O'Rourke DenisDENIS O'ROURKE (NZ First): I want to begin by taking a look at the speech given by the Minister of Houselessness" Nick Smith because nowhere in his speech does he say why another 3 years of special housing areas (SHAs) without Government investment in land-purchasing development in Auckland in particular could work. Nowhere does he say in his speech how another 3 years of SHAs while low-quality open-door immigration is taking place could possibly work—because that is what is happening. Seventy-thousand people per year net are coming into this country—a number that is equivalent to the size of a city like Nelson coming into this country—but there is no care about the fact that they are going to drive demand for housing drive up prices and drive up rents. Nowhere in the Minister's speech was there any reference to the problems caused by overseas purchasers who in this country are still free to buy land to speculate and to land bank. Nowhere were any of those issues referred to in the Minster's speech.He just does not care—and the truth is that National actually has no strategy whatsoever that deals with those issues or any other. Its members' pretence that they have a comprehensive housing strategy is utterly ludicrous. Nobody in this country believes that and the more they say it the more they will show how dishonest they are being about all of that—and that is the truth of it. The truth is that the National Party under the likes of Holyoake for example used to be the party for a "property-owning democracy"—those were his words—in New Zealand. But no more—no more. This is not that National Party; this is some neo-liberal monster that is no longer fit to govern this country.I also want to talk about the Māori Party. Why are its members not speaking in this debate? Why is it not attacking National and why is it not actually fighting this fight? I cannot understand that because this legislation which is being fast tracked today through all of its stages is aimed at flogging off State houses and is failing to provide a strategy for the building of new homes in New Zealand whether for purchase or for rent. It is doing so without consultation or proper scrutiny through the select committee process. So I want to hear from the Māori Party members on all of these things because I think the Māori Party is speaking if it is speaking at all with a forked tongue. On the one hand it promotes Treaty rights and says it will protect Treaty rights for Māori in this country but it is failing here and now to fight against a bill that actually removes those Treaty rights because it removes the offer-back provisions which would otherwise be claimable under current legislation. Irrespective of the Minister's claims that that is not the case that is actually the truth about the matter. So I want to hear more from the Māori Party members and I want to hear them show up like the rest of us and fight against this bill. They are not doing so and I deplore that.The Minister has also claimed that he is just clarifying the law when it comes to those offer-back provisions and he says there is no actual law change. Well if it is necessary to pass this bill to amend the law then—hello—it must be a law change; therefore the Minister can only be wrong that the Minister is not attempting to change the law to make sure that those offer-back provisions can never apply. That is what New Zealand First objects to it is what the Māori Party should be objecting to and it is what other parties object to.The bill is a panic measure by a Minister not on top of his portfolio—and when did this Minister suddenly realise that time is running out for special housing areas? Why within 10 days of the termination date is he suddenly bringing this bill to the House if there is a comprehensive housing strategy? Surely it would be a better strategy than that—if there was one—but we all know that there is not one. What there is instead is plenty of evidence of a failed strategy. In fact there is no strategy at all and plenty of evidence of an absence by this Government of any new ideas at all. All it can come up with is an expansion of a current failed policy which over 3 years has actually delivered only 1300 houses—less than a drop in the bucket as far as Auckland is concerned. So there it is: a panic measure to do little or nothing and to crush people's rights in terms of the offer-back provisions along the way.Just to summarise New Zealand First's position: first of all it believes that there is no justification for the law change—and that is what it is—to remove the offer-back provisions. There is no need for that whatsoever. All it does is to feed on this Government's panic and need to be seen to be doing something. That is not in the interests of New Zealand; it is certainly not in the interests of people who actually might claim those rights and might claim them for very good reasons. That is what a democracy is about. It is about protecting people's rights—and that is not what this Government is doing. It is doing the exact opposite and it is not good enough.Secondly the need is not only to increase the time for the SHAs to work—if they ever do—but for the Government to actually invest in the purchase of land and in the development of land and not just leave it to private developers to do so. The reason why that is so important and why that is a core part of New Zealand First's housing policy is that the private market will never meet the needs of New Zealanders in this day and age as far as housing is concerned. The Government must take part with direct investment and direct development of housing in New Zealand especially in Auckland so that we get enough housing on time in the right place and developed in a way that people can afford with modestly sized houses saleable at modest prices and with Government assistance to purchase.New Zealand First's policy is to sell sections over 25 years allowing a purchaser to get a first mortgage to build their own home. That is just a common-sense policy—but do not ask this Government to listen to common sense. All it wants to do is to continue with its failed policies that are never going to work. So we in New Zealand First oppose both parts of this bill unlike the Labour Party which I now hear is quite happy to support the first part but not the second. I am disappointed in that because I would have hoped that the Labour Party would have seen that actually you need to do more than just have failed SHAs; you need to have Government investment. Labour has said that; yet why did it say to this House that it would support the first part of the bill?Phil Twyford: It's better than nothing.DENIS O'ROURKE: It is better than nothing? It is nothing. It is not better than nothing Mr Twyford; it actually is nothing. So the Labour Party is supporting nothing. That is wonderful. Well I think the Labour Party should take another look at all this. The Labour Party should take another look at why it would support the first part. We in New Zealand First do not. We will not have it. We insist on much better than that. We insist on a policy that does not just provide an extension of a time frame for a failed policy. We want to see Government investment. We want to see real commitment by this Government to housing in this country. That is why we will not support it: because we want much better. And we want people's rights to be protected as well. We will not vote for this bill because it does not do either thing that it proposes to do in a way that we could possibly support and New Zealanders should not accept that either."