Curran ClareCLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Speaking to clauses 1 and 2 of this particular bill the Regulatory Systems (Building and Housing) Amendment Bill which is part of the three omnibus bills being debated in the House I can inform my colleague Stuart Nash who just spoke that the reason this bill is going forward and needs to be passed as quickly as possible is that the next bill that we are going to be debating contains a clause that requires it to be passed by 31 March—which is actually the end of next week—because of the provisions in it for retentions in the case of businesses going down the drain in the construction industry. I digress but there is a time factor involved in this piece of legislation. It is an important time factor and that is why we are hurrying it through—or why the Government is wanting to hurry it through.I also want to thank Minister Michael Woodhouse for getting up and speaking to my concerns around clause 25 and for his remarks around it being an omnibus bill that has a little bit more in it than a statutes amendment bill but does not address issues of substantive policy. Can I just make the comment then that—and I return to the issue around the easements and covenants—the amendment in clause 25 enables an infrastructure company to acquire sufficient rights over unit title developments for construction operation and maintenance of its water and wastewater pipelines. That does not sound to me like just an insignificant amendment in an omnibus bill. It actually sounds quite significant. It is an enabling clause. It allows for an acquisition. But what it does not provide for and this is the converse to it is that it limits the security of tenure normally enjoyed under an easement and so it limits Watercare Services' ability to adequately protect its pipelines—and not just Watercare Services obviously but other infrastructure companies that are undertaking work.It deals with the acquisition of easements but those easements as was pointed out in the submissions on this do not last for ever because apartments terraced houses and other complexes might be demolished destroyed or might just reach the end of their useful life and in those situations the unit title plan is likely to be cancelled which reverts the land to freehold or leasehold ownership. This therefore raises issues about easements for the likes of infrastructure companies that have water pipes. I guess it could also apply to other infrastructure companies such as Chorus and other fibre delivery outfits that have installed some sort of infrastructure throughout land when a unit title is cancelled and they no longer have rights.If this bill provides for the acquisition of easements to enable those rights while the building is in use why then did it not deal with the other side of the equation which is what happens when the unit title is cancelled? And why does that become an issue of substance and policy that is out of scope when the one that is in scope seems to carry as much weight? It seems to me that this bill does include issues of substance. It might not include enough issues of substance—clearly by what I am just saying and I know that my other colleagues have mentioned others. I do not think you could describe this as an omnibus bill that is not really dealing with issues that matter and I find this inconsistent and concerning.