Burns Brendon: Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Burns Brendon: Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13944] 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I think it is important to note that the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill is the enabling legislation for the Government as it has been quoted as saying doing whatever it takes to get Christchurch back on its feet. This is that enabling legislation. We are passing it in as rapid a fashion as is possible in this Parliament with round-the-House support for it. Given that there is not to be scrutiny other than this process it is important that the Minister in the chair the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery who is in charge of the bill and who will be that Minister for the duration of the earthquake recovery in Christchurch is here to answer some questions. 
I would like to pose some questions given that we as a Parliament are passing this legislation in an extraordinary way through all its stages. Now in the Committee stage this is our chance to ask some questions about it. I get a sense that this is a rather big rubber stamp for a rather bigger blank cheque. We know that that is important and necessary because this is the first time since 1931 that we have faced a calamity of this size and consequence. Nobody is more aware of that than I am as the MP for probably the most affected electorate Christchurch Central but we need to test and check this legislation as it goes through. It provides enormous powers to the Government the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Commission and the councils—Waimakariri Selwyn and Christchurch—as they go about the business of rebuilding their communities. 
I will ask the Minister some questions in respect of the bill. For instance we note that it provides for retrospective Orders in Council to be made in certain circumstances most particularly where there is a need to protect actions that have been taken in the period between the uplifting of the state of emergency and the making of a relevant Order in Council. I invite the Minister to give us an explanation of some of the circumstances that might be envisaged where we might see retrospective Orders in Council. I acknowledge that we will see those before the Regulations Review Committee. That is wholly appropriate but I would like to have an outline from him of the sorts of circumstances he envisages for retrospective Orders in Council. 
We know of course that there will be a limitation with regard to the processes for public consultation. That is in the very nature of the bill and that is a given but there seems to be no requirement for mayors to consult their councils and certainly not in respect of spending priorities. I would like the Minister to outline to us in some detail the processes of consultation that will be in place for councils to advise their constituents about what they are proposing to do in order to take matters through under Orders in Council to make rapid decisions. I think it is important that we know what sorts of processes are envisaged in terms of alerting the public to meetings putting adverts in the paper and alerting them to decisions that are looming. 
We know that we are in a rapid time frame but the public of Christchurch is very vociferous. It is very passionate about the heritage of our city in particular. There are many people with good beating hearts who want to play a role in ensuring that the protection of heritage is a priority. It is important that they have some sense of a process where even if it is limited and constrained by time and circumstance they will know what the council is proposing to do even if it is a matter of a time frame of a week or a month rather than the process that normally applies of a matter of many months of rights of appeal and a process involving courts if one so wishes. We know we are going past that but I think it is very important that the Minister takes a call and outlines exactly what is envisaged in respect of the process of consultation and advice to be given to constituents and councils in Christchurch Waimakariri and Selwyn. 
I also ask a question about the changes in clause 6(4) where we have 22 separate Acts listed that the Order in Council can modify extend or provide an exemption from. Then it includes the words “(but not limited to)” which potentially could be read as meaning that the Orders in Council could modify any legislation. That is a kind of breathtaking possibility and I think that the House deserves some assurance from the Minister. If the Minister did not quite catch what I was saying I am referring to clause 6(4) in respect of that clause meaning that potentially Orders in Council could modify any one of those 22 Acts.