Court SimonSIMON COURT (ACT): So what have we learnt from the past 72 hours since this bill was introduced to the House—a day in the select committee and then this afternoon? Well what we've learnt is that three waters reforms which were passed last year in the form of the Water Services Entities Act prevented councils from renewing and upgrading infrastructure that was damaged by severe weather that local councils and asset owners have told the Government this and told the Finance and Expenditure Committee this last year and that the Government failed to acknowledge that in the legislation which means that there is a remedy included in this bill which will allow councils to make investments in fixing water treatment plants sewage treatment plants and all kinds of other pipe networks and infrastructure that they must repair and fix before the transition to the water services entities on 1 July 2024. So this was always known and this bill corrects that very very poor piece of legislation. But the ACT Party says it doesn't go far enough. The transition to the three waters entity should stop. It should cease until a thorough review of the three waters reforms—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Poto Williams): Can I just bring the member back to this bill.SIMON COURT: —certainly Madam Speaker—has been carried out. What we've also learnt is that the Resource Management Act (RMA) amendments proposed in this bill are weak and inadequate and don't go anywhere near far enough. They're limited to only allowing works to take place as permitted activities on rural land and on land that is Māori purposes zoning. It excludes commercial and residential land and it's commercial and residential land where businesses operate and where people live and that land is not included. That is a real disappointment to the ACT Party.The bill as amended and dropped on the Table this afternoon also includes an extra page and a quarter of numerals which will require people doing work on their land in response to the severe weather event—whether they're cleaning up slips whether they're putting roads and tracks in—to get consent and permission from iwi and hapū 20 days before the activity is undertaken. They've got to give notice and then they've got to get permission and then they've got to do it in the way that people who don't own that land believe it should be done.While I think it's absolutely important to acknowledge wāhi tapu and sacred sites on private land it seems completely unreasonable to impose what is essentially a business-as-usual approach to obtaining consent from interested iwi and hapū when what we're really talking about is cleaning up after a massive weather event where there's hundreds of thousands of tonnes of silt and debris lying across people's private property and all over council assets. So surely there must be a simpler way to identify these sites of significance particularly wāhi tapu if they're not already identified on a property title and then make sure when you're doing the digging and you're driving bulldozers around that you avoid those sites. And I would have thought that would be a conversation between neighbours because after an event like this it doesn't matter which culture you identify with which group you identify with everybody's in it together cleaning up. I can only imagine there's a much simpler way to do it such as negotiation identifying who the correct mana whenua are who are responsible for that wāhi tapu or sacred site and getting them around to have a look kick the tires on it and come to an agreement. This is a completely unnecessary cultural veto that's introduced into the bill.We are also really concerned that there still is the requirement to obtain retrospective consents. As submitters from various councils told the select committee yesterday this is going to mean having to go through a consenting process to prove why someone should be allowed to do something potentially months or a year or more after it's been done and there's no likelihood at all that the work is going to be undone. Is the culvert going to be removed from the channel? Is the road going to be moved 2 metres this way and 2 metres that way? Completely unnecessary. Councils have said they don't want to be tied up in all the red tape. It's going to cost a lot of time and a lot of money. Councils don't want to do the consenting and they don't feel that landowners or councils' own asset owners—that part of the council that owns the road or owns the pipes—should have to do it either. So again ACT is very very disappointed at how timid the Government's been with these amendments to the RMA.I just want to bring the attention of the House and people watching to what might have been. What might have been actually is set down in here ACT's 15 urgent ideas for recovery. [Holds up document] What we've asked for and what we're proposing in our report back in our alternative view is actually that a special economic zone should have been established in Tai Rāwhiti and Hawke's Bay which cleared all of the barriers to employment to immigration to resource management consenting cleared all those barriers out of the way and allowed people to get on with rebuilding in the same ways they did following the special legislation following the Kaikōura earthquake and following the earthquake sequence in Canterbury in 2010 and 2011.After Kaikōura's earthquake when entire hillsides fell down and blocked the main trunk railway line and the main highway between Picton and Christchurch what they did was they got a whole lot of bulldozers in and they pushed all of that rock into the sea and they widened the coastal platform which would allow the rail and the road to be reinstated very very quickly and at minimal cost—and I must say to a much higher standard an international standard of resilience when it comes to State highways. Imagine how long it would have taken them to get consent to do that work in the coastal area to dare to tread a bulldozer track in the coastal area under the existing RMA. So there is nothing in this legislation that will actually make it easier to recover and to reinstate infrastructure.Again as I pointed out in the second reading of the bill Waka Kotahi KiwiRail and the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission did not appear at the select committee; we didn't have a chance to ask them what else should be in this bill. But the ACT Party firmly believes that our 15 urgent ideas for recovery which include a special economic zone should have been taken into account. Minister they were available to download they were reported in the media and we would be happy to share with you—any time that you need advice the ACT Party is here. So on that note I want to say that the ACT Party will support this bill. We understand that there are some good things that will help people out in the short term but it goes a fraction of the way that the ACT Party would have gone in terms of allowing people affected by severe weather events just to get on and rebuild.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Poto Williams): The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday 28 March 2023. Have a safe and relaxing recess.The House adjourned at 4.53 p.m.