Little AndrewANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition): I think it is important even at this point in the debate to correctly characterise exactly what it is that the Committee is being called upon to do. We have in Part 2 of this bill a provision that would cut right across the property interests and property rights of an unspecified number of people who have had land compulsorily acquired under the Public Works Act and who retain an interest or right in that land to the extent that if it is not used for the purpose for which it was acquired and is not intended to be used for any other legitimate purpose it must be offered back to the original owner. That is a matter of property right and property interest and this House is being asked by the Minister for Building and Housing and this Government under urgency to traduce that right without any of the appropriate scrutiny that would otherwise happen in the select committee process which would allow public submissions and a proper public debate over a reasonable period of time. That is all being expunged for the purpose of taking away that right under this bill. That in my view is a constitutional outrage and it is not something that this Committee should disregard pass over or be dismissive of for the sake of legislative expediency on the part of the Government.What stuns me about this is that when you have a look at the paper that has accompanied the bill—one of the tabled papers—it says in terms of the Minister's justification to his Cabinet colleagues for this exercise that although some consequential amendments were made to the Housing Act when the Public Works Act was enacted in 1981—this is in 1981—the interaction between the Housing Act disposals and the offer-back obligations under section 40 of the Public Works Act was never clarified. So the Minister's case for urgency in the House and for avoiding select committee scrutiny and proper public debate is that 35 years after legislation was passed that apparently left some confusion in the minds—at least of the Minister—we now under urgency have to clarify the confusion. That does not gel. That circle does not square. I am sorry but 35 years on from a piece of legislation that probably predates David Seymour by the looks of it we are now being asked under urgency for some sort of clarification knowing that doing so cuts across property rights to an unspecified number of people. That is not a proper use of this Parliament. That is not a proper exercise by a single Minister nor an entire Cabinet of their authority and their mandate. You do not traduce New Zealand citizens' property rights in that way. If we are to cut across the rights that some New Zealand citizens will have in land that they once owned and was compulsorily acquired under the Public Works Act let us have a proper open transparent and public debate.We are so dependent in this country on constitutional convention on these unwritten rules these unwritten understandings that we have between us irrespective of the side of the House that we are on. This exercise on this day under this bill is cutting right across that. It horrifies me and I think that if more New Zealanders knew about it it would horrify them as well. We cannot support this part of this bill. National can put as many things as it likes up on social media accusing us of all sorts of heinous crimes in the interests of trying to get a few more houses built because that is what Part 1 of the bill would do but nothing can justify the constitutional egregious outrage that is caused by Part 2 of this bill. It must stop. New Zealanders must be treated with respect and courtesy and if the small flank represented by the ACT Party in terms of this Government cannot stand up for the rights of New Zealand citizens then of course we have to. But we do make this case about it and we make a song and dance about it. It is important that this part not be passed in the interests of constitutional correctness.