Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill

I move, That the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill be now read a first time. The leave that has just been granted by the House is somewhat unusual and I am grateful to members for allowing this procedure to take place. Just to explain the effect of the leave, essentially the bill is read for a first time now, and then at the end of the first reading, upon a successful vote, it will be laid upon the Table of the House to be dealt with presently. Presently, in this sense, will mean at 9 a.m. on Thursday morning. In the meantime, the Local Government and Environment Committee will be able to hear from people who have been invited to submit their opinions on the bill, to gather evidence that relates to those opinions, and to present that evidence to the House for its consideration during the second reading, Committee stage, and third reading of the bill.

The bill is necessary because effective earthquake recovery will require timely decisions that would not be possible under current legislation. The bill describes the activities that the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority, or CERA, will undertake and the powers that the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery and/or the chief executive of the authority will need to undertake in these activities. The bill provides appropriate measures to enable Governments to facilitate and, if necessary, direct greater Christchurch and its communities to respond to, and recover from, the impacts of the two Canterbury earthquakes.

The purpose of the bill is to provide appropriate measures to ensure that greater Christchurch and its communities respond to, and recover from, the impacts of the earthquakes; to enable community participation in the planning, the recovery, and the rebuilding of affected communities without impeding a focused, timely, and expedited recovery; to facilitate and direct the planning, rebuilding, and recovery of affected communities, including the repair and rebuilding of infrastructure and other property; and to restore the social, economic, cultural, and environmental well-being of greater Christchurch communities.

The bill vests powers in the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery and the chief executive of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority. These powers are necessary to enable an effective, timely, and coordinated recovery for greater Christchurch following these events. In order to achieve the policy intent of effective and efficient rebuild and recovery in Christchurch, the legislation needs to ensure that the desired outcomes identified in the recovery strategy by the Christchurch Earthquake Recovery Agency and the Minister, which provides for the recovery plans, are able to be efficiently and effectively delivered on the ground.

The private sector and the wider community will be critical players in the successful recovery and rebuilding of Christchurch alongside central and local government agencies. It is worth noting at this point that, in response to the initial emergency and as we have moved into recovery, literally tens of thousands of people in Canterbury have gone the extra mile to make life a bit easier for their fellow Cantabrians. This bill sets out to capture that intention and that deep intensity of desire to recover.

To achieve its policy intent the legislation must ensure that an appropriate balance is struck between providing certainty to residential communities and business investors about how the legislation will work and what is needed for the recovery on the one hand, and providing flexibility for different and innovative solutions to specific circumstances on the other. The processes set out in the bill are efficient while providing appropriate safeguards. The recovery strategy and plans formulated under the bill are linked efficiently through the existing statutory planning framework in greater Christchurch. This includes ensuring that non - recovery-related activity in Christchurch does not inadvertently cut across the direction set out in the recovery strategy and plans.

Only those powers considered necessary have been provided for, and they fall into a series of broad groupings. The first is information gathering, reports, and investigations. These powers are necessary, as critical decisions must be based on accurate information. Most notably here, gathering information for a large data set that will help make informed decisions about the future viability of some streets and, indeed, some suburbs in Christchurch is absolutely essential. This information must be able to be shared to ensure appropriate levels of consultation, and explanation of the decisions made. I hasten to add that much of the information that is provided will be available for analysis by an agency of Government, but will not be generally available, because of its commercial sensitivity.

Aligned with the gathering of information is the need to commission reports and investigations to ensure that decisions are soundly based. One can only imagine what it would be like to find out that people living on one side of a road have a section that is no longer viable and may need to move, but people on the other side of the road are deemed to be on a safe and stable piece of ground. Anyone in that situation will want to know that the very best of information has been gathered and the most appropriate analysis of that information has been made.

The next grouping of powers is the power of entry. This power is necessary to enable premises to be inspected to facilitate carrying out work to assist in the recovery efforts, such as informing land remediation decisions and maintaining structures on relevant land and preventing damage to them.

Surveying powers are needed to ensure the speedy and accurate reinstatement of title boundaries, which is an issue that underpins New Zealand’s economy and is central to the equity that many homeowners have in their property. It provides certainty for property rights of affected landowners. These powers will ensure that property boundaries are determined in accordance with the best interests of the Canterbury region and in a manner that enhances the recovery effort for the region.

On building works, in order to achieve the purposes of this Act the chief executive of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority must be able to carry out or commission building works, including demolition. This power enables urgent action to be taken and prevents unreasonable delays that might stop necessary works. One of the worst things that could happen would be for large buildings that have big drop zones to be given months and months to sort themselves out, in the process preventing many others getting into their premises, preventing jobs being reactivated, and holding up the general commerce of the central business district.

These powers are complemented by additional associated powers that enable land to be subdivided to permit building works for temporary housing to be erected, to authorise the use of that land, and to stop or close roads. The Government has commissioned through the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority a number of temporary housing units, which will go in public places, in anticipation of people needing those units as their houses are repaired. This particular section of the Act enables that work.

The powers of direction are necessary to enable work to be coordinated to avoid disruption and duplication of effort. For example, the provision of power, water, and other services should be done simultaneously so that roads are not continuously being dug up for such works. This power includes the power to step in where directions are not followed. For private property owners these powers enable the Crown to purchase property where required to enable the recovery to proceed, and enable compulsory acquisition where necessary. These powers, I think, will be exercised sparingly, but they will be particularly important for the recovery of suburbs as well as of the central business district.

The power to require information can be used only where information can be provided without unreasonable difficulty or expense. Before disseminating information, the chief executive must consider privacy principles. The person exercising a power of entry must produce authorisation and evidence of identification, and reasonable notice must be given. Before exercising the survey power, the chief executive must consult the Surveyor-General, and where there is a dispute, a dispute mechanism needs to be put in place.

In undertaking building works, a notice is required to be served on owners, occupiers, or other persons with an interest in the land. In exercising powers of direction, the step-in right does not include the ability to collect rates or to take action that may affect other rating decisions. Notice of the intention to acquire land is required. Persons who have had their land compulsorily acquired or demolished will be entitled to compensation, and any person may appeal to the High Court against the determination of compensation, against any decision in respect of which there is a right of appeal and objection under the Resource Management Act or from a dispute over a survey definition decision.

There is one other significant control in the bill. The Minister must prepare and present to the House a quarterly report on the operation of this Act. Each report must include a description of the powers exercised by, or on behalf of, the Minister or the chief executive under this Act during that period. The Act is subject to the Official Information Act, as is the department, and the decisions by the Minister are subject to judicial review.

Overall, this bill enables the Government to move swiftly to restore the social and economic well-being of the greater Christchurch area and its affected communities. The checks and balances ensure that the necessary powers for recovery are used judiciously, are open to appropriate levels of public scrutiny, and provide for appeal. I commend the bill to the House.

I will deal with the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill in a more wide-ranging and general sense at this point. I know that Canterbury colleagues on this side of the House will deal with the particularity of it, especially as we move through the stages. I want to say that the Labour position at this point is that we will support the legislation in the first reading in order to send it to the Local Government and Environment Committee, and we will see what the outcome of that select committee produces. We reserve our position at that point.

I will say, to be generous to the Government, that we did suggest some days ago when we had very short notice of this legislation, and two short interactions with the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery, that a select committee process may be appropriate. We offered, I think through the shadow Leader of the House, Mr Mallard, the process of a 1-day, or 24-hour, select committee period at the very least in order to allow the key actors and stakeholders in Christchurch to have a say on this legislation—for instance, the local authorities, the unified citizens group CanCERN, Ngāi Tahu, and other stakeholders. I say to the Minister that I am pleased that he has come to the party on that.

But I want to observe a couple of things. There has been a lot of talk about earthquake tsars, in that a chief executive who did not get an appointment would somehow be an “Earthquake Tsar”, or that Mr Ombler, who holds the position for a number of weeks or months, is the “Earthquake Tsar”. I say to Mr Brownlee that he has wartime powers. His Government was given those wartime powers by the House to act appropriately, and we did that in the spirit of non-partisanship.

I will outline for the House, so that there is no mistake, how Labour colleagues have treated this whole disaster and tragedy in Canterbury. There are no politics in this issue from our point of view. Under the normal rules of engagement in this House, when we see an area of criticism in respect of the Government we fire a media statement or a shot across the bows, we go public, and we deal with it in the public arena.

In general we have attempted, in respect of this Minister, to interact at a personal level, through me personally, or through my colleagues. If there has been no action, we have tended to write to the Minister, and this folder I am holding contains the number of letters and interactions on paper we have had with the Minister since the 22 February event until today. If we have still felt strongly about it, and there has still been no action, at that point we have entered the public arena. We have done that with some reluctance. We have done that on only a number of occasions—specifically, on the drama and difficulty that business people had in trying to gain entry to the red zone over a period of weeks. We interacted with Mr Brownlee and Mr Carter personally. It took us weeks to get a reply to our letter, and we were told that we were wrong. OK, that is life, but that was proven to be incorrect, and we were right and business people, for the first time in my living memory, picked up placards and stormed the barricades.

I say to the Minister that we have approached this legislation in good faith. We have provided quite a wide range of written advice on our point of view, and that advice not only gives our point of view, by the way, but also has been generated through our communities. We are constituent members of Parliament in Canterbury. We do not have a monopoly on all knowledge in respect of this disaster or this legislation. We have gone out and canvassed our communities, and we have learnt from them. I acknowledge that there have been some amendments. I note that after a number of interventions by me and my colleagues, Mr Brownlee does believe that there needs to be, for instance in clause 4, a definition of the central business district, which is only appropriate. After a number of interventions he has listened, and I thank him for his generosity of spirit in respect of that measure.

What have we learnt from our communities? What do Cantabrians want? I think they want what all of us want. They want detailed, robust planning to be put in place. I know we have prattled on ad nauseam about this, but they also want a large say in what their town—because this is a Canterbury bill—their city, and their province will look like as we go forward. I know there are those who say that that is a bit PC and woolly, and that we cannot have people impeding progress by going on and on and endlessly consulting. I ask the Minister to look at the most contemporary example we have, which is on the other side of my electorate. It is a local authority, and, yes, it is smaller in size, but it has embarked on a series of consultation processes that were done over a 3 to 4-month period. Following the first event it took 2 to 3 months to get out the geotechnical information, as was appropriate, in order to work out what the hell they would do as a town and as a local authority. That local authority then drilled past politicians and interest groups. It did not bypass them, it included them, but it drilled past them right to the grassroots of its community. It did a really basic thing. It asked people what they wanted.

I know Mr Brownlee has a view, and I share his view, that in no way do we want to impede or delay the process of people getting back their lives, houses, routines, and livelihoods. I accept that, but I have on a number of occasions invited Mr Brownlee to look at the example of Waimakariri District Council. Over a period of 3 months the council went from having basically no plan to, prior to the 22 February event—and, had it not been for that tragedy, hitting the “Go” button—having meetings with its community, where it could tell people whether they would be first or last in terms of getting their life and their house back. The council waits today for a cheque and for the tick-off from the Government, and some temporary housing, and it can hit the “Go” button.

I say to the Minister that I attended some very tough meetings in my community in that half of my electorate, where men were in tears and people potentially could have done dangerous things to themselves. I mean that in all sincerity, so much so that people were checked the following day. People were shocked because they were told it might take some 4 years to get their houses back, but the very interesting thing was that they were in support of the council. The council owned the good, the bad, and the ugly, and they were all consulted. It does not necessarily mean that those people agreed with everything the council has done, but that process was efficient, and it was done over 3 to 4 months. The fact that the council can hit the “Go” button today is because it has the community’s support. It treated the people of the community with respect and as intelligent human beings, and it involved them from the grassroots up.

That is one of the pleas and central points that we want to make in the debate on this legislation. Mr Brownlee is the “Earthquake Tsar”—he holds the pen over the chief executive, and all he or she will do—and it is not good enough, in our view, to have an appointed panel of 20 people and expect those people to be representative of the community, and then say that the panel has been consulted a few times.

Originally in the draft bill that we saw, from memory, the proposal was to consult the panel six times, and say that was good enough. Overseas experience shows that would not be good enough. New Orleans floundered for damned near 2 years, then decided to involve the community, and progress took off. We do not want anybody with the ability to throw a vexatious spanner in the works. No one wants to delay this process. However, we have learnt from other jurisdictions, both here and overseas, what happens when we involve our communities, treat them with respect, and give them, as the Minister said, accurate information, not the idle speculation that we have had over a period of months, such as the statement that 10,000 people might be moving from a particular area. We have learnt that communities will buy into such a process, and that we will have a faster and more efficient process out the back of it.

That is one of the central points that we raise in this legislation. There are other issues to do with checks and balances in respect of the particular power that the Minister has. Let us be under no illusion: this authority will have enormous power to get things done, and if that power is exercised appropriately and correctly, that will be all for the good. What we are concerned about is that there should be a balance, and that there should be some checks and balances, so that good people who are not vexatious, and who are concerned about their well-being and the well-being of their community, are not mowed over.

Mr Brownlee often says that anyone who criticises or raises their head, particularly in respect of the business issues I talked about earlier, or who says there may be a better way, is, one, being political, and, two, impeding progress. I say to Mr Brownlee that we are not being political, but we do not want to do away with our right to represent our community, say what we believe, represent that community in a robust way, and raise issues of concern. If that is impeding progress, we are guilty as charged. In respect of the business community, as I said to Mr Brownlee, we are protecting progress. Those business people to whom we lent a voice, for instance, are our progress. We were not impeding progress; we were protecting it. Without those business people we will not have a central business district. I say to Mr Brownlee that we approach this bill in good faith, and we look forward to a robust discussion, and to Mr Brownlee and his Government perhaps listening to the representations we make on behalf of our community.

As the explanatory note of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill points out, the 22 February earthquake was an incomparable natural disaster in New Zealand’s history. Yes, it is above politics, but just because someone says it is above politics does not make it above politics; that claim has to be acted upon. It will be the actions rather than the words that will show there is no politics in this issue.

We have never been faced with a disaster on this scale before. In response, we need to be able to make decisions. The bill lays out the framework by which the Government will assist Canterbury and Christchurch to move forward. It is important to note in the explanatory note the general policy statement: “The Bill is founded on the need for community participation in decision-making processes while balancing this against the need for a timely and coordinated recovery process.” That is the foundation of this bill.

Rebuilding Canterbury will be a long process. The Christchurch central business district has changed dramatically. Areas like Cashel Mall, High Street, and Cathedral Square are just not the same. We have spoken in this House previously about the damage inflicted on roading, water services, sewerage, and homes throughout the region. The cordon in the central business district has gradually reduced in size, though some areas are still no-go zones. Almost all schools have reopened, albeit with disruption at some sites, and nearly all households now have power and running water.

But, of course, the substantive damage remains, and it is a big job. As was noted today, about $8.5 billion will be spent to fix Canterbury, and the job requires a centralised response. Lessons learnt from overseas show that it is best to have a single entity in charge of the recovery efforts following major natural disasters.

The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority has been given this very important task. Of course, it will be working closely alongside the Christchurch City Council, the Selwyn District Council, the Waimakariri District Council, and other stakeholders throughout this process. The Waimakariri District Council has shown that it is very adept at developing plans, in particular those relating to Kaiapoi, giving certainty to residents about the staged rebuilding process. This is the sort of experience that can be drawn upon. It may well be that Waimakariri will not need to bother the authority, nor require the exercise of any of the powers, but it has been included in case it does.

This legislation aims to facilitate prompt and efficient decision-making, both by the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery and the authority. I have heard the concerns that the powers go too far. The same concerns were aired over the previous Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Act, which is now being repealed. The powers under that Act were used responsibly, as will be the powers this legislation provides. Even law academics such as Professor Andrew Geddis have admitted that the fears of abuse of powers under the previous legislation have remained unrealised. There are significant checks and balances to ensure that the powers are used properly, and are necessary for the Canterbury recovery and rebuild.

It is important that the need for community participation is balanced against the need for timely and effective decision-making. Cantabrians want a say in how their region is rebuilt. It is, after all, their region. This bill provides for the establishment of a community forum, made up of local representatives who will provide advice to the Minister. There will also be a public consultation process in place. Cantabrians want to be heard, but they want to see action. It is a matter of striking the balance between effective coordination and consultation and the need for progress.

We want the people of Canterbury to stay and rebuild their city and their province, alongside the Government, over the next 5 years. Rebuilding Canterbury is one of the Government’s highest priorities, and we will continue to provide the resources to make this happen over the coming weeks, months, and years. We are at only the start of a long journey, and the sooner the people of Canterbury can see a plan in place to rebuild their city, and the progress flowing from that plan, the sooner they can re-establish their lives. I commend this bill to the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): I call the member Lianne Dalziel. I understand this is to be a split call, is it not?

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Labour has four calls, and the third call will be split. It will be split between the Hon Ruth Dyson and Brendon Burns.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): Thank you.

I should be standing here today to say that the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill is a bipartisan bill that has been through a consultative process that enables us all to have confidence that the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority will support the recovery effort in Christchurch in the best possible way, based on international best practice—which is something we can find on the website of the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management. But it is incredibly sad that I cannot say that, neither for me nor for colleagues who have worked tirelessly since the first earthquake to bring to the Minister’s attention advice on how to address the myriad of issues that these two events have presented. My sadness is for the people of Christchurch, who deserve better—much better—than this.

The legislation is flawed for a number of reasons, but fundamentally for this reason: the Government has chosen the “command and control” model, essential for disaster response but the antithesis of what is required in recovery. And the Government has chosen this model, it says, because it is writing a multibillion-dollar cheque, and therefore it has to be in charge. But as all of the experts on recovery have said—and these are not people who just sit in ivory towers; these are people who have been to Haiti, New Orleans, and Queensland, and who have now come to Christchurch—leadership is vital for recovery.

A leader has vision, has a plan, and has an open frame of reference in terms of thinking outside the square. A leader surrounds himself or herself with talent when forming the team, listens to all of the competing views, exercises judgment, and is capable of making hard decisions. But, more important, he or she inspires others to do great things. That is what a leader does, because from all disasters great things can emerge. In my view, if we are to make sense of something as dreadful as what has occurred in Christchurch, then great things must emerge from it.

When I think of the possibilities that can emerge from the devastation of our once beautiful city, and the suburbs that have been ravaged along our waterways, our cliff faces, and the valleys below, I look to the Hon Gerry Brownlee and a Government department called the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority, but it is hard to find the inspiration that I know we ought to be able to feel. This is neither a criticism of the Minister nor of the civil servants who will take up their departmental duties; it is simply a statement of reality that the model cannot serve recovery. No other country has adopted this model, and, in fact, on looking at the lessons that have been learnt overseas, I believe there is a real risk of adding another layer of disaster to the disaster that has already occurred.

The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority may be located physically in Christchurch but the decisions will be made here in Wellington. On Saturday the Minister was reported as saying that many of the groups that had formed in Christchurch were well-motivated, but that the Government would have limited capacity to listen to everyone. From a Government perspective, he said it does not want to get caught in a mire of constant consultation and meetings. He went on to say that the Government would look to established organisations for business advice on recovery, which effectively sidelined the groups that have sprung from the heart of the cordoned-off central business district, whose members have been critical of the Government’s position on access to buildings in relation to their getting their businesses up and running. That is what is wrong with the model: any criticism, constructive or otherwise, is classified as politicising the tragedy. That is what happens when politicians are running the show, and that is why they should not be running the show.

Today the Minister, in defending the bill, said that the consultation provisions in the bill were misunderstood. But what is misunderstood is the recovery process, and it is misunderstood by the Minister. Let me explain, with reference to the lessons that were learnt from Hurricane Katrina, which devastated New Orleans. Much has been written about Katrina, but the most compelling analysis for me was the one that identified the missing story: understanding what was going on in New Orleans pre-Katrina. People understand the storm and its aftermath, including the involvement of the Federal Government, but it is the missing story that offers the most important lesson for us here.

The missing pre-Katrina story included the historic choices that had been made, the patterns of physical development—a big issue in my electorate is the risk factors all around flooding—public risk, and community resilience and sustainability. We have noticed whole suburbs that do not have a heart—that do not have a community centre. These are resilience issues we need to address as we recover. The lesson that was learnt by the ignoring of the third story in the recovery process was that pre-event vulnerabilities were simply re-entrenched, and therefore the opportunity to reduce future disaster risk was lost. If we do not take this opportunity to ensure that we do not re-entrench those pre-event vulnerabilities, then we will have learnt nothing from the overseas experience.

From Hurricane Katrina we learnt that we need to balance speed and deliberation—and I reject the statement from the Government that this is about the balance it is putting forward. What needs to be understood—and this is where the Minister completely misses the point—is that we must reconcile the need to martial the authority of the State with the entrepreneurship of the market, because together they will want to rebuild quickly. But at the same time that must be balanced with the necessity to plan, in an inclusive, deliberative, innovative, and transformative manner. I have not heard one of those words spoken on the other side of the House in either of the two Government contributions we have had so far.

That is why the word “deliberation” is used, as opposed to “discussion” or “consultation”. I use the word “engagement” a lot because that is what we are looking for. Deliberation means reflection, it means dialogue, and it means negotiation for decision making. It does not mean we have to agree on everything, and it certainly does not mean we have to hold off until we have agreement on anything. It is not the talk-fest the Minister fears. The reason deliberation is required is that rebuilding too quickly and randomly simply imposes massive long-term costs and risks on society, and when I say “society” I am reflecting on the impact that this legislation will have on New Zealand as a whole.

The Government seems to be ignoring the fact that recovery is very complex. It is not linear; it is a very complex issue. It requires careful planning. There is no one-size-fits-all solution. I represent many of the affected suburbs. I represent Dallington, Bexley, Avondale, the Horseshoe Lake, Brooklands, Spencerville, and now Aranui and Parklands. What recovery looks like for each of those suburbs will be quite different from each other because their needs, their issues, and their environments are all different, and that is why they need to be fully engaged in the process of recovery. I do not actually regard that as a disadvantage. In fact, it is an enormous advantage, and the Government needs to step up to the plate on this, because in every single one of those suburbs recovery presents us with some real opportunities for restoration and renewal.

The mistake is to think of recovery as rebuilding the buildings and the infrastructure—and all I ever hear the Government talk about is the buildings and the infrastructure. The rebuilding is actually only one component of the whole recovery process, which demands that we look at the social, the economic, and the natural environments, as well as our built environments. It is not a simple one-size-fits-all matter.

I say that because these decisions will impact on our society for generations to come. That is why the process must be inclusive, and must be deliberative, innovative, and transformative. All of the literature says that it must involve local people in joint learning and public decision-making. These are new skills that we can teach our communities and learn alongside our communities, because no one person has the answer in each of those suburbs. We can capitalise on local culture and knowledge. There is so much richness of knowledge within the communities that I am privileged to represent. We can mobilise local capacity to rebuild.

I know that the suburb of Aranui will have no difficulty with the community development model they have already locked in place over a decade of work, working within their community, securing the things that are good for the community, and enabling them to discard the things that hold them back. I think that that is the key thing. This is an opportunity to actually get rid of some of the aspects of our communities that have been holding us back.

What has happened in Christchurch is a disaster, but we must now turn our attention to looking for the opportunities it presents to make us more resilient, to make things better, and to enable us in Christchurch to share those opportunities with the rest of New Zealand, as well.

Of course none of us wanted this. We did not want the event of 22 February. We did not want the devastation. We did not want, and never expected, to have legislation of this kind before our House. I speak with some emotion, having lived in the city through the past 7 months. I have experienced the sheer trauma of the death and destruction around us. I have organised volunteer groups to go into the suburbs to shovel and doorknock, and initiated fund-raising for food delivery to those in need. I have attended the heart-wrenching memorial services for the dead. I have entered my office to retrieve equipment still cordoned inside a drop zone. I have visited civil defence headquarters on an almost daily basis. Just last week I toured the devastated red zone—a visually searing experience that simply breaks one’s heart.

Yet the emotion all of us in Christchurch feel over this event must be separated from our perception of the legislation before us and our responsibility to be true to the basic principles of democratic society as we know it in this country. Not only is the Christchurch disaster unprecedented but so is this Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill. So how are we to assess it? By what criteria are we to judge it? I advance four criteria for judging this bill. Are the stated purposes appropriate and coherent? Are the powers granted for the purpose proper? Is the extent of public involvement adequate? Are our constitutional principles respected? I will begin with my conclusion: the purposes are appropriate, the powers granted are excessive, the extent of public involvement is inadequate, and our constitutional principles are violated.

I ask members to consider the first question. The purposes of the bill are stated to be fivefold. They are to provide appropriate measures for Christchurch to be able to respond and recover; to enable community participation in planning the recovery; to enable a focused, timely, and expedited recovery; to facilitate and direct the planning, rebuilding, and recovery; and to restore the social, economic, cultural, and environmental well-being of Christchurch. Those purposes are entirely appropriate. We would comment, in relation to the fifth purpose, that the restoration of Christchurch should be pursued along sustainable lines that reflect 21st century values and technology. The devastation that is currently my city presents an opportunity not only to restore but to qualitatively grow in new directions. That is what being Green societally—not just politically—is all about. We invite the Government to proceed in that direction, even if it cannot bring itself to use the word “sustainable”.

Are the purposes coherent? It seems that they meet the Government’s purpose of ensuring that nothing stands in the way of a focused, timely, and expedited recovery. By “focused” the Government seems to mean that power will be concentrated enormously in one person. That, in itself, does not guarantee a focus of vision and effort. The goal of ensuring there is a timely recovery would seem to mean “at the appropriate time”. But then to state that the recovery must be expedited immediately contradicts that. The issue is more than semantic. Words mean something, or they would not be there. The powers accorded under the bill would last for 5 years, yet we are being asked to grant them in the name of expedition. That is a non sequitur.

Let us consider the second question: are the powers granted proper for the purposes of the legislation? Clauses 20 to 40 give extraordinary powers to the Minister. They roam across 23 statutes, but are not confined to those. Those 23 Acts are, the bill says, without limitation. We criticised that back in September when we debated the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill, yet we were prepared, ultimately, to vote for that legislation. This time, however, the ministerial powers are far more extensive. There is a qualitative break in constitutional terms between the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Act and this bill. This bill accords immeasurably greater power to the Minister, and over a much longer time period. Those powers are excessive in relation to the purpose of the bill. We can, perhaps, draw a distinction here between what could be called the recovery period, which would last 9 months until the strategy and plans are in place, and the rebuilding period, which would last for the remaining 4 years and 3 months. Even if some were to defend those ministerial powers for the shorter period, they are not, we suggest, proper for the rebuild period if that rebuild is to be led and operationalised by the Christchurch community itself.

Let us move to the third question: is the extent of public involvement adequate? There is to be a community forum, but the forum is to be peopled by the Minister. Members are to be suitably qualified, but that does not mean they will necessarily be representative of the Christchurch community. The community forum should be appointed on the recommendation of the House. The Minister is obliged to have regard to the advice of the forum, but having given such regard he may then disregard it. The community forum has no final say in the building of the community. The Minister, from central government, has that. So too are the local authorities denied any final say. There is to be a parliamentary cross-party forum composed of local MPs. This, too, is an advisory body, but the bill does not even require the Minister to have regard to that advice.

Then there is the matter of the role of the municipal authorities. The recovery strategy is to be developed in collaboration with Christchurch City Council, the two district councils, Environment Canterbury, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, and other persons and organisations considered appropriate by the Minister. Yet the final approval remains with the Minister alone. In developing the ensuing recovery plan the Christchurch City Council must take the lead and must consult with the affected communities, but the Minister may make any changes to the plan or withdraw any part of it, and he may review it at any time and amend or replace it. The coup de grâce is given in clause 20(3): apart from the Christchurch City Council, the Minister has no duty to consult with any person about the development of a recovery plan. One sees a pattern emerging here: there is an appearance of community engagement, but the reality of ministerial control.

Finally, are our constitutional principles respected? It is our considered view that the powers granted to one Minister of the Crown are excessive for the purposes of this bill. Accordingly—and we shall explore this further in the forthcoming debate and in the Committee stage—the conclusion is that the bill as drafted places an unacceptable strain on the constitutional precepts and principles of New Zealand.

The people of Christchurch deserve to have a bill that gives them the power to rebuild Christchurch themselves, not one that gives all the power to one man. We are asked to personally trust the Minister, and we are assured that no abuse of power has occurred under the existing Act. My reply is that this is irrelevant. The exercise of excessive powers is not a matter to be adjudicated on trust. Constraints on governmental powers are a non-negotiable principle, independent of one person. It is no disrespect to the Minister concerned to say he should not be trusted with such powers. This bill effectively gives unbridled power to the Beehive for 5 years, and it sidelines local councils and communities. Yet international evidence shows that community-led recovery efforts work best. We shall oppose this bill at this first reading. In the Committee stage we shall propose a number of Supplementary Order Papers with a view to making the bill acceptable in a constitutional sense and politically appropriate in terms of a genuine and adequate community engagement. More generally, the Green Party will work in the communities of Christchurch, as I have been doing, and with the Government, as we shall strive to do, to ensure that Christchurch is properly rebuilt and that the society can recover and, indeed, grow in wholly new ways relevant to our times.

As the MP for Te Tai Tonga I am very proud to stand in support of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill. This is an important bill, which “sets out the appropriate measures to enable the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery and/or Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) to facilitate and direct, if necessary, greater Christchurch and its communities to respond to, and recover from, the impacts of the Canterbury earthquakes.” There has been so much said already about the events of 22 February that one wonders what can be left to say, and the bill itself puts this into words, stating that we “simply do not have the capability to deal with a disaster of this magnitude.” But what has been so remarkable as the days and weeks have unfolded has been to see that there is, indeed, an incredible resilience and fortitude at every level of the response to this disaster.

The key issue is that no one player should or could be expected to respond with a timely and coordinated recovery effort for the Greater Christchurch region. I am pleased to know that Ngāi Tahu, a leader of the recovery effort, has supported central government intervention because in its view the range of the issues emanating from the tragedy have a scale and a complexity beyond any one institution to resolve. In my consultations with Ngāi Tahu, I am aware that they are confident that a close collaborative arrangement with the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority will both deliver positive outcomes for Christchurch and enable Ngāi Tahu to meaningfully contribute to the recovery programme.

Ngāi Tahu submit that a bold but considered central government intervention is required, due to the scale and complexity of the issues affecting Canterbury at this time. Although this legislation does not have a Treaty clause, it embodies the Treaty partnership, and the Māori Party joins with Ngāi Tahu in strongly valuing this approach. I state from the outset that perhaps one of the most important achievements, which the Māori Party wants to draw to the House’s attention, is clause 58(1) of the bill, which states: “Nothing in this Act affects the operation of the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998.” and that, if there is any situation of doubt, the chief executive must exercise his or her power in accordance with the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998.

The Māori Party has advocated for the first right of refusal regarding land disposal. This is important in respect of protecting the integrity of Treaty settlements. In essence, the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill makes explicit the primacy of the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act. This is so important not just because it demonstrates that the Government has agreed that the existing first right of refusal is sacrosanct and should be protected, but also because it demonstrates the care taken in respect of formalising the Treaty relationship with mana whenua. We are pleased to bring to the House the views of Ngāi Tahu that they seek to commend the leadership shown by this Government in enacting legislation that provides for the iwi to assume a key role in the recovery of the people and place.

The advice we have received from Ngāi Tahu expresses their particular appreciation of the way this legislation embodies the commitment of Ngāi Tahu to be a partner with central and local government in developing a recovery strategy. The Māori Party has played a key role in promoting the importance of government formalising a partnership with Ngāi Tahu with both central and local government, a relationship that will be given effect in the development of the central business district recovery plan. The Māori Party promotes the creation of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority, and consultation with Ngāi Tahu and locals in regard to the recovery strategy and plan, notwithstanding that this is limited to consultation and collaboration.

Finally, at this first reading of the bill, I want to share some of the vital data and statistics that underpin successful implementation of this bill. This bill is founded on the need for community participation in decision-making processes, while balancing this against the need for a timely and coordinated recovery process. I want to share some of the amazing achievements I have been privileged to participate in, through a unique development that I think of as the iwi Māori sector response. The Māori Party strongly advocates for a recovery strategy that is culturally appropriate for Māori. What we have seen unfold in Christchurch is a crisis response effort to support Māori and the wider community, particularly those in Christchurch’s eastern suburbs, through a collaboration between a number of iwi and Māori organisations known as the Māori Recovery Network. The network is a collaboration supported by Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu. Within this, all of the whānau support has been done by Whānau Ora providers in Christchurch and other providers from a number of iwi and Māori from outside of the region, including Te Arawa, Tainui, Ngāti Raukawa, and Ngāti Whātua.

The contributions of this network are as follows: total number of contacts as at Tuesday, 8 April, 2011—9,493; whānau with home safety concerns—161; whānau requesting food parcels—550; whānau requesting water—513; whānau needing medical attention—211; whānau needing clothing, bedding, etc.—132; whānau needing transport—76; whānau needing assistance with filling out paperwork—31; whānau needing counselling—106; whānau needing respite for family—19; whānau needing assistance with clean-up labour—69; whānau members registered with Red Cross—1,518; whānau members registered with Work and Income—1,113. The wātene Māori have played a particularly significant role in this collaboration, as they have conducted house-to-house visits, and we are all enormously grateful for their efforts. I wanted to break down this detail into actual numbers because it demonstrates to me the real mahi that is being done every day on the ground.

That is what this bill embraces and addresses. The bill formalises the need to ensure local involvement in decision making with the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery and the authority to work alongside the Christchurch City Council, Environment Canterbury, Waimakariri District Council, Selwyn District Council, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, businesses, community interests, and the private sector, in order that the planning processes under the bill take into account the local views and the views of those most affected. There will also be a consultation process with locals.

The planning recovery of the Greater Christchurch region will occur through the development of a long-term recovery strategy, which will be developed by the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority in consultation with the organisations previously mentioned, and Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu. The bill is an essential part of the recovery of the area. We are happy to support it, and look forward to active participation throughout the ensuing debate.

As someone who has lived in Christchurch all my life, I fully support the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill. The earthquake of 4 September rattled and damaged our province but it was the violent shake of 22 February that completely shattered Christchurch, its people, the central business district, and our suburbs. We have to fix our city. We need to restore, rebuild, and recover our province. We want to revitalise our towns, our streets, and our neighbourhoods. After all we have been through, we want and we need to build a better, safer, and more beautiful place to live. We need to repair the land, we need to fix the roads, we need to rebuild our communities, and we need to restore our buildings.

The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority legislation is about response and recovery. It provides a balance between the need for community participation in the decision-making process and the need for a timely and coordinated recovery process. After the worst disaster that New Zealand has ever seen, Canterbury people are determined to rebuild their lives. We want to work quickly, efficiently, and smartly to make this happen. To do that, this bill establishes the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority—

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Forgive me, I apologise for interrupting the member. I do not do it for any vexatious means. I just raise this with you, Mr Assistant Speaker, for some advice. The reason I do this is that we are in a very cramped time frame. I am advised by parties outside this House that the bill is not available online. The reason I raise this is that, as I understand it, having taken advice, in the normal course of events the Parliamentary Counsel Office is instructed by the Minister and as soon as the bill is tabled it is placed online. Forgive me for interrupting the member. The reason I raise this is that we have a select committee process happening tomorrow, and key submitters around the country cannot get hold of this bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): The point is well made, and I shall direct someone to attend to that matter.

After the worst disaster that New Zealand has ever seen, Canterbury people are absolutely determined to rebuild their lives, and we want to do it quickly, efficiently, and smartly. To do this, the bill establishes the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority. Its chief executive officer will coordinate the recovery, and it will report to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery.

Everyone in Canterbury is very keen to be involved in this process, so the authority and the Minister will work alongside the Christchurch City Council, Environment Canterbury, the Waimakariri District Council, the Selwyn District Council, Ngāi Tahu, the community, and business interests. Furthermore, Cantabs can have their say via a community forum made up of community leaders and a cross-party forum of Canterbury members of Parliament. There will also be public consultation processes.

The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority is tasked with developing the long-term recovery strategy. That will set the overall direction for recovery efforts and must be produced within 9 months of the Act coming into force. Underneath that long-term recovery strategy, detailed recovery plans will be developed. They can cover things like social, economic, cultural, and environmental matters and infrastructural issues. They will be more detailed and relevant to specific areas. They are the what, the where, and the how of the recovery.

There is keen interest in the rebuilding of the Christchurch central business district, and that recovery plan will be led by the Christchurch City Council. Its mayor has already indicated that everyone in Christchurch will have the opportunity to have input into this process, and the central business district plan will also need to be produced within 9 months.

The Act creates powers to ensure that the recovery is well coordinated and effective, but they are mainly reserve powers and are to be used only when necessary. There are numerous checks and balances in place, and the Minister must present a quarterly report to the House on the operation of the Act. The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority and the Act itself also must be reviewed every year, and that report must be presented to the House.

I believe that the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority, as established by this Act, will enable Christchurch and Canterbury to rebuild effectively and efficiently. It is an enabling framework that provides a set of powers for the authority and the Minister, if those powers are necessary. They may never be used, but they are there to ensure that the authority can act for the greater good of the Canterbury community and for the recovery from this earthquake, so that Christchurch and Canterbury can be rebuilt sooner, safer, and better.

Just before I call the member, in response to the point of order raised by Clayton Cosgrove, it is not a requirement that the debate take place; it is a courtesy. The bill must be tabled in the House; it is. The courtesy has been attended to, and within 5 minutes, at the very outside, the bill will be posted on the Government website.

I begin my contribution in this debate by acknowledging those who lost their lives in the quake of 22 February. It is very important for me that we hold those people in our hearts as we move forward to rebuild our region. Many others in Canterbury have lost their homes or their jobs, or both. Some still have their jobs, some still have their homes intact, but they have lost their confidence.

The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill is the next chance that we have as a Parliament, and particularly for the Canterbury members of Parliament as local leaders, to light the flame of hope for people in our patch. The bill does a lot of things. It gives extraordinary powers to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery and sets up a new multi-agency Government department. There will be criticisms of whatever we end up with, but I give our commitment—reinforcing the points that my colleagues Clayton Cosgrove and Lianne Dalziel have already made, and I know that Brendan Burns will make as well—that Labour will work alongside people of any and all political persuasions to get our region up and running again. We want to work with our elected representatives, our councillors, and our community boards, which must have a role, but are not mentioned in the legislation. We want to work with our residents associations and the organisations that have sprung up—like the many springs that have literally sprung up around our city since the two quakes—to take up the challenge of supporting members of our community who need support. We need to do this together in order to get it right. The future of our city is too important an issue for any of us to waste time or energy on political point-scoring, or on leaving talented people out of the loop of being part of this recovery process.

In that vein, I urge the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery to listen carefully to this debate and to listen carefully to the contributions that submitters will make tomorrow. His press statement today stated that he would be making only minor changes to the legislation as it goes through under urgency between now and Thursday. It is very frustrating to hear that sort of comment from a Minister. It is very hard to see how anyone from Canterbury can go to that select committee tomorrow with any confidence that they will make a blind bit of difference. That is an arrogant way to treat people who are putting up their hands to be part of the recovery. That is an arrogant way to treat people who have already gone through a lot but who are prepared to take the next step to step up to the mark where we need them to be. For the Minister to say that he will give people 24 hours’ notice to come along to the select committee but, by the way, that he will make some minor changes is not the way that we should be going into this process. It is too important. My region is too important for the Minister or any of his colleagues to trample over the views of people from that region. It is not acceptable for them to be treated like that, and I urge him to give openness and democracy, and real recovery, a decent chance.

I will make three points that are, in my view, vital to the success of our recovery. The first point is blindingly obvious, I would have thought, but, tragically, it is not reflected in the legislation. It is that the voice of our communities of Canterbury must be heard and the people in our communities must be the drivers of the recovery of our city and our region. We are the people who want to live, play, and work in our city. We care about it. We are more passionate, more argumentative, and more opinionated than any other group of people in our country. We want to have a say and we will have a say. I want the Minister to understand that and I want the legislation to reflect it.

The second point I will make is that the process has to be open and transparent. There cannot be any secret deals. There cannot be meetings behind closed doors. There cannot be any feeling of suspicion about this. We need an open and transparent process. We need to know what is happening because it is our place where it is happening. This is our life, our home, our city, and our region. We have the right to know what decisions are being made. The fact that we have a multi-agency Government department with one Minister is not a good start to an open and transparent process.

The third point I will make is that the recovery must be at a good pace. We will all have different ideas along the way, but none of us wants this to be slow. It has already been a long 7 months and, for many, an even longer 7 weeks, so we want this process to be good. Again, the multi-agency Government department may not be the most nimble structure to put in place, and that is a very generous way of expressing my concern that this may become a grindingly slow bureaucratic process. We cannot afford that. I do want the pace to be reasonable—I do not want it to be slow—but in my view it is a much wiser choice to have a considered approach that includes the views and the aspirations of the citizens of our region, rather than a rushed job that we all live to regret. I know that Minister Brownlee would get the blame for it, and if this was a political issue for me, I would say we should go for it because Mr Brownlee will pay for it. We cannot afford to have that happen. I want to rescue Mr Brownlee, because his mistake will be one that we in Canterbury will have to live with for decades. I want to rescue him from that mistake and be part of having a clear and strong path forward to recovery. Labour extends a genuine offer of working together to get this right. We want to live, work, and play in a city that is thriving and that inspires passion—a city where people want to come and share our joy of our city with us.

These have been big events. We have been through a lot since September. Some people might be asking whether Christchurch is up to this job and asking whether Canterbury is up to the task of contributing to our recovery in the way that I described. Well, I want to measure that question of whether we are up to it by looking at the way our communities responded to the quake. If our communities’ quake response was an Olympic sport, we would win gold. Our communities have been extraordinary. In places where people hardly knew each other, they just reached out their arms and looked after people through a wide range of emotions: through grief at the loss of family members, through trauma at the loss of homes—sometimes huge damage to homes for the second time—and, for many, just through exhaustion. The aftershocks are frustrating. They wake people up. They annoy people. Lots of people in Christchurch jump when a truck goes past their house or their room. Some of it is to do with the hugely damaged roads, but for other people it is to do with their nerves being pretty frayed. If we look at the recovery model of having a community-driven response to our future and ask whether we are up to it, and if we look at what we did in Canterbury after the quake, we see that we can do this. We know we have strong, compassionate, caring, and competent people spread throughout our region. We might get into a competition, I know, when Amy Adams speaks about people in her electorate, because we are quite competitive. We know that we have fantastic people in our electorates, but we are not being competitive politically about this. We want to unite our talent, our passion, and our willingness to be part of the recovery. We want to unite that behind legislation that can be amended to give us that choice. Thank you.

It is a privilege to rise to speak to the first reading of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill, although it is one of those times when one wishes we did not need to be here to provide a response to this sort of situation. I know this has been said before, but 4.35 in the morning on 4 September was the beginning of a hellish period in Canterbury, and it was the time when everything started to change. From my perspective, from that date everybody in Canterbury has been working tirelessly and doing everything they can to help to get the region back on track—and that is every political figure, every elected figure of any persuasion, every volunteer, every household, every school, every business, every lines worker, and every council worker. I have not seen anybody in Canterbury who is not doing everything they can to try to get our communities and our region back to being the best region in the country.

But for all that, this situation is like nothing any of us have ever dealt with. I do not think anyone is taking this position, but for any of us to assume that we know exactly how this situation is to be dealt with is wrong. We are learning as we go; we have to. This is without doubt the biggest natural disaster that this country has had to deal with, and the repercussions from it—the loss of life, the impact on the community, the loss of homes, and the uncertainty—will be with us for a long, long time. We as a Parliament have to do everything we can to help that process to be as manageable and as survivable for everyone in Canterbury as it can be.

Over the last 7 months we have learnt that this is a huge event, and that the recovery will take years. We have learnt that we need to have a single point of coordination and, ultimately, control, and we have learnt that there will be many, many views as we go through this recovery on what should be done. As we fight our way through it and learn how to deal with it, inevitably there will be disagreement on each step and on how we should get there. We all know what we want to achieve, but we all know that we will not agree on every step of the way. I think there will be as many different views on what should happen in Canterbury as there are people in Canterbury. That is an absolutely valid and important part of it, but equally we have to have a central hub through which progress can be made.

We have learnt that a process is needed that can help us to move positively—because I think positivity will be a key element of this recovery—and decisively. At the heart of it all is acceptance by everyone. Acceptance will not be easy to reach, but there should be an acceptance that there is no way that a business as usual approach to any of this situation will work. If we think we can simply roll out the tried and true, normal, business as usual approaches to decision making and to Government and judicial processes—such as having a review and consultation—in the way that we would for every other decision and in the way that we all agree is usually appropriate, we will get nowhere, and Canterbury will not get back on its feet within the sort of time frame in which it needs to do so. We know that after 4 September the House passed the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Act, which contained significant and wide-reaching powers. The Act was an appropriate and necessary response at that time, and, as all sensible commentators are agree, it was handled appropriately and necessarily. The earthquake on 22 February made things considerably worse, but the earlier period gave us the chance to learn about the sorts of things that we would have to get in place quickly in order for this recovery to work.

I will now take the opportunity to very quickly quote from clauses 3(a) and (b) of the bill, which set out the primary purposes of the legislation: “The purposes of this Act are—(a) to provide appropriate measures to ensure that greater Christchurch and the councils and their communities respond to, and recover from, the impacts of the Canterbury earthquakes: (b) to enable community participation in the planning of the recovery of affected communities without impeding a focused, timely, and expedited recovery:”. That is the framework against which any powers under the legislation have to be exercised. It sets out the key principles against which the exercise of those powers will be judged. The bill is not about setting up a structure and framework that will be implemented from day one; it sets up a framework of powers that we can access and have recourse to if they are needed. I see them as a backstop to the usual council processes, so that if there cannot be collaboration and we cannot reach a point from which we can all move forward together, then at the end of the day there is a backstop of ultimate decision-making. I do not see anything that says that is constitutionally inappropriate.

I do not think anyone in my communities whom I have spoken with would not say we have to have community input. Community input is fundamentally important, but at the end of the day the community must be able to draw a line in the sand and have a final decision-maker who will stand up and take a decision. If as a community, region, and Parliament we fail to accept that we will never get to a place where everybody agrees with the outcome, then we will get nowhere. I do not realistically hear that view in the debate, but I think it is worth putting that on the record. There will not be a time at which we can say yes, everyone is on board and let us move forward. Yes, we must have participation, but let us make it very, very clear that the discussion will not be endless. There will be people who leave the discussion and input without liking the results, and they will therefore feel ignored. They will not have been ignored, but not everyone will get the outcomes that they want. I bet I will not like a lot of the decisions we reach in this process. I might have done some things differently. That will be true for every Cantabrian. There has to be a point at which we say we have heard and listened to people, but now is the time to make a decision.

If anybody were to start going around stirring up dissension and concern on the grounds that not getting their own way means their views are being trampled on, then that would be playing politics. It is politicking to telling people that if they do not get the outcome they want, their views have been trampled on. It is the sort of thing that Cantabrians will very quickly turn against. If one message is coming through to me loud and clear, it is that Cantabrians want to see a way forward. They want to see positivity, and they want to see their leaders pulling together. Cantabrians want to see their leaders questioning, being involved, and disagreeing, but as soon as they start to see point-scoring, my view is that they will shut down and turn off very quickly.

Cantabrians need us to provide hope, positivity, and vision. In this legislative chamber they need us to provide the framework within which that can happen, and happen in a time frame that will allow Canterbury to get back on its feet. For those reasons I am very pleased to commend the bill to the House.

It is 7 weeks since Canterbury was savaged by the 22 February earthquake, and this is the first time that I as the member of Parliament for Christchurch Central have had the opportunity to speak in the House. Given that most of the fatalities occurred within my electorate—the number of people who have been formally identified now stands at 172—I acknowledge the huge human toll that occurred and the impact it has had not just on families within our city but on families across our planet, because many of those who died were visitors to Christchurch.

I acknowledge the herculean and courageous efforts of so many people—doctors, nurses, firefighters, and police—and the rainbow nation of urban search and rescue teams that gathered from around the globe to assist us in our time in need. They did outstanding work. I stood on Latimer Square watching them work on the CTV building near some of the families who were waiting for good news to come, which in most cases did not come. I also stood and watched an Australian crew the day after the quake as they attempted to rescue a woman from the rubble. I turned to a gentleman alongside me and asked whether he knew who was in there. He said: “Yes, it is my wife.”, and I stood with him as that woman, Ann Bodkin, was rescued alive.

I acknowledge also the bravery of so many ordinary people who pulled people from the rubble, who risked their own lives as aftershocks continued, who did extraordinary things, and who were real heroes of our time. I acknowledge the stoicism of the people of Christchurch. Stoicism is a well-known characteristic of the people of Christchurch.

I also pay tribute to the tolerance and patience of Cantabrians through these last 7 weeks and indeed the last 7 months. The earthquake on 22 February was not the second earthquake; in fact, it was the third, because the Boxing Day quake hit the central business district at the heart of my electorate as hard as the quake on 4 September. That tolerance and patience was exemplified at a public meeting I held last night in St Albans. It was run with my colleague Lianne Dalziel, and more than a hundred people attended. Although many of the people were frustrated and angry about the processes and time being taken to settle the issues—some of which dated back to 4 September—they were tolerant. They were not savaging people, which is a tribute to them.

I hope and trust that the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill will deliver the same sense of urgency that we saw applied in the first few weeks after the 22 February earthquake as the rescue efforts continued. That urgency is absolutely essential for the future of our city. The task ahead is huge, but there are also huge opportunities.

I know that the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery, the Hon Gerry Brownlee, is concerned that public input into the decisions that are being taken might delay what the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority is attempting to deliver. That does not need to be so. I acknowledge that, as far as I am concerned, there have been some improvements to the bill from an earlier draft we saw. I welcome the improvements and take some delight in the fact that the Minister has acknowledged the need for some changes to the bill.

I welcome the select committee process—as rapid as it is. At least people will have the opportunity tomorrow to provide some input to the bill. It is hugely important when we consider that the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority will dominate the life of our city for the next 5 years. It is really important to allow people that input. I also acknowledge that at least in the wording of the bill there is some reference to community input. In fact, the reference has moved from clause 66 of the earlier draft to the general policy statement at the start of the current bill: “The Bill is founded on the need for community participation in decision-making processes while balancing this against the need for a timely and coordinated recovery process.”

Community input has to be allowed to happen, given the scale of the disaster we have been through and the need to do things differently this time around as we rebuild our city and rebuild it rapidly. The usual model is top-down; in this instance we need a bottom-up model. People need to be allowed genuine chances for input—and rapidly.

There are mechanisms there for that to happen already. CanCERN, the Canterbury Communities’ Earthquake Recovery Network, was established after the September quake. I take some pride in the fact that I chaired the first few meetings of a group of residents’ associations, then stepped back, and that group went on to become CanCERN, which is now accepted by the Minister for Earthquake Recovery, by the community, by the mayor, and by the council as a very legitimate, non-political set of groups from across the communities of Christchurch. Those groups are sitting at tables with Ministers, and the council, and are able to be heard. It is an example of how communities can form and have a say.

I note also that in the last few weeks another group sprang up that I have been involved in. It is called ICONiC, which stands for Interests in Conserving the Identity of Christchurch. It represents building owners and people with heritage interests who have had some role and input already into the civil defence provisions in terms of stopping the demolition of some heritage buildings, until, at least, some pause can be taken and building owners can be consulted.

I would point to the fact that councillors representing wards across Christchurch are, in effect, a consultative mechanism. Community boards also can play a much wider role if they are given the chance, if they are given the power, and if they are given the mandate to be involved and to represent their communities. The bill provides for the establishment of a community forum, but it is a forum of 20 people appointed by the Minister for Earthquake Recovery, with the requirement for them to meet no more than six times a year. I am sorry, but that is not truly consultation. That is business as usual—doing things as they have always been done.

We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for Christchurch, and for Cantabrians, to have their say in the reshaping of their city. They want to do that and they want to be involved. These are their lives and these are their communities. It is their businesses and their jobs that are at stake. They need to have more than simply a hand-picked panel.

Why not, for instance, establish a community forum, allow anybody who wants to come, and allow that to decide who the community’s representatives might be? Even if the Minister wants to still have veto powers or the right to appoint others to his forum, he could actually allow the community to decide who its representatives are. That would really be a representative body, not a panel of chosen representatives.

I say, as the MP for Christchurch Central, which encompasses all of the central business district of our city, that our business community must be very well represented on that community forum and on that panel. But it must not be just the business sector. I represent suburbs that have been hard hit, and twice in some instances—suburbs like Avonside, Richmond, Philipstown, Linwood, Shirley, and St Albans. They want a say in the rebuilding of their communities and their suburbs. They must be given that chance. They must be given a chance to say what sort of Christchurch they want to see. We want to see a sustainable city, we want to see a strong city, we want to see a safe city, and we want to see a city that we can all have a say in, in terms of shaping its future. We must absolutely get it right. There is a golden opportunity here, a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, to do that.

I exhort the Minister, even though he has taken on board some of the comments that have been made, to take the opportunities that are here in front of him now. If he does not, and if he does not include communities, then the price will come back on his head, and on the Government’s head, sadly—or maybe not so sadly. It will be a price too high to pay. If people do not feel a part of it, if they do not feel included in it, and if they do not feel empowered by a process or by a decision they will not buy into it. They will not accept the decisions, and if they do they will do so through gritted teeth.

This is a golden, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. I exhort the Minister, and I exhort the Government, to think very seriously about inverting the usual top-down process, and allow the communities of Christchurch to have their voice, to speak rapidly, and to be brought together in a community forum and allowed to give some indication of who they can bring together as their representatives. Let us work together for the future of our city. Kia kaha, Christchurch

If there was ever a time in the history of New Zealand to say “cometh the hour, cometh the man”, this is the time, with the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill before us. We have heard a lot across this House about some of the issues and about the powers that have been given to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery, Gerry Brownlee, in this bill. I think that is one of the interesting things we need to touch on, and I will get to some of those dilemmas, and slight errors, and put them to the House. Gerry Brownlee, post - 4 September, was pointed out by some of our colleagues on the other side of the House as doing a great job. Mr Anderton sat there and told some of Mr Brownlee’s officials that they were doing a wonderful job, post - 4 September—and they were. That shows us that Minister Brownlee has the ability to inspire individuals. We heard from one of the members across the House earlier that one of the key things about this bill, and about the recovery, is the need to inspire leadership, and that is what Mr Brownlee does: he inspires leadership in his team. This bill puts in place some powers to make that happen.

Just recently we heard Mr Burns talk about some of the dilemmas that exist around community consultation. I just want to correct a couple of little errors that were put forward. The bill provides for a community forum—that was correctly pointed out. But the forum is to meet at least six times a year—at least six times. We heard from Ruth Dyson, who pointed out that there were concerns about there being no consultation procedures with the public, in any way. Well, that is actually not correct, either, and I want to point that out. Clauses 13, 16, and 17 all provide for various mechanisms for consultation with the public in respect of the recovery strategies and recovery plans, and they are good steps forward. They may not be the right steps forward, and the Opposition may disagree with them, but those mechanisms do exist. There are also reporting mechanisms to be put in place by the Minister, on a quarterly basis, so the public can see in a transparent way what is being undertaken.

We heard from Mr Cosgrove about some of the issues and the problems that have occurred across Christchurch, and about the issues that arise when politicians become political. I have been in a number of meetings, and I have sat with politicians from our side, and from the other side of the House. On a number of occasions things have gone very well, and that is a good thing, given what we are grappling with, at a time of rebuilding Christchurch after what was New Zealand’s largest natural disaster. We have an opportunity, as has been pointed out, to rebuild my home city in a way that we never have had the opportunity to do before.

A number of people were killed. While I have the chance to, I just want to make quick mention of three of those, who were friends of mine. Betty Dickson was an 82-year-old from South Brighton. Betty Dickson had been involved in my local party organisation, and she was a wonderful lady and a supporter of mine. Samuel Gibb was a young man in the CTV building who was a cameraman. I enjoyed having a cup of coffee once a month with Sam—he was a wonderful guy. I also want to talk about Lisa Willems. Lisa worked for Pyne Gould Guinness. She was an accountant in that building, and her husband, Ben Willems, is a very good friend of mine.

Again, these are the people whom we have seen photographed in our newspapers. They may be just names to some people; to me they are people I knew personally. We have also seen people who have lost their homes. This bill puts in place powers and opportunities so that New Zealand can collectively have control and have the ability to rebuild our city in the way we want.

We allow a significant number of powers in this bill, and there are some concerns about that. We will go to Christchurch tomorrow to hear submissions, and we will hear submissions tonight, from a number of people, which may point out some things that we can do a bit better in respect of this bill. I look forward to that happening, and I look forward to the comments that people may put forward to us.

But time is of the essence. We cannot put in place another overlay of long-winded community consultation, because we have to rebuild our city as fast as possible. I live in what is called the “no-flush zone”, which means we cannot flush our toilets. Many people might find that amusing, but I can tell members that it is not amusing. We have to rebuild our infrastructure so that the 70,000 people who are also in the no-flush zone can live their lives and get back to normality. We have to get in a situation where the roads we are driving along are no longer ski field roads or farm track roads, but ones that we can drive along in the normal way. That will all take time, effort, and money, and this bill puts in place the apparatus to allow a back-up situation where that can be put in place—a recovery strategy that overlays what we want to do; a recovery plan that might be at a community level, a social level, or a thematic level, in terms of issues around a particular group or organisation.

These are good things. This is a good bill, and in the time to come we will look back and say that this was the right thing to do. I think we will find that in 10 years’ time—and, hopefully, I will be sitting in this House in 10 years’ time—we will look back and say that we passed the bill for the right reasons. We look forward to the rest of the bill’s passage through the House. Thank you.

There are two things Canterbury people need. They need to get on with things as quickly as possible, and they need to be involved in the decisions about the recovery of their city. For some reason, there is a view that public participation is in conflict with rapid decision-making. In fact, it is my view that they are both essential to each other. We cannot rebuild quickly if we do not take all of the people in the community along with us. People who are left out will challenge the process, they will feel disillusioned, and, ultimately, the process will fail. There is no point consulting if we do not get the processes and decisions moving, because people will simply leave if there is inaction, or they will stay away, and some of them will not come back, or they will try to push on, on their own, when what we need is to coordinate all of the efforts to rebuild Christchurch on a community-wide and collective basis.

I support the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill because it enables the immense amount of work that Christchurch faces to be done, and it offers the opportunity for genuine consultation. I say opportunity, because basically it is not what is written on a piece of paper or even in legislation; it is how it is implemented and what is done about the proposals for consultation. Consultation in writing is not the same as taking the opportunity for consultation. I warn that it is critical that the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority consults and that the process is open to everyone in Canterbury who wants to participate, it is transparent, and it is accountable. That is why I will be supporting amendments to the bill at the Committee stage. Those amendments, which I have looked at carefully, from colleagues on this side of the House seem to me to add some substance to, particularly, the community relationships and community consultation that I believe is essential.

I recently read an article by Steven Ames, who has been in New Zealand looking at issues like the recovery of Christchurch in other arenas. I summarise what he said was the challenge for Christchurch: “We have to shift our perspective from ‘recovering what we once were’ to ‘building what we seek to become’.”

He outlines the phases on the road back from disaster, and they will be clearly apparent to anyone who lives in Christchurch. Firstly, there is the rescue phase, when the hours after an emergency require people to be saved or the removal of those who have been killed or injured. The second phase is recovery, as we reconnect the essential services of water, power, sewerage, roading, and so on. Then there is the stage that we are approaching now, but we are not really there yet, which we could call the rebuilding stage. But a comparison of cities that have rebuilt brilliantly and cities that have struggled shows that there is probably a need for a fourth stage. Ames describes it as “revisioning”. The ultimate success of rebuilding depends on how much the city is able to understand how its context has changed. In other words, there has been a cataclysmic event. How are we now approaching that, and what understanding do we have of the implications of that event on us all? How much people understand where they may be headed, what the emerging trends and issues are, and what lies ahead will be critically important to what they, and the city, aspire to be.

I want to read into the record the conclusion that Ames comes to: “City leaders would be remiss only to think of what must be rebuilt or replaced to bring the city back to where it was on the eve of the quake. Human nature suggests that when disaster strikes, we hunker down”—and we surely did some of that—“convinced that we cannot afford the luxury of thinking beyond our most urgent needs.” Then he concludes: “But this moment also represents a singular opportunity for Christchurch and all of Canterbury to rethink, revision, and reinvent itself.”

The ability for Christchurch and Canterbury people to reimagine Christchurch requires leadership capable of engaging with all of the city’s people. The success of what we have to do will therefore depend much more on that leadership than it does on any structure we have. I have been in business, in politics, and in other walks of life long enough to know that we can have the most brilliant organisational structure imaginable, but if we do not have the right people running it, it is a waste of time, and vice versa. The success of what we do, therefore, will depend on the quality of the leadership we put in place.

I am not as concerned with the structure of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority as I am with having the right people to run it. We need people leading the rebuild who understand the stages of recovery that I have outlined to the House this afternoon. We need people experienced in managing large enterprises, with an understanding of Christchurch, its ethos, and its culture, and with a vision for its future. We need leaders who have the confidence of the people and are able to communicate with them and get things done.

If there is one thing that I know about failure in Christchurch in the recent 6 or 7 months, it is not so much the talking about the problems that are straight in front of us; it is information and communication about what is next and what can be done, and involving people in those decisions, the strategic plan, and so on. Very few people in Christchurch have any grasp of that, and that seems to me to be a lack of proper communication.

The ability to engage the community and get things moving was a big disappointment after the first quake. I have to say that, and I think the Government’s response reflects that, to some extent. It did not happen well enough, and not enough was done soon enough. Contrast that with what has happened, for example, in Kaiapoi. People say that Kaiapoi is a lot smaller than Christchurch, so it is easier there. Well, there is an element of truth in that, but actually Kaiapoi did some things that Christchurch did not do. They got cracking early, they talked to their people, community meetings were held, they were reheld, ideas were accepted, they were tested, they were put back to the community, and, finally, the community had a strategic plan drawn up, which they recognised, studied, discussed, and then signed off. Not all of them agreed, of course, but they did agree that they had been consulted properly and that they knew what was happening. Guess what? What is happening in Kaiapoi is happening very quickly, and I have to say that Christchurch is in nowhere near the position that Kaiapoi is in.

Dealing with the problems is not easy; that is true. But it has not been as fast as it needs to be, and it has not, to date, adequately involved people, and that needs to change. I understand why the Government is taking control, and I do not blame it. It is a recognition that a lot of taxpayers’ money is at stake, and also that things need to be handled better than they were after the first quake. What we need to see now in this legislation is a commitment to listening, and making the community part of the rebuild. People need to feel that their views are taken into account, and that the kind of Christchurch they want is being created. Otherwise, if they feel it is not the Christchurch they were born into, came to, or want to experience again, they will feel no commitment to it, and it will fail.

I recognise that the Government has not abused its sweeping and extraordinary powers under the first Christchurch emergency legislation. I am pleased to be able to say that to the House. This gives me hope that the Government will continue to use its powers in good faith in the future. But it has to do more than that. It has to reach out to a shocked and fragile community—and I do not know that many New Zealanders fully appreciate the fragility and the shock that is being felt in the Christchurch community. The Government and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority, which we are setting up today, has to engage with the people of Christchurch on these issues. So that is how we will move forward from recovery to rebuilding a new vision for Christchurch, and in the true Canterbury spirit I know that we have the resilience and the strength to do exactly that.