Dalziel Lianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Personal Explanation—Comments Made at Environmental Defence Society Conference 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dalziel Lianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Personal Explanation—Comments Made at Environmental Defence Society Conference 
[Sitting date: 25 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:3895. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
11. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
 to the  
Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery 
: Why did he use section 27 of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 to amend the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement instead of using the Order in Council provisions of the Act or developing the recovery strategy or a recovery plan? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery) 
: 
 I inserted chapter 12A into the regional policy statement to ensure that there was enough easily consentable land for new subdivisions in the Greater Christchurch area. I did so with the encouragement of and in consultation with local authorities. Section 27 was seen as the quickest way to ensure delivery of new residential sections on safe ground for the many people in Christchurch affected by New Zealand’s largest natural disaster. I am passionate about effecting as fast as possible a recovery for people in the Greater Christchurch area. I note that the judge said that he believed I had acted in good faith. I am pleased that the decision has left in place the new subdivisions that were fast-tracked by my decision. I will now consider fully what the judge’s decision means and what implications it has. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Does he stand by his statement that the powers under the legislation are “essentially reserve powers and there will be checks and balances on the use of these powers so the public can have confidence they are being used wisely and with restraint.” and why did the court not think that he was using them wisely and with restraint when he acted outside the powers of the legislation? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: That is the current judgment and I accept that. However there is going to be some consideration of exactly what that judgment means. What I would say is that there was a need for new subdivisions to be enacted in Canterbury quickly. Even the member herself was calling for that at a number of points as were some of her colleagues. The urban development strategy on which the change was based was created through a very long consultation process that dated back to 2004. During that time there were numerous community consultations undertaken by the strategy partners and there were some 3250 submissions on growth management options for the Greater Christchurch area. That resulted in plan change 1 which was promulgated in 2007. There were around some 700 submissions lodged in response to that and there were hearings held throughout 2009. The matter was then taken to the Environment Court and that is where it was stuck at the time of the earthquakes in 2010 and 2011. I worked after that very closely with the elected representatives to try to come up with a solution that did not mean that we were cherry-picking through the Government legislation exactly which subdivisions went where. We chose a solution that the community itself had chosen. The judge has said that we used the wrong provision. I cannot challenge that and I wish to say no further about that but I would note that there are thousands of sections available now that would not have been available under any other process. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Does the Minister agree that the court upheld the judicial review because the Minister had chosen an option that had none of the checks and balances that he had told the people of New Zealand would be in place? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I think my answer to the previous question absolutely rejects that proposition. The fact is that I did not accept the lobbying of individual property owners. I did not accept the offers of individual property owners. Instead I accepted— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did not interject or take a point of order during the very lengthy answer that we had before. The specific question that I asked was whether the reason for the court’s decision was the lack of checks and balances that he had said would be in place. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept the goodwill in the member’s point of order but in the Minister’s answer I think he is being very careful not to comment on the legal implications of a judicial decision. It is not for a Minister to second-guess why a judge may have made a decision the judge has made. I think the Minister is trying to be very careful not to comment on the judge’s decision not to offer reasons why the judge may or may not have made the decision made. That is why I allowed the Minister somewhat more latitude and I am sure the experienced member would know that the Minister has to be very careful in that regard. I see it being quite difficult for the Minister to try to answer too precisely what the member has asked. Has the Hon Gerry Brownlee finished the answer? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Well I think so. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Does the Minister recall identifying the checks and balances that he said would be in place and from which the public could take comfort: the four-person independent review panel the cross-party forum the forum of community leaders appeal rights and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority being subject to the Official Information Act? And can he confirm that in fact none of those particular checks and balances were in play when he made his decision? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: If one was to dissect the Act and the various reasons for the powers then all of those things would be true. But section 27 stands on its own and we believed that it was quite appropriate to move things in a rapid way. One of the extraordinary things I will point to in the judgment—and I make no comment on it—is that the judge has said that he felt that the decision was about matters that had existed prior to the earthquake event and would endure beyond the earthquake event and therefore the recovery powers were inappropriate. Matters that were in place prior to the earthquake event were the faults underneath Christchurch and secondly we would hope that all the decision made by the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority in conjunction with local authorities Ngai Tahu and other individual partners do endure beyond this earthquake event. The judge has ruled that we used the wrong provisions under the Act.