Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Emergency Relief Bill

I move, That the Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Emergency Relief Bill be now read a third time. The Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Emergency Relief Bill addresses immediate challenges faced by the people of Kaikōura, Marlborough, and Hurunui, enabling them to focus on getting their lives and livelihoods back on track. The earthquakes have resulted in numerous emergency works being undertaken, including roads, bridges, and water pipes across farms in the Kaikōura, Hurunui, and Marlborough areas. There have been effects that will need to be put right fairly quickly in order to move forward.

The geographical isolation caused by the earthquake makes it particularly difficult to prepare resource consent applications and for council staff and consultants to conduct site visits. We do not want the standard time frames in the Resource Management Act (RMA) to distract from that recovery effort. The provisions of this bill will help ease regulatory requirements under the Resource Management Act while still maintaining safeguards for the environment.

Currently, agencies and operators undertaking emergency work must, within 7 days, give notice to the appropriate consent authority that works have been undertaken, and within 20 days they must apply for resource consent requiring activities. The bill extends those time frames and, from the draft bill to what is in front of the house today, the select committee has further extended it from 40 to 60 working days for the notification, and for the retrospective application, if it is required, 120 working days.

The bill enables farmers whose properties have been damaged by earthquakes to undertake emergency works to continue their farming practices for the purpose of life, safety, health and well-being of animals or addressing serious damage to property. These emergency works are regulated under the RMA; the bill makes them a permitted activity, meaning they will not need to apply for a resource consent. Farmers will be required to notify councils, as I said, within the period of time that is now set down as 60 days, even if it is to be, effectively, a deemed consent.

Finally, the bill supports the council’s efforts to restore the damaged Kaikōura harbours, which need to be restored so that critical supplies can be brought in by sea. One of the issues that was faced early on was the fact that the barges located on the Canterbury were unable to come ashore because of the shallowness of that particular channel. It is also very important that the fisheries and associated tourism activities that require those harbours can be put back into operation as soon as possible.

To facilitate the timely restoration of the harbour, the bill changes the status of the activity needed to restore the harbour to “controlled” unless already permitted in the relevant plan. It also provides for the streamlined resource consenting process, which includes consultation with specified parties. This will enable Environment Canterbury and the Kaikōura District Council to apply for retrospective consent after they have begun the harbour restoration, which, it is hoped, will begin by the middle of next week.

The bill requires the environmental effects, including effects of any activity on the marine mammals, fish, and seabirds, to be considered before the activity is undertaken, including how they may be avoided, remedied, or mitigated if there are seen to be adverse effects possible. The bill is one of a number of measures to support communities across the affected area. I think the select committee process, although only short, has been well used by the various political parties who were already supporting this bill but have been able to make some changes that are necessary. I do want to make a comment here about clauses 13 and 22, which were subject to Supplementary Order Papers this afternoon. I can sort of see the point of doing those things, but I was concerned, in the end, that if we were to go down that track, we might actually defeat the purpose of what we are trying to set out here in the first place.

The bill does have some constraints around what people can do in emergency situations. We would expect those to be followed appropriately. Further to those, it is also a time-limited provision that is in place. Although we might want to have some of the arrangements that were proposed—third-party action against regional councils, etc., or the council for not taking any particular action or care—I think that, in the circumstances, that is an undue encumbrance upon them, and in due course we will be able to see exactly how responsibly this bill is exercised. I would encourage people to see it not as carte blanche, but very much as a bill that enables them to do the things they most need to do to get their lives back on track, and not to enhance circumstances that were already existing in those properties. I commend the bill to the House.

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.

It is great to get to this third reading of this very important bill. I just want to cover a couple of points. This morning I was talking to a farmer from the inland road, which demonstrates really some of the advantages of this bill. They have significant fence damage and significant stock- water damage, and the ability for them to just get on and make the changes that are necessary from an animal welfare perspective, as well as a management perspective, when communications are pretty difficult is very welcome. It is very much appreciated by the people within the electorate.

I would also like to point out the geographical isolation of a particular group of people who are, effectively, almost in a governance hole from a local body perspective: the people north of Ōhau Point, where there is the most northern slip on State Highway 1 north of Kaikōura, and up to Tirohanga Flat, which is where Marlborough begins. So between those areas they are part of Environment Canterbury and the Kaikōura council, but they are completely cut off from that council, whereas they are in fact really a part of Marlborough for all intents and purposes. So to have some flexibility around resource consents and managing the issues that are in front of them, particularly around the Clarence River, is really very, very welcome.

The harbour issue is something that is really important. At the moment in South Bay—both in South Bay and the harbour on the north side of the peninsula—the seafloor has come up significantly. It was shallow in the first instance in South Bay; it is now almost not navigable, except for an hour either side of high tide—2 hours a day. It makes it impossible really to do anything from that point. There are also cruise ships that plan to call into Kaikōura. The only way those people can get ashore from the cruise ships is by tender. That is simply not an option other than an hour either side of high tide. So something needs to be done quickly.

The council has moved quickly. My understanding is it is getting a report from an engineering firm today on possible options of how that might be remediated, and that is welcomed. It would simply be unfair for the community to have to go through the normal lengthy processes. That does not mean the environmental constraints and standards that we would normally adhere to will be trampled over—far from it. Those people rely on their environment around them and have a great respect for it, and it will not be damaged in any way other than is absolutely necessary. But it will get that harbour up and running again and help greatly for that community and that economy to get back on its feet. With that, I commend this very valuable piece of legislation to the House.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to stand in support of the Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Emergency Relief Bill at its last reading. As one of the local members in the affected area, I too, along with my colleague Mr Stuart Smith, have been on the ground first hand seeing the devastation that has taken place, but also the efforts that have been carried out by the community and the emergency services. I just, commend all the work that is being done at this stage, in terms of this bill.

The most contentious point has been the dredging of the marina, but that would be the most important emergency work that will need to be carried out in Kaikōura. We know that that is the only location where vessels can have passage in and out, and tourism is the lifeblood of that community. We are not just talking about Whale Watch Kaikōura. We are talking about other related tourism businesses: dolphin encounters; various charter boat fishing operators, once the fishing gets back under way again; and we must also not forget the cruise ship industry—we have various cruise ships that are not going to be docking in Kaikōura because they cannot get their passengers in safely to that community.

It is having a huge economic impact, and these emergency works are desperately needed. I know, having spoken with the engineers who have already been on site—they are already there—that it is a big job, but they want to swing into action as soon as possible. To get the necessary gear is going to be tricky in itself, and to ensure the availability of that gear, and also transportation—getting it in there safely—will be tricky given the issues with access. So there is a lot of work going on by a lot of people. Indeed, now we are doing our bit to make sure that we can progress these works as well.

I do not want to overly prolong this debate, but I do want to acknowledge the local hapū, Kāti Kuri, for their support and their work on the ground at this time. It is going to take some months before the residents of Kaikōura will be back to normality, but it is great to see that we have got an inland road and we have access through there.

We have schools back up and running. Slowly the residents are getting back to everyday activities, but we must not forget that there have been many families displaced or evacuated or whose houses have been destroyed or are probably going to be red-stickered—we do not know, but they are likely to be. Those families now are in emergency accommodation. They have moved on from the marae in Tuahiwi, and I do acknowledge the hau kāinga there at Tuahiwi Marae, who have done an outstanding job looking after those evacuated families. We do now have families that are no longer in their homes, no longer in their community. Now they are having to deal with the realisation that they have to adjust their lives in the medium to long term—their everyday situation with housing and just what their future might hold. I will be with many of those families tomorrow.

Likewise, just returning to Ngāti Kuri, I do want to acknowledge the hau kāinga whānau, the Manawatū whānau—in particular Hēnare, the chair of the marae—and Major Timms, whose son Justin Timms was in that kitchen cooking up those crays, feeding the hundreds of tourists who were stranded, and putting on that hospitality that we are renowned for to ensure that they were looked after until they were able to find safe passage out. There are many more stories that will come out of this, but it was the efforts of those people who responded on the ground—I understand Major Timms is now in hospital in Christchurch, so I wish him well and a speedy recovery.

It is those everyday stories that are relevant, because this legislation is all about getting those people back into Kaikōura, into a rebuilt community, and having their lifeblood, which is tourism and fishing and other industries, back up in business. It is not just the big businesses. The big businesses are supported by a lot of small businesses in that community. They are all impacted. It is not just tourism, as well. There are wonderful engineering firms, there are cheese factories and the like, all impacted by the passages into Kaikōura, and also reliant on, and supportive of, the wider community and the tourism industry, which has, pardon the pun, been stranded and beached by the earthquake and by the lack of access through to the harbour.

I am very proud to be supporting this legislation. I know that it is being done under urgency, but it has had the full cooperation of all parties around this House. I do acknowledge the Acting Minister of Civil Defence and all his officials, who have been literally burning the midnight oil. They have been reacting and putting in place all the necessary measures to ensure that we get this legislation in place and through this House. I have nothing further to do but to commend it to the House. Kia ora tātou.

This bill was considered for a relatively short time by the Local Government and Environment Committee, but I think during that period of time, almost just on 24 hours, we did some very good work. Others have spoken in this debate and also during the Committee stage about the changes that we made at select committee.

I just want to acknowledge the very good work that was done by a range of people that has enabled us to get to this point so quickly in the House to address this emergency legislation in a way that has enabled a speedy response by a Parliament and a Government that are keen to make progress and assist in every way possible to get the people of Kaikōura, Hurunui, and the wider region back on their feet again and under way. I would particularly like to acknowledge the submitters, who were able to gather together their thoughts—some in writing, but many of them over the phone—and present to the committee at very short notice yesterday. Many of the submitters have been, of course, themselves grappling with issues on the ground in the region for the last 14 or 15 days. That they were able to take the time and be prepared to submit is an even greater compliment to them and their organisational skills.

I want to also acknowledge and thank the officials and advisers who gave excellent, professional advice to the committee. Finally, I want to just acknowledge the good-natured, collaborative approach taken by committee members across Parliament. I think that they collectively did a very good job. I am looking forward to working with the committee again next week on the Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Recovery Bill. I support this bill; I commend it to the House.

I am pleased to take a call in this final stage of the Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Emergency Relief Bill. I think I will start with Kaikōura Harbour and the significant works that are going to be undertaken there. I would just encourage the Minister of Conservation, because the Department of Conservation holds considerable information about the marine life and the natural character and values of the coast, to actually contribute that information to the process of deciding how the dredging and blasting work is to be undertaken. The Minister Gerry Brownlee said that is starting next week. That is great in terms of getting boats back into the boat harbour. Engineers can do some things, but they need to actually recognise the importance of the Kaikōura Peninsula—not just because of its natural values but because of its habitat for fur seals and a lot of seabirds, the distinctive cast limestone landforms, its cultural significance to Ngāi Tahu—to ensure that those blasting works, which will potentially obliterate some significant rock outcrops in the harbour area, are undertaken with as much sensitivity as possible in terms of reducing the effects on the marine environment. The Department of Conservation has a lot of information and it would encourage the Minister to ensure that that contributes to the process.

One of the things also, in terms of the third bill that the Local Government and Environment Committee will be dealing with next week, is an issue that the submitters, particularly from the pāua industry, highlighted on this bill. It was really unclear, in terms of official advice, what the status is of works that are being done by contractors for the network utility operators, particularly in terms of State Highway 1, the New Zealand Transport Agency, and the main trunk railway line in relation to spoil.

We all know the damage that the pāua industry has suffered because of the major uplift of the seabed exposing a lot of the pāua brood stocks, and the efforts that have been made to rehabilitate pāua by taking them and putting them in deeper water, but the industry is very concerned that if spoil is just simply pushed over the side because it is economically less costly to do that, then there will potentially be major impacts on remaining areas of coast where the pāua still exist. So there needs to be quite a careful assessment process. It may well be that some spoil is deposited on the foreshore in uplifted areas, but there needs to be an assessment of where that spoil is going to go.

What the debate in select committee and submissions highlighted is that it is unclear whether Transport Agency contractors and others will be using the emergency powers under the Resource Management Act to do that spoil dumping, or whether we need in the third piece of legislation to actually constrain that to ensure that it is done in an appropriate way, and that what may seem less costly and economically efficient in the short term does not undermine the reputation that Kaikōura has for a very special coast and marine environment. The scale of the spoil that is along State Highway 1 and the railway line—those big landslides—means that if it is just pushed into the sea and on to the foreshore, there will be potentially major sediment plumes in the water, it will smother areas of shellfish and remaining pāua stocks, and it will have quite significant ecological effects.

I hope that the Local Government and Environment Committee looks at how that is dealt with, and just clarifies what the law will be around how the spoil is disposed of, particularly around the south of the town, where it does look like there is the ability to get the road open in the short term. I hope that there is a thoughtful decision-making process there, which enables the transport links to be restored as quickly as possible but ensures that all options are considered and that the values of that coast—not just for transport but for the nature tourism industry and for the fisheries sector—also come into play in terms of decisions.

We are pleased to support the bill and would encourage all parties to consider the constructive approach that we have had on this bill when it comes to the subsequent piece of legislation. Thank you.

I want to begin by acknowledging and thanking, firstly, the Minister Gerry Brownlee for his briefings and the ample information that he provided us with, and, actually, all parties for a very high level of cross-party collaboration, which made it rather a pleasure to deal with this bill.

Secondly, I would like to thank the Local Government and Environment Committee members themselves for their long hours of hard work, and especially the committee chair, Scott Simpson, who did an excellent job. For reasons that only those committee members will know, we may have to rename that committee the “Fish and Chips Committee”, but we will wait and see.

Thirdly, the officials should be thanked—and I do thank them too—for their late nights, their great service, and their excellent advice. Fourthly, I would like to thank and acknowledge the many submitters who in a very short time period made some really excellent submissions to the committee, which proved to be very helpful to us.

There are times when people in communities need to put aside personal and political differences, and this, certainly, is one of those times. People on the ground in the affected areas are getting together and getting things done, and we in this House must ensure that we create adequate powers to ensure that usually applicable laws and processes do not become barriers to quick and effective actions, which, as we know, are always needed to ensure speedy and effective recovery from all forms of damage resulting from events of this magnitude.

The result of this good process has been a good bill. Indeed, only clause 13 has caused any differences between us. The Government parties felt that clause 13 should remain; the Opposition parties felt it would be better that it be removed. What it does is to restrict the enforcement provisions in the Act to local authorities, whereas normally anyone can enforce. We in the Opposition parties felt it was better to leave that provision out so that anyone could enforce those provisions.

I do not agree with the Minister that this would in any way have been likely to delay anything, because I think there would have been very, very few people who would have felt the need to carry out enforcement proceedings themselves. However, there may have been some occasions when it would have been necessary. I felt that if landowners felt that other landowners had not done what they were required to do, they themselves could have enforced whatever provision was necessary. After all, you have to consider that the local authorities may not be able to respond in all cases they normally would respond to, simply because they are under such pressure at the present time, and are likely to be so for quite some time in the future.

The bill does very important things to assist recovery in Kaikōura. Firstly, it modifies the Resource Management Act emergency powers under section 330, particularly by extending time frames for giving notice and applying for consents. I am sure that will be much appreciated by many people, so that they will know they have got ample time to take the actions they need to take. Secondly, it allows rural landowners to take actions that they would not normally be allowed to take for the purpose of preventing risk to life and to infrastructure. These are things that they would do intuitively, without thinking about rules and processes, and we need to make sure that they do not get punished for that, or that they are not impeded in carrying out those necessary things.

Thirdly, it provides for rehabilitation of the Kaikōura Harbour. Apart from the roads to and from the town, it is probably the most important single piece of infrastructure that needs urgent rehabilitation. It is essential for all of the people of Kaikōura, and for all of the businesses that operate there. At the same time, there is a need to make sure that the environment is protected as far as is practically possible, because that is also important for the viability of many of the businesses that operate in Kaikōura, and there is no reason why we should not be vigilant to take care of the environment, even while we carry out those emergency rehabilitation works.

Fourthly, and lastly, I am glad to see that the bill allows for inclusive processes not just for the appropriate agencies that will be taking part but also for all people, so that they will be able to have a say. Many of them feel that they have—and they do have—local knowledge and expertise, which will be of value.

I do not need to say any more. We have delved into the detail of the bill earlier today, and, in fact, during the select committee process, and we now have what I think is a very good piece of legislation. Given that good process, resulting in a good bill, New Zealand First will be very pleased indeed to vote in favour of the bill, and we wish the people of Kaikōura all the very best in getting on with all of the hard work that they are going to have to do, now and in the future.

E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe. It is indeed an honour to contribute to the third reading Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Emergency Relief Bill. As previous speakers have mentioned, the bill attempts to do three things: extend the emergency time frames under the Resource Management Act, address the permitted activity status for emergency farming works, and, of course, restore the Kaikōura harbour.

I support all previous speakers around the way that committee members—particularly, clearly, the Minister, with cross-party support—have addressed this particular bill. As our hard-working chair of our select committee, Scott Simpson, indicated—despite it being a truncated process, I do want to inform the members of the House, and any members of the public, that it is working and that we did undertake, although truncated, a form of public scrutiny in the form of submissions. We received approximately 13. We had four from district councils—Marlborough District Council, Kaikōura District Council, Hurunui District Council, Environment Canterbury, and Wellington City Council. We obviously had Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu. We had inshore fisheries. We also had the rock lobster industry, the pāua industry. We had KiwiRail, Federated Farmers, Forest and Bird, the Law Society.

My short contribution in ensuring the passage of this bill is actually about a submitter who made a submission on behalf of the Kaikōura guardians—what is their name? What have I done with that? Is this not typical—sorry, it is the Kaikōura Coastal Marine Guardians, and, in particular, Mr Ted Howard. I want to just acknowledge his submission, because he was actually talking about the implementation stage, and he really wanted to ensure that the local community, as best as possible, was involved when this particular bill was enacted.

I just want to quote—because he had a short passage that I would like to share with the House: “We are dealing with complex systems, and we have a great deal of local knowledge present in this community. We ask that at every stage of this process, that all plans and the rationale for them are made fully publicly available rapidly and that locals are given an opportunity”—he is talking about a few hours, and not more than a day’s delay at any stage “… to comment on those plans and that reasonable alternatives will be seriously considered.” When we had Mr Howard on the phone, I could sense his absolute love for his community of Kaikōura. He actually wants the best for it, and so do we. We want to ensure—in the passage of this bill and when we get to the implementation stage—that we think about people like Mr Howard, in terms of involving the local community. His message was not lost, particularly on this member of the Local Government and Environment Committee, around ensuring wherever possible that we involve the local communities, and that we operate in a very open and transparent process. That is what Mr Howard wanted, and it seems like a reasonable request as we see this bill’s passage through the House.

Can I please just end by adding my absolute word of thanks to the officials who supported the work of the committee, given that the time was very constrained. I want to acknowledge our hard-working officials who were sitting on the right side of you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and, of course, the work of our Parliamentary Counsel Office, and, obviously, our select committee clerks for ensuring that we did justice in examining the bill that was presented to us, and in a timely manner. I too believe that we have come back to the House with a very, very robust piece of legislation, which I am proud to stand up and support, and, like everybody else, I wish the people of Kaikōura and Hurunui the very best. This enabling legislation is only the beginning—the real test is actually implementation, and the commitment to getting the communities of Hurunui and Kaikōura back on their feet as quickly as possible. I commend this bill to the House.

I am speaking to the Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Emergency Relief Bill. There is a real need for this type of legislation, and it is a very good example of cross-party agreement, albeit, clearly, with a few exceptions. But it was very good, during the times I was on the select committee, to see how everybody was working together to come to some very good results.

I would like to put my thoughts out to those people—Ngāti Kuri o Te Kaikōura—and to the communities, north and south, all the way up into Marlborough, right up into the Blenheim area, and even people in the Marlborough Sounds, who were affected by this, to some degree. People around Seddon have had so many impacts in the past—and the same for people around Ward—and really this comes only a few years after they were hit so hard before. This time, it is right up through the Clarence, down the Kaikōura coast, the Kaikōura area, and then North Canterbury. The people of Scargill and Waiau experienced those aftershocks that were so savage and, effectively, caused more trauma than the original shakes that occurred back on 14 November. This has had a massive social and economic impact, and we are going to have to remain mindful of those communities for a long time to come.

Back into the parts of this particular bill, farmer after farmer has been affected—their stock water and domestic water, their fencing, roading, and tracking. Just the next day I actually gave water to a farming family with a large farm. You would think they would have no problems with water. There is a lot of water on their property. But nearly everything was impacted, and they had no certainty of water for their stock or for themselves at that time.

This bill goes a long way to redressing some of that by giving them the opportunity to get in and do some quick remediation to look after their stock. But also, increasingly, I am finding that the domestic water supplies in these stations and farms are affected. Some I have just learnt of again today.

While the remediation happens, it is unfortunate that we did not get Eugenie Sage’s amendment through. Even though this is time-limited legislation, there is a recklessness or an opportunism that will come from it by some people who do not actually have the heart to care appropriately for their neighbours. To have no real legal redress is going to be unfortunate. We are going to be totally reliant on goodwill. There has been goodwill built, as always happens in these emergencies, but I do not know whether that will last for long enough and people will be totally ethical about their behaviour when they have the opportunities that this bill gives them.

This affects, in particular, Environment Canterbury, the Kaikōura District Council, and the Marlborough District Council. I am hoping that they will, when they are looking at clause 19 and at the people who need to be consulted on some of the actions, broaden it out and make sure that there is proper opportunity for people to have at least a quick input. The committee report, and then, ultimately, the legislation, show very, very well what the benefit of even a short term of submissions and consultation can be. The changes that were put into this, through this little brief bit of submission time, have been very, very important.

It is important in Kaikōura to get the harbours corrected—the works and the rock and the seabed—to ensure that the tenders, the coastal tourism, such as Whale Watch Kaikōura, dolphin watch, seal watch, and others like the fisheries, can have proper access out to the sea as they always did. It is good that fish was acknowledged and included in the things that had to be considered in terms of effects. The wider considerations are in there. It is good that there are changes to make sure that the comments from those people who will be consulted are considered and reported on.

As I said, there is a very real need for this bill. I can see the practicalities of it instantly. The Green Party is pleased to be supporting this bill. We will be looking ahead to the other legislation that is coming. We are concerned, of course, as we have heard in the submissions to this bill, about some of the potential impacts, particularly to pāua and the marine environment. We hope that that will be treated very, very cautiously and carefully.

But, at the same time, let us get those roads open, let us get these farms operating well, and let us make sure that we are looking to the other things that are not being considered by these bills. I have had people coming to me today—tourism operators. The tourists have totally gone. They are scared to go there, yet the tourism operators could be operating their operation, which is rafting, in this case, down the Clarence River. We need to be doing what we can to support those smaller operations to get back into gear as well. So it is the roadworks and all of that, but there are other things we all need to be mindful of. My heart goes out to those people. The Green Party will support this bill. Thank you.

It is very good, a real privilege, actually, to speak on this bill very briefly. Can I just echo the comments of others and give my thanks, as someone not directly involved, to the Minister in charge of this bill, the Hon Gerry Brownlee, for, I think, taking a very good approach to this. It has involved, in a pretty consensual way, really, the other parties in this House, and they have acknowledged this. Can I just also acknowledge the select committee, the chairperson, and, as Denis O’Rourke called it, the “Fish and Chip Committee” for what they have done and the way they have worked through it.

This bill, of course, is absolutely vital for dealing with the issues that we have had post-earthquake. There is simply no other way to do it. We have all seen, quite a number of us now, I think, probably, firsthand what has happened there—the massive devastation. In my particular area, the roads, the slips are bigger than we have ever seen before on our modern-day highways. Conventional settings will simply not help us do what needs to be done—to do the sorts of things that Steffan Browning was just talking about: to give access back for tourism, for the milk tankers, for farmers, and for the friends and whānau down there. That, from a transport perspective, at least, is what this is about—access to get all of those things back up and running sooner than would otherwise be the case.

Of course there are other interests in this, and Eugenie Sage and others have talked about those environmental issues, the social issues. And that is why, throughout this bill and the others, there are good processes put in place, and that is very important. But that access is also fundamental.

Can I just say in the last minute or two of my speech what in a real sense this bill and the others, the suite of bills here, are going to help with. On the inland route we will be getting access back. I have seen, as I say, firsthand the emotion, actually, of some of those on either side of the cordon who wanted to get in to their farms or out from their farms to see friends and whānau. This is going to ensure we can do a better job there.

With State Highway 1 out of action, of course there is that other inland route down State Highways 63, 65, 66, and 67. It is a good road but not fundamentally built for the trucking, the tourists, and so on who are on it. It will help with that also. Of course, every day we are there maintaining that road and improving it, with about $50 million to $100 million worth of work, which is going to happen over the next few months on that. What is also vital there is getting some of those trucks off into ships. I was talking to the people at the Port of Auckland earlier today and they told me that they have, post-earthquakes, seen an uptick of about 1,000 containers going through the Port of Auckland down to Lyttelton. I think that gives you a sense of the trucks that would have otherwise been on State Highway 1 or the trains that are not taking that inland route, but the truth is that we need to. And we will, I think, from what is happening here, see more of that.

On State Highway 1 this legislation and the others will be vital. I think we can be somewhat more optimistic, perhaps, than we have been, possibly, over the next wee while about that. And on the southern side we have seen progress by the contractor Downer. It is going quicker than we thought. It is making really good progress, so that it is a matter of weeks, a small number of months, not longer than that to get access back, although there will be other work that will need to be done, of course. On that other, northern, side it is a longer, more complex job, but this will be sooner rather than later as a result of this bill. As I say, this bill is vital in helping us with the job we have got to do.

Bill read a third time.

The House adjourned at 5.40 p.m.