Sio WilliamSu'a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): The House has been denied the opportunity and benefit of having this legislation scrutinised by a select committee. We have been denied the opportunity of receiving the advice from the committee. The public has also been denied the opportunity of making submissions on this bill and we have been denied the privilege and benefit of the wisdom of Local Government New Zealand and the general population who have not had the opportunity to scrutinise this bill at all. We have been given three pieces of paper to try to make sense of this legislation. Earlier my colleague the Hon Annette King said that there is no regulatory impact statement for Part 2 of this bill. That is further denial of us really making good sense of what this bill is about. But it has been I believe characterised well by Andrew Little the leader of the Labour Party. I also want to say that we have been expected to take on board the word of the Minister for Building and Housing that because there is no regulatory impact statement on Part 2—he has asked us to believe him—there is nothing untoward in this bill. But there is a range of rumours floating around in this place and one cannot help but feel concerned and uneasy about what this legislation really is about. The image that comes to mind when the Minister says that we have got to take his word for it is the image of President Richard Nixon with his two peace signs saying that he is not a crook. I say that because when you look at clause 9 in Part 2 it refers to the Housing Act of 1955. The Housing Act of 1955 gives powers to the Minister of Building and Housing and it gives powers to the local authorities to be able to take land for State housing development. If you look at clause 10 it makes reference to the Public Works Act of 1981. What it does is it removes any powers that were laid in sections 40 41 and 42 of the Public Works Act. What it means is—the Public Works Act suggests that if land was taken for the purpose of building State housing and if that purpose no longer exists then the land ought then to be made available back to the original owners. Clause 10 says that right is now expunged. That right has now been destroyed. That right no longer exists. [Interruption] If that young man there would just shut up a minute I will continue. The point I want to make here is that there seems to be some conflicting aims. We are told that the purpose of this bill is to increase the supply and make housing more affordable. How is that going to be achieved under this particular clause? How is the removal of rights of people—if the land is no longer going to be used for the purpose of creating and building State housing how is the purpose of building more affordable housing going to be achieved? I ask that question because this Government is attempting to tell us that the purpose of this bill is to build more affordable housing. I cannot see that happening. I cannot see that happening when for the last 8 years this Government has been aware of the growing national housing crisis. We have a crisis of not enough houses not enough State houses. We have a crisis of people living in cars—David Seymour: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I seek your assistance in respect of Standing Order 176(5) which states that debates in the Committee stage should be limited to the objects actually instructed by the House that the Committee should debate not the overarching principles or purposes which is what the majority of this member's rather erratic speech has been about.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): When Mr Speaker yesterday accepted the urgency motion he made it clear in accepting the urgency motion and the points of order that came prior to that regarding the content of this omnibus bill that it would be a wide-ranging debate. In Part 1 that has been so. In Part 2 I am very mindful of what is being said and I am listening very carefully. From my point of view if it stretches outside the realms even though there is some licence to extend it then I would deal with it at the time. The member is correct in a sense that we should in Committee stage deal with the Part before us but the precedent was set when the urgency motion yesterday was put. I am complying with that ruling by Mr Speaker yesterday. Su'a WILLIAM SIO: The point I am making refers to clause 10. If land was taken specifically for the building of State housing and that purpose no longer exists what I see is that this clause conflicts with the purpose of the bill. I am asking because we have been asked to take the Minister's word for it whether the Minister or any Minister for that fact—