Logie JanJAN LOGIE (Green): I rise to take a call on this the Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Recovery Bill and offer the Greens' support for this to select committee. The bill does two significant things. Firstly it extends the Resource Management Act time frame for people in quake-affected areas to give notice to the consent authority that emergency works have been undertaken. It extends that from 7 days to 40 days. It also extends the time frame in which any required resource consent must be applied for from 20 days to 120 working days. The second thing which is the subject of most of the debate this afternoon is that it enables the Government to introduce Orders in Council to amend or override primary legislation.The purpose of this bill is clearly to assist affected areas with economic recovery planning processes rebuilding recovery of land and infrastructure and increasing resilience. This is obviously a very important purpose. The Green Party is right behind the quake-affected communities. We are absolutely committed to doing what we can to ensure that they get the support that they need and that this support is actually what they need and not just what the executive thinks they might need. So we are also understandably cautious about the danger of important precious services or environments being irreparably damaged due to rushed processes or smart ideas from the Beehive.Passing legislation that gives the executive the power to override legislation that has been passed by the will of Parliament is no small thing. It is something to be avoided wherever possible. Legislation however imperfect it may seem to me at times represents the will of the people and provisions in primary legislation are usually there for a reason. We must however acknowledge that in times of disaster the context changes significantly and that processes that may normally be beneficial may no longer make sense or may in fact create unnecessary barriers to recovery. We also acknowledge that response and recovery are complex—and it may not be possible right now to anticipate accurately the exact needs of a community—and that passing specific bills for each specific need when it may be urgent may not actually help the communities at the time. So passing legislation like this puts considerable trust in the executive to accurately assess whether an Order in Council is necessary how long it should be necessary for and what changes will provide the best result for affected communities. We are happy to support this discussion going to select committee but we share the concerns that have been raised by the Labour members—that reporting back on Tuesday does feel too quick and unnecessarily shortened. That was a learning from Christchurch. At this end we should be taking the time—not excessive time but just enough time for people's views to be inputted into this process—because there are huge things at stake with this legislation. We are happy for it to go to select committee noting that there have been significant changes and some safeguards put in place and we want that balance to be checked in the select committee process. Things that have been added to this that were not there in terms of Christchurch are that in the legislation there is a requirement that the Order in Council must be necessary or desirable for the proposed purpose and that the extent of the Order in Council must not be broader than is required and that it will be able to be tested in law. There is a list of Acts that an order can relate to and there are 40 Acts on that list although there is still a provision here for the Government to be able to introduce an Order in Council into another Act that is not on this list. But we have been told that the ability to do this will be limited to times when this House is adjourned when it is not possible for the House to come together and check that particular plan and that when the House comes back that new Act and that order would need to be positively confirmed by Parliament so that Parliament would have the opportunity to say Actually no. We don't think that's valid." and that Order in Council would lapse at that point. That is a significant check. With this legislation there is an establishment of a review panel that has designated places for iwi and local government representatives and legal expertise. I also share the view I think of David Parker that it may make sense for that legal expertise to be a judge. That panel will provide advice to the relevant Minister on the proposed Order in Council and its recommendations on the draft order must be publicly available on an internet website. The Greens will be proposing that there be environmental expertise on that panel when an Order in Council is relevant to the protections of the environment. There was initially provision for engagement with substantially affected persons in the legislation. I understand that has been taken out of the draft that we have with us at the moment with the understanding that that will happen naturally through the processes. We will certainly be having discussions in the select committee to check people's comfort with that point. In the initial draft that we saw it was about the people that the Minister considered substantially affected that we had an issue with as it was so we will be interrogating that point in the committee stage. The legislation will also require that the Minister publish the reasons for recommending the Order in Council so that will be open to public scrutiny. The Regulations Review Committee of Parliament will also have a chance to look at the draft. If the House is in adjournment then the party leaders will get a copy of the draft so it will be open to scrutiny at least if not a vote in the House. It is important to note that orders once made are not legally challengeable except that the Regulations Review Committee does have the ability in certain circumstances to overturn them. That is my understanding. There is a time frame on these orders. Apparently for good practice there is an expected limit of Orders in Council to be up to between 3 and 5 years. This is until April 2018 which is significantly shorter than that time. There is a note in the legislation as well that the orders last until April 2018 unless sooner revoked. I do want to particularly point that out to interested parties as I believe that implies that there is potential value in lobbying the Minister if in the event any interested party thinks that an order that has been put in place has served its use—that it is possible to have the orders taken off the books I guess—before that completion date if they are no longer necessary or desirable for the proposed purpose. There is no avoiding the fact that this bill does give significant powers to central government and removes proper consultation provisions and rights of appeal but that has to be balanced and we really do understand that that has to be balanced with the need for Government to support communities to be able to recover. We will be looking through the select committee process though to make sure that that process really does understand the need to protect our environment and get that expertise in the process because there are some changes that you can never undo. In times of emergency it is very easy to rush into making decisions that may cause irreparable harm to our environment. We want to make sure that everything possible is done to prevent that possibility. We are supporting this bill and would like to acknowledge the Acting Minister of Civil Defence for the process up to this point."