Burns Brendon: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Burns Brendon: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:18164] 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 It was interesting to hear the member opposite Cam Calder talk about what was the first visit to Christchurch for him and maybe for some other members of the select committee since the 22 February quake and to hear from him how different it is to see even if one has seen it on television and in the newspaper the scale of destruction that has been wreaked on our city by that awful disaster. But I have to say that living in Christchurch throughout the last 7 weeks and indeed over the last 7 months is another layer of experience. That is why I took great exception to the comments made by Louise Upston earlier about Opposition members supposedly engaging in petty politics in respect of this bill and these issues. If it is petty to advocate for my constituents who have no running water who in many instances have no toilets and who have broken homes then I plead guilty to being petty. If it is political to advocate for businesses that have faced enormous frustration in the Christchurch central business district to get access to their premises so that they can get hard drives and stock and have some hope of continuing their businesses and keeping people in jobs then I plead guilty to being petty. If it is petty to say that thousands of Cantabrians will be cold this winter because they will not have new heating units installed or they will not have insulation installed to try to make sure they get through winter without getting sick and ill then I will plead guilty to being political and petty. If it is petty or political to say that it is not satisfactory the way the deputy mayor of the city council of my city learnt about the bill that will for 5 years take control of the city of Christchurch with huge impact on the city council and every other organisation institution and person across Christchurch then I am guilty of being petty. 
But along with my colleagues I have been active and I have stepped in to assist thousands of constituents who have been affected by the quakes. I acknowledge that that has been the case across the Chamber. I am not trying to be petty and political about it. I have worked with my political opponent opposite acknowledged her in meetings I have chaired and given her speaking rights. If that is being petty and political I am guilty as charged. It is absolutely critical that we take every opportunity in the very short time frame that this bill provides to get it right. 
Our experience and the experience of this Parliament is that rushed legislation is poor legislation. Almost inevitably rushed legislation requires some return to Parliament to make amendments and to correct faults that were there and not seen as the rush went through. That it is why it is so important we maximise the opportunities of the select committee and that submitters to the select committee are actually given drafts of the bill—not one lawyer at the Christchurch City Council but councillors who turned out yesterday and spent nearly half the day sitting and waiting to make their submission and hearing other submissions: councillors Yani Johanson Helen Broughton the deputy mayor Ngaire Button Glenn Livingstone Chrissie Williams and community board member Paul McMahon. They gave up their time they wanted to be there representing their constituencies they wanted to know how this bill would impact upon them but they were reduced to having to ring my colleague Clayton Cosgrove and beg for the bill to be put on the parliamentary website so they could actually see what was intended for the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority and what it meant for them as councillors and community board members. That is not acceptable and we have to point that out. If that is being petty I will plead guilty to that. The submitters learnt of the bill only from media and other sources. That is not appropriate. If members want to talk about pettiness within the select committee then I think members opposite might need to look at one of their own members who caused the chair some frustration through the course of the select committee. 
We are now in the Committee stage and we still have no Government Supplementary Order Paper which was indicated to us by a summary of the submissions in the Government’s response as being quite extensive. That is not satisfactory. That is not satisfactory when wide changes are being signalled. We need to know precisely what the Government is intending so we can avoid the risks that are there through rushed legislation. We need to maximise the chance for members of this House to give scrutiny to those Supplementary Order Papers and ensure they are going to do the best thing for our city and to make sure we actually have the best chance for real genuine community engagement in the process. 
I shall talk about that just for a moment. In Marlborough about 10 years ago as editor of the local paper I saw a very real issue around the fact that that province had the lowest wage rates in the country. I looked for a model a template to see what I could do to try to get the community behind an initiative that ended up forming the Marlborough Economic Development Trust. I got a book just printed from an American academic called Dr Michael Briand. It was a summary of how the most successful communities in the United States had rebuilt themselves and had re-engineered themselves to take up economic and other opportunities. The first and overriding principle of that book and I think of any community engagement process was inclusion. If people do not feel a part of a process they will not buy into it they will not accept its outcomes they will be cynical about it and no matter how much top-down soothing and stroking is done they will not buy into the process. That is why it is so important for the Minister to acknowledge that in the processes he is putting in place under his community forum he will allow genuine public engagement. 
It is not something that anyone wants to drag their heels on; nobody wants to see that but we must have a process that allows engagement with those with a real genuine commitment—and there are many people across Christchurch with a passionate commitment to their city who want to be involved. Businesses have had much heartache already over the last 7 weeks in terms of access. They must be represented on that panel in number. People with an interest in the heritage of our city want to be involved. They are not advocating to save every building—that is gone. I can speak from personal experience on this. My electorate office lost its entire front on 22 February in 22 seconds. I will not even dream of asking for any rescue of that building. I will not even dream of asking people to go into that building and rescue goods out of it. I acknowledge that that building is gone; it is history. But we need to maintain the maximum amount of our infrastructure in Christchurch because we will not be able to rebuild rapidly if we have every second building knocked over. We must keep a viable infrastructure—be it heritage or not—repair it strengthen it and put it back in service as soon as possible. That will assist the recovery of our city because if we only have a central business district full of cranes we will have green space across it for a generation and that will not assist those businesses that want to get back into business and are able to restart relatively quickly. 
I am immensely proud and supportive of the initiative from inner-city businesses that want to get some sense of life under way by show weekend at the beginning of November. That is a fantastic time frame but it will require the demolition—yes—of those buildings that cannot be saved but I would suggest the propping up of some buildings that can be saved and the restoration and repair of other buildings that need to be saved. We need people who can advocate on those things who can have a word in the Minister’s ear who can sit at that forum and who can say to him that these are things that need to be taken on board. Also I think represented on that forum there need to be members of the community boards that dot themselves across the city of Christchurch. It is an underused forum at the moment but it has deep connective roots into the community. 
CanCERN has sprung up in the last 6 or 7 months. It has networks right the way across just about all of the affected communities. It should be part of that forum as well. Those affected communities not represented by CanCERN deserve to have their voices also heard at that forum. We should be seeing representatives of the councils on the forum as well. We should also see members of the education and health communities there. They are hugely affected by the quake. We have dozens of schools still not fully operative. We have damage to our major hospital site and we have some damage at Princess Margaret Hospital. Those voices must be heard as we come through. There will be major public health risks in the months that follow from the quake in terms of many thousands of damaged homes. Many homes will be damp people will be overcrowded in many instances; the health voice must be represented. 
I want to see the Supplementary Order Paper to see whether there is any indication in it of what the processes are going to be in respect of the real opportunities the Minister might provide for community engagement and for community participation so we are assured that Christchurch’s voices will be heard as we all engage rapidly in the recovery of our city. Everybody wants to see it move quickly. Everybody wants to have their sector represented through a voice for them and we need to see the Supplementary Order Paper I say to the Minister as soon as possible so we can all be assured that it contains some of the changes we are advocating for.