Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Recovery Bill

I move, That the Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Recovery Bill be now read a first time. As I said in the lead motion, we nominate the Local Government and Environment Committee to consider the bill and for the bill to be reported to the House by 6 December 2016. That committee will have authority to meet broadly during the short period that it has to consider the bill.

The earthquakes of 14 November have left a very indelible mark on communities throughout the upper part of the South Island and in parts of Wellington. It is impossible to fully understand what might be needed to recover from those events. This week, with unanimous support across the House, we have passed legislation that will significantly help in that earthquake recovery. But that alone is not enough. We know that with such a big earthquake and the subsequent aftershocks, the widespread destruction that comes with that will mean that it could be a considerable time before all of the damage is understood and, more importantly, the consequences of that damage are understood in relation to communities recovering.

Like the Canterbury earthquakes, the true scale of it will take some time to determine. As I said in the House earlier this week, I acknowledge the many Civil Defence personnel, engineers, and Defence personnel who worked hard to assist those affected. I would also like to compliment those people who work for the many contractors who are now engaged in keeping roads open, and, particularly, their families, who will be experiencing their long working hours by their absence.

In order to keep that effort going, there may well be a need from time to time to suspend, amend, or change some laws that relate to that recovery. This bill sets out a proposal that would allow a specified list of legislation to be amended by Order in Council for the earthquake-affected areas, where necessary or desirable for recovery. It is a flexible mechanism that allows us to react quickly to a range of issues. The issues that may need to be dealt with are not yet fully understood, and I state that for the record, for the third time, to make it very clear that in passing this bill the Parliament will be enabling those works to get done in a speedy fashion. We are coming into the Christmas and new year period, and it is possible that there could be an aftershock that might have an effect on one of those roads, even if there has been good progress made on them. It is important that momentum is not lost.

I recognise that these are extraordinary powers, and I appreciate that there will be concerns about using Order in Council mechanisms, as was the case in the Canterbury legislation. Appropriate constraints are, therefore, quite important. For that reason there are a number of limits and controls on the exercise of the Order in Council power in the bill. The order must be necessary or desirable for the purpose—or response or recovery from the earthquakes—and must be no broader than necessary.

The bill applies only to those areas directly or indirectly affected by the earthquakes. This includes alternative roading outside the main affected regions—for instance Nelson and the West Coast, which now hosts the main road from Blenheim to Christchurch and routes south. Some of those roads have experienced no more than 100 traffic movements a day but are now experiencing up to 700 truck and trailer units per day. It is quite a different prospect, and it does raise issues of safety that will have to be addressed, but it will have to be done so responsibly and without any opportunistic behaviour.

The provisions of this bill are time-bound. The ability to make orders and any orders made under this bill’s powers would both expire in mid-2018. In other words, it is not an opening up of law on a permanent basis; once again, it is restricted to the activities needed for immediate recovery.

An independent review panel will advise on draft orders, and the relevant Minister must have regard to their recommendations. The panel will comprise iwi and local government representation, as well as legal expertise. There are also certain fundamental rights and obligations that cannot be subject to the bill’s Order in Council process—for example, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the Electoral Act cannot be amended. Draft orders will be provided for the Regulations Review Committee and to leaders of political parties during the recess for comment, and the relevant Minister must have regard to any comments received.

The order, once made, will be subject to the House’s normal disallowance provisions. Orders can be made only in respect of the specified listed Acts that we think may need to be amended to assist recovery. That list of Acts is something a select committee will, I am sure, want to closely scrutinise. It is obviously no small thing to change primary legislation without primary scrutiny. A Regulations Review Committee process is to provide some of that scrutiny, without unduly delaying the changes that are necessary to assist in the recovery.

The Order in Council process was successful in assisting recovery in greater Christchurch. It is designed to be flexible to deal with a range of potential matters, including temporary housing, accommodation supplements, streamlined planning and consenting processes, geotechnical assessment, and tax and financial reporting deadlines. No one should read into the list I have just given that it is an exhaustive list. There will be things that come up from time to time that this legislation will facilitate being dealt with.

It is not a central government takeover, either. I expect Ministers to engage with local councils and iwi in developing proposed orders. The requirement of the bill in relation to the review panel also formalises local and iwi input.

The bill facilitates recovery without needing to anticipate every power or statutory provision. It may need to be amended to assist with recovery. It is worth noting that if this bill passes, it is the will of the House that this mechanism is available to achieve those things, and no one should read into the intention of the House anything less than that.

I think there are robust limits in this bill and appropriate controls, because it is necessary and expected by people who put a sovereign Government into place that it will do something. And this, over the last week, has been an exercise on behalf of the House that the Parliament of New Zealand wants to do something to help people in Kaikōura.

I look forward to the comments in this debate. I look forward to the discussion that will go on in the very short select committee process. I commend the bill to the House.

I rise with pleasure on behalf of the Labour Party to say that we are supporting this piece of legislation. Can I reiterate the comments that Mr Brownlee has made, thanking those people throughout the area, and, actually, further afield, who are doing their utmost to help the people affected by the earthquake. A lot of people are, obviously, helping themselves, but others are also pulling out all stops to assist the people who have been adversely affected by the earthquake to try to minimise ongoing safety risks, and also to try to assist the putting back together of the infrastructure—the homes and the other repairs that are needed to allow life to return to normal.

This is an important bill. I want to give an illustration of what I think is going to be one of the most practical issues that is faced under the legislation. We have all seen the photographs of the enormous quantity of debris that is covering the roads and the railway, blocking State Highway 1. As Minister Brownlee has said, it has had the consequence of diverting traffic to much longer routes, much less convenient routes, much more costly routes, and routes that were not designed to have that much traffic. The Government, I think, has already indicated that it is likely to restore State Highway 1 from Kaikōura through to Picton. It is expecting to have the section south of Kaikōura opened in the not too distant future, but the huge job of getting it open between Kaikōura and Picton is one that is going to have enormous complications.

One of the complications is that there are so many slips that it seems to me that it is going to be likely that the repair work has to be done at the same time for different slips. So they will be working in the middle of this as well as at the ends, when they will not have access restored for very long sections of road. So what do they do with the spoil?

Already in the debate on the bill yesterday we heard that there were representatives from the inshore fishery and from the pāua industry saying that we have got to be very careful that we do not drop a lot more fine sediments into the sea area because we could be further damaging unnecessarily the pāua fishery or the lobster fishery or the environment, more generally. But, on the other hand, where do you put it? I would have thought that it is very difficult to barge it all away. Maybe that is a possibility, but I would have thought that that is pretty impossible. So the question as to what is going to be done there is going to have to be grappled with by the Government, and it seems likely—it seems almost certain—that it is going to have to override certain normal provisions that would apply in respect of those decisions.

That is not to say that it should not have regard to the environmental consequences and do it in the best way that is possible, but it is going to need special powers, and it is not yet clear that the special powers that will be needed moving forward are available under the existing legislation. That is one of the reasons why Parliament is deciding whether it should confer additional powers to the executive under this bill to override primary legislation. I think that is an appropriate thing to do.

Having said that, we should always be very careful when we are overriding the things that are meant to be controlled by primary legislation. The Regulations Review Committee report on this, I think, makes the best example in our history—or the worst example, actually—and that is that the Economic Stabilisation Act was passed in 1948 with a broad regulation-making power that was intended to be short-lived. Effectively, it was so broad that it allowed another Government 30 years later—the Government of the Rt Hon Robert Muldoon—to, by statutory regulation, impose a price freeze and a rent freeze and a wage freeze upon the whole of the country through a regulation. It patently should have been done, if at all—it was a silly thing to do, but if it was to be done, it ought to have been done through parliamentary legislation. That is an example of why you have actually got to be very careful that you do not confer powers on the executive that will be used in ways that were not expected when they were first created.

My view of this is it is a bit like taxation. When it comes to overriding Government legislation in an emergency situation it is a bit like taxation—as little as possible and as much as necessary. We have got to give the powers to the executive to override primary legislation in way that is as little as possible but is as much as is necessary. Getting that balance right is what we are trying to achieve through this legislation.

We are lucky—or unlucky—to have had two recent instances when Parliament has previously attempted to do this, which was in 2010 and 2011, in response to the earthquakes that, tragically, saw a much greater loss of life in the Canterbury region. On both of those occasions there were criticisms of the legislation, although on both of those occasions, I think we all acknowledge in this House, the excessive powers that were conferred upon the executive were not abused. They were not abused, but the possibility of their abuse existed from the breadth of the legislation, and there was quite a bit of criticism, particularly of the 2010 legislation. The 2011 legislation was an improvement on the 2010 legislation. It included some checks and balances, including a review committee whose views had to be taken into account. That mechanism is being carried forward in this legislation, and that is a very good thing.

I personally think that these are such serious things that you should always have a judge on the review committee. I do not think it should just be some minor lawyer. There are lots of minor lawyers who would not be good at it. We had at the select committee on the New Zealand Intelligence and Security Bill today Sir Bruce Robertson in front of us, who is the inspector of warrants there, and you just see how experienced judges from our senior courts are so much cleverer than a junior lawyer who could otherwise be appointed to these roles. [Interruption] What was that?

💬 Hon Christopher Finlayson: Nothing.

Ha, ha! No, I do not think you want that on record. Ha, ha! Excuse me while I regather my thoughts.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I know a junior lawyer who’s becoming available.

So the role of judges—yes, we have plenty of retired judges who can do this sort of thing, if it is not suitable for a current judge. So I would hope that the select committee looks at whether we should require that one of the review committee members be a judge. I do not have a view as to how big the committee should be. I do not think it should be too big. I think the people who should sit on it—I think three is the suggestion, and that is good. The pool of people from which they are drawn can be bigger. I do not have a strong view as to that, although maybe it needs to be a bit bigger than if it was just a small geographical area that was being considered, if there is a case for some geographical representation.

As little as possible and as much as necessary—well, the way the second Act in 2010 tried to put in some controls was that it had a list of assets that could not be overridden, including the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, for example, but beyond that list, anything could be. Again, that was too broad. The Regulations Review Committee has recommended that we actually have a positive list in the legislation as to what can be overridden, rather than leaving it to open slather, again with some things that cannot be overridden even through that process. Is the list too long? Or is it too short? That is to be considered by the select committee.

I just want to say, in the short time I have available, that I am not sure that we should allow that list to be lengthened through a regulation-making process rather than bringing it back to Parliament. Once it is done it is very hard for the Government of the day to actually concede: “Oh, well, maybe we got that wrong.” It is much better, I think, that you have parliamentary scrutiny if you are going to add to that list, which is already a very long list, and if there is a need to change it, well, the Government, under urgency, could just add something to the list with one debate, essentially, as we have done with other legislation here in respect of an addition such as that. With regard to the submission period, I am a little disappointed that we have got to report back by Wednesday—by Wednesday, is it?

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: Tuesday.

Tuesday. I do not know why that could not be next Thursday. We could have still passed the legislation through later. It is one of the points that the Regulations Review Committee made. I know how difficult it was for a less important bill that we considered yesterday. We have been working very long hours to try to knock that one into shape, and it was a good bill when it came to us. I would have thought we could allow ourselves a few more days to do that and, therefore, allow people who were interested in these issues to make submissions. I think by the time they read the Regulations Review Committee report and they reflect on how good this legislation is and how it is a further improvement, with more checks and balances compared with the prior pieces of legislation, a lot of them—if they actually have the time—will say “Well done.”, but we are hardly giving them the time to say that. So, with that, can I agree that this legislation is necessary, and I look forward to the scrutiny of this legislation at the select committee.

I have returned from Kaikōura only a few minutes ago, and I would have to say one of the things that I was being asked about was the Hurunui-Kaikōura earthquake recovery legislation—when it was happening and what was going to be in it. So it is a great pleasure to get back here, and it was my good fortune that air traffic control at Wellington was quite cooperative, so I was able to get in a little sooner than otherwise.

But I must say, after spending today down in Kaikōura and actually having a look at the Lyell Creek area, where we could see guys out there at the moment working on the sewerage, which they have actually got up and running, and seeing what was a back lawn but which has now got massive cracks in it and drops of a metre or more towards a creek—a house totally destroyed—and running across that lawn is a giant flexible hose that is now carrying sewage to keep the sewerage system going in that area, you start to get the idea of why we need something like this piece of legislation and why the flexibility that is inherent in this legislation is absolutely vital. They are extraordinary powers that are being given under this bill to the executive, but it is an extraordinary event and it is quite right and proper that those powers are made available to the executive. And it is great to see support from the other parties, because this is a parliamentary response. It is an across-Parliament response—everybody is involved in it—and that is the way it should be.

Being on the ground today, looking at some of the landslips—and I noted in some of the speech before about the sea and where all the spoil was going to go—I can tell you that the sea is now in some cases 50 metres further away from the road than it used to be. So the imagination of people has run a little bit wild on some of this stuff, but the ability for the road to be shifted and for what was the beach to be turned into a road, so as to get a road and a rail line at a safe enough distance from the hill, where slips may occur in future earthquakes, which would be quite dangerous—getting that buffer of some distance would be quite vital. We do not know whether the engineers are going to come up with those solutions yet because they are working on them as we speak. But that would be vital power to have.

To go through the normal course of doing all the resource consents for these sorts of events, we would still be planning in 12 months’ time, and that is certainly not acceptable to the people of Kaikōura and it is not acceptable to the people of New Zealand. This is a vital route for “New Zealand Inc.”. It is not just a vital route for the people of Kaikōura, and the people of the Hurunui as well.

On Wednesday I was in wineries that have suffered wine tank damage, and I can say that we are truly fortunate that this earthquake occurred just after 12 midnight. Had it occurred just after 12 noon, there would have been a significant death toll—I am absolutely certain of that. Those slips—and there are a huge number of slips and some of them are truly enormous—would certainly have had cars underneath them. Some of the winery staff who may have had the misfortune to be in amongst the tank farms—that would not have been a very good place to be. So we were very, very fortunate. We dodged a bullet, I think, on that one.

I note the independent panel and the committee were talked about. I do not have a view on the size of those, but we do have to remember that from the Hurunui through the Kaikōura region and right up to Marlborough there are huge differences in the areas that have been affected. They have been affected in different ways, and that is what lies ahead of us as we dig into this a little more—no pun intended—into the damage on the roads, on the farms, and in the buildings. We just simply do not know what we are going to find, so the flexibility that we are afforded by this legislation will be very, very welcome.

As an aside, today we had a look at some maps showing the fault lines and some of the slippages that occurred, vertically and horizontally. One of the fault lines moved 10 metres horizontally. I mean, that is a significant amount of ground movement and certainly not a piece of ground you would want to be standing on at the time that occurred. So I think we all agree that it was a significant event.

I am very pleased that the House and the Parliament are supportive of the people of Kaikōura in a tangible way by getting some legislation and the tools in place that will allow a recovery to occur much quicker than would otherwise be the case. With that, I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

I rise to take a call on the Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Recovery Bill, to reaffirm Labour’s support for it, and to play a role in my capacity as chair of the Regulations Review Committee to underscore the implications of the report of the committee, which has been achieved by consensus, for this legislation and other legislation that might follow it.

Of course, this is a bill that is a very important bill about a very tragic event. Before saying anything else, may I reaffirm Labour’s deepest sympathies for those who have lost loved ones, those who have lost substantial property, and those whose lives have been literally torn apart over the last few weeks by the events of that massive 7.8 quake. I wish to extend our thanks and my own thanks to all of those in emergency services, the armed services, and the Government who have been doing their very best to remediate that.

This bill enjoys, I believe, the very widespread support of this House. There has been good consultation and compromise between parties in bringing the bill to the House. We are all joined together to do the very best that we can for the people of Hurunui-Kaikōura, and I think this is Parliament working at its best.

The contribution that I wish to make today is to provide some background on the work that the Regulations Review Committee has been doing over the last 16 months—which it has achieved by consensus, without a vote—which it offers to the House today, so that it might inform consideration of this bill. In doing so can I thank the deputy chair, Mr Andrew Bayly; your good self, Mr Deputy Speaker, a member of that committee; Mr Chris Bishop; and my good colleague, the shadow Attorney-General, David Parker, who will be leading our team’s work on the Local Government and Environment Committee, which will consider the bill in more detail. I wish to reaffirm that the recommendations in the Regulations Review Committee report issued today are all by consensus—there has been no need for a vote. All members have joined together with expert advice to bring a consensus set of recommendations to the House.

So what was this about? After the 2010 and 2011 earthquake bills and Acts were passed and used, the Parliamentary Counsel Office began a process of review, which—to cut a long story short—identified some constitutional weaknesses in those bills, which were not abused, as Mr Parker has said, in practice, but which, from a legislative point of view, certainly could have been improved upon. The House then later, through the Business Committee, asked the Regulations Review Committee to do a very wide-ranging survey of emergency powers and to make recommendations on whether there should be a, if you like, generic draft future national emergencies bill passed by the House, or if not, on how we should best from a constitutional point of view deal with the need to respond to major national emergencies.

That report is out today. It traverses a wide range of inputs. I wish to acknowledge the work of Mr Jason McHerron, our expert barrister; a wide range of submissions; the work of the Parliamentary Counsel Office; and, in particular, can I single out the work of the Christchurch City Council, which made an extensive submission based on its experience in the 2010 and 2011 bills and quakes. Out of all of that—to cut 100 pages of analysis down to a few short points—the committee distilled by agreement three core principles and 11 recommendations, and I am going to take the House extremely quickly through those.

The first principle is that the Regulations Review Committee considered but rejected the idea that there should be generic national emergency legislation prepared in advance. Although we understood that that would give the House more time to consider the detail, that time was outweighed by the fact that any such generic legislation would by definition need to be so broad—because it would have to cover a myriad of possibilities, from a pandemic to an earthquake to a volcanic eruption—that it would be constitutionally offensive to pass all of that power to the executive in advance. It is better, on reflection, to have bespoke or individual legislation tailored to individual emergencies, with a realistically quick timetable and appropriate powers for the executive, such that the constitution was disturbed to the minimum amount possible. That was a key recommendation of the committee.

Some of the sub-points recommended under that—“As much time as possible in the circumstances should be allowed for select committee consideration of emergency legislation.” My colleague David Parker has made the point that a little more in this case could probably have been fitted in and is desirable as a matter of practice.

Thirdly, that “Existing select committees should consider emergency legislation.” We considered, but did not agree with, the idea that a separate select committee be set up, simply because that would be more difficulty and hassle, if you like, than the job required. Another committee, the Local Government and Environment Committee in this case, is perfectly able, especially with the ability to sub members in and out.

Fourthly, that “Emergency legislation should take the form of primary legislation wherever reasonably possible, rather than relying on broad powers to make delegated legislation.”—that is, Parliament is sovereign. Parliament—where members are elected by the people, from whom all moral authority and constitutional propriety flows—is the place where the major laws should be passed, not Orders in Council through a Cabinet process, which do not come to the floor of the House. Everyone—and this is a consensus report—recognises the need for prompt and robust executive action in an emergency, and we in the Labour team are supporting the National Government in its response to Kaikōura. There is no question that we are all putting politics aside to do the very, very best for the people of Marlborough and North Canterbury. But, as a matter of constitutionality, as much as possible should be done in this way, through the House, and as little as possible behind closed doors, if you like, through the Order in Council process. The language might not be street talk, but it is really important.

I will rip through quickly—“Powers to override enactments by Order in Council should provide a ‘positive list’ …”. It is great to see that the Minister and the executive, no doubt with the positive influence of the Attorney-General—whom I also wish to recognise for his role—have adopted that recommendation in this. As Mr Parker said, the positive list of Acts here is rather long. It is subject to the scrutiny of the select committee, and its members will turn their minds to whether it should be added to or not.

I do want to reaffirm the point that the ability to add further Acts should, in principle, be done by primary legislation through this House. That is a key recommendation here, and in this case there is a kind of hybrid where there is an opportunity for the executive to add to the list, provided the House later reaffirms it. That is not ideal. I hope the select committee will give that some consideration.

The second key theme is that there must be adequate safeguards. As you know, there are several important ways around how that should be done “Orders in Council should be subject to scrutiny before and after they are made.”, and the Regulations Review Committee, amongst others, is well placed to do that. This House has, in this bill, got before it a process whereby either the Regulations Review Committee or leaders of parties can scrutinise orders before they are made. That is not quite ideal—it would be better to provide for both. The select committee may wish to consider that.

“The right to seek judicial review of Orders in Council made under emergency legislation should be preserved and upheld.” This bill does not quite achieve that. Under clause 8(3) it allows judicial review on only points of law, not points of fact, and that defeats the general purpose of a judicial review, which is to ensure a robust process of consideration of the facts. I do not believe that a court would unduly hamper ministerial action in the case of a national emergency—it would take account of those needs of urgency and robust response. In so doing, it is my personal view that the House should have another look at that clause 8(3) provision and allow judicial review. That is the view of the Regulations Review Committee as well.

💬 Eighthly: “Legislation for national emergencies should have regard to international norms and benchmarks.” These have been published by the UN and others; I will not labour it. Ninthly: “Bespoke emergency powers should be in force only for as long as is reasonably necessary, and should have … sunset provisions.” Finally—and thanks to the Christchurch City Council for emphasising this 10th one—“Legislation must reflect the principle that recovery … starts from day one.”

I do not want to unduly detain the House. I want to thank everybody who has helped to put this contribution before the House today, and I trust that the Local Government and Environment Committee will do its work thoroughly in considering the bill in the time available. Thank you very much.

It is a pleasure to take a call on the Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Recovery Bill in its first reading. I have got the pleasure of chairing the Local Government and Environment Committee, which has been, over the last 24 hours or so, doing, I think, very diligent work on the second piece of legislation in a suite of legislative initiatives—this bill is the third—that Parliament this week has been considering on behalf of the people, the citizens, and the communities of Kaikōura and the Hurunui, in a measured but quick, prompt response to the needs resulting from the disaster that occurred there some 14 days ago.

The trick, I guess, that we as legislators have to address in terms of the bill that is immediately before us is exactly as the Hon David Cunliffe has addressed in his contribution to Parliament this afternoon. It is about ensuring that the constitutional protocols and securities and proper regulations that go with the primacy of this House in its statute-making authority are maintained at a time of emergency but, at the same time, trying to balance that propriety against the need for urgent, prompt, and swift action at a time when pragmatic decisions need to be made. This bill seeks to attempt to do that, and I think that the mechanism that has been provided to us in the bill provides a series of appropriate safeguards but, at the same time, ensures that a swift, prompt, and pragmatic response by us as parliamentarians can occur to ensure that recovery in the region occurs with the least amount of fuss or number of inhibitors being put in front of that recovery as possible.

The select committee is required to report this bill back next Tuesday, and so it will be appropriate for the select committee to approach—as we did with the earlier piece of legislation this week—a number of targeted stakeholders and submitters, and we agreed in principle in the select committee this morning to do just that. So we will be attempting to do that absolutely as soon as this first reading is complete.

We hope to meet as a committee on Monday to hear from submitters and to go over the detail of the legislation, but I think that if the work of the committee over the last 24 hours is anything to go by, we can be assured that the goodwill and cross-party collaboration that has occurred in the last few days will be maintained in this piece of legislation to ensure that, in fact, we do maintain those constitutional backstops and checks and balances while, at the same time, achieving the outcomes that we seek on behalf of the people, citizens, and communities of Hurunui and Kaikōura.

On that brief note, I am looking forward to participating with my colleagues on the committee as this process unfolds, and to working with the advisers, who, I might also say, have been working extraordinarily hard over the last few days to prepare us with good advice, sound advice, and very, very good direction. I commend this bill to the House.

I rise to take a call on this, the Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Recovery Bill, and offer the Greens’ support for this to select committee. The bill does two significant things. Firstly, it extends the Resource Management Act time frame for people in quake-affected areas to give notice to the consent authority that emergency works have been undertaken. It extends that from 7 days to 40 days. It also extends the time frame in which any required resource consent must be applied for, from 20 days to 120 working days. The second thing, which is the subject of most of the debate this afternoon, is that it enables the Government to introduce Orders in Council to amend or override primary legislation.

The purpose of this bill is, clearly, to assist affected areas with economic recovery, planning processes, rebuilding, recovery of land and infrastructure, and increasing resilience. This is, obviously, a very important purpose. The Green Party is right behind the quake-affected communities. We are absolutely committed to doing what we can to ensure that they get the support that they need and that this support is actually what they need, and not just what the executive thinks they might need. So we are also, understandably, cautious about the danger of important, precious services or environments being irreparably damaged due to rushed processes or smart ideas from the Beehive.

Passing legislation that gives the executive the power to override legislation that has been passed by the will of Parliament is no small thing. It is something to be avoided wherever possible. Legislation, however imperfect it may seem to me at times, represents the will of the people, and provisions in primary legislation are usually there for a reason. We must, however, acknowledge that in times of disaster the context changes significantly and that processes that may normally be beneficial may no longer make sense or may, in fact, create unnecessary barriers to recovery. We also acknowledge that response and recovery are complex—and it may not be possible right now to anticipate accurately the exact needs of a community—and that passing specific bills for each specific need when it may be urgent may not actually help the communities at the time. So passing legislation like this puts considerable trust in the executive to accurately assess whether an Order in Council is necessary, how long it should be necessary for, and what changes will provide the best result for affected communities.

We are happy to support this discussion going to select committee, but we share the concerns that have been raised by the Labour members—that reporting back on Tuesday does feel too quick and unnecessarily shortened. That was a learning from Christchurch. At this end, we should be taking the time—not excessive time, but just enough time for people’s views to be inputted into this process—because there are huge things at stake with this legislation. We are happy for it to go to select committee, noting that there have been significant changes and some safeguards put in place, and we want that balance to be checked in the select committee process.

Things that have been added to this that were not there in terms of Christchurch are that in the legislation there is a requirement that the Order in Council must be necessary or desirable for the proposed purpose, and that the extent of the Order in Council must not be broader than is required and that it will be able to be tested in law. There is a list of Acts that an order can relate to, and there are 40 Acts on that list, although there is still a provision here for the Government to be able to introduce an Order in Council into another Act that is not on this list. But we have been told that the ability to do this will be limited to times when this House is adjourned, when it is not possible for the House to come together and check that particular plan, and that when the House comes back, that new Act and that order would need to be positively confirmed by Parliament so that Parliament would have the opportunity to say “Actually, no. We don’t think that’s valid.”, and that Order in Council would lapse at that point. That is a significant check.

With this legislation there is an establishment of a review panel that has designated places for iwi and local government representatives and legal expertise. I also share the view, I think, of David Parker that it may make sense for that legal expertise to be a judge. That panel will provide advice to the relevant Minister on the proposed Order in Council, and its recommendations on the draft order must be publicly available on an internet website. The Greens will be proposing that there be environmental expertise on that panel when an Order in Council is relevant to the protections of the environment.

There was initially provision for engagement with substantially affected persons in the legislation. I understand that has been taken out of the draft that we have with us at the moment, with the understanding that that will happen naturally through the processes. We will certainly be having discussions in the select committee to check people’s comfort with that point. In the initial draft that we saw, it was about the people that the Minister considered substantially affected that we had an issue with, as it was, so we will be interrogating that point in the committee stage.

The legislation will also require that the Minister publish the reasons for recommending the Order in Council, so that will be open to public scrutiny. The Regulations Review Committee of Parliament will also have a chance to look at the draft. If the House is in adjournment, then the party leaders will get a copy of the draft, so it will be open to scrutiny at least, if not a vote in the House. It is important to note that orders once made are not legally challengeable, except that the Regulations Review Committee does have the ability in certain circumstances to overturn them. That is my understanding. There is a time frame on these orders. Apparently, for good practice there is an expected limit of Orders in Council to be up to between 3 and 5 years. This is until April 2018, which is significantly shorter than that time.

There is a note in the legislation as well that the orders last until April 2018 unless sooner revoked. I do want to particularly point that out to interested parties as I believe that implies that there is potential value in lobbying the Minister if, in the event, any interested party thinks that an order that has been put in place has served its use—that it is possible to have the orders taken off the books, I guess—before that completion date if they are no longer necessary or desirable for the proposed purpose. There is no avoiding the fact that this bill does give significant powers to central government and removes proper consultation provisions and rights of appeal, but that has to be balanced, and we really do understand that that has to be balanced with the need for Government to support communities to be able to recover.

We will be looking through the select committee process, though, to make sure that that process really does understand the need to protect our environment and get that expertise in the process, because there are some changes that you can never undo. In times of emergency it is very easy to rush into making decisions that may cause irreparable harm to our environment. We want to make sure that everything possible is done to prevent that possibility. We are supporting this bill and would like to acknowledge the Acting Minister of Civil Defence for the process up to this point.

New Zealand First joins all of the other parties to ensure that there are adequate Government powers so that what needs to be done gets done in order to make sure that the people of Kaikōura and other affected areas get what they need and they get it quickly and effectively. Without these sorts of powers it is unlikely that that would happen. We have no difficulty in supporting a bill for that reason, and also we have no difficulty with the shortened time frame within which the bill will pass. We think it is one of those pieces of legislation that we ought to be able to deal with quickly and effectively, given the way that is actually proposed.

In addition to the Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Emergency Relief Bill, which has had a lot of attention this week, this bill, which I think of as the Order in Council bill, is certainly needed. But there needs to, of course, be appropriate checks and balances to “exempt, modify, or extend provisions of certain enactments.”, as it says in the explanatory note. It is those checks and balances that the select committee will particularly need to focus on because, as others have said, these are pretty extraordinary powers. Subject to that, New Zealand First will be very happy to support the bill.

I just want to go through some of the aspects of those checks and balances, which we are going to need to pay particular attention to over the next few days. The first thing, of course, to note is that it applies to only a relatively discrete area of the country—the affected areas, as they are called in the bill. Most particularly, though, any order made must be necessary or desirable—necessary or desirable—for the purposes of the bill, and not be broader than is reasonably necessary. Because that is the crux of the bill and the most important of the checks and balances, we ought to pay particular attention to the words used, by which I mean look at the purposes of the bill. They are set out in clause 3.

I am going to read them out because I think it is important that that be done. So paragraph (a) is to “provide for economic recovery; ”, paragraph (b) is to “provide for the planning, rebuilding, and recovery of affected communities and persons, including—(i) the repair and rebuilding of land, infrastructure, and other property of affected communities or of any affected persons; and (ii) safety enhancements to, and improvements to the resilience of, that land, infrastructure, or other property;”. Then it goes on with paragraph (c), to “facilitate co-ordinated efforts and processes used to bring about the short-term, medium-term, and long-term recovery and enhancement of affected communities;”, and, lastly, there is paragraph (d), to “facilitate the restoration and improvement of the environmental, economic, social, and cultural well-being, and the resilience, of affected communities or of any affected persons.”

So it is fairly wide ranging. It covers affected communities and affected persons and provides for safety enhancements and also improvements, so that they get the resilience they will need for the future. I think that is most appropriate, because we do need to remember that this is not a past event. This is a current and future event. There has been a sequence of earthquakes that will definitely carry on, and, indeed, future events may even be larger and more damaging than those we have had already. So I think it is important to particularly think about the purposes in relation to the first and most important of the checks and balances the order must be necessary or desirable to achieve those purposes.

In addition to that, there is a panel to be appointed under clause 11. I think it is very important that that panel be of people with real expertise, whether it be environmental, construction, agricultural, cultural, or whatever, because, again, you need to refer back to the purposes of the legislation. I will be interested to see who ultimately gets appointed. I am sure a good job will be done and they will do a good job themselves.

In addition to that, there is a provision for the draft of any order to have to go to the Regulations Review Committee, or, if it is not possible to get that together, then at least it should go to the leader of each of the political parties represented in Parliament. That provides another important check and balance and ensures that there will not be any politicisation of the process. None of us wants to see that. Of course, the bill makes it very clear that the responsible Minister, whichever one it may be, must actually have regard to the recommendations or the comments of both that panel and the Regulations Review Committee. So there will not be a free hand here. I think those are important provisions in the bill.

In addition to that, there is an engagement process provided for. That provides for the engagement of substantially affected persons but also the public, if the local authority believes that it should do that in respect of any particular order. I think that is very important because, as we have seen in the Christchurch earthquake, it is very easy for people to feel alienated from these processes. I hope that the local authority makes sure it does a good job in that respect, too.

The Minister, in deciding to make an order, must record and give reasons, and I think that is very important that that be on the record. I want to also approve particularly of clause 10, and I think this is better than what was done for the Canterbury earthquakes, because what it does is list, first of all, some legislation that cannot be amended by any of the orders made under this bill. They include Acts like the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the Electoral Act, which is what you would expect. Clause 7 also provides for a list, I understand, of two or three dozen bills that are those that can be amended under this legislation, with a provision for other such bills to be added. It is a good idea to do it that way, rather than have some general provision trying to cover the whole thing.

In addition to all of that, you have to remember that this legislation will have limited duration. The orders under it will be revoked on 31 March 2018 or sooner than that, so it is not as though this is going to go on for a very long time. Hopefully, that will be a long enough period so that any of the orders necessary under this legislation can, in fact, be made. In addition to that, clause 7 provides for additional areas and, as I have already said, additional Acts to be added to the application of the bill, except in limited circumstances that are set out in the bill.

We in New Zealand First do believe that this bill is absolutely necessary, that the checks and balances ought to be adequate, that the people of Kaikōura and, indeed, the people of New Zealand should have confidence that the powers granted will not be excessive, and that there will be proper supervision and limitations on the powers. As I have said, it is a necessary bill. It is properly balanced, with appropriate checks and balances. It is something that I believe will be an important aspect of the recovery of Kaikōura and other affected areas, and I look forward to taking part in the select committee process to go through the bill and make sure that what I have said actually is the case and that the legislation will properly record and state that.

Having said all of that, I do want to say that the process so far with the emergency legislation has been very good. I think the process for this is likely to be just as good. For that reason, New Zealand First will have no hesitation in supporting this bill.

It is a pleasure to rise to take a short call on a bill where I follow such a large number of constructive speeches on an issue. By the time it gets to me—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Do not stuff it up.

—ha, ha—no doubt the detail has been well explained. But I just want to make a couple of comments. I will comment on some of the features of the bill, but I just want to make a comment about some of our past disasters in New Zealand. Often in the past we have reinstated things in a manner that the law allows us to do. This bill will enable a bit of freedom around the thinking around the reinstatement of some assets and other things that have been damaged during the course of this earthquake. It will be hugely practical from a New Zealand perspective. It will be very positive. So I think that is the first point I want to make.

The second point I want to make is that the Christchurch earthquake has, I guess, taught New Zealand an awful lot about reinstating assets and about how we might go about it in an efficient and effective manner. The fact is that some 60-odd Orders in Council have been issued in the Christchurch case. None of them have been challenged, and I am hoping that as a result of the chairman of the Regulations Review Committee’s long statement on this, none of these will be challenged either. I am confident that they will not.

So I think it is worth noting that these orders apply only to earthquake-affected areas, and only to response to or recovery of those areas. I think the next thing worth recording is that they will expire in mid-2018, and no doubt the select committee will have some discussion around that. In fact, the select committee will have some discussion around most of these issues.

The other thing that is quite apparent is that many unforeseen issues will arise during the course of this recovery, and, of course, with an earthquake you continue to have aftershocks and things like that. There may well be further damage that we do not understand at the moment. So that is another issue I think is really important. An independent panel will advise this, as noted by the previous speakers, and I am sure that panel will be competent. I think that we, as the public of New Zealand, can have every confidence that this whole situation will be handled extremely well by the Parliament and by the Government. I think that the oversight that will be provided for this will be very appropriate. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker—that is my lot.

Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Green Party is pleased to be supporting the Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Recovery Bill to the select committee. I agree with Minister Brownlee that this bill is no small thing because of the major increase in ministerial and executive powers that it allows. The Green Party has long been vigilant about increases in executive power because of our desire to protect local democracy and ensure that people who are affected by the decisions actually have a say in those decisions. It is a key part of recovery that people are involved in decisions about the recovery. This bill, in allowing Ministers through Orders in Council to override more than 45 pieces of primary legislation without the benefit of select committee scrutiny and without the benefit of submissions to select committee and consideration of those submissions by the committee, is a major law change.

We have been quite critical of the Canterbury legislation, not so much the Orders in Council that were exercised under that legislation, but because of the substantial powers that were given to the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority and the way in which decisions were generally made behind closed doors, with people not knowing who was making the decision or whether any of the comments that they had made in written submissions were taken heed of, and with no ability for people to actually front up and have their say in front of the person making the decision. This week we have seen with the other bill, in terms of the emergency powers and the extended time frames around the Resource Management Act and the Kaikōura harbour, the value of having even a short select committee process and having people front up.

So we are proceeding with considerable caution and will be engaging very carefully with the select committee process in terms of the wide range of Acts that are in schedule 2. There are Acts like the Resource Management Act, the Conservation Act, the Marine Mammals Protection Act, and the Reserves Act. We want to understand a little better why officials consider that Acts like the Marine Mammals Protection Act need to be part of that schedule and potentially be able to be overridden by Orders in Council, because this bill covers a very large area. My reading of it is if there are other aftershocks that affect the Wellington region as part of the Kaikōura sequence, then Wellington could also be covered by Orders in Council that are made under the bill.

We are pleased that the concerns that constitutional lawyers and others raised about the post - Canterbury earthquake legislation have been recognised and that there are additional safeguards in this bill around the powers of the Ministers through Order in Council through the ability of the Regulations Review Committee to disallow Orders in Council. But that committee, of course, needs to be expanded to ensure that there is wider representation from across the Parliament. The bill provides for the Minister to publish reasons for his or her decision, and for a review panel. We agree with other speakers who have suggested that the review panel needs to be chaired by a judge or former judge, rather than just a lawyer.

I listened closely to the Minister’s speech when he said that the Orders in Council and the way in which activities happen under those will have to be done responsibly without any opportunistic behaviour if there are increased powers given to local authorities, for example, or infrastructure and network utility operators. We are really concerned that often the tendency with major natural disasters is that the shock and awe after the event means that people are prepared to let things go a little more. Given that Kaikōura has led the country in making its natural environment and its spectacular coast a core part of its brand and its tourism industry, we want to make sure that that legacy is not in any way placed at risk by short-term thinking that may occur in emergency situations.

So we are supporting the bill. We will be looking to see what further safeguards can be added to it, but we recognise that Governments post-emergency do need to make decisions quickly, but those decisions should always be made thoughtfully and with a view to the longer term. Thank you.

A 5-minute call on behalf of the Labour Party—Meka Whaitiri.

Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Labour supports the Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Recovery Bill to the select committee and joins with all the speakers who have spoken formerly.

We acknowledge that this is the last of the kind of legislative trilogy of bills to address the tragedy that occurred in the districts of Hurunui and Kaikōura. I also want to add my acknowledgment of the recovery personnel who worked, particularly immediately after the earthquake, and who continue working today, and, obviously, those who are yet to come into the area to help out with the recovery. I just want to acknowledge that. I guess, as members of this House, it is important that their work is not done in vain, so it makes sense that we are standing in support of this particular bill.

Previous speakers have touched on it, but just in terms of the explanatory note, the learnings from the Christchurch earthquake are acknowledged in the explanatory note. What I found interesting was the point around the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Act 2010 and then the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011. I am sure the Acting Minister of Civil Defence would know that the point was made around the fact that the mechanism attracted some criticism, but it may be of interest to the House that 60 Orders in Council were made through those particular pieces of legislation. Also, I note that not all requests for Order in Council in terms of the Christchurch example were granted and that there was one case of successful judicial challenge involving the unsuccessful challenge of the demolition of a heritage building.

As previous speakers have already alluded to, I guess, in terms of the checks and balances, essentially, how do we ensure that this bill—which is the Order in Council mechanism that people have spoken about—can address the economic recovery for those communities and councils? The Minister did touch on them, so I will not repeat them, but I will note that when it comes to the Local Government and Environment Committee we will be scrutinising to ensure that we have got the right mix of checks and balances there, and, of course, it will be interesting to hear what submitters will have to say in terms of assuring that.

I do not want to go on much more, but I do want to acknowledge that some of us are a little jaded, having sat for quite a significant amount of time considering this bill, but I too want to add my acknowledgment of the officials who have supported our select committee. For us to move as quickly as we can over a piece of legislation within 25 or 24 hours, as the chair quite rightly acknowledged, it requires the diligence of not only officials but I am talking about clerks of our select committee as well as the Parliamentary Counsel Office in terms of the next bill that we are going to bring.

What is important for me is that when we need to move urgently in this House in dealing with emergency legislation, we are creating a standard of how we do that, with all the moving parts—from the Minister, across parties, and right through to officials—to ensure that we are able to respond in a timely manner when crises occur around the country. I just want to put that on record. I want to thank our officials. We are still not through, but it is enough to say that without their support we would not be able to pass this bill in the timely manner that I am sure the Minister and the Government want to do it. We look forward to this bill coming to the select committee. Kia ora tātou.

E Te Mana Whakawā Tuarua, tēnā koe. Making a brief contribution on this Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Recovery Bill in this first reading debate, I just want to respond to some of the points raised by the member Eugenie Sage. I think that there have been very careful steps taken to ensure that in amending statutory provisions by Order in Council we are not going too far. You will see in the bill that it has exemptions and it will not be used to override such important fundamental rights and obligations as are provided for in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 or the Electoral Act 1993.

I am very fortunate to have a good friend visiting at the moment, Professor Christopher Pope, who is an academic from Seattle, and he was telling me just today that it is important to be evidence-based and scientific in your approach, and I agree entirely with that. If we are being evidence-based, and if we look back—for the 60 Orders in Council that were issued pertaining to the Christchurch earthquake, there were no successful judicial challenges, and not all Orders in Council were granted. I think we have a good track record of proceeding in a democratic and transparent way on these matters. These are very important provisions that will be used to improve housing, to undertake geotechnical assessments, to streamline planning processes, and even to provide tax reporting deadline relief to those who have been affected by the earthquake. This is an important piece of legislation, and it must pass. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to speak in the first reading of this recovery bill. As has been mentioned, this is the third piece of legislation in the trifecta of bills that we are enacting at an accelerated pace to address the earthquakes in the Hurunui and Kaikōura districts. I am very pleased to stand in support of this bill, and I endorse all of the cross-party efforts and the collaboration that is taking place in the drafting and the passage of this bill to this point.

This is an extraordinary piece of legislation in one sense, in that it is granting powers to the executive to override legislation through Orders in Council. However, it is necessary, and it has been adopted before, obviously, with the Christchurch experience, and it is necessary to facilitate recovery. We know that there will be a host of different requirements that will need to be compliant with the law, but, in some certain instances, the law as it stands will need to be amended to ensure that we are able to conduct whatever it is, across a range of different areas, to facilitate that recovery. It could be in emergency housing, it could be in roading, or it could be in taxation. It could be in a whole raft of areas.

The beauty of this bill is that although it does provide, in one sense, extraordinary powers, it is very contained and it is very prescribed. It is not as if these powers will be abused—I certainly hope that will not happen. They are put in place because they are necessary. I do commend the drafting because, as far as my reading of it is concerned, every scenario that may be required is captured by the wording in this bill: modification, extension, and suspension. So any malleable twisting of the law that is required is catered for by the measures and by the drafting of the bill, as I read it.

But one point I want to raise—and I do not want to extend my contribution longer than required—and one point I do want to commend is the appointment of the review panel. I note that the review panel that will review the recommendations that will be made by the relevant Minister, on whatever particular piece of the prescribed legislation that may be requiring an amendment or requiring an Order in Council, requires the Minister to appoint one iwi representative.

I just want to note that the affected area of this piece of legislation in this bill is beyond just one iwi. We know that in the Christchurch experience there was just one iwi affected, and that was Ngāi Tahu. But in this legislation we are dealing with the upper South Island. We are dealing with the Marlborough and Blenheim areas, and we are also dealing across Cook Strait, into the Wellington area. We are talking about the iwi at the top of the South Island and, in particular, in the Blenheim and Marlborough regions: Rangitāne, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Toa, and there is a host of iwi, likewise, up and over into the Wellington area. I am sure that the Minister will be aware of this. Because the panel has only one iwi appointee, I am sure that that iwi appointee would have some endorsement or support from all of the affected iwi that are contemplated by this bill, and not just one particular iwi. I would just draw that to the Minister’s attention, through that single person who is appointed as the iwi appointee.

Apart from that, yes, these are extraordinary measures, but extraordinary emergencies require these sorts of enactments of legislation of this type. I know that careful consideration has been given. I do acknowledge the select committee that will be meeting in haste—I guess on Monday—to hear submitters on this particular bill. I am sure that they will make any additional amendments that may be required. But apart from those points that I have just raised, I do support this bill and I commend it to the House.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.

I move, That the Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Recovery Bill be reported back to the House by 6 December 2016, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 191 and 194(1)(b) and (c).

I think that discharges the necessary commentary. Can I just indicate to the House, though, that should the committee, after its deliberations on Monday, think a small amount of additional time is needed, then I am sure there would be no hesitation from the Business Committee to make that extension. But, in any event, we would like to see this passed late next week.

Motion agreed to.