Faafoi Kris; Tisch LindsayKRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): I am going to start on clause 2 which is the commencement date and the line in the bill as it states now says: This Act comes into force on 15 September 2016." To those people who may be listening on the radio or watching on Parliament TV that is 8 days away but in the twilight zone that Nick Smith has thrust us into that is 9 days away. I can understand that the Minister will want this piece of legislation to come into force on 15 September when it comes to Part 1 and extending the housing accords and special housing areas because if we do not do that there is some risk for developers who have got plans already in train. But what I do not understand is why we have to have this Part 2 come into force in 8 days' time. We were told during the debate around Part 2 by Jono Naylor—I think he was the only National Party MP to stand up and take a call during Part 2—that this "is not a significant change". So if it is not a significant change and we are passing this bill through to make sure that Part 1 gets through in time why are we making sure that we are rushing through with Part 2? Why are we not having a select committee process where people who may have had rights affected by Part 2 can have their say? None of that makes sense to me. I will give to the Minister that Part 1 makes sense because time was running out on that but why Part 2? As co-leader of the Greens Metiria Turei has just pointed out we have got some suspicions around that. We have waited for some time; I think we were definitely debating Part 1 or Part 2 of this bill at this time last night and we were wondering why this had to go through under urgency. We may have thought it was de-risking the Government from any liability or de-risking somebody who may have bought a State house from any liability too but the Minister has come to the Committee now and said: "Well it's not de-risking those two classes of people; it's de-risking the developers who are interested in getting their hands on the land that could be sold to them to develop." That was not necessarily the story that we got 24 hours ago. It really does open up exactly why this is not getting the select committee scrutiny that it deserves. To give that some local context from my area we have got an empty patch of land in the Castor Loop that the Minister's Government has done nothing with over the last 4 years. It has sat vacant—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Right. I am going to remind the member that although the debate was slightly extended—and while the member was replying to the honourable Minister's comments he was OK—the title debate is a relatively narrow debate.KRIS FAAFOI: Yes. As to why we are passing Part 2 under urgency for 15 September 2016 I would like to know why in the context of all of this a Government that has sat on a piece of land for 4 years passes this piece of legislation under urgency. Essentially what Part 2 of this bill would allow it to do is to not care about who may have sold that piece of land to it under the Public Works Act. It could sell it to anyone it likes. That is not what that community wants. I would like to acknowledge my other colleague from Mana Jan Logie who knows what that community wants. It does not want an empty piece of land. It wants the houses that it was promised were going to be built for it when the other ones were demolished. That is a commitment that was made by this Government but was not followed through on. The reality of what Part 2 does here is that that land now can be sold—de-risked for the developers so there will be no issues for them.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am going to call—how about Jan Logie?"