Smith Nick: Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Smith Nick: Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13959] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment)  
on behalf of the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery 
: 
 I move  
That the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill be now read a third time 
. Firstly I compliment all members on the very constructive debate that occurred over the Committee stage of this bill particularly given the very difficult issues that we confront with regard to the recovery and reconstruction of New Zealand’s second-largest city after what I think will go down in history as New Zealand’s most costly natural disaster. I compliment the Minister Gerry Brownlee on the work that he has put in over the last 10 days. Mr Brownlee and other members of the House—and I acknowledge Brendon Burns and Amy Adams—have had their own properties severely damaged in this earthquake and the way in which the Minister and other members have worked cooperatively to bring this legislation to the House so quickly is I think a great credit to him and to the other members. 
It is interesting to reflect in the debate in this Chamber that on the occasion of the tragic Napier earthquake which my colleague Chris Tremain mentioned in the Committee stage it took 3 months until April 1931 for legislation to come before Parliament to help the community of Napier to respond to that earthquake. It is a credit to us I believe to have brought legislation together so quickly in just 10 days 80 years later to respond to this issue. 
I also acknowledge in particular my own officials from the Ministry for the Environment. They have been working incredibly long hours since the middle of last week as it rapidly became very obvious that the existing legislative framework would be a barrier to Canterbury’s recovery. I acknowledge the way in which they worked through the course of the weekend as we brought this bill together. 
I think it is quite important to put on record a couple of points about the legislation. There has been the odd extravagant comment about the bill’s intent. I reinforce that Orders in Council are permitted under this legislation only if they directly relate to the recovery from and the response to the Canterbury earthquake. Those who claim that this bill will allow any Act of Parliament to be changed for any purpose are not correct and in fact it would be open to judicial review if there were attempts to bypass Acts for purposes that were not related to the massive earthquake in Canterbury. 
I will comment on a number of amendments that the Committee considered. I note that the Minister Gerry Brownlee did accept amendments where there was a good case for doing so particularly in respect of the intent of the Government to ensure that the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Commission which is in charge of overseeing the recovery of Canterbury after the earthquake should be subject to the Official Information Act. That amendment arose during the Committee stage and the bill has now been changed. 
But let me go through some of the amendments that the Government did not accept and the reasons for that. Firstly there were proposals to limit the jurisdiction of this bill as it stands only to issues in Waimakariri District Christchurch City and Selwyn District. That does not make sense because the impacts of the earthquake have gone well beyond those areas. We have people working around the clock trying to reopen State Highway 1 and the main trunk railway in Kaikoura which is outside the jurisdiction of those areas. We have had damage to chimneys and to buildings extending well into every one of the 10 districts throughout Canterbury. One issue I am considering as Minister for the Environment is that it might be sensible given the number of fatalities that have occurred historically around earthquakes and chimneys and given that I think this House shares a desire to improve the air quality of Canterbury for us to pass some extra Orders in Council to ensure that wherever possible we eliminate the chimneys and move Christchurch Ashburton and other communities on to having a cleaner air quality. So I do not believe there is a robust case to be made for limiting the jurisdiction of this bill simply to those three districts. Quite frankly the issues go beyond them. 
There was the proposition that this bill should cover only those Acts that have been specifically identified. We had a pretty hard crack at trying to identify and be upfront with Parliament about the Acts that we think we would need to move around and obviously the Resource Management Act the Building Act the Acts that deal with the Earthquake Commission and other Acts will require some Orders in Council to be issued. But when we look at the Acts of Parliament that govern the region of Canterbury we see Acts that specifically deal with the Summit Road the Christchurch-Lyttelton road tunnel the University of Canterbury Christ’s College and the port companies. It was not possible in the very short period in which we needed to respond to the people of Canterbury to specifically list and identity every one of those Acts and that is why it is important that this bill has some flexibility. 
It has been suggested that we need to specifically list in this bill the skills required of the commissioners. We had a bit of a crack at doing that within the time frame. I do not necessarily disagree with the proposals that were put forward although I would note that one of the most important skills will be ensuring that we rebuild Canterbury and Christchurch in such a way that they might become more resilient to a future earthquake which is highly probable in the future. That applies particularly to the infrastructure and the buildings that will be rebuilt. So I do not think it is a wise move to be quite specific about those skills albeit we take on board the views that the Opposition members have expressed on the skill set. I do not necessarily disagree that those skills are relevant when making those appointments. 
There have been amendments seeking to add extra representation from Christchurch on the commission. I do not think we should take a view that the commission is representative. If members want to run the argument that for instance Christchurch should have additional commissioners I have to say to them that the scale of the earthquake in Selwyn was very large. The member who represents Waimakariri and Kate Wilkinson have also made play of the scale of the impact on Kaiapoi and having seen some of that firsthand I know there is no doubt that there has been a massive impact in that area. I think it is important that each of those territorial authorities certainly has a voice on the commission. To start to double up their representatives would not necessarily get the commission on to the right footing for the recovery. 
There have been objections to the issue of retrospectivity. I tell members that we have to be pragmatic here. It is my view that there will need to be an element of retrospectivity to some of the changes that will be necessary to make the recovery as smooth as possible and that is why we need to take a pragmatic view. There may be a need for this Parliament to consider further legislation as we work through the humongous issues associated with the recovery from the earthquake in Canterbury. But to have this bill in place as early as this in order to enable the Government to get the commission up and running is what this Parliament needs to do in response to Canterbury’s hour of need. This legislation is about providing a short sharp response that will enable us to move quickly from the civil emergency which has been exceptionally well handled into the recovery phase and make sure that not a business or a household is delayed for a day further than is absolutely necessary in its recovery. 
Yes there has been some debate about this legislation making provision for 18 months’ recovery. Quite frankly my view—and it comes from the best knowledge that we have 10 days post-earthquake—is that it will take 18 months for Christchurch to recover. That may change; it may be longer. I suspect the recovery is more likely to be at the longer end of that time period and if we look at similar communities whether they be San Francisco Kobe or other areas that have suffered massive earthquakes we see that my view of an 18-month period being required is realistic. 
Again I commend this bill to the House. I thank members for their constructive contributions. This bill is what we need to do as a Parliament to give Canterbury the capacity to recover as quickly as possible from this massive quake.