McKelvie IanIAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): We certainly support this bill. But I thought I should take the alternative view on it because there will be some significant challenges as a result of this bill. I expect the current Minister won't be the Minister at the time those challenges arise but it'll be some years away. But I guess the point I want to make is that some years ago some in this House might remember the Kāpiti Coast District Council attempting to put sea-level rise on some of their coastal land information memorandums (LIMs) and the controversy that caused with their ratepayers and the issues it caused for the district council—it caused them to pull those from the LIMs. And I guess that's a little bit of the background to the reason we've got this bill today. And I'm not criticising this bill except to say that I think there's going to be significant challenges when some unsuspecting property owners open their eyes to what's on their LIM.The challenge will be—and the Governance and Administration Committee did talk about this so I can't say that we didn't discuss this briefly albeit briefly in the course of the select committee. The challenge will be that the bill doesn't stipulate the efficacy of the information that's going to be applied to these LIMs and I think we're going to end up with some very difficult situations in the future. I'm not saying we didn't need to bring this bill to the House or this issue didn't need to be dealt with; I think for sure it did. All around New Zealand there are very different states of readiness to deal with this issue and having come out of the Manawatū 2004 storm events which at the time interestingly was the biggest insurance claim in New Zealand's history—been usurped by a couple of decent old disasters since then. A lot of work was done around LiDAR in the lower Manawatū and I would think that Horizons Regional Council is probably as up to date as anyone in the country with that sort of information.Even in the Manawatū where that information has been around for quite some time it still causes reasonable controversy because when people go to develop what they thought was a perfectly buildable or developable property they find that in fact they've got to do quite significant work to be able to build on that property. I'm not criticising that process; I think it's probably necessary. But the outcome of this bill will cause some significant angst in our community in the future and I think that's something we need to be aware of.I do think that the intention of the bill particularly with respect to property information was necessary to deal with. I often wonder whether we can deal with these sort of things better in the course of putting them through the House because the challenge that we get—successive Governments have had a lot of criticism from local government for the load they're putting on local government in New Zealand. And it goes right back to my time in local government which started well over 20 years ago. And that load has continually been lumped on to the ratepayers of our country. So as a result of this local government is now going to have to deal with a whole new batch of information they've got to provide and a whole new batch of I guess—what would be the word? Not protest so much as opposition to the activities they've been—I shouldn't use the word forced" because I kind of agree with the way we're going about this in a way. But they're going to be faced with a whole lot of controversy as a result of that. And people are definitely going to be very upset when they see what appears on their LIM. I think we'll see significant court action over this. Of course once it's resolved it will be resolved.But the reason for my doubt about this—well not my doubt but my concern about it—is I think there's going to be a significant variation in the information that's applied to getting this on to LIMs. Unless we get a standard set—and it could well be that the result of this bill promotes in due course a sensible set of actions that then promote a standard across New Zealand that maintains some relativity across the country so we don't have different standards being applied by different councils and consequently different information being put forward by different councils.And again if you go back to the Manawatū storms of 2004 and you look at what's going on in Hawke's Bay right now the decision was made very early—as a result of the damage in those 2004 floods—what to resurrect and what not to. And so I think the issue that you've got with all this sort of information once it's there is it provides a whole lot of obstacles that we don't foresee at the time it's put there; insurance is one of them. So we'll suddenly see some variations in the way insurance companies deal with things in some areas as a result of the information that appears on these LIMs.So I think it's going to be challenging for councils to implement this—it won't be challenging for them to implement; it will be very challenging for them to deal with the noise that comes about as a result of it—I think in some areas particularly. It is an issue though that we've got to deal with as a country. And I think that certainly the last two major disasters we've had in New Zealand have really pointed to the fact that we haven't been particularly good at this over the years. The information we collect is changing quickly and the technology we're using to provide that information and to attain that information is changing quickly as well. So I think that while we support this bill—and I think it's probably sensible—I do think it's going to create some significant challenges for our councils and probably one that they'll come back to the Government with or a Government at some time in the future with to find a way of dealing with it. Because it could even get to the point of people anticipating that they should get some compensation for the result of what we applied to these LIMs.So that's a major concern I've got about this. And I suppose I was thinking as I lie back in my armchair I'll be able to say "I told you so" when this happens. But I'm not like that. Not really. So I do think it's quite a problem for us and it's a problem coming our way. But I still also agree with the fact that the problem exists and we have to deal with it somehow. So that's quite a challenge.The other issues in this bill have been well dealt with by certainly Joseph Mooney and other speakers before me. I don't need to carry on with that. I do want to thank the select committee for the work they did on it and those officials that helped us get to the point we got to. We often forget the officials in the course of this and we had a bill in select committee this morning where the officials have been under significant pressure to deliver on something that's probably going to have a marginal result in due course. But none the less we should remember that they have to do the work because they're the servants of the Government—in I think the same way that the people who have to implement this bill are effectively the servants of the councillors and the councillors are the people that should be funding this not the poor old officers that have to go out there and deal with all the flak that comes about as a result of us forcing this bill or any other bill on to another sector of our community and then dealing with it.So I won't talk any more. I've talked too much. But thank you. We support it."