Wall LouisaLOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): It has been interesting reading Part 3 of the piece of legislation because I think it is part of this bill that we can support because what it will do is compensate people who for public works have their homes taken from them. I found an interesting piece of research titled: Solatium Payments for Public Works - An International Comparison" by Mike Todd and John McDonagh Property Group Lincoln University. So their definition of "solatium" is "compensation awarded for injury to the feelings as distinct from physical sufferings and pecuniary loss. It is derived from the concept of 'solace' defined as something that gives comfort or consolation in misery disappointment or distress."So I think it is great that we are actually addressing a piece of legislation that has not updated the compensation amount since 1975. The original compensation amount—just for everyone's interest—was a 1970 amendment to the Public Works Act of 1928 and it was set at $500. And the interesting thing about that when you look at the average price of a house at that time which was $12000 if you lived in Auckland—so essentially it was 4.2 percent. And the reason I bring up that percentage is that the next change happened in 1974 and it went to $2000 and at that time houses were valued at $25000. So essentially it became 8 percent compensation. When I looked at the research I just quoted earlier it seems that jurisdictions internationally in providing this solatium payment or a premium on the market value of properties either do it by virtue of the market value or they set an amount. In New Zealand we have had this amount $2000 since 1975. In Australia its Commonwealth Parliament sets it at $10000 but if you look at the states it is actually 10 percent of the market value. That is how they determine it. So depending on the value of the property that the Government takes for public works their premium is then 10 percent. That is so for Western Australia and for Victoria. ACT and New South Wales are pretty much like the Commonwealth: they set an amount which is $15000. When you go to Canada—the jurisdiction is really interesting—the Federal Government does not compensate or provide this premium but British Columbia Manitoba and Alberta provide 5 percent of market value. The UK is 10 percent and the most interesting jurisdiction is India which provides a 30 percent premium which I find really interesting.So I guess from my perspective when I look at how we have set it the average value of a property in New Zealand based on the figures I obtained from December 2016 was $515000. So when I look at the actual compensation package that is contained in this legislation it seems that we are averaging about 10 percent which I find quite interesting. So everyone will get $35000 but—based on your negotiation—within 6 months of the Government approaching you we will give landowners another $10000 and possibly another $5000 depending on their circumstances. So if the average property in New Zealand is $550000 they are going to get $50000 compensation or premium then it kind of averages out at 10 percent.So I am just wondering whether the Minister will be able to explain whether that was deliberate because from some of the contributions from my colleagues earlier it seems that the Order in Council might not be the appropriate way to do it. So maybe just benchmarking it at 10 percent—although I guess it depends on the value of the properties that you will end up taking—might be a better way forward. But in saying that I think what the Order in Council will do is provide the opportunity to update the amount as opposed to it being set up at a particular amount. Obviously when we look back from 1975 to today $2000 is an inappropriate compensation.So I do want to say that I absolutely support the intention of this part of the legislation but I am now curious about how we came up with those figures whether we looked at just making it a percentage and I know that the percentage would be difficult if we look at the April 2017 value of a property in Auckland because it is nearly a million dollars. Obviously compensating 10 percent of a million dollars increases the liability for the Government. So if the Minister wants to elucidate I would really appreciate it because I found it really fascinating looking at this research. Thank you."