Ministerial Statements — Earthquake, Christchurch—Extension of State of National Emergency

I wish to make a ministerial statement under Standing Order 347 on the fourth extension of the state of national emergency over Christchurch City. On Saturday, 19 March I further extended the duration of the state of national emergency for Christchurch City under section 71 of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002. It was the fourth extension of the state of national emergency since it was first declared on 23 February.

The situation in Christchurch City has improved, and water and power supplies have been restored to most residents outside the central business district. However, the remaining response tasks are still challenging, and require the Director of Civil Defence Emergency Management to continue exercising his powers and functions under the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act. I therefore consider it necessary to extend the state of national emergency. I will continue monitoring progress in Christchurch and make further extensions as required.

Our thoughts and strong sympathies remain with the people of Canterbury as the House discusses the renewal of the state of national emergency. There is no doubt that an emergency exists in Canterbury as a result of the events of 22 February and subsequently, and that extraordinary powers are required to deal with that emergency. The Labour Opposition supports such powers being made available there.

The Minister of Civil Defence has made the judgment that a nationwide state of emergency should remain in force for a further period. A state of national emergency is the option that the Government has placed on the table, and it is therefore the only option available, so we are bound to support it. We note that the powers that accrue to the Government in respect of a state of national emergency are extremely wide. Across New Zealand, not just in Canterbury, the Government can order the evacuation of premises and places; entry to premises; the closing of roads and public places; the removal of aircraft, vessels, and vehicles; and the requisitioning of goods and services.

I asked the Minister on a previous occasion to consider whether he needs to be able to exercise those wide powers across the country, or whether the Government might rely on a regional declaration, bolstered by the very, very broad powers that are conferred by the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Act, which the House passed unanimously last year in the wake of the original earthquake. I would like to renew that request of the Minister to consider all the options on the table. On the next occasion that he reports to the House about his deliberations on the need for emergency powers in Canterbury to continue, it would be helpful to be assured that he has considered those options, particularly whether those wide emergency powers are required in Auckland, Hamilton, Dunedin, and anywhere in between.

Meanwhile, we all have seen the reports that the people of Christchurch are struggling with issues such as getting insurance sorted on purchases and house transactions. Concerns have also been expressed about rising prices and rents. Many members will have already received correspondence from a wide range of people in Canterbury about the day-to-day struggles that they face. As I said earlier, our hearts go out to the people of Canterbury, and we continue to support them, but it is useful to be reminded that they are watching us in this place, and they expect us to look after their welfare in the round.

Of course, the ACT Party supports the motion. Our thoughts and prayers are with the people of Christchurch as they get over the trauma of the earthquake and look to rebuild the city.

This is an unprecedented experience in New Zealand’s history—not just the earthquake, but to have these emergency powers extended for a fourth time. Mr Chauvel is correct in saying that the powers are wide ranging. We are already seeing some considerable discontent grow in Christchurch over the exercising of the powers and, indeed, a failure by us and by the civil emergency personnel to explain the use of the powers to the satisfaction of the people most directly affected by them.

I suggest at this stage that the Government respond. I suggest a Government member take a call and provide for us—this Parliament, which is granting this power—some timetable for the continuation of the state of emergency. Each week the Government has come here and said it requires 7 days, then another 7 days, then another 7 days, and then another 7 days—four times. Will the extension be requested six times, eight times, 10 times, or 12 times? What is the expectation about the extension of the emergency powers?

It would also be helpful if in reply the Government explains to the House and to the people of Christchurch how the powers will be exercised, because it is very uncomfortable to see business owners who are directly affected not being able to get answers to what appeared on the face of it to be very simple and straightforward questions.