Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Emergency Relief Bill

I move, That the Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Emergency Relief Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Local Government and Environment Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House on 1 December 2016, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Order 194(1)(b) and (c).

It gives me—it is not really an honour, because what we are doing here is introducing a bill that is absolutely necessary in these circumstances, and I think it is just worth traversing the fact that the House will consider shortly a bill that will move us from the emergency state into transition. This bill, however, is about making sure that people who have taken actions over the last 2½ weeks or so can do so with the comfort that they are not going to find themselves in breach of the law moving forward, provided the reasons for their actions do line up with the relatively, I think, generous provisions that are in the law.

We know that when you get an earthquake of the size of this one, it does cause damage of different types in different places. In Wellington here, it has been the shaking damage that has affected buildings. In Kaikōura, for example, it has often been landslips and the land slumping as well as the upwelling of the earth that has caused a considerable amount of difficulty.

One of those difficulties is that a town like Kaikōura, largely dependent on tourism, finds itself now caught with just a window of 2 hours on each side of high tide when people can get the boats out for whale-watching, for swimming with dolphins or feeding sharks or swimming with seals, for fishing charters, or for any other number of activities that go along at the side of that beautiful coast. They will have to have that harbour dredged, and they need to have that done very quickly in order to preserve the local economy. So this bill enables some of that, and when the committee considers the bill during the select committee process, it will look further at some of the questions that were raised in the cross-party forum as late as last evening. But, in essence, it is a bill that will allow things to move forward as quickly as possible.

I think the real point I want to make is that many of the provisions that are going to be in all of these bills are driven by the experience that came out of the Christchurch sequence of earthquakes. So it is not as if the officials, who have worked so very hard on these bills, have not had some points of reference—they have. They have also, I think, listened to the concerns that many would have about some constitutional matters that might be raised when you are passing exceptional law like this. So it is important then that if it is an exceptional circumstance, there is some terminating date, and in this case the bill will expire in 2018. So there is time for people to move and get their lives back as quickly as possible within the parameters, as I said earlier, set by this bill.

I am not sure that it requires a great deal more discussion. I am sure the contributions from others in the House will elucidate areas that they wish to highlight or explain their positions on, etc. But I finish this contribution by thanking all those who have participated in the process to date, and I assure anyone who is watching these processes that having this bill going to a select committee for a short time recognises its unique nature, but it is absolutely necessary.

The Labour Party supports this bill. Can I record my thanks in a similar way to that in which Minister Brownlee already has. I thank the Government for consulting other parties, and thank the other parties for their constructive engagement in respect of what should or should not be in this, the first of these bills.

I think that, in respect of these three bills, the most contentious, in the end, will be the third one, which we are considering later in the week. It hands over some regulation-making power to the executive to override statutes in a way that is unusual. I think that we have learnt some lessons from the Canterbury earthquakes, and that the inquiries that have been done by various arms of government—and also by the Regulations Review Committee of this Parliament—have come up with some changes that prescribe or limit the executive’s power to override statutes in a way that is more robust than was in the Canterbury legislation, which I think was properly criticised at the time as perhaps going a bit far.

Dealing with the Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Emergency Relief Bill, in particular—there are three main parts to this, and all three of these provisions are supported by the Labour Party.

The first deals with the really publicly owned infrastructure: land and works that are within the control of the local authorities—as opposed to within the control of private people—such as network utilities and, particularly, those works that are necessary for the support of life. It relaxes the rules that are in the Resource Management Act. There are already powers under the Resource Management Act, in sections 330, 330A, 330B, that confer powers to carry out emergency works, but the time frames—for the carrying out of that work, for the notification to the local authority when that sort of emergency work is done, and then, where necessary, for the application for a retrospective resource consent to legitimise it going forward—are a bit short. Some of those time frames, for example, are only 20 working days. The next 20 working days include the Christmas period, and I think the Minister is right to want to extend the date for the giving of advice to the consent authorities from—sorry, what is it? Is it 10 working days presently? It is being extended to 40 working days, and the time frame for applying for a resource consent has been extended to 120 working days. I think both of those are right.

The next part, which relates to certain activities of rural landowners or occupiers, is currently limited—as is the first part—to the Hurunui District, the Kaikōura District, the Marlborough District, and the Canterbury District. It is narrower than the first part—which also relates to the Wellington area—but in respect of emergency activities by private landowners or occupiers in the Hurunui, Kaikōura, Marlborough, or Canterbury Regional Council areas, there are certain activities that are deemed to be permitted that, were it not for this legislation, would, theoretically, require a resource consent. We suggested to the Government that if we were going to confer the power to rural land occupiers and owners to take emergency preventative or remedial actions, they had to be reasonable, and the Government has agreed to insert the words “reasonable grounds” in clause 10(1)(a). I understand that there may be some other suggestions from other political parties that we will consider during the brief period at select committee, but I think that is reasonable.

I was down at Culverden myself last week, and was actually there before they had the worst of their shakes—it was a few hours before. But even in respect of the earlier shakes that they had—I was on some farms and I had seen some of the tanks that had fallen over, and I also heard of problems that they have had with some irrigation works. I recognise that there is a need for a practical way for these farmers to go about their business, and I think that this part is appropriate.

The third part relates to the dredging work that is needed in respect of the Kaikōura harbour. I think everyone has seen the footage on TV of what used to be the land relative to the water and the entry into the water. What was showing at low tide is now the level at high tide, so there has been a considerable uplift of the seabed and it is necessary to dredge. I am not sure how serious the work is. I am not sure whether explosives will be necessary. I am not sure whether they will be able to just dredge it or dig it. I have seen some pretty big rocks there, which I suspect might require some explosives.

I see some reference here in the legislation already to require what is done to have as little impact on the marine environment and its flora and fauna as is reasonably practical. That is already written into the bill. What happens is that this activity—the dredging—becomes a controlled activity, which means that so long as they are acting according to the controlled-activities rules that the council requires of them, they do not need resource consent. They can just do it as a controlled activity, rather than having to advertise and go through some longer process to authorise it. As a consequence, I think, that is wise as well, and the Labour Party will support it.

I know that my colleague Grant Robertson said that Denis O’Rourke from New Zealand First made a worthy contribution at the cross-party grouping, where he suggested that there be some provision made so that whatever is dredged should have to be disposed of—if it is going to be disposed of at sea—in the place that will have the least environmentally adverse effect. That seemed to be a pretty practical suggestion to me as well, and I am sure that it is something that the select committee would be willing to have a look at.

This power in respect of the sea area—of all of these powers that have been conferred by Parliament today—will, I suspect, prove to be the most significant environmentally. Of course, while we are restoring the harbour—primarily for the benefit of tourism—we do not want to cause long-term harm to tourism by adversely affecting the flora and fauna, including the whales and seals and dolphins, which are the tourist attractions that we are trying to provide access to. That is already written into this piece of legislation, and I also know that the people who are to be consulted as part of the controlled activity process include the local council, the local rūnanga, and the local iwi. All of us know that the local whale-watch is owned and run by the local rūnanga, and it will, of course, have its own interest in not going too far in respect of these emergency works.

I do not think I need to take the full 10 minutes here. I think that this is a necessary piece of legislation and I think it is appropriately constrained, geographically. I note that the Government has left it open to add other regions or councils to the geographic areas that are covered by this bill, should we have aftershocks or should other parts of this earthquake sequence affect other districts. The Government has reserved the right to extend this to them by regulation, and, given the earthquake activity we are seeing following this series of quakes, I think that is wise as well.

Stuart Smith—welcome back.

It is good to be back, in one sense, but I am spending as much time as possible in my electorate and will be returning there tomorrow. I think one of the “pleasures” of being an electorate MP at a time like this—and I use the word advisedly—is getting around and talking to your constituents; not only finding out what issues they have got and attempting to deal with them, if you can, but also to be there on the ground and be the eyes and ears of this Parliament, because we have a lot of people coming and going but I am the constant, really.

It is a large area to get around, and the differences between the Rai Valley and D’Urville Island, all the way down to, say, Amberley or the Ashley Gorge are quite marked. Each of those areas has had its own experience—particularly from the Awatere River further south to the middle of the Hurunui, which is where the concentration of the damage from this particular earthquake is. I do mention the Awatere River because a creek in the Awatere Valley, with the rather unfortunate name of Isis, has a very large slip. If anyone has seen the photograph on Facebook of what looks like a little yellow smudge on the top of the slip—when you zoom in on it, it is a rather large digger sitting up on top of the slip—you get an idea of the challenge of clearing that slip.

I will come back to the bill in a minute or two, but there has been a lot of talk today about having alternative routes to State Highway 1. One that has been mentioned is the Molesworth route. What I think people forget is that Molesworth sits right on top of the Awatere Fault, and if you have driven up that road—and I know some members in the House have—you will know that that road gets rather challenging and rather tight in the valley as it approaches Molesworth. So the cost of getting that as a State highway would be enormous and, I think, far greater than fixing the road that we have. Also, Rainbow Valley has been mentioned: a wonderful road, if you have got a four-wheel drive. It would be hugely expensive to get that up to the level of a road. Both of those aforementioned roads are very high, and the significant snow challenge during the winter would be far greater than that experienced on the Desert Road. So I just thought I would put that in at the beginning.

The earthquake and getting around, I think, is quite different to a Christchurch earthquake. It is quite different to the damage that has occurred here in Wellington. I do not want to minimise that at all—it certainly has not been good for the people involved in it—but this is an earthquake that is really about communication. It is about, effectively, cutting off a part of New Zealand.

It gives me no pleasure in being right. I wrote a column some time ago where I had actually imagined the main Alpine Fault going and the whole of the top of the South Island and the West Coast being cut off from the lower East Coast, and that has partly come true with this particular earthquake. But what we have now found as a result of that earthquake is that we have farmers in a situation where they have had to take immediate action to get stock water to their animals to avert an animal welfare disaster—and they have done that without going in and filing the necessary consents. As you would imagine, the earthquake also did tremendous damage without filing the necessary consents, so I think we need to be flexible on that, and having the retrospective clauses in this bill, which allow those things to be tidied up for everybody to actually be able to follow the law, as it were—even in a retrospective way—is absolutely right and proper.

I had a rather good conversation in Kaikōura with Kauahi Ngapora, who is the general manager of Whale Watch Kaikōura, about the problems they are going to have there. Interestingly, I have written a letter—this is around the port—I wrote a letter in support of the Kaikōura District Council applying to the tourism infrastructure fund to do some blasting in the port entranceway because there is a rock sticking up proud in there, and to also put in some beacons for boats to get in there safely. It is amazing to see it approaching high tide and the Whale Watch boats not having a chance of getting out there until right on high tide. So it is a phenomenal force that has lifted that ocean bed up there. It is something you actually have to see to understand what has actually happened there. So for the lifeblood of this town—not just for Whale Watch but for all sorts of communication—this is a vulnerable piece of coastline and always will need access to have a possibility of getting boats in to get supplies and things off. As for air traffic, as we all know getting supplies in and out of Kaikōura is quite challenging at a time like this, and an air bridge—as we attempted to do and did very successfully—is not going to be the only means of transport. The navy getting in there needed to be able to use that port, so it is great that that dredging will be able to be made possible by the passing of this bill.

I do want to acknowledge the work that has been done by the lead Minister here, the Hon Gerry Brownlee, and the support he has had from other parties across the House to get these very much-needed bills in front of the House is fantastic. I acknowledge that and I think that when the going gets tough the tough certainly do get going. It is great to see that the House has come together to support the communities in the way that it has, and so I wanted to acknowledge that.

The communities and the councils: the Kaikōura District Council is actually our second-smallest council, if you count those on Chatham Islands, and I do not mean to leave them out in any way, but it is a different set of circumstances for the Chathams than it is for the Kaikōura District Council. Most of the area in the Kaikōura area is actually owned by the Crown—something like 70 percent of the land—and of course the Crown does not pay rates so it is quite a resource-poor, I would say, council. I actually do acknowledge how well it has stepped up to deal with the issue, but it is really stretched and this legislation with some of the clauses in it will be very helpful for that council.

The Hurunui District Council, further south, also, if my memory serves me correctly, has the most kilometres per ratepayer of any council in the country. So, again, it is a quite rural council, and we have an area that the legislation will help to cover: north of Ōhau Point up to Tirohanga Flat, which is an area including the Clarence Valley, which is effectively in no man’s land now—it is cut off from Kaikōura and it is not part of Marlborough. So this legislation and subsequent pieces of legislation will actually help to deal with those issues, and will be very gratefully received.

I do note that there has been some work done on riverbeds that has rediverted, without resource consents, rivers that the earthquake had put over farmland, but these will now be able to be applied for retrospectively. Ironically, had they waited the required period to do that work—which, of course, was not ever going to happen in this situation—it would be a much more difficult task because the river would have cut in and cut its path much more deeply that it had in the past.

I think I probably should end it just about there, but I would really like to go and circle back to the people who are most involved in this. The people in Kaikōura are watching—they may not be able to watch it on television but they will be hearing what is going on here today. It is very important that we move quickly as a Parliament—and we have. If we do not move these things quickly we will not get the result that we need. We had some of the highest levels of traffic on State Highway 1 south at this time of the year—it could not have been a worse time—and we do need to move things as quickly as possible and so I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker, tēnā koutou ngā rau rangatira huri rauna i tō tātou Whare. Me pēnei taku korero: ko Te Tapuwae-ō-Uenuku te maunga, ko Te Tai-ō-Marokura te moana, ko Takahanga te marae, ko Ngāti Kurī te hapū, ko Ngāi Tahu te iwi, nō reira; tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and acknowledgments to you esteemed ones of a hundredfold throughout our House. Allow me to say this: the mountain is Tapuwae-ō-Uenuku, the sea is Te Tai-ō-Marokura, the marae is Takahanga, the subtribe is Ngāti Kurī, and Ngāi Tahu is the tribe; therefore, salutations, greetings, and acknowledgments to you and to us all.]

I wanted, at the outset, to relay the pepeha for my whanaunga at Kaikōura, the hapū of Ngāti Kuri, and also extending through to the community of Kaikōura. Those geographical features of the landscape—yes, they have withstood a magnitude 7.8 earthquake, but the mountain, the moana, the coastline, the marae, the hapū and the iwi stand firm, stand resolute, and stand strong. So I wanted to, first of all, acknowledge this in this my first contribution back in the House.

I want to acknowledge Mr Smith, my colleague. We share the same geographic space, with the Kaikōura and Hurunui districts, albeit mine is slightly larger. You could add another 20 more electorates on to his electorate and you will just cover Te Tai Tonga, but I would like to acknowledge his work in the immediate aftermath, as the local member. There is one other constant, and that is the Māori member—and that is I. I am the other constant member, the other local constant member who is there to dutifully serve my constituents, who mostly are my whānau, and I would like to put a plug in for the Māori member as well.

Last Wednesday, I was fortunate enough to speak at the daily public briefings that take place on Churchill Park, and I was joined by our leader, Andrew Little, and also Mayor Winston. It was heartening just to see that although there was hardship amongst the local community, there was a real sense of determination to get things back to normal in Kaikōura. That was very strong. Do not get me wrong—things are tough there at the moment, particularly with the access routes being closed off and the flow-on effects, obviously, through the damage done through the earthquake to the infrastructure, and, in particular, the impact on housing, the temporary relocation of whānau outside of the district, and the economic impact on the tourism industry in particular, and on all the interconnected businesses and the fisheries industry. But there was a sense of determination that they would get through this and that they wanted to bring normality back to their lives.

I spoke at that public meeting, as did Andrew Little, and we gave a reassurance—because that meeting took place just in the initial stages of the crafting of this legislation—that we would work in a cross-party fashion and approach to ensure that we would expeditiously pass this legislation. So I am delighted to be able to do that—to be able to stand here at this first reading.

I want to take this opportunity—because this is my first—to say that although with this bill we are moving into a recovery effort, a recovery phase, I must give some acknowledgments to those who responded at the emergency phase whom I have had the pleasure of mixing with in my various helicopter visits and vehicle rides over rough terrain and massive cracks and landslips. I got to talk to the local people and also the wonderful emergency services and other support that have been there and that continue to be there.

In particular, I do want to acknowledge the community, obviously, of Kaikōura. We are there and we are supporting them through this, but I also acknowledge the local hapū, Ngāti Kuri and the wonderful work that they have done and continue to do in Takahanga Marae. I also acknowledge Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu and the wonderful work that they did with the use of their helicopters, the deployment of staff, support, getting provisions in, dealing with local families—absolutely unbelievable—and even extending that back to the whānau in Tuahiwi, Ngāi Tūahuriri, who have been hosting, and still are hosting, some evacuees at the marae there. This effort cuts across all the communities, and we are putting forward this legislation, which is going to help get the resulting approvals or consents that are required to deal with all of the compliance aspects of emergency work that is being undertaken.

I do not intend to take up too much time, but I wanted to say just quickly that we know that we are dealing with an emergency situation, so the usual time frames, even the usual emergency time frames, have to be extended in extraordinary circumstances. We all support and endorse the intent around that, but I want to focus on the restoration of the harbour aspect. For those who know Kaikōura, South Bay is the main marina, the main access route for all boats and other vessels, so it services the fishing industry and the tourism industry right there in that marina. As we know, there has been a major uplift of the coastal area, which means that access is permitted only roughly around high tide, so it has caused a huge disruption. But I was fortunate enough to, again, talk to my whanaunga at Whale Watch Kaikōura, Kowahinga and Ngāpora, and also the wonderful people at Encounter Kaikōura, who also run a well-renowned business with the dolphins. It is essential that this dredging work take place to allow access to the port. It was good to talk to the engineers who were already on site. Engineers, Environment Canterbury people—there is a lot of mobilisation of expertise, and these people are planning how they are going to tackle those works.

Having fished in South Bay recreationally, I have lost quite a few cray pots just beyond the passage routes where the vessels come in and out. It is rocky; it is pretty hard down there. So I am sure that there will be quite a lot of works that will be required, and, as we know, the work that will be taking place will require some exceptional amendments to the Resource Management Act to ensure that it can be carried out in compliance with the law.

Just in conclusion, I do want to once again commend everyone who has been involved from all sides in the creation of this legislation, and I also commend the referral to the Local Government and Environment Committee. I know that it will be continuing this good work tomorrow, however long it takes, while the House is sitting, to hear and follow a robust process so that we can bring the bill back on Thursday and complete its passage through the House.

To conclude, I would just like to say: apiti hōno tātai hōno, rātou te hunga mate ki ā rātou, āpiti hōno tātai hōno, tātou te hunga ora ki a tātou. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora huihui mai anō tātou katoa.

[The lines are joined, they the dead to themselves and we the living to ourselves. So salutations, greetings, and acknowledgments to us all once again assembled here.]

It is a pleasure to take a short call on this Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Emergency Relief Bill, but before I commence my comments, I would just like to acknowledge the contributions of the previous speaker, Rino Tirikatene, and also of my friend and colleague Stuart Smith, the local member of Parliament in Kaikōura. I thank them for the work that they both are doing on behalf of their constituents at a time of exceptional circumstance and a time when, actually, exceptional responses are required.

It has been just on a fortnight since the 7.8 magnitude earthquake hit, and in that time the Government and this Parliament have responded promptly, quickly, and with great urgency to the situation, which is now one of recovery. But during that period of time, it became very clear—and one of the learnings from the disaster in Canterbury and Christchurch 5 or more years ago was that it was really important to get communities and businesses up and running and on their feet again absolutely as soon as possible. For some of the farmers and some of the people involved in horticulture and other businesses in the area, they have had to make some on-the-spot, on-the-ground, urgent, prompt decisions that may have taken them outside the realms of existing legislation. So what this bill seeks to do is to actually put right some of those things in terms of their legal responsibilities, and it is legislation that means that, in a sensible and realistic manner, property owners, businesses, farmers, and the like will be able to do—and have already done—some emergency work in order to allow access, to facilitate the flow of water, and to ensure that sewage and effluent is being properly managed and treated. They have had to take some measures to make sure that that happens.

So this bill essentially does three things. It provides a temporary increase in the time frames with regard to retrospective consents for emergency works undertaken under the Resource Management Act, and that is right and appropriate, given the situation that we find ourselves in. Secondly, this bill proposes that emergency works to farm properties become permitted activities through until the end of March next year, and that also seems to be an appropriate and sensible time frame. Thirdly, this bill allows for work to be commenced on the restoration of Kaikōura’s harbours. If Kaikōura is to thrive again, and thrive again quickly, then access to the sea is essential.

I noted just this afternoon that the Environment Canterbury Chair, David Bedford, has said that he was “pleased the Government has … acted quickly and decisively”, that this legislation “will enable a pragmatic approach to rebuilding the communities as quickly and as efficiently as possible”, and, thirdly, that many of the provisions that have been introduced in this legislation are a direct result of the learnings that have taken place after the Christchurch earthquakes.

In a slightly unusual situation, this bill will be referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee for a day. We will sit tomorrow to go through it in more detail, and I am looking forward to working—as we always do on the committee—collaboratively with members across the House to ensure that this bill is scrutinised with care, albeit in a quick way. I commend the bill to the House.

Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to take a call on the Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Emergency Relief Bill. I have seen the twisted bridge over the Ōtākaro/Avon River, the massive slumping and cracks beside the Avon in Christchurch, the liquefaction, the sand volcanoes, and I have heard the cliffs tumbling down in Lyttelton Harbour, but that still did not prepare me for seeing firsthand the massive damage that the earthquake has wrought in the Kaikōura area—the size of the slips and the major uplift that has occurred in the seabed, which is quite unprecedented. When we hear of our island moving centimetres north as a consequence of the earthquake, the scale of the response needs to be similarly significant.

That is one of the reasons why the Green Party is supporting the bill to the Local Government and Environment Committee, because we know that in emergency situations like this the Government does need to act quickly. We certainly appreciate the discussions across Parliament that Minister Brownlee has convened, and his willingness to accept the suggestions of some of the Opposition parties. We would suggest that if he could commend that approach to some of his colleagues, particularly where it comes to the Resource Management Act and the changes we are seeing there, that, actually, will result in better legislation. So we would like to place on record our thanks to the Minister for the collaborative way in which he has gone about developing this legislation, and we are pleased that, even as late as at last night’s meeting, some of the changes that were suggested there have been developed by officials and included in the bill. So we also acknowledge the huge amount of work that public servants have been doing on this legislation.

Kaikōura had grown from a small and pleasant coastal town to a thriving nature tourism destination before the earthquakes, and we hope that it will be again. This is because of its natural geography, because of that spectacular wild and distinctive coastline and its marine environment. The feature of the Kaikōura Canyon, going offshore just north of Goose Bay and staying quite close to shore for a couple of kilometres—it is that deep canyon, and the very biologically rich waters of the canyon, that attracts a lot of the marine life, particularly the whales and the dolphins. That is fundamental to why people come to Kaikōura.

So, of course, with the seabed uplift preventing boats accessing the pontoons that the whale watch vessels, the dolphin encounter vessels, and other vessels use, meaning that those can be accessed only at a much more limited range of the tide, there is a need to ensure that boats can get back into the harbour by doing some rehabilitation works. The concerns that the Green Party has around changes to the Resource Management Act are where they override processes that allow the community to contribute the information that they have about places that they value and care about, and places that they often know a lot about.

So this bill, in terms of the provisions around South Bay and also the north harbour at Kaikōura, around the Ingles Bay wharf, does override the Resource Management Act. It provides for a truncated process: one where there are no appeals and one that is considered as a controlled activity, which of course means that the blasting, the dredging, and the work associated with that must be given consent to by the councils, but conditions can be added in terms of how that activity is carried out.

We are pleased that there was a small change made to the bill, because at the moment, under the truncated process, there is a range of organisations that are consulted with—Te Rūnunga o Ngāi Tahu, and any relevant Papatipu Rūnanga, and the Kaikōura Coastal Marine Guardians, who were appointed with the establishment of the whale sanctuary and Hikurangi Marine Reserve—but there was originally no provision for notification to the public. Now there is the possibility of councils actually notifying it. So we would encourage the councils, Kaikōura District Council and Environment Canterbury, to do that because people like fishers and residents can often contribute a lot of valuable information that assists in ensuring that the decision is a good one and that appropriate conditions are attached to avoid, remedy, and mitigate any potential effects.

With blasting work, particularly, some are talking of significant rocks being blasted as part of this work, and that will have impacts on the marine environment. They will reduce marine habitat, there will be sediment, and of course there is the critical issue of where the blasted and dredged material is deposited. The bill, as I understand it, provides for that to occur on land rather than at sea, and then where that happens, because of the large volumes of material that will probably come out, is also important because it is the natural character of the coast and those distinctive landscapes that people enjoy about Kaikōura. We do not want to see this urgent activity undermining the attractiveness of the coast and the town for the thousands of visitors who we hope will be coming back to Kaikōura in future when the transport links are restored.

The bill, as well as allowing the rehabilitation of the harbour, also, as others have noted, overrides the Resource Management Act in allowing farmers who need to do works in riverbeds, to do earthworks, and other associated work in response to the earthquake to do that as a permitted activity without the need to get a retrospective consent from the relevant district council. It also extends the time frames for people who have done emergency works, using the existing provisions under the Act, to actually notify the councils of those works. So this bill does go some way to reassuring those who have done work urgently that they do not have to go through the resource consent process. We have more concerns about the legislation that will be brought to this House later this week, where Ministers are likely to get quite significant powers to override not only the Resource Management Act but a number of other pieces of legislation.

We are pleased that in this bill there have been some safeguards put in, but there is a range of organisations to be consulted with around the Kaikōura Harbour works. We will also be looking very closely at the bill that is introduced later this week in order to look at the extent to which there are further safeguards as suggested by members of the cross-party group. We are pleased that the bill that is coming later in the week has got additional safeguards compared with the legislation that was introduced in the aftermath of the Canterbury earthquakes.

It is a major task for everybody in Kaikōura. The community there is responding in the way one would expect. People recognise, I think, that it is a long hard road to recovery. This bill, with the changes around the harbour, does take a step to ensuring that those nature tourism trips—for the whale watch to work and for the dolphin encounter people to take visitors out—are able to happen in the most expeditious way possible. Thank you.

New Zealand First will be very happy indeed to support this bill and, indeed, to do all we can possibly do to support the people of Kaikōura and surrounding districts. The scale of the damage to homes, businesses, farms, and roads and other infrastructure demands urgent action to ensure that the complex provisions of the Resource Management Act do not operate to prevent quick action to facilitate recovery—and for as long as is necessary, while, of course, still optimising environmental protection as far as it is practicably possible to do.

The first thing the bill does is extend the time frames where that is needed. The time for people who have had to undertake emergency work on their land will now be 40 working days—or, in other words, 8 weeks—instead of 1 week, to advise the relevant consent authorities. The time within which a resource consent for such works must be applied for is increased from 20 to 120 working days. New Zealand First would have been happy to support longer periods, if that had been proposed. We know that when people are under stress and have such a lot to do as a result of an event like this, we actually need to give them ample time and opportunity to comply with the law, so if the time limits were greater, we would have no difficulty with that at all. We also support the list of the districts that the bill applies to, stretching all the way from Hurunui, through Kaikōura and Marlborough, to Wellington and Hutt City. We also support, in that regard, the provision to add other areas, should they become affected by the continuing earthquake sequence, by way of Order in Council.

I want to turn now to the all-important issue of Kaikōura harbour access, because that, of course, is one of the most urgent matters needing attention. As we know, around 100 metres of coast has been uplifted as part of the ongoing and intense geological processes of mountain-building in this part of New Zealand, which has gone on for incredible periods of time and, no doubt, will continue to do so. Kaikōura harbour sits right there—right on the edge of that process—and its works are critical infrastructure, not only vital for tourism and fisheries businesses but also providing access for many other things, including emergency supplies.

Even before the earthquakes, I know, from using my own boat in that area, that access on both sides of the Kaikōura Peninsula was actually always very difficult—it is very rocky and quite a difficult place to gain access to the shore from—so I have got some idea of what will be involved now that the seabed has risen. I am told that it has been lifted by something like 2 metres, on average, across the whole area, which is actually massive when you think about it. That means that many of the harbour facilities are either out of action or can be used for only very short periods of time, at the top of the tide. Dredging is going to be needed as soon as possible to address that problem, and sections 330 and 330A of the Resource Management Act, which authorise emergency works, will be necessary to implement it.

But, of course, current planning rules make that seabed work non-complying. This bill makes it a controlled activity so that retrospective consents will be obtainable and so that the work can be carried out as of right but with suitable conditions. New Zealand First has no difficulty with that and thoroughly supports it. We have asked for only one minor change to clause 15, in relation to the deposition of the material removed as a result of the dredging process. In addition to the provisions in clause 18—requiring, simply, the consideration of environmental effects on the activity—we have also sought in clause 15 itself a requirement for attention to be paid to the place or places, whether on land or on the seabed, chosen as the site for the deposition of the material. This is so that, to the greatest extent practicably possible, the least harm to the marine environment will be caused. The marine environment is critical to Kaikōura for tourism and fishing and so on.

With regard to the remediation work required for State Highway 1—by far the biggest amount of work needed—New Zealand First accepts that the scale of the damage is so huge and the degree of urgency is so great that to ensure that the road is opened as soon as the work to remove the slips and rebuild the road can be done, both to the north and to the south of Kaikōura, the usual provisions in the Resource Management Act concerning the deposition of the vast amount of materials involved will simply not be practicably possible. Therefore, the material will simply have to go on to the foreshore as is, where is—the foreshore, which, of course, itself has already been significantly damaged by the earthquake.

New Zealand First also accepts the emergency provisions in clause 10, which allows rural landowners to take emergency remedial action where danger to life or to the environment or to stock, land, or property is concerned, provided that the action they take is proportionate to the loss. In each of those cases, the remedial activity will be deemed as a permitted one. That is very appropriate, given the need for those people to take quick action to save their stock or, indeed, to save life, and to get on with the farming activity that they need to do. We thoroughly support that approach.

Finally, the provisions in clause 19 concerning the new requirements around the consents for controlled activities—including the requirement to advise the organisations that are listed in the bill, and to allow them to comment and for those comments to be properly considered—are very necessary and very appropriate. There are many people and organisations, as well as Government departments and so on, that have expertise they can use, that can provide local knowledge, and that can make sure the right decisions are made. So it is very important that the Minister concerned does get that input, does consider it properly, and, where appropriate, does take notice and take appropriate action.

I think that that is actually a very important part of the bill. It is one that has not been mentioned so far, but I have mentioned it because I think that it is one of the most important things that the Government should do, which is to actually listen to local people and to those with the expertise so as to make the right decisions first time up and, therefore, not have to go back and fix things again later. We support the restrictions on appeals in those circumstances for the same reasons: get it right the first time, listen to the people, and, therefore, you do not need appeals because they are simply not necessary. I think that is the appropriate way to proceed, and we thoroughly approve of clause 19 for that purpose.

We in New Zealand First also wish to express our gratitude to the Minister for our having been consulted so well in the development of this bill. It is a process that we would like to see done more often. We particularly appreciate the opportunity in this case, and we trust that our input on the development of the bill has been helpful and that it will be understood and supported by local people in the affected areas as well. With those comments made, and wishing the people of Kaikōura all the best for a speedy recovery, we will certainly be voting in favour of the bill.

I rise in support of the Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Emergency Relief Bill in this first reading. Given that it is my first time speaking since the dreaded earthquake, my thoughts and prayers go out to the people who have endured it, to those who have lost loved ones in the earthquake, and to those who are now dealing with the consequences—living with the consequences—of the earthquake day in and day out. As part of that I would like to pay tribute to my colleague and friend Stuart Smith, MP for Kaikōura. He has done a stellar job in representing his people. He was there on the ground right from the word go. He has been listening, and he has been advocating fiercely on behalf of his community. It is a tribute to him that this Government has come in and sprung in behind him. It has the experience since Christchurch to come in behind Stuart Smith and assist the people of northern Canterbury through this dreadful period.

I actually want to touch on the fact that there is solidarity throughout New Zealand in support of north Cantabrians, and I actually want to pay tribute to the Invercargill City Council, which has sent building inspectors up to North Canterbury to help and assist with the inspections of buildings. There is also just the general public. Murihiku Marae, for example, swung in behind the efforts and had a bit of a bake off to bake cookies to send up to the people of Kaikōura to keep them in good spirits, given that they are dealing with some significant challenges given that access has been cut off and is creating significant havoc in respect of their businesses and daily lives.

This is a pragmatic bill. This is a good bill. It is one springing off the efforts of Canterbury. We know what needs to be done, and as part of that there will be emergency work that needs to be carried out to make life a little bit more normal as we move forward. It is not about overriding the Resource Management Act carte blanche, but it is about practical solutions moving forward to make sure the work occurs to stabilise land, to protect livestock, for example, or to help with animal welfare—whatever it is to make life a little bit easier, to make things come back on to mainstream more quickly and efficiently.

So the bill is one that, as I said before, is pragmatic, and I am very pleased that it is well supported throughout the House. Again I pay tribute to Mr Stuart Smith. He has been on the ground. He has been advocating. This is a Government that has swung in behind the efforts. We have the experience. We are in a good fiscal position to be able to manage our way through this earthquake. I wish the people of northern Canterbury all the best.

A 5-minute call on behalf of the Green Party—Steffan Browning.

I rise to speak on the Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Emergency Relief Bill. The earthquake has, obviously, affected everybody here, but some of us maybe a little more personally. I had to evacuate straight away from Aorangi beach near Blenheim. I ultimately went down to Clarence almost as far as I could go on the Monday afterwards, basically because we were aware of a flood potentially coming down the Clarence River that would potentially knock out homes and take lives of people when the lake that had built up behind a major slip into the Clarence River breached.

At the emergency hub that morning I noted that they had no communications into Clarence at that stage, but they had had a thumbs-up to the helicopters from every house, although some of them were extensively damaged—totally written off, I would say. When I got to Clarence that next day the thing that stood out, in a way, was the effect on water. Farmers’ tanks had been ruptured. Their pipes that had solid offtakes had broken. They definitely will be replaced with flexible offtakes in the future. They had no stock water—and this was on very big farms. Waiau-Toa Station, on the coastal side of the Clarence River, was totally inaccessible because a significant bridge had gone. I noticed that on the 12 o’clock briefing paper that very first day they still had not noted that.

This bill is very, very relevant to that, because the farmers and the landowners in that area have already pushed a road through on the south side of the Clarence to make sure that everybody can now get out. For a number of days that was certainly not possible. There is massive slippage and slumpage in that area from the Papatea Fault, which has done major uplifting of the seabed in that area too. That has made the local crayfishermen not even be able to get their boats out, because the ramps are lifted high and dry from the water. This bill will help those farmers with their retrospective Resource Management Act (RMA) work.

That bridge, when it fell up there, probably diverted the Clarence River, because it now flows across what was very productive pasture. I have photos of that in previous times. They have got an alternative route along the back, but now there seems to be a permanent river flowing up above the old riverbed. Farmers can get in and make some recovery of that all the better from this bill. When I went down to Kaikōura by chopper on the Wednesday I was able to look down into there. Actually, I dropped in three cartons of what was seen as top of the list then: Portaloo sanitisers were needed. They had the loos but nothing to stop disease or illness getting through Kaikōura. At Whale Watch Kaikōura we could see that those boats could get out only on a medium upwards tide. So, again, if we want that tourist industry to flourish we will need the application of this bill.

Although this bill gives wider power or ability for things to happen that might not quite go to the extent of RMA consents and the likes, it will be an obligation on everybody operating under it to still take responsibility to protect both the safety of people around them and the environment. We will be supporting this bill to select committee. It is a very necessary bill in its present state. Thank you.

A 5-minute call on behalf of the Labour Party—Damien O’Connor.

Labour supports this bill. It seems, on the face of it, to be a very sensible piece of legislation at a time when there is urgent action needed by both the Government and councils. Labour has had some input into it—and I acknowledge the Acting Minister of Civil Defence—one piece of that being quite an important adjustment that says that all things should be “reasonable”. We are not asking for absolute powers here. Everything should be judged against a reasonable proposition put forward. I hold up this paper here, one of the farming papers, Farmers Weekly. The headline is “Shocker”. I guess that summarises what the rural sector thinks of what has happened here.

I go back to the 1980s to just remind people what Kaikōura was back then. Many people had written it off, really. There were a few farms. But through amazing efforts—and I have to acknowledge Wally Stone and his determination and his appreciation of what Kaikōura had. It had amazing wildlife and in particular it had a few whales that were spouting off the coastline. With the help of Ngāi Tahu and their commitment, that was turned into an amazing venture that brought that town to life. Unfortunately, nature has once again brought it to its knees, and I think we have an obligation in Parliament to do everything to help it get back on its feet and up and running. It will not be an easy job.

The provisions in this piece of legislation are sensible. They just mean that if work has to be done—reasonable work—to help farmers in particular to get water back to their stock, or to open up their laneways to allow stock to move from one paddock to another, or just to get them up and able to milk their cows again, then that should take place. If it would have required a resource consent, then they can apply for that retrospectively, and I am sure the councils will deal with that very, very sensibly.

There is not much to argue about, but I will say that I went and I visited on the Friday before last. I have to acknowledge Hamish Dobbie, who was there as the chief executive of the Hurunui District Council. He fronted a meeting—the first public meeting of that community. I have to say—this is a message for the Government—that they were very wary. Many of those people were refugees from Christchurch. They had gone up to Waiau to seek refuge, to get a safer place. They did not have a lot of money, and they were being told by officials that “All will be good. We’ll look after all your insurance claims.” Well, I have to say, those local people were very, very cynical. It will be up to the Earthquake Commission and the other Government agencies to treat those people with more respect than they perhaps have had in Christchurch and to deliver on the ground in a more timely way than has happened. I am sure that everyone will be learning from that.

I have to say that there are some things we should learn from this. The legislation cannot legislate for it, but we are helping things to get back on the way forward. Resilience is a very trendy word at the moment, but it is actually a very true one too. What the Government has done is, of course, squeeze funding for roading through the whole of the South Island. I drove through Lewis Pass 4 days after the earthquake. There were huge potholes appearing. The road was being hammered. There will be requirements, I am sure—and I acknowledge this legislation does allow for resource consents outside the two core areas—for urgent work. I think there will be urgent work required on the Lewis Pass road and the other roads around Murchison to ensure that they remain safe. If we end up with huge potholes without work being done to fix them they will become unsafe very, very quickly. The bill does allow for that, as I understand it. It is not just the Hurunui and the Kaikōura district councils. They are not the only two that have relief through this legislation, and I know the Government will have to do that.

I am not going to say any more, because we do want to pass this bill. I have just a couple of other reminders, though. I think Fonterra might be regretting the decision to close the factory at Kaikōura. I think that the message for Fonterra is, again, resilience. Having huge big super-sites may not always be the best solution in a country that is very, kind of, young and very seismic. We need to keep at the back of our minds that these events will happen and that we always need a plan B. This legislation allows Kaikōura and North Canterbury to get up on their feet again, and Labour supports it.

I stand to take a short call on this bill. I want to add my thanks and tributes to Stuart Smith, our member of Parliament in the Kaikōura area. Stuart has done an amazing job since the night of the earthquake, something that is terrifying, and I think that what he did from the time the earthquake struck—going out to see what he could do—right through to today and beyond is a tribute to him. Well done, Stuart. I also want to put my thoughts and thanks to the people of the Kaikōura and Hurunui districts for your resilience. As they said, that is the key word in the House today; it is resilience—staying in your areas and slowly but surely working through the repairs that are going to be required.

I want to thank our Minister of Defence. He has done an amazing job—the Hon Gerry Brownlee, who is also the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission—in mobilising the Defence Force as quickly as he did. Thank you to the air force for the air transport and air evacuation and surveillance and to the army for getting the supplies into Kaikōura as soon as those roads were open—and thanks to the road workers for making that happen, and keeping an eye on those roads, because I have seen photos of what could be a potential big slip happening along that road, so I want to thank them, as well. Thank you to the navy, the HMNZS Canterbury and Wellington, for transporting the people, the tourists and the people who wanted to leave Kaikōura, on their ships down into Lyttelton. I want to thank countries—the US, Australia, Canada, and Japan—for offering their naval support in our time of need, and I want to thank especially the USS Sampson, the HMAS Darwin, and the HMCS Vancouver for coming to our assistance, as well.

Finally, I want to thank the whānau of Takahanga Marae for the thousands of meals that they supplied throughout this whole time, right up until Sunday, and for the shelter that they offered to the many who required it in Kaikōura. Thank you to Sir Mark Solomon for actioning Ngāti Kuri into and being part of that whole support system. Many think that marae are there for Māori to do Māori things in, but this particular event showed that they are not. They are there for the community, for community to use. I commend the bill to the House. Kia ora.

Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker, otirā, me ngā mema o Te Whare nei, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and my appreciation at the same time to all of us, the members of this House.]

It is pleasing to follow on from all previous speakers, who have spoken in support of the Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Emergency Relief Bill. Can I first acknowledge, particularly, those who lost loved ones in this tragedy, the families who are still picking up the pieces, and the community of Kaikōura. As the member for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti we have had our fair share of disasters, but, at the moment, I am acknowledging your particular disaster and I am acknowledging those who lost dear ones.

I want to acknowledge the resilience of the community of Kaikōura. Yes, we have all responded—the Government has responded, the wider community of Aotearoa has responded—but at the end of the day, the community of Kaikōura still has many challenges ahead of it. This is where this bill is, as the Minister has said, an attempt to move barriers and inhibitors, particularly around the Resource Management Act, to ensure that those who are picking up the pieces on the ground are able to do that in a timely and efficient way.

Recovery, repair, restore, re-establishment—all these “R” words are what this particular bill is attempting to do. There have been comments that retrospective lawmaking is not ideal, but in this situation, where we have got this tragedy in front of us, we do need to come together as parliamentarians in this particular House to make sure that we are putting in the right legislation to enable the recovery, the repair, the restoration, and the re-establishment. I do also want to echo the Minister’s acknowledgment of the officials who, since the earthquake, have obviously worked really, really hard to bring these two particular bills to the House.

The bill does three things. Firstly, it temporarily increases the time frames for notification of retrospective resource consents for emergency works from 7 working days to 40 working days, and the time to apply for resource consent will increase from 20 working days to 120 working days. Secondly, it makes emergency works for rural landowners “permitted activities” that they must notify the council about within 40 days. Thirdly, it allows the dredging of the Kaikōura harbour, which was blocked by the earthquake, to allow the resumption of tourist activities and fishing.

There is not a member in this House who cannot recall seeing those images on our television sets of the multiple pāua and the kōura that were left exposed as the sea floor came up, I know there was not. And particularly in the electorate that I represent, where pāua is an iconic species to the Ngāti Kahungunu people, to see so many exposed through this tragedy broke our hearts in so many places. So I again acknowledge the local people, working, obviously, with the Ministry for Primary Industries to try to salvage those exposed kai moana. One thing, as a Māori, you do not ever want to waste kai moana—an absolute delicacy—but, look, this is just to ensure that, again, this bill has the tools to allow the recovery process.

In terms of the harbour, I just want to acknowledge the work—the tourism of Kaikōura. In my maiden speech in this House I talked about Whale Watch Kaikōura and, in an indirect way, having had some involvement with the establishment of that industry. I recall travelling to Kaikōura back in the mid-eighties, and then going back to visit it in the last 3 years. I can tell you that the transformation from the mid-eighties to early 2013 was very dramatic—the role that Whale Watch, particularly, had on that community, with the opening of supermarkets and hotels that resulted from that particular industry. So I just want to add my words of acknowledgment, not just to the whale watching industry but to the importance of tourism and the flow-on industries that they have in Kaikōura. The sooner we can get them up and running, and the sooner we can get that harbour dredged—I am sure the people of Kaikōura will be very appreciative of that.

Having said that, I have made a couple of references to our own tragedy up on the East Coast in the mid-eighties: Cyclone Bola in 1988. I raise this perhaps as a cautionary note to the Government in its commitment to seeing that we are removing all legislative barriers to ensure we have got recovery in place, and, of course, to the rescue package for businesses, and the commitment to clear the major highways.

One particular point I noted in researching the Cyclone Bola investment from the Government at the time was the East Coast forestry project that the Government put substantial money into up the East Coast. That was purely to address the erosion and to protect the land. My point is that we are now—1988 to 2016; that is 28 years, if I am correct—28 years on and we still have major erosion problems up the East Coast: there are major erosion and water quality issues. And so, I guess, my cautionary note to the Government is that we need to put regular review points in the recovery from major disasters in this country, simply because they may not show themselves for 10 years, 15 years, or, in my instance up the East Coast, until 28 years later. So, these are just some of the lessons of the past that I hope—and I am sure—the Government will take on board. For recovery, the instant removal of legislation that this bill is attempting to do, and the ongoing financial contribution to businesses in Kaikōura, we also need to make sure we are factoring in regular reviews—that is, 5-year, 10-year, 15-year ones—to ensure that any issues like erosion are addressed and that we have got the proper tools to address them in that respect.

I do not want to talk any further, but it is my pleasure to stand in support of a piece of legislation that will enable us to do exactly what this House is committed to, and that is the quick and expedient recovery of the community of Kaikōura. In closing, I want to add my words of thanks to the local MP Stuart Smith: you did a stellar job, Mr Smith. Of course, I also want to acknowledge my colleague Rino Tirikatene, who was down there as quickly as he possibly could—when he could get transportation in there—at the Takahanga Marae working and feeding the many tourists that the marae of Takahanga opened its doors to. So, like everybody, I commend this bill and look forward to its speedy passage through the House. Kia ora tātou.

E Te Mana Whakawā Tuarua, tēnā koe. In speaking on the Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Emergency Relief Bill I want to first begin by congratulating and thanking the Minister of Defence and Acting Minister of Civil Defence, the Hon Gerry Brownlee, who, along with Stuart Smith, the local MP for the Kaikōura electorate, has been making absolutely herculean efforts to make sure that the emergency is responded to quickly and appropriately and that people are given every possible assistance that they can receive.

This bill forms part of the response to this disaster, and, as others have canvassed, it temporarily increases the time frames for emergency works that are permitted under the Resource Management Act (RMA). It allows permitted activity for certain emergency farming practices that might be otherwise not acceptable but, in the case of this situation, should be allowed, and it aims to restore Kaikōura harbour to operation.

There is a little piece of it that has not really been touched on too extensively, and that is the ability for an Order in Council to be passed to specify additional local authorities under the purposes of this bill. I was here in Wellington when the quake struck, and the building I live in shook. It was a very scary experience, and we have suffered considerable damage here, and so it is heartening to know that here in the capital where we have sustained some damage, as well as in those areas most affected in Mr Smith’s electorate, there is a Government that is willing to look to increase the support and emergency provisions as required to enable us to recover from this disaster. It is a very good bill, and I commend it fully to the House.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.

I move, That the Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Emergency Relief Bill be reported to the House by 1 December 2016, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Order 194(1)(b) and (c).

Motion agreed to.