Twyford PhilPHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): I want to make it very clear at the outset that Part 2 is the reason that Labour is opposing this bill. We believe that Part 1 although its contents are underwhelming—and we have gone into detail about the inadequacies of the housing accords and special housing areas policy—is nevertheless better than nothing. That is our view and we were willing to support it particularly in the interests of not delaying or creating uncertainty in cost for a handful of developers in Auckland whose special housing areas could be held up without the assistance with the transition that this bill would offer. So at a pinch we are willing to support Part 1 and we voted at the end of the debate on Part 1. But we have a whole different view about Part 2 and we are now going to go into considerable detail about what Part 2 does the implications that it has and why it is completely unacceptable for Part 2 to be being pushed through under urgency and denied the proper scrutiny that a select committee hearing would give it.What does Part 2 do? It seeks to in the words of the Minister clarify the Government's power—which the Minister asserts that the Government already has—to use or dispose of Government land for State housing purposes without triggering the offer-back requirements under the Public Works Act. That is what it does in a nutshell. I am shocked that this National Government which professes to have some kind of commitment to private property rights would disenfranchise the rights of citizens under the Public Works Act to be offered back property that is being used for a purpose that is different to what the land was originally acquired for. It does not surprise me that much that this current National Government is doing that but I would ask members in the Chamber like Paul Goldsmith and David Seymour who profess some kind of commitment to the basic tenets of classical liberal thinking—of some kind of respect for private property rights. But no David Seymour and Paul Goldsmith come here meek as lambs corralled by Nick Smith to vote for this tawdry unsavoury confiscation of people's private property rights. I want to hear what David Seymour has to say about this bill. He is the self-appointed conscience of the nation's private property rights but he is coming to this Chamber to vote for this bill that confiscates people's private property rights without even the luxury of going off to a select committee so that this bill can be picked apart by expert opinion and public submission. Paul Goldsmith I hope you will take a call on this bill and explain how the confiscation of private property rights under this bill actually tallies with your professed commitment to the principles of Ayn Rand Milton Friedman and God knows who else. I want to hear that explanation.Nick Smith says that the Government already has the power—that there is no question the Government already has the power—to dispose of land for State housing purposes; that it is simply a clarification. So why are we here Minister? Why is this bill being pushed through the House through all stages under urgency? That is the question that Grant Robertson put to the Minister earlier—I think in the second reading—and uncharacteristically Nick Smith did not have anything to say. Well we appreciate the fact that the Minister is in the chair now but I hope he is going to get up and answer some of these questions. This is because I do not think we have heard yet a satisfactory explanation for why these provisions that would deny people who were former owners of property that was acquired under the Public Works Act subsequently used for a different purpose and then finally used as part of some housing development would be denied the normal rights under the Public Works Act to be offered back that land. We are not un-nuanced in this issue. We believe—and the Minister will know when he publicly raised the need for an urban development authority to have rights of acquisition of land to deny land bankers the opportunity to hold out to game the system and make massive windfall gains at the expense of significant urban development—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I am going to interrupt the member now and invite him to address Part 2 of this bill and not matters that are outside of it.PHIL TWYFORD: Thank you Mr Chairman. The point I was trying to make is that on this side of the Chamber we are not un-nuanced on this issue. A case can be made that public agencies should be able to acquire land to accumulate land in the interests of housing developments. But if you are going to do that then why not take it to select committee? Why not allow the best expert opinion in the land? Why not allow public submitters to come to the table have that debate weigh up the issues consider what the safeguards might be and do it transparently so that that debate can be properly had—so that the House can have confidence that this is not just another Nick Smith housing fiasco in the making.The provenance of this part in this bill is the fiasco around Ngāti Whātua and the Auckland Tāmaki Collective when the very same approach that is embodied in Part 2 was used to try to sideline the rights that Auckland iwi have under their collective redress agreements to have the right of first refusal when Government land is being repurposed for a housing development. The Minister in the chair Nick Smith his failure to properly consult those people and respect their legal rights—the rights of first refusal—cost the taxpayer who knows how much: tens of thousands of dollars probably more than a hundred thousand dollars. It delayed a housing development scheme; desperately needed houses were delayed by months and months and months because of that Minister's attempt to use the very same device to ignore the rights of first refusal of Auckland iwi.In Part 2 it states very clearly that nothing in this bill will impinge on the rights that iwi have under agreements for collective redress. But the same privilege is not being accorded to former owners of land that is now held by the Government and is being repurposed for housing development. So there is an apparent double standard there and I ask the Minister to explain why it is OK to protect the rights of iwi—their rights of first refusal under Treaty settlement agreements or collective redress—but somehow it is not worth protecting the rights of private citizens under the Public Works Act who have under sections 40 and 41 of the Public Works Act the right to have that public land offered back to them. That is an apparent double standard and I ask the Minister to get up and explain why that is.It is not good enough that there is apparently incorrect and conflicting information in the departmental disclosure statement. It is not good enough that there is not a regulatory impact statement that deals with the confiscation of private property rights in this bill that is being pushed through the House under urgency. I want to hear from the National Party members including the Minister why it is OK when they come to this House frequently and talk a big game about private property rights to take away those rights from private citizens in a bill that is being pushed through the House under all stages in urgency.