Parliament Hansard Report – Point of Order – 001484

Source: Govt’s austerity Budget to cause real harm in communities

POINTS OF ORDER

Recall of the Speaker—Closure Motions and Party Votes

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Point of order. I apologise to the Minister; however, this is the first opportunity we’ve had to raise this point of order, given that we’ve just come out of committee. We would have had the opportunity to raise this if our motion to recall the Speaker was approved by the committee. It was not, which is regrettable. Nevertheless, this is the appropriate opportunity to do so.

There are two matters that I wish to raise. One is regarding closure motions and the other is regarding calling for party votes. Specifically, I’m referring to Standing Order 137(1). Now, in that Standing Order, it specifically prescribes what is required when a question is being put around—or should be considered around—the closure motion. And in Standing Orders, it quotes what is required.

Now, last evening, the presiding officer at the time indicated that it doesn’t need to be exactly accurate as outlined in Standing Orders, but it just needs to be there or thereabouts in so far as the presiding officer understands the intent of the motion and therefore can proceed. Now, that is a significant departure from what is outlined in Standing Orders. Now, sir, I’m not asking for you to rule on that now, but what I am asking for is a commitment to report back to the House to provide absolute clarity. In the absence of that, it is possible that a new Speaker’s ruling would be created that is counter to Standing Orders, which I don’t think is in the interest of anyone in this House.

The second point is in regard to calling for party votes when there is a motion to recall the Speaker. It’s not my intention to dispute the decision that was made around the Speaker. I think there’s a fair bit of reflection being made around the House at the moment. There was one instance in the previous Parliament where that was voted against; that was wrong, it should not have happened. There was one in the previous Parliament, there’s now been one in this Parliament, I’m hoping that the House can decide that, “OK, we’ll call it even. We’ll go back to the convention in regard to motions to recall the Speaker.”

However, what is of concern is the decision that was made in committee that a party vote would not be put. So the motion was made to recall the Speaker, the Government members voted No, a party vote was called, and the presiding officer did not allow that to happen. Now, that is actually also counter to Standing Orders. The process for dealing with a motion to recall the Speaker—Standing Order 179 doesn’t indicate that there isn’t to be a party vote. So in the absence of any specified information about that, the only option that we’ve got is to go back to Standing Orders 142(1), which quite clearly outlines the process for a party vote to be considered when it is called for. And so there is nothing else in Standing Orders around that—that is the only thing that we can go for. So all I’m asking for is a commitment for both of those points to be reflected on by the Speaker’s office alongside the Clerk’s Office, and a report back so that the House is very clear around the process on both those things.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Speaking to the point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. All of the points that were just made are actually irrelevant because the Clerk—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): I’ll decide if they’re relevant.

JOSEPH MOONEY: Certainly. Well, I just sort of wanted to make the point—I accept absolutely it’s your decision, Mr Speaker, but the point of order was raised by the Opposition after the Chair had decided to commence voting. Voting had commenced and the Opposition disrupted that not once but twice. They disrupted it first when they were of the view that the question hadn’t been completely put. It had been mostly put, but not completely. There were two words, from recollection, that were missing. The Chair then put the vote again, accepted a full closure motion with full wording, and then the Opposition disrupted that again with a point of order. So they disrupted the vote twice. So everything that followed I would suggest is irrelevant.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): —of events. I’ve got three points here and the rest of the points we can go back and reflect on. So just to the points from the Hon Kieran McAnulty: he is correct, but in the heat of the moment the exact words might not have been gotten right. But nothing has changed: the exact words of Standing Order 137 should be used. And just to acknowledge that there is a longstanding custom of the committee agreeing to recall the Speaker— Speaker’s ruling 81/2; it is not an absolute right, but it would be unfortunate if it was opposed and would likely slow down committee stages. So just to note that as well.

There should also be no need for a party vote because the recall should be agreed to. Where it’s not, a party vote is the way to decide it. And, also, to note that the presiding officer who was here in the Chair is at the moment having discussions with parties as well. So in terms of the points that I have talked about just before, that has taken care of some of the issues. If there are other prevailing issues outside of that, we will get back to you. I now call the Hon Louise Upston.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Speaking to the point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just want to clarify one particular point that the previous person, Joseph Mooney, has mentioned in terms of the voting process. I wanted to get clarification from you, Mr Speaker, that in the context of that, when a vote is called but prior to the vote being called a point of order was raised but then because the mic wasn’t on and the presiding officer couldn’t hear it, in those circumstances would a point of order that was raised be considered before or after a vote has been triggered? Because I don’t think it’s entirely accurate to say that—if we go back and look at the video from last night, when that was done we deliberately and explicitly mentioned to the presiding officer at the time that the point of order was raised prior to the vote being called. But the presiding officer couldn’t hear properly because there was a lot of other noise around the presiding officer at the time. So I just want to get clarification from you, Mr Speaker, in that particular context, when the point of order is raised, would that be considered prior to a vote or do we assume it’s after a vote has commenced?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): I’ll just take some advice on that.

Joseph Mooney: Speaking to the point of order.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Sit down. Look, just to note for the House that these issues are done. I have made a ruling. There are extra things that may be addressed, but that can happen outside of this Chamber. If you do have extra points that need to be revisited, we can do that, but it’s not enough to actually hold up the business of the House.

David Seymour: Budget Day Speech 2025

Source:

Mr Speaker,

Intro

I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in support of this Budget.

Let’s start with some simple truths about all Government Budgets.

When the Government spends, it takes from the firms, farms, and families that make up our great country.

A dollar spent by the Government can’t be spent by a family paying their groceries or renovating their house. It cannot be invested by a business creating another job, or a farmer buying new equipment. Nobody else can spend it, because the Government has it.h

Government spending has a diabolical power: Time travel. The Government can spend money now and put the debt in a fiscal Tardis. Into the future, goes the debt, one day landing on taxpayers who might just be starting on their ABCs this afternoon.

Every Government has an obligation to stop the fiscal Tardis. For the sake of future generations, every Government must return to surplus and pay down debt.

Another fact, this Budget isn’t the one ACT alone would bring.

If you’ve read the ACT Party’s Alternative Budgets in years past, you know this Budget spends more than ACT would. But I can tell you something else: It spends much less than a budget without ACT.

I’m proud of the role ACT has played questioning spending and finding savings. Collectively our party has saved current and future taxpayers billions.

This Budget has another great feature. It wasn’t written by the post-modern unicorn chasers of the opposition benches. It signals another year of stable Government for New Zealand.

The Greens have helpfully shown us their alternative budget. They would increase annual Government spending by $22 billion. For that they promise to end poverty.

It got me wondering. Has anything like this happened before? Well, last time the Greens were in Government, annual Government spending increased by $52 billion.

They cannot have it both ways. Either $52 billion of extra spending was enough to fix our problems, or $22 billion won’t be. They are intellectually bankrupt. If they ran a Government, it would be financially bankrupt.

Green bankruptcy doesn’t end there. The Greens are also morally bankrupt. Societies succeed when we push each other up instead of pulling each other down. But the core message of the Greens is that your problems are caused by others’ success, and your salvation lies in taking their money with new taxes.

There are two other Parties in opposition. Te Pāti Māori probably don’t know what a budget is. They show up to Parliament for Tik Tok, not for the good of all New Zealanders.

Then there are Labour, whose whole electoral strategy is to avoid ever taking a position on anything. That’s dangerous, a party desperate for power that won’t tell you its policies. An opposition of unicorn chasers, tik-tok wannabes, and dodgers should never be allowed near your money.

ACT’s Values

ACT’s supporters, Ministers, Members of Parliament and I are proud to stand with a Government that is saving to invest, and boosting the productive capacity of New Zealanders.

We have a simple set of values that work, the world over. Any Government is only a group of people. So is the rest of the population. Some say the Government can solve your problems. I ask: If a group of people ensnared in the politics and bureaucracy of Government can solve your problems, imagine what you could do without the politics and bureaucracy?

That’s why the Government that governs best governs less. That’s why any Government’s goal should be unleashing the creative powers of a free society. Its goal should be freedom under the law, so that people can make a difference in their own lives and the lives of those they care about.

Politicians and their grand Government schemes cannot make New Zealand flourish, because nobody can be forced to flourish. But a country can flourish when each of us are free to be ourselves and achieve in our own way.

The Values of this Budget

This Budget reflects ACT’s values. It is reducing the share of the nation’s economic pie consumed by Government, and ACT’s fingerprints are all over it.

Inflation is currently 2.5 per cent and the population has grown 0.9 per cent in the last year. That means our country’s inflation plus population growth is 3.4 per cent.

If the Government’s Budget grew by 3.4 per cent, it would grow by $4.9 billion. The question is, does this Budget increase spending by $4.9 billion?

No, it does not. It increases by a fraction of that. This Budget increases spending by $1.3 billion. That’s a 0.9 per cent increase.

When the Government reduces its share of the economy, there is more for the firms, farms, and families of this country to consume.

That is true, but it’s not the whole story. Budgets are about more than who gets what. Budgets are also about values. This Budget ensures there is more reason to flourish, to act.

Most importantly, if businesses invest in new plant and equipment, they can write off 20 per cent of the value right now.

If you’re a farmer buying new milking machines to increase your output.

If you’re a start-up investing in lab equipment to develop your product.

If you’re a restaurant upgrading a commercial kitchen to serve more people faster.

If you’re a logistics company investing in better enterprise resource management to get stuff to the right place faster…

It’s not up to any politician how this policy is used. It’s up to creative people. Whatever you’re trying to do, the new 20 per cent capital asset deduction will reduce the tax drag on investing to increase productivity and wages.

Treasury forecasts that, by the time the youngest Kiwis today enter the workforce, wages will be 1.5 per cent higher thanks to this policy alone.

This Budget doesn’t just hose money at what is politically popular. It sets the foundations for growth. It benefits New Zealanders who may not be able to vote yet, but will look back and thank today’s Government for this policy.

Less tax matters. If people can keep and reinvest more of what they make, a virtuous circle starts to turn.

Investment leads to productivity.

Productivity leads to higher wages and higher profits.

Profits can be reinvested, leading to more productivity.

Higher wages empower workers to become investors themselves.

Productivity rises some more, and all the Government needs to do is less.

The Regulatory Standards Bill

When the Budget Debate adjourns, we’ll see the Regulatory Standards Bill debated and sent on its way to become law. I said at the start, any Government’s goal should be unleashing the creative powers of a free society.

Less tax is half the equation to human flourishing. It’s not enough for the Government to just tax less of your property. The Government must also restrain itself from restricting how you use the property you have left.

For too long, politicians have come to this House and trampled New Zealanders’ rights to use and exchange their own property. They do it for political reasons.

They ban people from using buildings to show they care about earthquakes, even if no lives will be saved at the cost of billions.

They ban oil and gas exploration to show they care about the planet, even if the result is burning more coal.

They give every Tom, Dick and Hone the right to object to you building a house, to show they care about the planet, but the result is a generation without habitats for humans.

Democracy demands politicians be held accountable for bad lawmaking, and that’s what the Regulatory Standards Bill will do.

It will require lawmakers to publicly declare what problem their law seeks to solve. It will require them to show the effects on peoples’ liberties and property rights. It will require them to weight the costs and benefits of the law. They’ll have to publicly state who pays the costs and reaps any benefits.

That sort of transparency and accountability will not stop bad lawmakers. Parliament remains sovereign. What it will do is help voters identify and punish bad lawmakers when their vote.

Over time, this change of incentives will change our country. Justifiable and necessary regulations will remain, but many others won’t.

The builder who takes longer to get consent than to build the thing, will spend more time building homes for the next generation.

The educator who wanted to open children’s minds will have more time to do that and less time on paperwork.

The lawyer conveyancing property will spend more time articulating their clients’ interests, and less time checking their identity again, and again.

The Church organising an ANZAC day will spend more time preparing to honor the fallen, and less time asking permission to walk on the roads their congregation paid for.

That is the world of empowerment with less red tape and regulation that this Budget and the Regulatory Standards Bill herald.

Investment

The Budget also invests more money in things that matter.

What matters most is our basic security. The half a billion-dollar boost in Defence and foreign affairs are sadly necessary in a changing world. ACT long campaigned for two per cent of GDP to be spent on Defence.

It is a form of insurance. We hope to never use it, but the chances are higher than ever that we might. Big countries talk about peace through strength. A better option for a small country like New Zealand is peace through alliances.

This Budget allows New Zealand to take seriously our ancient ANZAC alliance. It allows us to be part of a network of like-minded democracies committed to the defence of a free society.

We also need security from thugs at home. Some Government spending just sells itself. Few things are better value than locking up criminals. Nearly half a billion dollars locking up criminals sounds expensive, but if you think crims are expensive in jail, imagine them out on the streets, robbing, raping, and murdering. Locking them up is the best money we’ll ever spend.

The Government is investing in the ultimate resource, human creativity. Better education, including $140 million more on school attendance, will help us transfer skills from one generation to another.

When children get to school, the learning support and maths help will be there. Just imagine where the Government’s books could be today if that maths help was around when Grant Robertson was a at school.

Today parents who save and sacrifice get some long overdue recognition.

Those who scrimp and save to give their children a better future at a private school pay taxes like anyone else. Their children deserve an education like anyone else. And yet, they pay more GST on their school fees than they get back in Government subsidy. The Subsidy has been frozen for fifteen years.

Savings

All the above policies are possible only because we have been prepared to live within our means.

In the reckless years of the previous Government, any problem could be solved by throwing other people’s money at it, or so we were told.

If Labour sold T-shirts they should say, ‘I voted Labour and all I got was a $100 billion of debt.’ That is all we got, and for those who blame COVID, the splurge went on far longer than that.

This Government has had to do what firms, farms and families had to do in the hungry years Labour created. If we want to spend more, we need to save somewhere else.

It makes no sense for the Government to borrow money your children will need to pay back, with interest, then put it in your Kiwisaver so you can invest in shares. That is what’s been happening, and it’s nuts.

ACT’s alternative budget proposed stopping the practice. We’re thrilled to be part of a Government that is at least halving it, and means testing. That is something future generations will thank us for. It’s also just good basic financial management.

I said Brooke van Velden saved the taxpayer billions and the Budget for the Government. Today it’s been revealed how much that saving was, it is $12.8 billion over four years.

However, I also said that she left a fairer, more affordable, more sustainable pay equity scheme. That is true. Thanks to Brooke van Velden, the emphasis on growing wages is back to the actions that economists tell us grow wages.

I heard people say they’d been ‘working’ on pay equity cases for years. Newsflash, that’s not work. That’s litigation, and it does not make the boat go faster at all. The fact that people thought that was work tells us everything we need to know about the left and the union movement.

There are not only fiscal savings from the pay equity changes, there is a proud declaration that we don’t get wealthier arguing with ourselves, we get wealthier from investment, innovation, and genuine hard work.

Of course there are many other savings. The $18.4 million reduction in RNZ funding should focus the organisation of high-quality news, the way its competitors are forced to do in challenging times for the industry.

EECA has always been silly. People already know energy is expensive and it’s good to save it. There’s no need for a Government department to do it. Over four years this change will save $56.2 million.

Ending the mad experiment of Kahui Ako, or Communities of Learning, that were actually communities of teachers taking time out of the classroom, it’s gone. The saving is $375.5 million dollars.

Crazy research grants, ‘climate resilience for Māori,’ whatever that really is, and ‘bilingual towns and cities funding.’ It’s all getting cut to save taxpayers’ money. People who work hard in the real world, treating others well, and taking each person as they find them… They are the winners when government stops taking money for identity politics fantasies and applies it to practical services that matter.

The Government will be tightening benefit eligibility for 18-19 year olds. This will save $163 million. Parents want them off the couch. The last thing they want is the Government taking their taxes and paying them to stay there.

Personal responsibility can save money in other ways. The Government is going to be far more aggressive in chasing up court fines and legal aid debt. The basic idea that your efforts should make a difference cuts both ways, and saves the Government money, too.

These are just a selection. It all adds up. Altogether the Government is saving $4.9 billion per year. $4.9 billion of taxpayer money put to better use. Saving to invest more, so that our free society can see economic growth.

Conclusion

This Budget doesn’t go as far as ACT would, but we’re proud to support it because it’s pregnant with our values. It is a Budget supporting human action, not political action. It give more resources and choices to the people, compared with government.

It focuses on growing the New Zealand economy, rather than government spending. It gives a ray of hope, that New Zealanders can achieve their potential in a place where your efforts make a difference.

In that there is hope that our pioneering spirit rises again. The country that we and our ancestors came to these islands to build will deliver its promise of opportunity to each New Zealander.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Budget 2025 saves to invest in what matters

Source:

“ACT has ensured Budget 2025 saves money to invest in essential services and support economic growth,” says ACT Leader David Seymour.

“ACT would support leaner spending still, but our influence has ensured this Budget grows government at less than half the rate of inflation. When the government’s share of spending reduces, there is more left for everyone else, and future generations aren’t irresponsibly saddled with debt.

“Above all, this is a Budget that understands wage growth doesn’t come from the bureaucracy or court cases – it comes from economic growth.

“The Regulatory Standards Bill is part of the Budget package. It will make government justify regulating the use and exchange of your property, or be called out. It means Kiwis spend less time on paperwork and are freed up to innovate, hire, and generate real wealth.

“A 20 percent capital expensing policy will let businesses immediately deduct 20 percent of the cost of new equipment, machinery, or tech in the year of purchase. This puts more cash back in the hands of firms and farms right away – to invest in growth, upgrade tech, and boost productivity. Whatever you’re trying to do, this policy will reduce the tax drag on investing to increase productivity and wages. Treasury forecasts that, by the time the youngest Kiwis today enter the workforce, wages will be 1.5 per cent higher thanks to this policy alone.

“Meanwhile, billions in savings have come from Brooke van Velden’s reforms to ensure pay equity claims are fair and evidence-based. There are not only fiscal savings from the pay equity changes, there is a proud declaration that we don’t get wealthier arguing with ourselves, we get wealthier from investment, innovation, and genuine hard work.

“Brooke van Velden’s work, along with smaller savings throughout the Budget, has made investment in basic services possible. A significant uplift in Defence capability, better attendance services, after-hours healthcare, faster courts, stronger youth justice facilities, and a shift from three-month to twelve-month prescriptions, have all been made possible.

“Of course there are many other savings. The reduction in RNZ funding should focus the organisation on high-quality news, the way its competitors are forced to do in challenging times for the industry.

“In cutting waste and prioritising spending to enable growth, Budget 2025 does not go as far as ACT would like – but it does go further than it would without ACT.”

ACT welcomes authorisation for inquiry into social media harm, urges caution on blanket ban

Source:

“ACT welcomes Parliament’s decision to authorise a Select Committee inquiry into the harms of social media on young people, as we proposed,” says ACT MP Dr Parmjeet Parmar.

Dr Parmar sits on Parliament’s Education and Workforce Committee, and last week wrote to the Committee Chair with ACT’s proposal for an inquiry.

“We now have an opportunity to develop well-informed, evidence-based actions to safeguard youth, while also considering parental responsibility. By setting clear terms of reference and inviting input from parents, educators, mental health experts, and tech specialists, the Committee can explore workable solutions that empower families and communities.

“ACT remains concerned about the narrower proposal to ban social media for those under 16. Such a ban risks being technically unworkable, as young people could easily bypass restrictions, potentially driving them to unregulated, darker corners of the internet with fewer safeguards. It also sidelines parents, undermining personal responsibility, and could limit access to valuable online opportunities.

“Any inquiry should examine lessons from other countries enforcement attempts, such as Australia with its planned ban. Online safety is important, but so is workability, privacy, and avoiding unintended consequences.”

Note to editors:

The proposed inquiry is broader than the Education and Workforce Committee’s subject area outlined in Standing Orders so required authorisation from the House in order to proceed. Today, that authorisation was granted to inquire into the harm young New Zealanders encounter online, and the roles that government, business, and society should play in addressing those harms.

An unexpected ACT Party Achievement

Source:

The Haps

It’s all on. On Tuesday Parliament will see a lengthy debate on the Privilege Committee’s report into Te Pāti Māori’s haka hijinks, with the Committee recommending one and three-week suspensions for the offenders. Thursday will see the Coalition Government’s second Budget, pulling back spending so that the rest of the economy has more much-needed room to breathe. The week will also see the Regulatory Standards Bill debated. By making politicians justify incursions on your property rights, it will make New Zealand a wealthier, freer society.

An unexpected ACT Party Achievement

In opposition ACT was the only Party to consistently put out a fully-costed alternative Budget. Now the Greens have copycatted (except for the numbers). About 30 pages of policy propositions with numbers at the back, a nearly identical format. They’re even going on tour to promote it. We hope lots of people hear what they are saying.

Why is this an achievement? ACT’s transparent format shows the Greens’ full madness. If you’re reading Free Press you’re probably either a journalist, or someone who won’t be voting Green. If you are still considering it, please watch Chlöe Swarbrick’s interview with Jack Tame on her alternative Budget here.

If you haven’t clicked above and you’re still with us, here’s what you missed. Chlöe Swarbrick’s basic message is that New Zealand is a capitalist hellscape people are fleeing by the planeload. However, she says, another $22 billion a year of tax and spend would build the just society we all deserve.

They’ve already sold us this one. In 2017, the Government’s Budget was $76 billion. In 2023, when they left office, it was $138 billion. If an extra $52 billion didn’t solve poverty last time, $22 billion won’t fix it this time. Sure, there was inflation and population growth in that period. Yes a pandemic came and went. None of that comes close to explaining an extra $52 billion every year.

It’s more likely the Greens would simply waste the money like last time, but that’s not what their budget is about. It’s all about envy. Their basic message that your problems are cause by others’ success is toxic to the soul. It says you’re helpless unless Chlöe helps you. There’s even a tax on private jets, as if anyone with a private jet hasn’t already paid multiple times more tax than they’ll ever get back.

There’ll be an inheritance tax. If you passed a $5 million family farm to your kids you’d pay about $1.3 million inheritance tax. If you put it in trust you’d pay 1.5 per cent of the value, or $75,000 a year for that ‘crime.’ They claim only three per cent would pay more tax, as if it’s OK to pick on people if they’re small in number.

If you wonder why we’re spending so much time on Green madness this week, it’s because the Labour Party hasn’t said what it thinks of all this. Throw in the outright racism of Te Pāti Māori that would also be essential to any Labour coalition, and you can see why winning the next election is starting to occupy our mind.

Wake up. The nightmare is over. This week the Coalition Government will bring down a sensible budget with the Greens safely cauterised in opposition. The Budget will shrink Government spending as a share of the economy. It will increase spending by about one per cent while inflation runs at 2.5 and population growth runs at a per cent.

The Budget will use savings, such as from the Pay Equity changes, to invest in what matters. There will be policies that promote investment, jobs and growth for higher wages. The spirit is that we may be in a hole, but we’re not helpless. We’re capable of climbing out and all we need is for the Government to take less and use the resources we give it more efficiently.

That is the effect of the ACT Party on a Government. Crazy ideas left on the cutting room floor, big savings made possible. Smart investments in things like school attendance that have a pay off. Increasingly, the next 18 months will be about growing ACT’s influence at the next election so we can go faster instead of Venezuelan style lunacy promoted by the Greens.

ACT welcomes urgent care boost made possible by savings across Government

Source:

Responding to the Health Minister’s announcement of a Budget boost to after-hours healthcare, ACT Leader David Seymour says:

“This is what we can achieve when we prioritise spending. Kiwis will spend less time waiting at A&E because we’ve got a Government with the backbone to save money and reinvest in the front-line services we expect for our taxes.

“Expanding urgent and after-hours care means better access for patients, less pressure on emergency departments, and more choice – especially in rural and regional areas.

“It’s only possible because this Government, with ACT at the table, is doing the hard work of finding savings and stopping wasteful spending. We’re delivering more healthcare by running a more efficient government.

“New Zealanders are getting better services, not bigger bureaucracy – and that’s exactly what they voted for.”

Man arrested after shots fired on Karangahape Road

Source: New Zealand Police

A 21-year-old man is facing serious injury and firearms-related charges after an incident in central Auckland early today.

At around 3.50am Police attended an incident on Karangahape Road where several shots were fired.

As a result two persons received injuries to their leg and foot which required medical attention.

A short time later, Police located the alleged offender and firearm. The 21-year-old man was arrested and will appear in Auckland District Court tomorrow, 26 May, on serious injury and firearms-related charges.

Police are interested to hear from anyone who witnessed the incident on Karangahape Road who has not yet spoken to us.

If you can help, please update us online now or call 105, quoting file number 250525/0369. 

ENDS

Issued by Police Media Centre. 

Auckland’s Northern Gateway Toll Road to go to 110 km/h

Source: NZ Music Month takes to the streets

A new 110km/h speed limit on State Highway 1 (SH1) for the Northern Gateway Toll Road, from north of Orewa to south of the Johnstone’s Hill Tunnels, will come into effect from 26 May, Transport Minister Chris Bishop announced today.

“Economic growth and productivity are a priority for the Government, and with around 11,000 vehicles per day travelling on the Northern Gateway, 9 per cent of that being heavy vehicles, the new higher speed limit of 110km/h will help ensure people and freight can get to where they need to go, quickly and safely,” Mr Bishop says.

“Late last year, the NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) consulted on the proposed speed limit increase to 110km/h. More than 7,900 submissions were received from across Northland and Auckland, with 93% in support of the increased speed limit and 91% strongly supporting it.

“This road has been designed and constructed with safety features such as two lanes in each direction providing safe passing opportunities, physical median separation between opposing lanes, and a mostly straight, wide alignment. Additional safety improvements are being considered over the next 12 to 18 months. 

“Kiwis have had their say and NZTA have assessed the Northern Gateway Toll Road as being safe to increase the speed limit to 110km/h. Now, we’re getting on and delivering it. Police will apply the same enforcement to 110km/h roads as any other part of the road network. Drivers can expect to see police patrols on New Zealand roads anywhere, at any time.

“The Northern Gateway Toll Road is a crucial corridor for road users and freight, and well as tourists, and forms an important part of the key strategic route between Auckland and Whangārei, and beyond into Northland. I look forward to the new 110km/h speed limit coming into effect later this month.

The new 110km/h speed limit on the Northern Gateway Toll Road comes into effect on Monday 26 May and will apply for 5.5km section of State Highway 1 (SH1) from north of Orewa to south of the Johnstones Hill Tunnels.

Note’s to editor:

  • The speed limit on SH1 through the Johnstones Hill Tunnels will remain 80km/h. While the SH1 Johnstones Hill Tunnels are built to high safety standards, the enclosed environment within a tunnel creates a different safety risk to that of the surrounding motorway. There are no current plans to review or change the speed limit for this section.

Serious crash, Fitzgerald Avenue, Christchurch

Source: New Zealand Police

Emergency services are responding to a crash involving a vehicle and at least one pedestrian on Fitzgerald Avenue, near Hereford Street.

Police were called about 2.15pm.

Initial indications are there may have been serious injuries. 

The Serious Crash Unit has been notified, and traffic management is in place. 

Motorists should avoid the area if possible. 

ENDS 

Issued by Police Media Centre

Fatal crash, Whangārei

Source: New Zealand Police

One person has died after a truck collided with a power pole in Whangārei overnight.

The crash, at the intersection of Riverside Drive and Ewing Road, was reported to Police at 1.25am today.

The driver of the truck was the sole occupant.

Enquiries are under way into the circumstances of the crash.

ENDS

Issued by Police Media Centre.