Bennett David; Mallard TrevorDAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): I have a great deal of sympathy for this bill and I think the previous speaker Nanaia Mahuta raised some very strong points because there are cases where the Public Works Act was used for purposes that it should not have been. There are many families who are justifiably aggrieved and in those days—and you can probably argue these days as well sometimes—the process in law had reasons it was doing what it was doing other than fairness and equity. A lot of families may have been in that situation that the previous speaker spoke about and are justifiably looking for some recourse and some way of dealing with those issues so I take a lot from the previous speaker and her personal example. I also think that with a lot of returned land that iwi may get now through settlement processes some of that land is associated with transport routes. It is Government land; it may have been purchased for the New Zealand Transport Agency railways or suchlike so it is very much on infrastructure routes and so its likelihood of ever being used for public works in the future is probably a bit higher. It is actually in a position where other infrastructure that may be used in the future may actually come along that land so there could be a particular difficulty in the future with those settlements. It may seem like they are progressing the transfer of land but it may actually mean that there could be a situation where the Public Works Act comes into effect on that land and causes further dilemmas for the people who did get that land through the settlement. Those are just two examples you can think of where there are issues in the way the Public Works Act operates in regard to specifically Māori land but all land in particular. There is an argument that the Public Works Act in any case is too strong for any landowner and that a Government's ability to do what it wants or a council's ability to do what it wants could sometimes be questioned anyway. That may be a further issue that we need to take into account because the all-knowing all-good nature of Government is not necessarily the case at all times. I actually have a lot of sympathy for the bill. I think it actually raises some very valid concerns. It is something that I appreciate that the Green Party has brought forward to the House and I thank them for that. I just do not think it is the right solution at this time though but I do think that there needs to be more discussion about how we can find a solution for those kinds of issues going forward because I do not think that families who have felt aggrieved in the past and do not feel they have had any recourse should actually be told to just suck it up" and wait. I also think there could be issues around future settlements with the land corridors that would be involved—that could actually create some problems. I think you have raised a genuine issue; this probably is not the solution for it but certainly I think that the nature of Parliament is that other solutions come forward over time and can actually try to address that issue as well. So thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill. Although we oppose it we do understand that there are some very valid concerns involved and look forward to in the future—David Shearer: But you oppose it? You oppose it do you? It's very good but you oppose it?DAVID BENNETT: Yes we oppose it. A bit like you and the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement—you think it is very good but you oppose it. It is good that that member is here. Thank you.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Before I call the next member I do want to remind David Shearer that he appears to have an illicit cup in the House and I am going to ask him to take it away."