Graham Kennedy: Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Graham Kennedy: Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13941] 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 I begin by reiterating the assurance that I offered in the first reading and Russel Norman offered in the second reading of our intent to approach this very constructively with the Government and with other colleagues and parties. We appreciated the very constructive comments of Minister John Carter before dinner. He assured us that the Government was genuinely trying to ensure cross-party support. We appreciate that and we give a reciprocal assurance that we are doing what we can to arrive at that place as well. 
It will not be lost on members that we have our concerns with the bill. We do not dispute the need for legislative enactment to facilitate a fast recovery. There is common ground there. I happen to live and have a residence in Christchurch. We had mild damage; it was nothing compared with that experienced by the Minister Brendon Burns or others. I extend our personal sympathy on that basis. But we did have damage and we have had the trauma of the experience of the earthquakes themselves and of walking around town talking to people. I feel it in the same way. I pledge the Green Party’s commitment to facilitating a fast and effective recovery scheme. Where the point of discussion is at the moment is that the Green Party deeply believes that there should not be any derogation from the usual constitutional principles of the relationship between the executive and the legislature—and for that matter the judiciary—simply because we are moving out of an emergency and into a reconstruction period. 
It is for that reason the Greens are putting forward six typescript amendments in my name to try to ensure that the minimum constitutional requirements of the New Zealand constitution as we understand it to be are not brought into jeopardy in the rebuilding after an earthquake in one city. It is no disrespect to Christchurch or to fellow citizens in my own city to say that our collective interest in which I share in the reconstruction of our city must not come at the expense of the constitutional integrity of this country. There must not be the slightest threat of that happening. I do not think that that is being sensational at all. When we look at the extreme nature of the powers that may be ceded to the executive branch of our Government tonight I think this is a statement that is well considered and should be taken seriously. 
We rest the submission of our typescript amendments on the basis that the powers as they are established in the current version of the draft bill are excessive to the purpose. The extent to which we can narrow our differences is the extent to which we get collective agreement around the House. We will work constructively in the next hour or two on that basis. I do not accept the argumentation that the Regulations Review Committee has in place everything that is required to assure New Zealanders that the execution of the executive’s powers under the bill would be sufficiently safeguarded. We do not think that that is the case. To the extent it is that is fine but to the extent it is not then the current draft of the bill needs to be hauled in a bit. 
With the Chair’s permission I will very quickly address each of the six typescript amendments that have been put forward in my name for the Green Party. They address six different points. The first is judicial review the second is the limitation of the scope of the powers the third is the sunset clause the fourth is accountability to Parliament the fifth is community participation and the sixth is what I would call municipal transparency. 
The first has been touched on. We would suggest that in clause 6(3) we add at the end of that paragraph the words “unless a High Court Judge determines that fundamental principles of justice will be compromised by not allowing a case to be heard.” I have just heard Charles Chauvel say that he does not think that is necessarily the perfect solution. Of course we are open to the suggestion of alternative wording. Members will understand that this was done hastily. We had considered the possibility of simply saying “without the consent of the Attorney-General.” 
Charles Chauvel 
: Why not delete it? 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM 
: It is possible to delete it; in fact that would have been our preferred position. I would support the deletion but if it is not to be deleted then it needs to be qualified either by the consent of the Attorney-General or the role of the judiciary. Otherwise the executive basically has untrammelled power under this bill. That is unacceptable. That is point one. 
Point two is to do with the limitation on scope. We have touched on this—all of us. There are 22 Acts in clause 6(4). I listened to Minister Brownlee saying a moment ago that it was considered whether we could get an exhaustive list and then it was established that we could not. It does not follow I suggest that we therefore open up the New Zealand statute book to potential overriding given that there is a supremacy clause in the bill and that if an Order in Council is repugnant contravenes or is incompatible with any other provision of a statute except for the five constitutional Acts it overrides them. It is a supremacy clause. We do not go from having a recognition that a list of 22 Acts is not exhaustive to having a supremacy clause over the whole of the statute book of New Zealand. That is slightly overstretching the case. I suggest that we are honour-bound to identify the Acts. If there are 22 then there are 22. If there are more then they can be added in due course. This Parliament would not oppose additional Acts as long as they are specific. But we should not accept a blanket executive power roaming across the statute book in the name of recovering the buildings of Christchurch. If we did—just to highlight the ridiculous breadth of the bill as it is currently drafted—as it is written we could allow Ministers relevant to the Canterbury earthquake to have our head of State declare that rape theft and bribery are no longer crimes anywhere in New Zealand. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Oh that’s ridiculous! 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM 
: I know it is ridiculous. Of course it is ridiculous and if it is ridiculous then we should not allow it. We are not disagreeing on the reality I say to the Minister in the chair the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery; we are disagreeing on the constitutional nature of our obligations. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How does that meet the purpose clause? 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM 
: I would not put it past Minister Smith to find a rationale. 
Let us move on because I think the Minister has just understood the point that we are getting at. With regard to the 6 months provision pertaining to clause 7(3) we suggest that there be an omission of “1 April 2012” and a substitution of “15 March 2011”. We suggest making that change in clauses 7(3) 15(1) and 17(b). We suggest that there is a further subclause clause 17(2) which states that “… if it appears by 15 March 2011 that further reconstruction is required the Minister by lodging a parliamentary notice of motion can extend the expiry provision for a further 6 months to 15 September 2011”. I heard Charles Chauvel argue that there was no need to bring it forward to within such a short time frame. I suggest that 18 months is too long for a blanket power like that. A lot happens in 18 months. I respectfully suggest to the Minister that the Government consider making the period shorter and renewable so that Parliament can revisit the renewable issue of the bill with good intent after 6 months or for whatever further period is required. It should be fewer than 18 months. 
I understand that some support has been expressed for the insertion of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and we appreciate that. We still adhere to the suggestion that more individuals from Christchurch and the Christchurch City Council should be nominated to ensure a greater local involvement in the reconstruction effort. That is an issue at the margin but we think it is important that there is seen to be greater local community participation. As Russel Norman mentioned the Prime Minister indicated in question time last week that he would ensure that that would be the case so it is open to the Government to follow through with that prime ministerial undertaking.