Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I rise to support the third reading of this bill. Could I just deal with the point that the Hon Gerry Brownlee referred to just before he sat down again which was the attempts by Labour and other parties to knock out clause 13 and a related clause later which the Greens picked up—I think it was clause 22. The effect of those clauses is to say that even if someone is adversely affected by something that has been done in breach of this they have not got a private remedy. The point I thought there was actually some sympathy for from some National Government members on the committee as well is that you can envisage a situation—for example up the Clarence River—where the river has been diverted and it might now be flowing across someone's land and they might think Oh well I've got the right here to divert the river." and they could be causing considerable harm to someone else. The council might say "Oh well it's happened now." and they might not do anything about it. Well that person has forever got no remedy under this. They have actually got to convince the council that it should do something rather than actually having the right to do it themselves even though they might be suffering that adverse impact. I thought that was unnecessary. It was not going to stop anything being done. No it would not have stopped anything from being done because this is only an enforcement proceeding that happens after things have been done in practice. It does not stop them doing it. It does not put them at risk for having done so. It would have just said that if they had gone too far or if there was an adverse effect on someone else eventually that could be addressed. Anyway that is a detail. This is a good bill. In respect of the other matter of substance I do not think the change that is being made in respect of the powers of councils and utility operators is substantial at all; it just changes the period that they have got to give notice of what they do rather than changing what they can do.The third leg of the bill—or the third leg of the stool—is the rehabilitation of Kaikōura harbour. I agree that that is a substantial change to the provisions of the Resource Management Act that would otherwise apply. I think it is necessary. I think we need to get on and start doing the excavation or the dredging that is necessary in order to make that port accessible—in part to get the tourism industry and the fishing industry going again. I think the mix of people who are required to be involved which is listed out in clause 19(2) is already quite an extensive list. I personally would have been happy for them to invite written comments from anyone else. I do not think that would have been too onerous for the consent authority to hear what other people thought. But the Government said it does not want it to go that broad and that is fair enough. I can understand that.I think the group that is left being asked to provide written comments is quite broad. It includes Ngāi Tahu and the relevant Papatipu Rūnanga the various councils the Kaikōura Coastal Marine Guardians Maritime New Zealand various Ministers Canterbury Regional Council—a lot of these people are democratically elected representatives of their local people anyway and so I would have thought you can rely upon them to take a pretty balanced interest. I am very happy to support this bill in its third reading."