Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill

I move, That the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill be now read a second time. It is a proud moment to stand and speak in this debate, and to recognise the effort that is being put in by so many people for so many people. As the Minister of Civil Defence, I have to say that the civil defence team and all those agencies that worked with it, both in Christchurch and here in Wellington, were an absolute stand-out. I must also say that the people of Canterbury themselves, who were so directly affected, have been stoic. The response from people around New Zealand and the way in which they have offered their support and their condolences to the people of Canterbury makes one proud to be a New Zealander.

That is something we can share in this Parliament. I thank those members who have paid compliments to all of us who have been involved, right across both sides of the House. This Parliament shows, and has shown, that when necessary it can work together as a team of leaders of this country to ensure that the needs of the people are responded to.

Importantly, it shows other countries that we have a society and a structure in place that is world class; indeed, it leads the world. The Hon Nick Smith said he heard a comment from a person involved in earthquakes around the world that our nation and our response is to be complimented; it has been way above anything else that that gentleman had been involved with. I am certain that in time to come this country’s response will be studied by many others.

Of course, there was always going to be a phase when the civil defence emergency finished and we moved into the urgency of the rebuild. That is the stage we are now at. This bill allows the people of Canterbury to get on and rebuild their lives. We all know that rebuilding will be hugely challenging for them. We are all well aware how many of them are still distressed and that the aftershocks are causing worry. Many people are still not sleeping well. As Aaron Gilmore said, his young child has been affected by this event, and will be affected by it, along with so many others in Canterbury, for days if not months and years to come. It has had a serious impact on the lives of people to the extent that a good number of them are so tired they are not necessarily thinking straight. We need to be there to support them, and this bill will do that.

Again, I say that this Parliament can be proud of the people of this nation, and this nation can be proud of its people. Certainly, we are pleased and proud to be Kiwis. I commend this bill to the House.

I will take only a brief call. By affirmation, at least, I would argue that most of the MPs in the House support the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill.

It is an issue of priorities. I make the comment, and I think Phil Goff referred to this, that part of the reason we have to date had no loss of life, acknowledging that possibly two individuals are still in critical condition in Christchurch hospital, is the building standards we have maintained over time. I was formerly Minister for Building and Construction, and I note in passing that there was quite a bit of criticism some years ago. I think “nanny State” was one of the terms levelled at the level of scrutiny and standard required and—in some respects, quite rightly—the time it took to get a building up and get it completed. It is interesting to note that those criticisms have dissipated, and quite rightly so, because our building code has proved its worth and our building standards have proved their worth. I note Minister Brownlee’s—or was it Minister Carter’s—comments acknowledging the fact that there is concern that we do not want the cowboys back, throwing up boxes willy-nilly, and creating further difficulty for us down the track. Although the legislation contemplates a fast-track procedure for a number of processes, there is acknowledgment from the Government and also the Opposition that we want it done properly.

I also say that one of the biggest fears that is starting to come out from the communities is the question of whether people will be able to build on existing land. I think the local councils need to provide at least an intention and some direction. Obviously, they cannot be definitive. I believe 100 geotechnical engineers are out on site, testing land to see whether it is still suitable for construction. We have to wait for their verdict, but I personally believe that a signal needs to be sent that it will be the intention and objective to allow people to build on their existing land, pending—

💬 Nicky Wagner: Of course that’s what we want to do.

I thank the member, but I do not think I was addressing her; I was talking about the local authorities. People are looking for some direction, and my personal view is it should be the objective and intention—as I was saying, I say to Ms Wagner—to allow people to build where they are now, pending geotechnical and engineering advice. In some areas, we do not know what is down there; there may well be a void. I think it was Mr Carter who said to us in a briefing that the only area where we could avoid liquefaction was probably up his way. We have lived with liquefaction. It is not a new concept; it is an old concept that we have lived with for many, many years. But people need to have some confidence restored.

Let us look at the example of Pegasus Bay, in my patch, which is a brand new town being built basically on sand. With the new technology and the higher standards that the Environment Court’s decision, from memory, required those developers to build to, there was almost no earthquake damage. I was there the other day. I think that a wine glass was lost in the cafe, some Gib was cracked, and a few bottles of wine came out in the general store, but generally, at least on the surface, everything appears to be intact. I say to the people of Canterbury that technology has existed in recent years that allows places like the Palm Islands in the United Arab Emirates to be built. I have stood there; basically sand has been poured into the sea to create land, and people can live there habitably. People need to have a relative degree of confidence that they can return to the plot of land they have, pending, of course, issues related to geotechnical matters and engineering.

I think the local authorities need to get that signal out there. It does not bind them into a position; I know that they will not want to be bound into a position until they have the relevant technical advice. But I think people in Canterbury are looking for that direction. There is a lot of uncertainty, especially in coastal areas around my way.

We support this bill, and I reiterate Minister John Carter’s comments about civil defence. It is impossible to train for every contingency, especially when we are dealing with a massive volunteer force. Many of the civil defence folks have just walked in without any training at all in many cases. They have manned the food banks and water stations, and others have put on the yellow jacket and have got into it. Many have had the benefit of training for coordinating activities. Yes, there have been some strains, and still are, in respect of people getting access through telephone lines to necessary resources. I say to the Minister of Civil Defence that we need to continue to work on giving people swifter access through the telephone lines to the relevant inspectors, people, and resources they need, because when the state of emergency is lifted—hopefully, tomorrow at noon—a degree of uncertainty will be created again.

Certainty was created over the last week in my patch and in others that the welfare post was where one went to get assistance, whether it was with accommodation, trauma counselling, food, or water. Those welfare posts will, I assume, be dissolved and the business as usual agencies will go and pick up that strain. We need to make provision in the coming days for things like ongoing and easy access to trauma counselling. That access has been very good and people have been able to get it with ease. It would be difficult and a shame if people then had to revert to some sort of bureaucratic model, maybe through their general practitioner or otherwise, to get trauma counselling, which in many cases they need. They may not realise that they need it now, but they will need it in coming days.

I simply reiterate the issues that we have raised previously and say that I accept that these are wide-ranging powers. I note that the Green member who spoke neglected to say that these are very, very strange times. This is a time when we need swift action, but also we need to state for the record that there need to be safeguards. It would be inappropriate if these powers went beyond emergency recovery. We have assurances from Ministers, and I take those Ministers at their word, that those powers will not be extended. I assume that we will gain those same assurances from the commissioners yet to be appointed and from other public figures, like the mayors. But we will raise some issues through the Committee stage and ask for feedback from Ministers in order to provide assurances on the record that these powers, which are very wide ranging and can be used very effectively, will not be abused—which is probably the incorrect word to use—or used for surreptitious means at any level of government, whether it be central or local authorities.

I welcome the passage of this bill and I support it.

I will take a call in the second reading of the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill, firstly, to pay tribute to everyone in Canterbury who has been working so hard since 4 September. I also pay tribute to my colleagues in the House. Certainly, not just the Canterbury-based MPs but everyone has shown a great willingness to do what needs to be done to support the people of Canterbury. That is very much acknowledged, and we in Canterbury are very grateful for it.

I want to make the point that I am talking about the Canterbury earthquake, because, as Clayton Cosgrove, my parliamentary colleague who has just sat down, would agree, this is not simply a Christchurch issue. The districts of Waimakariri and Selwyn have been greatly affected, as well.

When I spoke to the House in the general debate last week, I talked about the fact that the time it will take Canterbury to move through the recovery phase is a big part of what is causing stress and anguish for the people of Canterbury. It is heartening to see this House acknowledge the need to do all that we can, prudently, to facilitate that process and to ensure that it is no more long-winded than it needs to be. That is very much the way that I see this bill.

I acknowledge the comments made about the extraordinary nature of the bill. From a constitutional point of view, it is well out of the ordinary, and I accept that it involves somewhat of a leap of faith. But, equally, I think that we in this House are recognising that this is what is required. The actions of this House, of the Government, of local government, and of regional government since 4 September have shown to all of us that the people leading this recovery have the skills, the passion, and the absolute desire to make sure that this is done well and that the powers are used simply to encourage Canterbury to get back on its feet. I want to be absolutely confident that there is no ulterior motive or tomfoolery. I am very confident that these powers will be used appropriately and expeditiously to get Canterbury back on its feet.

It simply would not be right to be pontificating about red-letter law while more and more damage is caused. To give a real example of that, I was speaking with a constituent of mine just yesterday who has a commercial building that has been significantly damaged. The constituent is not working through the Earthquake Commission, but their own insurers have been out. The constituent has structural engineer’s drawings and knows what needs to be done. Everybody is ready to go, and the only thing holding them up is the lack of a building consent. In a business-as-usual world, processing that building consent would take some time, and during that time there is a very real chance that that building could be further damaged, even to the point of needing to be demolished. So if we allow ourselves to be slowed down while we follow a process for the sake of process, we will see not only a continuation of the anguish and heartbreak but also further damage occurring that could simply be avoided.

I acknowledge that this is a significant set of powers, but equally I draw attention to clause 3, “Purpose”, which provides a very clear statement of the scope and the ambit within which these powers are to be used. As a member of the Regulations Review Committee, I can well imagine that in the subsequent considerations of the Orders in Council that are made under this bill, the purpose clause will provide a very clear set of guidelines as to the appropriate ways in which those powers can be exercised. But, as I say, the response from all levels of government has indicated to me that everybody is on the same page. Everybody will use those powers appropriately so that we can ensure that the rebuilding effort is not hampered and not done callously and carelessly, and so that we can get on as fast as we can to move through the disaster phase and into the recovery and rebuilding phase. Everybody in Canterbury is anxiously awaiting that, so I am very pleased to commend the bill to the House.

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to contribute to the second reading of the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill.

I will begin by acknowledging the two Ministers who have led this process, Gerry Brownlee and John Carter. When I spoke in the earlier part of this debate, I raised some concerns and questions alongside my genuine commendation of both those Ministers. I think both Gerry Brownlee and John Carter not only worked hard and diligently to get agreement for the progress of this legislation but also have been very genuine in the way they have worked with other people. Some people can be bipartisan when it suits them, but in this specific instance the attempt to gain not bipartisan but multipartisan support was absolutely genuine from both of those Ministers. I want that to continue through the remaining stages of the bill. That is why I urge the Minister whose name is on the bill to take the opportunity to take a call in this second reading, and answer perhaps not all but at least some of the concerns and questions raised in the first reading. The Hon Gerry Brownlee has not yet taken a call, and time is running out for him to do so in this second reading.

All members of this House know that it is a lot easier for members of Parliament to make mistakes when they are working under serious time constraints and under the pressure a Committee stage of the House generates. In my view we should use this second reading debate to raise the concerns we have and to ask the questions that we have that are unanswered. Hopefully, the Minister will use this time before we start the Committee stage to give serious consideration to those concerns, and, hopefully, express support for resolving them through amendments to the legislation, or at least answer the questions, even if there is not agreement. But at the moment we are left in some frustration that the Minister has not done that, and I urge him to do so before the second reading debate is completed.

There is no doubt at all that everyone in this country supports the rebuilding of Canterbury in the most efficient way possible. It is also clear Canterbury is in a state of shock at the moment. We have spent the last 10 days trying to get the essentials of life, quite literally, reconnected to our constituents. Many people are still without power, without sewerage, and are using Portaloos on the footpath outside their homes. That is better than some of the alternatives that had to be employed earlier in the week, but it is not a great way to live. We want those infrastructure issues, as well as people’s businesses and their lives, to get back as much as possible to post-quake normality—and it will be different from pre-quake normality—but we are nowhere near that. We have been really focused on getting the essentials of life reconnected to our constituents. We have not had the opportunity to say what the bigger picture is now. Where do we want to go in the future? What will our city look like in 10, 30, 50, or 100 years’ time? What will fill the spaces in our streets where buildings will be demolished, or where buildings have already been demolished? What do we want Canterbury to look like? It is my view that we need a genuine commitment from our city leaders and our parliamentarians to ensure this legislation does not block our voice being heard in the debate about what our city and our province will look like in the future. We have not yet heard such a commitment from Minister Brownlee and I am keen to hear it.

This is an extreme bill. It has been introduced out of a genuine interest to speed things up for our recovery; I have no doubt about that. But the bill is extreme. It removes the legislative framework of 22 Acts of Parliament. Legislation is suspended and replaced by Orders in Council. I assume it will be used on rare occasions, but there is nothing in the bill requiring that. Complete power is given to the Ministers, and that is a big step for this Parliament to take.

The appointment of commissioners is seen as a way to have more collaboration and more fast-tracking of the process of rebuilding within the different territorial local authorities. Nobody could argue against collaboration and efficiency, and I certainly would not attempt to do that. But in this process there is no public accountability and there is no transparency. The commissioners are not subject to the ordinary provisions of the local government legislation, nor the Official Information Act. There is no input from the public into their process of consideration or even as spectators at their meetings. Those are quite small requirements. If the Minister thought them worthy of consideration he could respond by saying that, yes, perhaps we would include that as an amendment during the Committee stage. As I mentioned in my first reading speech, not even a skill set is described. What sorts of people would the commissioners be, what type of representation would they provide, and what sorts of skills would we expect the commissioners to have? Again, it may seem quite a small point, but if the wrong people are appointed we will be in a lot of bother. We might not even agree with the process; we certainly did not with the abolition of the Environment Canterbury council. But even in that legislation we had a description of the skills that would be required of the commissioners who were replacing our democratically elected regional councillors. That was a step further than this.

Obviously, another glaring omission in this bill is there is no regulatory impact statement. I presume it is because of the haste in which the bill was put together, but that is often a consideration that is taken very seriously by this Parliament. That is the purpose of a regulatory impact statement, but in this bill there is none at all.

Today in the Press our former mayor Garry Moore contributed a very thought-provoking article. He is a person who has always had, and always demonstrated, a genuine passion for our city and its people. His views often provoke debate, and he enjoys that because he is a good debater and loves to provoke thinking about the future of our city. He said in today’s Press: “Central and local government should remember at this stage that they are public servants. They need to make haste slowly. Rushing legislation, or bylaws, could mean they have to be reversed when flaws in what they have passed start emerging.” There is no doubt there is a need to support the efficient processing of the various bits of the law that currently need to be enacted in order to progress Canterbury’s recovery. This measure is an extreme way of doing it. It is not like an amendment that allows more flexibility. It is actually revoking legislation and replacing it by Orders in Council. So it is a big step to ask.

I ask the Minister to take the opportunity in this second reading debate to come to the House and take a call so that we can have some of those concerns debated and considered, and some of our questions answered.

I rise to speak on behalf of the Green Party on the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill. This is extraordinary legislation, in an extraordinary time, but the Greens have some concerns about it.

It is worth briefly recapping the powers that the bill gives the Government. Effectively it gives the Government the powers to suspend, change, extend, or modify in any way every piece of legislation bar five. The Government can effectively change by Order in Council any legislation except for the five constitutional Acts: the Bill of Rights 1688, the Constitution Act, the Electoral Act, the Judicature Amendment Act, and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Aside from those five Acts, every other statute can be changed by Order in Council. The bill would empower Ministers to go to the Governor-General seeking to amend, quash, change, modify, or extend any provision of any enactment simply by Order in Council.

We have seldom seen legislation that gives such extensive powers and effectively hands over lawmaking to the executive part of Government. That is what this bill does. Even though in this bill a list is identified of 22 Acts that can be changed by Government by Order in Council, the bill also goes on to say that it is not limited to those 22 Acts. In fact, the executive can, by Order in Council, amend any Act except for the five constitutional Acts. It is extraordinary legislation.

The Greens are very keen to get on with the recovery work, but we want it to be done well. We have a number of suggestions as to how the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill can be amended to make it much more proportionate to the situation we are in, and give Cantabrians more of an opportunity to be involved in it. The first amendment that I wish to identify, which the Greens will be moving in the Committee stage, is that the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Commission, which this bill establishes, will comprise a majority of elected Cantabrians. This bill proposes a seven-person commission, with four of those commissioners appointed by central government. It seems to me that Cantabrians should lead the recovery process, and that there should be a majority of elected Cantabrians on the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Commission. That seems a very basic requirement. The Greens will move an amendment to get a further two elected councillors on to the commission so that there is a majority of elected Cantabrians on the commission.

I asked the Prime Minister a question in the House last week about exactly that issue: whether the people of Canterbury would lead the recovery. He said they would, yet when we look at the make-up of the commission we find that four out of seven commissioners are to be appointed by central government. We will move an amendment to make sure Cantabrians themselves lead the process.

The second amendment we will move will limit the lifespan of this legislation to 6 months. We think the extraordinary powers that this bill gives should be kept on a short leash. We think it should apply for 6 months only. The Government will be able to come back after 6 months and move a motion in the House to get a further 6-month extension. That seems reasonable. Given the extraordinary powers in this bill, it seems only right that Parliament keep the executive on a short leash. We say there should be a sunset clause after 6 months, when the Government can come back to this House and seek a further extension for another 6 months via a simple notice of motion. That way, the executive will be kept on a pretty short leash in its use of these incredible powers.

The third amendment we will move relates to the fact that it seems to us that the Government should be given the power to change through Order in Council only those Acts that are identified in the bill. Under the current bill the Government will have the power to amend any statute on the books. We think it should be limited solely to those Acts that are identified, so people know which Acts the Government can change by fiat. Law by fiat is effectively what this bill provides for, and the people of New Zealand have a right to know which bills will be amended by the executive.

Furthermore, we think the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act should not be in that list. The people of Canterbury and New Zealand have a right to know what their local bodies get up to, so the Government should not be able to amend the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act through those Orders in Council. We think it is very important that there is transparency, so that Act should not be on the list.

The fourth amendment we will move is to make sure that the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Commission is subject to Official Information Act requests. Currently it is unclear; there is no statement that the commission is subject to the Official Information Act or the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act, and we think it should be made clear that the commission is subject to Official Information Act proceedings. If there is no transparency on that process, it will be hard for ordinary New Zealanders to know what is going on, let alone Parliament or anyone else.

The fifth amendment we will move relates to the publishing and tabling of Orders in Council. Effectively those Orders in Council will be legislating by fiat; the executive will have the power to legislate by fiat on any statute except for the five constitutional statutes. It seems critical to us that when Orders in Council are made they are published immediately. They should be put up on a Government website so that people know what the law of the land is. It is very hard to know the law of the land when there is no way to find it out. We think that as soon as an Order in Council is passed by the Government, it should be published on a Government website within 24 hours, so that people will know the law of the land. It is hard to follow the law if it is not published somewhere. We think that as Orders in Council are effectively legislating by fiat, they should be immediately available to the people of New Zealand and Canterbury, so that they can see what the law is.

Furthermore, we think those Orders in Council should be tabled on the next sitting day. Under the Regulations (Disallowance) Act they have to be tabled within 16 sitting days, which is a very long period—it is a number of months, in fact. It seems to us that Orders in Council should be tabled on the very next sitting day, so that Parliament can see them. It seems a basic requirement that Orders in Council should be given to Parliament on its next sitting day. That should not be any trouble, given that the Government must know what is in those Orders in Council.

The sixth amendment the Greens will move relates to clause 6(3), which basically states that Government decision-making will not be able to be reviewed by any court. That is a pretty concerning provision. It is fundamental to our constitutional arrangement that the courts can review the Government’s decision-making processes. We understand that this is a time when we need to make decisions quickly, and we accept that proviso. However, completely throwing out the ability of the courts to have any kind of review of Government decision-making processes seems to us to be a step too far. It is part of the balance of power that the courts have the ability to look at what the Government has done. The bill currently states in clause 6(3): “The recommendation of the relevant Minister”—that is, a recommendation to the Governor-General to have an Order in Council—“may not be challenged, reviewed, quashed, or called into question in any court.” That is a pretty extraordinary provision. As an amendment we are suggesting we insert into that subclause, after the words “called into question in court”, the words “unless a High Court judge determines that fundamental principles of justice will be compromised by not allowing a case to be heard.”

We think it is critical that there be some kind of judicial oversight of the executive. If we are to give the executive these extraordinary powers to effectively legislate by fiat, there must be at least some process whereby the courts can review it if a High Court judge is of the view that fundamental principles of justice could be compromised by not allowing a case to be heard. There has to be some kind of mechanism to ensure that the courts have some ability to review the executive if it is acting in a way that is fundamentally against the principles of justice.

The Green Party believes the Government has good intentions in pushing this legislation. We understand where it is coming from and what it is trying to do. However, we think it is a step too far and that there are a number of ways this legislation could be improved so that it gets the support of the entire Parliament and we can all stand behind it, protecting our constitution while rebuilding Christchurch and Canterbury.

I will give a chronology of what the Opposition understands to be the development of the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill, then make a few comments about some of the issues that have been raised in the debate so far. It has been said, rightly, earlier in the discussion that there has been a good level of consultation between the Government and the Opposition on the proposals. What was shown to the Leader of the Opposition’s office on Saturday was a series of drafting instructions that represented a wish list, if you like, from the Canterbury councils on the sorts of legislative amendments they felt they would need to effectively engage in emergency recovery and relief. I looked through those drafting instructions carefully. They proposed quite a wide series of amendments to exempt the councils from legislation such as the Resource Management Act, Building Act, Local Government Act, and Land Transport Act, and went on to provide for a suspending power in respect of a further series of enactments that were scheduled to the instructions.

I was disturbed by the scope of those drafting instructions and some of the language used in them. The councils were keen, for example, to “facilitate an efficient clean-up, in particular without diverting staff away from emergency work and on to paperwork requirements.” As a paperwork requirement, one of the examples given was a desired amendment to sections 330A(1) and 330B(2) of the Resource Management Act that would have removed any requirement to notify a consent authority that emergency works had been carried out in any particular case. I cannot imagine that, if we had agreed to that sort of request, ratepayers or future purchasers of land or properties would have been happy with that exemption, because of course potential purchasers want to know whether emergency work has been carried out on particular land or property. There needs to be notification and a record of that work. While we were formulating our response to those drafting instructions they were superseded by a draft bill that, happily, discarded the approach that had originally been proposed by the councils, and instead adopted the sort of scheme that we are now debating in the House today.

The bill, as originally worded, proposed the ability to suspend a wide range of legislation for a period of 5 years by Order in Council through a negative resolution procedure. We thought that that was a better approach than the approach that had been originally mooted by the councils, but we did not think that it was an altogether perfect approach. After Clayton Cosgrove had some discussions with Gerry Brownlee we ended up with a number of changes. So there was the undertaking to notify the Opposition in advance of the detail of any Order in Council that proposed to suspend a measure, and to consult the spokesperson over that Order in Council. There was a narrowing down of the 5-year period to just over 18 months. There was the agreement to dispose of the negative resolution procedure and replace it with the procedure set out in the Standing Orders that would normally apply to the business of the Regulations Review Committee. So any Order in Council under this bill will come to the Regulations Review Committee.

I think it would be useful for the House to understand what that change means. It means that there will be systematic scrutiny of Orders in Council. There will be advice from the legal adviser to the committee on every Order in Council against the Standing Order grounds that the Regulations Review Committee normally checks delegated legislation under—rather than it being for a member of the House to simply look at an Order in Council and wonder whether there is something objectionable in it, which would have been the case under the ordinary negative resolution procedure originally proposed. If any member of the Regulations Review Committee objects to any provision in any Order in Council, then all that member needs to do under the Standing Orders is put a notice of motion on the Order Paper of the House to that effect.

What that will mean is that if the Government does not bring on a debate about that Order in Council within 21 sitting days, then the Order in Council will lapse. So if the Government does not bring on the debate, the order will lapse. If it does bring on the debate, then there will be a proper discussion in the House about the provision that is intended to suspend a legislative requirement.

Obviously there are other safeguards that come from using that ordinary scrutiny procedure that the House has had in effect since 1986. The committee is chaired by an Opposition MP. In the way that the House originally decided to set up the committee, it had a neutral composition, because Rahui Katene held the balance of authority on it. I hope we will see Rahui Katene back in the committee, because she plays a very constructive role in it when she attends. Because of her workload, she has allowed herself to be replaced by a National member for the last 9 months or so. What I hope—because Rahui Katene is a member who has an office in Canterbury and who makes a constructive approach to the committee—is that we will see her again coming to the committee on any business to do with the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill Standing Orders and Orders in Council, and that that will also help to restore the proper role of the committee to act not with a National or a Labour majority but with a cross-bencher holding the balance of responsibility in the committee. If she were to do that, we would improve scrutiny even further. Those are the comments I wanted to address to the evolution of the legislation that we are debating tonight, as I understand it.

This bill is not perfect. I do not like the idea of suspending power, in principle; it is a power that has caused great controversy in our constitutional history and the history that we inherited from the English common law. There are other aspects of the bill that disturb me. I do not like the privative clause that Russel Norman referred to in the speech given just before mine. Clearly, the Greens have some concerns. We will look at the detail of the amendments that they put up. We will decide what our position will be on them during the Committee stage of the debate. But for the moment, having agreed the concessions that we have, and in particular the safeguards around scrutiny, it is—as Clayton Cosgrove has said—our intention to adopt a non-partisan approach to the legislation and to support its passage through the House.

Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa e hoa mā e noho nei i roto i te Whare i tēnei pō. Our co-leader has already advised Parliament that we will support this bill, as it gives those involved in the rebuilding effort another tool to aid the recovery in Christchurch. I do not think there are too many people at all in the whole of Aotearoa who would stand in the way of Parliament seeking to develop an effective response to the Canterbury earthquake. Such is the nature of our nation that there are many links to Te Wai Pounamu throughout our party and our electorates that have been important during the time of need. I have been in touch with my brother a couple of times now, just to see how they are going. Fortunately he has not been in the zone. But despite the fact that he is not in the zone, those after-tremors in Christchurch City are certainly keeping them on their toes. Like other members over the last week or so, we feel very much for them.

For our party, the local MP Rahui Katene has been our eyes and our ears. She has kept us fully apprised of the situation. She has been checking with our people, checking on marae, seeing where the needs are, and listening to the stories. She has seen the destroyed homes and roads, and the whole streets of houses tracing a fault through collapsed roofs and walls, through the new divisions as well. Although she said had shared some of the sadness and the grim reality of the hardship for whānau in Kaiapoi, Bexley, St Albans, and New Brighton, she has also heard plenty of stories of hope: so many people opening up their homes to complete strangers, emptying their freezers and cupboards to feed their neighbours, checking on their whānau and neighbours, helping to pick up or move furniture, dig out the sand, which is everywhere, and listening to other people’s stories. Again, that is reiterating many of the discussion points that other members have made tonight.

I want to pick up on the comment made by my co-leader Tariana Turia on this legislation. She said that we should not minimise the damage caused by the earthquake to the social and human infrastructure. This bill sets in place the appropriate statutory powers to assist in the response to the Canterbury earthquake. It does what is required to enable the relaxation or suspension of provisions and enactments. But, importantly, the Order in Council mechanism gives priority to the facilitation of information. I want to come to this from a Treaty of Waitangi perspective. Our policy manifesto “Requires robust and accountable work practices by local government and regional authorities when working with mana whenua …”. It also stipulates “As provided in the Treaty, tangata whenua should have an equal say in the decisions which affect them.” So we make it known that Māori, specifically Ngāi Tahu as mana whenua, should have representation on the commission that is being discussed, since there are 30,500 Māori who live in the wider Canterbury area.

A wealth of information has come in, whether it be from Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, from Te Puni Kōkiri, or from our own Rahui Katene. I know from the Minister of Māori Affairs that Te Puni Kōkiri staff have visited whānau as homes were reported damaged, and assisted them to locate. They have monitored the operations of the welfare centre. They made daily visits to the Christchurch City emergency welfare centres. They visited the Selwyn district emergency command centre and the district welfare manager. They also spent time with residents in Darfield, close to the epicentre of the earthquake, who were exhibiting much greater distress levels than elsewhere in the district. The same was true for Tai Tapu. I share some of this information because it is vital that the recovery commission incorporate the experience of tangata whenua. We recommend that the mana whenua be represented amongst the four commissioners to be appointed by the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery.

One of the things that were really hard to hear about from Rahui was about visiting whānau who were too afraid to leave their homes despite the fact that they would be distinctly threatened if they stayed in them. In fact their whole whānau would be threatened by that. We need to know why they did not feel that the welfare centres catered for their needs, and how they can best be supported in the next few months as they try to return to some form of normality. Some of the people she talked to did not realise that the welfare centre was for the public; they thought it was only for the emergency staff. That is clearly an example of an aspect of communication that needs to be tidied up a little. I share these things because it is important to have the full range of information available in preparing for full recovery.

In closing, I say we believe that this bill will aid the recovery and rebuilding of Christchurch, which will boost the collective wairua of the people who have been affected by the quake. We will be advocating to ensure that Māori have a guaranteed voice on the commission, and we continue to promote the importance of engaging with mana whenua to ensure that the pathway ahead is one that meets the needs of all of the people in Christchurch and the general Canterbury area. Tēnā koe.

I rise to speak briefly in the second reading of the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill. It is at a time like this that I feel really proud to be a Cantabrian. For most people in my Rangitata electorate, damage has been minimal or there has been none at all, but some residents have suffered considerable damage and disruption. It seems as if we all have either a friend or a relative who has been badly affected. There is disruption in my electorate in the form of uncertainty for those who are in the middle of a house purchase and who are unable to secure an urgent inspection of their new home—what a dent that must be in their excitement. Those people face uncertainty, additional expense, and worry in relation to getting insurance cover. We can see why there is such uncertainty at this time. The issue has widespread impact far beyond the parts of Canterbury that are so obviously damaged.

I have observed disruption in homes, churches, and businesses. Many chimneys took a dive, as did spires on churches such as St Mary’s in Timaru, which just a couple of weeks ago celebrated its 150th anniversary. This also happened to the Catholic church at Temuka where, almost exactly 23 years ago, my sister was married during another severe event—a storm on 15 October.

Some businesses received minor damage. Our plumber had a bench top for us, but it was smashed. His business will now be set back weeks in terms of getting jobs done. In Methven, the Blue Pub and the Brown Pub were both yellow-stickered, putting their accommodation out of commission for now. So employment has been affected. Cafe 131 will be out of operation for at least 3 weeks, St Ita’s Guesthouse is without the ability to take bookings as its owners address damage, and the pub in Rākaia has received minimal damage but the falling chimneys gave a very big fright. For the Icehouse Gallery, the Steel-Worx businesses, and the Thai restaurant in Methven, business is on hold and so, too, is the income of people working in those places.

Others in Ashburton and Timaru are also without income. It is temporary, but they have been reassured by the immediate response of Government agencies, Canterbury MPs from across the House, the mayors, and emergency services. Help has been swift and helpful, and there has been understanding. We have served the immediate need, but now it is time for stage 2 and that is what brings me to this bill. There needs to be a more lasting set of actions for the recovery and that is why this is called the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill.

Clause 3(b) of the bill speaks of giving the Government “adequate statutory power to assist with the response to the Canterbury earthquake:” It is a very necessary next step. But people of the Canterbury region do not need anger and resentment borne out of frustration. They want to rebuild their lives—their homes, their businesses, and their schools.

The courage, compassion, and sharing of the response is one that the people of Canterbury—in fact, all of New Zealand—can be proud of. As already expressed in the House, students stepped up to the mark and will justifiably feel proud of what they have achieved. This recovery needs this legislation, and I am therefore very proud and very happy to commend it to the House.

It is important in the second reading of the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill that I declare that, although I and my Labour colleagues support this bill, we do so with a degree of nervousness about some of the provisions contained within it. I support it as the MP for Christchurch Central. With all due acknowledgment of the damage inflicted at Kaiapoi, Bexley, and other parts of Canterbury, Christchurch Central has suffered the most damage and certainly the most dollar damage to buildings, particularly—but not exclusively—across the central business district of our city. All members will know that heritage is the hallmark of Christchurch. Christchurch has one of the best preserved central business districts in Australasia and beyond; it is what brings the tourists to our city, and it enriches our lives.

We know that this bill is a response to a once-in-a-generation event: a disaster that we are not likely to—or that we hope and pray we do not—ever see again in our lifetime. We know that a number of non-compliant activities within the city and within the region are currently permitted by the state of emergency, which, the indications are, will lift at midday tomorrow. So the need for the bill is there in terms of what needs to happen for progress in our city, both with the first phase of demolition of unsafe buildings—buildings that definitively cannot be restored—and then so that the next phase, which is the rebuilding of our city, can happen in rapid fashion.

I see this bill as a test of good faith. It would not be in anybody’s interests if that good faith was not fulfilled. But at the back of my mind is the last time I spoke on such legislation, the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill, which was passed under urgency prior to Easter. That bill was not hallmarked by the sort of disaster we face, so I am not making a direct comparison, but it is, obviously, in my mind.

Talking about preservation of buildings, I understand that a small business in my electorate, the Canterbury Cheesemongers shop, has unfortunately fallen to demolition. I visited that shop twice early last week at the call of Martin, the cheesemonger. His building, a small building, had been declared sound, but the buildings on both sides of it had been very badly damaged. We were trying to see whether there was some way of preserving that business and that building when the demolition of the surrounding damaged buildings took place. I understand—and I cannot vouch for this—that, unfortunately, that shop has gone today. That might signal to us the sorts of challenges we will face in the demolition phase: the need to protect and preserve as many of our heritage buildings as we can. The cheesemonger’s shop was not an iconic building by any means, but it was a small, turn-of-the-century building that added some character to our city, and it will be a loss that it has gone. We will wait to see whether it absolutely had to happen or may possibly have been avoided. There are big questions as we go through this bill and what lies beyond.

One of the best things that we as local electorate MPs can do is ensure that we provide the best possible information to our constituents, and I am pleased to say that electorate MPs have swung into action. Last night Lianne Dalziel held a meeting that was attended by 500 people. She had an Earthquake Commission representative and others assisting 500 people who wanted to know about insurance, Earthquake Commission cover, and the like. I know that my colleague Clayton Cosgrove has a similar meeting coming up tomorrow night in Kaiapoi. Gerry Brownlee and I have meetings in our electorates on Thursday night with Earthquake Commission staff present. I will also have senior staff from AMI Insurance and, hopefully, other insurance companies present at my meeting at Shirley Intermediate School at 5 o’clock on Thursday night. I am doing a similar meeting at the same venue at 5 o’clock on Friday night to provide the best information we can. I know that both Ruth Dyson and Lianne Dalziel have meetings planned through the weekend and into next week to try to provide that sort of advice and information to their constituents. That is truly, truly important.

But to come back to the bill, I think that although we have some of the best heritage remaining in Australasia in Christchurch’s central business district, the track record has not been flash. We had already lost too many buildings prior to the quake. We have a cumbersome city plan that has done very little to protect our heritage buildings. I think of buildings like the very ugly Rebel Sport building on the corner of Colombo Street and Moorhouse Avenue—a big, ugly, tilt-slab monstrosity that somehow or other has managed to invade our cityscape. I know that more is on its way.

The printing room of the Press was demolished. It had immediately adjoined my now vacated office in Worcester Street. The replacement for it on that site is four multi-storeyed buildings stretching to 20 storeys high. This is within 100 metres of the square—the centre and the heart of Christchurch. How that could get through is beyond me. It is because the city plan allows it. My concern is—and we need everybody to hold hands on this—that we make sure that this legislation does not provide carte blanche for further development of that ugly, tilt-slab kind of construction, which does nothing for a cityscape, be it Christchurch or anywhere else.

We have a unique series of façades across Christchurch. It is a unique set of buildings, which has added a huge amount to the fabric of our city, to its beauty, to its character, and to its iconic status. At the moment we are seeking Unesco acknowledgment of the Gothic revival buildings of our city, to put it on the world map in that respect. It would be a disaster if there was an enhancement of the prospects for ugly, tilt-slab designs to replace some of those heritage buildings. We acknowledge that that is happening, and that in some instances it has to happen, but there is a limit as to how much can be restored both physically and financially. We have to protect the best of what we have, rebuild the best of what we have, and acknowledge that some will go. It is clear that we cannot save everything. We are concerned to ensure that this bill allows the best of what is left to be retained, protected, preserved, and enhanced, and that when other new buildings are built they are not ugly buildings that will add nothing to the vibrancy of our city.

I make two acknowledgments in relation to groups of people. One is the Orion lines staff, who have done a fantastic job over the last 10 days restoring power across the city. I also acknowledge those people in the media who have, in general, done a very good job. However, I have one message in that respect. I note the comments made by Peter Townsend from the Canterbury Employers Chamber of Commerce, who was being interviewed by a Perth radio station. The station asked him what he was doing now that Christchurch’s central business district had been obliterated. I want the message to go out very clearly that 98 percent of Christchurch’s central business district is standing, most people are back at work, and the city is functioning very normally. People should take note that although we have sustained a considerable amount of damage, our city is up and running and looking toward a viable future with buildings restored and new buildings that complement the historic façades of our cityscape.

Debate interrupted.