Twyford PhilPHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): This is obviously not a bill that Government members are very proud of—when we see the stellar collection of front-bench heavy hitters who have turned out to support Dr Smith on this bill! The second member to speak from the National Party benches Alfred Ngaro could not even sum up a 5-minute contribution. All the heads are down. They are embarrassed because this bill is just the latest in a string of fiascos that pass for housing policy under this Minister. The image that I want you to entertain is of the Hon Dr Nick Smith standing out in the middle of a paddock somewhere in west Auckland bewildered and pointing in all directions saying: We're going to build houses here folks." That Minister is outstanding in his field. He is outstanding in his field. One of the great contributions that he has made to housing policy in the last couple of years has been a minibus tour where he took hapless members of the press gallery on a never-ending magical mystery tour of cemeteries electrical substations and a long list of other scraps and remnants. The Governor-General's residence Government House even appeared on a list of Government properties that that Minister used as the basis for his now famous promise to this Parliament that he had 500 hectares of vacant Crown land that he was going to use to build housing. So that is great—look you have got to give it to this Minister. He has provided more entertainment to this House in the last couple of years in the form of his housing policies than anyone could have realistically hoped for. This bill is yet another patch-up job designed to mask the failings of Nick Smith as the Minister for Building and Housing. His incompetence is not a reason to put this House into urgency and to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money to ram through a bill that simply should not be considered under urgency by this House. The bill has two main parts. The first is to extend the special housing areas legislation by 3 years. At a pinch we might have voted for that—at a pinch. The special housing areas are a flawed inadequate underwhelming policy—Hon Dr Nick Smith: You voted against it.PHIL TWYFORD: We voted for it at the first reading but when we actually had a serious look at it we realised how hopeless it was. It is the centrepiece of the Government's supply-side initiatives. How many houses has it delivered in 3 years in a city of a million and a half people? There are barely 1300 completed houses. Under this National Government a shortfall of 42000 houses has accumulated while National has been in office. That shortage is getting worse by about 4000 dwellings every single year and the best that this National Government's policy of special housing areas can deliver is 1300 houses over 3 years. This bill is the last whimper of Nick Smith's special housing areas policy. But it is something at least. It is better than nothing—which is why we would vote for it—but not by very much. The best thing that can be said for it is that it will save eight developers. Eight special housing areas in Auckland will be saved from cost uncertainty and the inconvenience caused by Nick Smith's failure to properly think through the transition issues as the special housing areas legislation died and the Auckland Unitary Plan came on stream. On its own we would at a pinch have voted for Part 1 of this bill which extends the housing accords and special housing areas legislation. But as Andrew Little said the second part—which deals with offer-back provisions under the Public Works Act in relation to Government land being used for housing purposes—is a whole different kettle of fish. Not only do we believe that there is no justification at all for this provision being considered under urgency but it is actually a really bad idea. I think it might be quite interesting to put some bets on the table that this bill and these provisions in Part 2 will be the next Nick Smith fiasco in a long line—a long honourable line—of fiascos.Nick Smith said that he is just trying to clarify—and no doubt he has got advice from Crown Law and I would ask the Minister to table the advice from Crown Law on this—the position that the Government is not required to observe the offer-back provisions in the Public Works Act to former owners of land when it is changing the designation of Government-owned land and making it available for State housing purposes which is interpreted extremely widely by this Government. He is saying the position is that the Government is not required to offer back that land if it is being used for housing purposes. Well my question is this: if the law really does say that he is not required to hand it back then why is he ramming through a bill under urgency—all stages? Why is he doing that if the law is clear and is not an issue? Because the Minister has brought this bill to the House and because he is ramming it through under urgency it is very clear actually that he is taking away somebody's property rights. We are not lily-livered on this side of the House about powers of acquisition and the need to prevent land bankers from gaming the system and standing in the way of large new developments that will deliver thousands of new dwellings in the public interest. But if you are going to take away people's property rights then for goodness' sake think about it seriously. Do it in a way that is transparent and open and subject this bill to the proper scrutiny expert advice and public submissions that a select committee process would bring. Do not ram it through the House under urgency. It is a serious matter when you are taking away someone's property rights so treat it seriously treat the citizens of this nation with the respect they deserve and do it in a way that is thoughtful careful and considered. There is no possible reason to take these provisions through the House under urgency in 24 hours and to deny the people of New Zealand the right to have this bill given proper scrutiny. This is the "Minister of Housing Fiascos". This is the next fiasco that is coming down the pipeline and no doubt in a year's time we will be back in the House to clean up this mess. The great fiasco of Nick Smith and vacant Crown lands was not so much that he produced a list that had Government House electricity substations and the Mangere Lawn Cemetery on it. The real fiasco was that he completely failed to consult important stakeholders like Auckland iwi on his plans to deny them their right of first refusal under the collective redress agreements in Tāmaki-makau-rau. He thought he could get away with it. I do not know what advice he took on that but he blundered on ahead with his plan and was humiliated by Ngāti Whātua and other members of the Tāmaki Collective who took him to court and forced him to do a—it was not so much a flip-flop; it was more a double backflip. He had to negotiate a humiliating climb-down that gave them rights to be development partners and all sorts of commitments about the provision of affordable housing in those developments which he would not even offer to Auckland Council when he was negotiating the housing accord. In this bill he has had to recognise that that was an ignominious defeat. Not only did it cost tens of thousands even $100000 or more in legal costs to the Crown but his Crown lands policy was delayed by months and months and months. What he has had to do in this bill is say that nothing in Part 2 of this bill will have any impact on collective redress agreements but he is intending to deny previous owners of land their rights under the Public Works Act to an offer-back provision. This bill should go to the select committee."