Williams PotoPOTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): There is nothing that riles up the constituents of Christchurch East more than issues relating to their properties because over the last 6 or so years their properties have been front and centre of their minds—whether they have been damaged through earthquakes or damaged by waiting for a long time to have their home repairs completed. So I am really pleased to take a call on this bill and to commend Minister Upston for the way in which she was very inclusive of the Canterbury MPs in ensuring that this bill came to the House so that at least we can provide some certainty around their boundaries for property owners in the Christchurch East electorate.It is a very important issue because unlike many of the other areas in Canterbury—perhaps with the exception of Kaiapoi—it suffered the most lateral spread. The issue of lateral spread is where the land is stretched and in some cases that means as my colleague Dr Megan Woods mentioned someone's garage or a part of their fence may technically be on another person's property. So in order to ensure that we get these matters around property boundaries resolved it is really good that we can progress this piece of legislation through the House.The other impact I guess that has been significant in the Christchurch East area is in respect of liquefaction where great mounts of liquefaction actually came to the surface which could result in land levels actually dropping. One of the aspects of this particular piece of legislation is not just taking into consideration the lateral spread but also the fact that height of land has actually changed as well. Other than in regard to landslip and rockfall the notion of the vertical movement of land has also been taken into account when preparing new boundaries for property owners.As I say there is nothing that gets people in Christchurch East more riled up than issues about their properties and the value of those properties. So I am really grateful that we are progressing this particular piece of legislation through the House. If any of you happen to come to Christchurch East and drive along New Brighton Road there is a very real example of how the lateral spread has actually occurred—and that is actually just looking down the river. If you drive along New Brighton Road between the All Saints Church and the mall at The Palms you are literally driving below the level of the river because it has dropped that much. It is a very real representation of the issue that this piece of legislation is seeking to address. So many Cantabrians will be heartened to know that there will be some certainty around their boundaries. Clause 4 puts into practice what will be the end date for this particular piece of legislation. The Valentine's Day quake was a very real reminder that the earth has not stopped moving in Canterbury—that was quite a significant quake. So the fact that clause 4 actually extends the date out to 2022 is very useful. Within clause 8—of course my colleague talked about the title conflict—this clause seeks to insure and validate any of those interim surveys that were put into place during that interim period. They can now actually be validated and no longer be classed as interim.There were a limited number of submitters. Of course the Christchurch City Council would be a key submitter on this particular piece of legislation if only around the calculation of rates. The Christchurch City Council has been actively engaged with local residents with regard to their properties when it comes to a whole lot of other earthquake issues: with regard to increased flooding vulnerability and increased vulnerability to liquefaction as well.As my colleague commented a process for disputes is very useful. There will inevitably be lots of discussion amongst neighbours on where property boundaries should and should not be so that is very useful to ensure that that goes ahead.In conclusion I do want to say that there are still lots of very vulnerable people in Canterbury who are waiting and who have been waiting for a significant period of time to have some certainty around their properties—whether they are waiting for repairs or rebuild or whether they are waiting to be able to move on with their lives. If there is anything we are able to do to effect some quicker turnarounds than our people have been able to experience then I am all for that. On that note I commend the bill to the Committee.