Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I do have a proposed amendment to this bill and I want to explain it to the Committee and thank Minister Brownlee for his indication that the Government is going to support it. It actually arises from a contribution I made in the first reading debate and it relates to the issue that my colleague Grant Robertson has already referred to which is that through this bill we are conferring upon the Controller or a police constable during a state of emergency the power to require the owner of a property to obtain a report as to the structural integrity of the building if that building poses a risk of injury or a risk to the safety of life or the safety of other property."Then in new subsection (6) of new section 94N inserted by the amendment Act the bill confers a right of appeal to the District Court to the owner or the owner's agent who is being asked to pay for the cost of one of these reports and to commission one. That is an appropriate safeguard. The intent of the legislation is that the relief that can be granted by the District Court effectively refunds some of the cost if the original request to get a report was unreasonable and that imposes a degree of countervailing rights for the person who is being asked to get that report if it is an unreasonable request. Although there will not normally be an unreasonable request it is easy to envisage that occasionally there might be—particularly not during the emergency stage but during the recovery phase which is covered by clause 8 inserting new section 94N in section 27 of the Act where there is a similar provision.I went and read the provisions in the underlying 2002 Act which are found at sections 77(2) and 77(3) which are said to apply in respect of these appeals. I spoke with Minister Brownlee who said that the intention was that the only relief that someone could get if they appealed was a refund of their costs; they could not refuse to get the report. I was concerned when I read section 77(4) that we had not made it clear that that section in the underlying Act would not apply in this situation because that section says that by virtue of the appeal the request for the report is stayed.The policy intention was not that we stay or put aside the request that has been made by civil defence or by the police to get a report; we were just trying to confer a remedy against an unreasonable request—i.e. refund the money. Most people or the people who are requested to do this will be able to afford to get a report and they should have to do so. So it was unclear. I think it is fair to say it was ambiguous rather than clearly wrong and the Minister with the help of officials agreed that he would clear this matter up. That is what my amendment does which has been drafted by the Parliamentary Counsel Office and I thank it for doing that.It makes it clear that section 77(4) of the principal Act does not apply. It puts it beyond doubt that someone appealing against the demand gets a report as to the structural integrity of the building and their appeal does not act as a stay of the request. The only remedy they can get from the court is not the ability to not get the report; they can just get a refund for its cost. So that is where—if this amendment is passed—the matter will end.The procedure in sections 77(2) and (3) will apply but the stay provided for in section 77(4) of the principal Act will not apply. That amendment is being made to both new clause 7 by amending section 91 of the principal Act effectively and also the same provision in respect of the recovery phase in clause 8. I do not think I need to explain that further. I hope the Committee will support that amendment."