Little AndrewANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition): I am pleased that the member for Epsom took the opportunity to refer once again to his data because earlier in a contribution on this debate I championed the life of some of the founders of his party. It is not a very old party. Like him it has not been around that long. They were people of great principle great integrity. They knew the history of this great country of ours in a way that sadly that member does not. You see the thing about this is that when you want to refer to historical matters of this great country of ours you actually have to get all your history right not just the bits that suit your argument. So the thing is this. In Labour's great house-building programme of the 1930s led by the great tōtara of the Labour Party at that time—the Michael Joseph Savages the Peter Frasers the Dan Sullivans the various others—they did not rely on the Ministry of Works to build the houses. They relied on a whole host of contractors and others including Fletcher's. The great empire that is Fletcher Building today—or whatever it calls itself—actually has as its origins from that very time a progressive Labour Government with a progressive founding director of that great company that actually built the houses. And they did some pretty incredible things. I recently had the privilege of visiting Savage Crescent in Palmerston North which was one of those progressive housing developments designed and developed at that very time—because it was not just about housing it was about community as well. Here is the interesting thing: Mr Seymour referred to the building consent figures from 1961 as if they somehow magically happened themselves without any impetus at all. What he forgets of course is that was not long after the sadly short-lived but powerful and very good Nash-led Labour Government which introduced the 3 percent housing loans. That was the impetus for that house-building programme. That was why there was a spike in house building because that Labour Government knew at that time that more houses were needed and it knew that the Government had a role to play in making sure that happened. And that was the way that it happened. Sadly we have now an ACT Party representative who does not respect the fullness and the greatness of this country's history. What he does not want to admit like many members opposite is that the greatest moments of this country and its social and economic and political development have had at their heart the Labour Party. Oh yes at every turn—at every turn—the Labour Party has led progress and development for the benefit of all citizens. That is why the new Part 3 amendment introduced by the Labour Party is so important. It is just one element of the genuinely comprehensive package for housing to meet the needs of the present housing crisis which is now a matter of urgency. But good on the Government and the present Minister for realising that something has to be done although he cannot bring himself to say that there is a crisis. We can all see that the special housing areas no matter how kind of muted the ultimate impact—OK good idea. Let us extend them. That is why we support that. We do not support Part 2 but this has allowed us the Labour Party the opportunity to now put before this House the genuinely comprehensive housing package that we have got. New Part 3 allows us to talk about our programme the KiwiBuild programme which is about 10000 houses a year. All new Part 3 does is require the Minister to not only take up the proposal but to report in an effective and timely manner on it. We can do this. The Government can actually do this stuff. It requires political will. If the Government of the day does not do it then let all members of this House who have been part of this debate provide that impetus to let the Government see the light and get on and do the job that New Zealanders are demanding that it does. Far too many New Zealanders now see no hope and no future and no prospect of owning their own home. We have to do better. If the Government after 8 years cannot do better then let us do it—let us do it. So I am thankful for the opportunity that the Government has given us to lay out our plan but it is now—as this motion for this whole legislation tells us—urgent and if the Government knew what it was doing it would urgently adopt our plan.