O'Rourke Denis; Tisch LindsayDENIS O'ROURKE (NZ First): I just wanted to comment briefly on the four most important changes between the original bill and what will ultimately be put to the vote. The first of those relates to clause 5(2) and that itself relates to the time within which advice of an activity must be given under section 330A of the principal Act. Originally the bill said that would be 40 working days or—what is that—8 weeks. I raised with the committee that that might not be adequate and that we ought to be generous with the time for that and so it was agreed that 60 working days instead should be provided for. That is of course in addition to the additional days you would get over the Christmas holiday period and the period runs from when the activity takes place so it ought to be more than sufficient. It needs to be ample because people of course—some of the people at least who would be involved—will be in remote areas where it is difficult to communicate and they will be under stress and quite frankly have a lot to do to recover from the earthquake. It is better to err on the side of providing too much time rather than too little so I think that was a good change that has been made.The second one relates to clause 6 and the notice to be given under subclause (2)(a) as it is now. That provides for a notice to be placed on the land that would give the date and the purpose of entry and contact details. The committee felt on discussion that that might not be enough given the fact that some people could be away either permanently or for extended periods and not actually see those notices especially if they were on a part of the land that was not readily accessible. So there was an addition to that which will now appear as (2)(b) in that clause so that as soon as practicable after entering the land the local authority or consent authority will have to serve a written notice containing that same information and you would expect that that would be done by letter in the same way that for example rates notices would be sent out—so a good formal and reliable way of making sure that people are properly informed.The third one that I wanted to raise is one of the most important clauses in the bill and that is clause 16 relating to the meaning of rehabilitation work". Of course as we know the activity will be a controlled activity so it is one that must be allowed but with appropriate conditions. The rehabilitation of the Kaikōura Harbour as we know is an absolute necessity but care should still be exercised in doing the work that is carried out so as to avoid unnecessary environmental damage. A number of submitters expressed concerns that the bill had provisions relating to "dumping" which we were told refers to the removal of material to another site altogether and the term "depositing" which means placing the material in another part of the same site where no transportation of it would be required. There was a lot of discussion about that and I think as a committee we have come up with a great solution to it so that clause 16(2)(b) relating to depositing will be removed altogether. We were advised that that is simply not necessary because the works that are envisaged just would not require that provision. That will be good news to the ears of those who are worried that some material excavated from the channel to be created might simply be placed on the shoulder of the channel and do unnecessary damage to the marine environment there. They were very concerned that that could happen. In clause 16(2)(c) only the dumping of the material will be required and then it will be required only on land or foreshore. Some submitters were concerned about dumping on the foreshore but it is to be noted that clause 18 will apply to require proper consideration of environmental effects. When you consider in respect of some of that material placed on the foreshore that the foreshore has been uplifted anyway and will therefore itself have been irreparably damaged the possibility of that further damage will be very low.The other change that was made is that the term "fish" has now been added as one of the specified examples in relation to this so that those who are worried about fishing—and I am one of those—can be assured that the care required concerning environmental effects will also consider that aspect of it. The fourth and last change that I wanted to mention relates to the public meetings provided for under clause 19. The committee has recommended the addition of clause 19(1)(c) which says that the authority "may if the consent authority considers it appropriate hold a meeting to allow those persons to orally present their comments." There were submissions by a number of people who were concerned that some of the special expertise that local people have—special local knowledge—might be lost if they did not have a chance to say what they wished to say. The committee agreed therefore that it would be appropriate that a public meeting be held where it is advised concerning some of the applications that might be made—so not necessarily for all but for those that are appropriate. The committee agreed in the end that it would be best for the council to decide that rather than that be provided for directly in the Act itself.I think that is a good compromise. People will get a good chance to comment and to share their expertise and their local knowledge but the council can decide when and where and for which subjects that is appropriate. We do not want it to happen for everything—it would make processes too long and too difficult—but I think that is a good balance between those considerations.Those are all the particular changes—the most important changes that I think the committee looked at and is recommending to the original bill and I think that it will make a valuable contribution to ensuring that this legislation will be up to speed and as good as we can possibly make it in the time available. I certainly wish the people of Kaikōura well in working their way through this legislation. We have done our best to make it readable for them and understandable and we will provide them with the powers that they will need to do what is necessary and do it quickly and effectively. Thank you.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Members we come to the vote and the question is that—Steffan Browning: Mr Chair.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Is the member going for a call?Steffan Browning: Yes I am.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Well you must go very quickly. Steffan Browning."