute through ADR to discharge this requirement, although the question of what in practice amounts to “reasonable steps” will remain a live issue. As we have previously commented, it could be hard for the Tribunal to identify whether a party has in fact taken reasonable steps rather than simply giving lip service to the process.