Government seeking to remove property buy back rights under urgency

Written By: - Date published: 4:38 pm, September 6th, 2016 - 13 comments
Categories: housing, national, same old national - Tags: , ,

Nick Smith, Minister for housing, has introduced the Housing Legislation Amendment Bill into Parliament today and the Government is seeking to pass it under urgency.

The legislation shows clearly how shambolic his handling of his portfolio is.

The bill attempts to achieve two goals.  The first extends times for special housing area applicants to do various things.  The original bill should have provided regulatory power to extend these dates.  That it did not is clearly a mistake.

But the more startling provision is the removal of the right of prior landowners of land taken under the Public Works Act to be offered their land back.  This is a valuable right preserved under sections 40 to 42 of the Public Works Act 1981.  If land is taken compulsorily but then no longer needed then as long as certain conditions are met it is meant to be offered back to the original owner of the land or their successor.

The bill removes this right.  They want to pass this change under urgency.  This is banana republic stuff.

It appears the Government’s disingenuous ways is creeping into legislation drafting.  The bill seeks to amend section 15 of the Housing Act 1955 and states that “to avoid doubt, sections 40 to 42 of the Public Works Act 1981 do not apply (and have never applied) to the disposal of State housing land …”.  It then lists various circumstances where the amendment applies.

The wording suggests that there is a possibility that the Public Works Act applies and all they are doing is clearing up a possible inconsistency.  All I can say is utter tosh.

In it present form section 15 of the Housing Act 1955 states:

Subject as hereafter provided in this Act, any State housing land and any buildings or chattels held for State housing purposes may be disposed of by way of sale, lease, or tenancy by the Corporation.

The section does not override the Public Works Act provisions.  All it says is that state housing land may be disposed of by various ways.  You need much clearer language to change the very clear rights of buy back which the Public Works Act 1981 achieves.

But wait there is more.  The Regulatory Impact Statement does not refer to the removal of buy back rights.  And I am struggling to see why both parts of the bill need to be passed under urgency.  The first certainly does, but the second should go through some sort of select committee process as a minimum.

Treaty of Waitangi settlements are not affected.  Ngati Whatua took Smith to Court last year but withdrew its proceedings after Smith promised rights of first offer to develop land before it was offered to other developers.  But if the situation is so clear why did Smith settle with Iwi rather than fight it out in court?

Labour is seeking to split the bill into two parts.  The first could be passed and the second sent to select committee.  When property rights are affected then nothing less than a full select committee process should be followed.

13 comments on “Government seeking to remove property buy back rights under urgency”

  1. Fustercluck 1

    There is probably a festering boil of the Nats own making that is about to erupt and this is how they hope to avoid being splattered in their own pus.

  2. NZJester 2

    There is most likely some juicy land they want to sell on to cronies at a fraction of what it is worth, but there are people with first right of refusal they do not want to have to offer the land to first.

  3. AmaKiwi 3

    Urgency should require approval by at least 75% of the MPs.

    I can think NO instance in our history when a bill genuinely required urgency. Yet urgency is commonly used by both Labour and National.

    Labour and National’s biggest lie is that this blatant abuse of power is “democracy.”

    A curse on both your houses.

  4. I look forward to weeks of ‘Democracy Under Attack’ headlines from Granny Herald.

  5. tc 5

    Nick’s not as good as the ‘profit from crisis’ model as others in nact, a little too obvious and such a foot in mouth buffoon at times.

    Plunder ahoy !

  6. vto 6

    It doesn’t surprise in this neck of the woods – governments have a well established record of consolidating their own power at the expense of the people

    Banks already have similar, introduced quietly a couple of years ago

    Kiwisaver wont escape either

    … the ever-expanding bubble of central government power

  7. Sirenia 7

    Why did the Maori Party support urgency and the legislation?

  8. Nick Smith is also (supposedly) Environment Minister, right?

    I read the headline about tampering with the Public Works Act and it immediately set off alarm bells about another article I read recently in regards to the Department of Conservation getting schooled in the Appeals Court by Forest and Bird for giving the thumbs up for a controversial native habitat land swap which would have allowed Hawke’s Bay Regional Council’s shambolic/outrageous Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme / Dam to go ahead:

    “HBRIC could pursue another tack … use the Public Works Act to simply seize the land, claiming and overriding public good purpose. However that avenue too would involve an extensive process and potential legal review.”

    http://www.baybuzz.co.nz/archives/8587/

    If the government (allegedly ACC are looking at “investing” in this scheme too) are hell-bent on pushing this project along (and pushing HB ratepayers into millions of dollars worth of debt) then expecting a few extra, unnoticed tweaks into such “urgent” legislation to help it isn’t too far fetched a concept, is it?

  9. save nz 9

    Shocking. You are completely right MS, banana republic stuff. How we can go from a respected social democracy to a banana republic in 8 years under Key, is unbelievable.

  10. Error 404 10

    One way to fix the housing crisis at practically no cost is to move that Naval base to Dunedin. Instantly houses there would be a heap of houses available and the sale of the waterfront land could pay for the whole move and new building.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Cameras on vessels to ensure sustainable fisheries
    Commercial fishing vessels at greatest risk of encountering the rare Māui dolphin will be required to operate with on-board cameras from 1 November, as the next step to strengthen our fisheries management system. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Fisheries Minister ...
    1 week ago
  • Greatest number of new Police in a single year
    A new record for the number of Police officers deployed to the regions in a single year has been created with the graduation today of Recruit Wing 326. Police Minister Stuart Nash says the graduation of 78 new constables means ...
    1 week ago
  • Ensuring multinationals pay their fair share of tax
    New Zealand is pushing on with efforts to ensure multinational companies pay their fair share of tax, with the release of proposed options for a digital services tax (DST). In February Cabinet agreed to consult the public on the problem ...
    2 weeks ago