Henare PeeniPEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe Mr Chair thank you very much. I too want to endorse the words of my colleague Mr Phil Twyford here about the alternatives offered throughout this entire process in a very clear way. It is interesting how my colleague Meka Whaitiri talked about more or less" and was answered by the Minister in the chair Scott Simpson. Why let a fence separate this? Why let a fence stop the particular offer that we were endorsing in our negotiations on this bill which would allow a win-win?I want to come to Part 2 clause 6(1)(b): "the reservation of the development land as a recreation reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977 is revoked;". I thought I would do a bit of due diligence and look into the Reserves Act and in section 24(2)(c) of the Reserves Act it says that every person claiming to be affected by the proposed changes has the right to object—they have the right to object. If there is one thing that was a serious question from the outset of this particular bill it was the limited scope the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) was given in its consultation—a very limited scope. It spoke to some stakeholders not all stakeholders. As the bill progressed to the Local Government and Environment Committee it was made clear by the 132 submissions that this was an important issue—that the process was a failed one one that silenced voices and one that did not allow participation something that we pride ourselves on in this country.Yet here we are saying that according to the Reserves Act every person claiming to be affected by the proposed changes has the right to object in writing and to have their submission heard. That is being booted out the door now and we are relying on the select committee process alone. That is a great concern to me the proposed process—which we have had from the beginning—that allowed MBIE only a limited scope of consultation. That is of serious concern because that is evidenced by the sheer number of submissions on the matter—many for some against and some just clearly pointing out the flawed process as pointed out by my colleague Mr Phil Twyford in debating Part 1. One of the quotes from the submitters was "the decay of quality decision-making" pointing out clearly that the consultation process was seriously flawed.I want to also talk in Part 2 about clause 6(1)(d) and it says there: "the development land is set apart for State housing purposes (as defined in section 2(1) of the Housing Act 1955) and becomes State housing land under that Act;". Having looked up that particular Act it says in section 3: "The Minister may from time to time determine either generally or in any particular case what land or classes of land may be acquired for State housing purposes and the general scheme of development thereof the number and classes of dwellings and ancillary commercial buildings to be constructed and any other matters of State housing policy."—any other matters of State housing policy. Well if there is one thing I can say about housing policy from that side of the House—Meka Whaitiri: There's nothingPEENI HENARE: There is nothing. There are ad hoc attempts to try to hide the crisis they have been denying. So if we have a look at Part 2 clause 6(1)(d) and we take the Housing Act 1955—and once again I repeat: "and any other matters of State housing policy"—we are yet to see what a clear housing policy is. I mentioned it too in Part 1—we are yet to see who is actually going to take responsibility for this because as social housing comes up we have got a new face for it there is a new Minister in charge of that flipping from one Minister back over to Dr Nick Smith then back over to another Minister for another particular matter on housing. That does not tell me that there is a clear housing policy from this Government and what this particular bill is proposing to do is actually strip the rights of our people in Tāmaki-makau-rau to a solid housing plan one that actually deals with the crisis and the needs of the community as pointed out in the 132 submissions that were made on this particular bill. That is a really big concern for myself for the stakeholders of Tāmaki-makau-rau and indeed for those people who are concerned about the housing issue in New Zealand and of course in Tāmaki-makau-rau.So—Part 2 clause 6(1)(d). In the definition given in the Housing Act 1955 Part 1 section 3 it gives quite a large scope around what the Minister's powers are in relation to this particular development. While we might argue some of the limitations around interpretation in Part 1 and in the later parts of this bill which I will get to in another contribution it will talk about social housing and the needs of that particular community.I will tell you one of the interesting things when the Māori Party—and I am disappointed that the Māori Party members are not here to take a call on this bill. One of the lines that was used by the Māori Party was that it will allow Ngāti Paoa to build homes for their people. I have read this bill backwards and forwards and in Part 2 it does not say anything that gives Ngāti Paoa the power to make sure that they provide social housing for the housing needs of the people of Ngāti Paoa. Yet if we take the definition as given to us under the Housing Act 1955 and in this particular bill Part 2 clause 6(1)(d) there is scope here for the Minister—whoever that might be because as I have pointed out there are difficulties actually pinning this on a particular Minister in the House because of the complexities of this issue that this Government has not dealt with. There is scope in that particular part of the bill that is of huge concern because it says in section 3 of the Housing Act: "classes of dwellings and ancillary commercial buildings to be constructed and any other matters of State housing policy." I reiterate the point: where is that State housing policy? Where is something that gives the people of Point England that gives the people of Tāmaki-makau-rau and indeed the voters of this country some kind of reassurance that there is a clear plan?It was mentioned in the submissions the adhockery in the nature of consultation and the decay of process. These are not my words; these are the words of far more intelligent people giving very good submissions on this particular bill—people who know the issues people who understand the Resource Management Act people who understand the environmental impacts of such ad hoc housing plans.Just in conclusion for this particular part of my contribution I just want to say that my point being made is: no policy no clear Minister to lead it and in the interpretation part—I have already mentioned that—the scope here in Part 2 clause 6(1)(d) once again gives a wide scope for the Minister to do far more than what this bill is actually proposing. Once again the Māori Party line was that this was to build homes for Ngāti Paoa descendants. I have not seen that in the bill and I wonder whether the Minister in the chair Scott Simpson can answer why it is not there."