Naylor JonoJONO NAYLOR (National): For many years now there have been State houses that have been sold. Tenants have been able to buy the houses that they have been living in for some time. Of course those properties may well initially have been taken under the Public Works Act or purchased under the Public Works Act. In fact right through many of our communities tenants have been able to purchase the State house in which they have been living and yet at the same time I have not heard any of these people on the other side of the Chamber up in arms saying: This is infringing on the property rights of the people who initially owned that land and should have rights under the Public Works Act to come back and purchase that land back." This is not a significant change.Actually quite often within bills that come through this House—in the 2 years that I have been here on a number of occasions there are tidy-up bits in those bills that ensure that the language is right and clarify how things have been in the past and are going forward. There are as I said no specific changes here. We have just heard from Mr O'Rourke—his take on clause 10. But what it actually says is: "To avoid doubt sections 40 to 42 of the Public Works Act 1981 do not apply (and have never applied) …".Denis O'Rourke: What about the rest of the clause?JONO NAYLOR: Then it goes on to list those things that are not included and have not been applied in the past. It is important that we clarify this. It is not the substantial part of this bill.The substantial part of this bill is in Part 1 which I will not discuss as it has already been done. It has been passed and we are moving on. But Part 2 has got some tidy-up language in it to ensure that going forward there is no ambiguity and that there is clear understanding about which types of land which types of purchases that have been made under the Public Works Act do not apply and have not applied before. The clarity will be there.We hear from the other side of the Chamber and I have heard it through all parts of this debate as we have been going through so far that "We've got a different plan. We've got a plan called KiwiBuild." I understand that if those houses were ever to be built—and I doubt that they will under that scheme—if that was ever to happen those properties ultimately would need to be sold. But of course they would not be able to sell them if people were trying to stop these provisions from being put in place. I have not heard a rational reason yet for pulling this clause out and debating it separately it needing to go through the select committee process.All I have seen so far this morning is what appears to me to be a deliberate attempt to take this urgency debate beyond 1 o'clock this afternoon so that then the Opposition can collapse the House. We will see what time we finish today but I can tell you that if this debate actually finishes after that time today what I believe—[Interruption] Suddenly they start reacting when the truth comes out and yet what I have heard over time is accusations against this side of the House saying that our members' bills are wasting Parliament's time. I would like to see going forward today that we will not waste Parliament's time. We will do this in a timely manner. Thank you."