Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you Madam Speaker. I pick up where the Minister left off by acknowledging those who have suffered terribly through very severe weather events in the past couple of months—not only at the time of the events themselves be it flooding Cyclone Gabrielle or other storm-like conditions—but those who continue to suffer as a result of the effects of those weather events and the associate damage and havoc indeed that they have wrecked upon various New Zealand communities and regions within our country. I also want to echo a comment that was made at the end of the Minister's remarks around the importance of a non-partisan approach to these matters. I do want to assure the House and New Zealanders more generally that National will play a constructive part in Opposition in relation to the recovery and the response and in relation to this particular piece of legislation as we did with the first piece of legislation just a couple of weeks ago. We will support it. We say in relation to this bill that we will support it at least at first reading. The select committee process short as it is will provide a good opportunity to understand further the detail within it and understand if there are any concerns from those who would make submissions. So that's our commitment at this time—that we will support it at its first reading. We intend to and would like to be able to support it going forward as well. So let us cross that bridge when we come to it but for now of course we support Government efforts to make the lives of people easier in the affected regions.The bill will look to achieve that in a number of different ways and of course there is a large list of pieces of legislation that it will allow to be amended by way of orders so perhaps if I can just reflect on the overall nature of the bill that we have in front of us. It's framework legislation; it allows orders to be made after the bill itself becomes an Act so it's very empowering of the executive branch of Government. It's a high-trust model but as the Minister rightly points out it's not without precedent. Even in relatively recent times this House has passed similar legislation in relation to the Kaikōura and prior to that Canterbury earthquakes that enabled Ministers of a previous administration to make decisions and orders and I acknowledge the presence of my friend and colleague the Hon Gerry Brownlee in connection with the first of those series of earthquakes. So we say to the Government we agree to accord you these great powers. We expect that they will be exercised reasonably and responsibly and we're very much of the hope that will be the case because I don't think the New Zealand public would tolerate—from either side of Parliament or any side of politics—an opportunity for what would appear a political response to a great tragedy and heartache that they have suffered. So with that general comment I think I should also make the point again as the Minister did that it's unusual for the Government to pass laws not only that allow great breadth of decision making by way of executive orders but even to the point where those orders—or that the Government can actually change other Acts of Parliament sometimes known as Henry VIII" powers with a nod to an infamous previous monarch who of course was perfectly happy to use such executive orders but of course we generally avoid that. But in these times they're not normal times so we allow ourselves to depart from normal lawmaking processes—precedent even as recently as the COVID-19 response—and I think if we're looking at ways in which we can mitigate the risk that we give too much power to the executive as a Parliament then I think it's fair to acknowledge that there are a number of checks and balances within the bill. There are a number of constraints on the power. One of them is in relation to the consultation that will take place—I will return to that if time allows—but I think it's helpful that the Regulations Review Committee will be given an opportunity to scrutinise orders albeit after they've passed and to provide a report to the House; that's a good body to conduct such work. I know its members of various different political parties will be very diligently engaged in that task and I know that they're very well advised. I'm not a member of that committee myself but reflecting on our experience in the COVID-19 response—equivalent regime—I know that was or at least it seems to me—and I'm conflicted in the matter I suppose but—a useful addition to the legislating process. Of course having the Regulations Review Committee—an extra select committee in Parliament—have a look at the bill once the Governance and Administration Committee through the fine leadership of Ian McKelvie has had the first go at the legislation itself that's a nod to the fact that it should be Parliament that's the supreme lawmaking institution. So even though we're giving to the executive significant powers to make laws in the way of regulations and also even to change primary legislation we're saying still that Parliament nominally is sovereign because a committee of that Parliament—a creature of that Parliament—will report back to Parliament. Of course the other major safeguard is that there is a sunset clause as we might refer to it which is to say that the bill will survive as an Act only as long as the end of March 2026 and there's a two-year window after that in which orders made under the Act may survive and that's the maximum extent of their ability to be effective if not already repealed beforehand. I think it's also worth noting with approval from this side of the House that there's an opportunity for the reduction in bureaucracy when it comes to some of the ways that the recovery might otherwise be slowed down. We're interested to note that some of this has been framed very much in economic terms and that's appropriate. It's also appropriate of course to enable recovery to take place in other ways. But actually perhaps the larger point is that all the ways in which the recovery needs to be effected are interconnected in any case. So the restoration of a bridge nominally is an exercise in restoring infrastructure but of course that allows people to have a degree of normality reintroduced to their life so far as their family or personal situation is concerned. Of course it enables the transport of goods the conducting of services and so on. So that again would provide some assistance for the economic recovery which in turn will aid the social wellbeing of the people of each area. I think it's worth noting actually—and this is a plea that's perhaps adjacent to the bill but I'll try your patience on that regard because I was in Hawke's Bay and Napier yesterday and it's important for communities that have felt the effects of this damage quite severely for the outside world to know that visitors are welcome—to the extent that that wouldn't interfere with the recovery. I hope I'm not going to overstate the case here by saying that for other New Zealanders to go to those places and to patronise the tourism and other industries on which they are so reliant at any time will actually be helpful to the recovery. So any positive messaging and proactive messaging that can come out of the area and supported by the Government operating out of Wellington but through the local lens I think would be helpful. I think I'm picking up some agreement across the House for that. So all the ways that their local community should be supported they must be but in doing so of course at the risk of adding an additional layer of complication it's important to do that in conjunction with the local communities. That's another message that I've heard loud and clear not only in that first visit that I made to that part of the world the other day but also knowing from my own area which was severely affected in some areas of that particularly. So to work with other partners such as local government civil society community groups will be important.I do want to make mention of the importance of the membership of the panel that will be appointed to advise the Minister to provide feedback on draft orders and so on. We think that a smaller panel rather than one as large as has been set up under this legislation would be helpful. We think smaller rather than larger would provide greater flexibility. Of course there needs to be a necessary skill set across that and it's important that's broad enough to provide technical advice in relation to aspects of recovery that touch very directly on infrastructure and other technical areas. We think that the skills and experience will be more important than demographic factors among those who are chosen to play that very important role. Finally we have to say that Local Government New Zealand doesn't seem to us an appropriate body to be providing members to that panel directly in its own name given that it doesn't represent all of New Zealand. Notwithstanding that for the reasons that I've said we do support this bill at its first reading and we'd like to assist the Government to assist the communities of New Zealand going forward."