Faafoi KrisKRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): It is a pleasure to take a call on Part 2. I want to concentrate on two key phrases—Hon Gerry Brownlee: It's the only part you can take a call on.KRIS FAAFOI: Nice of you to arrive actually Gerry. I would like to look at clause 10 and two key phrases and the Leader of the Opposition has just pointed one of them out to me. The first one is To avoid doubt" and the second which is in brackets is "(and have never applied)". Because those two phrases exist in clause 10 I believe there is some serious justification for this piece of legislation to be squared away and separated out into its own legislation but also it deserves the scrutiny of a select committee because to have the phrase "To avoid doubt" in clause 10 suggests that there was some doubt and then we have to make the assumption that this Government has in clause 10 which inserts new subsections (2) and (3) into section 15 of the Housing Act actually taken care of that doubt. We do not believe that it has taken care of all of the doubt and because of the phrase "(and have never applied)" I believe that there might be some New Zealanders out there who may have been affected by this piece of legislation and might have something to say about that. That is why I question along with the Leader of the Opposition why this piece of legislation is being rammed through under urgency. I do want to quote and respond to something that Jono Naylor said. He has I think been the only National MP who has been brave enough to get on his feet and try to defend this piece of legislation under Part 2. He said: "This is not a significant change." We should always be worried when a National MP stands up in this Chamber and claims that "This is not a significant change." because something else must be going on when only one of National's MPs can stand up in this Chamber and put his head above the trench and try to defend the changes that it is making here. Can I also point to some of the discussion that was had before this started around points of order and the lack of a regulatory impact statement. I think that is important because people at home and those in the gallery listening may have thought that was just a bit of procedural nonsense that no one cared about but the fact that this Government has not bothered to get its officials to look at this piece of legislation and say what impact this has on the average New Zealander speaks volumes about its lack of any plan around its housing strategy and the arrogance it shows in that it has not even bothered to ask the officials to look at it. I think the fact that we have not got that regulatory impact statement shows that the Government is trying to rush this through because there is something else afoot which would probably lend to the fact that we are not seeing this being put under a select committee process and I think it also feeds into the well-embedded narrative that Nick Smith and this Government have absolutely no clue when it comes to solving the housing crisis. What have we had as the plan? Either it is some half-arsed—[Interruption] Oh hold on I take that back. I am sorry; I apologise—some quarter-arsed plan that a Minister might announce—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Lift your game.KRIS FAAFOI: —before Budget day that does not work and that when its effectiveness is looked at 15 people were helped by and that plan was to move people out of Auckland and say "Here's $3000. Go to another part of the country." I believe it was around a dozen people who were helped. So I am sorry Mr Chair if the Government took offence at my statement that it was half-arsed because that was overstating the effectiveness—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): You do not keep doing it. Just try to lift your game.KRIS FAAFOI: —of that measure. It was overstating the effectiveness of that measure. [Interruption] Ha ha! This piece of legislation should have gone through a select committee process and I do look back to clause 10 and the first three words "To avoid doubt". There was some doubt. This piece of legislation does not clarify that doubt. Also the other phrase "(and have never applied)" suggests that there is some retrospective action happening here that New Zealanders should have been allowed to have a say on."