Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Can I follow on from my colleague Grant Robertson. I did sit on the Local Government and Environment Committee. I am also aware of some of the background to this. Some of the background to this actually goes way back to the time when the Hon Richard Worth was a Minister here and he was the Minister responsible for the Public Works Act. He had a view—and I think he was right—that the compensatory provisions under the Public Works Act presently other than a very small $2000 payment are purely compensatory for financial loss. The inconvenience and uprooting of people's lifestyles and the effect on people's individual lifestyles as a consequence of something that has been done for the public good through the Public Works Act meant that the provisions under the Public Works Act which go back a long long time were not sufficiently generous. We are now a sufficiently wealthy country to actually be able to say: Actually we've got to go a little bit further than pure compensation and give people a little bit of compensation not just for their financial loss but for the change that has been forced upon them in the name of the public good."There are lots of examples overseas where that is done and the experience I think of those overseas jurisdictions and the view of officials was that if there was just a little bit more generosity in the system there will be a bit less conflict there will be a bit less money wasted on the argument about the last percent or two of the valuation and there will be more acceptance of the need to do this for the public good with a wee bit more generosity shown by the Crown. And I think that is the essence that lies behind these provisions and for that reason notwithstanding the questions that are rightly raised by Grant Robertson this is actually the only part of this legislation that we are actually voting for even though we will eventually be opposing the overall bill.That said can I address one of the issues that was raised by Grant Robertson which is that the Regulations Review Committee recommendation was that the amount of that generosity ought not to be changed by regulation. In the end the Regulations Review Committee is concerned to ensure that people do not lose rights through regulation and so the committee changed the provision to say that the amount of that discretionary payment can be increased by regulation but it cannot be decreased. That is where the committee got to and I think that that is a fair enough answer.The question that I am left with—and I would like the Minister's answer to this because I do think that overall this is an advance in the law which is why I can support it. But those who are entitled to these payments for effect on their lifestyle are only the owners of the property and any residential tenancy is excluded. We are actually at the point now in New Zealand where half of the people in New Zealand live in rented accommodation. Let us say it was the Waterview connection where it is that a house is acquired for a public purpose—all of the compensation goes to the owner and none of it goes to the occupant. And I wonder whether that should be reviewed. I know we cannot do it in this bill because it is actually a reasonably substantial piece of policy work but I would be interested in the Minister's view about clause 170 of this bill which inserts new section 59 which defines the owner as being the person who occupies the land but then it excludes someone who is on a weekly tenancy agreement a monthly tenancy or a tenancy to which the Residential Tenancy Act applies. It seems to me that even if someone has been in the same property for 20 or 30 years being a good tenant putting down roots I am not sure if my reading is correct whether they are entitled to compensation.It may be that I am missing something here but I would appreciate a response from the Minister on that point. That said I think that there are some good provisions in this part of the bill."