Acquisition pathways:

One of the most notable changes is the introduction of a third pathway for acquiring authorities to obtain land. Under the Bill, there are now three processes: 

• Standard acquisition: This remains the default pathway to compulsorily acquire land. Under this pathway, acquisition takes at least six months from the initial notification to final proclamation, assuming there are no objections. This pathway is largely unchanged, aside from requiring longer negotiation timeframes for specified ownership structures of Māori land. 
• Critical Infrastructure Bill: Introduced earlier this year under the Public Works (Critical Infrastructure) Amendment Act 2025 (Critical Infrastructure Act) (see our previous article), this is a fast-tracked acquisition process for named critical infrastructure projects (such as Roads of National Significance). This process still takes approximately six months to complete, but incentivises early settlement through premium payments, and reduces delays by tightening the scope for objection.
• Emergency Response Pathway: In response to recent extreme weather events, the Bill introduces a new ‘emergency response’ pathway. This can only be used within two years of a declared state of emergency and only through an Order in Council. It enables timely and efficient restoration of a public work damaged during an emergency by reducing the negotiation period from three months to one. It also relaxes survey requirements. Much like the Critical Infrastructure Act, it also incentivises faster acquisitions by including an enhanced compensation scheme, offering an additional 10% of the land value (subject to a lower limit of $5,000 and an upper limit of $100,000) if vacant possession is given on or before the date specified in the agreement. It also avoids delay by removing the Environment Court’s role in the objection process, instead providing for written objections to be submitted directly to the relevant Minister or local authority. 

We welcome the introduction of the emergency response provisions. To echo Minister Penk, the recent extreme weather events across the country highlight a gap in the PWA around climate-change response and managed retreat. The PWA needs to respond effectively to climate-related natural disasters. The Auckland Anniversary Weekend Floods are a classic example of this. However, we note that these powers are only available where a state of emergency is declared, meaning they do not extend to allowing acquiring entities to pre-emptively buy vulnerable land or facilitate managed retreat. 

Transpower acquisition powers: 

Transpower will be granted the power to acquire land directly for voluntary acquisitions. Previously it had to apply to the Minister for Land Information through the RMA if it required land for a public work (ie grid upgrades). However, Transpower will still need ministerial sign off for compulsory acquisitions. These changes give Transpower a more direct and streamlined route to acquire land for national grid projects. This is a pragmatic amendment which is expected to improve efficiency and accelerate delivery. 

Relocation powers: 

The Bill extends acquisition powers to the relocation of an existing public work. This addresses a long-standing issue where currently the PWA cannot be used to acquire land to relocate existing infrastructure. Instead, the existing infrastructure owner is responsible for acquiring land to relocate the existing infrastructure to, and the acquiring authority cannot negotiate on the infrastructure owner’s behalf. This has led to a convoluted and inefficient process. 

Digitisation 

Notice requirements will be able to be met online (for public notification) and service of notices will be able to be carried out via email. 

Section 23 Notice - Required Land Plan

The formal LINZ-approved survey plan will be replaced with a plan showing the land’s aerial imagery and boundaries in section 23 notices. This plan will need to be certified by a registered surveyor but does not need to be approved by LINZ. This amendment is pragmatic and allows for flexibility, as the specific survey area is often not yet determined at this stage. 

Section 18 Notice replaced

Section 18 notices of desire will be replaced by a requirement for the acquiring authority to provide the landowner / interest holder with an information package describing the public work, why the land is needed, and the process of acquisition. This will be accompanied by an invitation to sell the land, which will include the estimated compensation value. Although providing these information packages has already been best practice, it is helpful to have this process codified. 

The Government is delivering on its promise to incentivise early agreement through an improved compensation scheme. While voluntary acquisitions will cost more (especially where there are multiple dwellings), savings through avoiding compulsory acquisition processes and compensation disputes should offset any increased costs.

The Bill’s enhanced compensation scheme largely replicates the scheme found in the Critical Infrastructure Act. However, it does propose several other changes: 

• Incentive payments: If the landowner agrees to their land being acquired before a section 23 notice is issued, they will receive a new incentive payment equal to 10% of the land value (subject to a lower limit of $5,000 and an upper limit of $100,000). However, this is not available where the critical infrastructure project incentive payment is available. 
• Principle place of residence: Compensation for acquisition of a principal place of residence will be fixed at $50,000 (previously being “up to $50,000”) and will be paid for each qualifying dwelling, even if there are multiple dwellings on one piece of land. 
• Additional compensation: For land other than a principal place of residence, additional compensation will remain at 10% of the land value, but the minimum and maximum payments will be increased from $250 and $25,000 to $350 and $35,000.
• Advance payments: The Bill also specifically enables a landowner to enter into an acquisition agreement providing for full and final compensation, or for an advance payment to be made first and full and final compensation determined and paid later. This will codify what in our experience is already common practice.

Incentive payments are a useful tool to encourage early agreement and avoid prolonged and costly negotiations and disputes. We are already seeing the incentive payments that were introduced under the Critical Infrastructure Act (15% of value of land capped at $150,000) having a real impact and we think this reform will too.

The table below outlines the differences between the current PWA and the Bill:

	Public Works Act 1981	Public Works Amendment Bill
Section 72 (Additional compensation for notified dwelling)	Up to $50,000 (comprising three different payments described in s 72A(1))	Fixed at $50,000
Section 72C (Additional compensation for acquisition of notified land)	Minimum and maximum of $250 and $25,000	Minimum and maximum of $350 and $35,000
Section 72DA (Additional compensation for acquisition of notified land by agreement)	Previously not available	Minimum and maximum of $5,000 and $100,000

As discussed in our previous article, many commentators were sceptical of the PWA reform, believing it did not adequately factor in Māori land considerations. In response to this, the Bill has a relatively heavy focus on the treatment of Māori land. The three key areas of reform are: 

1. Equitable valuation: Māori freehold land will be valued as if it were general land for compensation purposes. This amendment aims to address historic undervaluation and to ensure Māori landowners receive equitable compensation.
2. Additional compensation: Māori landowners whose land is taken for critical infrastructure may receive extra payments beyond standard compensation. These additional compensation provisions (for dwellings, principal residences, and critical infrastructure projects) will strengthen fairness and reduce potential disputes around compensation. 
3. Extended negotiation periods: As discussed above, Māori land will also be excluded from the new fast-tracked emergency acquisition pathway. Instead, the standard acquisition process will apply, which includes the extended six-month negotiation period for acquisitions involving Māori land. These extended negotiation periods for land with multiple owners and land owned by Māori incorporations will reflect and accommodate the complexity of Māori land ownership structures. 

Removal of bespoke delegation powers

The Bill modernises delegation under the PWA by replacing its bespoke delegation power with the general delegation provisions of the Public Service Act 2020 (subject to some explicit restrictions). This reflects modernised expectations for public sector efficiency, flexibility, and responsiveness. However, contrary to some popular expectations, it retains explicit restrictions. The Minister for Land Information cannot delegate the power to issue a notice of intention to take land or to recommend a Proclamation. As a result, agencies such as NZTA still cannot enter into compulsory acquisition agreements directly with landowners and must continue to act through the Crown (LINZ). A key concern remains that any delays or resource constraints at the ministerial level could create bottlenecks, slow down acquisition processes, and potentially impact project timelines.

Combined projects

The Bill introduces the concept of “combined projects,” allowing multiple public works to be delivered as a single project. This is intended to make it easier for agencies to coordinate and deliver complex, multi-agency infrastructure projects. However, the true test will be in the implementation - agencies will need to embrace these new powers and foster a culture of cooperation for these projects to be effective.

Scope of objections 

Amendments to the objections process are targeted, and in our view, largely codify existing case law. Those amendments include that:

• the Environment Court must not enquire into the amount of compensation payable should the relevant land be taken, as that is dealt with by the Land Valuation Tribunal; and
• an objection must specify the grounds on which it is made.

Although those amendments clarify the role of the respective judicial bodies under the PWA, in our view they are unlikely to substantially streamline the objections process.

Restrictions regarding objecting to land subject to an RMA designation

The Bill also restricts the grounds on which an objection can be made when the required land is the subject of a designation under the Resource Management Act (RMA) for the same public work. In those circumstances, the Environment Court cannot consider “the adequacy of the consideration given to alternative sites, routes, or other methods” of achieving the acquiring entity’s objectives. The only ground for objection will be whether it is fair, sound and reasonably necessary to acquire the land to achieve the acquiring entity’s objectives. 

This restriction has been included to avoid duplication between the PWA and the RMA, as the adequacy of consideration given to alternatives is already considered when determining whether the designation is to be included in the relevant district plan. However, it is unclear whether removing this duplication will substantially streamline the objections process for designated land. In our experience the “fair, sound or reasonably necessary” ground provides objectors with plenty of scope to raise a wide variety of arguments in opposition to the taking of their land.

This amendment is clearly targeted at infrastructure projects, which are often authorised by designations. However, for those public works authorised by resource consent rather than designation, this amendment will have little impact. 

The Bill adds new requirements for when the Land Valuation Tribunal can hear a compensation claim. Under Bill, the Tribunal must be satisfied the claimant has taken all reasonable steps to resolve the dispute using alternative dispute resolution (ADR) provided by an independent party before the Tribunal can hear the compensation claim. However, the Bill will also give the Tribunal discretion to hear a claim even if the claimant has not met this requirement.

The proposed changes may reduce the burden on the Tribunal, as parties are encouraged to seek resolution before resorting to the Tribunal. However, it is not clear how far claimants must go to attempt to resolve the dispute through ADR to discharge this requirement. While alternative dispute resolution (particularly mediation) can be an excellent tool for resolving compensation disputes, requiring a party to take part in such a process may be counterproductive if a claimant has no real genuine interest in resolving a dispute. It will be hard for the Tribunal to identify whether a party has in fact taken all reasonable steps rather than simply giving lip service to the process. As the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink!