Naylor JonoJONO NAYLOR (National): I have to confess that when I first became aware of this bill I thought initially it had some merit and warranted a little bit of a closer look. So I did take a closer look to see whether or not this bill would actually achieve some of the things that I thought perhaps it was intended to achieve but it does not. We just heard a great impassioned speech from Mr Henare from over the way there about his family's experience—Peeni Henare: Over the railway track.JONO NAYLOR: —from the other side of the railway tracks yes. There has obviously been something that has gone on that was not ideal for his family. In fact it would have been great if they had been responded to earlier perhaps and if that railway line had not sat empty for 12 years as you said before some action was taken. If this bill could do anything whatsoever to resolve that situation then that would be useful but guess what? It does not because actually the issue that he would like to see resolved needs a different bill. It needs a different set of legislation. It needs a different policy from the organisations like the railway that end up owning that land and making different decisions at different times to help that family resolve their issue. There is no doubt that over the history of time in Aotearoa New Zealand the Public Works Act and other legislation has been used inappropriately to alienate Māori from their land. Successive legislation through the Māori land Act and its various iterations at different times were not proud moments if we are to look at the history of New Zealand and at what was done to Māori in terms of alienating them from their land. That is something that I do not believe that any of us in Aotearoa New Zealand should be proud of. But this bill does not actually put any of that to rights. There are other processes in place and we are working very hard through our Treaty settlement processes to do what we can to at least make some measure of putting those things right but this bill in and of itself does not. It has been talked about that not one more acre should be confiscated and I just want to remind members of the House that the Public Works Act does not allow the Government to confiscate land; it enables the Government to purchase land. I just want to go back to when the Public Works Act was brought in in 1981 and the opening speech by the Hon W L Young who introduced that legislation. In his opening remarks he said that When land is required for essential work the Bill specifies that a formal notice is to be sent to the owner inviting the owner to sell the land and advising the owner of the estimated value of the land. Every effort must be made to negotiate in good faith with the owner in an attempt to reach an agreement acceptable to [them]. Unless these steps are taken it will not be possible compulsorily to take any land for an essential work." This is not confiscation; this is about—under the Public Works Act—giving a fair price for a piece of land that is required by the Government or a local authority for essential work. What Ms Delahunty is actually proposing through this legislation is that a party who owns a particular piece of land will have an ability to stand in the way—the ability to hold the rest of New Zealand to ransom. So if for example a piece of land was required to provide flood protection to a significant part of the community—if this legislation was to pass and that piece of land was one of the bits of land that has been referred to in this bill then the owners of that land would effectively be able to write themselves a blank cheque and hold everybody else to ransom and flood protection would not be provided. That is just one example of what could happen. I cannot stand here and support that. This bill may have great intentions but it is certainly not going to achieve any useful intentions and it is not going to address any of the historical wrongs that have been done. Thank you."