Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you Madam Speaker. I start where Rachel Boyack left off by acknowledging those who have worked very hard on this legislation these past few days. Of course it's appropriate to acknowledge those who first of all on the night's flooding in Auckland and then in Cyclone Gabrielle which had great effects—significant effects of course across the country including on the East Coast of the North Island and further north and further afield too. We thank those who opened their doors; who were first responders at great risk to life and limb; and who are doing ongoing work and of course it's precisely because there is ongoing work that this legislation is needed to chart a path forward to enable the work that is already happening in some cases to be done in a way that doesn't fall foul of the law. So that's a major theme of the legislation. It's the reason that it needs to move quickly through this House and I do want to acknowledge the points that are very reasonably made by those who are saying that this House should be cautious of its use of urgency or truncated procedures. Of course they're right and I think everyone in this House would acknowledge that. Nevertheless for reasons that have been well articulated by the Government—first of all in the Business Committee context and then also in this House and at various points—it is necessary to move this quickly. I have sympathy as always with the proposal that post-enactment scrutiny would be better than nothing so I place that on the record as suggested for example in the select committee process yesterday by Dr Dean Knight. This legislation I suppose and disaster response more generally always provokes quite an existential question I suppose for an Opposition part of Parliament which is to say: do we support the Government or do we hold them to account? Of course I've framed that in a way that would be facile to view I suppose as mutually exclusive—of course we should support the Government to the extent that they are making good decisions that make the lives of New Zealanders easier and better but we should also hold them to account as the days and weeks and months go forward in terms of actions that are taken or not taken as the case may be. So in the spirit of supporting these excellent measures in the bill we have said that we will support it. We do support it including as I say—to be clear—the use of a truncated process because we have assessed that to be necessary in the circumstances. In terms of what the bill actually does the Minister has talked I think about the way that declarations can be made in different parts of the country and on a national basis and of course it's an unintended consequence that we might previously have had a legislative regime that precluded different areas being able to access the supports that they need. Of course we should check that the system is working well as the years go by if—heaven forbid—similar events were to occur in the future requiring that level of response across a wide geographical area but for now at least that seems the right fix to be made to remove that current technical problem in the law. As far as the time frames for Resource Management Act (RMA) consenting decisions and retrospective actions go I think that's very appropriate. We don't need to go into the whole question of the liberalisation of the RMA as proposed for example in the new legislation today to say that forgiveness versus permission is obviously a key dichotomy that people in my electorate and of course in others as well are considering. So I think for example of the people of Taupaki who discussed at a community meeting that I was able to attend the merits of actually just getting on and doing some of the works that they needed themselves. Of course the inevitable question of liability under the RMA or the health and safety Act was raised. The good people of that area have done the right thing. They've proceeded with caution to do what they need to protect themselves and their community and I think it's appropriate that we pass legislation that makes it clear that they shouldn't be exposed legally as well as physically to the risks inherent in doing so. As far as the Local Government Act is concerned it is yet another piece of legislation that's amended by this bill. It is omnibus which is to say a number of bits of legislation are being amended. There's a level of complexity to that in a Government response that's needed across different Ministers and different agencies. Others have acknowledged that but I've placed on record that I think it has appeared impressive to me from the outside that that work has been done so quickly and in such a coordinated fashion. To the point that again Rachel Boyack was making about online meetings I agree with those who have suggested that this is a move that should be made anyway and if we were not convinced of that already following the COVID-19 pandemic then we should simply get on and do that as a lawmaking institution. Without going down the rabbit-hole of a different portfolio certainly it seems to me that there are other areas for it in public life such as the court system in which we can make much better use of audiovisual technology. Also the obvious question is: if Parliament were not available to sit as we are doing now—for example if it were the Christmas - New Year period in which we were considering this kind of law—it would be that much more difficult and that much more time-consuming from the point of view of people on the ground to have the relief that we are able to provide today.So with those reflections I again reiterate National's support for the response in general notwithstanding that we will of course hold it to account as necessary in terms of actions subsequent. This legislation itself we think is needed it's needed in the time frame that the Government has put forward and so we will continue to support it through its passage for the remainder of today.