Hipkins ChrisCHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I am happy to take a call on this bill and perhaps pick up where my colleague Louisa Wall just left off and that is on the difference between a public housing development and a private housing development—which is something that seems to have escaped most of the members opposite. Using compulsorily acquired land for a public purpose which can include a public State housing development is quite different to using compulsorily acquired land for a private development—including a private housing development. That is the distinction that seems to be lost on the members opposite yet that is the exact distinction that this bill is seeking to address.If land that was compulsorily acquired for one public purpose such as a school—or in many cases around the country for the Defence Force because a lot of surplus Defence Force land such as Hobsonville is being used for housing developments—is being used for Government-led housing developments i.e. State housing developments there is no legal issue now because the law already allows for that. But where the ambiguity arises is where the Government wants to dispose of that land for the purposes of housing development but not housing development that the Government is going to do. That is the important distinction that many members opposite do not seem willing to even acknowledge and certainly that the Minister does not seem willing to address or explain.If it is about State housing development then that is already allowed for. If it is about State housing development that is then subsequently sold as has happened all over the country—you take my electorate the Hutt Valley; big chunks of most of that area were State housing developments that have over time been progressively sold off bit by bit here and there pepper potting the private sales around—that has been absolutely fine; nothing in the law stops that from happening now. But where the ambiguity arises is if the Government has a block of land that they have compulsorily acquired that they do not want any more which they would otherwise be obliged to offer back to the original owners under the Public Works Act and it decides that it wants to ensure it goes for a housing development rather than some other purpose that the original owner may have. Rather than dealing with that issue what they are trying to now do is allow the Public Works Act provisions to continue to apply when they then sell that land to a private developer. That is a massive infringement of private property rights. I never ever thought I would see the day when the Green Party is united with the Labour Party in defending private property rights—Hon Member: And New Zealand First.CHRIS HIPKINS: —and New Zealand First as well—and the ACT Party is the party arguing against it. I never thought I would see the day in the House but apparently according to David Seymour trading away your principles like that is called being constructive". And trading away one's principles is actually OK—providing there is a 10-year sunset clause; it does not matter. Principles are allowed to be breached retrospectively as well—and that is a whole new thing. That is a whole new distinction that I think the House is very excited about because I certainly did not understand that principles were available to be traded off retrospectively in the way that David Seymour has suggested they are. But I want to highlight—Denis O'Rourke: His caucus told him.CHRIS HIPKINS: That is right; he is at a caucus meeting right now. As the Minister mentioned in his contribution when he tried to address this issue at the very beginning he talked about "building by the Crown". Those were the words that he used when he was talking about the provisions in the Housing Act. Those were the exact words: "building by the Crown". Nothing in the existing law stops that happening now and nothing stops the building that has been done by the Crown subsequently being sold. Where there is ambiguity is where it is a private developer. Take Pōmare for example. I do not know the basis upon which the Pōmare land was acquired but up until recently it was all State housing. So had it been acquired under the Public Works Act and it was all State housing it would have been fine. What the Government has done is that it has demolished all of the State housing that was in that area so it became vacant land. It then sold that vacant land to a developer so it is no longer a Government-led housing development—in the words of Nick Smith "building by the Crown". That is not building by the Crown. The original houses were "building by the Crown" but they were all demolished—so when the Crown disposed of that land it was empty land it was vacant land and it was sold to a developer for private property development. So therefore should that have been offered back? If it had been compulsorily acquired should it have been offered back? I have not heard an answer from the Government about that and I want to hear an answer from the Government about that because that is what this whole issue turns on and in the absence of any proper legal explanation for the need to do this by the Government why are we supporting it?"