O'Rourke DenisDENIS O'ROURKE (NZ First): It can be very difficult in circumstances such as happened in Christchurch with the earthquake sequence to identify where boundaries are. On my own property on the Port Hills I am sure that one of the boundary pegs has moved. I am sure that the others did not so perhaps my section has got slightly bigger than it used to be. I do not really know but neither the neighbours nor I have any great interest in spending money on redefining where the boundaries are. However the point is this: there are anomalies that happen and there needs to be a way to deal with those. This bill provides a very sensible way of doing that. It does not alter the fundamental principles of surveying. It provides a degree of flexibility around the general rules and I welcome that. I welcome the approach to provide for practical solutions that will actually work in the circumstances. That is essentially what this bill does so for that reason New Zealand First has no difficulty at all in supporting it. It is very sensible. There are a number of ways in which I and others in Christchurch have noticed some quite strange but important things happen. I remember being told by a friend of mine who during the 2011 earthquake was driving down Manchester Street that he watched the street ripple like a carpet being shaken in front of him. He could not believe what he was seeing. Since then I have looked down that same section of street a number of times and it seems to me that there has been a new bulge occur in about the middle of the section of the street that goes through central Christchurch. I used to be able to look from Armagh Street all the way down to Moorhouse Avenue and see a straight level piece of road but I swear that is no longer the case. There is sort of a bulge in the middle. So that is one of the sorts of things that happened during these earthquakes. Others have talked about lateral spread. We all know people whose sections have moved and expanded especially around the rivers and areas like that. The aquifers have altered. People in Woolston not far from where I live have had new springs pop up on their sections some of them actually under existing houses. Water appears out of nowhere and then washes down the gutters. Another issue has of course been land subsidence and we have seen some of that in what is now called the Flockton Basin. It was never called that; it was just a low-lying level of land in the Flockton Street area. I remember while I was on the city council providing for some improved drainage for that area but we never called it the Flockton Basin. It is now called that because there is a depression there and much more drainage is necessary as a result. So those are just some examples of the magnitude of the things that change during an earthquake. That is why legislation like this with a practical approach is needed to be able to deal with those sorts of things. I just wanted to say one other thing and that is this: the definition of earthquake" was dealt with by the Local Government and Environment Committee and I understand it is now allowing 6 years for the whole earthquake sequence. When we talk about an earthquake it is really not just a single event. We noticed the 2011 one because it was so huge but actually a few minutes later there was another very big earthquake which by itself would have been significant. Then there were a number of other shocks and as time went on there were some very significant events too. My hot water system must have sprung leaks about three or four times during that sequence; ultimately I had to get it replaced. It could not put up with it any more and neither could I. So I actually agree that it is very important that we have a practical definition of what an earthquake is. It is a sequence and for practical reasons you need an end point for that. I think 6 years is appropriate. That will mean I guess that sometime in 2017 the sequence will be deemed to have come to an end and that anything that happens after that will have to be regarded as a new event. It is a good practical approach. I think the whole bill is a good practical piece of legislation which we have no difficulty whatsoever in continuing to support."