Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Recovery Bill

I move, That the Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Recovery Bill be now read a third time. The Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Recovery Bill is the last of three pieces of legislation created in response to the emergency that began with the earthquake on 14 November of this year. It is worth noting that that was one of the biggest earthquake events in the world for 2016, so that should indicate some of the necessity for this approach. Firstly, before we go too much further into the content of the bill, I do want to acknowledge the work of our officials, who have responded very, very well to the needs that they could see on the horizon for the many places that are affected by that event. I also want to thank the members of the Local Government and Environment Committee, who engaged incredibly constructively, I think, to a point where it can very much be considered Parliament’s response to the needs of the Kaikōura/Hurunui district and right up into the Wellington district here as well.

The bill allows for specified lists of legislation to be amended by Order in Council for earthquake-affected areas, but only where it is necessary and desirable for recovery. It is a little open-ended, but, as I said when I introduced the bill, it is just not possible in the early stages to know the full range of responses that might be necessary to move people’s lives forward. The bill facilitates recovery without needing to anticipate every power or statutory provision. This process is generally used only in exceptional circumstances, and there is, I think, a strong argument to suggest that this is a very definite exceptional circumstance.

Although it was short, the select committee process was well used by all political parties and by many who had an interest in where we might end up on a bill that has such broad powers. So I am very grateful to those who supported the committee, as I said before, but also to those who submitted to the committee, and the changes that their submissions brought about. Those changes have improved the bill, and I recognise that when you are having a piece of legislation that allows the suspension, altering, or changing of other pieces of legislation, there is a necessity to have some constraint within it.

Firstly, the bill is limited in its geographic powers. Although there was initially an idea that we might be able to put other areas in, through the select committee process there was the persuasive argument offered, particularly by the Hon David Parker, asking why that would be necessary when, if these events happen, Parliament comes together so quickly to do something for affected areas. I accept that that is a very reasonable position.

The greater Wellington region has been significantly affected by these events, and it is only right that there be some flexible mechanism to support effective recovery here in Wellington. It is not as evident here, because the roads are working, the sewers are working, and the water is working. The issue here is, potentially, in the safety of buildings that so many Wellingtonians either live in or work in. Anybody would want to be able to do something to ensure that they have the ultimate comfort that comes from knowing that the law itself will do whatever is necessary to protect their interest.

The bill is not a catch-all for all possible future natural events. As I said before in the discussions with the select committee, and as acknowledged by many and as highlighted by the Hon David Parker, if there is a future event, there might be a future response. Generic legislation, I think, would be a very dangerous thing in these circumstances. It is important that this still does not mean that Orders in Council will be necessarily made for all the Acts that are listed in the schedule. It is very broad, and a lot have been put in there trying to anticipate circumstances where it might not be possible—predicting them might be impossible at the present time. In any event, there is a process now—quite prescribed—where a Minister choosing to use this provision will need to engage in appropriate consultation, and will need to have good and justifiable reasons tested against the purpose of the bill for advancing that legislation.

In addition, there will be an independent review panel to look at those orders and to make a similar test, and to make some recommendations to the Minister. That panel will be convened by a retired High Court judge, and it will include people with a range of relevant skills and experiences, including in Māori traditional knowledge, protocol, and culture, as well as environmental protection and the nature of the communities within the earthquake-affected areas.

One additional step added by the select committee stage is that the relevant Minister will now have to provide the review panel with a draft reason for seeking the Order in Council alongside a draft order. It might seem that that is an obvious thing to do, but it was, perhaps, a little overlooked in the initial drafting of the bill itself; it is now there.

The relevant Minister also needs to seek and consider appropriate public comment, as I indicated before, on any proposal, unless there are exceptional circumstances that make that an unviable option. Draft orders will also be provided to the Regulations Review Committee, or to the leaders of political parties during adjournment, for comment, and the relevant Ministers must have regard to comments received.

The provisions of the bill are time-bound. The ability to make orders, and any orders made under this bill, will expire on 1 April 2018. There have been, though, some exceptions to that: we have made it possible for three specific pieces of primary legislation—for Kaikōura, Hurunui, and Marlborough districts only—to be extended. This will accommodate expected delays in revaluation of properties and associated audits of those councils, so the expiry date for orders related to those matters will now be 30 June 2021.

The select committee also discussed the importance of considering environmental concerns. In addition to the reference in the purpose statement to the role of the Resource Management Act, environmental matters are specifically highlighted as requiring consideration as part of developing Orders in Council. I might add here that I do not anticipate that this will be anywhere near the problem that some might think. So far, as the road south is being opened up between Kaikōura and Christchurch, there have been appropriate steps to ensure that there are people onsite, in fact, who have an understanding of, firstly, tikanga Māori, and how that might affect the area, but also people who are sensitive to what might happen to other people’s livelihoods if spoil, etc., is not dealt with in an appropriate way.

So I do not have some of the fears that others may have in that regard. It is certainly not a prohibition on people doing what is necessary and provided for by way of the powers in this bill. I think, then, that the bill does contain sufficient balances to make the necessary checks on it. The question of judicial review did arise, and I am sure that that may come up again in this afternoon’s final area of discussion on this bill, the third reading. But, in the end, I think we have got to a point where we can be comfortable that there is a lot to guard against the irresponsible use of a bill like this.

The bill is an important step in helping us to support and promote recovery from the earthquake sequence in the districts affected, and we need to ensure that people can get on with getting on with their jobs, and getting their communities up and running again. It will not be an easy task for them. It will not be a short task for them. This will not be the end of either this Government’s or this Parliament’s concern to ensure that those people are supported. I commend the bill to the House.

I think the Minister has very fairly described the checks and balances that are included in the bill. There is a discrete list of Acts to be overridden. There are real restrictions on it being able to be extended as to the scope of Acts that can be overridden, including an affirmative resolution, effectively, eventually being needed in this Parliament. I would have preferred Parliament making that decision in the first place, but I think that is a reasonable place to land.

I referred to the geographical area of the bill in the Committee stage and I do not want to say anything extra, other than to record that the Hutt City Council recorded that it already has the powers it needs under the Building Act to take the buildings down that it needs to get taken down, following the earthquake. I do accept that there is the possibility that there could be other buildings where the owner is reluctant to demolish them quickly enough, even though there are safety risks caused to other buildings that might necessitate some override of existing legislation. So, on that basis, I am not going to make anything more of that.

I add my thanks to my fellow select committee members—I think we all worked well together—and to the officials. They were very, very professional. I think the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet has served the Government and our country well, as have the other agencies that supported it.

A final thing, in respect of the roading issues, I agree with Minister Brownlee and I do have some trust in the roading authorities. When they came before us at the select committee, they noted that they have various protocols that they use. They are aware that they have got to minimise the fines going into the marine environment. They also note that they are already going in from some of the existing slips that are continuing, and will continue, to erode the foreshore and seabed area if they are not remedied. So there can be wins there, as well.

I have got nothing further to add. I commend the bill to the House.

It is fantastic to be at the third reading of this Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Recovery Bill. As I said a little earlier, the people of Kaikōura are really anticipating this moment, getting this bill through. I thought I might take a moment to reflect on some of the issues that are affecting daily life in that area. For example, only just recently, dairy farmers had cowsheds that were destroyed in the earthquake and their cows had to walk some distance to be milked, which affected their production. It caused some real questions about animal health, had that needed to continue for some time. Those cows have now been able to get out of the Kaikōura area and are being looked after elsewhere. That is a huge relief to those farmers and the people of Kaikōura.

I can say that a couple of weeks ago, when I was down there, talking to one of the farmers, he was extremely stressed about the animal welfare issues that he was facing and all the extra work that was occurring. To not have the road open—it took some understanding that, actually, people were not taking any silly risks. I am pleased they did not, but at times it is difficult to understand why these things are not happening. It really comes down to communication, but it is difficult to get all these things lined up in such a short time. As I said earlier, it is just over 3 weeks since the earthquake, and so much has happened in that period of time. But if you are in there, living it, it seems like for ever and that not much is changing. But things are changing rapidly, and that is starting to dawn on the people of Kaikōura.

Today I got around and spoke to a few business people in Kaikōura. One of the things that is concerning them is getting supplies in and out, because of the convoy nature: in and out, at different times of the day. Getting trucks to take stock out and back in the same day is not possible, because of that convoy system. It can only be a truck that goes out; it cannot be a truck and trailer. So to get all the stock that are coming up to the peak selling season off the farms and out of Kaikōura is a real challenge—a very large challenge. I know that people are being very patient.

I actually would like to take time to acknowledge Downer Construction, which is working on the roads—State Highway 1 from the south, and on the inland road. They have gone the extra mile, well and truly, to speed up that work. They have done a tremendous amount of work on the roads. They have exceeded expectations to date. It is the nature of that work that they could run into something today in trying to clear that road that might delay them for quite some time. I know people are quite frustrated because they do not know when the roads are going to open, but I think it would be unfair to make a prediction that, inevitably, is going to be wrong, and then disappoint people, or mislead them by putting on a date that is well past when the work is likely to be finished. All they can have is an indication. I think people are coming to those decisions.

I would like to acknowledge and thank Simon Mackle, who is a dairy farmer in Kaikōura and quite a leader in the community. Simon has rallied the farmers around. He has been a great point of contact. He, like other people, has been working extremely long hours, helping other farmers out. I know his father Ron is supposed to be retired, but he has probably never worked harder, trying to get the water systems up and running again that have been destroyed by the earthquake; again, just adding more work to what is a really difficult situation.

I would also like to thank the deputy mayor, Julie Howden, and her son Matt who were kind enough to provide me with transport in Kaikōura. Despite the fact that there are a lot of rental cars stuck in Kaikōura, a lot of them are not suitable to go on the roads, and, also, once the early stages of recovery started, there were lots of people trying to hire them to get around within Kaikōura itself. So I would like to thank Julie and Matt. They have been a great support for me and, indirectly, for the recovery. And, of course, Winston Gray, the mayor of Kaikōura, has really stood up and led a really good, strong team. They have only 20-odd employees in the Kaikōura District Council but, boy, have they performed, and I think they really need to be congratulated. They cannot ease up yet; there is a lot more to do.

But back to the bill itself, I think there was a lot of concern about pushing stuff into the sea. I think that is only really a bit of colourful language to illustrate that we are going to speed things up. It is truncating a process; it is not usurping our environmental obligations at all. In fact, the people of Kaikōura rely on the pāua and crayfish fisheries, and those fisheries rely on the inter-tidal zone, where the juveniles really harbour. It is really important for the safety of that fishery that that area is preserved. No one is going to be irresponsible in this recovery, and there will be all due care taken—I am absolutely confident of that.

I think, although we tend to be focusing at the moment on Kaikōura, Hurunui is where the epicentre of the earthquake was, particularly in the Waiau area. I know there are some severely damaged buildings in that area—wrecked cowsheds, among other things—but also significant shifts in land. Those scars will be there for many years to come, before they start to heal over a little. This bill will enable the work to go on that is required to get those roads open. As I said, I think the effort that Downer Construction has made has been phenomenal, but the Hurunui District Council has also stepped up—another small council, and I am pretty sure they are the council with the most kilometres of road per ratepayer in the country, and, you know, they have got this tremendous burden now to try to fix those roads. They are doing a really good job.

I drove down the Leader Rd, I think it was last week; it might have been this week—I am not sure what day it was now—but they will just about have that road open next week. In fact, it was Monday, now that my memory has finally come back. They have gone in and blown that whole road out and fixed it within a very short time, so people can get on and they can get things done. That is just all about application and the will of the people. It makes it pretty difficult to drive along that road, and, fortunately, most people are staying off it—it is not closed but it is preferred that traffic does not go down that road until it is finished.

I called at the Waiau School, also on Monday, and spoke to Mary, the principal there. It is amazing how quickly things have turned around in that area, but, boy, there is a long way to go for a lot of people. This earthquake is really about communication. It is about the roads and the ability to get in and out. I note in some places they are now running fibre-optic cable across the ground. Water pipes are going to be run across the top of the ground for the Kaikōura domestic water supply. That is a much quicker way to get its water supply up, and it increases the security of that for the local people in that area.

But, of course, the earthquake went right up into Marlborough, which also has some significant issues. In fact, yesterday I was out with Doug Avery, who is well known for his work in the mental health area. He is organising all of the kind offers to help people. When these organisations ring up people, people say “Oh no, we don’t need help. Ring someone else.”, but he has gone and taken it on himself—driving around, organising people. Helpers are bringing their own lawnmowers and hedge trimmers, and coming in and mowing their lawns and trimming their hedges. It sounds like a little thing but it is a huge weight off people’s minds, people who do not have the time to do that.

So, as I said, this is going to be a very welcome piece of legislation. It really marks the start of the recovery, and I commend the bill to the House.

E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe. E ngā mema o Te Whare nei, tēnā tātou katoa. It is indeed my honour and privilege to rise and take a call on this third and final reading of the Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Recovery Bill. The bill creates a power for Government Ministers to override primary legislation in their portfolio area to assist the recovery from the Kaikōura earthquake.

This legislation is similar to that passed after the Christchurch earthquake, but much more limited with a number of checks and balances. Orders in Council can be related only to the earthquake and the purposes of the legislation. The powers and orders may expire on 1 April 2018. Only legislation listed in schedule 2 may be amended without Parliament’s approval. A review panel must be consulted on the legislation, and the Regulations Review Committee will receive orders prior to being implemented and will be able to move that they be disallowed. Finally, an order cannot impinge on human rights.

It is a great day to stand in this House and do our small part to help the communities of Kaikōura and Hurunui, particularly, in their recovery. This bill, clearly, is an enabler to assist that. Labour is pleased that the Government has implemented many of the suggestions made during the select committee. We acknowledge the Minister and his attendance at our committee, the Local Government and Environment Committee, yesterday, and taking on many of those suggestions. I do not want to prolong the debate. It is an important bill. I know that for the people of Kaikōura, particularly, anticipating this will help somewhat on that road of recovery. Again, I want to acknowledge the officials who supported us.

Just in closing, to the member of Kaikōura, Stuart Smith and, obviously, our member here Rino Tirikatene, please take our warm wishes from this House to the communities that you represent. We are thinking of them, particularly as we go into summer and Christmas. They will be doing it hard and they definitely will be in my thoughts—best wishes to them as we see in the new year and, particularly, Christmas. With that, I commend this bill to the House.

It is a real pleasure to stand in this third reading debate on this bill, which members of my committee have been working so hard and diligently on for pretty much the whole week. If you do not mind, I seek the indulgence of the House just to tell an interesting story, because this has been, by any measure, a momentous and historic week for Parliament and also for New Zealand.

On Monday morning when this bill was being worked through diligently by the Local Government and Environment Committee, Government members, at about 12.15 p.m., having done several hours work on the committee, received text messages from the whips inviting us to attend a teleconference call, which was due to take place in a few minutes. So we suspended the meeting, with the leave of Opposition members, I might add, who were very curious to know what the purpose and the portent might entail. So what happened was that Government members retired to a neighbouring committee room. We put a cellphone on to speaker mode and we heard the news—which now, of course, is very well-known to us all—that the Rt Hon John Key was going to resign his role as Prime Minister of New Zealand after 8 years.

So then we were in an interesting position as committee members because we then had to return to the committee room, apply our very best poker faces, and sit before Opposition members as we continued to go through the fine detail of an important piece of emergency legislation. For Government members the real interest came about half an hour later when Opposition members’ phones started pinging and going off. We thought that was quite interesting. We did have the good sense, I think, to suspend the meeting a little early for lunch so that members could go and attend to the new world that we found ourselves in.

The committee has worked really diligently over the course of this week, and I too want to join with other members who have, in the Committee stage of the debate and earlier in this third reading part of the debate, thanked very sincerely our officials and our committee staff for their work. They really did push the boat out and burn the midnight oil, and all those sorts of metaphors for going a very long way, more than was required of them. I think it is symptomatic of our Parliamentary Counsel Office staff, our select committee secretariat staff, and our advisers, in this case from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.

We in this Parliament are very fortunate to have the dedicated, professional support of such a wonderful team of very committed professionals who do extraordinary work for us as parliamentarians, sometimes at very short notice, but also, ultimately, for the people who will benefit from the passing of this legislation; the people who have been affected in Kaikōura, Wellington, and other parts of the country as a result of the earthquakes that took place—I guess it is getting on nearly a month ago now. These are people who took time, in some cases, to make submissions to us—both orally and in writing—at very short notice, and who put aside some of the work that they and their colleagues were doing to take time to submit to us, and I am very grateful to them for doing so. They added immeasurably to the ultimate bill that we are debating this afternoon.

The bill is, actually, constitutionally quite important. It seeks to do a number of things that are an extraordinary extension of the powers of the executive by Order in Council. But they are an extension of those powers for extraordinary and unusual circumstances. I think that there was absolute unanimity around the select committee, from members across the House, on the need for this legislation. Nobody thought for one moment that this legislation should not proceed. But as a committee what we were keen to test and ensure was that the safeguards—the appropriate and relevant safeguards—could be incorporated into the legislation in a sensible, pragmatic, and meaningful way that meant that the legislation could achieve the legislative flexibility that is required from it, but at the same time provide the constitutional safeguards that a bill like this really demands.

I heard the Hon David Parker speaking earlier in the Committee stage about his lack of support for so-called generic legislation—a piece of legislation that we might be able to have on the shelf ready for some kind of future national crisis or emergency and then just flick a switch and turn it on. I share the concern and the reservations that the Hon David Parker has about that kind of legislation. I do not think that we as a Parliament could set aside a piece of legislation that would actually be all-encompassing and to meet every situation, every criterion, of an emergency—civil, natural, or whatever—that might confront us. But I think that what we have learnt as a result of the situation that occurred 5 years ago in Canterbury and Christchurch, and now as a result of what is known technically as the Kaikōura sequence of earthquakes, is that we as a Parliament have actually come quite a long way in getting our heads collectively around what is required to provide quick, rapid response legislative initiatives to ensure that the people on the ground, the business people and all those affected, can get back on their feet. What this Parliament needs to do is to ensure those things can occur in a speedy, prompt, and efficient way. This is the third piece of legislation in a suite of legislative initiatives that assists those very good and proper objectives of assisting the people of Kaikōura and beyond.

I took particular note of the very good contribution of the local member, Stuart Smith, earlier in this debate. I think as we sat in what was, effectively, a cloistered bunker in the bottom of Bowen House, while all sorts of momentous and historic political events were swirling around us, the committee needed to hear the sorts of words that came from Stuart Smith and the sorts of things that I suspect we will hear from Rino Tirikatene shortly—words about what it means to people on the ground: real stories, real people, and real situations. The committee needed to hear what it means to individual home and property owners, what it means to individual businesses, what it means to communities, and what it means to those who are providing emergency services—both first response and also civil. We heard great submissions, for instance, from an invited and selected small group of submitters. They were able to, at short notice, give us some really useful information on the ground that was practical and that was helpful to us in our deliberations.

The working of the committee, I am pleased to say, was collegial, and I think epitomised the very best of our Parliament. It is a piece of work that very few people will have seen, and most New Zealanders never get to see that kind of work that occurred in the Local Government and Environment Committee this week. It was further, and helpfully, facilitated by the willingness and preparedness of the sponsoring Minister, the Hon Gerry Brownlee, to actually speak to the committee, and I, as chair, was very grateful for him doing that. It helped us cut through some stumbling blocks that we had got to—little roadblocks that we had got to—and in a very short period of time we were able to remove those roadblocks in a very practical and useful way that was helpful to the committee and has helped us produce the bill in the form that it appears before us today.

This is a very good, sensible piece of response legislation. It is measured in its effect, it is limited in its power, but it does give us and the communities that we are trying to support the flexibility that is needed to help them get back on their feet. I absolutely and very proudly commend it to the House.

I rise to speak at this, the third reading of the Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Recovery Bill, which the Green Party is pleased to be able to support. I will recognise that we supported this bill on its introduction, at first reading, and to select committee. There was a moment in the select committee when we were considering where we were at and we were not sure whether we would be able to support it through the stages of consideration, because it is such a significant power that is being handed to the executive. But it is really, honestly, with a sense of real relief that we are able to support this legislation.

We feel ourselves accountable to the people in the affected communities and to those other New Zealanders who hold dear the rule of law and the process and the power of decision making of this Parliament. We hope that people will look at what happens from this critically, and provide feedback at any point where they feel it is going awry. But we do hope that this will be seen as an improvement on the processes that have gone before; that is the point we have got to with it.

I do want to just spend a bit of time—and I do realise that if anybody is at the point in the affected communities of watching this debate, they will probably just be wanting us to shut and up and pass it. I recognise that, but I would just like to spend a few minutes talking to those other people about exactly, or loosely, what this bill does. It enables a Minister, or Ministers together, to be able to put in an Order in Council, and what that is, in effect, is an amendment to or an override of a piece of legislation. So if a community has found that the legislation that we have passed collectively through this Parliament is actually providing a barrier to its ability to respond urgently to the needs of its community or to promote the recovery of its community, then there is the ability for that Minister to come up with a distinct solution that is not consistent with the law that was passed in this House.

So that is a very, very significant power, but it will need to be for the purpose of response and recovery, and there are specific points in the purpose clause of the bill that give more detail to that. It needs to be necessary, desirable, and not broader than required to solve the community’s problem. This applies to areas that are included in the bill, which are the areas of the Hurunui District Council, the Kaikoura District Council, the Marlborough District Council, the Wellington City Council, the Hutt City Council, the Canterbury Regional Council, and the Greater Wellington Regional Council area. So, in effect, from South Canterbury right up to Masterton there are areas that are covered by this bill, where the Minister has the ability within that scope to be able to override legislation to meet their response needs.

There was certainly some question about whether Wellington and Greater Wellington should be included in this bill, and it is a very difficult call to make. The Hutt City Council supported this legislation. Conversations I had with Wellington City Council were that it was supportive—the Mayor of Wellington was supporting this legislation and having it cover Wellington, although the Mayor of Hutt City did say that, actually, at the moment the Hutt City area did not need it. So it was a bit of a judgment call. But I do recognise that, actually, in Wellington there are so many businesses that have been affected by the quakes and, although there has not been an interruption to telecommunications or water systems, a lot of buildings are uninhabitable and people have been put out there. So some of the ability to provide relief around filing for tax returns may actually be welcome for those businesses in this area, and that is within the scope of this bill—to give them that relief or delay. So, on the balance of things, we went with being able to accept the broad geographic area and we are very pleased that additional geographic areas were not able to be added to this.

When the Minister decides, if it crosses different areas, that an Order in Council is needed they will talk and they will start talking about what the solution might be. We have built into the legislation a requirement, if at all practicable, for that Minister or Ministers to contact affected people or to notify them publicly so that people can provide input to help make sure that the view of what the problem is and what the solutions might be is not too limited. Then that draft order and the reasons that the Minister thinks that it is necessary will be sent to a review panel. That review panel will be convened by a retired High Court judge and the members on that review panel will have specific expertise. Initially, they were going to be representative positions, but now on the advice of submissions from Local Government New Zealand—I think there was another submission also supporting that—it has become more based around expertise, including mātauranga Māori and tikanga Māori and local government and public administration.

That review panel will also have the ability to get comment from other people, and within a specific time frame they will be required to feed back to the Minister and provide advice on any possible improvements to that order. That advice will need to be made public as well. Then or simultaneously the draft Order in Council goes to the Regulations Review Committee of Parliament, which includes most parties—sadly, at this moment, not the Green Party. So we do hope that in the Standing Orders review that the Green Party is included on the Regulations Review Committee, so that there can be proper parliamentary oversight of these draft Orders in Council that represents the full representation of parties within Parliament, because we do have some good contributions to make—representing the people that we do.

Then the Regulations Review Committee comments will also, obviously, be public and will be reported back to Parliament. Then the Minister will need to have due regard to those comments reported back, and they will be public. Any Order in Council that is put in place through this process will be time-bound until April 2018, if not finished before that because it was no longer needed, which does create an impression that councils or people, if they believe there is no longer a need for that override of the legislation, could, I guess, make pleadings to the Minister for it to finish early.

There has been an exception again: Local Government New Zealand, through the submission process, asked for an extension of that time-bound nature to 2021 for specific provisions around the Local Government Act and ratings requirements, because of the experience in Canterbury. When there is a massive effect on and damage to property, and ongoing aftershocks in particular, that damage can go on and it can be very hard to do the rating assessments and get them happening in that time frame. So that seemed to be a sensible change, though we do hope that it will be kept very much within scope.

So that is roughly the outline of what this bill does, and we hope it meets the needs of the balance of checks and powers and the ability to support communities.

The Kaikōura coast, especially from Kaikōura itself to Cape Campbell, is one of the fastest mountain-building regions in the world. Although that makes the area extremely beautiful, it also means that earthquakes are going to happen all too often, and therefore this Parliament needs to be ready to take appropriate action to deal with the effects of those earthquakes effectively and quickly. When Parliament gives special or extraordinary powers to the executive, as we are asked to do in this case, particular care is needed to define and to limit those powers, especially when the time for consultation is so short and especially when public consultation is so truncated. We members of Parliament get only one go at this and so we do have to get it right. I am grateful to all the members of the select committee who have worked so hard to do just that.

The checks and balances—necessary, but extraordinary in this case—have to be effective and clear while at the same time providing adequate powers to address all the needs that there are. So it is a very good thing that we should at this stage review once again what those limitations on those powers are. The powers in the bill are extraordinary, because they allow a Minister to exempt, modify, or extend the provisions of a number of enactments—in fact, over 40 of them, and across what must be close to a third of the whole country, so they are indeed extraordinary.

But the most important of the limitations is that the order must be necessary or desirable. Nobody can say exactly what that means, but it is nevertheless a very important principle upon which this bill is really built. The Local Government and Environment Committee has paid particular attention to that, and that has been a good thing. Another limit is that the powers given must not be broader than is reasonably necessary. That is the sort of thing that can be challenged in court, should the Minister, with those Orders in Council, go too far.

However, I think the main check is through the advisory and review panel. The committee paid a lot of attention to who can be appointed and why, and the important thing here is that they are appointed for the skills and the expertise they have, not to represent one particular group or one particular area or another. It is important to remember that. Their advice and their recommendations to the Minister must be had regard to properly and fully by the Minister, who has to give reasons. So that is an important check and balance. Another is the fact that the draft of any order has to go to the Regulations Review Committee or, if it is not possible to get that together in any particular circumstance, then at least to the leader of each of the political parties represented in Parliament.

Another important thing is that there is an engagement process provided for in the bill for each Order in Council that might be made. I think that is particularly important, because it relates not only to substantially affected persons but also to the public generally. As we saw in the Canterbury earthquakes, unless that opportunity is given, people feel disengaged from the process and tend to not have much confidence in it. So it is good to see that that is there. I am also pleased to see that the changes that were made to the bill during the select committee process now mean that no new districts or regions and no new Acts can be added, at least unless there is a near-consensus by all party leaders to do that.

In addition to the list of all of the checks and balances that I have referred to, this legislation, of course, has very limited duration. The orders under it will be revoked on 31 March 2018, although there is provision for some orders, such as those relating to local government, to rating valuation, and to local government financial plans, to get longer, and that is appropriate.

So, overall, we in New Zealand First, having taken part in the scrutiny of this bill to make sure that the checks and balances are adequate, are actually fully satisfied that that is the case. We accept that this is absolutely necessary legislation, but we are also satisfied with the checks and balances that are in it.

I also want to, at this stage, add some thoughts, as other members have, about generic legislation. I actually do not agree that we should discount the possibility of, in the relatively near future, considering some generic legislation, because, as I have already said, the kinds of events that have given rise to this legislation do actually happen quite commonly in New Zealand because of the physical nature of the country that we live in. I believe that we could consider some high-level, generic legislation without the sort of detail that we have got in this particular bill or that is in the Canterbury earthquake legislation. It could be something along the lines of a template so that there would be some guidance for future events and for future legislation that is necessary in response to those events. It could be a single piece of legislation rather than the three pieces of legislation that have been necessary in this case. I think it would tend to speed up the process, and you would also still need a special bill, so the generic legislation would be in addition to, not instead of, the sort of legislation you would have here, but it would guide that legislation. It would make it simpler and easier to pass.

So I think that there is still some scope for us to look for the possibility in the future of generic legislation. I think it would still be useful. I think it would still speed things up. Yes, a special bill to deal with a particular event that has occurred, tailored to the area which it would apply to, would still be needed, but then the more limited legislation would be easier to pass and an easier thing to do altogether. After all, we should not have to reinvent the wheel every time there is a major event. We should be able to learn from this event and from the Canterbury earthquakes legislation and incorporate the ideas behind that legislation into a piece of generic legislation that could be the underpinning legislation for future events. So I would like to see that happen in the not too distant future.

Lastly, I want to say this: after a very good process, we now have a bill that the people of New Zealand can be confident is going to provide for the Orders in Council that are going to be necessary, but, at the same time, they can be satisfied that there are appropriate checks and balances and limitations on the executive powers, which are extraordinary and are given in this bill.

It remains for me now only to say on behalf of New Zealand First that we wish all of the people of the affected areas the speediest possible recovery. I hope that this legislation will help them do just that.

I rise in support of the Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Recovery Bill in this, its third reading. Given that this House is in consensus at this time in respect of this bill and that there have been some very good contributions, I am not going to concentrate on the technicalities of the bill. I am simply going to focus on the people and say to them that across the Government and across the House there is support for the recovery of Kaikōura and Hurunui, hence we are doing everything we can to assist that.

We must remember that these people are living day to day with the challenges that a significant event such as an earthquake brings, and we cannot underestimate what they are living with. The reason I raise this is that we are in December now and we are moving into the Christmas period, and most of us will go away. We will go away on holiday and we will do our thing with our friends and family, and that will be all very nice, but, of course, the people in North Canterbury and Kaikōura will still be living with the effects of that earthquake. It will take some time to repair and get Kaikōura and the other surrounding areas on track, so we should spare a thought for them over the December period, the Christmas period, and make sure that these people are still on our minds.

So, look, this is a good bill. It is designed, through Orders in Council, to allow the relevant Minister to make assessments in conjunction with the independent panel about what is required to be done on the ground, and to execute that expediently with the checks and balances in place. With that, I just again congratulate my colleague Mr Stuart Smith on the work that he has done on the ground, the Government on the work that it has done coming in behind the people of Kaikōura and North Canterbury, and I commend this bill to the House.

The next call is a split call. Eugenie Sage—5 minutes.

In the Committee stage, I outlined the general provisions in the Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Recovery Bill and some of the Green Party’s thoughts on those, so in this contribution we would just like to focus on a couple of specific things.

I was disappointed that the truncated Committee stage meant that we did not get to consider Supplementary Order Paper 256 in the name of Jacinda Ardern, which, I think, was aimed at putting some initial safeguards in the bill around heritage. I think the major task of the Local Government and Environment Committee in considering the bill was actually looking at the adequacy of the checks and balances on these extraordinary powers that the bill is giving to the executive, to Ministers, to override primary legislation. The Supplementary Order Paper in Jacinda Ardern’s name was drawing, I think, on the experience in Christchurch, where the Orders in Council there that overrode the Resource Management Act—and the provisions in that Act, which normally would provide that where a listed heritage building was going to be demolished, there would be an opportunity for the public to comment on that—led to the loss of huge numbers of our buildings with heritage values in Christchurch, even where there was the ability for those buildings to be restored and where they were not affecting public safety.

I think that heritage provision would have ensured that the Minister could not have amended the Resource Management Act where it affected heritage buildings that had the highest listing of category 1. But I think, in the Committee stage, we did get another safeguard in the bill around the Resource Management Act, which did require that where an order was going to affect the Resource Management Act, the effects on the environment had to be considered.

The Acting Minister of Civil Defence said that some of the concerns of members of Parliament, particularly I guess in the Green Party, about the environmental effects of some of the work that is going to be done in recovery may not be as significant—were being overstated, perhaps, I think he was suggesting. We are very concerned about the work that is done in the name of recovery—for economic recovery—given that Kaikōura has got nature tourism as the centre of its tourism attractiveness, and given that areas like the Lewis Pass highway go through the Nelson Lakes National Park and the Lewis Pass National Reserve, where there is a significant landscape character in those highways that adds to people’s experience on the highway. We are concerned that those values are recognised. Congratulations, Mr Acting Speaker Foster-Bell, on your elevation.

We were reassured slightly by the evidence that the New Zealand Transport Agency officials presented to the select committee. They provided a number of documents about the process that they go through when they are doing major works, and they said that they have quite strong social and environmental objectives. There are environmental and social management plans prepared around major works. There is a landscape master plan. They have a memorandum of understanding with the Department of Conservation. They also provided us with a copy of their public engagement policy, which I think is still in draft, but is being developed.

So the goal of a lot of these documents appeared to be to minimise conflicts between the State highway network and, in the case of conservation lands, the protection of conservation land, and to actually minimise adverse effects. We would certainly encourage the transport agency to use all of the procedures that it has, because we want to see the recovery works proceed while protecting the livelihoods of pāua fishers, crayfishers, and others who depend on the marine environment, and protecting the landscape values of our national parks and conservation lands in order to protect the qualities of the State highway that make driving along parts of the State highway an experience because of those dramatic landscapes. We hope that some of safeguards that the select committee has put in the bill will not only act as a check on the Minister’s powers but encourage agencies to make every effort to act in accordance with the statutes, even though they do not have to if there is an Order in Council.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker Lindsay Tisch, and I acknowledge all of your colleagues, including the acting Speaker, Paul Foster-Bell, who has just vacated the chair.

This is a very, very short call to reaffirm Labour’s support for this bill, thanking the members of the select committee and their staff, who worked so hard. I reiterate our condolences to all the good people of the Hurunui-Kaikōura area who have lost either loved ones, in some cases, or possessions. We realise that recovery is going to take some time, particularly with the munting that the State highway and the railway lines have had. We are all united in this House in goodwill and support for you.

This legislation is a good piece of work. It draws on the experience of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act. I wish to acknowledge—perhaps unusually—Minister Brownlee for his work in administrating the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act and for the cooperative spirit that both he and the Attorney-General have brought to the deliberations on this legislation. It has drawn, in part, on the report, which has been a unanimous effort on behalf of members across all parties of the Regulations Review Committee, on its inquiry into Parliament’s legislative response to future national emergencies. That made, essentially, three rules of thumb.

Clear as a bell, coming off the Christchurch experience, the first was that executive powers to override enactments should exist only in so far as is necessary in order to deal with the emergency itself and should be exercised only for that purpose—that is, no more special powers to the executive than are absolutely necessary and for the most narrow and limited of periods and processes. The second key point is that emergency legislation should incorporate safeguards—and we will come on to some of those—and the third key one is that recovery starts on day one, as the previous speaker, Eugenie Sage, has mentioned. I think all members of the Local Government and Environment Committee have had that perspective in framing up this legislation, and it is a good piece of work, it seems to me.

The controversial issues were really around the override of existing enactments. I am very pleased that the advice of the Regulations Review Committee was taken on board and that members of the Local Government and Environment Committee required the executive to justify the presence of each and every one of the Acts that it is seeking to have the power to override by Order in Council. It has deleted, from the list initially proposed, eight Acts that are now no longer—and I will not read them all out, but most notably including the Public Finance Act. I think that that shows that the Local Government and Environment Committee has done its work by consensus, with great diligence, and I really appreciate that the executive has been open enough to that process to justify the inclusion of the Acts that it wanted to override.

The tricky part too is what happens when you want to add by Order in Council a further Act to the list. The committee has helpfully clarified that you would need the near-unanimous support of party leaders and an overview by the Regulations Review Committee if that was going to occur. That seems like not a perfect compromise, but a reasonable compromise. It is not too rigid, and it allows for the fact that something might happen when the House is not sitting, and rather than call the House back, it provides a backup process that does not require the House. So that was about as far as members were able to get on that.

For the various other checks and balances most of the best practice has been adopted. Probably the only thing that I draw attention to is at the top of page 4 of the report where there was a suggestion by some members that clause 8(3) and clause 16(6) be deleted. Those clauses limit judicial scrutiny and, unfortunately, they have been retained. I think as this evolves—God forbid we get any further emergencies—those will eventually probably pass into history. That is all I wanted to contribute.

This is probably my last contribution before the Christmas break. I wish all members the very happiest of Christmas and holiday good wishes. There has been a lot of cooperation in the House of late, and I think it is a good omen for the new year. Thank you very much.

E Te Mana Whakawā Tuarua, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou katoa, e ngā mema o Te Whare Pāremata o Aotearoa. In briefly taking a call on the Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Recovery Bill, I want to acknowledge the excellent constructive collaboration we have had with members of the Opposition. This is not a completely unique experience for me in this House, but it is a relative rarity that we have had absolute commitment from, I think, all parties in this House, to see that the people of Kaikōura, in particular, but even further afield here in the Wellington region are well supported in the recovery phase of this process, as we recover from the Kaikōura sequence—the series of earthquakes and subsequent damage that has resulted.

I do want to point out that there were a few areas of contention between Government and Opposition members. I personally felt quite strongly that the powers did need to be broad enough in their geographic scope, given consequences of the earthquake that may even now not be fully known or understood—for instance, here in the Wellington region we have challenges around the port of Wellington. It is built on land that is often described as reclaimed; much of the port land, in fact, was thrust up out of the ocean in 1851 during that last massive earthquake we had here in Wellington. The land is unstable and there are several operational difficulties that the port still faces. I was quite keen to see this legislation broad enough in its geographic scope. Notwithstanding the constitutional concerns of certain academics, I wanted to make sure that this bill was broad enough in its geographical scope to be able to ameliorate the port, get it back working, to be able to see the exports flowing out of our region overseas to the benefit of New Zealanders—in particular, residents of Wellington Central and the wider Wellington area, which I am delighted to live in.

This is an important, necessary, and urgent piece of legislation. It has been very responsibly handled by this House. It has gone through the Local Government and Environment Committee, which has been masterfully chaired by my friend and colleague Scott Simpson, the honourable member for Coromandel, but I do acknowledge across the House the collaboration from other parties, along with Mr Simpson, Sarah Dowie, Joanne Hayes, Nuk Korako, Matt Doocey, and myself as the permanent Government members of the committee. This is something that we should actually collectively be proud of achieving for our country. We are a mature and responsible democracy, and this bill is evidence of that.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I am very pleased to speak in support of this bill at its third reading. As the Māori electorate member for Hurunui, Kaikōura, Marlborough, and Wellington, it gives me great pleasure to tautoko this bill. I do not intend to traverse all of the details, but I would like to just add my thanks to Minister Brownlee, the Local Government and Environment Committee, and the officials who have been working tirelessly these past few weeks to draft up and tease out all the issues within this legislation. This is the third in the trifecta of bills that we are doing to address the issues raised by the Kaikōura earthquake. So I do acknowledge them for their work, especially this week, and, in particular, the Government members who, while working on the bill, had to deal with their own earth-shattering news, but stayed focused. They stayed focused on the task this week, and they were able to come up with a well-examined bill, which has some very useful amendments.

This bill is temporary. It is tailored and it is tightly defined. We are talking about override powers, so we would expect those constraints to be put in place. I believe that the select committee has done a very good job to put those parameters in place with this piece of legislation.

Like I said, it does cover a broad geographic area. I am particularly pleased because one point I raised at the first reading was the issue around a single iwi representative on the review panel. I noted the difficulties given the actual number of iwi that are involved in the affected areas, from the North Island right through to the South Island. I am pleased that the committee has taken that on board and made the requirement less prescriptive, so that it is actually just ensuring that there is one representative on that review committee who is familiar with tikanga Māori and mātauranga Māori. I believe that is a sensible way of dealing with those sensitive issues that may arise when a Minister is proposing an Order in Council, so I do commend the committee for coming up with that very constructive amendment.

Just to conclude, tomorrow morning at 5 a.m. there are some buses leaving Christchurch. Those buses will be taking back whānau who have been evacuated by the earthquake. Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu is putting on those buses to take those whānau back home. I believe, from my discussions with the whānau, that they are very proud of the way that Parliament as a whole has responded. They are very grateful for what we are doing here as a Parliament to pass this legislation, because this directly impacts those people. But I think that their jumping on that bus tomorrow morning is a sign that the recovery is under way. It is a positive sign for Kaikōura, and for the hapū as well, that those families have had a bit of rest and respite and now are up to making the trip back home, to start the work that will need to be done to get their lives back to normal, back home in Kaikōura.

That is what this legislation is all about. We want to see those affected communities back in business again, up and running again, and this legislation is an important part of all of the suite of legislation that will be needed to do the work that is required. It is not going to happen overnight. It will be a day-by-day thing, and it probably will stretch into some months, even years, before all of the work is completed. But this is a really important first step, and I am very proud to be a member in this House when we have worked so collaboratively, in a cross-party sense, to work on all these pieces of legislation over the past 2 weeks. Yes, I am very proud, and I am looking forward to seeing those works continue and to those families getting their lives back together, back in Kaikōura, so that we can see that thriving community up and running and back in business once again. Without further ado, I will commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. Huri noa i Te Whare nei e mihi atu ana ki a koutou katoa. I am the last speaker in the third reading of the Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Recovery Bill. Speakers before me have very much critiqued a lot of the technical points of the bill, and also the very quick journey that this bill has had through the House from the first reading.

Can I first of all just acknowledge and remember the two people who actually perished during this terrible event. I acknowledge their passing and also the terrible trauma following that, particularly for their whānau. I also would like to acknowledge all of those who were injured and those who have lost property and possessions and all of that.

I want to also acknowledge the previous speaker, my whānau, my whanauka, Rino Tirikatene, because I know that along with Stuart Smith, the MP for Kaikōura, he was there right at the beginning of the emergency and continued through. I also want to take the opportunity in this House to again acknowledge those emergency workers, who worked tirelessly, and even my own whānau up in Takahanga Marae, Ngāti Kuri, who, along with a number of other services up there, opened their doors. That is a true reflection of who we are and what we do as New Zealanders.

The other thing, though—as part of a quick reflection on this bill—is what a great country we live in. We are world leaders in a lot of different aspects of things, and I think back to giving our women the vote first, or race relations, or Treaty settlement processes. One thing we have become particularly renowned for, unfortunately, because we actually live along the ring of fire, is our incredible response to earthquakes. What is becoming quite well-known across the world is the way that we have developed legislation within our Parliament to address those things that need to be addressed, through emergency, through recovery, and through actual rebuild. This bill reflects the ongoing work that parliamentarians do from all sides of the House. Looking at the way that this bill was actually shepherded through the various processes of this Parliament, it was a pleasure to be able to sit here with all parties and be able to contribute as we did collectively, in collaboration, to come up with this—what I think, again, is a fine piece of legislation.

The other part of this is that we have to think back to everyone who goes and helps victims of any sort of major event like an earthquake. We have to think about when that emergency part is finished, and I think that those coaches going back north to Kaikōura from, I would believe, my own marae, Tūahuriri, in some ways signals the end of the emergency, but, actually, what it does is it heralds the beginning of the recovery. It is during that period, when the media focus and all that leaves, that the people are left—well, not left, but they then go back and pick up the pieces of their lives after the event. We are thinking of them at that time, particularly around Christmas and New Year—you know, that Christmas cheer. That particular community, right across there—North Canterbury, Kaikōura, Marlborough—is resilient as well. And we know something about resilience, being Cantabrians, because we have been through this and we know what they are going through.

On that note, I am honoured to be able to be the last speaker here, and to just talk a little bit about the journey of this bill, and the reflections of people who really did give—volunteers; these are the real soul of our communities—to actually help people who are victims of this event.

This may be my last speech in the House before Christmas. Can I just say to all of my colleagues from both sides of the House: meri Kirihimete, ngā mihi ki Te Tau Hou. Merry Christmas, and a happy New Year. Nō reira, I have a great honour to commend this bill to the House. Ngā mihi.

Bill read a third time.

The House adjourned at 5.02 p.m.