Cosgrove Clayton: Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill — Procedure First Reading Second Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill — Procedure First Reading Second Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13921] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I will take only a brief call. By affirmation at least I would argue that most of the MPs in the House support the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill. 
It is an issue of priorities. I make the comment and I think Phil Goff referred to this that part of the reason we have to date had no loss of life acknowledging that possibly two individuals are still in critical condition in Christchurch hospital is the building standards we have maintained over time. I was formerly Minister for Building and Construction and I note in passing that there was quite a bit of criticism some years ago. I think “nanny State” was one of the terms levelled at the level of scrutiny and standard required and—in some respects quite rightly—the time it took to get a building up and get it completed. It is interesting to note that those criticisms have dissipated and quite rightly so because our building code has proved its worth and our building standards have proved their worth. I note Minister Brownlee’s—or was it Minister Carter’s—comments acknowledging the fact that there is concern that we do not want the cowboys back throwing up boxes willy-nilly and creating further difficulty for us down the track. Although the legislation contemplates a fast-track procedure for a number of processes there is acknowledgment from the Government and also the Opposition that we want it done properly. 
I also say that one of the biggest fears that is starting to come out from the communities is the question of whether people will be able to build on existing land. I think the local councils need to provide at least an intention and some direction. Obviously they cannot be definitive. I believe 100 geotechnical engineers are out on site testing land to see whether it is still suitable for construction. We have to wait for their verdict but I personally believe that a signal needs to be sent that it will be the intention and objective to allow people to build on their existing land pending— 
Nicky Wagner 
: Of course that’s what we want to do. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I thank the member but I do not think I was addressing her; I was talking about the local authorities. People are looking for some direction and my personal view is it should be the objective and intention—as I was saying I say to Ms Wagner—to allow people to build where they are now pending geotechnical and engineering advice. In some areas we do not know what is down there; there may well be a void. I think it was Mr Carter who said to us in a briefing that the only area where we could avoid liquefaction was probably up his way. We have lived with liquefaction. It is not a new concept; it is an old concept that we have lived with for many many years. But people need to have some confidence restored. 
Let us look at the example of Pegasus Bay in my patch which is a brand new town being built basically on sand. With the new technology and the higher standards that the Environment Court’s decision from memory required those developers to build to there was almost no earthquake damage. I was there the other day. I think that a wine glass was lost in the cafe some Gib was cracked and a few bottles of wine came out in the general store but generally at least on the surface everything appears to be intact. I say to the people of Canterbury that technology has existed in recent years that allows places like the Palm Islands in the United Arab Emirates to be built. I have stood there; basically sand has been poured into the sea to create land and people can live there habitably. People need to have a relative degree of confidence that they can return to the plot of land they have pending of course issues related to geotechnical matters and engineering. 
I think the local authorities need to get that signal out there. It does not bind them into a position; I know that they will not want to be bound into a position until they have the relevant technical advice. But I think people in Canterbury are looking for that direction. There is a lot of uncertainty especially in coastal areas around my way. 
We support this bill and I reiterate Minister John Carter’s comments about civil defence. It is impossible to train for every contingency especially when we are dealing with a massive volunteer force. Many of the civil defence folks have just walked in without any training at all in many cases. They have manned the food banks and water stations and others have put on the yellow jacket and have got into it. Many have had the benefit of training for coordinating activities. Yes there have been some strains and still are in respect of people getting access through telephone lines to necessary resources. I say to the Minister of Civil Defence that we need to continue to work on giving people swifter access through the telephone lines to the relevant inspectors people and resources they need because when the state of emergency is lifted—hopefully tomorrow at noon—a degree of uncertainty will be created again. 
Certainty was created over the last week in my patch and in others that the welfare post was where one went to get assistance whether it was with accommodation trauma counselling food or water. Those welfare posts will I assume be dissolved and the business as usual agencies will go and pick up that strain. We need to make provision in the coming days for things like ongoing and easy access to trauma counselling. That access has been very good and people have been able to get it with ease. It would be difficult and a shame if people then had to revert to some sort of bureaucratic model maybe through their general practitioner or otherwise to get trauma counselling which in many cases they need. They may not realise that they need it now but they will need it in coming days. 
I simply reiterate the issues that we have raised previously and say that I accept that these are wide-ranging powers. I note that the Green member who spoke neglected to say that these are very very strange times. This is a time when we need swift action but also we need to state for the record that there need to be safeguards. It would be inappropriate if these powers went beyond emergency recovery. We have assurances from Ministers and I take those Ministers at their word that those powers will not be extended. I assume that we will gain those same assurances from the commissioners yet to be appointed and from other public figures like the mayors. But we will raise some issues through the Committee stage and ask for feedback from Ministers in order to provide assurances on the record that these powers which are very wide ranging and can be used very effectively will not be abused—which is probably the incorrect word to use—or used for surreptitious means at any level of government whether it be central or local authorities. 
I welcome the passage of this bill and I support it.