Twyford Phil: Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Twyford Phil: Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13949] 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 I will make some comments about clause 6 of the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill and in particular the impact it may have on building and construction. Let me say first that a very fine barber was interviewed on the TV3 news about the aftermath of the earthquake. He said the thing I think has been on everybody’s mind for the last 10 days—that is how wonderful it was that no one died. Certainly that is a thought I know I have had virtually every single day since the earthquake. A number of commentators have pointed out that 230000 people died in Haiti after the earthquake there which was of a similar magnitude. I think the fact no one died and the destruction caused by the quake was relatively localised really was a triumph for the building code. It was a triumph for regulation. 
I know that members on that side of the House like to use words like “red tape” “bureaucracy” and “paperwork” but what we are talking about is regulation. They are minimum standards that enforce a community consensus about what is acceptable. The building code is the representation of those minimum standards. We have learned a lot in the last couple of decades about the importance of building regulations. I think we should have a national celebration of successful regulation. I hope the members of the National Party will join us in putting on a tickertape parade for regulation because do members know what? Regulation saved thousands of lives and billions of dollars in the Christchurch earthquake. That is relevant to this bill because this bill sets out to provide some pretty powerful exemptions in the recovery phase from certain important bits of law that we have in this country that regulate all manner of things particularly building and construction. 
It is very clear by now that Labour is supporting this bill. We recognise that in the recovery phase there is urgency to repair and rebuild. I am mindful of how amazingly disruptive the quake has been for everybody in Canterbury. I am particularly mindful of how disruptive it has been for low-income families and people without the resources that act as a cushion in these kinds of disasters. There are people who have had to move out of their homes and who do not have the reserves to be able to just find an alternative property. There are thousands of people currently in that situation so there is a need for speed. It is not about just people’s homes; it is about businesses that people are dependant on for their jobs and their livelihoods. The case has been made and I think it is very clear. 
I will ask a couple of questions of Minister Brownlee particularly in relation to clause 6 the provision allowing Orders in Council. I am interested to know how he envisages that will play out. I imagine that in relation to for example the Building Act clause 6 would allow an Order in Council that would exempt certain buildings in a certain zone over a certain time period from needing a building consent for repair and reconstruction. If that is the case how does the Government propose that the protections and the quality outcomes which the Building Act and the consenting regulations are there to protect will be delivered? I do not think anybody in this House this evening has a problem with the idea of streamlining the regulations to allow for urgency and for the process of repair and reconstruction to be expedited. I am also hoping that nobody in this House cares nothing for the quality of the reconstruction and repair work and the need to ensure that basic standards of quality work are done in the repair phase. 
My colleague Ruth Dyson mentioned before an opinion piece in the 
 Press  
today by former Mayor of Christchurch Garry Moore. In his inimitable way he made certain comments about the rebuilding particularly of the central area of Christchurch. I was there last night in a meeting with Brendon Burns and 300 people. They were concerned about the urban design standards in the rebuilding of central Christchurch particularly the protection of heritage buildings. Garry Moore said: “We should learn from what was wrong with what we were living in before September 4 2010 and rectify it. We should not rush legislation so that we fill the holes in our built form with cheap and nasty junk.” 
I venture the opinion that this bill in its desire to streamline and expedite does not provide any useful tools regulation finance or anything else that will make it easier for the people of Christchurch to do what is an incredibly important job which is rebuilding the central city. The heritage area is important to the people of Christchurch and it is also an economic asset for the region and the country. I am interested to know what the Minister has to say about that and what ideas the Government has for how it can work with the people of Christchurch and Christchurch City Council in particular to see that that rebuilding happens in a way that supports the aspirations of the people of Christchurch and facilitates the highest-possible urban design standards in that process. 
In saying that I speak in favour of the amendment that was initiated I think by Jim Anderton and is proposed tonight by the Hon Ruth Dyson to insert clause 3(b) “acknowledging that an important priority for the response is to enable the preservation and restoration of Canterbury’s architectural and cultural heritage”.