SpeechHon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe Madam Speaker. Thank you. I'm pleased to take a call on the Severe Weather Emergency Legislation Bill. This is fast lawmaking. We did receive some submissions from people like Dr John Hopkins of Canterbury University and Associate Professor Dr Dean Knight at Victoria—very concerned about the fast process and the inability to give adequate scrutiny—and a suggestion that in order to deal with emergencies like this as Dr Hopkins said we need to legally prepare for such events and stop the make-do and mend" approach to disaster law that continues to apply in Aotearoa New Zealand. The Green Party is continuing to support this bill. But as Mr Woodhouse noted the 48-odd hours that we've had to deal with it has meant of course that we're coming back to this House and the Governance and Administration Committee has not had the time to have a track-changes version of the bill with the recommendations that we are making for changes. Instead it will be done through a Supplementary Order Paper—and there's only been a day for submissions. But what the bill highlighted to me once again is the value of public submissions. Despite only having a day despite submitters speaking verbally to the committee without a written submission in some instances because they hadn't had time the changes that are being recommended that hopefully will come through in the Supplementary Order Paper are in response to a lot of the concerns that submitters raised. So it really highlights the dangers of passing legislation where there's not a public submission process and the benefits when that does happen. So I would really like to thank particularly councils like Hawke's Bay Gisborne and Hastings District Council; iwi like Rongowhakaata; and those who made submissions despite dealing with the horrendous impacts of the cyclones and the adverse weather and doing this alongside all of their response and recovery work. One of the particular issues I was interested in for the Greens was the Resource Management Act and the wide scope of permitted activities in clause 21 inserting new sections 331A to 331F into the Resource Management Act. Yes it was modelled on the Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Recovery Act but the wide scope it gives for permitted activities to be undertaken on rural land for remedial measures and the large area that has been affected by the cyclone means that this permitted activity status—no need to get a resource consent—will apply over hundreds of thousands of hectares. The committee as Mr Woodhouse noted has amended the end date for that from October 2023 to April 2024 partly so that things like earthworks could be done over the summer rather than rural people having to race to get it done in winter and potentially doing it in wet conditions which could cause even more damage. But the inquiries we were able to make and they were limited was what monitoring had been done of Hurunui/Kaikōura—there's been an assumption by me included that the trust model there actually worked. Given that this area affected is so much larger I think it is incumbent on the Ministry for the Environment to work alongside particularly Hastings Gisborne District Council and others to do aerial and other monitoring to look at what sort of activities are being done as permitted activities and to just ensure that there aren't unforeseen adverse effects on rivers natural areas and adjoining landowners. One of the changes that the committee recommended that the Minister noted is really significant and that's that significant adverse effects cannot occur beyond the site boundary. Because with things like moving silt if it's moved to maybe the edge of a property with another rain event then the effects of that are felt downstream—so making it very clear that effects can't occur beyond the site boundary and also a requirement that adverse effects are avoided remedied or mitigated to the best extent practicable. So again that's a bit of a safeguard.This is a very generous provision—it will help with recovery—but we do need agencies to get involved in monitoring. The ACT Party as I'm sure Mr Court will highlight wanted this permitted activity status extended beyond rural areas to include residential and commercial areas but I would just like to note that the Napier City Council has highlighted that in the Awatoto area for example there are high levels of contaminants toxic substances ammonia hydrocarbons and pesticides. People are wearing personal protective equipment in that area and that is not a rural area and so there are real implications if it was extended beyond rural areas. So I think that's a real risk.Then there's the issue of burning slash and I didn't really get an answer to my questions about how this broad-scale permitted activity would affect the issue of forestry slash and what landowners want to do with that. As the Gisborne District Council noted in its submission the public interest in responsible parties being held to account for any criminal offending that may have led to the impacts of forestry slash is significant and if companies then seek to use this permitted activity status to burn the slash there would be horrendous potential health effects on communities from the smoke particularly if there are pesticides mixed in with that slash and coated wire. The Minister has noted that there will be new legislation introduced after the recess that may provide an Order in Council process and a particular consenting pathway for activities like forestry slash. I think it would be entirely inappropriate if there was any attempt to use these permitted activity provisions to deal with forestry slash. There needs to be specific attention to the issues there the potential effect and then a consenting pathway worked out that takes those into account.So Rongowhakaata highlighted too that there have already been instances of contaminated silt being dumped by landowners in waterways so again we really do need to monitor and because in some areas things like pesticides treated timber are all mixed up in the debris and the slash that all needs to be looked at—how are we going to manage that? In the earthquakes there was a huge pile of treated and other timber at Burwood which was recovered from demolished houses. That was not just burnt; it was separated and dealt with appropriately. Similarly with the forestry slash there needs to be much more thought around that.I'm really pleased that the select committee did what it could and I acknowledge the very skilled chairing of Ian McKelvie and the very collegial attitude on the committee to respond to submissions from some iwi that there hadn't been sufficient regard paid to Te Tiriti considerations and the way in which land was used might affect cultural sites and so the changes that the select committee is suggesting there will actually take more account of the potential for adverse effects and ensure that iwi views are considered.I look forward to the other legislation dealing with Te Tiriti issues and consultation with iwi hapū and mana whenua in more detail and to ensuring that we are really recognising that huge effort that so many marae so many iwi and hapū on the ground put in to sustain the wider community in the immediate response and integrating them into the recovery as well.It is really challenging for the Parliament to deal with lawmaking in such a rapid way but I really acknowledge the work of submitters and also officials in contributing to this. Thank you."