Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill

I move, That the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill be now read a third time. Firstly, I compliment all members on the very constructive debate that occurred over the Committee stage of this bill, particularly given the very difficult issues that we confront with regard to the recovery and reconstruction of New Zealand’s second-largest city, after what I think will go down in history as New Zealand’s most costly natural disaster. I compliment the Minister, Gerry Brownlee, on the work that he has put in over the last 10 days. Mr Brownlee and other members of the House—and I acknowledge Brendon Burns and Amy Adams—have had their own properties severely damaged in this earthquake, and the way in which the Minister and other members have worked cooperatively to bring this legislation to the House so quickly is, I think, a great credit to him and to the other members.

It is interesting to reflect, in the debate in this Chamber, that on the occasion of the tragic Napier earthquake, which my colleague Chris Tremain mentioned in the Committee stage, it took 3 months, until April 1931, for legislation to come before Parliament to help the community of Napier to respond to that earthquake. It is a credit to us, I believe, to have brought legislation together so quickly, in just 10 days, 80 years later, to respond to this issue.

I also acknowledge in particular my own officials from the Ministry for the Environment. They have been working incredibly long hours since the middle of last week, as it rapidly became very obvious that the existing legislative framework would be a barrier to Canterbury’s recovery. I acknowledge the way in which they worked through the course of the weekend, as we brought this bill together.

I think it is quite important to put on record a couple of points about the legislation. There has been the odd extravagant comment about the bill’s intent. I reinforce that Orders in Council are permitted under this legislation only if they directly relate to the recovery from, and the response to, the Canterbury earthquake. Those who claim that this bill will allow any Act of Parliament to be changed for any purpose are not correct, and, in fact, it would be open to judicial review if there were attempts to bypass Acts for purposes that were not related to the massive earthquake in Canterbury.

I will comment on a number of amendments that the Committee considered. I note that the Minister, Gerry Brownlee, did accept amendments where there was a good case for doing so, particularly in respect of the intent of the Government to ensure that the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Commission, which is in charge of overseeing the recovery of Canterbury after the earthquake, should be subject to the Official Information Act. That amendment arose during the Committee stage, and the bill has now been changed.

But let me go through some of the amendments that the Government did not accept, and the reasons for that. Firstly, there were proposals to limit the jurisdiction of this bill as it stands only to issues in Waimakariri District, Christchurch City, and Selwyn District. That does not make sense, because the impacts of the earthquake have gone well beyond those areas. We have people working around the clock trying to reopen State Highway 1 and the main trunk railway in Kaikōura, which is outside the jurisdiction of those areas. We have had damage to chimneys and to buildings extending well into every one of the 10 districts throughout Canterbury. One issue I am considering as Minister for the Environment is that it might be sensible, given the number of fatalities that have occurred historically around earthquakes and chimneys, and given that I think this House shares a desire to improve the air quality of Canterbury, for us to pass some extra Orders in Council to ensure that wherever possible we eliminate the chimneys and move Christchurch, Ashburton, and other communities on to having a cleaner air quality. So I do not believe there is a robust case to be made for limiting the jurisdiction of this bill simply to those three districts. Quite frankly, the issues go beyond them.

There was the proposition that this bill should cover only those Acts that have been specifically identified. We had a pretty hard crack at trying to identify and be upfront with Parliament about the Acts that we think we would need to move around, and obviously the Resource Management Act, the Building Act, the Acts that deal with the Earthquake Commission, and other Acts will require some Orders in Council to be issued. But when we look at the Acts of Parliament that govern the region of Canterbury, we see Acts that specifically deal with the Summit Road, the Christchurch-Lyttelton road tunnel, the University of Canterbury, Christ’s College, and the port companies. It was not possible, in the very short period in which we needed to respond to the people of Canterbury, to specifically list and identity every one of those Acts, and that is why it is important that this bill has some flexibility.

It has been suggested that we need to specifically list in this bill the skills required of the commissioners. We had a bit of a crack at doing that within the time frame. I do not necessarily disagree with the proposals that were put forward, although I would note that one of the most important skills will be ensuring that we rebuild Canterbury and Christchurch in such a way that they might become more resilient to a future earthquake, which is highly probable in the future. That applies particularly to the infrastructure and the buildings that will be rebuilt. So I do not think it is a wise move to be quite specific about those skills, albeit we take on board the views that the Opposition members have expressed on the skill set. I do not necessarily disagree that those skills are relevant when making those appointments.

There have been amendments seeking to add extra representation from Christchurch on the commission. I do not think we should take a view that the commission is representative. If members want to run the argument that, for instance, Christchurch should have additional commissioners, I have to say to them that the scale of the earthquake in Selwyn was very large. The member who represents Waimakariri and Kate Wilkinson have also made play of the scale of the impact on Kaiapoi, and having seen some of that firsthand I know there is no doubt that there has been a massive impact in that area. I think it is important that each of those territorial authorities certainly has a voice on the commission. To start to double up their representatives would not necessarily get the commission on to the right footing for the recovery.

There have been objections to the issue of retrospectivity. I tell members that we have to be pragmatic here. It is my view that there will need to be an element of retrospectivity to some of the changes that will be necessary to make the recovery as smooth as possible, and that is why we need to take a pragmatic view. There may be a need for this Parliament to consider further legislation, as we work through the humongous issues associated with the recovery from the earthquake in Canterbury. But to have this bill in place as early as this, in order to enable the Government to get the commission up and running, is what this Parliament needs to do in response to Canterbury’s hour of need. This legislation is about providing a short, sharp response that will enable us to move quickly from the civil emergency, which has been exceptionally well handled, into the recovery phase, and make sure that not a business or a household is delayed for a day further than is absolutely necessary in its recovery.

Yes, there has been some debate about this legislation making provision for 18 months’ recovery. Quite frankly, my view—and it comes from the best knowledge that we have 10 days post-earthquake—is that it will take 18 months for Christchurch to recover. That may change; it may be longer. I suspect the recovery is more likely to be at the longer end of that time period, and if we look at similar communities, whether they be San Francisco, Kobe, or other areas that have suffered massive earthquakes, we see that my view of an 18-month period being required is realistic.

Again, I commend this bill to the House. I thank members for their constructive contributions. This bill is what we need to do as a Parliament to give Canterbury the capacity to recover as quickly as possible from this massive quake.

I acknowledge the comments of the Hon Nick Smith; the work of the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery, Gerry Brownlee; and the contributions of all the members of the House. We have got to the point where the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill is all but done and dusted. I have chosen to speak several times through the passage of this legislation today, in what has been a most unusual and rare display of unity across this Parliament.

As the MP for the most affected electorate—without wishing to diminish the scale of the impact in other electorates—I firstly wanted the chance to talk about the impact on parts of my electorate, not just the Christchurch central business district but suburbs, particularly Avonside and, to a lesser extent, St Albans.

There was never much doubt that Labour would support this bill. We—and, I think, all members of this House—want to see a rapid reconstruction of the city of Christchurch and the wider region of Canterbury. But saying that, I have felt today the need to voice some sense of unease about the legislation, given the scale, the scope, and the sweeping powers it provides to the Government, to the appointed Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Commission, and to the mayors of the districts of Christchurch, Selwyn, and Waimakariri.

In my mind—and, I think, in the minds of other members of the Opposition—is the fact that the last time we were dealing with Canterbury local body issues, we were dealing with the abolition of Environment Canterbury. In effect, the Government itself has recently been forced to acknowledge that at the very least it got offside on that issue with the Christchurch public, and hence the taxpayer-funded pamphlets asking for people’s views on abolishing the regional council and water management issues.

I therefore found it appropriate to challenge Gerry Brownlee in the chair through the Committee stage as the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery on a number of issues; other colleagues have done the same. This was, after all, our only chance as members of Parliament and as representatives of the wider public to ask the questions that needed to be asked.

The bill is short on detail. Basically it gives the Government and the commission the powers to override legislation—for instance, the Building Act—by issuing Orders in Council, such as a regulation exempting repair and reconstruction work from the normal requirements to get a building consent. Of course, that raises questions about how building work can be held to the sort of quality that we would expect the resource consent processes to require. We have to acknowledge that we are putting some considerable trust and faith in the details being worked through from the introduction of this legislation.

Other questions we wanted answered were around what the processes would be for the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Commission and councils to alert the public when they propose things such as the demolition of buildings. We have a particular concern for the infrastructure of the heritage of the Christchurch central business district. It makes our city unique and special. It gives it its defining character. Many, many people in Canterbury are passionate to the nth degree about the heritage of our city and have deep concerns for the future of that heritage. I think everybody acknowledges that we have lost and will lose some buildings, but there is some nervousness that this bill might facilitate a process that allows the knocking over of buildings that, with a little bit of time and breath, might survive or be reconstructed, even if some extra expense was involved. More than that, it might allow the construction of new, tilt-slab, rather uglier buildings to replace them. We would get to a situation where even remaining heritage buildings would be sitting cheek by jowl with rather clashing modern structures without any particular architectural value or merit. Those are the sorts of concerns we have had.

I was pleased to see the amendment tabled at the eleventh hour and 49th minute by the Minister tonight, which confirms that the commission will be covered by the Official Information Act. It is important that the public are provided with as wide a set of information as possible to know what is being proposed, what is coming through in processes to Order in Council, and what is on the council agenda in terms of particular buildings that may be subject to demolition orders or new, rapid-fire reconstruction processes. It is truly important, when we are asking the public of Canterbury to put their faith and trust in the processes that we as a Parliament are enshrining tonight, for the public to know they will get the widest possible information about what will happen, and whatever chance for input into those processes that can be given.

The Minister noted that this will be a very flat structure for the commission and the councils, to allow them to get things happening rapidly. He also acknowledged that one of the checks and balances will be that in most instances there will be approaches to Government for money towards rebuilding costs. That will be a check and balance on the potential for more inappropriate development. Let us hope that is the case.

The Minister has assured the House that there are no tricky agendas behind this bill. Certainly, a lot of good faith is being afforded by us as Labour MPs and other Opposition MPs in supporting this one-off legislation. It is extraordinary legislation as, in my knowledge of Parliament, it is almost without precedent in terms of its scale, the breadth of support, and the time frame in which it has passed through this House. The onus is now on the councils, the Government, and the commission—which is still to be appointed—to show that that faith has been well placed. With that caveat, let us work on this together. Kia kaha.

I will touch on what the previous speaker, Brendon Burns, said. The Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill has the potential to be wide ranging, because the disaster that hit Canterbury 10 days ago was unprecedented. It is the largest natural disaster to hit New Zealand, not only in my lifetime but also in any of our lifetimes in this House, and, indeed, probably in the history of our nation. Something in the order of $4 billion is required to fix Christchurch and Canterbury in the wider sense, and this bill has been put forward to allow that to happen in a more efficient and better way.

A lot of concerns have been raised about some aspects of this bill, in particular in the Committee stage. I do not want to disagree with the previous speaker about which electorate or area has been worst affected by the earthquake, but in relation to the 1,000 homes on my side of town in Christchurch I say people from those homes believe they are the worst affected. People from any part of Canterbury will believe that they are the worst affected.

Dr Nick Smith talked about some of the reasons why not all the legislation could be pointed out. I will point out one Act before I finish, which is the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Act. As we speak, 10 streets in Dallington are without water or sewerage. The pipes that exist there are old asbestos pipes that were laid in the 1930s. As members may know, dealing with asbestos poses a particular problem. Those pipes need to be replaced in a very careful and more difficult way than would apply to normal PVC pipes or copper piping. That is an example of a particular issue that may arise that might need a special Order in Council to deal with it, in terms of the rebuild over the months and years to come. I think the powers that exist in this bill will allow those things to occur, because we cannot in any shape or form know exactly what we may have ahead of us.

We know that we need to rebuild our city. We need to make our city bigger, better, and stronger than it was. We need to have the ability to think about maybe building in different places or in different ways, and this bill will allow some of those things to occur over the next 18 months. I think that is a good thing.

Finally, I will touch on the issue of the commissioners. I think it is always very easy to outline a list that might come into play in terms of who should or should not be a commissioner, but it is difficult to do that today in the short period of time that we have had: 10 days since the quake hit, and 400 aftershocks have hit since then. We need to think very carefully over the next few days and weeks about the other skills that we may need to have represented on the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Commission in order to rebuild our city. It is very difficult to come up with an exclusive list in the period of time that we have had, so I believe the approach that we are taking is the right and correct one towards making my home city return to the state that I think we all want it to be in. Thank you.

Sorry for being a little slow to my feet; the previous speaker, Aaron Gilmore, resumed his seat far more quickly than I thought he would. I was a bit concerned that he thinks the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill will fix the issue of asbestos piping in Dallington. I hope we do not quite get to that level of operational detail, but not nearly as much as I hope those issues are resolved quickly for the good citizens of Dallington.

As many people have said tonight, this is a quite unusual bill that deals with what I hope remains a very unusual series of events in terms of the strength of the earthquake and the number of aftershocks. They are just part of our lives now. In fact, the language has changed a lot in Canterbury. When we have aftershocks now, we do not shudder, race to the door, and say: “What was that?”. We say: “Oh, I think that was about a 3.9, or maybe a 4.2.” We have all become Richter scale and geological experts. We could probably guess how shallow each aftershock was and where the epicentre was. That is part of Cantabrians’ response in dealing with what was a huge and scary issue for all of us.

People in my electorate, Port Hills, and people in our city and our region, want to know that Parliament is behind our recovery. For me, one of the most important things about the debate today is that this bill shows Parliament’s commitment to supporting the rebuilding of Canterbury. There has been a cross-party approach right from the time of the earthquake. We all resolved that this issue had so traumatised residents and so damaged structures that party politics would be put to one side. We all feel our politics deeply—that is why we are in this place—but there has not been any political point-scoring, and other people’s disadvantage has not been used to our advantage. I think that is to the credit of all members. We have responded in what is an unusual way for Parliament. We have not scored points at other people’s expense, because we know that people are already dealing with huge stresses and challenges in responding to the quakes, and this bill further demonstrates that commitment.

But today, as we progress this bill under urgency, without the opportunity for scrutiny by a select committee—because we want these measures to be set up with some literal urgency—Labour members have expressed concern about what I consider to be the quite extreme nature of this legislation. It is very unusual. It is unusual for Parliament to agree to put aside statutory powers that Parliament has agreed to and put them in the hands of Ministers through an Order in Council process. I was very pleased that my colleagues Clayton Cosgrove and Charles Chauvel, who have been leading the discussions with the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery, received agreement that all those changes would be scrutinised by the Regulations Review Committee. That is an important part of the process, but it is very limited compared with the opportunities that are available under general statutory powers. So Labour members have expressed concerns about the nature of the legislative approach that is considered to be an appropriate response to the events in Christchurch.

The original consideration, right up until last Saturday—just 3 days ago—was that the emergency bill would just amend a whole lot of other bills. So we had proposed amendments to the Resource Management Act, to the transport legislation, to the building legislation, and to the local government legislation. In my view, having that specificity that Parliament could say this part of the Resource Management Act could be truncated for the purposes of rebuilding, or the time could be shortened, or the registration process could be retrospective—it would still need to be there—was a far more satisfactory approach. I would have had much more confidence in that approach as a member of Parliament. For some reason—and we have gone through the whole debate without an explanation—that approach was overridden, and as an alternative we have what some people may describe as Draconian legislation, but what I certainly describe as extreme legislation. That is what we are now passing. It is in its final stages as we speak.

Both Minister Brownlee and Minister Smith have put on record their responses to Labour’s concerns and questions. They have had opportunities to consider amendments put before them. They have had discussions with Kennedy Graham, who proposed six amendments—some of which we agreed with, and some of which we did not. We had good discussions about the reasons for that. The Green Party did not agree with us, obviously, but we had at least some opportunity—albeit a rather brief opportunity—to discuss our reasons for supporting some amendments and for opposing others. The Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery likewise had the opportunity to consider the amendments. He did not take up much of that opportunity, and I think it was a wasted opportunity.

Amendments were proposed in Kennedy Graham’s name and in my name—including one on behalf of the Hon Jim Anderton—which would, in my view, have improved the bill. They would have given us more confidence that what is a very extreme measure would be less likely to cause public disquiet and concern. The last thing I want is to come back to this House and feel the same as we have about the leaky building syndrome issue, when local government and central government have pointed their fingers at each other and said: “It is your fault. You should pay.”, while homeowners have borne the brunt of mistakes made by Parliament in the 1990s. In my view, rushed legislation often has that risk attached to it. Quite often, members of different parties will see things from a different perspective and say “If this is the problem, here is the solution.” I think Minister Gerry Brownlee could have made more of that opportunity tonight, but he did not.

Well, I am pleased that we are passing this legislation. I want our Parliament to give Canterbury the message that we support its recovery. That is a good message for Cantabrians to hear. Earlier I urged the Chair, Assistant Speaker Roy, to consider his region—the Southland region—and the fact that a major boost to the morale of Canterbury would be for us to have back our Ranfurly Shield, which Southland borrowed for a little while. I hope he is considering that, because it would also give us a good boost.

But, seriously, this bill will help. It has risks attached to it. We will be keeping an eye on the implementation of this bill to ensure that none of the concerns we have come to fruition. We do not want a concrete slab city, we do not want trucks being able to use our roads when they are risky and tearing them up even more than they have been destroyed, and we do not want our historic architecture removed from the landscape for ever. We want as much of the beauty of our city to be retained for the future as possible. We want our citizens to have a place to work, a place to live, and a healthy city to continue to thrive in. That is a big ask. We have a lot of work to do, but Parliament has given its support to that. The local members of Parliament have all worked tirelessly to help the residents of our city, and I certainly hope that that support and that approach continue.

This has been one tough day, and we are faced with tough circumstances that still obtain in Christchurch and Canterbury. This is the third reading of the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill, and therefore it is the final opportunity to comment before it is enacted into law. I begin by reiterating our appreciation to the Government and to Minister Brownlee, Minister John Carter, Minister Smith, and other Ministers for their good intent and their cooperative spirit in Christchurch during and after the earthquake, and for that matter here in the House.

Our abiding concern, I suppose, in Opposition is that we are always very squeezed by time pressure when legislation of this nature comes through in such a compressed time frame. This has been a good debate, but we are left with the feeling that there has been insufficient time to properly work through some of the issues in good faith between the parties. We tend to emerge with a feeling that we are left with the crumbs of democracy that have fallen from the tables of power, and we are left to exit the Chamber feeling that we have not done justice to the depth of significance of some of these issues. To that extent, not only are we dissatisfied but we are saddened about the health of democracy in this country.

This is a tough day, these are tough circumstances, and indeed this is a tough bill. It is a tough bill in the sense that it has far-reaching powers. Ruth Dyson used the word “Draconian”, but she did not associate the bill with it. She said some people regarded the bill as Draconian. I heard that word spoken about this bill independently of Ruth Dyson earlier today. We can take our choice; it is a semantic issue. But let us all agree—and I think we do—that extraordinarily far-reaching powers are about to be enacted.

The basic attitude of the Green Party to this bill, as we said in the first reading and reiterated in the second reading and during the Committee stage, is that its powers are excessive for the purpose. We do not deny the purpose; we share in the purpose. We regard the powers as being excessive relative to that purpose. Some of our concerns have been allayed, and I say to Minister Smith that I appreciate his explanations about the territorial application. We took his point in the first reading, and we did not submit a Supplementary Order Paper that we had prepared on the territorial jurisdiction issue. However, we did take on board the concerns about the bill from the very beginning.

I identified six principles in the Committee stage. Going backwards, as it were, the sixth principle is municipal transparency, in terms of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act. We appreciate the effort of the Government to respond positively to that. That reflected an initiative on our part, which was shared by the Labour Party, and we appreciate the Government’s response to it. With regard to community participation and whether more city councillors from Christchurch should be involved, I hear the Minister’s reassurance that he is interested in providing a flat, non-bureaucratic structure, that there is mayoral involvement, and so on. We hear that. I do not know whether that completely allays our concerns around community participation, but I think we are all agreed that there needs to be adequate local community participation. With regard to accountability to Parliament and the 24-hour rule that we were putting forward, we accept the ministerial explanation that there will be gazetting normally, although we still retain the preference that there should have been automatic reporting to Parliament under the legislation.

Our principal concerns run deeply, and I trust that the Government acknowledges in good faith the depth of our concerns. There are three fundamental concerns, and I think they have constitutional implications. The first relates to the sunset clause to limit how long the emergency powers should last. Our preference was for 6 months. We did not think it was beyond the imagination of the Government to recognise that 6 months is quite a long time in a fluid situation of this nature, and that the legislation could easily have been renewed within that time. However, so be it. The lifespan of the legislation is 18 months, and we acknowledge that it is still a finite time period. The two fundamental principles that we think are in severe jeopardy here relate to the lack of any limitation of scope and the issue of judicial review. I must say we are not satisfied on those points, and our concerns run deeply.

I understand the Minister’s assurances about political trust. We already commented in the first reading on the issue of trust, and there is no need for us to repeat ourselves now. I acknowledge the good intent on the part of the Government, and I acknowledge that I offered the odd extravagant comment at the time. In lame defence, I simply say I was registering a point by extreme analogy. That is all fine in the give and take of debate, and I acknowledge the good intent of the Government in that respect.

I conclude by addressing not the Government but the people of New Zealand. I make two points. First, the Green Party flags for the people of New Zealand our deep concern over two provisions of this bill: clause 6(3), which pertains to legal immunity, and which has been debated at length; and clause 6(4), which pertains to the lack of limitation on the scope of the legislation. We flag our concern about those issues, and we invite the people of New Zealand to watch very closely those issues. On the second point, I also address the Government. It is on notice tonight to act by the standards that it has proclaimed for itself, which from now on will be the subject of arbitrary political determination on its part, rather than subject to normal legal constraint. We shall vote for this bill, notwithstanding those very deep concerns. We do so for one reason: national cohesion in a state of extreme urgency in Christchurch. But let our support for this bill not go without an appreciation and acknowledgement of the fundamental concerns that we have about those two points in particular. Thank you.

Kia ora rā. Kia ora mai anō rā tātou katoa e te whānau e nohonoho mai nei i roto i tō tātou Whare i tēnei pō. Ki a rātou anō e noho tonu ana ki roto o Ōtautahi, me mihi atu mai i a mātou katoa o roto o tēnei Whare Pāremata ki a rātou i roto i tēnei taumahatanga kei runga i a rātou i tēnei wā.

[Thank you and greetings to us all, the family sitting there in our House tonight. Those who continue to live in Christchurch, all of us in this House of Parliament once again indeed acknowledge this burden that is upon them at this point in time.]

Watching my whanaunga—Tau Henare’s whanaunga, actually—Tihi Puanaki trying to explain the terror of the earthquake on Te Kāea showed me how serious its impact has been on everyone in and around Christchurch. I know Tihi well, and she is no shrinking violet. She is a formidable and renowned kapahaka leader, a passionate teacher of te reo, and a real strength in her community.

Tihi’s story, of course, has been repeated by many others in many ways, every day in all media and in everyone’s daily conversations. It confirms the importance of the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill to assist with the response to the earthquake. So we are keen to support this bill and, in particular, to acknowledge the efforts of all those involved in the rebuilding of the devastated communities of Canterbury.

Along with other community facilities that were able to be used, Māori Party MP Rahui Katene has reminded us to acknowledge the efforts of the people of Ngāi Tūahuriri in opening Tuahiwi Marae, just north of the central business district, to people in need of accommodation. No doubt all the other marae would have been opened up as well, except they were all closed for structural safety assessments. Rahui also asked that we acknowledge the generosity of Ngā Hau e Whā marae, which was closed, but which provided mattresses and general supplies to those welfare centres that were open to help those in need throughout Christchurch.

Rahui also told us of the work of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, and has asked us to acknowledge it as well for doing its bit to support Ngāi Tahu families, other Māori living in its takiwā, and all other residents in the stricken area; and to acknowledge its website, which is a hive of valuable information—tips about how to cope through the crisis, and specific information to help children and families deal with the trauma. We acknowledge also the practical assistance being provided by Ngāi Tahu through their Tautoko Whānau bank account, which they are proposing be administered by their own kaiwhakahaere, the Mayor of Christchurch, and a representative of matawaka, and coordinated with other community support initiatives being put in place.

As a special aside, Rahui told us one of those little stories that help to lift people’s spirits in the midst of disaster. I am referring to the offer from Ngāti Koata and other iwi in Nelson to open Whakatū Marae to give whānau a break after a very stressful couple of weeks in Christchurch, the offer from Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu to provide transport to and from Nelson, and the offer from iwi around Te Tau Ihu to provide kai and cater for manuhiri, as well.

One of the other big issues that came through to our caucus from Rahui’s regular reports was the concern she had that many whānau were opting to stay in their unsafe homes because they could not get to welfare centres. Rahui told us of spending a lot of her time last week visiting whānau, kaumātua, and kuia in Darlington and Hornby, and she was shocked to find that many of them were still without power, water, and sewerage. Some of them even lacked transport to get to the welfare centres, so many were opting to hunker down in their unsafe homes.

Hearing these and many other stories from Rahui reminded me that, even in times of common disaster, sometimes support is not provided to all communities equally. I raise these points because Rahui’s comments also reminded me of the importance of the Government acknowledging the 30,000 Māori living in Christchurch and recognising that their views and their needs need to be taken on board along with those of all other members of the community. I raise these points because, again, Rahui reminds us that it is important to the history of Ōtautahi, to the background of the current crisis, and to the future of a rebuilt Canterbury to ensure that Ngāi Tahu is involved in all decisions being made during the rebuilding phase, to ensure that the responses of Māori to the impacts of the earthquake are properly heard and acted upon. The Māori Party would like to see, in the implementation of this bill, the opportunity for tangata whenua to have an equitable say in the decisions that affect them and other Māori in the area, and the opportunity for Ngāi Tahu to add its considerable community knowledge and resource networks to the efforts to rebuild the district.

We will be supporting this bill to assist the recovery and rebuilding of the Canterbury district, but we are reminded again by our southern sister Rahui of the importance that Māori, and specifically Ngāi Tahu, have formal representation on the commission to ensure an effective response to the needs and the circumstances of the 30,000 Māori who live in the wider Christchurch area. Kia ora tātou.

I rise to support the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill in its third reading. Every Cantabrian who has been through the 7.1 magnitude earthquake has responded magnificently to the state of emergency. Thousands of New Zealanders have volunteered to support emergency services to get our city and our province up and running. They have all been incredibly professional—quickly and quietly getting on with the job. What a fantastic effort! Ten days later, the region is close to getting back to normal and all Cantabrians are ready to roll up their sleeves and get on with the process of recovery and reconstruction.

The Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill will allow our region to move seamlessly from the state of emergency to recovery mode and will coordinate the reconstruction and rebuilding of Christchurch City and all the towns, all the farms, and all the homes across Canterbury. This legislation is powerful. It will empower our can-do Cantabrians to rebuild our society, our infrastructure, and our future.

The destruction caused across the Canterbury region is immense. It is so substantial that the recovery will be one of the most significant in New Zealand’s history. It is the job of local government, regional government, and central government to enable and to lead this reconstruction. This bill will provide the coordination required to prioritise work and to ensure that the redevelopment is well planned and well executed, and that we get the best possible result when our work is done.

The Hon Ruth Dyson mentioned how Cantabrians can now talk “earthquake”, and can judge the Richter scale with ease. After every shock we gauge the rating, and even in our sleep we can decide whether it is worth waking up for. Minister Paula Bennett tells us that she saw in Christchurch today T-shirts stating “We don’t get out of bed for anything less than a 6”.

Finally, I congratulate Minister Gerry Brownlee and Minister Dr Nick Smith on producing this bill so quickly and effectively and providing a platform for the people of Canterbury to get on with the restoration and reconstruction of our homes, our businesses, and our society. I think now is the time for us to get going; we are keen to do that. We want to make sure that our city and our region makes the absolute most of every possible opportunity, and that we can build an even more colourful, more vibrant, and more beautiful city and province.

Bill read a third time.

The House adjourned at 10.02 p.m.