Woods MeganDr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): It is a pleasure to take a call on this to ask some questions of the Minister in the chair because there are many outstanding questions that my colleagues have raised and some that I will raise that just have to be answered. This is a piece of legislation that is going through without a select committee phase. This is the Committee of the whole House and this is the time for the Government to front up and answer those questions that we have put to it about this legislation. We had the contribution from David Seymour. Well I would describe that contribution as dancing on the head of a pin in a manner that would make John Locke turn in his grave. What we had was a confused and addled speech from David Seymour—the man who thinks there is a sunset clause on his principles and that you only have to defend private property rights unless you have sold them off but there is a sunset. What we want to know is when the sun is going to rise for Mr Seymour. He says this is about resolving the ambiguity between the 1955 Housing Act and the 1981 Public Works Act. I would like the Minister in the chair to tell me why it is that we are resolving ambiguity between pieces of legislation that have been operating since 1955 and 1981 respectively and it is now in 2016 that we are having to come and resolve those issues. What is the problem we are trying to resolve here Minister? Is there impending legal action that needs to be resolved? Jono Naylor—the great white knight who came to the defence of the Government's actions in this legislation—told us that what was happening here was not significant and that it was just tidying up some language. Well why Minister? Why are we here tidying up this language? Please answer that question. Hon Gerry Brownlee: We care about the people—that's why.Dr MEGAN WOODS: It is something we on this side of the Chamber are still wondering about. Why is it being done and why is there the special Treaty provision? What is it that is being tidied up? Given that the Minister supporting Greater Christchurch Regeneration is in the Chamber not to take a call but to bellow across the Chamber there are some other questions about how this cuts straight to the heart of the problem that people had with the compulsory acquisition within the centre of Christchurch for anchor projects. The suspicion was that if land that was acquired was not going to be used for the stated strategic purpose then it would be onsold and would not be offered back to the people it was acquired from. So where does that leave it? We are certainly not seeing anchor projects springing up in the central city. This was an issue where members of the ACT Party took to the streets and marched with Labour and the Greens back in 2012. So this is an issue that a range of people have had concerns about—and New Zealand First also. Sorry Mr O'Rourke I think you were probably at those as well. This is an issue that has been bubbling away within the Christchurch rebuild and that people rightly have concerns about. I would also like to address some further questions to the Minister. We know that the regulatory impact statement as my colleague Annette King rightly raised relates only to Part 1. The regulatory impact statement said that there had not been time for consultation in a formal sense but none the less some conversations had happened. So what I would like to know from the Minister in the chair is what conversations of an informal nature have happened in regard to Part 2. Who has been spoken to? What was the outcome of those conversations and what is the information that the Minister could give the Committee to inform this debate? Given that this is a debate under urgency there is no regulatory impact statement but we do need to know who has been spoken to and what was discussed. I would also like to draw attention to the points that my colleague Grant Robertson raised in a point of order. He was instructed by the person in the chair at the time that the departmental disclosure statement says that the bill does not contain any provisions that would result in the compulsory acquisition of private property. I would like to hear from the Minister in the chair how that is the case when we are dealing with clause 10 in Part 2 of this legislation which is all about the compulsory acquisition of private property.