Parker David; Borrows ChesterHon DAVID PARKER (Labour): The Labour Party supports this bill. Can I record my thanks in a similar way to that in which Minister Brownlee already has. I thank the Government for consulting other parties and thank the other parties for their constructive engagement in respect of what should or should not be in this the first of these bills.I think that in respect of these three bills the most contentious in the end will be the third one which we are considering later in the week. It hands over some regulation-making power to the executive to override statutes in a way that is unusual. I think that we have learnt some lessons from the Canterbury earthquakes and that the inquiries that have been done by various arms of government—and also by the Regulations Review Committee of this Parliament—have come up with some changes that prescribe or limit the executive's power to override statutes in a way that is more robust than was in the Canterbury legislation which I think was properly criticised at the time as perhaps going a bit far.Dealing with the Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Emergency Relief Bill in particular—there are three main parts to this and all three of these provisions are supported by the Labour Party.The first deals with the really publicly owned infrastructure: land and works that are within the control of the local authorities—as opposed to within the control of private people—such as network utilities and particularly those works that are necessary for the support of life. It relaxes the rules that are in the Resource Management Act. There are already powers under the Resource Management Act in sections 330 330A 330B that confer powers to carry out emergency works but the time frames—for the carrying out of that work for the notification to the local authority when that sort of emergency work is done and then where necessary for the application for a retrospective resource consent to legitimise it going forward—are a bit short. Some of those time frames for example are only 20 working days. The next 20 working days include the Christmas period and I think the Minister is right to want to extend the date for the giving of advice to the consent authorities from—sorry what is it? Is it 10 working days presently? It is being extended to 40 working days and the time frame for applying for a resource consent has been extended to 120 working days. I think both of those are right.The next part which relates to certain activities of rural landowners or occupiers is currently limited—as is the first part—to the Hurunui District the Kaikōura District the Marlborough District and the Canterbury District. It is narrower than the first part—which also relates to the Wellington area—but in respect of emergency activities by private landowners or occupiers in the Hurunui Kaikōura Marlborough or Canterbury Regional Council areas there are certain activities that are deemed to be permitted that were it not for this legislation would theoretically require a resource consent. We suggested to the Government that if we were going to confer the power to rural land occupiers and owners to take emergency preventative or remedial actions they had to be reasonable and the Government has agreed to insert the words reasonable grounds" in clause 10(1)(a). I understand that there may be some other suggestions from other political parties that we will consider during the brief period at select committee but I think that is reasonable.I was down at Culverden myself last week and was actually there before they had the worst of their shakes—it was a few hours before. But even in respect of the earlier shakes that they had—I was on some farms and I had seen some of the tanks that had fallen over and I also heard of problems that they have had with some irrigation works. I recognise that there is a need for a practical way for these farmers to go about their business and I think that this part is appropriate.The third part relates to the dredging work that is needed in respect of the Kaikōura harbour. I think everyone has seen the footage on TV of what used to be the land relative to the water and the entry into the water. What was showing at low tide is now the level at high tide so there has been a considerable uplift of the seabed and it is necessary to dredge. I am not sure how serious the work is. I am not sure whether explosives will be necessary. I am not sure whether they will be able to just dredge it or dig it. I have seen some pretty big rocks there which I suspect might require some explosives.I see some reference here in the legislation already to require what is done to have as little impact on the marine environment and its flora and fauna as is reasonably practical. That is already written into the bill. What happens is that this activity—the dredging—becomes a controlled activity which means that so long as they are acting according to the controlled-activities rules that the council requires of them they do not need resource consent. They can just do it as a controlled activity rather than having to advertise and go through some longer process to authorise it. As a consequence I think that is wise as well and the Labour Party will support it.I know that my colleague Grant Robertson said that Denis O'Rourke from New Zealand First made a worthy contribution at the cross-party grouping where he suggested that there be some provision made so that whatever is dredged should have to be disposed of—if it is going to be disposed of at sea—in the place that will have the least environmentally adverse effect. That seemed to be a pretty practical suggestion to me as well and I am sure that it is something that the select committee would be willing to have a look at.This power in respect of the sea area—of all of these powers that have been conferred by Parliament today—will I suspect prove to be the most significant environmentally. Of course while we are restoring the harbour—primarily for the benefit of tourism—we do not want to cause long-term harm to tourism by adversely affecting the flora and fauna including the whales and seals and dolphins which are the tourist attractions that we are trying to provide access to. That is already written into this piece of legislation and I also know that the people who are to be consulted as part of the controlled activity process include the local council the local rūnanga and the local iwi. All of us know that the local whale-watch is owned and run by the local rūnanga and it will of course have its own interest in not going too far in respect of these emergency works.I do not think I need to take the full 10 minutes here. I think that this is a necessary piece of legislation and I think it is appropriately constrained geographically. I note that the Government has left it open to add other regions or councils to the geographic areas that are covered by this bill should we have aftershocks or should other parts of this earthquake sequence affect other districts. The Government has reserved the right to extend this to them by regulation and given the earthquake activity we are seeing following this series of quakes I think that is wise as well. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Stuart Smith—welcome back."