Dyson RuthHon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Can I begin my contribution by agreeing with the member who has just resumed his seat Scott Simpson that even though this is a relatively small piece of legislation it will have a huge impact on 11000 property owners in Canterbury. So I am delighted that we will see the end of this bill tonight I hope and I suspect with unanimity from all parties in Parliament. I want to acknowledge the way in which Minister Louise Upston worked to develop this legislation. In a rare moment of collaboration with all other parties the Minister invited us to her office where she gave us a comprehensive briefing talked to us about the engagement that she wanted to have with residents in Canterbury prior to the bill being introduced and listened to our contribution on that. As my colleague Dr Megan Woods did I would highly recommend that other Ministers think about working with people outside their own little row on the front bench because it does mean that the legislation is better once it comes to the House and that is always a good thing. The quality of submissions on this bill was very high so I want to acknowledge the people who took a lot of trouble and put in a lot of effort to contribute to the thinking. I want to say that from the outside looking in—because I was not a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee—and from hearing the contributions of select committee members and reading their deliberation it is my view that the select committee members did those submitters proud by the way they responded to them. They took them seriously they debated properly and they made some changes—not many changes but some changes—as a result. So I want to commend the members of the select committee as well. Scott Simpson the chair of that committee was right when he said that generally in New Zealand land law we have the position where the land moves but the boundaries do not. Because of the dramatic land movement in Canterbury it was considered worthy of looking at whether that should remain the case and obviously with this legislation we have decided that the law is going to change in quite a fundamental way so that if the land moves the boundaries move. I hope that not too many people have already rebuilt their homes and are now living with part of their house on a neighbouring property. That will be the case but I hope it is not for too many and I am not sure what consideration the select committee gave to that. I suppose that is the frustration that I feel—that it is nearly September 2016 6 years since the first quake and here we are just now debating what is a pretty fundamental point for so many people. I know that in my electorate I have a large number of constituents who are actually waiting. Their building consent is on hold because they cannot get any certainty until this legislation is passed. So—and I have been letting them know about the progress of the bill—today will mean a big step forward for them. They will be able to get their building consents lodged with the city council—and hopefully approved quickly—and will be able to get on with their building. So with that I want to conclude my contribution because I do want to see this bill progressed this evening so that those people can have a bit more certainty in their life and can retain some of the good aspects of homebuilding that they have had pending before them for so long. I commend the progress of this bill.