Chauvel Charles: Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Chauvel Charles: Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13939] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairman and thank you to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery for the explanation in answer to the questions that were originally posed. Picking up on a couple of comments that the Minister in the chair the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery made he assured the Committee that no Minister was seeking to abuse the powers being conferred by the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill. I think it is important to stress that the major concern about potential abuse is not necessarily a concern about the executive. It is for example about the powers that might be used or otherwise not used by councils and others under the legislation because of the exemptions being granted. Members will be keen to see the Regulations Review Committee exercise its scrutiny if this bill passes in its present form. 
The other point that the Minister made was about the need for property transactions to resume and for the parties to those transactions to have confidence. One of the major issues that has been reported today is that there is real difficulty for parties to commercial contracts gaining insurance cover because of the attitude of reinsurers as settlements come up or as contracts come up for renewal. One of the things that I think would be helpful for the Committee to hear is whether the Minister thought about trying to deal with that situation in this legislation and if not whether there is a plan at all to try to address that major concern for people who are affected by this terrible disaster. 
In terms of the detailed questions on the legislation that I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments on the first one relates to clause 6(3). This provision would enact that the recommendation of the relevant Minister in recommending to the Governor-General that an Order in Council be made “may not be challenged reviewed quashed or called into question in any court.” I ask why it was thought necessary to try to enact a clause of that nature at that stage of the process where there is only a recommendatory power and where the courts have long expressed real concern about whether these sorts of provisions in legislation are enforceable. I wonder why it was thought necessary or desirable to have that sort of provision in this legislation and it would be useful to hear from the Minister about that. 
With respect to Kennedy Graham I am not sure that the amendment he has put forward in respect of this clause would improve the situation much. As I said we would in my second reading speech on this bill we have looked at his proposed amendments over the dinner break and I will now express a view on them. The relevant amendment would amend that clause to allow a judge to exercise a discretion effectively about whether fundamental principles of justice would be compromised by not allowing a case to be heard. I am not sure whether that would remedy the situation. 
It would be good to hear the Minister’s explanation of why clause 6(3) is there. I am not sure it is capable of useful amendment. It probably should either stay or go. 
In terms of the rest of the legislation my colleague Clayton Cosgrove asked some questions about the appearance of certain provisions in the list that appears in clause 6(4). One of the questions I had was about the apparently random nature of the list. The Social Security Act 1964 is mentioned in clause 6(4)(s) but no other legislation empowering the payment of any sort of benefit is mentioned. There is no mention for example of the student loan legislation or the liable parent contribution legislation. I ask whether it was thought that that social security legislation in and of itself was sufficient to be mentioned there or whether other provisions of that nature should be dealt with. 
The rest of what I will say relates to the amendments that we saw for the first time before the dinner break. The Labour Party would not be minded to support the provisions that would bring the application of the bill back to until 15 March 2011 only. The Government has already confined the application of the legislation to 1 April 2012. We think that is a useful way to confine the legislation. We do not think coming back to the House in 6 months on this matter would be a good use of the House’s time. 
In respect of the amendment to require a certain number of members of the commission to be appointed by the Christchurch City Council we understand that it is already the subject of an undertaking from the Minister of Civil Defence John Carter that a number of the members of the commission will be directly representative of the relevant local councils. If the Minister in the chair could clarify whether that is an undertaking on behalf of the Government it would be useful. 
As I understand it the amendment that requires Orders in Council to be publicly available and presented to the House of Representatives is one that simply re-enacts the existing law. But if the Minister has a different view it would be useful to hear whether that is the case. With regard to the provision requiring Orders in Council to be made publicly available and presented to the House of Representatives within 24 hours of being made a summary of the Minister’s understanding of the current law relating to Orders in Council and their publication would be useful so that we can determine a position on that. 
Finally the amendment that would apply the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act to the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Commission seems to be a sensible way to proceed. The Minister has not provided for the commission to be subject to the provisions of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act and it would be useful to hear why the Minister does not think that Act should apply to the proceedings of the commission. Certainly it is the Opposition’s view that it should.