Parker DavidParts 1 to 3 and clauses 1 and 2Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I thought I might begin this contribution by talking to the Supplementary Order Paper that stands in the name of the Hon Gerry Brownlee Supplementary Order Paper 253. Because of the truncated process with this bill having been read a first time earlier in the week going to the select committee for a very short period—was it a day; I do not know. It seems to have been a long week. A day was it?Andrew Bayly: A long day.Hon DAVID PARKER: A long day. There is insufficient time for parliamentary counsel to draft into a later version of the bill the amendments that are suggested which are not very substantial but none the less it is not possible to produce another version of the bill. So the procedure that has been adopted is that the changes recommended by the select committee are set out in a revision-tracked version of the document which has been tabled in the name of the Hon Gerry Brownlee and we thank him for doing that.Can I thank the officials for their participation and the submitters who at very short notice submitted. I just want to take a few minutes to bring to the Committee's attention the recommendations from the select committee that are set out in the revision-tracked Supplementary Order Paper and then make reference to an issue that is not an enormous issue but it is one issue that I have in respect of my own amendment which is a separate document.The main changes that have been made by this bill are threefold. One is that it changes the notice period that councils and owners of public infrastructure have to give when they are doing something without a resource consent as an emergency repair pursuant to section 330 of the Resource Management Act and some subsequent sections that relate to that. That seems sensible.We extended the period recommended in the version that came to select committee for the timing of giving notice of exercising these emergency powers to 40 days. Our reason for doing that was that it was pointed out that for some of that work 14 days would have already passed—or at least 10 working days. Some of that work would have been started immediately and it was thought particularly given the intervening holiday period that that will further make some of this administrative work a bit difficult but it was appropriate to allow 60 working days for that notice to be given rather than the 40 recommended in that version of the bill. We did not change the period of 120 working days which applies to when a resource consent has to be applied for retrospectively. I do not think there is much more in respect of that part that I want to mention.In respect of the part relating to farmers' rights to rehabilitate their land or to make emergency repairs to roads or ponds or dairy sheds—whatever it is—we again have recommended that their right to do that be carried on until 31 July 2017 rather than 30 March 2017. That was in response to Federated Farmers and the Kaikōura District Council both telling us that some of these practical measures will be needed following rains that will not come until next winter. Some of the effects of the earthquake once you get a bit of rain on some of these slopes that are more erosion-prone or partially down are such that land will need to be modified probably after those rains next winter. So the date they asked for is 31 July 2017 and the committee thought that was a reasonable request.There are two other points that I will make if I have time before I sit down. We did try to make clear in respect of the Kaikōura Harbour rehabilitation work that is necessary that the wording was a little bit I thought confusing in that it introduced this new notion that depositing other than dumping when they already had the right to dump is limited to dumping the dredged spoil on the land or foreshore rather than at sea. So we have cleared that up. They have also got the right to discharge this sort of material that is disturbed as they dredge. So for example if you were dredging an area or blasting a rock that needs to be removed some of that minor debris will inevitably be scattered and that is allowed pursuant to section 16(2)(f). We thought that that plus the dumping right was all that was needed and they did not need a separate right to deposit. I think that is a good change because I thought it was a bit confusing to add that additional part.I am sure others will make other points and I will not try to cover all of the little changes. I think they are the main ones that I would refer to. The only other point I would make is that there was a discussion at the select committee as to what happens to enforcement proceedings. Clause 13 of this provision suggests that enforcement proceedings after all of these things happen should be able to be taken only by the relevant local authority. I agree that we should be very permissive for people to do things but then having gone too far or having refused to take the steps that are relaxed under this provision but none the less necessary eventually I think that people other than the council ought to be able to enforce. Indeed we had submissions to that effect. Select committee members saw that for themselves but we had similar submissions I think from the Legislation Advisory Committee and another submitter whose name I have forgotten. They said you do not need to do that so I have got a Supplementary Order Paper that knocks out clause 13 and the related clause 14(3)(b). I think it would be preferable if we did remove that. The bill will still have our support if it is not; I just think it would be better legislation if that was not there.The final thing—in fact I might leave it to one of the others to talk about the notice provisions that we have in respect of where someone is not there when a network utility authority or a council comes along and does something to the land. Thank you.