Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): I'm extremely disappointed by the speech that's just been delivered and I'll tell you why. It lacks the sort of electoral ambition that I would've thought would've been more to the fore from a party like ACT. We could be in six months' time in a situation where Mr Court you're the Minister so think about that list of things that you've just suggested—that Mr Court has just suggested Mr Speaker—should be done by the Government. What would be the levers that would let him be able to do that? All this bill does is make way for good things to happen for people who need relief and need encouragement and need to be able to be certain about the activities they take for their recovery.I have listened over and over for a very long time to the people who say this type of bill confers Henry VIII" powers it's a constitutional outrage etc. etc. Well it's Parliament that's doing it and that makes a whole lot of their arguments fall to one side. I heard the previous speaker Ms Sage saying that this was a dreadful thing and she wants to take out clause 19 because that would allow other Acts of Parliament to be brought into the regime and altered through the Order in Council process. Well if Parliament decides today that that's what's necessary to keep things moving in a recovery then that is under our arrangements constitutionally acceptable. I just get so annoyed by people who sit in their cloistered environments having no idea of what it's like for people who are on the end of the worst effects of this disaster.So we are supporting this legislation. There are a number of things in the minority view that the National Party have appended to the Governance and Administration Committee report which make it clear that there are aspects we don't agree with. There are some things that we would've liked but it would be completely churlish to turn round and say we're not going to vote for this and it would be a withdrawal of support for the people who are so adversely affected not only now but will be for literally years to come in the areas that are affected by or covered by this bill.I was surprised too to hear the suggestion really from the last two speakers that decisions that might be made under this bill will be sort of rushed and ill-considered and that that would lead to decisions that were bad and didn't end up having a great positive outcome. Well I can think of 100000 houses three waters the media merger the polytech debacle health waiting list and six out of 10 kids not going to school every day—all decisions made under the proper provisions of Parliament and are a mess. So no system that you might choose to use is going to guarantee that all decisions that are made as a consequence of a piece of legislation are going to be perfect.I've got to say too my experience has been that if a decision is made it creates a degree of certainty. Even if it's not the best decision it creates a degree of certainty. If it can go one step further and provide a degree of choice for the people who are on the end of whatever it is that the decision is about then that makes it just all the more palatable. So I think the idea that we should be having some sort of a perfect piece of legislation is absolute nonsense.The only thing I'd agree with Mr Court on is that this fails to recognise that there needs to be some single source of accountability for the recovery. At the moment it's far too diffused. The member raised the issue of well who's making a decision about managed retreat for example. It's a huge issue. It's got massive effect potentially on other parts of New Zealand for all sorts of other conditions geologically that people face in their place of occupation and it does need to be managed in the context of this disaster so that we don't get that unintended consequence of all sorts of other things. But there's nothing clear that you could point to and say well that's where the go-to place is for all of these sorts of problems and that's something that would have to be rectified. That's something you could do Mr Court in the future perhaps in a role such as this.For all of its faults this is a bill that does enable those who have responsibility to move things forward. It is far from a situation where a Minister wakes up in the morning with a good idea decides to change a piece of legislation gets it all written up flicks it through a process and gets it done as would've been the case under Henry VIII times. It has got layers of accountability in it and I think those while they are expeditious are appropriate to make sure that the people who need this legislation to get on with their lives are able to do exactly that. That's why we're supporting the bill today."