Cunliffe DavidHon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): I rise to take a call on the Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Recovery Bill to reaffirm Labour's support for it and to play a role in my capacity as chair of the Regulations Review Committee to underscore the implications of the report of the committee which has been achieved by consensus for this legislation and other legislation that might follow it.Of course this is a bill that is a very important bill about a very tragic event. Before saying anything else may I reaffirm Labour's deepest sympathies for those who have lost loved ones those who have lost substantial property and those whose lives have been literally torn apart over the last few weeks by the events of that massive 7.8 quake. I wish to extend our thanks and my own thanks to all of those in emergency services the armed services and the Government who have been doing their very best to remediate that.This bill enjoys I believe the very widespread support of this House. There has been good consultation and compromise between parties in bringing the bill to the House. We are all joined together to do the very best that we can for the people of Hurunui-Kaikōura and I think this is Parliament working at its best.The contribution that I wish to make today is to provide some background on the work that the Regulations Review Committee has been doing over the last 16 months—which it has achieved by consensus without a vote—which it offers to the House today so that it might inform consideration of this bill. In doing so can I thank the deputy chair Mr Andrew Bayly; your good self Mr Deputy Speaker a member of that committee; Mr Chris Bishop; and my good colleague the shadow Attorney-General David Parker who will be leading our team's work on the Local Government and Environment Committee which will consider the bill in more detail. I wish to reaffirm that the recommendations in the Regulations Review Committee report issued today are all by consensus—there has been no need for a vote. All members have joined together with expert advice to bring a consensus set of recommendations to the House. So what was this about? After the 2010 and 2011 earthquake bills and Acts were passed and used the Parliamentary Counsel Office began a process of review which—to cut a long story short—identified some constitutional weaknesses in those bills which were not abused as Mr Parker has said in practice but which from a legislative point of view certainly could have been improved upon. The House then later through the Business Committee asked the Regulations Review Committee to do a very wide-ranging survey of emergency powers and to make recommendations on whether there should be a if you like generic draft future national emergencies bill passed by the House or if not on how we should best from a constitutional point of view deal with the need to respond to major national emergencies. That report is out today. It traverses a wide range of inputs. I wish to acknowledge the work of Mr Jason McHerron our expert barrister; a wide range of submissions; the work of the Parliamentary Counsel Office; and in particular can I single out the work of the Christchurch City Council which made an extensive submission based on its experience in the 2010 and 2011 bills and quakes. Out of all of that—to cut 100 pages of analysis down to a few short points—the committee distilled by agreement three core principles and 11 recommendations and I am going to take the House extremely quickly through those.The first principle is that the Regulations Review Committee considered but rejected the idea that there should be generic national emergency legislation prepared in advance. Although we understood that that would give the House more time to consider the detail that time was outweighed by the fact that any such generic legislation would by definition need to be so broad—because it would have to cover a myriad of possibilities from a pandemic to an earthquake to a volcanic eruption—that it would be constitutionally offensive to pass all of that power to the executive in advance. It is better on reflection to have bespoke or individual legislation tailored to individual emergencies with a realistically quick timetable and appropriate powers for the executive such that the constitution was disturbed to the minimum amount possible. That was a key recommendation of the committee. Some of the sub-points recommended under that—As much time as possible in the circumstances should be allowed for select committee consideration of emergency legislation." My colleague David Parker has made the point that a little more in this case could probably have been fitted in and is desirable as a matter of practice. Thirdly that "Existing select committees should consider emergency legislation." We considered but did not agree with the idea that a separate select committee be set up simply because that would be more difficulty and hassle if you like than the job required. Another committee the Local Government and Environment Committee in this case is perfectly able especially with the ability to sub members in and out. Fourthly that "Emergency legislation should take the form of primary legislation wherever reasonably possible rather than relying on broad powers to make delegated legislation."—that is Parliament is sovereign. Parliament—where members are elected by the people from whom all moral authority and constitutional propriety flows—is the place where the major laws should be passed not Orders in Council through a Cabinet process which do not come to the floor of the House. Everyone—and this is a consensus report—recognises the need for prompt and robust executive action in an emergency and we in the Labour team are supporting the National Government in its response to Kaikōura. There is no question that we are all putting politics aside to do the very very best for the people of Marlborough and North Canterbury. But as a matter of constitutionality as much as possible should be done in this way through the House and as little as possible behind closed doors if you like through the Order in Council process. The language might not be street talk but it is really important. I will rip through quickly—"Powers to override enactments by Order in Council should provide a 'positive list' …". It is great to see that the Minister and the executive no doubt with the positive influence of the Attorney-General—whom I also wish to recognise for his role—have adopted that recommendation in this. As Mr Parker said the positive list of Acts here is rather long. It is subject to the scrutiny of the select committee and its members will turn their minds to whether it should be added to or not. I do want to reaffirm the point that the ability to add further Acts should in principle be done by primary legislation through this House. That is a key recommendation here and in this case there is a kind of hybrid where there is an opportunity for the executive to add to the list provided the House later reaffirms it. That is not ideal. I hope the select committee will give that some consideration. The second key theme is that there must be adequate safeguards. As you know there are several important ways around how that should be done "Orders in Council should be subject to scrutiny before and after they are made." and the Regulations Review Committee amongst others is well placed to do that. This House has in this bill got before it a process whereby either the Regulations Review Committee or leaders of parties can scrutinise orders before they are made. That is not quite ideal—it would be better to provide for both. The select committee may wish to consider that. "The right to seek judicial review of Orders in Council made under emergency legislation should be preserved and upheld." This bill does not quite achieve that. Under clause 8(3) it allows judicial review on only points of law not points of fact and that defeats the general purpose of a judicial review which is to ensure a robust process of consideration of the facts. I do not believe that a court would unduly hamper ministerial action in the case of a national emergency—it would take account of those needs of urgency and robust response. In so doing it is my personal view that the House should have another look at that clause 8(3) provision and allow judicial review. That is the view of the Regulations Review Committee as well. Eighthly: "Legislation for national emergencies should have regard to international norms and benchmarks." These have been published by the UN and others; I will not labour it. Ninthly: "Bespoke emergency powers should be in force only for as long as is reasonably necessary and should have … sunset provisions." Finally—and thanks to the Christchurch City Council for emphasising this 10th one—"Legislation must reflect the principle that recovery … starts from day one."I do not want to unduly detain the House. I want to thank everybody who has helped to put this contribution before the House today and I trust that the Local Government and Environment Committee will do its work thoroughly in considering the bill in the time available. Thank you very much."