Brownlee Gerry: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:18169] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery) 
: 
 First I restate that the contents of the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper was put together in a document that was provided to members before the House sat this morning. The process that we have gone through over the last couple of days is one that the Opposition asked for and the Government agreed to. I think we are heading towards some regret over that. Although the information that came through from submitters in many parts was valid and useful and we have agreed to those things it took until the very early hours of this morning—some time after 4 a.m.—for this particular bit of work to come together. It then needed further consideration before it was made available to those who would be drafting the Supplementary Order Paper. 
Throughout the morning we have heard of the need to get things right and not make mistakes. We have tabled a bill that we are happy with. We are obviously allowing those people who have made solid submissions to have their concerns reflected in the finished copy of the bill. But I have to say that it will be about another hour before that Supplementary Order Paper is completed. That is not unreasonable in these circumstances. The sort of jumping up and down and beating of the chest that we have seen over this is utterly ridiculous in the circumstances. 
I have before me at least 100 amendments put forward by the Opposition which have been declared valid by the Clerk. I will take the time now to go through those amendments one by one and explain the Government’s position over and above the document that was provided to the members of the Committee this morning. The first amendment is in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson. It deals with an interpretive matter. Six changes are proposed in this amendment. To make the process a little shorter I simply say that these amendments would extend the powers of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority to a much greater area of Canterbury than is currently the case. The amendments deal with putting the words “Canterbury District Health Board” into the legislation as one of the bodies that is consulted. 
It is implicit in the legislation that recovery plans for health will be developed with the Canterbury District Health Board; the board does not need an additional representation in the bill. Most certainly the area caught by the bill’s provision does not have to be as large as that covered by the Canterbury District Health Board. The situation is similar with regard to the issues around the disability strategy. That is a guide for how local authorities should plan for the development of new buildings and facilities in their district and it will remain so. 
The second amendment in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson proposes that there be some exclusions and exceptions of exclusions to appeals. The Government’s response to this amendment is that we will not support it. It puts appeals into the wrong place. If we were to go through this process then we would accept this amendment engaging the Environment Court in the process. That would defeat the purpose of the bill which is to move swiftly to get good recovery for Canterbury. 
The next amendment is in the name of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove: “Part 2 Clause 21 is amended by inserting the following subclause (5) No recovery plan shall be approved without an impact assessment being completed to assess the social cultural environmental and community impacts.” From our perspective we believe that this bill is an enabling framework and that that response in some cases for recovery plans would be implicit. Where there is a need to do something expeditiously where there is a need to do something even if it is a temporary arrangement this amendment would be an impost that would in fact slow things down. Frankly I think that is the intention here today. 
The next amendment from the Hon Clayton Cosgrove proposes that “Clause 27 is amended by replacing subclause (7) with the following new subclause: ‘Compensation is payable under this Act for any loss suffered as a result of an action taken under this section’ ”. This is where the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority will have the ability to work with local councils to suspend some aspects of Resource Management Act plans. It would mean for example that people with air space currently available to them who own property in Christchurch excluded from a new central business district plan by the Christchurch City Council would end up being liable for compensation from the Government. That is an unacceptable position and we will not be supporting that amendment. 
The next amendment proposes that “Clause 83 is amended by omitting subsection (1).” The effect of omitting subsection (1) without reading what it currently says is that urban search and rescue workers who were engaged in the rescue of people— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Do you mean you haven’t read it? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Well I will read it then. Shall I read it to the member who clearly is not familiar with this particular part of the bill? Subsection (1) of clause 83 which Clayton Cosgrove wants to take out states: “Every action taken or decision made under the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 by the National Controller the Director or any person acting under the authority of the National Controller or the Director if taken or made while the state of national emergency was in force in respect of Christchurch in 2011 is declared to be and always to have been valid.” He wants to take out the bit that says: “Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of any action or decision that is taken or made in bad faith” etc. I think it should apply in those circumstances and I do not want to see urban search and rescue teams suddenly confronted with bills for the damage that may have been done to enter buildings looking for bodies. So we will not be supporting that amendment. 
The next amendment is in the name of Brendon Burns. It amends matters to do with the community forum. The community forum will be the subject of some negotiation I think between political parties and of course the elected representatives but in the end it is about giving a voice to people in the community who do not have an elected responsibility but emerge from those communities as leaders as a result of this particular event. Saying that there should be more than six meetings a year when we have a bill that will run for 5 years shows a failure to understand that at the start of this process there may be a need for many more meetings at the front end but due to the success of the recovery—I hope—fewer meetings at the back end. 
The next amendment is also in the name of Brendon Burns with regard to the recovery plan for the central business district. He proposes that “in developing the Recovery Plan for the CBD the Christchurch City Council must not propose the full or partial sale of any assets which it or any of its subsidiaries hold.” So where does that leave them with the Henderson properties? The Labour Party has spent the last couple of years telling the world that those properties were a bunch of dead-duck properties that the council should never have invested in. So on the one hand Labour is saying that the council should never have done it should not have touched it it was outrageous but now it is saying: “Don’t sell them; they’re precious local assets. Don’t touch them.” Most of those properties are busted and broken. It would be a good thing if the council does have the flexibility to enter property transactions for property that is held by ratepayers particularly where those properties are now a significant burden on an already stressed rating base. 
The next amendment from Brendon Burns relates to clause 27 “Suspension of plan etc”. What Mr Burns wants to do is implicit in subclause (1)(c). I will not go into the detail because it is so obvious and it would be an embarrassment to point it out. Mr Burns also proposes amendments to clause 87 “Quarterly report on operation of this Act”. For clarification purposes he wants the description to list the instances in which each power was exercised and whether notification and/or consultation was required and carried out. Well where there are requirements for disclosure in legislation there are very few prescriptions about that requirement. We could for example disclose Ministers’ expenses as a bulk figure and then let everybody go and work it out. But no one finds that acceptable so there is a line-by-line attitude taken to it. It is implicit in this bill that the same process will be followed. 
The Hon Clayton Cosgrove wants to amend the public notification of draft recovery plan for the central business district. This is an amendment that we will not support largely because in the end the legislation prescribes that the Minister—therefore the Cabinet committee—and Cabinet itself approves that plan. The Hon Clayton Cosgrove also wants to amend the development of recovery plans. He proposes that the process for the development of a recovery plan must include one or more public hearings as determined by the chief executive at which members of the public may appear and must be heard. Let us say it is a recovery plan for the lower reaches of the Avon River as it enters the estuary. We know at the moment that 65 percent of the 94 percent of toilet discharge that gets flushed in the city does not make its way to the sewerage works. We know there has to be a suspension of the requirements of the Resource Management Act to allow unacceptable discharge into those areas. If there is a better way of doing it and it can be done quickly do we really need to have a publicly notified process that allows people to come along and express their view about whether we should stop sewage running into an open waterway? It is an utterly ridiculous suggestion and we will not be supporting it. 
The next amendment from the Hon Ruth Dyson is to clause 22(2) to omit subclause (2) and insert a new subclause (2). For the member—I know that the request will be made in a few minutes—let me read the current subclause (2) so that people can be in no doubt about what is in it. I do not want to be accused again of not knowing what is in it. Clause 22 talks about changes to a recovery plan. Subclause (2) states: “Action may be taken under subsection (1) using the processes the Minister considers appropriate.” Ms Dyson wants us to refer to subsections (4) and (5) of section 11 as set out in clause 22. Section 11(4) is prescriptive. It does not set out that clause 22(2) sets aside anything; all it does is make sure that there is some flexibility that can be exercised according to the size of the plan that is being dealt with. Once again the Labour Party wants to put in place as many hold-it-up slow-it-down roadblock arrangements as possible. 
We then come to more amendments by the Hon Clayton Cosgrove. He wants to insert new clause 7A “Relationship with Local Authorities”. The amendment says: “The Minister must meet at least quarterly with Council Mayors and the Chair of the Regional Council.” That assumes there will be a massive arm’s-length lack of collaboration arrangement coming out of this bill. The amendment attacks the very very heart of this bill which is about having cooperation and collaboration. We will not support that amendment. It would be a matter of bad faith to do so. 
The member also wants to amend clause 48. For those who are uncertain about clause 48 please turn to the relevant page so that we can be clear about this and we cannot be accused of getting things wrong or going to the wrong place in the bill. Clause 48 is about directions that can be issued by the organisation. A direction is a simple thing. It could be whether a council would mind holding up a decision because more information was coming. I can tell members that that has happened in the last few weeks. It has been done cooperatively without the need for any reference to any legislation or law but it simply formalises what can be done. So what we get is that the Minister would be required to— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I call Charles Chauvel. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Oh do they not want responses to their SOPs?