Auchinvole Chris: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Auchinvole Chris: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:18134] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 I am always interested in the contrast between select committee work and speeches in the House; often one wonders where the marriage is between the two events. We are talking about something that is extremely important to all of us in this House: the rebuilding of Christchurch. I am sure that that is just as important to people in any position in the House. It is the most important thing we can do. We are not rebuilding just the body of Christchurch as we were told yesterday by some of the submitters but also the mind the heart and the spirit of the Canterbury people. 
It was a moving occasion to be part of the parliamentary committee that was established to hear the evidence given. This issue reaches across the South Island to have an effect on the West Coast. It reaches down to have an effect in Southland and Otago and up in Marlborough—everywhere. Christchurch our second-largest city is in desperate need of assistance. The spirit of the people though is strong very strong. 
When the second earthquake occurred I remember getting calls from people overseas who wanted to know what was going on. Some interviewers from the UK said: “We understand it was chaos.” I said: “Well it was a big shake—about 45 seconds.” But they asked: “How long did the chaos last?”. So I said: “Well about 45 seconds.” They said “No no but what about the chaos in the city?”. I said: “Well New Zealanders don’t do chaos very well. They are not very good at chaos. They get organised quickly.” 
After spending an hour in Christchurch yesterday and visiting the places that have been really badly affected one can see the organisation the spirit and the strength of the community coming through. Then we had the opportunity to meet people who wished to give us evidence and contribute to the bill. Collaboration is very important. 
There has been criticism—and I acknowledge the criticism—that the time lines were tight. We have just heard a fairly spirited and political speech from Mr Cosgrove who was a member of the committee and I thank all members of the committee for the way they applied themselves. We were relatively free of partisan comment and activity. Everybody applied themselves heavily to the task and I thank the members from all sides of the House for the way they did their work. 
The evidence we received was we agreed of a remarkably high quality. I think that one of the crucial points that need to be considered in this whole business is that delay does not equate to quality of product. So the suggestion that we should have longer that we should have a further week and all that sort of thing would not I think alter the strength of the submissions we received very much at all because the quality was high—the quality was high and that was agreed. We had a short tight timetable and the committee worked well to meet the requirements of that. The evidence was strong and I understand that it is already being included in possible changes to the bill. 
We heard from people in Wellington and we heard from people in Christchurch. They had a singular quality that came through all the time: sincerity of approach. They were most sincere that they wanted to do the best they could. Even amidst the rhetoric that we heard earlier from a very experienced speaker that message still came through. We all want to do the best we can. For me it is very important that we concentrate on that because this is not just the main Government priority for this year; I suggest that it is the main parliamentary priority for this year. 
When we debated the reform of the Resource Management Act last year we saw the consequences the difficulties and the delays that can occur with legislation that has passed its use-by date. We have seen that normal features of legislation can be disruptive and delaying in making the sorts of changes and decisions that have to be made in order to get Christchurch on the move. 
We see the contrast too and I have to say that although I have never met the gentleman I hold him in very very high regard. I am talking about Roger Sutton the chief executive of Orion. He is the man who got the power back on. He used phrases such as: “It ain’t pretty but it works.” in respect of overhead cables instead of underground ones. I would not suggest at all that he manipulated any permit arrangements or anything but fast-tracking certainly got the work done and this bill is designed to use the Roger Sutton approach to getting things done—which is so much a New Zealand concept that it needs the opportunity to be expressed within the community in Christchurch. 
We have to enable community participation in planning the recovery of affected communities without impeding them in a focused timely and expedited manner. I had an enjoyable time in having brief conversations with people who came to the committee not just to make submissions but to wish us well with the work we were doing to thank us for coming and to express their concentrated appreciation of what was happening. Christchurch is strong Christchurch is well and Christchurch needs the assistance of this bill. 
I appeal to members on all sides of the House to perhaps suppress the understandable rhetoric they feel—because this is very personal and emotional for the people who have representation down there. Let us concentrate on the real need let us concentrate on Christchurch’s need and let us concentrate on getting this bill in place. Thank you.