Adams Amy: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Adams Amy: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:18166] 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 I rise to make a contribution in this Committee stage on the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill to push back on what I keep hearing from members on the other side of the Chamber. Mr Chauvel said there was no need to be doing this in urgency. Mr Burns the speaker who has just resumed his seat was pushing back on the concept of rushed legislation implying somehow that we should be taking this much more slowly. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: No no “considered”. 
AMY ADAMS 
: That is what they said. No no that is what they said I say to Ms Dalziel. I am not sure how Brendon Burns can in the same contribution talk about the very valid fear we all have about people being out of their houses and facing winter with no heating yet say we should not be rushing this. I do not know where Mr Chauvel is coming from when he says that this bill does not deserve urgency. It does deserve urgency and the way we have developed and delivered this legislation is exactly what needed to happen and I commend the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery for doing it. 
This final draft of the legislation was approved as I understand it through the Cabinet process only on Monday and it was in this House and released on Tuesday. That is when I first saw it; that is when everyone first saw it. As someone living in Canterbury living with this and dealing with people—as I know that all Canterbury MPs are—I say that this is urgent. This is urgent and there is a rush. I cannot accept anybody saying we should slow down. We should not slow down. We need to do this as well as we can but as quickly as we can. I am no apologist for getting this done quickly. On the contrary we have to do it fast. We have to move fast and for anybody to stand in this Chamber and say it is not urgent is a complete insult to the people of Canterbury. 
The other thing I want to push back on is the comment we have heard a couple of times now from the other side of the Chamber about comments made at the Local Government and Environment Committee by the Christchurch City Council when they saw the final copy of this bill. I have no doubt they are right as to when they saw the final version of the bill. But let us not confuse that with the suggestion they were not involved in discussing the concept and the framework from the outset—they were; they absolutely were. In fact the first thing the deputy mayor said at the select committee was that we had a council commitment an acceptance and an agreement to the framework and to the concept. Council members may not have seen the final version of the bill before Tuesday—neither did I—but every one of those organisations has been involved in these discussions from the outset. I do not think the Minister could have done more to talk with them along the way as this process developed without holding it up. 
To suggest that councillors first heard of the bill at 4 o’clock on Tuesday is a complete nonsense. They have been involved as Selwyn District Council Waimakariri District Council Environment Canterbury and Ngai Tahu have acknowledged they have so let us not buy into this suggestion that Christchurch City Council did not know about the bill until late on Tuesday. That is a nonsense. It has been involved from the outset. It has bought into it and supported it and the deputy mayor confirmed that as a council it supports the concept and has done so all the way through. I think that needs to be made very clear and put on the record. 
I will not accept that there is any way to approach this matter except as a matter of urgency. We have to get it right and the mere fact that the Minister and his officials have been working through the night to keep making sure that anything that is picked up is fixed is commendable. Far from not doing his job he is doing his job for the people of Canterbury to the utmost of his ability and absolutely to the level we require. He is getting this done quickly but he has ensured that any person who makes a sensible suggestion is having it fed through into the legislation right up to the last minute. I think that should be commended and this Committee should be supporting it. Rather than looking for excuses to slow down this process members should be doing what they say they will do which is to get in behind it and make sure it works. 
If we want to know what playing politics will look like it will look like sitting on the sidelines and throwing stones from day one. Anybody who will do that is not part of the solution; they are looking for a way to make this Government look bad. I know that the people of Canterbury know that this Government is working hard to get their problems fixed as a matter of urgency. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: You should be ashamed of yourself. 
AMY ADAMS 
: I am not ashamed of myself I say to Ms Dalziel because I want to see this dealt with as a matter of urgency. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: That is outrageous. 
AMY ADAMS 
: What is it outrageous to suggest we deal with this urgently? That is a nonsense. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: How dare you? I have written to every Minister on the Cabinet Committee with decent sensible suggestions. 
AMY ADAMS 
: I have worked with this Minister on my issues from my constituents and they have been dealt with every time. I do not need to go to the media. I deal with it I work with the Minister and I work hard for my constituents and I will continue to do so as a matter of urgency because this is urgent.