Chris Penk: The Legal Technician of Control
From Military Discipline to Legal Deregulation
A Navy officer turned property lawyer, now the face of developer-friendly lawmaking in Aotearoa.
Current Portfolios
- Minister for Building and Construction
- Minister for Land Information
- Minister for Veterans
- Minister for Small Business and Manufacturing
- Associate Minister of Agriculture (Horticulture)
Chris Penk is the quiet face of loud theft — a man who turns your rights and your community’s say into checkboxes and loopholes. His “Public Works” bill and push for private certification of building consents aren’t reforms. They’re instructions: let developers decide, let private interests rule, and let the public’s voice fade.
He doesn’t sell it as that. He sells it as “efficiency” and “streamlining.” But who actually benefits? Not the people in the homes built too fast and too cheap. Not the neighbours who lose their right to be heard. Not the generations who will live with the cracks and costs.
Every line of Penk’s legal drafting is a careful cut — a slice taken from your voice, your rights, your home. That’s not progress. That’s a quiet, measured theft.
The Public Works (Critical Infrastructure) Amendment Bill
Penk’s most visible project, the Public Works (Critical Infrastructure) Amendment Bill, is sold as a streamlining fix for essential works. In practice, it silences communities. It strips away consultation and Treaty partnership, recasting democratic safeguards as “obstacles” to progress1.
Under Penk’s bill, contractors and state agencies can move ahead with major projects that reshape communities and ecosystems — without the genuine voice of the people most affected. Consent becomes an afterthought; partnership, a checkbox.
He calls it “removing red tape.” But what he removes is more than delay — it is the right of communities to protect their homes, waters, and cultural ties.
From Local Voices to Legal Loopholes
Chris Penk’s amendments are not just technical adjustments. They are political choices — ones that expand executive reach and corporate access, while diminishing democratic oversight1.
His changes prioritise developers and government convenience over kaitiakitanga and community wellbeing. They set a precedent: if a project is labelled “critical,” then the public no longer matters.
“He calls it ‘resilience.’ But in practice, it’s removing the last checks on power.”
— APIAPE, 2025
Deregulation and the Real Costs: Penk’s Building Reforms
In an interview from late 2024 on The Platform NZ with Michael Laws (watch here), Chris Penk outlined a significant policy shift: replacing some council inspections in the building consent process with self-certification by tradespeople and building companies2.
Penk argued that the current system is too slow and expensive, describing a 569-day wait for a typical home build as “ridiculous” — and claimed that shifting oversight from councils to private contractors would reduce costs and speed up building approvals2.
In mid-2024, Penk also initiated a review of insulation and energy efficiency standards in new homes, citing complaints that these standards added tens of thousands of dollars to building costs3. Critics, including the Green Building Council, warned that rolling back these standards would set New Zealand back decades in energy efficiency, worsen housing conditions, and risk locking future generations into cold homes3.
Critics, including Michael Laws during the interview, noted that councils became cautious after the leaky homes crisis, where inadequate oversight left homeowners and councils to cover the massive costs of poor-quality builds2.
Penk’s approach — removing “red tape” and replacing it with private sign-offs — is not a neutral fix. It repeats the same logic of his Public Works (Critical Infrastructure) Amendment Bill: removing public safeguards, removing public accountability, and letting private players police themselves.
“What Penk calls ‘streamlining’ is in practice removing the last checks on quality — and placing the risks and costs back on the public if things go wrong.”
— APIAPE, 2025
Part of a Broader Erosion
Chris Penk’s amendments are not isolated tweaks. They are part of a broader government agenda that sees community consultation as an inconvenience, local democracy as an obstacle, and environmental and social safeguards as dispensable1.
His Public Works (Critical Infrastructure) Amendment Bill and his building consent self-certification reforms share the same logic: remove local voices, replace them with developer sign-offs or state directives, and trust that private interests will do the job of protecting communities.
Like his colleagues, Penk cloaks these moves in polite language — talking of “streamlining” and “efficiency” — but what he delivers is a systematic shrinking of public say and the empowerment of a few.
“This is not cautious reform. It is managed decline — executed through the lawyer’s pen.”
— APIAPE, 2025
What emerges is a clear pattern: a steady shift of responsibility away from those in power and onto the public, leaving communities exposed to risks and costs they never agreed to bear.
The Anzac Day Amendment Bill: Expanding Commemoration or Expanding the State?
In April 2025, Chris Penk fronted the Anzac Day Amendment Bill — a measure he framed as a respectful, inclusive update to the existing Anzac Day Act. He claimed it was about expanding recognition for New Zealanders who served in lesser-known or “warlike” conflicts — a polite gesture of national pride and remembrance.
But beneath the polite language lies a quiet rebranding of Anzac Day. The bill’s expansion of “recognised conflicts” and military service — while seemingly respectful — blurs historical boundaries and risks turning a day of reflection into an open-ended mandate for future wars.
The truth: New Zealand already honours veterans in ceremonies across the country, with community-led remembrances that do not need state-controlled definitions. Penk’s move does not expand entitlements or address urgent issues like veteran care, PTSD support, or systemic neglect. Instead, it expands the state’s power to define history, shape narratives, and normalise ongoing militarisation — under the cover of “commemoration.”
“We were already honouring our veterans. Penk’s ‘update’ isn’t about respect — it’s about rewriting history for future use.”
— APIAPE, 2025
As with his other reforms, Penk’s Anzac bill reflects a familiar pattern: language that soothes, but outcomes that empower the state and disempower communities. In the name of “recognition,” it turns a solemn day of reflection into an expanding brand of state-aligned military culture — with no mandate from those it claims to serve.
The bill was passed with minimal debate and framed as common sense — a small change with big implications for how we remember, and who decides what counts as service. In this sense, Penk’s Anzac bill is not about veterans. It’s about consolidating the state’s hand in defining national memory.
For a detailed rebuttal, read the full opposition statement: Opposition to the Anzac Day Amendment Bill .
What You Can Do
- Read the opposition to Penk’s bill — and see how small legal changes can dismantle fundamental rights.
- Share this exposé: Chris Penk’s record of quiet erosion.
- Challenge the idea that “streamlining” and “efficiency” are always good — they often hide the removal of your say and your rights.
- Refuse to be silenced by polite language. Question the motives behind every new “reform.”
References
1 Source: New Zealand Government Ministerial Biography – December 20232 Source: Michael Laws interviews Chris Penk, The Platform NZ – 30 October 2024
3 Source: NZ Herald – 17 July 2024
Image source: New Zealand Government ministerial record (fair dealing for public accountability).