Delahunty Catherine: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Delahunty Catherine: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:18207] 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 I would like to take just a very brief call on behalf of the Green Party on the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill to say we have a consistent position on this bill and we are not going to support it. I went to Christchurch and I acknowledge with all humility the members of Parliament from Christchurch on all sides of the Chamber and the great work they were doing when I was down on the streets. I saw the figure of Rick Barker standing in the pouring rain advertising a sausage sizzle. I saw Nicky Wagner outside the recovery centre doing her best for people. I saw people doing everything they could and all of them doing what they could down there. It was a humbling experience. But what disappoints the Greens so much is that in this place the opposite is occurring; we are not doing the best we could do. This legislation is not the best we could do. We know that because so many people have not been heard. 
I would like to comment briefly on what international experts say about disasters. They say it is time to listen and listen and listen to the people most affected. It is not about the convenience of Parliament. It is not about us—actually—today. It should not be about us. It is about the people who are most affected on the ground. When I was working in Aranui and New Brighton going door to door and talking with people their feeling of powerlessness and being overwhelmed was about slowing down not the need for a toilet or water but the need for someone to listen to them about their future and about how Christchurch was going to be rebuilt. They were as passionate as we are that it should happen in the right way. 
The Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery referred to the right sorts of people being consulted. I have spent a lot of time with people who may not be considered to be the right sorts of people. They are not the experts who were at the non - select committee—it was not a select committee; it was a committee and it was for experts but our tradition in this Parliament is that select committees are for the people by the people and that is not what happened yesterday. Those people had many questions about their own future and they wanted to participate. That is why I support Kennedy Graham’s amendments which are about checks and balances on what is very bad legislation. I have been calling it the Sarah Palin “I can see Christchurch from here legislation” because that is what it could turn out to be unless at the eleventh hour there is modification by the Government by listening to the Labour and Green amendments which will provide engagement by the right sorts of people—and the right sorts of people are everybody not just the experts. 
If we are to talk about being in good faith with the communities—and that has been said since day one—we need a far more sophisticated process than one 8-hour so-called select committee. There are people in Christchurch who are very very concerned about their future and they do not want daddy to fix it; they want to be part of the fix. That takes more time than we might like. That takes more skill than we might have in this Parliament. It takes community facilitation whereby people who are damaged and are not certain of their future are heard so that they with us design their own future and rebuild Christchurch. That is what we were hoping this process could be about. That is what it should be about because the experience of disasters in other countries and even in this country is that it works best when we go through that kind of process not when we decide for them overnight that we must fix everything fast. 
Of course everybody wants there to be a toilet and water and roads. I saw the state that people are living in. I understand it because I am still getting calls about that state. But we are talking about the rebuild; we are not talking about the immediate emergency situation we were talking about. So it is very disappointing that we have to put up these Supplementary Order Papers and that they may not be heard. It is very disappointing. We do not want to vote against this bill because we are completely committed to a cooperative approach to this. But believe me the people of Christchurch are not with you. They are asking you— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is bringing the Chair into the debate. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY 
: Apologies to you Mr Chair. The people are not with the Government on this issue. It is going to be a long-term bad plan to force this legislation through under urgency as the Government is doing. Having had a very limited experience and acknowledging that limitation I would just like to say that from the streets of Aranui and New Brighton people want to be heard. This is not it; we can do better. Kia ora. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Gerry Brownlee to the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 237 in his name to clause 63(2) be agreed to: 
to add “or damage” after “loss”.