Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13934] 
Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 I want to make just a brief contribution on the second reading of the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill. I congratulate Ministers Gerry Brownlee and John Carter on the leadership they have shown in bringing us from the point of disaster through now to disaster recovery. I also acknowledge members of Parliament from across the House for their generosity in the time they have given to the people of Canterbury. Those of us who live further away from the earthquake—I live in South Canterbury - North Otago—and who watched it only from a distance with minimal disruption to our lives can only admire the way in which members from across the House have dealt with this and will continue to deal with it. 
Hon David Parker 
: Is Oamaru in South Canterbury now? 
JACQUI DEAN 
: The member should have listened. I did say “South Canterbury and North Otago”. I could go on to say “Central Otago— 
Hon Member 
: You represent both. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: Yes I do indeed represent both. I also represent Central Otago but we digress. 
The purpose of my speech today is to note that one aspect of the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill is to establish the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Commission. The commission is going to be established to advise Ministers and to become the conduit between local government the community and the Government. I would like to suggest as my final point that as well as the commissioners three of whom will be the mayors of the various councils—Christchurch City Council Selwyn District Council and Waimakariri District Council—joined by four others the local MPs will also have an input into the ongoing process of rebuilding for Canterbury. In making that small point I commend the bill to the House. 
Bill read a second time. 
In Committee 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence) 
: 
 I think it is appropriate that rather than debating this bill the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill clause by clause or part by part we have a wide-ranging debate through the Committee stage. I seek leave for that to happen. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Is there to be any restriction on the number of calls per individual? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: And for there to be no limitation on calls. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Members have heard the leave that is being sought. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? It appears not. Leave is granted. 
Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence) 
: 
 I rise to speak in the Committee stage firstly to tell members that the Minister in whose name the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill is will be in the chair straight after dinner. I know that members have questions of the Minister Mr Brownlee and he will be here to listen to those questions and to do his best to answer them. 
I want to make one or two points to just set the tone of the debate. I have listened to the contributions from various members and I think that the first thing that needs to be set clearly and squarely on the table is that this bill is not about this Parliament or this Government trying to run the recovery in Christchurch. It is a bill to allow this Parliament and this Government to assist the people of Canterbury but the recovery is to be driven by the people of Canterbury. That is its purpose and it is the very reason for some of the points made by members earlier about the bill being referred to the Regulations Review Committee for example and the opportunity for that committee which is chaired by an Opposition member to allow full scrutiny of any decisions made in regard to this bill. 
I think the second point that needs to be made and it is an important point is that any member can come and put a notice of motion on the Table if there is a decision taken by the Government by Order in Council. The bill allows for a motion to be debated and if the Government does not allow a debate then the Order in Council lapses. The purpose of that is to allow full and open scrutiny which not only Labour members but also Green Party members and others have asked for. They have suggested that that is a vital part of our democracy. Of course it is and that is the intention of the bill and of the Government. Indeed it is one of the reasons why we have done our best to consult as widely as we can. I know that there are some amendments on the Table. It is our intention to ensure that there is full scrutiny of any decision where a member deems it necessary. If some person in the public is worried about an issue and refers it to a member of Parliament there is that mechanism to allow the issue to be fully debated and disclosed. Some issues have been raised that the bill does not allow because they are not necessary in the way in which this bill has been established. 
This bill allows the public of New Zealand to hear the reasons for the decisions that are taken if that is considered necessary. The purpose of this bill is to allow for the recovery to be undertaken as speedily as possible but in a seemly way. The bill is to allow the people of Canterbury and particularly the leaders of the people in Canterbury to ensure that every step is taken to recover as rapidly as possible. As we heard in the House today they are keenly attuned to the needs of the people of Canterbury. They are aware that there is a state of shock and that all sorts of emotions will flow as people start to realise the impact on their lives. There will be disappointment there will be anger and there will be sadness. All sorts of emotions will flow and we will need to deal with them as best we are able. This bill will allow those concerns to be addressed. 
A member asked earlier when the state of emergency will be over. All being well if this bill passes by this House it is very likely that the state of emergency will be lifted tomorrow at 12 o’clock. So we will have a seamless transfer from a state of emergency into a state of urgency. Of course the needs of the people who need access to welfare and psychologists etc—all that sort of thing—will still remain; those needs will not disappear. The 0800 779997 number will still be there so that all of those needs will be catered for to allow continuity. We do not want any disruption. We realise that the lives of the people of Canterbury have already been disrupted so the whole objective and purpose of this legislation is to do our best to ensure that there is a smooth recovery for the people of Canterbury. We have to be concerned about their needs their worries and their issues. They have to be first. It is not about this Parliament. It is about this Parliament and the rest of New Zealand helping the people of Canterbury to get back on to their feet so that normality can be restored as rapidly as possible. I have not heard anybody in this House who does not have that as their intent. 
I know there are some amendments on the Table; they are being studied at the moment. I cannot say that they will all be adopted but we certainly are doing our best to genuinely look at whether they can be incorporated. Of course we would prefer at the end of the third reading debate for everybody in this House to agree. That may not be possible and it would be unfortunate if that were so but we want the people in Parliament and in New Zealand to understand that this Government is genuinely trying to ensure that we have a cross-party agreement on this bill because we think that that is in the best interests of the people of New Zealand. It may be that some points will be put that may not be supported; nevertheless the intention is to do our best to accept to cooperate and to ensure a smooth transition. I finish by saying that our objective is to do our best to return the Canterbury region to normality as soon as possible. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I want to raise a couple of questions. I thank the Minister in the chair the Minister of Civil Defence for noting that Minister Brownlee will be available after dinner and I note that we will be rising in about 5 minutes’ time. I will raise a couple of questions between now and the dinner break but I will not expect answers. 
The Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery was good enough to release Cabinet’s advice to us. In essence we received one paper from the Ministry for the Environment. I raise that issue and I flag it; I accept that there is pressure of time in pulling all this together from the various departments. I note from the paper that a vast number of Government departments and agencies were consulted. The date on the document is 13 September. I see though very little if anything at all in here about the responses from those departments. I know that there must have been a wide range of views and that a wide range of agencies may have had some stake in the paper but that is not reflected in it given that I was told by Minister Brownlee that it was basically “the” advice paper. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet gave no written formal advice and neither did the Department of Internal Affairs or any other agencies so I would be interested to know what response was put forward by the agencies that were consulted. 
The second issue we have is in respect of Part 2. Clause 6(4) states: “An Order in Council made under subsection (1) may grant an exemption from or modify or extend any provision of any enactment including (but not limited to)—” and I would be grateful if we could get some feedback on Acts like the Cadastral Survey Act— 
Hon John Carter 
: What clause was it? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Part 2 clause 6(4). I am not a surveyor or an expert in cadastral mapping but I would be grateful to know why that Act is included. I would also like to know about the Social Security Act given that that Act provides for quite a few waiver powers I am advised. So I ask why that Act is specifically listed in this document. I will raise those issues with the Minister and colleagues after dinner. We will also have some other issues to raise. 
I accept the need for a swift approach to this crisis and I absolutely accept the pressure that Government agencies were under just to pull things together. But it is of concern that the only advice paper that has been released or “pulled together” according to Minister Brownlee as formal advice to the Government is one paper in the name of the Minister for the Environment on 13 September. I am sure that the Minister in the chair accepts that this legislation confers on the Government very very wide discretionary powers. Even given the pressure of time I am surprised that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet the Department of Internal Affairs and the Department of Building and Housing which will have a huge interest in this have not had given that it has been a number of days since the crisis some formal written input into this legislation. I find it slightly odd that they would have provided only verbal advice. Again I accept that the paper had to be pulled together very very quickly. But it has been a number of days since we met the Minister on Friday or Saturday and I would have thought that between then and now those departments would have formalised their advice in order to if anything get on the record their advice to the Government and to ensure that they had executed their duty appropriately. 
As I say there is a wide range of agencies. Even the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs—damn near every Government department—I think have been consulted. Yet there is not any reference that I can find in the Cabinet paper as to what their views were conflicting or otherwise. I do not note that in order to be obstructive but either there was total unanimity on the part of every agency—having been a Cabinet Minister I know that that would be a unique moment in our history and I am sure that the Minister in the chair would agree—or there were different views and different flavours. That would then point us to possible risks. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I appreciate the Minister in the chair the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery being present to answer some questions. Before the break I raised some issues in respect of firstly the Cabinet paper that he was good enough to provide to us. I do not raise these issues out of any criticism. I understand that this legislation was pulled together very quickly but I note in the consultation section that a wide—almost an exhaustive—range of Government agencies were consulted. I would be grateful for some information because the difficulty I have is in knowing how those agencies responded if they did at all. I am assuming that the advice if any that was received from agencies like the Department of Building and Housing which would have a huge interest in this legislation the Department of Internal Affairs the Ministry for the Environment and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet as a central agency of course may have provided initial advice orally in order to aid with the construction of the legislation but I would have thought that—as it was signed off or conversations were had almost a week ago and as this legislation had been signalled—those agencies would have come back and provided written advice if only to place on record from themselves as agencies the fact that they had executed their duties appropriately in giving Ministers due advice. I am sure the Minister would accept that it would be unusual although I accept these are unusual and swift circumstances for agencies like the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to provide no written advice. Certainly agencies like the Department of Building and Housing provided no advice at all. 
The second issue I raise is in respect of certain items in the legislative list for modification extension or exemption in clause 6(4) in Part 2 namely the Cadastral Survey Act and the Social Security Act. I am advised that there are wide-ranging and quite discretionary powers in respect of the Social Security Act. I am not a cadastral specialist so I bow to the Minister’s and his officials’ expertise in respect of the Cadastral Survey Act. I can see the relevance for a number of other Acts but it would be interesting to know why those Acts have been included. 
I want to return to the point I have made. I understand in respect of the Cabinet paper which is only some six and a bit pages long that that is the only advice we have received. I am grateful that the Minister provided that paper to us before the debate but as I say I would have thought as this legislation was signalled after the event a week or so ago that even though the paper was signed off on 13 September agencies would have been in a position by now to provide their views. They have been consulted. That is clear. Even the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade I note has been consulted. I presume there is some relevance in terms of communicating the status of our well-being to other countries especially in respect of trade and tourism but I would have thought that those agencies would have responded to Ministers and I would have thought that Ministers would have made it a requirement as they went through to quality-control the legislation even if just to check their thinking and that of their officials. Presumably that would have also presented unless there was total unanimity amongst every Government agency consulted—and I think members would agree that that would be a unique moment in our history—some varying views on the effectiveness of the legislation which would have pointed out any risks and we could continue to work with the Government to examine those risks and perhaps resolve them in this debate. But I do come back to it. It is rather unusual that a document of six pages and two paragraphs appears to be the only written advice to Ministers in respect of this legislation. I say that not to be obstructive; I simply say it because like the Minister we want to see the best-possible legislation come out of this Chamber tonight so that he and his colleague John Carter and others can present the best-possible outcome for the people of Canterbury. But it does concern us that as I say a document of six and a bit pages under the name of one Minister is the only written advice and other agencies have been consulted but have not provided any responses at all. I would be grateful if the Minister could take a call and at least advise us whether any of the agencies consulted were opposed to or had concerns about any parts of the bill especially the wide-ranging powers. Again I say to the Minister that we accept that this is very wide-ranging and powerful legislation that technically could be abused. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery) 
: 
 I want to respond to the legitimate request that the member who has just resumed his seat Clayton Cosgrove made about knowing more about what the process was. What was released to members today is a Cabinet paper that was put together to get the sign-off for the bill being drafted into a final draft shape. The process has been such that there was firstly consultation with the three district authorities concerned—Selwyn Waimakariri and Christchurch—and representatives from the legal teams from those councils engaged with legal teams inside each of the affected ministries. So there was a relatively short informal process. That process very rapidly threw up the fact that if we were to go down the track of having an exhaustive list of what would actually be required we would be some weeks away from getting a bill that would allow things to continue and that would in particular allow for the transition from a state of emergency to one of getting on with the job. 
Although it is the case that the written advice in these circumstances is thin the fact is that there was considerable discussion and considerable input from all those agencies. It was a considered opinion of the agencies in the end that we should go down the track of saying we should get a bill that would try to describe as much as possible some of the Acts that we think may need to be altered but that we should not make that exhaustive and that we should put in a process that means we can rapidly respond as needs arise over the coming months. That is essentially the process we went through. 
Although the member is quite right to say it is desirable that everyone is comfortable about where we are going with this the reality is that we are doing something that has never been done before. We are doing this because we are dealing with an event that has never happened before. We are dealing with it speedily as a Parliament because we know tonight that there are people out there who have no idea what the future holds for them. Much of the certainty they will require in the next short while will be dependent on us having the capacity to make decisions quickly so we can give them the comfort they need about the property they own their damaged houses or the infrastructure near them that might need to be repaired—we could go on and on listing such things. 
I think the comfort members should take in this bill is that it does have a very strong purpose clause. The purpose is well defined and no Minister will be in any way looking at this bill and thinking of it as an opportunity to abuse some of the powers in it. There will be lots of constraints around that particular activity not the least of which is our commitment to keep all parties in this House informed about how things are going and about the nature of the discussions around the reconstruction. 
I also suggest that the solution suggested to us by the Labour Party yesterday—that of using the shortened disallowance provisions currently in the pandemic legislation—is perhaps not the right way to go and that a system that could see an Order in Council brought back into the House for debate was a much better way to go. I suggest that if we ever got to that point we would have to be in the same sort of situation we are in at the moment where there is widespread acceptance that it was the right course of action or we would be in some trouble. So I do not think the concern that is being expressed about the widespread powers is reasonable. 
It certainly would be interesting to see the people who are advancing that view go down to the suburbs that are all broken up across the districts and to the shelters that are operating and explain to people that they need a little more time and a much bigger process before they can come along and offer help. I know that the member who asked the question is not suggesting that. In fact I know he is more acutely aware than many of the suffering that many Cantabrians are going through at the present time. I merely make that point in anticipation of some other contributions that may come later this evening. 
The question was raised as to why the Cadastral Survey Act is in the legislation. There has been an enormous amount of land movement during the earthquake. There is a possibility that a peg for a property has moved quite some distance from where the actual boundary lines should be struck. There should be no question that there will need to be some redrawing of boundaries some realignment and there may well need to be a faster process in place to give effect to those boundaries being determined. 
Many MPs have been contacted over the last few days by people expressing concern about the way in which property transactions since the earthquake have virtually stopped in the Canterbury region and the reason for that is these sorts of things. Once we get past the aftershocks and once we get into a zone where insurers and lenders are comfortable about normal business there will be a need to check to make sure that pegs have not moved and that boundaries have not artificially shifted. That is why the Cadastral Survey Act is in the legislation. 
Although this bill has as Mr Norman pointed out earlier some very broad catch-all provisions there is a genuine attempt under clause 6(4) to list the sorts of Acts that may—and I stress may—need to have an Order in Council applied to them in order for some small aspect of those Acts to be set aside suspended or changed as a result of efforts to remediate the worst effects of this earthquake. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairman and thank you to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery for the explanation in answer to the questions that were originally posed. Picking up on a couple of comments that the Minister in the chair the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery made he assured the Committee that no Minister was seeking to abuse the powers being conferred by the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill. I think it is important to stress that the major concern about potential abuse is not necessarily a concern about the executive. It is for example about the powers that might be used or otherwise not used by councils and others under the legislation because of the exemptions being granted. Members will be keen to see the Regulations Review Committee exercise its scrutiny if this bill passes in its present form. 
The other point that the Minister made was about the need for property transactions to resume and for the parties to those transactions to have confidence. One of the major issues that has been reported today is that there is real difficulty for parties to commercial contracts gaining insurance cover because of the attitude of reinsurers as settlements come up or as contracts come up for renewal. One of the things that I think would be helpful for the Committee to hear is whether the Minister thought about trying to deal with that situation in this legislation and if not whether there is a plan at all to try to address that major concern for people who are affected by this terrible disaster. 
In terms of the detailed questions on the legislation that I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments on the first one relates to clause 6(3). This provision would enact that the recommendation of the relevant Minister in recommending to the Governor-General that an Order in Council be made “may not be challenged reviewed quashed or called into question in any court.” I ask why it was thought necessary to try to enact a clause of that nature at that stage of the process where there is only a recommendatory power and where the courts have long expressed real concern about whether these sorts of provisions in legislation are enforceable. I wonder why it was thought necessary or desirable to have that sort of provision in this legislation and it would be useful to hear from the Minister about that. 
With respect to Kennedy Graham I am not sure that the amendment he has put forward in respect of this clause would improve the situation much. As I said we would in my second reading speech on this bill we have looked at his proposed amendments over the dinner break and I will now express a view on them. The relevant amendment would amend that clause to allow a judge to exercise a discretion effectively about whether fundamental principles of justice would be compromised by not allowing a case to be heard. I am not sure whether that would remedy the situation. 
It would be good to hear the Minister’s explanation of why clause 6(3) is there. I am not sure it is capable of useful amendment. It probably should either stay or go. 
In terms of the rest of the legislation my colleague Clayton Cosgrove asked some questions about the appearance of certain provisions in the list that appears in clause 6(4). One of the questions I had was about the apparently random nature of the list. The Social Security Act 1964 is mentioned in clause 6(4)(s) but no other legislation empowering the payment of any sort of benefit is mentioned. There is no mention for example of the student loan legislation or the liable parent contribution legislation. I ask whether it was thought that that social security legislation in and of itself was sufficient to be mentioned there or whether other provisions of that nature should be dealt with. 
The rest of what I will say relates to the amendments that we saw for the first time before the dinner break. The Labour Party would not be minded to support the provisions that would bring the application of the bill back to until 15 March 2011 only. The Government has already confined the application of the legislation to 1 April 2012. We think that is a useful way to confine the legislation. We do not think coming back to the House in 6 months on this matter would be a good use of the House’s time. 
In respect of the amendment to require a certain number of members of the commission to be appointed by the Christchurch City Council we understand that it is already the subject of an undertaking from the Minister of Civil Defence John Carter that a number of the members of the commission will be directly representative of the relevant local councils. If the Minister in the chair could clarify whether that is an undertaking on behalf of the Government it would be useful. 
As I understand it the amendment that requires Orders in Council to be publicly available and presented to the House of Representatives is one that simply re-enacts the existing law. But if the Minister has a different view it would be useful to hear whether that is the case. With regard to the provision requiring Orders in Council to be made publicly available and presented to the House of Representatives within 24 hours of being made a summary of the Minister’s understanding of the current law relating to Orders in Council and their publication would be useful so that we can determine a position on that. 
Finally the amendment that would apply the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act to the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Commission seems to be a sensible way to proceed. The Minister has not provided for the commission to be subject to the provisions of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act and it would be useful to hear why the Minister does not think that Act should apply to the proceedings of the commission. Certainly it is the Opposition’s view that it should. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 Once a year I have the very good fortune to attend a memorial function in Hawke’s Bay for the 1931 Hawke’s Bay earthquake which occurred some 79 years ago. People attending that function who range in age between 79 and 102 if I recall correctly recount stories of the 1931 earthquake that are remarkably similar to some of the stories we are hearing today about the Canterbury earthquake. The Hawke’s Bay earthquake hit at 10.47 a.m. on Tuesday 3 February 1931. It killed 256 people and absolutely devastated the Hawke’s Bay region. It measured 7.8 on the Richter scale and I guess in modern times it was probably the strongest earthquake we have experienced. There were 525 aftershocks following the Hawke’s Bay earthquake as have occurred in the Canterbury region. 
The interesting thing about the Hawke’s Bay earthquake was that all the buildings in the central areas of Napier and Hastings were levelled. In fact the  
Dominion 
 newspaper of the day said that as a town Napier had been totally wiped off the map. The death toll included 161 people in Napier 93 in Hastings and two in Wairoa. Of course thousands more were injured—400 were seriously injured and ended up in hospital. The fascinating thing about that particular quake was that some 40 square kilometres of the seabed became dry land. Now when we fly into Napier airport over the areas of Pirimai and Marewa we can see all the land that came up as a result of the earthquake. The Hawke’s Bay earthquake was followed by a fire in Napier. Although the earthquake damaged many many buildings in the township it was the ensuing fire that caught a lot more buildings. The entire townscape was pretty much devastated. 
The point I want to make about this legislation tonight in comparison with what we saw in Napier in 1931 is that the recovery effort is in a totally different space. The response to the recovery of services and people being able to get on with their lives is happening far more quickly. I think we will see people getting on with their lives far more quickly and that is absolutely excellent. The rebuilding in the province of Hawke’s Bay took not just years but decades but we will see Canterbury getting back on its feet extremely quickly. I am proud to be standing here tonight to support this enabling legislation to help Canterbury get back on its feet as quickly as possible. Thank you. 
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. 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I think it is important to note that the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill is the enabling legislation for the Government as it has been quoted as saying doing whatever it takes to get Christchurch back on its feet. This is that enabling legislation. We are passing it in as rapid a fashion as is possible in this Parliament with round-the-House support for it. Given that there is not to be scrutiny other than this process it is important that the Minister in the chair the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery who is in charge of the bill and who will be that Minister for the duration of the earthquake recovery in Christchurch is here to answer some questions. 
I would like to pose some questions given that we as a Parliament are passing this legislation in an extraordinary way through all its stages. Now in the Committee stage this is our chance to ask some questions about it. I get a sense that this is a rather big rubber stamp for a rather bigger blank cheque. We know that that is important and necessary because this is the first time since 1931 that we have faced a calamity of this size and consequence. Nobody is more aware of that than I am as the MP for probably the most affected electorate Christchurch Central but we need to test and check this legislation as it goes through. It provides enormous powers to the Government the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Commission and the councils—Waimakariri Selwyn and Christchurch—as they go about the business of rebuilding their communities. 
I will ask the Minister some questions in respect of the bill. For instance we note that it provides for retrospective Orders in Council to be made in certain circumstances most particularly where there is a need to protect actions that have been taken in the period between the uplifting of the state of emergency and the making of a relevant Order in Council. I invite the Minister to give us an explanation of some of the circumstances that might be envisaged where we might see retrospective Orders in Council. I acknowledge that we will see those before the Regulations Review Committee. That is wholly appropriate but I would like to have an outline from him of the sorts of circumstances he envisages for retrospective Orders in Council. 
We know of course that there will be a limitation with regard to the processes for public consultation. That is in the very nature of the bill and that is a given but there seems to be no requirement for mayors to consult their councils and certainly not in respect of spending priorities. I would like the Minister to outline to us in some detail the processes of consultation that will be in place for councils to advise their constituents about what they are proposing to do in order to take matters through under Orders in Council to make rapid decisions. I think it is important that we know what sorts of processes are envisaged in terms of alerting the public to meetings putting adverts in the paper and alerting them to decisions that are looming. 
We know that we are in a rapid time frame but the public of Christchurch is very vociferous. It is very passionate about the heritage of our city in particular. There are many people with good beating hearts who want to play a role in ensuring that the protection of heritage is a priority. It is important that they have some sense of a process where even if it is limited and constrained by time and circumstance they will know what the council is proposing to do even if it is a matter of a time frame of a week or a month rather than the process that normally applies of a matter of many months of rights of appeal and a process involving courts if one so wishes. We know we are going past that but I think it is very important that the Minister takes a call and outlines exactly what is envisaged in respect of the process of consultation and advice to be given to constituents and councils in Christchurch Waimakariri and Selwyn. 
I also ask a question about the changes in clause 6(4) where we have 22 separate Acts listed that the Order in Council can modify extend or provide an exemption from. Then it includes the words “(but not limited to)” which potentially could be read as meaning that the Orders in Council could modify any legislation. That is a kind of breathtaking possibility and I think that the House deserves some assurance from the Minister. If the Minister did not quite catch what I was saying I am referring to clause 6(4) in respect of that clause meaning that potentially Orders in Council could modify any one of those 22 Acts. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery) 
: 
 I would like to deal with some of the questions that have been raised by speakers up to this point. I do not want to cut across anybody’s opportunity to ask questions but I do not want to lose those questions either. 
I go back to Mr Chauvel who raised a number of questions. Firstly he pointed to the Social Security Act and asked why that Act is specifically mentioned. I can give the answer very succinctly: new Social Security Act provisions come in on 27 September. The Minister for Social Development and Employment has suggested that some of those provisions may need to be suspended for the people in Canterbury. In many ways that immediately links us to the part in the bill that deals with ministerial decisions not being able to be challenged through the courts. Essentially there is a provision made for people in Canterbury around Inland Revenue Department activities around social welfare activities and around a range of other things including compliance with attendance at school and various other issues. People in other parts of New Zealand presumably could go to a judge and ask whether that is reasonable or fair. A judge may well be persuaded that it is not and go through a process of setting that provision aside. We cannot really go through that in this case. Although I accept that in other circumstances such a denial of the courts’ role in these issues would be inappropriate I do not think it is here. It would become a problem only if there was a strong view that something sinister was afoot. In this case there most certainly is not. 
Charles Chauvel also raised the issue about whether more councillors should be on the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Commission. It is worth noting that it has already been stated that the commission will be made up of the three mayors plus one Environment Canterbury commissioner plus three independent members. The idea of this is to get a very flat structure. One of the things that none of us who have been on the ground in Canterbury in the last 10 days can deny is that the districts did a brilliant job. They know what they need to reconstruct their areas. They know also that they need to corral what is business as usual—and this answers some of Brendon Burns’ questions I think—and what is reconstruction work. In that regard reconstruction work is something that those districts will have to engage with the Government on. Frankly we know that the districts do not have the money to do the work. We know that they do not have a rating base that can even spread that work over a period of time. There has to be a conduit for the councils which will each make the decisions that come through to Government. Across a district there needs to be some equity and there has to be some understanding that if we do not repair one part of the district the whole district will suffer. We need to see the commission as a very flat structure not as some new bureaucracy that is coming in to tell districts how to do things. 
I will also look at the way in which an Order in Council might be constructed. Firstly it will be on something that districts identify as a problem. Districts will then report that through the commission and the commission will engage with the Minister. We know all of this will be short-cut; we know that Ministers will talk directly to the districts. But the commission will keep an overview of all of this stuff. If there is a need to do something the commission will then request the Minister to make the decision. The Minister will need to go to a Cabinet committee. We have already said that we will make it clear to other parties in this House if there is to be an Order in Council. People will know about it. That goes also to Dr Graham’s suggested amendment about the 24-hour notice regarding any Order in Council. At the moment the Parliamentary Counsel Office is required to publish in the  
Gazette 
 any Order in Council. The fact is that if we are changing a law we want to use an Order in Council and we cannot use it if we do not tell people about it. There is no question that we are trying to hide from that process. There is a commitment to let people know before an Order in Council happens and then of course it would naturally be publicised. Any suggestion that we need Dr Graham’s amendment in order to give the public certainty would achieve nothing more than what already happens. At the moment I am told that the Parliamentary Counsel Office manages to get an Order in Council out—the office probably has a longer process—in 72 hours. But in this circumstance it will be known to members of this House before it is even taken through the process. I do not think there is any need to make that change. 
I will come to a couple of points made by Brendon Burns in a minute but I will run through the rest of Dr Graham’s proposed amendments. I have dealt with the issue concerning the High Court and I do not think that what one might say at first glance that denying rights is terrible is as relevant here as it might be in other circumstances. The second is to restrict the Order in Council process to just 21 of the Acts that are listed. That is an idea but why would we do that if all the intention here is to enable things that relate to the purpose of this bill? The purpose clause states in 10 lines “Canterbury earthquake” five times. It is very very specific about what can be done. There is no way we could do something through the provisions in this bill that affects other parts of New Zealand. I will make just one proviso. Dr Graham has also suggested that we might look at restricting it to the districts of Waimakariri Selwyn and Christchurch. The difficulty there is that the Kate Valley landfill is outside those districts. No matter which way we look at it the Kate Valley landfill will be under significant stress as a result of this disaster. The road slip that blocked the northern highway along the Kaikoura coast was the result of this activity and I do not think we should constrain ourselves when it is quite clear that something relates to the activities of the last 10 days. 
In that regard I think it is also worth noting that we are still experiencing a considerable number of aftershocks and we do not quite know when that will end. What we do know is that we are getting on with making sure that things come back together as quickly as possible. In that regard Dr Graham has suggested that we should come back to 15 March 2011 as the expiry date. I think it is fair enough that this amendment is put before us because we have to be comfortable about however long this legislation runs for. The Government is saying we should give it 18 months. We all know what it is like. We have councils that are at the moment in a state of—I have to be careful how I express this; they have done a huge amount of work over a short period of time. Someone told me the other day that in Christchurch City Care connected as many water connections in 3 days as it would normally do in a year. That is because it is focusing on that job. It does a lot of other things during a normal year. The output from organisations such as that has been extraordinary. We need to give them time to think about what will be business as usual and what infrastructure which is only patched up the moment they need to go back and repair. Anyone who has seen any roadworks done these days will know that that work takes time. 
If we look particularly at Kaiapoi that area has very deep sewers—at least 3 metres below the road. People there know that their sewers by and large under normal circumstances are below the water line. They know that they have to dig down they have to sheet-pile they have to de-water and they have to go block by block by block to get the work done. As they go along they could well discover other problems that they had not anticipated. I think we need to indicate to residents throughout the wider Canterbury region that infrastructurally it could be 18 months before it is certain that we can say that we are so far down the track that we do not need these extra provisions. During that time also if there needs to be stronger legislation for one aspect of this work or another then clearly this House will want to consider it. 
I dealt with the issue of the Christchurch City Council. We are not trying to set up another bureaucracy. We are trying to create something that is flat recognises the knowledge that exists in the districts expresses confidence in their ability to plan and achieve what we want in terms of recovery and makes a commitment to work with them. Essentially that is what the commission is. 
The other issue that comes to mind is that of the application of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act. At this time further consideration is being given to that question. The response may come in the form of a Supplementary Order Paper later this evening but if it does not I give an absolute commitment that as the terms of reference are developed for the commission we will want a degree of openness. But I stress that decisions made by the commission will be generated from the districts. When we think about the structure being put in place we realise that the districts will be making their own determinations about what is business as usual and what is recovery. Through the auspices of the commission there might be consenting processes that relate to recovery but those questions will be dealt with by the districts. We are not setting up a new agency. The normal processes that are already in place in those districts will apply. I suspect that a large number of early decisions made by the commission will be commercially sensitive and I think we have to be very careful about the encumbrance we put upon those commissioners who are essentially the local mayors and three others in respect of that issue. 
I will now talk about Mr Burns’ concerns about some retrospective Orders in Council. The clearest and easiest one to understand is to do with discharges. Let us take the case of the sewer at Kaiapoi and the process of putting that sewer back together. If some of the infrastructure that we know must be weak in that system—so much is broken that more in the system must be pretty weak—collapses as a consequence of restoration work and there is a discharge theoretically there should be a 21-day process to get a consent to enable that discharge. 
Hon David Parker 
: Oh it would be an emergency. You’d use the emergency plans you’ve already got. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Well that is why we are having this bill. The fact is that under the state of emergency that would be right but the state of emergency gets lifted tomorrow. I am surprised that the Hon David Parker who is such a stickler for the letter of the law is now waving his head and saying we should not be so pedantic. We live in a pedantic world for goodness’ sake so we are making sure there is no difficulty with those problems. I think the commission is the right vehicle for councillors to engage with Government and the commitment from the Government is that the engagement will be as inclusive of this Parliament as possible. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I take a call to make two points in response to the Minister in the chair Gerry Brownlee who has just resumed his seat. One relates to clause 6(3) of the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill. The Labour Party would prefer to see that clause omitted in its entirety. With respect the Minister’s suggestion that somebody might go to court and suggest that the powers to be exercised in one part of a country should not be exercised in Canterbury and therefore that clause 6(3) is necessary really does not satisfy the question that was originally raised. It would be good if the Minister would reconsider the existence of clause 6(3). 
The other point I make is in reference to the Minister’s undertaking that the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Commission will be subject to appropriate standards of transparency. He said a Supplementary Order Paper on that issue might be coming to the Table or failing that it would be dealt with in the terms of reference of the commission. I point out to the Minister that there is an amendment already on the Table that would make the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act apply to the commission. The amendment is in the name of Kennedy Graham and it is to insert new clause 9A into the bill. The Labour Party intends to support that amendment. It is an appropriate one. The Minister has agreed with the tenor of it and I urge him and his party to vote for it. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 I rise to take a very brief call on the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill and to mihi to the people of Aoraki and Canterbury. The rest of us have lived through a time very different from theirs and those of us who have not been shattered by an earthquake need to acknowledge what a tough time it has been. I was in Gisborne during the 6.8 earthquake a couple of years ago and that felt really bad but it was clearly nothing compared to what the people of Aoraki and Canterbury have been through so we need to acknowledge them. 
I also support the comments that Dr Graham and other members have made about this legislation. It is important to look at the long-term implications of the bill and that is why we are calling for an amendment that would include a sunset clause for a review after 6 months. That is not to say that the legislation could not be extended after that period but in extraordinary times such as we are in now we need to be extraordinarily vigilant about the kind of planning and decision making that we facilitate. When I look at the Acts that have been mentioned the provisions of which could be suspended under this legislation—such as the Resource Management Act and the Historic Places Act—I see certain red flags that we need to think about. We will be dealing with enormous amounts of infrastructural development and change as well as waste and waste disposal and that has implications in terms of resource management for many years. 
The Minister mentioned the issue of sewage discharges which is a problem I have spent much of my life glamorously working on! Under section 107 of the Resource Management Act we currently have an exceptional circumstances provision that allows for the emergency discharge of sewage so we may not need to suspend holus-bolus all provisions of such Acts. That exceptional circumstances discharge measure has been misused. It has been used to enable 40 years of pollution in the Bay of Plenty. I am not suggesting that is the intent of the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery in this bill; I know it is not. But when provisions such as that exceptional circumstances provision are already in existence under the Resource Management Act we have to be careful about suspending existing legislation. 
Equally in the case of the Historic Places Act one can envisage a situation where an area that is an archaeological site for example could be in an area that has been damaged and could be destroyed without any kind of survey. We would lose forever the archaeological knowledge that the Historic Places Act was set up to protect. In our haste to rebuild we could lose the essence of some of the key aspects of our communities. 
The Minister said quite rightly that the landfills will be under enormous stress. If so will we dump the range of hazardous waste with the range of ordinary waste? That is the kind of thing that has happened in the past in landfills. 
Huge issues of planning and decision making urge us to have caution as we debate this legislation. We have nothing to lose by supporting the Act which we would like to do and ensuring that within 6 months we stop wait and ask our communities whether the process is on track whether we have made good decisions and whether we are doing the right thing. Some of us are concerned about community voices. As Minister Turia mentioned in the first reading we are concerned about representation of Maori on the commission. We have already had the debacle in the Auckland governance legislation on the representation of tangata whenua and we do not want that to happen again. In the rebuilding of a vibrant city we need the voices of tangata whenua we need to have community planning and we need to have a review process. Before we start holus-bolus getting rid of the powers that have been developed under certain Acts we need to think about the long-term environmental conditions we are creating. The last thing the people of Aoraki and Canterbury need is to have long-term problems built into our desire with the best of intentions to create emergency legislation that is not well thought through. 
We hope that some of our amendments will be adopted. We think it is really important that we consider what could happen if they are not adopted and consider the importance of planning carefully. This is not a time for any form of paternalism; it is a time for engagement with local communities and that is what this Act needs to be about. Much of it is about that but we have concerns about the sunset clause. We have nothing to lose by limiting the lifespan of this legislation to March 2011 when we could review the legislation and those issues. Tena koutou katoa. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 I will make some comments about clause 6 of the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill and in particular the impact it may have on building and construction. Let me say first that a very fine barber was interviewed on the TV3 news about the aftermath of the earthquake. He said the thing I think has been on everybody’s mind for the last 10 days—that is how wonderful it was that no one died. Certainly that is a thought I know I have had virtually every single day since the earthquake. A number of commentators have pointed out that 230000 people died in Haiti after the earthquake there which was of a similar magnitude. I think the fact no one died and the destruction caused by the quake was relatively localised really was a triumph for the building code. It was a triumph for regulation. 
I know that members on that side of the House like to use words like “red tape” “bureaucracy” and “paperwork” but what we are talking about is regulation. They are minimum standards that enforce a community consensus about what is acceptable. The building code is the representation of those minimum standards. We have learned a lot in the last couple of decades about the importance of building regulations. I think we should have a national celebration of successful regulation. I hope the members of the National Party will join us in putting on a tickertape parade for regulation because do members know what? Regulation saved thousands of lives and billions of dollars in the Christchurch earthquake. That is relevant to this bill because this bill sets out to provide some pretty powerful exemptions in the recovery phase from certain important bits of law that we have in this country that regulate all manner of things particularly building and construction. 
It is very clear by now that Labour is supporting this bill. We recognise that in the recovery phase there is urgency to repair and rebuild. I am mindful of how amazingly disruptive the quake has been for everybody in Canterbury. I am particularly mindful of how disruptive it has been for low-income families and people without the resources that act as a cushion in these kinds of disasters. There are people who have had to move out of their homes and who do not have the reserves to be able to just find an alternative property. There are thousands of people currently in that situation so there is a need for speed. It is not about just people’s homes; it is about businesses that people are dependant on for their jobs and their livelihoods. The case has been made and I think it is very clear. 
I will ask a couple of questions of Minister Brownlee particularly in relation to clause 6 the provision allowing Orders in Council. I am interested to know how he envisages that will play out. I imagine that in relation to for example the Building Act clause 6 would allow an Order in Council that would exempt certain buildings in a certain zone over a certain time period from needing a building consent for repair and reconstruction. If that is the case how does the Government propose that the protections and the quality outcomes which the Building Act and the consenting regulations are there to protect will be delivered? I do not think anybody in this House this evening has a problem with the idea of streamlining the regulations to allow for urgency and for the process of repair and reconstruction to be expedited. I am also hoping that nobody in this House cares nothing for the quality of the reconstruction and repair work and the need to ensure that basic standards of quality work are done in the repair phase. 
My colleague Ruth Dyson mentioned before an opinion piece in the 
 Press  
today by former Mayor of Christchurch Garry Moore. In his inimitable way he made certain comments about the rebuilding particularly of the central area of Christchurch. I was there last night in a meeting with Brendon Burns and 300 people. They were concerned about the urban design standards in the rebuilding of central Christchurch particularly the protection of heritage buildings. Garry Moore said: “We should learn from what was wrong with what we were living in before September 4 2010 and rectify it. We should not rush legislation so that we fill the holes in our built form with cheap and nasty junk.” 
I venture the opinion that this bill in its desire to streamline and expedite does not provide any useful tools regulation finance or anything else that will make it easier for the people of Christchurch to do what is an incredibly important job which is rebuilding the central city. The heritage area is important to the people of Christchurch and it is also an economic asset for the region and the country. I am interested to know what the Minister has to say about that and what ideas the Government has for how it can work with the people of Christchurch and Christchurch City Council in particular to see that that rebuilding happens in a way that supports the aspirations of the people of Christchurch and facilitates the highest-possible urban design standards in that process. 
In saying that I speak in favour of the amendment that was initiated I think by Jim Anderton and is proposed tonight by the Hon Ruth Dyson to insert clause 3(b) “acknowledging that an important priority for the response is to enable the preservation and restoration of Canterbury’s architectural and cultural heritage”. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery) 
: 
 I would like to clarify a couple of things. Firstly on the Building Act issue that the member Phil Twyford just raised I said earlier in my second reading speech that if we look at building activity for the whole of New Zealand in the last calendar year we see that it would take the total focus for some years of every consenting officer in the country just to deal with the consents that may come out of this disaster. So quite clearly business as usual will not work. I am very happy to involve local MPs to let them know where we get to with all this later in the week; we will be running a standard briefing each week at 9 a.m. on a Friday so that everyone gets tuned up as to where things are going and what is happening. Essentially the moving parts here are firstly the Building Act with its standards which are important. The second aspect is the quality of the tradespeople who will do the work. The third is the supply chain. The fourth aspect is the process of consenting to work which includes the issues of inspecting and signing off on work. What sits under all of that is the property information memorandum which for residents in Christchurch will be the enduring record of how well the damage is dealt with. 
I do not think it is the desire of anybody in this House to see property values written down in future because of shoddy work practice during the next short while. I can give the member an assurance that it is the Government’s desire as I know it is the House’s desire that we come up with processes—and I say “come up with” because we simply do not know what they will be at this point. There are too many aspects of this recovery that need to be considered: lenders insurers the Earthquake Commission and council consenting processes as well. But when all of that is dealt with I hope in a few days’ time we will be able to give people a clear understanding of how they can get high-quality work done and paid for quickly. That is the intention around the reference to the Building Act and all the other Acts that are named in the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill. It is a genuine attempt to give a list of the sorts of Acts that may at some point need to have a temporary arrangement applied to them. 
I will talk to an amendment on the Table in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to appoint a recovery coordinator to carry on the powers of the civil defence coordinators should that be necessary. The problem I have with that is that we are saying the civil defence coordinators have done a great job. They have got us through a tight time. They will in the next day or so stand down and we will go into the normal processes of district councils running the areas. The chief executives in each of those areas will be putting together their recovery teams which have been well organised over a long period of time. To have an individual step over the top of them for any long period is I think not acceptable. It goes quite counter to the concept of having a flat commission structure that recognises the fact that people who live in Canterbury generally do not like to be told what to do. There is resilience in the Canterbury community. It is self-reliant and it is very very parochial. It would serve no good purpose and it would certainly not stand as any encouragement to Canterbury for us to appoint or to prescribe in law the need for a recovery coordinator. 
I am quite convinced that if the commission itself sits down and says the best way to deal with matters is to collectively set up an organisation that deals with them without expanding the commission as a legal entity or anything like that then it will do so because it has a huge incentive to get its communities up and running. It has as big an incentive for that to occur as anybody has who stands in this Chamber. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Will they able to instruct? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The member asks the right question by way of interjection: whether the commission will be able to instruct the councils. The fact is that the mayors are the commission effectively so I do not think there is any impediment to that occurring. But it is very important not to undermine the capacity that exists within the local authorities to get this job done because I cannot think of anywhere else we could go in order to pick up an organisation to do this work. We are reliant on the councils. We have to empower them and we have to trust them to do the job. 
On the issue of clause 6(3) I just say it deals with the courts’ power to look at recommendations for the making of an Order in Council not with the Order in Council itself. It stands there as a prohibitive measure. We all know that there are many examples of the courts choosing to look through those orders. In essence it says to the courts that if there is silliness around a proceeding then there is no obligation through any other provision for them to continue with it. If it was totally outrageous I have no doubt that a judge would be prepared to look through this particular provision in the bill. If someone takes an issue to a lawyer and asks whether they can have a crack on it then the lawyer will have something to fall back on to say that it is not a good idea to do so. It is a mitigating aspect. As I said before we need to see this bill in the light in which it is presented—with the goodwill of members and the desire to get the best outcome for the people of Canterbury—not as a tricky move to apply all sorts of powers to a range of other things. 
I finish by saying the 10 lines of the purpose statement include the words “Canterbury earthquake” five times which makes this provision very specific and shows a very specific link to the powers within this legislation. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 In speaking in the Committee stage of the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill I want to address a few issues. I say to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery that I totally accept his good intention and the Government’s good intention on this. But the argument that the Minister is using for not including more specificity in certain parts of the bill is that we will sort it out as time goes on and we will find common-sense and practical solutions working within an extremely broad legislative framework. I certainly accept that that is the Minister’s intention. 
However I draw an analogy to the earthquake regulations with regard to buildings. Many people who build buildings would say that they have really good intent and will build a building that can withstand an earthquake so they do not need all these pesky regulations and all these pesky building inspectors who annoy them all the time. They know how to build buildings that can withstand an earthquake. That is the kind of analogy I would use in terms of this legislation. 
The Government seems to be saying that it has the right intention and knows what it is doing and it does not need all of these pesky regulations or details in the legislation about how to put together the right kind of regulatory framework. But I say that it is quite important that in order to protect constitutional niceties and people’s rights we have some of those details. The Government has acknowledged some of those details but there are a couple that it has not. One is how to ensure that the majority of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Commission are elected Cantabrians. Why is it not in legislation? Currently three out of the seven are elected Cantabrians—they are the three mayors. Four commissioners have been appointed by the Government—one is the Environment Canterbury commissioner and there are three other commissioners. The result of that is that four or a majority of the recovery commission have been appointed by central government while a minority are elected Cantabrians. Why not put it in the legislation that a majority of the recovery commission are to be elected Cantabrians? 
I think the Minister is quite right: people in Canterbury want to maintain control of this process they want to lead this process and what better way to do that than to put into legislation that a majority of the people on the commission are in fact elected whether they are city councillors or mayors. This ensures that central government does not have the majority on the recovery commission which is what the legislation currently provides. The way that the legislation is currently written provides for the majority of those on the recovery commission to be appointed by central government. It may be the Government’s intention to ensure that some of those four appointees are elected councillors which would be great so why not put that provision in the legislation so that everyone can be comfortable with ensuring that a majority of the appointees on the recovery commission are elected? 
With regard to the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act the Minister has indicated that he intends to come to us with a Supplementary Order Paper on the application of the LGOIMA—that rather long acronym—to the recovery commission so we look forward to seeing that. With regard to the 6-month process the Greens have suggested 6 months and we have put in a process for easily rolling it over which would just be a notice of motion within that process. Once the 6 months is up for this particular legislation we could then put forward a notice of motion to extend it for a further 6 months. It would be a relatively simple process; it would not have to go through a whole parliamentary debate once again as normal legislation does. It would simply need a majority for a notice of motion which would be a pretty simple process and would ensure that the executive is kept on a pretty short leash by the Parliament which seems to me to be one of the constitutional niceties that we want to hang on to. 
Then we come to clause 6(3) which states that the process of coming up with the recommendations for Orders in Council cannot be challenged in the courts. The Greens are proposing an amendment to this clause so that these Orders in Council can be challenged by the courts if a High Court judge determines that fundamental principles of justice would be compromised by not allowing a case to be heard. We are trying in a way to put in writing what the Minister himself said in his contribution which is that a judge will find a way to do it. The Minister said that if there was a serious breach of the principles of justice there would be a judge who would find a way to read this clause in a different way so as to look into it. 
If the Minister believes that to be the case then there is nothing wrong with making it clear within the legislation itself that if fundamental principles of justice could be compromised by a particular decision then a High Court judge could allow a case to proceed. That is writing into the legislation the kind of situation that the Minister himself said was a potential reality. Again the Minister will say that that could happen anyway and of course it could. But I ask why we do not write it in black and white so that we do not have to bend the law in a sense in order for a High Court judge to look at it. We could put it in the legislation with the expectation that if there are fundamental principles of justice involved in a decision a recommendation of a relevant Minister for an Order in Council then a High Court judge could look at it. That seems to me a way to acknowledge the reality of the situation and for Parliament to acknowledge what is going on. For those reasons the Green Party will continue with its amendments in the name of Kennedy Graham to try to make this legislation responsive to those issues. 
Charles Chauvel talked at some length about the regulation disallowance procedures. I acknowledge that Labour has gone to some length to try to make sure that the Orders in Council fall under those procedures so that there is some degree of accountability. We have pushed for a more direct publishing of Orders in Council to make sure that it is in black and white in the legislation so that they have to be published within 24 hours. The Minister has said that it is an act of goodwill that Orders in Council will come before members of Parliament before they are enacted. We accept that it is an act of goodwill but we say why not put it in the legislation so that it is in black and white that they have to be published within 24 hours. Everyone would then be comfortable that everyone knows what the law of the land is because these Orders in Council are effectively making law through an Order in Council. If they were published if they were made public within 24 hours then everyone could be sure what they are getting into. 
Also in terms of tabling in the House under the Regulations (Disallowance) Act they need to be tabled in the House within 16 sitting days of the promulgation of an Order in Council. Sixteen sitting days is more than a couple of months. We are saying that we should require them to be tabled the next sitting day and that way everyone in the House can see what they are doing. The Minister says that he intends to table them anyway or to make them publicly available so I cannot see what the problem would be with putting it in the legislation in black and white. Thank you. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 I congratulate the Minister the Hon Gerry Brownlee on listening very carefully to the views expressed in the Committee tonight considering them appropriately and responding to them. He has not responded to all of them yet but I am sure he will finish—[ 
Interruption 
] Only one of my three amendments was commented on. I was hoping he would comment on all three. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I didn’t want to embarrass you with the other ones. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I thank the Minister for that contribution. We were doing so well in our bipartisan approach until then! But I am pleased to see that all the issues have been taken seriously even if they are not agreed on. 
I want to start with the amendment in my name that the Minister has referred to and that is the amendment to add paragraph (c) to clause 10. It states: “appoint a recovery co-ordinator to be appointed to carry on the powers of a civil defence controller should that be necessary.” The reason I have put forward that amendment—and it is surprising that the Minister has disregarded it so swiftly and said that the local authorities do not need it—is that our three mayors made a joint statement to say that this position lapses when the emergency provisions lapse at this stage still at midday tomorrow and that the mayors of our three regions would not support this legislation as they had seen it in draft form if such a provision was not included. 
I thought that the Minister might have overlooked it in his haste. He has had only a few hours really to think up the bill put it together and do all the work and consultation with other parties. I thought he might have omitted it. The mayors have put out a statement that is on the wire now as being the most current position they have on the legislation. In their view the appointment of a controller who has the ability to direct rather than to suggest could be a critical factor in the success of our recovery plan. I was amazed that the Minister concluded that the mayors would be able to do that. A mayor cannot direct an organisation outside his or her own local authority to comply with his or her wishes even if the mayor is appointed a commissioner because the commissioners in this legislation do not have that authority. In my view there will be some situations where the ability to direct is important. The civil defence position seems to me to be the appropriate one and that was certainly the point the mayors made. I look forward to hearing from the Minister as to whether he has overlooked the statement by our three mayors that they considered that this legislation would not be supported by them unless that position was included in it. The Minister may have more news than me. He may have spoken to the three mayors on that particular point more recently than their press statement indicated. 
The second amendment I want to refer to is in my name but I am putting it forward on behalf of the Hon Jim Anderton who as we speak is in Christchurch hosting a public meeting about the historic buildings and the architectural concerns many have raised. He is starting the community conversation about the vision we need to talk about and share with regard to the future shape of our cities. My amendment would insert in clause 3(b) the following words: ‘ “acknowledging that an important priority for the response is to enable the preservation and restoration of Canterbury’s architectural and cultural heritage.” after “to the Canterbury earthquake”.’ 
This is quite a significant omission from the original legislation and it seems to be one of the most important concerns that is being raised in our community at the moment—what will Canterbury look like in the future? We have already seen a lot of our historic buildings threatened. Some have already been pulled down. There has been huge debate about whether they were pulled down too early. If the commission has no guidance at all from this House about what we see as important with regard to our architecture our heritage and our historic buildings then it would be correct in presuming that Parliament did not care about it—because we did not put it in the legislation. In my view it is critical that we have the backing of the entire House for that message to go from here to Canterbury and to the commissioners. So that addition would resolve that omission. 
The final amendment in my name amends clause 11 and it would resolve the situation which I mentioned in both the first reading and the second reading debates with regard to the skills that will be required of the commissioners. When the Government abolished Environment Canterbury our democratically elected regional council at least it put in the replacement legislation a description of the skills it thought would be necessary in order to do the job—the job that we previously voted for but which we now have appointed commissioners to do. But at least a skill set was described in that legislation. 
This legislation does not have that and in my view it would not only be useful guidance from the Minister to have a view from Parliament about the sort of skills that we consider the commissioners should have but also be another opportunity to send a message to New Zealand in particular to Canterbury and the commissioners themselves about what we think are important roles for them to undertake and what we think are priorities. 
I have prepared a list and I would be very happy for the Minister to make any deletions or additions. I would be interested to hear whether he thinks the list is too long or whether he does not think we will be able to find people who have that range of capabilities or whether some skills are more operational skills and expertise that he might consider less appropriate in commissioners but more appropriate in staff. I would be really happy to have that discussion and to alter my amendment accordingly rather than see the entire list voted down by this Parliament which I think would remove the opportunity for that skill set to be defined and for that message to go to our home territory. 
The list of skills I consider important to have in the legislation include knowledge of civil defence matters tikanga Maori as it applies in the Canterbury region knowledge of the Canterbury region itself and its people public health issues water resource management heritage architecture small and medium enterprises and infrastructure. That is quite a big range of skills but they are all really important. They are not in any particular order of importance in terms of the ranking I have given them—they are just (a) to (h)—but they are certainly the skill set that I think needs to be defined not just in terms of this debate but also in the legislation. 
The final point I want to make in the Committee stage is that I had a very useful discussion with the Hon Nick Smith in relation to an issue that is mentioned at the very start of this legislation in clause 4. Clause 4 defines the Canterbury earthquake. People will probably say “Well that’s blindingly obvious; we’ve heard about it on the news.” I know it has been mentioned a couple of times outside our region—it is certainly all we talk about at the moment in our region—but the Canterbury earthquake is defined as “the earthquake that occurred on 4 September 2010 in Canterbury and includes all of its aftershocks”. 
Minister Smith is far more qualified in this area than I will ever be because of his training at the finest university in the country—[ 
Interruption 
] except for medical studies. He has assured me that the second earthquake which was on Wednesday 8 September is counted as an aftershock. We do not count it as an aftershock; we count it as a separate earthquake. I want assurance from the Minister that the earthquake that was centred somewhere near the Lyttelton Harbour Basin and certainly had a huge impact on Lyttelton Diamond Harbour Governors Bay and Heathcote Valley compared with the first quake on Saturday is covered by this legislation. It would be a silly oversight if it were not. It does not seem to me to be defined in that way because we have been told that it was not an aftershock and that it was a separate earthquake from a separate fault line. I have no idea how many thousands of years ago there were tremors along that fault line—compared with the 16000 or 17000 years or whatever in respect of the one centred on Darfield—but I would like the assurance before the conclusion of this debate that that second earthquake is covered by clause 4 the interpretation clause. 
I know that the time is getting on and we are keen to progress this legislation through to its conclusion. I heard Dr Russel Norman mention that the Minister has a Supplementary Order Paper coming with regard to the coverage of the commissioner’s activities under the terms of the Local Government Act. I have not seen that Supplementary Order Paper yet. I am keen to see it before the conclusion of the Committee stage. [ 
Interruption 
] That will be excellent I say to the Minister. I hope it is tabled soon. It is not tabled yet by the look of it. It is not on the Table. I am very keen to see it so that we can support it if possible. I also look forward to the Minister responding to my other two handwritten amendments. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery) 
: 
 Firstly the issue of the controller: I think the mayors’ position was misconstrued in the reports that came out late this afternoon. As I have said all the way through I see that position—that of the mayor of each of the districts being the leader of the district council of his or her area—as being pretty pivotal to the success of the recovery. I was sufficiently concerned about the reports to have a telephone conference call with the mayors this evening. They have all assured me that that was not their position and that there had been a miscommunication. None of them is reported directly as having said that; it was just attributed to them. They have made it very clear to me that they are comfortable and very encouraged by the legislation that the House is dealing with tonight. 
I move to the amendment relating to the desire by Mr Anderton to see heritage mentioned in the bill. The first point is that the heritage decisions in each of the districts are still the responsibility of the district councils. I point out that in the part of the Canterbury district where that seems to be most contentious—Christchurch city—a new bylaw was passed I believe on Monday evening to afford and accord extra protections to heritage buildings. I think that it is best left in that space. As far as the Government’s contribution to ensuring that heritage buildings are where possible maintained there will be a statement from the Prime Minister on that in the next day or two. 
As to clause 11 in relation to the skills required for commissioners well there is a nice long list there; I do not think we have to prescribe it. I think that if this thing is going to work people will have to instantly see that there is capacity there. I would say that I do not think we want the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Commission to be any more political than what we will get anyway with three mayors. Ultimately if things spun out the chair of the regional council in the meantime is a commissioner so I do not think that prescribing that is necessary and it is not something that we will be supporting. 
On the Lyttelton earthquake I have had the same advice—that it was part of the series of aftershocks. We could argue this stuff around the tracks forever and I heard on the news tonight that the first earthquake was actually a small one that triggered the next one which was the big one on Saturday. I think that geologists are discovering more even as members of this House are passing legislation tonight and I do not think there is any doubt about any damage that has come from the seismic activity in the Canterbury region in the last short while. Let us be clear about the fact that while we are still having aftershocks there will still be damage and I think there is no question that the Lyttelton earthquake is included in that. 
I hope that I have covered most of the points. I will make the final point that I have put forward a typescript amendment that will make the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Commission an organisation for the purposes of schedule 1 of the Official Information Act. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to add to paragraph (b) “acknowledging that an important priority for the response is to enable the preservation and restoration of Canterbury’s architectural and cultural heritage”. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Kennedy Graham to clause 6 be agreed to: 
to add to subclause (3) “unless a High Court judge determines that fundamental principles of justice will be compromised by not allowing a case to be heard”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Noes 107 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Kennedy Graham to clause 6 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (4) “enactment including (but not limited to)—” and substitute “of the following enactments:”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Kennedy Graham to clause 6 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (4)(l). 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Dr Kennedy Graham be agreed to: 
to omit from clause 7(3) “1 April 2012” and substitute “15 March 2011”; 
to omit from clause 15(1) “1 April 2012” and substitute “15 March 2011”; 
to omit from clause 17(b) “1 April 2012” and substitute “15 March 2011”; and 
to add to clause 17 the following subclause: 
(2)Despite subsection (1) 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 and thereafter at 6 month intervals up to 1 April 2012. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 112 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Kennedy Graham be agreed to: 
to insert the following clause after clause 7: 
7AOrders in Council to be publicly available and presented to House of Representatives 
An Order in Council made under section 6 must be published within 24 hours of being made and presented to the House of Representatives on the next sitting day. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 112 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Dr Kennedy Graham be agreed to: 
to add to clause 9 the following paragraph: 
(e)2 Christchurch City councillors by the Christchurch City Council.; and 
to add to clause 14 the following subclause: 
(6)Despite subsection (1) to (5) only the Christchurch City Council can appoint or terminate the appointment of a commissioner appointed under section 9(e). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 112 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Gerry Brownlee to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to add the following subclause: 
(2)The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Commission is an organisation for the purposes of Schedule 1 of the Official Information Act 1982. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Kennedy Graham be agreed to: 
to insert the following clause after clause 9: 
9AApplication of Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 
The Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 applies to the recovery commission. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to clause 10 be agreed to: 
to add the following paragraph: 
(c)appoint a recovery co-ordinator to be appointed to carry on the powers of a civil defence controller should that be necessary. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to clause 11 be agreed to: 
to insert the following subclause after subclause (2): 
(2A)In appointing the persons referred to in section 9(d) the Minister must appoint commissioners who collectively have knowledge of and expertise in relation to the following matters: 
(a)civil defence: 
(b)tikanga Maori as it applies in the Canterbury region: 
(c)the Canterbury region and its people: 
(d)public health: 
(e)water resource management: 
(f)heritage architecture: 
(g)small and medium enterprise operations: 
(h)infrastructure. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Third Reading 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment)  
on behalf of the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery 
: 
 I move  
That the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill be now read a third time 
. Firstly I compliment all members on the very constructive debate that occurred over the Committee stage of this bill particularly given the very difficult issues that we confront with regard to the recovery and reconstruction of New Zealand’s second-largest city after what I think will go down in history as New Zealand’s most costly natural disaster. I compliment the Minister Gerry Brownlee on the work that he has put in over the last 10 days. Mr Brownlee and other members of the House—and I acknowledge Brendon Burns and Amy Adams—have had their own properties severely damaged in this earthquake and the way in which the Minister and other members have worked cooperatively to bring this legislation to the House so quickly is I think a great credit to him and to the other members. 
It is interesting to reflect in the debate in this Chamber that on the occasion of the tragic Napier earthquake which my colleague Chris Tremain mentioned in the Committee stage it took 3 months until April 1931 for legislation to come before Parliament to help the community of Napier to respond to that earthquake. It is a credit to us I believe to have brought legislation together so quickly in just 10 days 80 years later to respond to this issue. 
I also acknowledge in particular my own officials from the Ministry for the Environment. They have been working incredibly long hours since the middle of last week as it rapidly became very obvious that the existing legislative framework would be a barrier to Canterbury’s recovery. I acknowledge the way in which they worked through the course of the weekend as we brought this bill together. 
I think it is quite important to put on record a couple of points about the legislation. There has been the odd extravagant comment about the bill’s intent. I reinforce that Orders in Council are permitted under this legislation only if they directly relate to the recovery from and the response to the Canterbury earthquake. Those who claim that this bill will allow any Act of Parliament to be changed for any purpose are not correct and in fact it would be open to judicial review if there were attempts to bypass Acts for purposes that were not related to the massive earthquake in Canterbury. 
I will comment on a number of amendments that the Committee considered. I note that the Minister Gerry Brownlee did accept amendments where there was a good case for doing so particularly in respect of the intent of the Government to ensure that the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Commission which is in charge of overseeing the recovery of Canterbury after the earthquake should be subject to the Official Information Act. That amendment arose during the Committee stage and the bill has now been changed. 
But let me go through some of the amendments that the Government did not accept and the reasons for that. Firstly there were proposals to limit the jurisdiction of this bill as it stands only to issues in Waimakariri District Christchurch City and Selwyn District. That does not make sense because the impacts of the earthquake have gone well beyond those areas. We have people working around the clock trying to reopen State Highway 1 and the main trunk railway in Kaikoura which is outside the jurisdiction of those areas. We have had damage to chimneys and to buildings extending well into every one of the 10 districts throughout Canterbury. One issue I am considering as Minister for the Environment is that it might be sensible given the number of fatalities that have occurred historically around earthquakes and chimneys and given that I think this House shares a desire to improve the air quality of Canterbury for us to pass some extra Orders in Council to ensure that wherever possible we eliminate the chimneys and move Christchurch Ashburton and other communities on to having a cleaner air quality. So I do not believe there is a robust case to be made for limiting the jurisdiction of this bill simply to those three districts. Quite frankly the issues go beyond them. 
There was the proposition that this bill should cover only those Acts that have been specifically identified. We had a pretty hard crack at trying to identify and be upfront with Parliament about the Acts that we think we would need to move around and obviously the Resource Management Act the Building Act the Acts that deal with the Earthquake Commission and other Acts will require some Orders in Council to be issued. But when we look at the Acts of Parliament that govern the region of Canterbury we see Acts that specifically deal with the Summit Road the Christchurch-Lyttelton road tunnel the University of Canterbury Christ’s College and the port companies. It was not possible in the very short period in which we needed to respond to the people of Canterbury to specifically list and identity every one of those Acts and that is why it is important that this bill has some flexibility. 
It has been suggested that we need to specifically list in this bill the skills required of the commissioners. We had a bit of a crack at doing that within the time frame. I do not necessarily disagree with the proposals that were put forward although I would note that one of the most important skills will be ensuring that we rebuild Canterbury and Christchurch in such a way that they might become more resilient to a future earthquake which is highly probable in the future. That applies particularly to the infrastructure and the buildings that will be rebuilt. So I do not think it is a wise move to be quite specific about those skills albeit we take on board the views that the Opposition members have expressed on the skill set. I do not necessarily disagree that those skills are relevant when making those appointments. 
There have been amendments seeking to add extra representation from Christchurch on the commission. I do not think we should take a view that the commission is representative. If members want to run the argument that for instance Christchurch should have additional commissioners I have to say to them that the scale of the earthquake in Selwyn was very large. The member who represents Waimakariri and Kate Wilkinson have also made play of the scale of the impact on Kaiapoi and having seen some of that firsthand I know there is no doubt that there has been a massive impact in that area. I think it is important that each of those territorial authorities certainly has a voice on the commission. To start to double up their representatives would not necessarily get the commission on to the right footing for the recovery. 
There have been objections to the issue of retrospectivity. I tell members that we have to be pragmatic here. It is my view that there will need to be an element of retrospectivity to some of the changes that will be necessary to make the recovery as smooth as possible and that is why we need to take a pragmatic view. There may be a need for this Parliament to consider further legislation as we work through the humongous issues associated with the recovery from the earthquake in Canterbury. But to have this bill in place as early as this in order to enable the Government to get the commission up and running is what this Parliament needs to do in response to Canterbury’s hour of need. This legislation is about providing a short sharp response that will enable us to move quickly from the civil emergency which has been exceptionally well handled into the recovery phase and make sure that not a business or a household is delayed for a day further than is absolutely necessary in its recovery. 
Yes there has been some debate about this legislation making provision for 18 months’ recovery. Quite frankly my view—and it comes from the best knowledge that we have 10 days post-earthquake—is that it will take 18 months for Christchurch to recover. That may change; it may be longer. I suspect the recovery is more likely to be at the longer end of that time period and if we look at similar communities whether they be San Francisco Kobe or other areas that have suffered massive earthquakes we see that my view of an 18-month period being required is realistic. 
Again I commend this bill to the House. I thank members for their constructive contributions. This bill is what we need to do as a Parliament to give Canterbury the capacity to recover as quickly as possible from this massive quake. 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I acknowledge the comments of the Hon Nick Smith; the work of the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Gerry Brownlee; and the contributions of all the members of the House. We have got to the point where the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill is all but done and dusted. I have chosen to speak several times through the passage of this legislation today in what has been a most unusual and rare display of unity across this Parliament. 
As the MP for the most affected electorate—without wishing to diminish the scale of the impact in other electorates—I firstly wanted the chance to talk about the impact on parts of my electorate not just the Christchurch central business district but suburbs particularly Avonside and to a lesser extent St Albans. 
There was never much doubt that Labour would support this bill. We—and I think all members of this House—want to see a rapid reconstruction of the city of Christchurch and the wider region of Canterbury. But saying that I have felt today the need to voice some sense of unease about the legislation given the scale the scope and the sweeping powers it provides to the Government to the appointed Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Commission and to the mayors of the districts of Christchurch Selwyn and Waimakariri. 
In my mind—and I think in the minds of other members of the Opposition—is the fact that the last time we were dealing with Canterbury local body issues we were dealing with the abolition of Environment Canterbury. In effect the Government itself has recently been forced to acknowledge that at the very least it got offside on that issue with the Christchurch public and hence the taxpayer-funded pamphlets asking for people’s views on abolishing the regional council and water management issues. 
I therefore found it appropriate to challenge Gerry Brownlee in the chair through the Committee stage as the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery on a number of issues; other colleagues have done the same. This was after all our only chance as members of Parliament and as representatives of the wider public to ask the questions that needed to be asked. 
The bill is short on detail. Basically it gives the Government and the commission the powers to override legislation—for instance the Building Act—by issuing Orders in Council such as a regulation exempting repair and reconstruction work from the normal requirements to get a building consent. Of course that raises questions about how building work can be held to the sort of quality that we would expect the resource consent processes to require. We have to acknowledge that we are putting some considerable trust and faith in the details being worked through from the introduction of this legislation. 
Other questions we wanted answered were around what the processes would be for the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Commission and councils to alert the public when they propose things such as the demolition of buildings. We have a particular concern for the infrastructure of the heritage of the Christchurch central business district. It makes our city unique and special. It gives it its defining character. Many many people in Canterbury are passionate to the nth degree about the heritage of our city and have deep concerns for the future of that heritage. I think everybody acknowledges that we have lost and will lose some buildings but there is some nervousness that this bill might facilitate a process that allows the knocking over of buildings that with a little bit of time and breath might survive or be reconstructed even if some extra expense was involved. More than that it might allow the construction of new tilt-slab rather uglier buildings to replace them. We would get to a situation where even remaining heritage buildings would be sitting cheek by jowl with rather clashing modern structures without any particular architectural value or merit. Those are the sorts of concerns we have had. 
I was pleased to see the amendment tabled at the eleventh hour and 49th minute by the Minister tonight which confirms that the commission will be covered by the Official Information Act. It is important that the public are provided with as wide a set of information as possible to know what is being proposed what is coming through in processes to Order in Council and what is on the council agenda in terms of particular buildings that may be subject to demolition orders or new rapid-fire reconstruction processes. It is truly important when we are asking the public of Canterbury to put their faith and trust in the processes that we as a Parliament are enshrining tonight for the public to know they will get the widest possible information about what will happen and whatever chance for input into those processes that can be given. 
The Minister noted that this will be a very flat structure for the commission and the councils to allow them to get things happening rapidly. He also acknowledged that one of the checks and balances will be that in most instances there will be approaches to Government for money towards rebuilding costs. That will be a check and balance on the potential for more inappropriate development. Let us hope that is the case. 
The Minister has assured the House that there are no tricky agendas behind this bill. Certainly a lot of good faith is being afforded by us as Labour MPs and other Opposition MPs in supporting this one-off legislation. It is extraordinary legislation as in my knowledge of Parliament it is almost without precedent in terms of its scale the breadth of support and the time frame in which it has passed through this House. The onus is now on the councils the Government and the commission—which is still to be appointed—to show that that faith has been well placed. With that caveat let us work on this together. Kia kaha. 
AARON GILMORE (National) 
: 
 I will touch on what the previous speaker Brendon Burns said. The Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill has the potential to be wide ranging because the disaster that hit Canterbury 10 days ago was unprecedented. It is the largest natural disaster to hit New Zealand not only in my lifetime but also in any of our lifetimes in this House and indeed probably in the history of our nation. Something in the order of $4 billion is required to fix Christchurch and Canterbury in the wider sense and this bill has been put forward to allow that to happen in a more efficient and better way. 
A lot of concerns have been raised about some aspects of this bill in particular in the Committee stage. I do not want to disagree with the previous speaker about which electorate or area has been worst affected by the earthquake but in relation to the 1000 homes on my side of town in Christchurch I say people from those homes believe they are the worst affected. People from any part of Canterbury will believe that they are the worst affected. 
Dr Nick Smith talked about some of the reasons why not all the legislation could be pointed out. I will point out one Act before I finish which is the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Act. As we speak 10 streets in Dallington are without water or sewerage. The pipes that exist there are old asbestos pipes that were laid in the 1930s. As members may know dealing with asbestos poses a particular problem. Those pipes need to be replaced in a very careful and more difficult way than would apply to normal PVC pipes or copper piping. That is an example of a particular issue that may arise that might need a special Order in Council to deal with it in terms of the rebuild over the months and years to come. I think the powers that exist in this bill will allow those things to occur because we cannot in any shape or form know exactly what we may have ahead of us. 
We know that we need to rebuild our city. We need to make our city bigger better and stronger than it was. We need to have the ability to think about maybe building in different places or in different ways and this bill will allow some of those things to occur over the next 18 months. I think that is a good thing. 
Finally I will touch on the issue of the commissioners. I think it is always very easy to outline a list that might come into play in terms of who should or should not be a commissioner but it is difficult to do that today in the short period of time that we have had: 10 days since the quake hit and 400 aftershocks have hit since then. We need to think very carefully over the next few days and weeks about the other skills that we may need to have represented on the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Commission in order to rebuild our city. It is very difficult to come up with an exclusive list in the period of time that we have had so I believe the approach that we are taking is the right and correct one towards making my home city return to the state that I think we all want it to be in. Thank you. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 Sorry for being a little slow to my feet; the previous speaker Aaron Gilmore resumed his seat far more quickly than I thought he would. I was a bit concerned that he thinks the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill will fix the issue of asbestos piping in Dallington. I hope we do not quite get to that level of operational detail but not nearly as much as I hope those issues are resolved quickly for the good citizens of Dallington. 
As many people have said tonight this is a quite unusual bill that deals with what I hope remains a very unusual series of events in terms of the strength of the earthquake and the number of aftershocks. They are just part of our lives now. In fact the language has changed a lot in Canterbury. When we have aftershocks now we do not shudder race to the door and say: “What was that?”. We say: “Oh I think that was about a 3.9 or maybe a 4.2.” We have all become Richter scale and geological experts. We could probably guess how shallow each aftershock was and where the epicentre was. That is part of Cantabrians’ response in dealing with what was a huge and scary issue for all of us. 
People in my electorate Port Hills and people in our city and our region want to know that Parliament is behind our recovery. For me one of the most important things about the debate today is that this bill shows Parliament’s commitment to supporting the rebuilding of Canterbury. There has been a cross-party approach right from the time of the earthquake. We all resolved that this issue had so traumatised residents and so damaged structures that party politics would be put to one side. We all feel our politics deeply—that is why we are in this place—but there has not been any political point-scoring and other people’s disadvantage has not been used to our advantage. I think that is to the credit of all members. We have responded in what is an unusual way for Parliament. We have not scored points at other people’s expense because we know that people are already dealing with huge stresses and challenges in responding to the quakes and this bill further demonstrates that commitment. 
But today as we progress this bill under urgency without the opportunity for scrutiny by a select committee—because we want these measures to be set up with some literal urgency—Labour members have expressed concern about what I consider to be the quite extreme nature of this legislation. It is very unusual. It is unusual for Parliament to agree to put aside statutory powers that Parliament has agreed to and put them in the hands of Ministers through an Order in Council process. I was very pleased that my colleagues Clayton Cosgrove and Charles Chauvel who have been leading the discussions with the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery received agreement that all those changes would be scrutinised by the Regulations Review Committee. That is an important part of the process but it is very limited compared with the opportunities that are available under general statutory powers. So Labour members have expressed concerns about the nature of the legislative approach that is considered to be an appropriate response to the events in Christchurch. 
The original consideration right up until last Saturday—just 3 days ago—was that the emergency bill would just amend a whole lot of other bills. So we had proposed amendments to the Resource Management Act to the transport legislation to the building legislation and to the local government legislation. In my view having that specificity that Parliament could say this part of the Resource Management Act could be truncated for the purposes of rebuilding or the time could be shortened or the registration process could be retrospective—it would still need to be there—was a far more satisfactory approach. I would have had much more confidence in that approach as a member of Parliament. For some reason—and we have gone through the whole debate without an explanation—that approach was overridden and as an alternative we have what some people may describe as Draconian legislation but what I certainly describe as extreme legislation. That is what we are now passing. It is in its final stages as we speak. 
Both Minister Brownlee and Minister Smith have put on record their responses to Labour’s concerns and questions. They have had opportunities to consider amendments put before them. They have had discussions with Kennedy Graham who proposed six amendments—some of which we agreed with and some of which we did not. We had good discussions about the reasons for that. The Green Party did not agree with us obviously but we had at least some opportunity—albeit a rather brief opportunity—to discuss our reasons for supporting some amendments and for opposing others. The Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery likewise had the opportunity to consider the amendments. He did not take up much of that opportunity and I think it was a wasted opportunity. 
Amendments were proposed in Kennedy Graham’s name and in my name—including one on behalf of the Hon Jim Anderton—which would in my view have improved the bill. They would have given us more confidence that what is a very extreme measure would be less likely to cause public disquiet and concern. The last thing I want is to come back to this House and feel the same as we have about the leaky building syndrome issue when local government and central government have pointed their fingers at each other and said: “It is your fault. You should pay.” while homeowners have borne the brunt of mistakes made by Parliament in the 1990s. In my view rushed legislation often has that risk attached to it. Quite often members of different parties will see things from a different perspective and say “If this is the problem here is the solution.” I think Minister Gerry Brownlee could have made more of that opportunity tonight but he did not. 
Well I am pleased that we are passing this legislation. I want our Parliament to give Canterbury the message that we support its recovery. That is a good message for Cantabrians to hear. Earlier I urged the Chair Assistant Speaker Roy to consider his region—the Southland region—and the fact that a major boost to the morale of Canterbury would be for us to have back our Ranfurly Shield which Southland borrowed for a little while. I hope he is considering that because it would also give us a good boost. 
But seriously this bill will help. It has risks attached to it. We will be keeping an eye on the implementation of this bill to ensure that none of the concerns we have come to fruition. We do not want a concrete slab city we do not want trucks being able to use our roads when they are risky and tearing them up even more than they have been destroyed and we do not want our historic architecture removed from the landscape for ever. We want as much of the beauty of our city to be retained for the future as possible. We want our citizens to have a place to work a place to live and a healthy city to continue to thrive in. That is a big ask. We have a lot of work to do but Parliament has given its support to that. The local members of Parliament have all worked tirelessly to help the residents of our city and I certainly hope that that support and that approach continue. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 This has been one tough day and we are faced with tough circumstances that still obtain in Christchurch and Canterbury. This is the third reading of the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill and therefore it is the final opportunity to comment before it is enacted into law. I begin by reiterating our appreciation to the Government and to Minister Brownlee Minister John Carter Minister Smith and other Ministers for their good intent and their cooperative spirit in Christchurch during and after the earthquake and for that matter here in the House. 
Our abiding concern I suppose in Opposition is that we are always very squeezed by time pressure when legislation of this nature comes through in such a compressed time frame. This has been a good debate but we are left with the feeling that there has been insufficient time to properly work through some of the issues in good faith between the parties. We tend to emerge with a feeling that we are left with the crumbs of democracy that have fallen from the tables of power and we are left to exit the Chamber feeling that we have not done justice to the depth of significance of some of these issues. To that extent not only are we dissatisfied but we are saddened about the health of democracy in this country. 
This is a tough day these are tough circumstances and indeed this is a tough bill. It is a tough bill in the sense that it has far-reaching powers. Ruth Dyson used the word “Draconian” but she did not associate the bill with it. She said some people regarded the bill as Draconian. I heard that word spoken about this bill independently of Ruth Dyson earlier today. We can take our choice; it is a semantic issue. But let us all agree—and I think we do—that extraordinarily far-reaching powers are about to be enacted. 
The basic attitude of the Green Party to this bill as we said in the first reading and reiterated in the second reading and during the Committee stage is that its powers are excessive for the purpose. We do not deny the purpose; we share in the purpose. We regard the powers as being excessive relative to that purpose. Some of our concerns have been allayed and I say to Minister Smith that I appreciate his explanations about the territorial application. We took his point in the first reading and we did not submit a Supplementary Order Paper that we had prepared on the territorial jurisdiction issue. However we did take on board the concerns about the bill from the very beginning. 
I identified six principles in the Committee stage. Going backwards as it were the sixth principle is municipal transparency in terms of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act. We appreciate the effort of the Government to respond positively to that. That reflected an initiative on our part which was shared by the Labour Party and we appreciate the Government’s response to it. With regard to community participation and whether more city councillors from Christchurch should be involved I hear the Minister’s reassurance that he is interested in providing a flat non-bureaucratic structure that there is mayoral involvement and so on. We hear that. I do not know whether that completely allays our concerns around community participation but I think we are all agreed that there needs to be adequate local community participation. With regard to accountability to Parliament and the 24-hour rule that we were putting forward we accept the ministerial explanation that there will be gazetting normally although we still retain the preference that there should have been automatic reporting to Parliament under the legislation. 
Our principal concerns run deeply and I trust that the Government acknowledges in good faith the depth of our concerns. There are three fundamental concerns and I think they have constitutional implications. The first relates to the sunset clause to limit how long the emergency powers should last. Our preference was for 6 months. We did not think it was beyond the imagination of the Government to recognise that 6 months is quite a long time in a fluid situation of this nature and that the legislation could easily have been renewed within that time. However so be it. The lifespan of the legislation is 18 months and we acknowledge that it is still a finite time period. The two fundamental principles that we think are in severe jeopardy here relate to the lack of any limitation of scope and the issue of judicial review. I must say we are not satisfied on those points and our concerns run deeply. 
I understand the Minister’s assurances about political trust. We already commented in the first reading on the issue of trust and there is no need for us to repeat ourselves now. I acknowledge the good intent on the part of the Government and I acknowledge that I offered the odd extravagant comment at the time. In lame defence I simply say I was registering a point by extreme analogy. That is all fine in the give and take of debate and I acknowledge the good intent of the Government in that respect. 
I conclude by addressing not the Government but the people of New Zealand. I make two points. First the Green Party flags for the people of New Zealand our deep concern over two provisions of this bill: clause 6(3) which pertains to legal immunity and which has been debated at length; and clause 6(4) which pertains to the lack of limitation on the scope of the legislation. We flag our concern about those issues and we invite the people of New Zealand to watch very closely those issues. On the second point I also address the Government. It is on notice tonight to act by the standards that it has proclaimed for itself which from now on will be the subject of arbitrary political determination on its part rather than subject to normal legal constraint. We shall vote for this bill notwithstanding those very deep concerns. We do so for one reason: national cohesion in a state of extreme urgency in Christchurch. But let our support for this bill not go without an appreciation and acknowledgement of the fundamental concerns that we have about those two points in particular. Thank you. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Kia ora ra. Kia ora mai ano ra tatou katoa e te whanau e nohonoho mai nei i roto i to tatou Whare i tenei po. Ki a ratou ano e noho tonu ana ki roto o Otautahi me mihi atu mai i a matou katoa o roto o tenei Whare Paremata ki a ratou i roto i tenei taumahatanga kei runga i a ratou i tenei wa. 
[ 
Thank you and greetings to us all the family sitting there in our House tonight. Those who continue to live in Christchurch all of us in this House of Parliament once again indeed acknowledge this burden that is upon them at this point in time. 
] 
Watching my whanaunga—Tau Henare’s whanaunga actually—Tihi Puanaki trying to explain the terror of the earthquake on  
Te Kaea 
 showed me how serious its impact has been on everyone in and around Christchurch. I know Tihi well and she is no shrinking violet. She is a formidable and renowned kapahaka leader a passionate teacher of te reo and a real strength in her community. 
Tihi’s story of course has been repeated by many others in many ways every day in all media and in everyone’s daily conversations. It confirms the importance of the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill to assist with the response to the earthquake. So we are keen to support this bill and in particular to acknowledge the efforts of all those involved in the rebuilding of the devastated communities of Canterbury. 
Along with other community facilities that were able to be used Maori Party MP Rahui Katene has reminded us to acknowledge the efforts of the people of Ngai Tuahuriri in opening Tuahiwi Marae just north of the central business district to people in need of accommodation. No doubt all the other marae would have been opened up as well except they were all closed for structural safety assessments. Rahui also asked that we acknowledge the generosity of Nga Hau e Wha marae which was closed but which provided mattresses and general supplies to those welfare centres that were open to help those in need throughout Christchurch. 
Rahui also told us of the work of Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu and has asked us to acknowledge it as well for doing its bit to support Ngai Tahu families other Maori living in its takiwa and all other residents in the stricken area; and to acknowledge its website which is a hive of valuable information—tips about how to cope through the crisis and specific information to help children and families deal with the trauma. We acknowledge also the practical assistance being provided by Ngai Tahu through their Tautoko Whanau bank account which they are proposing be administered by their own kaiwhakahaere the Mayor of Christchurch and a representative of matawaka and coordinated with other community support initiatives being put in place. 
As a special aside Rahui told us one of those little stories that help to lift people’s spirits in the midst of disaster. I am referring to the offer from Ngati Koata and other iwi in Nelson to open Whakatu Marae to give whanau a break after a very stressful couple of weeks in Christchurch the offer from Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu to provide transport to and from Nelson and the offer from iwi around Te Tau Ihu to provide kai and cater for manuhiri as well. 
One of the other big issues that came through to our caucus from Rahui’s regular reports was the concern she had that many whanau were opting to stay in their unsafe homes because they could not get to welfare centres. Rahui told us of spending a lot of her time last week visiting whanau kaumatua and kuia in Darlington and Hornby and she was shocked to find that many of them were still without power water and sewerage. Some of them even lacked transport to get to the welfare centres so many were opting to hunker down in their unsafe homes. 
Hearing these and many other stories from Rahui reminded me that even in times of common disaster sometimes support is not provided to all communities equally. I raise these points because Rahui’s comments also reminded me of the importance of the Government acknowledging the 30000 Maori living in Christchurch and recognising that their views and their needs need to be taken on board along with those of all other members of the community. I raise these points because again Rahui reminds us that it is important to the history of Otautahi to the background of the current crisis and to the future of a rebuilt Canterbury to ensure that Ngai Tahu is involved in all decisions being made during the rebuilding phase to ensure that the responses of Maori to the impacts of the earthquake are properly heard and acted upon. The Maori Party would like to see in the implementation of this bill the opportunity for tangata whenua to have an equitable say in the decisions that affect them and other Maori in the area and the opportunity for Ngai Tahu to add its considerable community knowledge and resource networks to the efforts to rebuild the district. 
We will be supporting this bill to assist the recovery and rebuilding of the Canterbury district but we are reminded again by our southern sister Rahui of the importance that Maori and specifically Ngai Tahu have formal representation on the commission to ensure an effective response to the needs and the circumstances of the 30000 Maori who live in the wider Christchurch area. Kia ora tatou. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I rise to support the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill in its third reading. Every Cantabrian who has been through the 7.1 magnitude earthquake has responded magnificently to the state of emergency. Thousands of New Zealanders have volunteered to support emergency services to get our city and our province up and running. They have all been incredibly professional—quickly and quietly getting on with the job. What a fantastic effort! Ten days later the region is close to getting back to normal and all Cantabrians are ready to roll up their sleeves and get on with the process of recovery and reconstruction. 
The Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill will allow our region to move seamlessly from the state of emergency to recovery mode and will coordinate the reconstruction and rebuilding of Christchurch City and all the towns all the farms and all the homes across Canterbury. This legislation is powerful. It will empower our can-do Cantabrians to rebuild our society our infrastructure and our future. 
The destruction caused across the Canterbury region is immense. It is so substantial that the recovery will be one of the most significant in New Zealand’s history. It is the job of local government regional government and central government to enable and to lead this reconstruction. This bill will provide the coordination required to prioritise work and to ensure that the redevelopment is well planned and well executed and that we get the best possible result when our work is done. 
The Hon Ruth Dyson mentioned how Cantabrians can now talk “earthquake” and can judge the Richter scale with ease. After every shock we gauge the rating and even in our sleep we can decide whether it is worth waking up for. Minister Paula Bennett tells us that she saw in Christchurch today T-shirts stating “We don’t get out of bed for anything less than a 6”. 
Finally I congratulate Minister Gerry Brownlee and Minister Dr Nick Smith on producing this bill so quickly and effectively and providing a platform for the people of Canterbury to get on with the restoration and reconstruction of our homes our businesses and our society. I think now is the time for us to get going; we are keen to do that. We want to make sure that our city and our region makes the absolute most of every possible opportunity and that we can build an even more colourful more vibrant and more beautiful city and province. 
Bill read a third time.