Court Simon; McAnulty KieranSIMON COURT (ACT): This question is about the amendments to the Resource Management Act (RMA) 1991 in Part 4. So the bill provides for regions to have more flexible Resource Management Act consenting processes where those regions have been affected by the storms and floods—severe weather events. So we've got Northland Auckland Waikato Bay of Plenty Gisborne Hawke's Bay Tararua Masterton Carterton and South Wairarapa. Federated Famers suggested that there were places that had suffered storm damage including in Manawatū—in the Rangitīkei region—where trees had been absolutely flattened and there were slips but they weren't included in the bill. A suggestion was made that rather than just trying to identify specific local authority regions or districts that actually the North Island" would have been a suitable geographical indicator. So I'd like the Minister responsible for the Resource Management Act amendments to answer that question: why wasn't the North Island allowed to be the area that these modifications apply to—on the basis that if there's damage from the severe weather events the damage has occurred no matter where it has occurred?The second question I'd like to ask is around activities undertaken in affected areas and why the zones that are allowed easier consenting pathways are limited to rural land; Māori purpose zoning land: marae papakāinga or urupā; and land used for the primary purpose of livestock and horticultural farming? Because what we have heard from submitters is that large areas of commercial property and residential property have also been affected—they've been damaged by floods; they've had silt through them they've been smashed they've had logs and slash and all kinds of things destroy homes and buildings. And yet commercial and residential property is not covered—in fact it's specifically excluded because this only applies to rural land.So submitters to the Governance and Administration Committee yesterday and the ACT Party would like to know why on earth don't the provisions allowing for easier RMA consenting apply to all property that's been damaged by the floods and storms? And notwithstanding the Hon Eugenie Sage's concerns that some of that land might have contaminants on it—well of course there are site management plans available to download off the internet to tell you how to clean up a contaminated site and what personal protective equipment (PPE) to wear. It's not something you necessarily need a consent for. There is other legislation—the Health and Safety at Work Act—that would tell you what PPE to wear when you're cleaning up potential contaminants. So if we could just get an answer to those first two questions: why are the regions so limited here; why does the legislation not simply just apply to land affected by storm damage? And why on earth are commercial and residential lands excluded from the flexibility provisions allowed for under these RMA amendments?Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister for Emergency Management): That's a reasonable question and it's an issue that we've been balancing throughout the response so far. The member will note that throughout the Government assistance we've tried really hard not to limit that just to those areas that had declared—and therefore were included in—the national state of emergency because we recognise that there are areas outside of those that did declare that also got damaged by the cyclone. So that explains the inclusion of the Masterton Carterton and South Wairarapa districts for example. The coastal areas of those regions were hit quite severely; the regions did not feel the need to declare because they were able to handle it locally but the damage was such that they warranted being brought in to the national transition phase they warranted being included in the business and farming support package and available for the civil defence payments. Extending that out to other provisions is also pretty complex because we recognise that there are areas that have been hit but being able to define those and target the assistance to the areas where it is needed is actually not a straightforward process. So what we've proposed is that in this bill we know the areas that have been impacted—and we know that in terms of the provision and the allowances that it offers to those that have been hit the bill is straightforward with these areas that have been hit and declared. The second bill that is coming through does give us an opportunity to look more broadly and provide assistance potentially to those areas that have been affected but haven't been included in the scope of this. Like I said in my first contribution the rationale was that we knew we needed to do this straight away. If we looked at what we're looking to do in the second bill as well as this that would have required a longer process thus delaying these things we needed to do now. So I guess in short what I'm saying is that we know we need to do these we're doing these but we will consider what other support we can provide including to those areas that are possibly outside of those that have been identified in these ones."