Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill

I move, That the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill be now read a third time. The events of the last couple of days and the last few hours have been, I think, quite interesting. Personally, it has been a bit like being at an encounter group, finding out all the worst foibles of one’s personality, etc. But those matters are pretty unimportant when we consider the lives that have been so disrupted in Christchurch now for such a very long time. The passing of this bill does not change that immediately; it provides a framework for a transition from a state of emergency to a state of urgency, leading towards what we hope will be a very full recovery in a speedier period of time.

Before I make any further comments, I want to thank the officials who have worked with me on this bill, particularly Benesia Smith, Rosalind Plimmer, John Ombler, Matthew Palmer, and many others. They have worked tirelessly over the last couple of weeks to make sure we had a bill that covered as many bases as we could anticipate in the lead-up to what I hope will be the development of a series of recovery plans for the Greater Christchurch area and the Canterbury province under a single strategy that will be developed over the next 9 months.

While there was a big team working on things here, there was an even bigger team working down in Christchurch. Thousands of people are going the extra mile, doing that extra bit, to try to make life a little easier for their fellow Cantabrians, their fellow residents of Christchurch City. I pay particular tribute to those who are doing the difficult part of the job—in the trenches, up to their elbows in the muck trying to connect the pipes, trying to put the electricity back on, trying to make sure that the waste water runs away, and trying to make sure that water is connected to houses.

Those people have done very long hours. They continue to work hard and go that extra mile, and they will keep doing that, we hope, for some time to come. I want to acknowledge that huge contribution in the very practical sense and the very practical way in which it is delivered.

I do not think we need to spend a lot of time rehearsing aspects of the bill. I make a commitment to work with Bob Parker, David Ayers, and Kelvin Coe, and their executive teams under Tony Marriott, Paul Davey, and Jim Palmer.

I also acknowledge the work done over the last couple of weeks, through their giving of advice on the bill, by Mark Solomon and Sasha McMeeking from Ngāi Tahu, and the many others in the community who have expressed their views, particularly those who took time to make submissions, albeit at short notice, to the Local Government and Environment Committee. The bill reflects many of the comments that were made during that hearing of evidence.

I have great confidence that this bill provides the sort of framework we need to effect a solid recovery in the Greater Christchurch area. There are two aspects on which I want to make very brief comments. The first is the cross-party forum. Although we can have a little bit of acrimony about process and everything else, as we move forward we will need a lot more unity, and I make it clear that it is my intention to engage properly with that cross-party forum.

I acknowledge that there was a discussion after the hearing of evidence last night, when a number of things were shared in confidence, and those confidences have been kept, and I think that shows the underlying effort that people are making to understand and to be part of a bigger solution for people in Canterbury.

I also want to give a commitment that the community forum will be a body that is representative of the many organisations and persons out there who have become leaders in our community but do not have a particular elected role. It goes without saying that, in working in collaboration with the Christchurch City Council in particular, there will need to be engagement with community boards as well as at council level.

I express my great empathy for the great difficulties that everyone in Christchurch is facing at the present time, but also my great confidence that we will emerge from this event as a very, very strong city. We will have a central business district, the development of which will be led by the city council, that will be one of the safest places in the southern hemisphere to live, and I think it will meet many of the tests that one would expect to apply to a city that looks forward to hundreds of years of success in the future. I look forward to the passing of the bill.

Like all Canterbury members and other members of this House who have taken the trouble and shown the commitment to come down and assist the fellow members of our community, I understand very clearly the difficulties our fellow citizens are dealing with. When we had a number of memorial speeches in the Parliament I think I used the phrase that there is a dust cloud—a metaphorical one now, at least—hanging over the people of Canterbury. I think I said that cloud is filled with tears, the tears of people who have lost loved ones, who have lost their livelihoods and their homes, and who have had their lives disrupted and their children’s lives disrupted.

I also said at the time that I believe we will rebuild our province. We will rebuild it, and it will reflect the grit, the generosity of spirit, and the good nature and guts of the people of Canterbury. We will have a modern city and we will have a modern province, although it is hard to look constituents in the eye and make that commitment to them. It is hard for those constituents to believe that, especially those who still do not have the basics of life, such as a toilet. Elderly folk still have to go down in the early hours of the morning to a thing called a Portaloo, which is a pretty ugly encounter for those of us in our younger years, let alone for those vulnerable people in our community.

I note, as I have noted throughout this debate, the Labour members of Parliament, Ruth Dyson, Brendon Burns, and Lianne Dalziel. Lianne cannot participate in this debate, given that she is required in Christchurch at another public meeting assisting her community, but I think it is noteworthy to breach the Standing Orders in that respect, and note that she cannot be present. Jim Anderton has also worked diligently, as has Kennedy Graham. All those members on this side of the House have committed in good faith. We keep our word to this process. We have kept our word. In fact, in my capacity I have stood in public meetings that I have organised and actually defended Gerry Brownlee and his Government when I thought it was appropriate. That is not in my nature, I have to say, but there is a higher calling in respect of this disaster we face. When cheap shots have been taken I have stood and defended the Earthquake Commission, defended Mr Brownlee, and defended his motives and his Government.

I have to say our commitment to a bipartisan process has been sorely tested by that member in the last few weeks, not just in the last few days, when we have received commitments from the Minister, when he has looked us in the eye and said he will do certain things, and provide certain information. He has then—without a flinch, I have to say, and that shows the character of the man—observed that he has changed his mind and breached those commitments. I observed that.

We and the people of Canterbury have been placed in a situation in which legislation, the powers of which I have certainly not seen in my time in this Parliament, has been put before this House in such a way that it has not had proper scrutiny. There will be people watching the show, as it were, and people who are listening who are in deep trouble in Canterbury, and they are probably saying “Look, Clayton, you guys just work together and get on with it.” We understand that principle, and we agree with that principle. I say to those folks that indeed we need to get on with it, but our commitment and the expectation of the people of Canterbury was that this Parliament would deliver legislation to them that would meet and exceed their needs, that would help them as swiftly as possible to get their lives back, their homes back, and their livelihoods back, and that would restore them to a place where they were prior to 4 September and a better place, of course, than prior to the 22 February disaster. The people of Canterbury expect us to deliver the best possible authority for them, and the best possible outcome for them.

I say to the people of Canterbury that that has not been possible today, because the Minister has embarked on a course akin to that of a parliamentary steamroller. He did accede to a 1-day select committee—it was not actually a day; it was 4 hours and 40 minutes of public hearings, plus deliberation. Out of that select committee, interestingly, came all but one of the amendments that the Minister put on the Table of the House, I think 4½ hours into the Committee stage. Had it not been for that select committee process that the Opposition demanded—and we demanded it because there are experts out there who have contributed in a positive way to this bill—the Minister, it seems, would have had but one amendment, as he trots off to an early shower.

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: No, no!

Yes, I can say that. I tell members to read their Standing Orders of the House of Representatives. I say had we not had that select committee process, the Law Society; the Legislation Advisory Committee; the three local authorities who received very short notice—a few hours’ notice—to attend; the Insurance Council, critical to the process; the Canterbury District Health Board; and other elected folk would not have had any opportunity to bring their views forward, and bring their positive ideas. It must have been positive for the Minister, because his Supplementary Order Paper contained all of their ideas and only one of his own. So that is a win for the people of Canterbury. But then that Supplementary Order Paper was not allowed to have appropriate scrutiny, and we will be guillotined in about an hour and 5 minutes, because that is the process that Mr Brownlee has embarked upon.

We support the legislation. We will support it. Even though we have grave reservations about the quality and whether it will deliver for our people, we will, and have given a public commitment to do so, continue to work with the Government to attempt to make the legislation work for the people of Canterbury: for all those people Mr Brownlee mentioned who have worked their guts out in the last 6 or 7 months to help their fellow Cantabrians; for those people around New Zealand who have contributed money and time and who just appeared in Christchurch, in Kaiapoi and Mount Pleasant, with shovels in their hands to help people; for those people who now shed a tear most nights because they do not know when they will get their lives and their houses back; for those people in Kaiapoi who have been told that it could be 3½ years—despite the fantastic work of the Waimakariri District Council, which has set a benchmark and a template for all other local authorities in our region—for those people who shed a tear because it will take, sadly, 3½ years for some of those people to get the keys to their new home.

But I say to this House that I think Cantabrians expected better from us, better from this Parliament. There will be those, I am sure, who will get up, as Mr Brownlee and others have, and as did the member for Taupō, I think it is, who got up and spat some political acid over to this side of the House, accused us of playing politics, and accused us of—I cannot remember the exact words—

💬 Louise Upston: Petty politics!

—petty politics, yes. She spat some political bile over to this side of the House, as is her wont.

💬 Louise Upston: We’re sick of it.

Well, that says it all. The people of Christchurch are not sick of members of Parliament—the Green member, Mr Anderton, myself, and others—who got up and proposed amendments in a serious way to ensure that this bill is in the best possible shape it could be, despite the political acid and bile that has been spat from that member.

I will not resile from anything I have said or any criticisms I have made, because those criticisms are made in good faith, and they are made to ensure that there is accountability. There is a clause in this bill called an ouster clause, clause 73(2), and it reads thus: “The recommendation of the relevant Minister may not be challenged, reviewed, quashed, or called into question in any court.” That is the sort of “tsar clause”. It cannot be challenged by any legal organ in this land. If that power, which is absolute, is used appropriately and with diligence and discipline to help the people of Canterbury, then we will support the use of that clause. But if it is abused and if it is used in a surreptitious way, and if it is used without transparency or without accountability, then we will expose that, and the member for Taupō will again spit acid and say that we are being political. Well, so be it. That is the nature of democracy and the nature of being a parliamentarian in this place—to hold to account the absolute power that the Minister and his Government will have, as well as him.

I will finish on this point: John Key made a pledge after 4 September, a public pledge that was repeated by locals at many a public meeting I held, that no one in Canterbury would be worse off. That is the acid test he will be judged by. Mr Brownlee is now shouldering the burden of this legislation squarely himself, because in this process he quashed every amendment, bar one.

I fully support the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill.

I am not quite sure what time the last plane to the West Coast leaves, but I guess the previous speaker, Chris Auchinvole, wants to be on it. I would have thought that after chairing the Local Government and Environment Committee, a little more of a contribution may have been justified, but the member obviously thought otherwise.

I begin by saying that I will leave the Chamber committed to doing everything I possibly can to make sure that the legislation we are about to pass, the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill, is successful. We need an enduring and sustainable recovery in our region. If the bill is the mechanism we have been asked to deliver that recovery through, then we will give it our very best shot. That is the most important goal for us to have from today.

The debate on the legislation has not been as I would have wished it to be. Politicians—and I have seen a few in my time in Parliament and even before I came into this House—have different skills. Some do not use any of their skills, and some use their skills a lot. A number of politicians have the ability to explain a proposal and take with them people of many different political persuasions. Some politicians do that even with their own caucus. But other members—and the Hon Gerry Brownlee has demonstrated this skill in the last few days—have the ability to take a politically neutral commitment to working together for the betterment of our region and turn it upside down into resentment, frustration, and division. I do not know why. I do not know why anyone would want to do that. We all enjoy scoring points at each other’s expense in this place from time to time—perhaps with the exception of my colleague from Canterbury, Kennedy Graham, who does not seem to enjoy that but makes a jolly fine contribution in Parliament regardless—but when we have such an important issue, which has been created through death and the destruction of the largest city in the South Island, I would have thought we could get beyond point-scoring. But we did not seem to be able to. I would have thought we would say to everyone in the House: “Please give us your best ideas and we will make the most of them.” We have had a wasted opportunity. That is a shame. The bill was an opportunity that should have been grasped by Gerry Brownlee. He would have been amazed at the energy that we could have contributed to the debate and therefore to the recovery. He would have been overwhelmed by the enthusiasm with which the invitation would have been broadly received by Cantabrians. I know that people would have welcomed the opportunity to have a genuine input into the legislative framework for our recovery for the next 5 years. It is quite important to us. We want to be part of it, and we were denied that opportunity. It is a waste, it is a shame, and I do not understand why the Minister chose that path when the other one would have been so attractive, so much more successful, and, frankly, so much easier for him. I am sure he will explain it when he writes his book, but for now we will remain puzzled.

I acknowledge my Labour and Green colleagues whom I have been working alongside for many years but particularly since the September quake and the more recent February quake. Lianne Dalziel is a tireless worker for her electorate. She has led the rebuild and recovery process in her electorate, which is challenged with more inequities than other electorates and which has been devastated twice. Nobody understands the force of nature and the unfairness of it—it cannot be explained—but Lianne has led information distribution to her constituents so that they could at least understand the physical forces of nature that have destroyed their suburbs, their homes, and, for many people, their lives. She has represented her electorate extraordinarily strongly. She continues to do so, and it is to my regret—and I am sure the House’s—that none of her amendments were given the consideration they should have received.

I also acknowledge Clayton Cosgrove, who is the Labour leader on earthquake issues in our region. He has been a strong and staunch advocate not just for his electorate but for the broader consideration of earthquake issues.

Brendon Burns, as the member of Parliament for Christchurch Central, has not only the most devastated red zone within his constituency but also the business community and many residents who have been very harshly affected. He has continuously represented their views, needs, and aspirations through appropriate channels.

Kennedy Graham had his office destroyed and has recently started driving around our city in a very flash mobile office. I welcome him into my electorate any time, because I enjoy working with him.

The amendments we put forward we thought would improve the bill. I really genuinely do not believe that every single one of our amendments, bar one, from those members I have just named—Kennedy Graham, Brendon Burns, Clayton Cosgrove, Lianne Dalziel, and me—should have been defeated. I believed the commitment the Minister gave to me personally, to my face, that the amendments would be considered properly. I am stunned. I am not politically naïve, so I should not be stunned, but I am stunned that I have been so cheated on such an important issue by a fellow Cantabrian. I do not care what party Gerry Brownlee is in, but I am really stunned that I have been cheated in that way. I would not have thought that of all members the Hon John Carter would find it amusing. Of all members I thought he would be the one who would share my frustration.

I will touch briefly on the select committee process. It was unusual, as has been mentioned during the Committee and second reading stages. I acknowledge Chris Auchinvole. I have never been on a select committee with him for any length of time. He is a very good chairman of the committee. He made us all behave in a way we were not inclined to at the start. We got a better contribution in the debate as a result. He treated submitters with respect. He set a fine example for all of us in this Parliament on the way to conduct ourselves in a difficult environment with difficult submissions being heard. It was very frustrating to not have the bill before us and to not have any advisers at the committee. We were very frustrated at not being able to get information from advisers in relation to what the submitters told us, and the submitters were frustrated as well. The process is not one I would recommend.

I also thank the people who made submissions. As has been mentioned previously in this debate, most of the people who made submissions saw the bill as it was introduced into this parliament or an hour later. When we found out the bill was not on the website, Clayton Cosgrove raised a point of order—as members may recall—and explained to the Speaker that it was not on the website. The Clerk’s office got on the job, and the bill was on the website within a matter of minutes. That was the first time that many of the people who presented a submission to us had seen the bill. It was 4 o’clock on Tuesday afternoon, and at 10 o’clock on Wednesday morning they were giving us a submission on the bill. That is not an acceptable process for minor legislation, let alone legislation that gives extraordinary powers, with very few checks and balances, to one person. It makes it more difficult when we feel so cheated of goodwill throughout this process to then be asked to trust the Minister to use those extraordinary powers in the way the legislation requires and in the way that is best for our city. I would hope that we do get a better response to that ambition in future.

Labour put forward a minority report on this bill, because we felt so strongly about our concerns, and, tragically, not all of them have been listened to, let alone addressed. The constitutional aspects, the overwhelming powers that are given to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery, the length of time, and the lack of transparency and accountability are major concerns. The fact that the community does not drive the recovery process will be to our detriment, and we will do everything we can to change that.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, I will leave the House this evening committed to doing everything I can to ensure that this legislation delivers the sort of vision we all share for a strong and sustainable recovery for our region.

This is a rather historic moment. Apart from in wartime New Zealand I think we are passing into law arguably the most Draconian legislation ever passed by a New Zealand Parliament. I do not wish to be melodramatic, but we have experienced a dramatic event, and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill is a dramatic bill. It has generated much heat, yet only occasionally some light—but enough light—to shine a faint torch on what we are doing here today. This bill is a dusty mirror to who we are as a society. It raises issues of an underlying nature, I think, about our national identity, our national style, and our beliefs, and I shall say more about that later. In the meantime let me make three points.

The fundamental issue at stake is that this bill accords unprecedented peacetime powers to the Government in the name of recovery from a natural disaster. Those powers are justified on the basis that extraordinary events justify extraordinary legislation, or “going the extra mile”, as the Minister has just put it. That is the fundamental premise on which the Government rests its legislation. The Green Party rejects that premise and believes it has refuted it. An extraordinary event does not in itself require or justify extraordinary powers. It requires extraordinary effort—yes; extraordinary compassion—we are showing it; and extraordinary cooperation—we are getting there. It does not necessitate extraordinary powers. We are told the people of Christchurch are crying out for these powers to be rushed through, for a focused, timely, and expedited recovery. The Green Party is being told precisely the opposite. We are being told people want to engage, want legitimacy, and want to express a vision. They are being denied that under this bill. The people of Christchurch would have preferred 2 more weeks of the state of emergency so that the bill could be properly debated. So we in the Green Party are critical of the process by which this bill is being born. It says little of its genealogy and it portends badly for any progeny that might—God help us—follow.

My second point is this: why make central government sovereign over a local municipality, as this bill does? Why the overriding assumption that national government knows better than local government? We reject that notion. Local government knows its city better than national government. Has anybody heard of the Christchurch City Council aspiring to run the country? I see the seeds of the substantive problem I am identifying even within the process itself. At yesterday’s select committee hearing, down south, the Christchurch City Council was essentially in disarray. The mayor was, regrettably, absent. Clearly, something more important than this legislation detained him. The councillors had never seen the draft. Some of them think they have been consulted about the concept, though this is rather unclear. The deputy mayor rather hesitatingly expressed general support, but then, in a forlorn and poignant action, the council appealed for collaboration from central government and sought a protection of its statutory powers and rights. Other councillors spoke out against the process and the substance. There was, I sensed, a touch of apprehension. That is generally how these things begin—with just a look in the eye.

My third point is that there has been a tendency, probably a decision, about mixing all phases into one in the name of justifying these powers. We should be seeing three phases: an emergency, when central government is, naturally, in control; a recovery, when central and local government cooperate; and a rebuild, when local government is in control. But we are seeing central government retaining the purple robe over the lot. There are too many rationales here. Are these extraordinary powers justified? So said Mussolini, so said Musharraf, and so says Bainimarama. They talk of the doctrine of necessity, and we recall what ultimately happens to all these regimes.

My final comment is this. The bill is a commentary on who we are. New Zealanders are, by and large, by nature not a theoretically minded people. We like to see ourselves as pragmatic and casual, decent and fair-minded. No. 8 wire takes precedence over encyclopaedic script. We tenaciously refuse to write a formal constitution, proud of our British heritage. We disbanded the Upper Chamber on the grounds it might get in the way. We are slow to write into the books our natural obligations pertaining to human rights and freedom of information. We glue our society together on personalised trust rather than idealised obligation. These ingredients make for a fragile society, more fragile than we realise. The pure taste of these ingredients is in this legislation, which the New Zealand Parliament, claiming sufficient electoral strength to muster the numbers, is about to adopt in the name of we the people, whose characteristics we witnessed today. In this bill we have ridden roughshod over the statute book. We have pushed the bill through a unicameral Parliament. We have suspended certain basic rights, and we have rested its operationalisation on the blithe assurance of personal trust, the trust of one Minister backed by a group of Ministers. Is this the moment to acknowledge that in the forty-ninth Parliament, whose time is not yet at an end, we have witnessed the resignation of two Ministers on the grounds of violating political and personal trust? Every society, when it starts down the road to repression, claims that extraordinary events justify extraordinary law. That is the basis of martial law.

Let us not opt out of human society and claim that because we are pragmatic, casual, decent, and fair-minded we are different. We are not. We have witnessed emergency powers prevailing in countries we know well. It is not just Egypt and Syria. I know what it is to live in societies where freedoms are circumscribed or where situations are tense. I have lived in Jordan, a beautiful and wonderful nation, where to criticise the king would place one in serious trouble. I have entered Haiti 3 days after a dictator was ousted, and the sandbags with machine guns peered out at people. I have been to Burundi between genocides, where we appealed in the Parliament at Bujumbura for calm and mutual understanding. That experience, incidentally, carries a personal note that illustrates my point. On that occasion I took eight members of Parliament with me from around the world. Four were from the West, four were from Africa. Our lead parliamentarian was an outstanding Opposition leader from West Africa. He was renowned for his courage, his acumen, and, above all, for his compassion for the people. He later went on to become a popular president whom the people loved and trusted. Who was that man? He was Laurent Gbagbo.

Is Africa so very different from these far-flung shaky isles we call home? Are we so benighted as to say yes, so provincial as to believe ourselves to be superior? To those who might, let me refer them to Chile, Argentina, Mexico, and Uruguay, and respond to the obvious prejudice—and, of course, Italy and Germany. We generally relate to those countries and others in times of trouble. I ask colleagues not to think we are immune. It is not that I do not trust Gerry Brownlee; it is that I do not trust myself. I would feel reassured if we had a codified constitution and that our constitution foresaw such an event and required for it in a measured and prescient manner, rather than require, through our constitutional ineptitude, this kind of legislative nightmare. We could take the example of a close Commonwealth partner, India, from whom we could learn much about democratic principle. India has a constitutional arrangement for a state of emergency in its framework. It has declared emergencies three times in its history. That is not to comment on the precise states of emergency that India has declared—they are controversial, each one—but rather to focus on the fact that India has a constitutional framework for a state of emergency.

The Civil Defence Emergency Management Act, and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill do not do it. If we have learnt anything from this episode, it is not about how courageously we are surviving the physical ordeal—we all knew we would. After all, we once were warriors, Celtic and Polynesian. If we have learnt anything it is what we do not know, or know less well, about ourselves—call it the political ordeal. If there is one lesson of today, it is that we need to enshrine this kind of reserve power in a constitution.

I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to speak on the third reading of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill. This is not the sort of legislation that the ACT Party would normally consider supporting, and I have to say that although I do not often agree with the Green member Kennedy Graham, on this occasion I agree with just about everything he mentioned in his speech. I think the points that he has made certainly resonate for others in the House. But we do have exceptional circumstances in Canterbury at the moment, and we need to be able to move forward and help Cantabrians, and the people of Christchurch, as best we can in these circumstances.

The Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery assured us at select committee and in the Chamber that he will not use the powers that Parliament is bestowing on the Government and, particularly, on the Minister responsible for the Canterbury recovery—he will act very responsibly; and I think this Chamber has to trust his word on that. Certainly, that will be tested in the forthcoming months, and, in fact, in the forthcoming years. Although this is not legislation that we would normally support, we are today supporting the Government in these measures. We will be watching very carefully to see how things progress.

I will also make a very short comment on the select committee process in respect of this urgency motion. It was pleasing that the Minister agreed to have hearings of evidence, and I congratulate him on that. But I have to say that the process followed was less than what we would have liked to see. In particular, the lack of technical advice really did hinder the committee in coming quickly to the best decisions. I agree with some of the others in the speeches that they have made already in the Chamber in saying that we wanted the very best for people in Canterbury, and in order to do that we needed to have the best advice available to us. I think that is a lesson for the future, and I hope that will be recognised and realised if this sort of occasion arises again. The ACT Party supports this legislation, but I think those points have been important to make.

Kingi Tāwhiao Pōtatau Te Wherowhero left us the immortal words “Ki te kāhore he whakakitenga ka ngaro te iwi”—without foresight or vision, the people will be lost. At this time, in the third reading of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill, it is important that we consider those words as we evaluate all the checks and balances that have been built into the Act. Have we provided sufficient opportunity for the vision of the people to come forth? Throughout all of the powers created under the bill to ensure a focused, timely, and coordinated recovery effort, is there also flexibility—and, importantly, willingness—to allow for the natural foresight of all our people to shine through? Have we listened? Are we prepared to listen and learn?

The bill specifies that the powers legislated for in Parliament today are mainly reserve powers, to be used only if they are necessary. It also stipulates that checks will be in place to guard against the inappropriate use of the powers given to the Minister and to the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority. Like other parties in this House, the Māori Party cannot emphasise enough just how critical it is that these powers are exercised only in accordance with the purpose of the Act, and only if reasonably necessary.

I guess if there is one overriding consideration that might guide us all in our deliberations, it will be to reflect on the simple yet bold tribal proverb that Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu suggests for the recovery of Christchurch: “Mō tātou, a, mō kā uri ā muri ake nei”—for us and our children after us. It was in this sense that the Māori Party has appreciated the very clear endorsement from Ngāi Tahu for this legislation as an important step in pursuing the vision of Christchurch becoming a global city, with a strong, vibrant community that provides for our grandchildren and their grandchildren. It is essential that we consider the bill as one step along the journey of a long, lifetime plan. The earthquake was not a usual event, an event to which the normal powers of local government authorities could be applied to reorganise and rebuild.

How will any of us ever forget these last 2 months of our lives? Our lives have been interrupted by an event of such a catastrophic proportion that even now it is hard to believe that it happened. The physical disruption to our lives, the ongoing frustration of normality disrupted, has been on a massive scale. As has been said previously, the earthquake of 22 February 2011 has altered the course of history for Christchurch and for our nation. But the crumbling bricks and mortar, the devastation of homes in ruin, and the ongoing impact of the demolition of buildings, as severe as these effects are, all pale in comparison with the inconsolable grief of families mourning for those lost in the quake. We remember the extraordinary outpouring of anguish that washed over us all as we attended a tangihanga, observed a 2-minute silence at the national memorial services, and simply listened and watched, and read the very real human stories of heartache.

But now we must move forward, remembering to honour all those who lost their lives. There is no question that the powers being conferred on central government through both the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority and the responsible Minister are extraordinary. But we agree with Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu that extraordinary powers are warranted by the extraordinary circumances: “A narrower set of powers would result in an inevitable amount of case by case management of the recovery effort, creating delays, uncertainty and contributing to community frustration.” So the Māori Party is backing the bill, as we believe that it is essential in order to establish a clear overall direction for the recovery efforts. We agree with the necessity of producing a mandatory recovery plan for the Christchurch commercial business district within 9 months of the bill’s enactment, and that the recovery plan should then be read into statutory plans.

I have been impressed by the work of the disability sector, and the advocacy and leadership of the Minister for Disability Issues, Tariana Turia, in recommending that the Christchurch recovery effort presents a unique opportunity to ensure that Christchurch is a truly accessible city for disabled and older people. So we are pleased that Minister Brownlee has agreed to the Hon Ruth Dyson’s amendment.

I want to talk about representation, which is perhaps the most critical factor underpinning the recovery of Christchurch. Ngāi Tahu made the point in their submission that there is a distinction between statutory participatory rights and community leadership. There must be a collaborative working relationship between the authority and community leadership that is close, open, and generates innovation. The purpose provisions of the bill are explicit in their direction that community participation must be planned for in order to restore the social, economic, cultural, and environmental well-being of Greater Christchurch communities. The community forum and the cross-party forum are fundamental to the way in which these relationships will be activated. We must act in ways that demonstrate the saying “He waka eke noa”—a canoe that we are all in, with no exception.

There can be no exceptions. The need for this bill to work cannot be understated. We must, in this Parliament, provide the appropriate measures to ensure that Greater Christchurch and the councils and their communities respond to, and recover from, the impacts of the Christchurch earthquakes. As Ngāi Tahu put it so eloquently, “the community is the recovery. The identity, strength and vitality of Christchurch is in the hearts of our people.” We must not falter in the steps we take. Our future as a city, as a nation, will depend on the quality of the relationships and the collaboration with the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority, local and central government, and the wider community.

The Māori Party supports this bill, as we support every effort of all the parties involved to plan for the rebuild process, and to make the appropriate decisions that will help to protect and preserve the well-being of whānau.

I support the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill, and look forward to the recovery and rebuild of Christchurch.

I will take a short call. Normally this call would be taken by my colleague Lianne Dalziel, but she has asked me to say that she is unable to speak in the third reading debate as she is holding a community meeting in her electorate, which is something she has been doing regularly, I think, since the first earthquake. The first thing, then, is that I convey her apologies for not being able to be in the House for the conclusion of this debate, and I explain the reason for that absence.

Other members of the Labour team have explained that, on a collective basis, we have decided to support the Canterbury emergency legislation. They have also made a commitment, particularly those Canterbury members who will continue to work on the ground, to try to make this model work. They have said that it is not the model that Labour would have chosen. We would have preferred to see evidence that the Government had taken into account best international practice in recovery. If that had been done, there would have been much more emphasis on collaboration with the communities affected by the earthquake, and there probably would not have been a model held so closely to the Crown by the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery. There probably would have been the continuation of some sort of Crown entity structure that allowed less direction and more community cooperation than we will see under the model we have. But it is what it is; rather than oppose it, given that it is the only option from the Government on offer, as it were, Labour members have decided that it will be supported. As I have said, the decision is that we will simply try to make what we see as a less than ideal model work on the ground.

I said in my earlier contribution that I thought there were a number of areas where the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill goes too far. It is unconstitutional in at least four or five respects, and I will repeat for the House why that is so. First, we have legislation that can be suspended by regulation, and at a low test for that suspension. The Minister just has to think that it is expedient in order for that suspension to occur. Wars have been fought over less, but here we go conferring that power, merrily, on the executive in 2011.

Then there is the attempt to say to the High Court that it cannot review the exercise of the Minister’s decisions to make regulations that suspend statutes. The way in which that is done is inelegant, and it is probably ineffective, as experts have pointed out. Most members of the House probably do not take a huge or close interest in the way in which there is an interplay between the competing sources of power in our constitution, but it is something that I do take an interest in. I am aware, as I am sure other lawyers in the House are aware, that there is actually fragility in the balance of power in our constitution. The judges and the courts are watching closely, now that the final right of appeal sits across the road, and now that this Parliament is apparently seized of a desire to surrender certain of its powers to the executive, to see whether that exercise of power by this House is appropriate. Kennedy Graham said in his earlier contribution that there is no written constitution in this country. The danger that we face, if we provoke the judiciary with provisions such as the one I have just spoken about, is that we may run the risk that the courts will start to discover unwritten rights that they will none the less enforce against this place, because they will regard us as having changed the constitution in unacceptable ways. My concern about this legislation today is that we are doing this now, and that that is the risk we are running.

If it were a necessary risk to run, and if it were obvious that the Minister needed those powers—if the powers had, for example, been required under the September 2010 Canterbury legislation and been used time and time again for good purpose—then maybe it would be possible to be relaxed about it, but that is not the case. These sorts of powers have not been required, although they have existed under that earlier legislation. They have not had to be used, so I ask why we risk causing a constitutional crisis by seeking to enact the sorts of powers that we are told, and that I accept, are very unlikely ever to be required. It is folly, it is irresponsible, and it may have, I fear, much wider consequences than most people in this House have thought about. The risks we have incurred today to the way in which it is accepted that our constitution ought to be balanced, unfortunately cannot be overstated.

There are other problems with the bill. There is no need to water down privacy rights in the way that is contemplated under clauses 29 and 30. We already have a perfectly acceptable solution to information-sharing issues, which was put in place by the Privacy Commissioner, the independent expert charged with responsibility for these matters. We are retrospectively validating the activity of officials, when they already have validation under the Civil Defence and Emergency Management Act. That is again unnecessary and provocative, and it is an overreach of our powers to do it twice. The question has to be asked about why it is being done.

Finally, the rights of citizens to have their interests declared to be of a certain nature by the courts are disturbed by clause 68. Restrictions are to be placed by this Parliament on the way in which appeals are to be carried out, but I say that there is no need to interfere with the processes of the court in this way. A simple legislative direction that the court is to have regard to its inherent powers to control vexatious or unduly prolonged litigation would have been sufficient; instead, the drafters have insisted on an outdated model by which to proceed. Again, it is provocative, and it may be constitutionally dangerous. It is no answer that these powers already exist in the 2010 law and that they have not been abused. It is wrong for Nicky Wagner, Rahui Katene, and others to assert that there are sufficient checks and balances—there are not. These are bad precedents; they are unconstitutional. Our arrangements are more fragile than many understand, and this is, as I say, folly. It would have been much better just to enact the Legislation Advisory Committee’s model for emergency legislation, and to have left it at that.

There have been criticisms of the process, and I believe that many of those criticisms are entirely justified. But I have also seen some very good behaviour from certain parliamentarians, and I record my thanks for that behaviour, because some people have actually risen above their baser instincts and behaved nobly in this process. I have seen parliamentarians taking their scrutiny job seriously, and I respect those people for the way in which they have discharged their responsibilities. But a really unfortunate tone has also crept into this debate. There has been sniping, there have been accusations of bad faith, and there have been petty exchanges across the House that the subject of this legislation really should have rendered inappropriate. Many people say that there is nothing worse than a bad loser; I think there is, and that is a bad winner. I hope that that is not a portent of things to come in the way in which this legislation will be administered because, if it is, then it will be a very bad thing for Canterbury and for this country.

I support the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill. I will make just this one point. The recovery and rebuild in Christchurch, the rebuild of the many broken hearts and homes, does not lie within one piece of legislation and one Minister; the burden lies with all of us. All New Zealanders, including people from Auckland, share the burden of Christchurch. I am proud, in this House, to be passing this bill—an urgent and necessary piece of legislation for New Zealand.

The speech I am embarking on in the third reading of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill will conclude my first week back at Parliament since the 22 February quake. I am very grateful my colleagues in caucus have provided support so that I and others have been able to be on the ground in my electorate in Christchurch, because there is no shortage of work to be done assisting those constituents whose lives have been nothing less than shattered. Residents and suburbs are still struggling with sewerage and housing problems, and business people have faced enormous frustration at not being able to access their premises.

I have to confess tonight that I am feeling a little weary and a little wary. I am weary because I as an MP and my electorate staff, to whom I pay homage tonight, have absorbed a lot of the emotions generated by the quake. I think we have seen more tears in recent weeks than in a whole year of watching soppy movies. I think I have given more hugs out than Nelson Mandela, and I think most of us, as MPs on the ground in Christchurch, have absorbed a lot of anger and have diffused a lot of anger and annoyance as we have dealt with frustrated homeowners and business people. Business people, of course, are carrying not only the loss of premises but the very strong financial stresses of trying to keep businesses alive in the face of frustrations about access to premises, data, and files.

But that is the job we do as constituency MPs, and I think all MPs across Christchurch have worked hard, and are working hard, to do their best to help. I particularly pay tribute to my colleagues: to Lianne Dalziel, the feisty battler for her very hard-hit electorate out in Christchurch East; to Clayton Cosgrove, our lead spokesperson on earthquake recovery; to Ruth Dyson, who is a tireless worker for her constituents out in Port Hills; to Jim Anderton, who never ceases to be on the case in respect of his constituents; and to Ken Graham, who brings a very valuable constitutional view to matters before this House. I also acknowledge Gerry Brownlee, Amy Adams, and the list MPs of Christchurch for the work that has been done. I think we are all feeling a little weary, but we know that this is an ultra-marathon in most respects.

Just a few weeks ago on a short quake break I visited Napier to look at the recovery there from the 1931 disaster. I spent half an hour or so with Mayor Barbara Arnott, who conveyed to me her view that it takes a full generation to recover fully from the impacts of a disaster of this scale, and I think she is absolutely right when we consider we are facing a $30 billion rebuild in Christchurch and a time frame that will stretch across many, many years. I think that is underlining the critical importance that we, as Labour MPs, attach to the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill and to getting it into the best possible shape.

I have to say I came to this House with some optimism about that process. We as a party had negotiated and effectively won the right, if that is what I should call it, to a select committee hearing, which we thought was crucial to making sure, given the rapid nature of the passage of this bill, that we at least had some reference back to the community, to the experts, so that we could iron out some of the wrinkles that are always likely to emerge in urgent legislation. It was disappointing, to say the least, as our parliamentary colleague Heather Roy has noted, to arrive at the select committee and discover that we did not have technical advice available to us as we set about that very rapid but important process of trying to make sure the bill had the worst of the fish-hooks removed from it.

That is where I come to the second word, “wary”. I thought, after last night’s firstly formal and then informal briefing from Minister Gerry Brownlee, we would conclude this bill in a broadly bipartisan spirit, and I had hoped genuinely for that. It was, to use the word again, disappointing to get to the Committee stage and see all of Labour’s 100 or so amendments simply discarded. That does not bode well for the bill or for the genuine commitment I think the bill needs to embody. I want to say there is absolutely no question about the issue of the need for rapidity. That is the essence of what is required in Christchurch at this point. But the Government cannot pretend to have some monopoly, to be the brains trust on these issues. I note that of the changes brought through in the Government’s own Supplementary Order Paper, only one came from the Government itself—plus, I think, the removal of a comma—and the rest of all of those changes came from the select committee process, which I think underscores the value of it. It should not really have had to be wrangled from the Minister, because there are benefits to him as much as there are to the citizens of Christchurch in terms of that process, as rushed as it was, as truncated as it was, and, frankly, as flawed as it was.

The Minister tonight, in his third reading speech, gave us an assurance that he wants to work properly in the cross-party forum. I will take him at his word on that, even if past experience of what was effectively a cross-party forum following the 4 September quake did not really work. Ideas were generated and letters were written. Sometimes replies were not received, and ideas were not picked up. I say to the Minister we cannot have that this time round. We simply have to have all hands on deck. All ideas deserve the courtesy of at least being considered. The Government has no monopoly on wisdom, and Christchurch people want nothing less than all of their MPs being able to contribute to the recovery that lies before us and the many years that it will involve.

I noted, too, Minister Brownlee’s commitment to the community forum and the fact that he is determined that it will be truly representative. That puts an enormous onus on him because, as the bill defines, he is choosing the 20 or more representatives on that forum. I note from the Committee stage that the Minister said he thought there needed to be consultation with the cross-party forum in respect of the membership of the community forum. I intend to hold him to that, because the community forum is not simply an adjunct to the process. I think that forum has to be at the heart of the process.

Given that the Minister is from Catholic origins, he would well remember and be aware that the road to another place is paved with a lot of good intentions, but it is the delivery of those good intentions that gets one to that other place. It is, of course, always easier for a Government or anybody in authority to issue commands rather than to genuinely consult and engage, but the value of consultation and engagement can be enormously important in bringing about the sorts of results we want. Although it is especially tempting when time pressures are upon us to go past genuine engagement, there are huge risks, and we cannot afford to get things horribly wrong in Christchurch as we embark upon our so essential recovery. We are all travelling on the same road in Christchurch towards that recovery. We can walk together or we can fall behind a shadow. I say that for the sake of Christchurch we have to have the chance to walk together. I also have to say that I think we have had a rather stumbling start.

The next steps will be instructive. My colleagues and I will be watching very closely to see whether engagement is truly possible and the cross-party forum can truly work, and whether there is truly an opportunity for real, genuine input and the potential for the community to provide advice and instruction to the Minister, and to walk alongside him and make sure we get it right this time. There is a lot before us. There are a lot of questions about whether we are able to deliver it via this bill. But the Minister has given us his assurance. I accept him at his word. I will hold him to account in respect of that assurance he has given to the House, and I can say only that from here on it is perhaps a case of que sera, sera.

It is a pleasure to speak last on the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill. For me, as the youngest Canterbury member of Parliament, I look forward to this bill being implemented over the next number of years and my home city being rebuilt. This is an extraordinary bill that gives extraordinary powers to an extraordinary man. I think that in years to come—in many years to come—when we sit in this House again, in 5 years’ time, we will see that my city is on the path, and not just the path, of rebuilding, and when sewers, roads, homes, schools, and power supplies are repaired because of the Government’s framework that this bill put in place. I look forward to seeing those results.

We heard the previous speaker, Brendon Burns, talk about community consultation. It was a pleasure to be with the Prime Minister this morning in one of the hard-hit suburbs of Christchurch where over 200 people were talking about some of the issues they are facing and the concerns they have as a result of this bill. There are some concerns that exist in the community—many of them were put in people’s minds by Opposition members, and I think that is unfortunate. This bill will not ruin people’s lives; it is the Government’s framework to allow our city to be rebuilt in the way that New Zealand, and Canterbury in particular, wants it to be.

I look forward to sitting in this House in 5 years’ time and seeing the fruits of this bill: results so that we can actually flush our toilets, drink our water, turn our lights on and off, live in our homes that are not leaky, live in homes that have no cracks or breaks, have roads that are flat, and our kids can go to school from 8.30 to 3 like normal kids do up and down the country. I look forward to being back in the central business district where our business people can sit and work in their businesses like they used to do prior to September and prior to 22 February. I look forward to seeing thousands of tourists coming back to our city and seeing the beautiful buildings we have and enjoying the good company of Cantabrians. I look forward to seeing the Crusaders and the All Blacks playing again at the AMI Stadium, or Jade Stadium as I would rather call it, or Lancaster Park, as that member may recall, and enjoying the great things that have occurred in Christchurch.

This bill will allow the Government’s framework for those things to happen and that has to be a good thing. The people of Canterbury are tough, we are resilient, we are stoic, but, as we say, we need a bit of help. This legislation will put in place a bit of help to help our good friends in Canterbury, wherever they come from, whatever their political persuasion, whatever side of town they live in, to be able to get to the situation where they can look back and say yes, the Government put in place a framework to help them and to rebuild their city. I think that is a wonderful thing. Thank you.