Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill

Just before lunch we were treated to a very impassioned speech by Lianne Dalziel, who arguably, along with Brendon Burns, has an electorate most severely affected by the Canterbury earthquake. I pay tribute to both of them and to Ruth Dyson; they are from the three electorates. In September it was Waimakariri that was affected, and Clayton Cosgrove, I think, did sterling work in assisting that community to respond. Of course, the epicentre in September came from the Greendale earthquake fault, which I think from memory is in the Selwyn electorate, and is commonly known as “Amy’s fault”.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Oh, he’s a clever boy! That’s a bit of bullying.

That is the worst I can do. We do not wish to waste the Committee’s time, do we?

In February the three electorates that were most badly affected were Christchurch Central, Christchurch East, and Port Hills. I pay tribute to the three members who have worked so hard for the restoration of their electorates. I know that Lianne Dalziel has had considerable deprivation and difficulty in the execution of her work and in her personal life. I know that others have, too. I know that Ruth Dyson, the Minister, Brendon Burns, and others have faced difficulties.

None of us in Christchurch has been immune to the difficulties, even in the so-called western suburbs, where I come from. I come from Ilam, which I share with the Minister. We have had our difficulties. We were without power. We were engaged in glorious challenges of sanitation in the garden for a long time. Restoration is required there, as well. To this day I still have no office downtown; it is cordoned in the drop zone. I trundle cheerfully around Christchurch City in a campervan, otherwise known as the “Greenmobile”. I go into the eastern suburbs a great deal. I have visited New Brighton, Dallington, Bexley, Beckenham, Parklands, and other suburbs like Aranui, where the deprivation is probably at its worst. I know what it is to work with the citizens of Christchurch who are crying out for assistance.

None of that justifies the extent of the powers that we see in the bill here today. Earlier, in the first reading debate, I advanced the Green Party’s critique of, first, the issue of inadequate community engagement, which we have addressed in our Supplementary Order Papers that I advanced this morning in the Committee; and, second, what we take to be excessive powers in the bill, which we also addressed in our Supplementary Order Papers. I invite you, the Minister, and his Government to—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member is bringing the Chair into the debate with the use of the word “you”.

I invite the Minister and his Government to address the Supplementary Order Papers that we have advanced in good faith, with a view simply to curtailing what we take to be the excessive nature of the powers in the bill, as opposed to its legitimate powers.

Firstly, I will refer to Supplementary Order Paper 235 in my name, which addresses clause 15 and would insert a new subclause (4) to the effect that: “Once the Recovery Strategy is in place, the Minister and chief executive must ensure that they exercise their powers, rights, and privileges in a manner that is consistent with the Recovery Strategy.” A wide range of unilateral powers are given to the Minister and chief executive under the proposed Act. Although we agree that it cannot and should not be business as usual after the catastrophic earthquake, further checks and balances need to be put upon those extensive powers. The amendment to clause 15 would limit the emergency powers of the Minister and chief executive to a 9-month period, and also after that period they would need to be consistent with a recovery strategy.

Secondly, Supplementary Order Paper 233 in my name addresses clause 70. As it stands, the Government can change or override any law in this country until 2016 without any parliamentary oversight or independent checks, except for the few laws that are identified as exceptions. The amendments to clause 70 would mean that the Government could change only laws that are relevant to the recovery effort in Christchurch. We would achieve this by omitting the words “(without limitation)” from subclause (3). The Supplementary Order Paper would require the Government, under clause 73(1), to consult with other parties on the Orders in Council, which we also take to be essential.

Finally, Supplementary Order Paper 234 in my name addresses clauses 71 and 72. In particular, I draw members’ attention to clause 72. We want to insert an extra subclause (3A): “If the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Review Panel determines that a draft Order in Council is contrary to the purpose of the Act as set out in section 3, the draft Order in Council must be set down as a motion by the Minister for approval by resolution of the House of Representatives.”

We recommended the Supplementary Order Papers in good faith. I will quote, as I did this morning, from law expert Dean Knight about the excessive powers in the bill, particularly in clause 70: “This Bill continues the previous regime for the issue of Orders-in-Council amending primary legislation, with some changes. The previous concerns about this regime are well-known. Such wide Henry VIII clauses are contrary to the democratic imperative. Particular concern was expressed about the lack of, or weaknesses in, checks-and-balances on the exercise of such powers. Regrettably, the new regime does not adequately respond to the concerns previously raised.” That observation of Dean Knight is explicitly affirmed in the analytical paper that the Minister has produced. The analytical paper addresses each of the recommendations from the Legislation Advisory Committee, the Law Society, and Dean Knight pertaining to clause 70.

In response, the Minister says in respect of the Legislation Advisory Committee: “No change proposed. Want powers to be consistent with the previous Act.” That is the very point of criticism that Dean Knight and the Green Party are advancing. The paper states: “A key focus of the legislation relates to timely decision-making.” Timely decision-making is insufficient reason not to proceed. In respect of the Law Society, the Minister says: “No change proposed. These are exceptional circumstances. See Cabinet papers for policy rationale.” We have. The argument in favour of clause 70 is not sufficient and has been rejected by constitutional experts. The paper makes the same point with regard to Dean Knight; I will not reiterate it.

I will conclude by saying once again what I said this morning, and I will quote the Law Society. I do so more in sorrow than in anger, but it is with deep sorrow, because it concerns arguably one of the most fundamental issues that can come before the House: the granting of excessive powers to the Government, Cabinet, and one person, the Minister. “In general”, says the Law Society, “ ‘Henry VIII’ clauses, such as clause 70, … are contrary to the rule of law and good legislation principles”. Let that be written into the record of this House, just as we are about to adopt these powers. Let it be written into the record that it is contrary to the rule of law and good legislation principles, and “contrary to the democratic imperative” as Dean Knight put it. Let us be clear and honest and transparent about we are doing here—those of us who are chatting; those of us with our heads down.

What do we have to say to the people of New Zealand when we are about to adopt these laws tonight? Will we say they are contrary to the rule of law? No, we are saying: “Oh, to hell with it. We’ve got an extraordinary event on our hands. We have an emergency on our hands and we’re going to rebuild Christchurch, so we will just override the democratic imperative—simple as that.” Where there is a need for legislative amendments or suspensions in order to facilitate the recovery programme, a better alternative would be for Parliament to dedicate House time for those matters to be dealt with by legislation as they arise. That is what we, the Green Party, proposed, but we are talking to deaf ears. That is clear. I say to the Minister, with great respect to him, to his officials, and to his Government, which is pushing this legislation through, that the time will come when we will regret that.

I begin by reminding the Minister in the chair, the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery, of a commitment he made personally to me when he took time out of what I know is a genuinely busy schedule to come to the select committee considering the evidence—not considering the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill but considering just the evidence. I directly asked the Minister whether he was committed to a message going from Parliament about bipartisan support for Canterbury’s recovery, and whether he would therefore do Labour members the service of seriously considering our amendments. I asked that in good faith. I take members of Parliament at their word, because that is a requirement but also, actually, because I think it is what we should do, and I was gobsmacked to see the Minister’s treatment of our Supplementary Order Papers earlier in this debate.

I feel let down—and that is a very generous description of how I feel—when I compare the Minister’s reaction to our amendments with his commitment to me less than 24 hours previously. I do not think those positions are compatible, and I urge the Minister to reconsider one or the other between now and the time we have agreed to finish this debate. I do not mind if the Minister takes a call and says no, he did not mean that he would take our amendments seriously, and he was wrong to give me that commitment, because he did not take them seriously. That is one option. Or the Minister could say he has reflected on this and will now take my amendments seriously. One or the other would be a really welcome response.

This side of the House gave a commitment 7 months ago to work with the Government on the recovery of Canterbury. Over the last 7 weeks it has become a lot more important, because the damage is far greater, the damage to the infrastructure is more significant, and the loss of life has been quite overwhelming to the morale and spirit of our city and region. That is why I think it is even more important now than ever, even more important today than ever, that we grow up a little more than we currently are. I say that for the good of our region—and I say to the Minister that it is our region; he and I both share it—because we can do better than we have done today. I want to pay particular attention—[Interruption] Pardon?

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I was talking to the Chair.

You do not usually interject into an open mike. I want to pay particular attention to a couple of amendments, one because I do not think the Minister has read it carefully enough to give a response to it—because his response was not accurate—and the other because the Minister was plain wrong in what he said about it.

I refer to my amendment that asks that the Canterbury District Health Board be considered as a responsible entity in terms of the legislation. There is nothing more important to the recovery of Canterbury than the health and well-being of its citizens. That should be the outcome of the recovery plan. We should have health and well-being at the core, and the prime organisation that is responsible, literally responsible, for the health and well-being of our region is the Canterbury District Health Board. In my view it should be considered as a responsible entity. This is not a big ask, actually. It makes sense. It would give a really good message about the board’s role and the expectation that the Minister would have of the role it should play. At the moment it is considered, in the words of Nicky Wagner, as yet another interest group. The board is not an interest group. It is a key stakeholder in the recovery of Canterbury, and in my view it should be included. I also think it should be included—as a requirement, not as a little afterthought—in the key stakeholders who, under this bill, have the right to be consulted on the development of the recovery strategy. I would appreciate the Minister’s considered response to those two parts of the series of amendments I put forward.

In the Minister’s earlier comments in relation to the Canterbury District Health Board he explained that the area it covers is too great, that we need to focus on Canterbury, and that expansion of the bill to include the area covered by the board would dilute the focus on the earthquake recovery area. I accept that. That is why I am asking the Minister to focus on the other two amendments, which are that the Canterbury District Health Board be considered a key stakeholder and added to the rest of the bodies in the responsible entities list, and that there be a requirement that it is consulted in the development of the strategy. I think that is important. I think it will send a great message to the district health board about what the Minister wants it to do, and that it had better step up to the mark and take that leadership role. I think it will anyway, but I do think it should be an expectation that the Minister gives.

The second point I want to make in relation to the same series of amendments on the same page is in relation to the New Zealand Disability Strategy. The Minister does not know about the New Zealand Disability Strategy. That is OK; there are lots of things he knows about other matters that I have no understanding of. So it is not a criticism; it is just a fact. But I say to the Minister that the New Zealand Disability Strategy is not about territorial local authorities and access to buildings; it is about a lot more than that. If there were a small requirement for all recovery plans to give effect to the New Zealand Disability Strategy, it would mean a huge amount to the one in five New Zealanders who are disabled and who live in our region. It would be a great message for them to hear that for the first time after a major trauma such as this, they were being considered. I hope the Minister for Disability Issues is able to advocate to that end and to support this amendment. It would mean that disabled people in Canterbury would have a voice in the rebuilding of their region. It does not have any legal implications. It is a framework for thinking and for ensuring that people who are often excluded from decision making are included.

We have only 2½ hours left of this debate. When we reflect back to September and how serious the multiparty agreement was to the recovery of Canterbury, I think that should give us the opportunity to reflect on whether the behaviour over the last 24 hours has been in that spirit, and in my view it has not. I think we all should try a little harder to put our region ahead of our own self-interest or desire to get this legislation through and out of here. A number of members of Parliament have made comments during the debate that we on this side of the House want to slow it down. Well, I say to the Minister that nothing could be further from the truth. We do not have an interest in slowing down the legislation or slowing down the recovery. What we have a passion for, and an overwhelming interest in, is getting this right. Rushed legislation, with very little time for public consideration let alone the rigour of parliamentary scrutiny, is very rarely right in the first instance. That was the message that came from our side of the House during this debate to the Minister. A little less haste is more likely to have a robust outcome that we can all be proud of and agree with.

We were given, after representation, the opportunity for committee consideration, and I thank the Minister for that. In a spirit of generosity, I will acknowledge that it was probably a big call, because it meant that this rush that we are going through now was unavoidable. So the Minister put himself at greater risk by agreeing to a committee process of consideration. I think it was worth it, because we gave at least some people in our region the chance to have their voices heard, and that is really important if we want them to take up the leadership roles that they have in our community. Louise Upston, who is not from Canterbury but who has contributed quite a lot in this debate, made an error when she said Labour was trying to have two positions on things. She said we could not have it both ways.

I do not want to cross over the top of what the member Ruth Dyson might be saying, but I do think it is important to respond to those points. I think that was a very considered speech, there was a bit of a message sent in it, and I appreciate that. I will deal with the substantive points that the member made. The first relates to the district health board. The district health board is an instrument of the Crown as it stands, so it already is a responsible entity, and any suggestion that it will be in any way sidelined or unimportant in the recovery organisation is, I think, not correct. My expectation would be that people from the district health board would be seconded into the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority for the purpose of developing that recovery plan for health services in the Greater Christchurch but also wider Canterbury area.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Please read it; don’t just listen to poor advice.

Well, that is the advice I am taking and the advice I am sticking to. On the issue of the New Zealand Disability Strategy, the member’s amendment places a very high test and a very high requirement on people using that strategy or looking to that strategy, by saying it must give effect to the strategy. It is very, very prescriptive. I think having that as a prescriptive requirement, when the plans that will be put together for the recovery will be incredibly diverse, steps a bit too far. If the member were to look at an amendment that might say that the recovery plan should take into account aspects of the New Zealand Disability Strategy, then I would like to look at that and test it against the legislation.

The member spoke about the need for everyone to be on board. I understand that, but at a point the Government has to say what it wants to be tested against. The Hon Clayton Cosgrove has made it abundantly clear that we will be tested against that, and it is very hard to say an adversarial position is the one that will be followed from this point on, and then say “Let’s all sit around the table, be great mates, and work out what’s in the best interests of our community.”

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: No one said that.

Well, no one is saying we want to sit around a table and be best mates; at least we are clear about that. But the idea of putting into the legislation the formalising of the cross-party forum was a desire to recognise that all MPs in Canterbury—regardless of their electoral status, if you like—all those MPs who have a residence in Canterbury, have a stake in how the recovery is put together. How well that cross-party forum works will be largely up to the members of it. If it will be a weekly or monthly—or whatever it might be—inquisition on how the Minister is performing, and a recitation of the Minister’s failings in any regard, then it will not work. So it is up to members to decide how that might work. From my point of view it is a genuine attempt to formalise an arrangement that has been in place since 4 September 2010. It did not have to be there, and I can tell you the advice was that maybe it should not be there, but I felt it was a reasonable thing. Sorry, Mr Chairperson, what are you saying?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): You are bringing the Chairperson into the debate.

I did not say “you”.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Yes, you did.

Did I? Dear me, I do apologise to you. Far be it from me to suggest that you are part of the Opposition caucus, Mr Chairperson. I let myself slip. My point is that we also have the community forum in the bill. If that is to work, it also has to have wide buy-in from all parties sitting in the House. While everyone says: “Well, let the Minister appoint whom he likes.”, and all the rest of it, trying to prescribe within legislation who might be appointed to it would be an even bigger nightmare than the one that will be faced once the legislation is in place.

Of course there will be discussions. Last night in the closed hearing, I indicated to members of the Local Government and Environment Committee that I have already talked to at least one member on the other side of the House about his views on who should sit on that forum, and what they have to offer. I have to say I think the people he has put forward look to me to be exactly the right sorts of people to be involved in this exercise. I say to Ruth Dyson that I cannot see us accommodating the issue around the district health board. I realise that that causes the member frustration, but I have an obligation to protect the legislation as it is before the House.

I reiterate for the record—because I took from Mr Brownlee’s words that he was talking about our taking an adversarial position after this— that now that Labour members have had a look at Supplementary Order Paper 237 we will, with reluctance, support it, and we will allow the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill to go through unimpeded.

But I will make a couple of points to Mr Brownlee. Firstly, he has had the full cooperation of the Canterbury Labour members of Parliament and our caucus colleagues right through since 4 September, when the first earthquake occurred. Secondly, we have cooperated with him by providing, if members like, the game plan well before the game has been played. By that I mean we have written to Mr Brownlee to give him in advance our amendments, our thoughts, and the reflections of our communities that we are representing. Normally, we would not do that. We would stage an ambush, because that is the nature of the game in this place, but there is a higher requirement because of this issue. We have committed at all stages to engage with Mr Brownlee, and we have taken Mr Brownlee at his word.

We took him at his word when, in the week of the memorial service, he looked me in the eye across a table in a private room and said he wanted us on board, he wanted our input into the structure and nature of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority, and he wanted to meet with Mr Goff and me further. Then he went back on that word on three occasions. We believed him when he said the legislation had not gone through the Cabinet committee. We rang Mr Eagleson and he assured us of that fact. We believed Mr Brownlee and took him at his word, then we found out 2 days later that the game had changed, and Mr Brownlee, when asked whether it was a fait accompli, said the answer was yes. So at all stages Labour has cooperated.

Then it came to the process for the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill, which Labour had very little input into. We asked for a select committee process and we got one. Like Ruth Dyson, I acknowledge the Minister for doing that. I differ in one respect, though. I say it did not preclude Mr Brownlee from altering the timing of the bill’s process through the House. He could have allowed 1 extra day. We could have worked tomorrow, and we could have had a decent select committee process—a day.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: We could have worked tonight.

We could have worked tonight. We could have taken a decent look at the Supplementary Order Paper. The Minister’s officials would not have had writer’s cramp from scribing all night. The Supplementary Order Paper would have arrived on time, I assume—I hope, in good faith—and we could have had a decent debate that was not sullied by some angst.

Our angst is around the issue that Parliament has not had the ability to quality-control in the normal way the amendments that have come from the Minister. In 4 hours and 40 minutes eminent experts came to the Local Government and Environment Committee with their best endeavours, and I think they caught Mr Brownlee on the hop. I think Mr Brownlee thought that if he had a select committee process and gave people zero notice of it, and that if, the night before, he told people to turn up in Christchurch, people would turn up, make a few comments, and go away. What happened was that people turned up, worked all night, and came up with robust amendments.

The proof and the testament that the Opposition was right to request a select committee process is that Supplementary Order Paper 237, which was 4½ hours late, contains, I believe, only one amendment generated by the Minister. The rest of the amendments were generated by, and found their origins in, the submissions made to the Local Government and Environment Committee by eminent New Zealanders and Cantabrians. So had we not had the select committee process, we would have had a Supplementary Order Paper containing maybe one amendment or no amendments. I make that point to Mr Brownlee.

Labour will support this legislation. We will allow it to go through. And I say this to Mr Brownlee, even though he probably is expressing some angst and emotion because he does not like people standing up and giving a view that is different from his: I renew the pledge of Canterbury Labour members and others on this side of the Chamber that, after the legislation has passed, we will try to work with him to make the legislation work, even though we hold grave fears that it is flawed, and even though we now know that it has not had the appropriate parliamentary scrutiny or the appropriate input from the public, bearing in mind that we could have had 1 more day, 24 hours—not a week, not a month—and that would not have altered or delayed anything in terms of the recovery for the people of Canterbury. We will try to make this work with Mr Brownlee, because there is a higher interest involved.

But I say again to Mr Brownlee, who is obviously preoccupied with other, more important matters, because he is not attending to my speech, that he needs to take on board this tenet in politics: he needs to listen. Part of the test of Mr Brownlee, who will hold the pen with wartime powers over the chief executive of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority, will be whether he is true to his word, engages with the community, and listens to the words, thoughts, concerns, and input that come out of Canterbury, or whether he acts as the earthquake tsar, as he has exhibited time and time again over the last couple of months, and as he has exhibited in the last 48 hours, and simply rejects all ideas that do not come from him and mows over the top of everybody else. This is not about my colleagues and me, and other MPs in Canterbury. It is actually about the people whom we represent.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: Really?

Really, I say to Mr Williamson—the people whom we represent. He might want to take heed of that. We get our ideas from our community, we bring our input to the table from our community, and that community has an absolute right to be heard.

I have never come across a process like this in my time in Parliament. As I said to Mr Brownlee, it is either incompetence, or mismanagement, or the tactic which has been tried by him many times, and that is to drop these things on us and the public from a great height, with very little chance for input.

I conclude on this point. The testament to the fact that we needed a select committee process is that all bar one of the amendments in Mr Brownlee’s own Supplementary Order Paper found their origin in the people of Canterbury and those experts who came before our committee. That seems to suggest to us that, one, the people were right when they called on us to call on Mr Brownlee to have a select committee process; and, two, that had there not been that process, there probably would not have been a Government Supplementary Order Paper. Mr Brownlee has trashed all other amendments and failed to listen to any of them, so it would have been his way or the highway.

Labour will support Mr Brownlee in terms of trying to make this work, but I do note this—and he will call it politics, but to be honest I do not really call what he calls it. He will be judged in respect of whether this legislation and the authority that flows from it—

💬 Hon Tau Henare: You’re a hero, Clayton.

I am a hero, am I? That is a really good comment from a guy who should be a bouncer in a Porirua public bar. I say to Mr Brownlee that he will be judged by the people of Canterbury on whether the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill assists them as swiftly as possible to recover their lives, their livelihoods, and their houses.

💬 Hon Member: We’ll all be judged by it.

No, we will not all be judged. I say to Mr Brownlee that if this legislation fails and the authority fails, the responsibility will sit squarely on his shoulders, and his shoulders alone, because he has rejected all the ideas put forward to him, and he has done everything in his power to cramp any input from those outside his small group and his Government. Labour members look forward to trying to work together to make this work. We will participate in the political cross-party forum, as we have participated in the informal cross-party forums that he initiated for months, up until at least Christmas. We have cooperated. But all we can do, at the end of the day, is to put up ideas that our community asks us to, in the vain hope that Mr Brownlee may listen to them, that he may take them on board, and that he may act on them. That may be a vain hope, but we still believe in that concept called hope, we still treat this issue with good faith, and we will continue to do so. But I say the track record that has occurred and the modus operandi exhibited in Parliament in the last 48 hours are shameful. I hope Mr Brownlee has got this right.

I want to complete the sentence that I started at the end of my last call, which was to correct the misunderstanding that Louise Upston had. Miss Upston was on the Local Government and Environment Committee, which considered the evidence, and she said Labour was trying to have it both ways: it was trying to say some people had noted that the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill had been improved, yet we were saying some people had not seen the bill. But, actually, both of those points are correct. Some people who had seen earlier drafts of the bill noted that it had been improved, as did I. The first draft that we saw did not have a definition of the central business district in it, and I thought that was quite foolish. I am glad that the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery agreed with that point and added a definition of the central business district. But many other leaders in Christchurch, including our elected councillors, had not seen the draft of the bill. That was the point being made from this side of the Chamber. People whom we will rely on to lead our communities have not been party to any discussion about the legislation.

I have quite a lot of stamina, so I will try again with the Minister. He still has not heard what I have been trying to get through to him in respect of the Canterbury District Health Board, and I would really appreciate it if the Minister either did not take a call and dismiss my contribution, or, if he wants to take my amendment seriously, that he first of all reads the piece in the legislation that I am referring to. He is right that in the responsible entities clause the district health board does not need to be named. That is fine; let us put that to one side. I think it would have given it good message if the Minister had named it, but he disagrees, so let us leave it at that.

But the second point I made, and I am not sure whether the Minister is able to talk and listen—he is a multitasker; excellent. That is very good. In Clause 11(4) a small number of organisations are listed that must be consulted in relation to the development of the recovery strategy. It is my view that alongside the Christchurch City Council, Environment Canterbury, Selwyn District Council, Waimakariri District Council, and Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu we should include the Canterbury District Health Board, and that is what I am asking the Minister to do. I will have one more shot at that. There are a lot of other really serious amendments that we propose, which the Minister has dismissed. But I think that having another go at that one is worth it.

The Minister dangled a little carrot in front of me and said that if I changed the wording of my amendment in relation to the Disability Strategy and its consideration in the preparation of recovery plans, he would give it another glance. He promised that he would give that amendment good consideration, so I have rewritten it word for word on the basis of what I recall the Minister saying. By now he will have a new copy of that amendment. I do not consider that it would be a victory if that amendment was agreed to. I just think it would be a small step forward for disabled people who want to have a bigger say than they might otherwise have on the future of the region in which they live. I want to take the Minister back to the commitment that he made to me, because I still feel cheated. I urge him, in the little time that we have left, to give it another shot.

One of my other amendments was in relation to the instructions that the Minister can issue—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

In the middle of my speech?

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well no, because I know the member has more time to go, and I just want to indicate to the Committee that the member’s amendment relating to consideration being given to the New Zealand Disability Strategy is under consideration. It may be that it could go in a different part and be more suitable for inclusion there, and those discussions will take place with the member as soon as she has concluded her speech.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the Minister for that. It is actually not a point of order.

It certainly was not a point of order. The Minister could have taken a call and done that.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I can’t do anything right.

Well, it was not a point of order, although the Minister raised it as one. That is the point that is being made.

The other amendment that I proposed was in relation to the power that the Minister has to require councils or council organisations to perform a function. What we heard from the three councils, to the best of my recollection—but certainly from two councils—was that they did not mind that. They thought it was fine that the Minister was able to instruct them either to start or to stop something, because of the very unusual situation that we have. But they thought it would be just a mark of common courtesy if the Minister talked to them about it, before issuing an edict from on high. That is all that my amendment asks the Minister to do. My amendment is to insert a new clause (1A) in clause 49 of Part 2. Again, I say to the Minister that the reason I feel cheated is that I do not think this is a big ask, and I cannot imagine how the Minister has given this amendment the serious consideration that he gave me a personal commitment to give to any amendments that we put up. All that the amendment asks is that the Minister should talk to the local authority about the direction that he is, by law, allowed to issue. There is no argument about that. It is just a little process. We are not asking him to go through a great, long rigmarole. We are not asking him to leave himself vulnerable to be dragged before the court; we are just asking for a civil conversation with elected representatives in our three areas. I do not know why the Minister would not take the opportunity to provide for that.

I thank the Minister for giving consideration to the Disability Strategy amendment. I really urge him to look at all our amendments. We spent quite a lot of time working on them. The Minister’s officials have taken until after 2 o’clock today to prepare Supplementary Order Papers based on the submissions that we heard, which were finished yesterday afternoon. We have done our amendments ourselves, without the resources of the brains, talent, and time of departmental officials. We actually had more amendments than the Minister, but it is not a competition. However, our amendments were done with the same degree of seriousness as the ones that the Minister prepared. It is nearly time for the debate to end. There is a limited opportunity for the Minister to change his behaviour and meet the commitment that he gave me at the select committee, in front of a number of our other colleagues, to give serious consideration to our amendments.

I would like to take just a very brief call on behalf of the Green Party on the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill, to say we have a consistent position on this bill, and we are not going to support it. I went to Christchurch, and I acknowledge with all humility the members of Parliament from Christchurch on all sides of the Chamber, and the great work they were doing when I was down on the streets. I saw the figure of Rick Barker standing in the pouring rain advertising a sausage sizzle. I saw Nicky Wagner outside the recovery centre, doing her best for people. I saw people doing everything they could, and all of them doing what they could down there. It was a humbling experience. But what disappoints the Greens so much is that in this place the opposite is occurring; we are not doing the best we could do. This legislation is not the best we could do. We know that, because so many people have not been heard.

I would like to comment briefly on what international experts say about disasters. They say it is time to listen, and listen, and listen to the people most affected. It is not about the convenience of Parliament. It is not about us—actually—today. It should not be about us. It is about the people who are most affected on the ground. When I was working in Aranui and New Brighton, going door to door and talking with people, their feeling of powerlessness and being overwhelmed was about slowing down, not the need for a toilet or water but the need for someone to listen to them about their future and about how Christchurch was going to be rebuilt. They were as passionate as we are that it should happen in the right way.

The Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery referred to the right sorts of people being consulted. I have spent a lot of time with people who may not be considered to be the right sorts of people. They are not the experts who were at the non - select committee—it was not a select committee; it was a committee and it was for experts, but our tradition in this Parliament is that select committees are for the people, by the people, and that is not what happened yesterday. Those people had many questions about their own future, and they wanted to participate. That is why I support Kennedy Graham’s amendments, which are about checks and balances on what is very bad legislation. I have been calling it the Sarah Palin “I can see Christchurch from here legislation”, because that is what it could turn out to be, unless, at the eleventh hour, there is modification by the Government by listening to the Labour and Green amendments, which will provide engagement by the right sorts of people—and the right sorts of people are everybody, not just the experts.

If we are to talk about being in good faith with the communities—and that has been said since day one—we need a far more sophisticated process than one 8-hour so-called select committee. There are people in Christchurch who are very, very concerned about their future, and they do not want daddy to fix it; they want to be part of the fix. That takes more time than we might like. That takes more skill than we might have in this Parliament. It takes community facilitation whereby people who are damaged and are not certain of their future are heard so that they, with us, design their own future and rebuild Christchurch. That is what we were hoping this process could be about. That is what it should be about, because the experience of disasters in other countries, and even in this country, is that it works best when we go through that kind of process, not when we decide for them overnight that we must fix everything fast.

Of course everybody wants there to be a toilet and water and roads. I saw the state that people are living in. I understand it because I am still getting calls about that state. But we are talking about the rebuild; we are not talking about the immediate emergency situation we were talking about. So it is very disappointing that we have to put up these Supplementary Order Papers and that they may not be heard. It is very disappointing. We do not want to vote against this bill, because we are completely committed to a cooperative approach to this. But believe me, the people of Christchurch are not with you. They are asking you—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member is bringing the Chair into the debate.

Apologies to you, Mr Chair. The people are not with the Government on this issue. It is going to be a long-term bad plan to force this legislation through under urgency, as the Government is doing. Having had a very limited experience, and acknowledging that limitation, I would just like to say that from the streets of Aranui and New Brighton, people want to be heard. This is not it; we can do better. Kia ora.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Gerry Brownlee to the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 237 in his name to clause 63(2) be agreed to:

to add “or damage” after “loss”.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I seek your advice briefly on a procedure. You will recall that during the Committee stage of the debate, one of my amendments was being discussed, and the Minister in the chair, the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery, agreed to give it consideration if it was worded in a different way. As he spoke, I wrote it out and tabled it, thinking that the Minister would then do as he had offered and give it consideration. He did, but he then referred it to his officials, for a reason that I do not understand but I guess that is not important. I was then given by his officials—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I have an answer to the member for that.

I have not asked the question.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The question is for consideration of the amendment. It was lodged after we had started the vote on the questions, so—

That was not my question. If you would not mind, Mr Chairperson—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I will hear the Hon Ruth Dyson.

Thank you. The officials gave me what the Minister had then agreed to, I presume, but it was past the time at which I could table it. The officials gave it to me after the voting had started and, therefore, the Minister was not able to deliver it. I ask whether there is any way of seeking leave for that reason.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Yes, certainly. I invite the member to seek leave.

I seek leave to table an amendment as I have just outlined.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is being sought to table this amendment in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson.

And allow voting on it.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): First of all, we are tabling it. Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection. We now move to a vote on it.

I do not have to seek leave for that?

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No, because we already have leave. That is what we have just done.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to clause 20 be agreed to:

to insert in subclause (2) the following paragraph after paragraph (c):

(ca) The New Zealand Disability Strategy; and.

Amendment agreed to.