Norman Russel William: Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Norman Russel William: Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13952] 
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.