Graham Kennedy: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Graham Kennedy: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:18198] 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 Just before lunch we were treated to a very impassioned speech by Lianne Dalziel who arguably along with Brendon Burns has an electorate most severely affected by the Canterbury earthquake. I pay tribute to both of them and to Ruth Dyson; they are from the three electorates. In September it was Waimakariri that was affected and Clayton Cosgrove I think did sterling work in assisting that community to respond. Of course the epicentre in September came from the Greendale earthquake fault which I think from memory is in the Selwyn electorate and is commonly known as “Amy’s fault”. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Oh he’s a clever boy! That’s a bit of bullying. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM 
: That is the worst I can do. We do not wish to waste the Committee’s time do we? 
In February the three electorates that were most badly affected were Christchurch Central Christchurch East and Port Hills. I pay tribute to the three members who have worked so hard for the restoration of their electorates. I know that Lianne Dalziel has had considerable deprivation and difficulty in the execution of her work and in her personal life. I know that others have too. I know that Ruth Dyson the Minister Brendon Burns and others have faced difficulties. 
None of us in Christchurch has been immune to the difficulties even in the so-called western suburbs where I come from. I come from Ilam which I share with the Minister. We have had our difficulties. We were without power. We were engaged in glorious challenges of sanitation in the garden for a long time. Restoration is required there as well. To this day I still have no office downtown; it is cordoned in the drop zone. I trundle cheerfully around Christchurch City in a campervan otherwise known as the “Greenmobile”. I go into the eastern suburbs a great deal. I have visited New Brighton Dallington Bexley Beckenham Parklands and other suburbs like Aranui where the deprivation is probably at its worst. I know what it is to work with the citizens of Christchurch who are crying out for assistance. 
None of that justifies the extent of the powers that we see in the bill here today. Earlier in the first reading debate I advanced the Green Party’s critique of first the issue of inadequate community engagement which we have addressed in our Supplementary Order Papers that I advanced this morning in the Committee; and second what we take to be excessive powers in the bill which we also addressed in our Supplementary Order Papers. I invite you the Minister and his Government to— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is bringing the Chair into the debate with the use of the word “you”. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM 
: I invite the Minister and his Government to address the Supplementary Order Papers that we have advanced in good faith with a view simply to curtailing what we take to be the excessive nature of the powers in the bill as opposed to its legitimate powers. 
Firstly I will refer to Supplementary Order Paper 235 in my name which addresses clause 15 and would insert a new subclause (4) to the effect that: “Once the Recovery Strategy is in place the Minister and chief executive must ensure that they exercise their powers rights and privileges in a manner that is consistent with the Recovery Strategy.” A wide range of unilateral powers are given to the Minister and chief executive under the proposed Act. Although we agree that it cannot and should not be business as usual after the catastrophic earthquake further checks and balances need to be put upon those extensive powers. The amendment to clause 15 would limit the emergency powers of the Minister and chief executive to a 9-month period and also after that period they would need to be consistent with a recovery strategy. 
Secondly Supplementary Order Paper 233 in my name addresses clause 70. As it stands the Government can change or override any law in this country until 2016 without any parliamentary oversight or independent checks except for the few laws that are identified as exceptions. The amendments to clause 70 would mean that the Government could change only laws that are relevant to the recovery effort in Christchurch. We would achieve this by omitting the words “(without limitation)” from subclause (3). The Supplementary Order Paper would require the Government under clause 73(1) to consult with other parties on the Orders in Council which we also take to be essential. 
Finally Supplementary Order Paper 234 in my name addresses clauses 71 and 72. In particular I draw members’ attention to clause 72. We want to insert an extra subclause (3A): “If the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Review Panel determines that a draft Order in Council is contrary to the purpose of the Act as set out in section 3 the draft Order in Council must be set down as a motion by the Minister for approval by resolution of the House of Representatives.” 
We recommended the Supplementary Order Papers in good faith. I will quote as I did this morning from law expert Dean Knight about the excessive powers in the bill particularly in clause 70: “This Bill continues the previous regime for the issue of Orders-in-Council amending primary legislation with some changes. The previous concerns about this regime are well-known. Such wide Henry VIII clauses are contrary to the democratic imperative. Particular concern was expressed about the lack of or weaknesses in checks-and-balances on the exercise of such powers. Regrettably the new regime does not adequately respond to the concerns previously raised.” That observation of Dean Knight is explicitly affirmed in the analytical paper that the Minister has produced. The analytical paper addresses each of the recommendations from the Legislation Advisory Committee the Law Society and Dean Knight pertaining to clause 70. 
In response the Minister says in respect of the Legislation Advisory Committee: “No change proposed. Want powers to be consistent with the previous Act.” That is the very point of criticism that Dean Knight and the Green Party are advancing. The paper states: “A key focus of the legislation relates to timely decision-making.” Timely decision-making is insufficient reason not to proceed. In respect of the Law Society the Minister says: “No change proposed. These are exceptional circumstances. See Cabinet papers for policy rationale.” We have. The argument in favour of clause 70 is not sufficient and has been rejected by constitutional experts. The paper makes the same point with regard to Dean Knight; I will not reiterate it. 
I will conclude by saying once again what I said this morning and I will quote the Law Society. I do so more in sorrow than in anger but it is with deep sorrow because it concerns arguably one of the most fundamental issues that can come before the House: the granting of excessive powers to the Government Cabinet and one person the Minister. “In general” says the Law Society “ ‘Henry VIII’ clauses such as clause 70 … are contrary to the rule of law and good legislation principles”. Let that be written into the record of this House just as we are about to adopt these powers. Let it be written into the record that it is contrary to the rule of law and good legislation principles and “contrary to the democratic imperative” as Dean Knight put it. Let us be clear and honest and transparent about we are doing here—those of us who are chatting; those of us with our heads down. 
What do we have to say to the people of New Zealand when we are about to adopt these laws tonight? Will we say they are contrary to the rule of law? No we are saying: “Oh to hell with it. We’ve got an extraordinary event on our hands. We have an emergency on our hands and we’re going to rebuild Christchurch so we will just override the democratic imperative—simple as that.” Where there is a need for legislative amendments or suspensions in order to facilitate the recovery programme a better alternative would be for Parliament to dedicate House time for those matters to be dealt with by legislation as they arise. That is what we the Green Party proposed but we are talking to deaf ears. That is clear. I say to the Minister with great respect to him to his officials and to his Government which is pushing this legislation through that the time will come when we will regret that.