Brownlee Gerry: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:18129] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery) 
: 
 I move  
That the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill be now read a second time 
. The House will today deal with this bill through its remaining stages and as we begin the second reading it is after a very short select committee process at which some evidence was able to be gathered from people who have an interest in this bill. 
The reality is that some 400000 people have an interest in this bill those people being the residents of the province of Canterbury. In particular there are those residents who are part of the very broken up areas of Christchurch where life at the moment is not particularly comfortable nor is it easy. There are many others in the city who have uncertain employment futures as the devastation has wrecked workplaces and severely disrupted business activity in many cases. I hasten to add that a great deal of the city is still functioning and a large number of people are still very much gainfully employed and one of the ways in which other parts of the country and indeed our offshore neighbours can help us is to continue trading with businesses that are operating in Christchurch and I would definitely encourage them to do so. 
This bill is designed to create an opportunity to move the recovery along as quickly as possible. Essentially it recognises the fact that if we have widespread community engagement and a whole lot of activity about how things get put back together unless there is a decision-making body that is able to deliver on some of those decisions and some of those desires then not much is achieved. There will be debate about what international literature tell us about these events and the recovery from them but in my estimate the thing that comes through most clearly is that too often a discussion held in a room with a lot of people putting forward ideas is confused for action. I sincerely think that having a structure that allows rapid decision-making that can give effect to decisions that the community is on board with is exactly what is required here. That does require the taking of powers that are somewhat extraordinary. But I think that anybody living in a broken house somewhere in Christchurch dealing with a chemical toilet day by day uncertain about their water supply uncertain about their winter heating uncertain about the condition of the roads outside and uncertain about what a big rain will mean for them will care little for the academic exercise about how powers might be accumulated in order to deliver them a successful result. 
This bill is an enabling framework setting out a range of powers that may need to be exercised during the recovery process. It does have significant checks and balances on the use of those powers and the most clear check and balance is the requirement that all of those powers must be exercised in the recovery process and cannot step outside of that. What we have recognised with this bill is the need to restore social economic cultural and environmental well-being in Greater Christchurch. Further it recognises a need to facilitate coordinate and direct the planning rebuilding and recovery of Greater Christchurch and it places importance on community participation in the planning of the recovery while balancing that against the need for timely focused and coordinated recovery processes. 
I want to address some of the concerns that have been raised about the suggestion that we should not have a Government department running this but instead should create some sort of a new entity that sits at arm’s length from the Government. That is an interesting concept but there is no more direct accountability than a Minister sitting on top of a Government department whereby there can be daily questions in the House select committees can require people to come before them etc. I say that the laughing and joking going on over on the other side of the House shows scant regard for the lives that so many people are living in difficult circumstances at the present time. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like your assistance. To date the House has dealt with this bill in a pretty non-partisan way and that is how we continue but we find those comments deeply offensive. One hundred and sixty-six people died and for that Minister to accuse us of being heartless and treating this in a frivolous way is outrageous and I take offence. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I think you are adding some words to what the member said. But I think there was a bit of a reaction going on and I just advise the House that the issue before us is somewhat sombre. I think the will of the House is to progress it and I invite members to show a bit of courtesy across the House. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I take your recommendations on board Mr Assistant Speaker. Actually 181 people are likely to have lost their lives in this event and no one is losing sight of that. I will leave it to the public to judge exactly how members of this House are dealing with such an important issue. What it does eventually lead to though is the question about whether we should go slowly with all this or whether we should move at some pace. The problem is that pace still takes a long time. The decisions that need to be made here are very very dependent upon research about the condition of the land in Christchurch and upon getting enough information to deal with individuals who have those broken properties so that they can be given some choices about what their future is. 
Quite apart from that in the social infrastructure we have schools at the moment showing extraordinary capability to get on with the job by making their facilities available to other schools in the near vicinity. Some schools operate in the morning with another school coming into those premises and operating in the afternoon. One hospital in the city has a major emergency department that is partly damaged but is able to deal with the problem. There are ongoing issues about the infrastructure around the health facilities. One could go on and on about what needs to be done to get Canterbury and Greater Christchurch back into good shape. All of those things will require a series of recovery plans and quite patently obviously there will need to be discussion about how those plans are delivered with those local communities and those affected individuals. 
Over the top of that an overarching strategy which will be gazetted and will be publicly stated needs to formed. I think one of the most encouraging things I have seen in the last few days is the way in which the district councils have said that they accept there have to be those overarching powers and they have committed to working with the Government agency the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority on the recovery of Canterbury. That is a major step in my opinion and I expect that that sort of level of cooperation and collaboration will develop and become stronger over the months ahead. 
I also compliment Ngai Tahu on the way in which they as not only major property owners but very big leaders in the community of a large number of people have come to the party right from the moment the earthquake struck—delivering services to people particularly in the east of Christchurch regardless of their particular affiliation and in the longer sense committing to being part of this recovery and working alongside the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority. These are very very encouraging signs because in the end if all of the rancour that might be part of all of this is focused on how something is to be done for people that is great but if it is an argument about whether it should be done for people then I think that will see us all fail quite considerably. 
Over the coming weeks more information will be collated about the land information in Christchurch and that will inform many of the decisions that are made going forward. There are no powers in this bill that are not focused on good results for people who have had their lives disrupted in Christchurch. Each of those powers is subject to considerable check. I look forward to the Committee stage that we will embark on very shortly and I signal at this point that the Government has received recommendations from a number of submitters over the last 24 hours and has made every effort to accommodate recommendations about amendments where they add to the structure of the bill and make it more workable. I thank those people who went out of their way in a short time to deliver on it. I look forward to the rest of the morning and to the afternoon and evening.