Dyson Ruth: Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Dyson Ruth: Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13964] 
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.