Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): I am happy to respond to some of the questions that have been put. I welcome the broad support in Parliament for being more generous in the Public Works Act. I think every member of this House would see that $2000 which was set in 1975 as pretty raw for the disruption to a property owner and the impacts of the Public Works Act of taking a property.There are three things that are done in this part. Firstly that amount is lifted to $35000. Secondly there is a further incentive payment that is set for settling quickly. Thirdly there is an Order in Council power to adjust that into the future so that it is not so out of date. I do want to comment that this is actually a really important provision aligned to the infrastructure challenges that New Zealand faces—so often infrastructure projects are held up sometimes for years because of very strong disputes over the levels of compensation and the fairness of either a local authority or a Crown agency acquiring someone's property.There is nothing magical about the $35000 increase from the $2000 that was set in 1975. It is related to what we think is being fair to both the taxpayers as well as the property owner. I do not agree with those who say that it should be proportional to the value. The impact of that would be that if someone has got a $2 million property it is a lot more generous than if somebody has got a half-million-dollar or a million-dollar property. My view would be actually that there is a disruption to the person's life as a consequence of compulsorily requiring them to sell their property and to move and the actual cost of that disruption to their life is not much different in my view as to whether the house is a house for that family. So I think a fixed sum is appropriate.I am particularly enthusiastic about there being a time incentive. I like most members of this House have dealt with dozens of constituents who have been through the Public Works Act. I have seen people—for instance on the new highway between Motueka and Māpua in the Nelson region—who were involved in 10 to 15 years of disputes and in my view that was incredibly disruptive and stressful for their lives. Actually putting some extra money on the table and getting these things resolved more quickly is in the interests of the public authority to be able to get on and build the infrastructure but also for the families who are affected to be able to get on with their lives.Why we hold the view that it is appropriate by Order in Council to adjust these amounts in the future is frankly because we do not want to be sitting here in 20 years' time thinking that the $50000 that we have set today with the extra premiums for the increase and the time frames—that at some time in the future they equally become out of date. So the Order in Council mechanism and the fact that Parliament has not looked at this since 1975 when I was in primary school—actually being able to have a mechanism to look at it more frequently through Order in Council makes good sense.In respect of the issue as to why it does not cover residential tenancies the average period of residential tenancy in New Zealand is between 18 months and 2 years. It is interesting that a large number of the property settlements that are done through the Public Works Act have deferred settlements and deferred occupation. The reason for that is that often the public agency needs the security that they have got a property so that they can build a road but actually by the time they get through all the other mechanisms it is many years down the track from when they actually acquire it and often they lease it back to the tenant. So I do not think that case is strong.Mr Robertson asked for a broader review of the Public Works Act. I think there are some issues that are incredibly difficult and it is no coincidence that the Public Works Act has not been touched for a long time. I believe in terms of the powers of this Parliament to take people's private property as essential as it is that it raises a whole lot of really difficult questions. Our Government is not in a hurry to do so. We think this is a useful tweak. If other parties want to drive an earlier reform of that bill—Phil Twyford: You were going to for the UDAs weren't you?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Oh no there are provisions in the urban development authority proposals that make change to the Public Works Act but we do not have it on our schedule at the moment. We think these are useful amendments and I think there is actually pretty broad consensus across the Parliament that these provisions are useful.