O'Rourke DenisDENIS O'ROURKE (NZ First): There is much more to clause 10 of this bill than meets the eye. The justification given for it in the general policy statement is utterly vacuous. I want to read part of the general policy statement because it shows what I mean. It says at the beginning: The Housing Act 1955 explicitly provides that State housing purposes include the building and development of houses for sale lease or tenancy and includes acquisition by the Crown of land for houses and ancillary commercial buildings schemes of development and subdivision and the necessary roads reserves and infrastructure." Then at the very end of that general policy statement it goes on to say: "the relationship between the sale of State housing land for development as part of the Crown's housing objectives … and the consequential exclusion of offer-back obligations is not explicit. The Bill confirms that the offer-back obligations do not apply to the sale of land as part of the Crown's housing objectives." I do not understand because there is not any consistency between those two statements that I read out. That whole paragraph that whole policy statement is nonsense as a justification for clause 10 of the bill. So that is my starting point. The inconsistency shows the confusion behind the Government's approach to all this. Clause 10 actually inserts a substantial new addition to section 15 of the Housing Act ensuring that sections 40 to 42 of that Act will not apply—not just in the future but retrospectively in the past. This is new law and it is retrospective because of the words that I just mentioned. The words were "have never applied"—have never applied. A lawyer if they so wish will use those words to claim in any court action that the intention of those words is that that section will be retrospective; otherwise why would they be there? Why would they be there? The claim is that this is just a provision that clarifies the existing law. The truth is that it is a completely new and substantial addition to section 15. That is the truth. I would like to hear from the Minister why he would deny that and how he could deny that in the circumstances. After all if you did not need the change why is it being made? If it is just clarification why is it being made in the substantial way it is set out in clause 10? The main point is that it is the intent of what is being done that really matters here and the intent is to fast track the sale of State housing land. That is the real intent and it should not be done at the expense of the property rights of people. This is new law and without it there would be a good possibility of a claim to offer-back rights. In fact the good possibility is so high that it is bordering on a certainty. Other speakers have alluded to the fact that there is a lot here that we do not know—except many of us have heard whispers and many of us have heard suggestions that some people may well be contemplating a legal challenge as far as these particular provisions and their right to an offer back are concerned. So it seems very likely to me that what is actually happening is that all of a sudden under urgency the Government feels that it is necessary to cover its backside because somebody is about to come along and give it a good hard sharp kick. That is the reality. That is why this is being done and the Government is simply not being honest about its motives for this particular provision which after all does have a significant impact on the property rights of individual people. I will say this: I suspect that what it has got to do with is the Hobsonville land and I suspect that what it has got to do with is the rights of Limited Service Volunteers who had—and have—rights in relation to that land. Those are the people who I suspect may be contemplating—again for another time because they have faced this in the past—their rights and their rights to an offer back as far as that land is concerned. But that is only one possibility. It is only one possibility; there are no doubt others. Some of my colleagues may take a part in this debate and talk about for example what the Government's intentions may be concerning land that is currently education land but under recent legislation could be designated as housing land. These provisions could then be used to fast track it for sale without offer-back provisions that would otherwise apply—and that is the exact issue as far as the Hobsonville land was concerned. It is what we are not being told that really matters in this debate. I deplore a situation where a Government is putting through under urgency a provision of this kind which is not allowed to go to a select committee where a lot of this stuff may well have come out. That is being avoided by this situation and I think it is absolutely deliberate by this Government. I would like the Minister to stand up and deny these things. I would like him to deny that the real reason for clause 10 is that he is afraid of legal action by people who do claim private property rights in respect of the offer-back provisions under the Public Works Act. I want him to come to this Chamber and deny that and then I will take notice. But until that happens we have every right to believe there is more to this bill than meets the eye. It is often said that where there is smoke there is fire. Well there is a hell of a lot of smoke as far as this bill is concerned."