Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I rise with pleasure on behalf of the Labour Party to say that we are supporting this piece of legislation. Can I reiterate the comments that Mr Brownlee has made thanking those people throughout the area and actually further afield who are doing their utmost to help the people affected by the earthquake. A lot of people are obviously helping themselves but others are also pulling out all stops to assist the people who have been adversely affected by the earthquake to try to minimise ongoing safety risks and also to try to assist the putting back together of the infrastructure—the homes and the other repairs that are needed to allow life to return to normal.This is an important bill. I want to give an illustration of what I think is going to be one of the most practical issues that is faced under the legislation. We have all seen the photographs of the enormous quantity of debris that is covering the roads and the railway blocking State Highway 1. As Minister Brownlee has said it has had the consequence of diverting traffic to much longer routes much less convenient routes much more costly routes and routes that were not designed to have that much traffic. The Government I think has already indicated that it is likely to restore State Highway 1 from Kaikōura through to Picton. It is expecting to have the section south of Kaikōura opened in the not too distant future but the huge job of getting it open between Kaikōura and Picton is one that is going to have enormous complications. One of the complications is that there are so many slips that it seems to me that it is going to be likely that the repair work has to be done at the same time for different slips. So they will be working in the middle of this as well as at the ends when they will not have access restored for very long sections of road. So what do they do with the spoil?Already in the debate on the bill yesterday we heard that there were representatives from the inshore fishery and from the pāua industry saying that we have got to be very careful that we do not drop a lot more fine sediments into the sea area because we could be further damaging unnecessarily the pāua fishery or the lobster fishery or the environment more generally. But on the other hand where do you put it? I would have thought that it is very difficult to barge it all away. Maybe that is a possibility but I would have thought that that is pretty impossible. So the question as to what is going to be done there is going to have to be grappled with by the Government and it seems likely—it seems almost certain—that it is going to have to override certain normal provisions that would apply in respect of those decisions.That is not to say that it should not have regard to the environmental consequences and do it in the best way that is possible but it is going to need special powers and it is not yet clear that the special powers that will be needed moving forward are available under the existing legislation. That is one of the reasons why Parliament is deciding whether it should confer additional powers to the executive under this bill to override primary legislation. I think that is an appropriate thing to do.Having said that we should always be very careful when we are overriding the things that are meant to be controlled by primary legislation. The Regulations Review Committee report on this I think makes the best example in our history—or the worst example actually—and that is that the Economic Stabilisation Act was passed in 1948 with a broad regulation-making power that was intended to be short-lived. Effectively it was so broad that it allowed another Government 30 years later—the Government of the Rt Hon Robert Muldoon—to by statutory regulation impose a price freeze and a rent freeze and a wage freeze upon the whole of the country through a regulation. It patently should have been done if at all—it was a silly thing to do but if it was to be done it ought to have been done through parliamentary legislation. That is an example of why you have actually got to be very careful that you do not confer powers on the executive that will be used in ways that were not expected when they were first created.My view of this is it is a bit like taxation. When it comes to overriding Government legislation in an emergency situation it is a bit like taxation—as little as possible and as much as necessary. We have got to give the powers to the executive to override primary legislation in way that is as little as possible but is as much as is necessary. Getting that balance right is what we are trying to achieve through this legislation.We are lucky—or unlucky—to have had two recent instances when Parliament has previously attempted to do this which was in 2010 and 2011 in response to the earthquakes that tragically saw a much greater loss of life in the Canterbury region. On both of those occasions there were criticisms of the legislation although on both of those occasions I think we all acknowledge in this House the excessive powers that were conferred upon the executive were not abused. They were not abused but the possibility of their abuse existed from the breadth of the legislation and there was quite a bit of criticism particularly of the 2010 legislation. The 2011 legislation was an improvement on the 2010 legislation. It included some checks and balances including a review committee whose views had to be taken into account. That mechanism is being carried forward in this legislation and that is a very good thing. I personally think that these are such serious things that you should always have a judge on the review committee. I do not think it should just be some minor lawyer. There are lots of minor lawyers who would not be good at it. We had at the select committee on the New Zealand Intelligence and Security Bill today Sir Bruce Robertson in front of us who is the inspector of warrants there and you just see how experienced judges from our senior courts are so much cleverer than a junior lawyer who could otherwise be appointed to these roles. [Interruption] What was that?Hon Christopher Finlayson: Nothing.Hon DAVID PARKER: Ha ha! No I do not think you want that on record. Ha ha! Excuse me while I regather my thoughts. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I know a junior lawyer who's becoming available.Hon DAVID PARKER: So the role of judges—yes we have plenty of retired judges who can do this sort of thing if it is not suitable for a current judge. So I would hope that the select committee looks at whether we should require that one of the review committee members be a judge. I do not have a view as to how big the committee should be. I do not think it should be too big. I think the people who should sit on it—I think three is the suggestion and that is good. The pool of people from which they are drawn can be bigger. I do not have a strong view as to that although maybe it needs to be a bit bigger than if it was just a small geographical area that was being considered if there is a case for some geographical representation.As little as possible and as much as necessary—well the way the second Act in 2010 tried to put in some controls was that it had a list of assets that could not be overridden including the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act for example but beyond that list anything could be. Again that was too broad. The Regulations Review Committee has recommended that we actually have a positive list in the legislation as to what can be overridden rather than leaving it to open slather again with some things that cannot be overridden even through that process. Is the list too long? Or is it too short? That is to be considered by the select committee.I just want to say in the short time I have available that I am not sure that we should allow that list to be lengthened through a regulation-making process rather than bringing it back to Parliament. Once it is done it is very hard for the Government of the day to actually concede: Oh well maybe we got that wrong." It is much better I think that you have parliamentary scrutiny if you are going to add to that list which is already a very long list and if there is a need to change it well the Government under urgency could just add something to the list with one debate essentially as we have done with other legislation here in respect of an addition such as that. With regard to the submission period I am a little disappointed that we have got to report back by Wednesday—by Wednesday is it? Jami-Lee Ross: Tuesday.Hon DAVID PARKER: Tuesday. I do not know why that could not be next Thursday. We could have still passed the legislation through later. It is one of the points that the Regulations Review Committee made. I know how difficult it was for a less important bill that we considered yesterday. We have been working very long hours to try to knock that one into shape and it was a good bill when it came to us. I would have thought we could allow ourselves a few more days to do that and therefore allow people who were interested in these issues to make submissions. I think by the time they read the Regulations Review Committee report and they reflect on how good this legislation is and how it is a further improvement with more checks and balances compared with the prior pieces of legislation a lot of them—if they actually have the time—will say "Well done." but we are hardly giving them the time to say that. So with that can I agree that this legislation is necessary and I look forward to the scrutiny of this legislation at the select committee."