Dyson Ruth: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Dyson Ruth: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:18135] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on the second reading of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill. I will begin by acknowledging the member who has just resumed his seat. I have spent a bit of time in Mr Auchinvole’s company over the last 3 or 4 days and I have a great deal of admiration for the way he chaired the Local Government and Environment Committee. There was a lot of tension around the debate and a lot of frustrated submitters—a lot of frustrated members of the committee actually—dealing with an issue that is really important to everyone who was on the select committee. Mr Auchinvole treated us all in a manner that was respectful and I think he engendered better behaviour as a result of his chairing; I want to acknowledge that. 
Members from our side of the House are totally committed to the Canterbury recovery but what the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery has failed to understand and annoyingly despite the best efforts of many submitters what the majority of members on the other side of the select committee table have failed to grasp is that recovery is about more than speedy demolition removal of rubble the rebuild of infrastructure and the rebuild of buildings. Recovery is about ensuring that the residents of Canterbury are part of the vision of the future of their area—of their suburb their community their city their region—and every one of us needs to have a strong voice in that recovery. It is about ensuring that as we look at what is going to happen to streets suburbs and shopping centres we take this opportunity to ensure that the current inequities we have in our city are addressed and that we give everyone a better place to stand as we recover from these earthquakes. 
In my view the Minister does not understand that fundamental difference. The National members of the Local Government and Environment Committee did not appear to understand the difference between rebuild and recovery and therefore this is a tragic wasted opportunity not just to get it right but to get it better. I hope that as we progress this legislation today as we go through the Committee stage the Minister will look seriously at the amendments we produce. I hope he will do as he said he would do when he gave us a commitment and look seriously at the recovery aspects of the submitters’ proposals. 
This has been a very unusual process but as members have already stated these are very unusual times. There is no normal any more in Canterbury. We talk about a new normal and I guess the select committee process was a good example of how to do things quite differently. It is quite unusual that we did not have a bill referred to us. We did not have advisers which is very unusual. So when submitters appeared before us we had no officials who could explain why they had put X Y and Z in the legislation to answer the questions from the submitters. We did not have any of the usual technical advice available to the select committee and we have gone through this process frustrated as a result. 
The Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery came to the select committee and gave us over an hour of his time. He was able to answer some of the questions. He assured us when he left that he would get back to us with other answers and I am sure he will. I can see that the Minister is nodding. I am very pleased about that because we are not sure which of the unanswered questions will be addressed in the Supplementary Order Paper. Another unusual incidence is trying to give a second reading speech about possible amendments as the Minister is giving out his Supplementary Order Paper responses. 
The point of that comment is to emphasise my concern about this entire process. I think it is better to take a little more time particularly in preparing legislation such as this to get it right rather than to rush it and get it wrong. The politics of that would be entirely borne by Mr Brownlee but in my view the future recovery of Canterbury is far more important than any political muck the Minister might wear as a result of getting things wrong in this legislation. That is why I urged that a little more time be taken so that submitters could consider the bill so that the Minister could consider the submissions seriously and so that more people could have an input into what is a very very powerful new organisation and we as a Parliament could send a message to Canterbury that we have a united voice in supporting the recovery of Canterbury. In my view that would be ideal. But instead we got a hotchpotch last-minute rushed frustrated process without the select committee even having the opportunity to have technical advice. 
We had some high-quality submissions. The submitters looked quite exhausted. Some of them had literally spent the night prior to the select committee hearing in Christchurch preparing their submission. That is not a good process. It is not a good process for people to get a bill at 4 o’clock on a Tuesday afternoon and be expected to appear at a select committee between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. the following day. That is a very poor process and it reflects badly on this Parliament. It reflects badly on how we view the concerns of submitters. I think it is disrespectful to expect people to prepare a considered and thoughtful submission with that sort of notice. 
Some of the submissions were very serious. In fact the submission from the New Zealand Law Society—a highly regarded organisation—said that one of the clauses clause 70 gives very wide powers for Orders in Council to override enactments contrary to the rule of law and good legislation principles and is therefore undesirable. That is a very strong comment and others were equally concerned. Although the submitters all said that they support a timely process for the strong recovery of Canterbury they all also expressed concern about the rushed nature of this process. 
The other big concern I have alongside my concern about the rushed process is the lack of genuine community engagement. If we do not take the people of Canterbury along the path of recovery then in 5 10 or 20 years’ time the people of Canterbury will not be as passionate about and proud of their region as we currently are. They will not debate vigorously the merits of any adjustment. They will not have the sorts of debates we have about the Square one-way streets different buildings or whether the fountain in the botanical gardens is a certain colour. We will not have that sort of passionate debate because people will not feel part of their city and their region. We can debate more rigorously about details of our city than any other part of our country and I want that passion to remain. Other people are amazed by it. Other people sometimes laugh at it. They find it extraordinary. But it is part of the passion of our city and without community involvement as part of the recovery we will lose that passion. 
Mr Brownlee’s lack of understanding of how fast communities can engage and how seriously people want to do that is demonstrated in the legislation by a clause that says we will have community engagement but it cannot be at the cost of timely recovery. We all know that but it is insulting to the communities to treat them as something that will slow down and hinder a strong recovery. In fact the Waimakariri District Council put it very well in its submission when it said quite clearly that not only had the community’s involvement not slowed down the process but also as the mayor described it it had made the recovery enduring. 
Without the people of Canterbury going along this path of recovery it will not be a sustainable recovery. It may be a recovery where we get buildings demolished and rubble removed quickly and where we get our infrastructure rebuilt—we all want that; we all are committed to that path—but what has to be included in this is the voice of the people. No amount of rubble removal no amount of rapid demolition and rebuild can give Canterbury the spirit that we need for a strong recovery. Only the voice of the people can do that.