Skip to main content

Further to Reply 17201 (2026), of the 10 road crashes recorded between 1 February and 31 October 2025 involving members of the cohort, (a) how many involved a cohort member as the driver of the vehicle at fault; (b) how many resulted in injury or fatality; (c) how many occurred while the cohort member was operating commercially; and (d) were any of these crashes among those for which information was withheld in Reply 13162 (2026) on the grounds of prejudicing the maintenance of the law? and 2 other questions

Answered 19466, 19467, 19679 (2026)
Questions published
See individual question dates
Reply lodged
Bookmark

Asked by

Tangi Utikere

Member for Palmerston North · Labour Party

Questions

  • 19466

    Question published

    Further to Reply 17201 (2026), of the 10 road crashes recorded between 1 February and 31 October 2025 involving members of the cohort, (a) how many involved a cohort member as the driver of the vehicle at fault; (b) how many resulted in injury or fatality; (c) how many occurred while the cohort member was operating commercially; and (d) were any of these crashes among those for which information was withheld in Reply 13162 (2026) on the grounds of prejudicing the maintenance of the law?

  • 19467

    Question published

    Further to Reply 17201 (2026), what is the reason that the safety impact figures provided cover only the period 1 February to 31 October 2025, when Replies 13162, 13166 and 13167 (2026) declined to provide that same category of information on the grounds it could prejudice the maintenance of the law; and what change in circumstances justified providing the figures in Reply 17201 (2026) but not in those earlier replies?

  • 19679

    Question published

    Further to Reply 18703 (2026), and noting the differing date ranges provided in that reply and in Reply 8823 (2026): (a) will the Minister table a formal correction to the parliamentary record in respect of any reply found to contain an inaccurate date range; (b) which other replies and public statements relied on the date range provided in Reply 8823, and will each be reviewed; and (c) given the date range now provided in Reply 18703, was any public description of the vulnerability as having closed on 31 October 2025 accurate, and if not, will it be corrected?

    Original response/referral lodged:

Answered by

Hon Chris Bishop

Member for Hutt South · National Party · Minister of Transport

Answer

I am advised that with respect to the 10 road crashes recorded between 1 February and 31 October 2025, 6 were found to be primarily at fault for the crash, 1 was partially at fault and 3 were found to have not contributed to the crash. NZTA has further advised me that of the 10 road crashes, 6 resulted in minor injuries, and 4 resulted in no injury. 9 were driving for the purposes of work at the time of the crash. At the time I responded to Written Questions 5301 (2026), 13162 (2026), 13166 (2026) and 13167 (2026), I was advised by NZTA that this information should not be released as it could prejudice the maintenance of the law. I am advised that this assessment reflected that crash investigations and traffic offence processes can remain ongoing for extended periods, and that premature disclosure could risk undermining those processes. NZTA has since reviewed its position and determined that the release of high-level, aggregated information - accompanied by appropriate context noting that investigations and enforcement processes may still be underway - is unlikely to prejudice the maintenance of the law.