Turia Tariana: Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill — Procedure First Reading Second Reading 
Turia Tariana: Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill — Procedure First Reading Second Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13911] 
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Tena tatou katoa. There has been one word on my mind in the aftermath of the events of 4 September and that word is “manaakitanga”. The very core of the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill is about showing manaakitanga by helping the people of Christchurch including its 30500 Maori to recover from the earthquake to rebuild their homes to renew their spirits and—most of all—to restore the quality of their lives and that of their w’anau around them. Manaakitanga as defined by Professor Hirini Moko Mead focuses on positive human behaviour and on encouraging people to rise above their personal attitudes and feelings towards others. The aim is to nurture relationships and to respect the mana of other people no matter what their standing is in society. Being hospitable and looking after visitors is given very high priority. And so it is that in this bill—and this has been very evident in the days interrupted by hundreds of aftershocks and further disarray—priority is given to looking after the people of Canterbury today and into the future. 
The bill enables an effective response to the Canterbury earthquake to be put in place with the associated statutory powers provided that are necessary to assist with the response. A key priority in the bill is to facilitate the gathering of information about any structure or infrastructure affected by the earthquake. An important note in the fine print is that the information sought through the processes introduced in the bill is defined as that which is “relevant to understanding how to minimise the damage caused by earthquakes.” This is where we come back to the concept of manaakitanga. How much more relevant to the issue of damage can it be than to focus on the well-being of the people? 
I will reiterate here what the ACT spokesperson said about the amazing efforts that have been made by Work and Income to make contact with people who are over 65 years of age in order to provide a basic level of contact that can be very appreciated in times of need. The numbers are absolutely remarkable. As at earlier today Work and Income staff had contacted 16233 superannuitants by phone and had visited another 706 elderly people in their homes in the days following the quake. In addition I commend Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu which has telephoned over 700 kaumatua to check on their well-being. Telephone teams organised by te runanga have also been calling w’anau in other age groups with the aim of calling all w’anau in the badly affected areas for whom they have contact details. 
I also draw attention to the commitment of the local MP Rahui Katene who alongside all the other MPs in Christchurch has been doing sterling work. She has spent every moment visiting Maori communities and w’anau in the worst affected areas of Otautahi following the 7.1 magnitude earthquake. 
When we talk about infrastructure and the damage that has been incurred we say it is the human infrastructure that must prevail. I am very pleased that in the Government’s initial response to the earthquake a fund of $2.5 million has been established for trauma counselling to be drawn from the Community Response Fund. I have to say how saddened I was that in the immediate aftermath of the earthquake on Saturday 4 September the police reported that incidents of domestic violence had increased by 53 percent. Such a statistic mirrored the research findings issued by Victoria University earlier this year which revealed that after a disaster there is up to triple the usual number of reports of domestic violence. The ugly face of violence the escalating rates of anxiety and the levels of mental illness stress and depression are all casualties of the damage caused by any disaster including the recent Canterbury earthquake. I welcome the purpose of this bill of gathering information about the extent of the damage not just to the bricks and mortar but also to the human experience. 
The response and recovery provisions outlined in Part 2 deal with some 22 Acts that may be affected by the granting of an exemption from the provisions contained within them. I will focus specifically on two areas that are of special interest to the Maori Party and they relate to the ongoing provision of public health. The Health Act 1956 and the Health and Disability Services (Safety) Act 2001 are the key means by which legislation ensures that there is adequate drinking-water sewerage waste disposal sanitation and so on. Although there are no concerns about ensuring that decisions are made quickly in order to ensure that the Canterbury region gets back to normal there are some concerns that affected parties have no recourse after the responsible Minister makes a decision. We need to ensure that those affected parties or groups which are already disadvantaged are not further disadvantaged by any decisions that are made. I am thinking in particular of the tangata whenua people with disabilities people on low incomes refugee and migrant communities Pasifika peoples those in poor housing and other groups that may be more vulnerable in this time of instability. There must be some assurances that all decisions will be consulted on with affected parties and groups before final decisions are made. 
In addition the basic human rights of people and the international conventions such as our United Nations commitments must also be taken into account. 
We absolutely support this bill as it gives those who are involved in the rebuilding effort another tool to aid in the recovery of the people of Christchurch. I want to be clear that clause 6(3) in Part 2 causes us some concern in that the statement that “The recommendation of the relevant Minister may not be challenged reviewed quashed or called into question in any court.” might suggest that liability and logically accountability and culpability are all being removed. We table this concern now in order to enable the Minister to provide an assurance as to how issues of liability can be addressed. 
If I could make one final suggestion it would be to recommend—indeed to strongly advise the Minister—that mana whenua must have representation on the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Commission. There are 30500 Maori living in Selwyn District Waimakariri District and Christchurch City. We want to ensure that Maori have a guaranteed voice on the recovery commission and that the unique needs of marae w’anau hapu and iwi are actively respected within it. We strongly urge the Government to reserve a place for Ngai Tahu amongst the four appointed persons on the seven-person commission. 
I return once more to the expression of manaakitanga. While we debate the bill in this House today I want to extend our heartfelt gratitude for the offers of assistance that have been made by many other iwi and indeed by the papatipu runanga to support Kai Tahu and other iwi living in the rohe of Otautahi and to all the other people who have made significant contributions. Volunteers from right throughout Aotearoa have devoted themselves to the task of supporting the people of Canterbury. All of us in this House have been touched by the generosity of spirit that has been demonstrated by social service providers non-governmental organisations Government agencies and members of the greater public alike. They have spared a thought for their kith and kin in Canterbury and have reached deep to show their support. This is also an opportune time to make acknowledgments to all of the hard-working local MPs from all sides of the House who have been working to support the people of Canterbury. He mihi atu nei ki a koutou. This bill will be all the better for all of their efforts. Na reira tena koutou katoa.