SpeechHon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Thank you Mr Speaker. I'm pleased to take a call on the Severe Weather Emergency Recovery Legislation Bill. The Green Party really supports the objectives of the bill in terms of assisting communities and local authorities and facilitating recovery in the areas affected by Cyclone Hale and Cyclone Gabrielle and the Auckland anniversary weekend storm but we won't be supporting the bill because of the major override on the powers of Parliament. Starting where Mr McKelvie as chair of the Governance and Administration Committee finished I note there is a real need to develop a framework for how the Parliament responds and how the Government responds to ensure that decisions are made during a recovery which are expedited but without the major executive override of the Parliament which this bill involves. I know that in response to Hurunui Kaikōura and Canterbury there was some discussion of this and there was a decision not to proceed with the framework for emergency—well for recovery response legislation that would provide a permanent framework. But I think the major submissions that we had by a lot of constitutional lawyers and the New Zealand Law Society—and they described the bill as not being constitutionally appropriate and raising fundamental rule of law issues. Those are serious issues and I feel as an MP quite uncomfortable the day before a three-week recess discussing this bill because we have not had adequate time to ensure that it sets an appropriate structure with enough checks and balances on the power of the executive. So this further work does need to be done on how we as a Parliament respond and what safeguards are bedded in when the executive needs to use Orders in Council. Our concerns which we expressed while supporting the bill going to select committee at the first reading remain—that there are nearly 30 pieces of legislation which Orders in Council can amend and modify including retrospectively back to the start of the weather emergency event and that one of the most problematic provisions is clause 19 because that enables other pieces of legislation to be added to those which the executive can amend by Orders in Council and that is being done not by this Parliament but by another Order in Council. So there is a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in my name seeking to have those provisions excised from the bill and consider whether there is new legislation that needs to have Orders in Council made coming back to the Parliament.There were over 204 submissions and the majority of those submissions were opposed to the bill. I think again that underlines the need for the Parliament to look at a more enduring structure in terms of recovery. Some of the other reasons that we aren't supporting the bill is that as submitters noticed it does largely appear to be for administrative convenience. Everyone wants an expeditious recovery but officials could not say what Orders in Council are waiting to be done and if they can't do that then the Parliament could've had a longer time and potentially be recalled over the three-week recess to deal with this more thoroughly.There's the issue of the very broad purpose clause and then the fact that under clause 8 there's a threshold for Ministers to make Orders in Council when the order is necessary or desirable" and while officials said that that language appears in some other legislation that legislation is concerned with emergencies. This legislation is concerned with recovery and as everyone in Canterbury knows major decisions were made after the earthquakes that are having a significant impact sometimes beneficial but sometimes—in terms of the major costs of the stadium half a billion dollars—decisions were made during that framework which are not necessarily for the best interests of the majority of residents.There are processes which exist in law which enable communities to participate. Those processes ensure that we get a range of opinion informing the decision. When you cut through those processes to act quickly in a recovery when there are millions of dollars being spent that do not necessarily go to the best decision. So the concern about acting very quickly in an emergency—granted. But in a recovery there should be "nothing about us without us"—that was a common refrain in Canterbury and equally it applies in Tairāwhiti Hawke's Bay Auckland and other areas. Communities need to be involved in those investment decisions. So where you slice through processes such as under the Resource Management Act you don't necessarily get that involvement.One of the critical things that we think is missing in the bill is a real focus on ensuring that actions are taken to promote climate resilience and adaptation. So we're seeking an addition to the purpose to do that because the investment decisions that are made now whether roads are repaired to a very very high standard means that there are opportunity costs of that. Those funds may not be available to invest in more regional rail and regional rail is likely to provide both climate benefits and ensure that a lot of heavy traffic is taken off roads. So those sort of priorities are quite critical and we need to go through a consultative process and our concern is that with Orders in Council there'll be less of an ability to do that because consultation is seen as taking too long so the Orders in Council override that. One point I do wish to make clear is that some submitters seem to think that the Severe Weather Events Review Panel was all about directing the recovery. It's not. It's about reviewing the Orders in Council. There is not a single body as there was in Canterbury that is directing the recovery itself. But this panel is only about the Orders in Council and their content. There are too many overrides of the basic rule of law. The legislation is going through this Parliament too quickly. There hasn't been an adequate opportunity to really improve it. There have been some suggestions that submitters made that the committee discussed which the Minister is taking up in his Supplementary Order Paper because there was not time for a revision-tracked version. But there were a number of other suggestions in submissions that aren't on that SOP and I think that accounts for the range of SOPs that you have from members in other parties including the Green Party. So the other major issue that we have with this is that the sunset clause of allowing the Order in Council power to go on for five years is too long that that needs to come back and that the Parliament have the power to extend the ability for Orders in Council itself not putting such a lengthy clause in the bill. There will be major decisions that are made through Orders in Council. One that we have a particular concern about is in the waste space. In Canterbury it was an Order in Council around the storage sorting and processing of earthquake waste at the Burwood Resource Recovery Park. There was not nearly enough emphasis on reuse of houses that were damaged—reuse and recovery and reprocessing of materials. And similarly there are likely to be significant issues around waste management here. They need to go through a good process so that we are maximising materials' reuse and recovery and not just sending everything to landfill. Big issues and we were pleased with the change that the select committee recommended around potential health impacts with people suggesting that the slash will be burned and the smoke and respiratory impacts that that will have. So the panel will at least now have to have someone with that health protection expertise. There have been some additional safeguards but still there is this fundamental issue with nearly 30 pieces of legislation having Orders in Council that can be developed with some consultation by the Minister with some scrutiny by the panel but not enough public engagement. And those who think that the Regulations Review Committee is an effective safeguard should remember that that committee—which I'm a member of—rarely looks at whether Orders in Council meet with the purpose of the Act. They don't go into any of the substantive policy issues and it's the substantive policy issues which some of these Orders in Council may allow that we are particularly concerned with. So the Green Party—despite the very good chairing of Mr McKelvie of the Governance and Administration Committee and the very collegial approach in that committee—cannot support the bill because it raises fundamental rule of law issues and it doesn't have enough safeguards."