Cosgrove Clayton: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:18225] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 Like all Canterbury members and other members of this House who have taken the trouble and shown the commitment to come down and assist the fellow members of our community I understand very clearly the difficulties our fellow citizens are dealing with. When we had a number of memorial speeches in the Parliament I think I used the phrase that there is a dust cloud—a metaphorical one now at least—hanging over the people of Canterbury. I think I said that cloud is filled with tears the tears of people who have lost loved ones who have lost their livelihoods and their homes and who have had their lives disrupted and their children’s lives disrupted. 
I also said at the time that I believe we will rebuild our province. We will rebuild it and it will reflect the grit the generosity of spirit and the good nature and guts of the people of Canterbury. We will have a modern city and we will have a modern province although it is hard to look constituents in the eye and make that commitment to them. It is hard for those constituents to believe that especially those who still do not have the basics of life such as a toilet. Elderly folk still have to go down in the early hours of the morning to a thing called a Portaloo which is a pretty ugly encounter for those of us in our younger years let alone for those vulnerable people in our community. 
I note as I have noted throughout this debate the Labour members of Parliament Ruth Dyson Brendon Burns and Lianne Dalziel. Lianne cannot participate in this debate given that she is required in Christchurch at another public meeting assisting her community but I think it is noteworthy to breach the Standing Orders in that respect and note that she cannot be present. Jim Anderton has also worked diligently as has Kennedy Graham. All those members on this side of the House have committed in good faith. We keep our word to this process. We have kept our word. In fact in my capacity I have stood in public meetings that I have organised and actually defended Gerry Brownlee and his Government when I thought it was appropriate. That is not in my nature I have to say but there is a higher calling in respect of this disaster we face. When cheap shots have been taken I have stood and defended the Earthquake Commission defended Mr Brownlee and defended his motives and his Government. 
I have to say our commitment to a bipartisan process has been sorely tested by that member in the last few weeks not just in the last few days when we have received commitments from the Minister when he has looked us in the eye and said he will do certain things and provide certain information. He has then—without a flinch I have to say and that shows the character of the man—observed that he has changed his mind and breached those commitments. I observed that. 
We and the people of Canterbury have been placed in a situation in which legislation the powers of which I have certainly not seen in my time in this Parliament has been put before this House in such a way that it has not had proper scrutiny. There will be people watching the show as it were and people who are listening who are in deep trouble in Canterbury and they are probably saying “Look Clayton you guys just work together and get on with it.” We understand that principle and we agree with that principle. I say to those folks that indeed we need to get on with it but our commitment and the expectation of the people of Canterbury was that this Parliament would deliver legislation to them that would meet and exceed their needs that would help them as swiftly as possible to get their lives back their homes back and their livelihoods back and that would restore them to a place where they were prior to 4 September and a better place of course than prior to the 22 February disaster. The people of Canterbury expect us to deliver the best possible authority for them and the best possible outcome for them. 
I say to the people of Canterbury that that has not been possible today because the Minister has embarked on a course akin to that of a parliamentary steamroller. He did accede to a 1-day select committee—it was not actually a day; it was 4 hours and 40 minutes of public hearings plus deliberation. Out of that select committee interestingly came all but one of the amendments that the Minister put on the Table of the House I think 4½ hours into the Committee stage. Had it not been for that select committee process that the Opposition demanded—and we demanded it because there are experts out there who have contributed in a positive way to this bill—the Minister it seems would have had but one amendment as he trots off to an early shower. 
Hon Nathan Guy 
: No no! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Yes I can say that. I tell members to read their  
Standing Orders of the House of Representatives 
. I say had we not had that select committee process the Law Society; the Legislation Advisory Committee; the three local authorities who received very short notice—a few hours’ notice—to attend; the Insurance Council critical to the process; the Canterbury District Health Board; and other elected folk would not have had any opportunity to bring their views forward and bring their positive ideas. It must have been positive for the Minister because his Supplementary Order Paper contained all of their ideas and only one of his own. So that is a win for the people of Canterbury. But then that Supplementary Order Paper was not allowed to have appropriate scrutiny and we will be guillotined in about an hour and 5 minutes because that is the process that Mr Brownlee has embarked upon. 
We support the legislation. We will support it. Even though we have grave reservations about the quality and whether it will deliver for our people we will and have given a public commitment to do so continue to work with the Government to attempt to make the legislation work for the people of Canterbury: for all those people Mr Brownlee mentioned who have worked their guts out in the last 6 or 7 months to help their fellow Cantabrians; for those people around New Zealand who have contributed money and time and who just appeared in Christchurch in Kaiapoi and Mount Pleasant with shovels in their hands to help people; for those people who now shed a tear most nights because they do not know when they will get their lives and their houses back; for those people in Kaiapoi who have been told that it could be 3½ years—despite the fantastic work of the Waimakariri District Council which has set a benchmark and a template for all other local authorities in our region—for those people who shed a tear because it will take sadly 3½ years for some of those people to get the keys to their new home. 
But I say to this House that I think Cantabrians expected better from us better from this Parliament. There will be those I am sure who will get up as Mr Brownlee and others have and as did the member for Taupo I think it is who got up and spat some political acid over to this side of the House accused us of playing politics and accused us of—I cannot remember the exact words— 
Louise Upston 
: Petty politics! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: —petty politics yes. She spat some political bile over to this side of the House as is her wont. 
Louise Upston 
: We’re sick of it. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Well that says it all. The people of Christchurch are not sick of members of Parliament—the Green member Mr Anderton myself and others—who got up and proposed amendments in a serious way to ensure that this bill is in the best possible shape it could be despite the political acid and bile that has been spat from that member. 
I will not resile from anything I have said or any criticisms I have made because those criticisms are made in good faith and they are made to ensure that there is accountability. There is a clause in this bill called an ouster clause clause 73(2) and it reads thus: “The recommendation of the relevant Minister may not be challenged reviewed quashed or called into question in any court.” That is the sort of “tsar clause”. It cannot be challenged by any legal organ in this land. If that power which is absolute is used appropriately and with diligence and discipline to help the people of Canterbury then we will support the use of that clause. But if it is abused and if it is used in a surreptitious way and if it is used without transparency or without accountability then we will expose that and the member for Taupo will again spit acid and say that we are being political. Well so be it. That is the nature of democracy and the nature of being a parliamentarian in this place—to hold to account the absolute power that the Minister and his Government will have as well as him. 
I will finish on this point: John Key made a pledge after 4 September a public pledge that was repeated by locals at many a public meeting I held that no one in Canterbury would be worse off. That is the acid test he will be judged by. Mr Brownlee is now shouldering the burden of this legislation squarely himself because in this process he quashed every amendment bar one.