Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:18198] 
Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed. 
Clauses 1 and 2 Parts 1 and 2 and schedules 1 and 2 ( 
continued 
)  
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 Just before lunch we were treated to a very impassioned speech by Lianne Dalziel who arguably along with Brendon Burns has an electorate most severely affected by the Canterbury earthquake. I pay tribute to both of them and to Ruth Dyson; they are from the three electorates. In September it was Waimakariri that was affected and Clayton Cosgrove I think did sterling work in assisting that community to respond. Of course the epicentre in September came from the Greendale earthquake fault which I think from memory is in the Selwyn electorate and is commonly known as “Amy’s fault”. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Oh he’s a clever boy! That’s a bit of bullying. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM 
: That is the worst I can do. We do not wish to waste the Committee’s time do we? 
In February the three electorates that were most badly affected were Christchurch Central Christchurch East and Port Hills. I pay tribute to the three members who have worked so hard for the restoration of their electorates. I know that Lianne Dalziel has had considerable deprivation and difficulty in the execution of her work and in her personal life. I know that others have too. I know that Ruth Dyson the Minister Brendon Burns and others have faced difficulties. 
None of us in Christchurch has been immune to the difficulties even in the so-called western suburbs where I come from. I come from Ilam which I share with the Minister. We have had our difficulties. We were without power. We were engaged in glorious challenges of sanitation in the garden for a long time. Restoration is required there as well. To this day I still have no office downtown; it is cordoned in the drop zone. I trundle cheerfully around Christchurch City in a campervan otherwise known as the “Greenmobile”. I go into the eastern suburbs a great deal. I have visited New Brighton Dallington Bexley Beckenham Parklands and other suburbs like Aranui where the deprivation is probably at its worst. I know what it is to work with the citizens of Christchurch who are crying out for assistance. 
None of that justifies the extent of the powers that we see in the bill here today. Earlier in the first reading debate I advanced the Green Party’s critique of first the issue of inadequate community engagement which we have addressed in our Supplementary Order Papers that I advanced this morning in the Committee; and second what we take to be excessive powers in the bill which we also addressed in our Supplementary Order Papers. I invite you the Minister and his Government to— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is bringing the Chair into the debate with the use of the word “you”. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM 
: I invite the Minister and his Government to address the Supplementary Order Papers that we have advanced in good faith with a view simply to curtailing what we take to be the excessive nature of the powers in the bill as opposed to its legitimate powers. 
Firstly I will refer to Supplementary Order Paper 235 in my name which addresses clause 15 and would insert a new subclause (4) to the effect that: “Once the Recovery Strategy is in place the Minister and chief executive must ensure that they exercise their powers rights and privileges in a manner that is consistent with the Recovery Strategy.” A wide range of unilateral powers are given to the Minister and chief executive under the proposed Act. Although we agree that it cannot and should not be business as usual after the catastrophic earthquake further checks and balances need to be put upon those extensive powers. The amendment to clause 15 would limit the emergency powers of the Minister and chief executive to a 9-month period and also after that period they would need to be consistent with a recovery strategy. 
Secondly Supplementary Order Paper 233 in my name addresses clause 70. As it stands the Government can change or override any law in this country until 2016 without any parliamentary oversight or independent checks except for the few laws that are identified as exceptions. The amendments to clause 70 would mean that the Government could change only laws that are relevant to the recovery effort in Christchurch. We would achieve this by omitting the words “(without limitation)” from subclause (3). The Supplementary Order Paper would require the Government under clause 73(1) to consult with other parties on the Orders in Council which we also take to be essential. 
Finally Supplementary Order Paper 234 in my name addresses clauses 71 and 72. In particular I draw members’ attention to clause 72. We want to insert an extra subclause (3A): “If the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Review Panel determines that a draft Order in Council is contrary to the purpose of the Act as set out in section 3 the draft Order in Council must be set down as a motion by the Minister for approval by resolution of the House of Representatives.” 
We recommended the Supplementary Order Papers in good faith. I will quote as I did this morning from law expert Dean Knight about the excessive powers in the bill particularly in clause 70: “This Bill continues the previous regime for the issue of Orders-in-Council amending primary legislation with some changes. The previous concerns about this regime are well-known. Such wide Henry VIII clauses are contrary to the democratic imperative. Particular concern was expressed about the lack of or weaknesses in checks-and-balances on the exercise of such powers. Regrettably the new regime does not adequately respond to the concerns previously raised.” That observation of Dean Knight is explicitly affirmed in the analytical paper that the Minister has produced. The analytical paper addresses each of the recommendations from the Legislation Advisory Committee the Law Society and Dean Knight pertaining to clause 70. 
In response the Minister says in respect of the Legislation Advisory Committee: “No change proposed. Want powers to be consistent with the previous Act.” That is the very point of criticism that Dean Knight and the Green Party are advancing. The paper states: “A key focus of the legislation relates to timely decision-making.” Timely decision-making is insufficient reason not to proceed. In respect of the Law Society the Minister says: “No change proposed. These are exceptional circumstances. See Cabinet papers for policy rationale.” We have. The argument in favour of clause 70 is not sufficient and has been rejected by constitutional experts. The paper makes the same point with regard to Dean Knight; I will not reiterate it. 
I will conclude by saying once again what I said this morning and I will quote the Law Society. I do so more in sorrow than in anger but it is with deep sorrow because it concerns arguably one of the most fundamental issues that can come before the House: the granting of excessive powers to the Government Cabinet and one person the Minister. “In general” says the Law Society “ ‘Henry VIII’ clauses such as clause 70 … are contrary to the rule of law and good legislation principles”. Let that be written into the record of this House just as we are about to adopt these powers. Let it be written into the record that it is contrary to the rule of law and good legislation principles and “contrary to the democratic imperative” as Dean Knight put it. Let us be clear and honest and transparent about we are doing here—those of us who are chatting; those of us with our heads down. 
What do we have to say to the people of New Zealand when we are about to adopt these laws tonight? Will we say they are contrary to the rule of law? No we are saying: “Oh to hell with it. We’ve got an extraordinary event on our hands. We have an emergency on our hands and we’re going to rebuild Christchurch so we will just override the democratic imperative—simple as that.” Where there is a need for legislative amendments or suspensions in order to facilitate the recovery programme a better alternative would be for Parliament to dedicate House time for those matters to be dealt with by legislation as they arise. That is what we the Green Party proposed but we are talking to deaf ears. That is clear. I say to the Minister with great respect to him to his officials and to his Government which is pushing this legislation through that the time will come when we will regret that. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 I begin by reminding the Minister in the chair the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery of a commitment he made personally to me when he took time out of what I know is a genuinely busy schedule to come to the select committee considering the evidence—not considering the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill but considering just the evidence. I directly asked the Minister whether he was committed to a message going from Parliament about bipartisan support for Canterbury’s recovery and whether he would therefore do Labour members the service of seriously considering our amendments. I asked that in good faith. I take members of Parliament at their word because that is a requirement but also actually because I think it is what we should do and I was gobsmacked to see the Minister’s treatment of our Supplementary Order Papers earlier in this debate. 
I feel let down—and that is a very generous description of how I feel—when I compare the Minister’s reaction to our amendments with his commitment to me less than 24 hours previously. I do not think those positions are compatible and I urge the Minister to reconsider one or the other between now and the time we have agreed to finish this debate. I do not mind if the Minister takes a call and says no he did not mean that he would take our amendments seriously and he was wrong to give me that commitment because he did not take them seriously. That is one option. Or the Minister could say he has reflected on this and will now take my amendments seriously. One or the other would be a really welcome response. 
This side of the House gave a commitment 7 months ago to work with the Government on the recovery of Canterbury. Over the last 7 weeks it has become a lot more important because the damage is far greater the damage to the infrastructure is more significant and the loss of life has been quite overwhelming to the morale and spirit of our city and region. That is why I think it is even more important now than ever even more important today than ever that we grow up a little more than we currently are. I say that for the good of our region—and I say to the Minister that it is our region; he and I both share it—because we can do better than we have done today. I want to pay particular attention—[ 
Interruption 
] Pardon? 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I was talking to the Chair. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: You do not usually interject into an open mike. I want to pay particular attention to a couple of amendments one because I do not think the Minister has read it carefully enough to give a response to it—because his response was not accurate—and the other because the Minister was plain wrong in what he said about it. 
I refer to my amendment that asks that the Canterbury District Health Board be considered as a responsible entity in terms of the legislation. There is nothing more important to the recovery of Canterbury than the health and well-being of its citizens. That should be the outcome of the recovery plan. We should have health and well-being at the core and the prime organisation that is responsible literally responsible for the health and well-being of our region is the Canterbury District Health Board. In my view it should be considered as a responsible entity. This is not a big ask actually. It makes sense. It would give a really good message about the board’s role and the expectation that the Minister would have of the role it should play. At the moment it is considered in the words of Nicky Wagner as yet another interest group. The board is not an interest group. It is a key stakeholder in the recovery of Canterbury and in my view it should be included. I also think it should be included—as a requirement not as a little afterthought—in the key stakeholders who under this bill have the right to be consulted on the development of the recovery strategy. I would appreciate the Minister’s considered response to those two parts of the series of amendments I put forward. 
In the Minister’s earlier comments in relation to the Canterbury District Health Board he explained that the area it covers is too great that we need to focus on Canterbury and that expansion of the bill to include the area covered by the board would dilute the focus on the earthquake recovery area. I accept that. That is why I am asking the Minister to focus on the other two amendments which are that the Canterbury District Health Board be considered a key stakeholder and added to the rest of the bodies in the responsible entities list and that there be a requirement that it is consulted in the development of the strategy. I think that is important. I think it will send a great message to the district health board about what the Minister wants it to do and that it had better step up to the mark and take that leadership role. I think it will anyway but I do think it should be an expectation that the Minister gives. 
The second point I want to make in relation to the same series of amendments on the same page is in relation to the New Zealand Disability Strategy. The Minister does not know about the New Zealand Disability Strategy. That is OK; there are lots of things he knows about other matters that I have no understanding of. So it is not a criticism; it is just a fact. But I say to the Minister that the New Zealand Disability Strategy is not about territorial local authorities and access to buildings; it is about a lot more than that. If there were a small requirement for all recovery plans to give effect to the New Zealand Disability Strategy it would mean a huge amount to the one in five New Zealanders who are disabled and who live in our region. It would be a great message for them to hear that for the first time after a major trauma such as this they were being considered. I hope the Minister for Disability Issues is able to advocate to that end and to support this amendment. It would mean that disabled people in Canterbury would have a voice in the rebuilding of their region. It does not have any legal implications. It is a framework for thinking and for ensuring that people who are often excluded from decision making are included. 
We have only 2½ hours left of this debate. When we reflect back to September and how serious the multiparty agreement was to the recovery of Canterbury I think that should give us the opportunity to reflect on whether the behaviour over the last 24 hours has been in that spirit and in my view it has not. I think we all should try a little harder to put our region ahead of our own self-interest or desire to get this legislation through and out of here. A number of members of Parliament have made comments during the debate that we on this side of the House want to slow it down. Well I say to the Minister that nothing could be further from the truth. We do not have an interest in slowing down the legislation or slowing down the recovery. What we have a passion for and an overwhelming interest in is getting this right. Rushed legislation with very little time for public consideration let alone the rigour of parliamentary scrutiny is very rarely right in the first instance. That was the message that came from our side of the House during this debate to the Minister. A little less haste is more likely to have a robust outcome that we can all be proud of and agree with. 
We were given after representation the opportunity for committee consideration and I thank the Minister for that. In a spirit of generosity I will acknowledge that it was probably a big call because it meant that this rush that we are going through now was unavoidable. So the Minister put himself at greater risk by agreeing to a committee process of consideration. I think it was worth it because we gave at least some people in our region the chance to have their voices heard and that is really important if we want them to take up the leadership roles that they have in our community. Louise Upston who is not from Canterbury but who has contributed quite a lot in this debate made an error when she said Labour was trying to have two positions on things. She said we could not have it both ways. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery) 
: 
 I do not want to cross over the top of what the member Ruth Dyson might be saying but I do think it is important to respond to those points. I think that was a very considered speech there was a bit of a message sent in it and I appreciate that. I will deal with the substantive points that the member made. The first relates to the district health board. The district health board is an instrument of the Crown as it stands so it already is a responsible entity and any suggestion that it will be in any way sidelined or unimportant in the recovery organisation is I think not correct. My expectation would be that people from the district health board would be seconded into the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority for the purpose of developing that recovery plan for health services in the Greater Christchurch but also wider Canterbury area. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Please read it; don’t just listen to poor advice. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Well that is the advice I am taking and the advice I am sticking to. On the issue of the New Zealand Disability Strategy the member’s amendment places a very high test and a very high requirement on people using that strategy or looking to that strategy by saying it must give effect to the strategy. It is very very prescriptive. I think having that as a prescriptive requirement when the plans that will be put together for the recovery will be incredibly diverse steps a bit too far. If the member were to look at an amendment that might say that the recovery plan should take into account aspects of the New Zealand Disability Strategy then I would like to look at that and test it against the legislation. 
The member spoke about the need for everyone to be on board. I understand that but at a point the Government has to say what it wants to be tested against. The Hon Clayton Cosgrove has made it abundantly clear that we will be tested against that and it is very hard to say an adversarial position is the one that will be followed from this point on and then say “Let’s all sit around the table be great mates and work out what’s in the best interests of our community.” 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: No one said that. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Well no one is saying we want to sit around a table and be best mates; at least we are clear about that. But the idea of putting into the legislation the formalising of the cross-party forum was a desire to recognise that all MPs in Canterbury—regardless of their electoral status if you like—all those MPs who have a residence in Canterbury have a stake in how the recovery is put together. How well that cross-party forum works will be largely up to the members of it. If it will be a weekly or monthly—or whatever it might be—inquisition on how the Minister is performing and a recitation of the Minister’s failings in any regard then it will not work. So it is up to members to decide how that might work. From my point of view it is a genuine attempt to formalise an arrangement that has been in place since 4 September 2010. It did not have to be there and I can tell you the advice was that maybe it should not be there but I felt it was a reasonable thing. Sorry Mr Chairperson what are you saying? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: You are bringing the Chairperson into the debate. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I did not say “you”. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Yes you did. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Did I? Dear me I do apologise to you. Far be it from me to suggest that you are part of the Opposition caucus Mr Chairperson. I let myself slip. My point is that we also have the community forum in the bill. If that is to work it also has to have wide buy-in from all parties sitting in the House. While everyone says: “Well let the Minister appoint whom he likes.” and all the rest of it trying to prescribe within legislation who might be appointed to it would be an even bigger nightmare than the one that will be faced once the legislation is in place. 
Of course there will be discussions. Last night in the closed hearing I indicated to members of the Local Government and Environment Committee that I have already talked to at least one member on the other side of the House about his views on who should sit on that forum and what they have to offer. I have to say I think the people he has put forward look to me to be exactly the right sorts of people to be involved in this exercise. I say to Ruth Dyson that I cannot see us accommodating the issue around the district health board. I realise that that causes the member frustration but I have an obligation to protect the legislation as it is before the House. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I reiterate for the record—because I took from Mr Brownlee’s words that he was talking about our taking an adversarial position after this— that now that Labour members have had a look at Supplementary Order Paper 237 we will with reluctance support it and we will allow the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill to go through unimpeded. 
But I will make a couple of points to Mr Brownlee. Firstly he has had the full cooperation of the Canterbury Labour members of Parliament and our caucus colleagues right through since 4 September when the first earthquake occurred. Secondly we have cooperated with him by providing if members like the game plan well before the game has been played. By that I mean we have written to Mr Brownlee to give him in advance our amendments our thoughts and the reflections of our communities that we are representing. Normally we would not do that. We would stage an ambush because that is the nature of the game in this place but there is a higher requirement because of this issue. We have committed at all stages to engage with Mr Brownlee and we have taken Mr Brownlee at his word. 
We took him at his word when in the week of the memorial service he looked me in the eye across a table in a private room and said he wanted us on board he wanted our input into the structure and nature of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority and he wanted to meet with Mr Goff and me further. Then he went back on that word on three occasions. We believed him when he said the legislation had not gone through the Cabinet committee. We rang Mr Eagleson and he assured us of that fact. We believed Mr Brownlee and took him at his word then we found out 2 days later that the game had changed and Mr Brownlee when asked whether it was a fait accompli said the answer was yes. So at all stages Labour has cooperated. 
Then it came to the process for the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill which Labour had very little input into. We asked for a select committee process and we got one. Like Ruth Dyson I acknowledge the Minister for doing that. I differ in one respect though. I say it did not preclude Mr Brownlee from altering the timing of the bill’s process through the House. He could have allowed 1 extra day. We could have worked tomorrow and we could have had a decent select committee process—a day. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: We could have worked tonight. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: We could have worked tonight. We could have taken a decent look at the Supplementary Order Paper. The Minister’s officials would not have had writer’s cramp from scribing all night. The Supplementary Order Paper would have arrived on time I assume—I hope in good faith—and we could have had a decent debate that was not sullied by some angst. 
Our angst is around the issue that Parliament has not had the ability to quality-control in the normal way the amendments that have come from the Minister. In 4 hours and 40 minutes eminent experts came to the Local Government and Environment Committee with their best endeavours and I think they caught Mr Brownlee on the hop. I think Mr Brownlee thought that if he had a select committee process and gave people zero notice of it and that if the night before he told people to turn up in Christchurch people would turn up make a few comments and go away. What happened was that people turned up worked all night and came up with robust amendments. 
The proof and the testament that the Opposition was right to request a select committee process is that Supplementary Order Paper 237 which was 4½ hours late contains I believe only one amendment generated by the Minister. The rest of the amendments were generated by and found their origins in the submissions made to the Local Government and Environment Committee by eminent New Zealanders and Cantabrians. So had we not had the select committee process we would have had a Supplementary Order Paper containing maybe one amendment or no amendments. I make that point to Mr Brownlee. 
Labour will support this legislation. We will allow it to go through. And I say this to Mr Brownlee even though he probably is expressing some angst and emotion because he does not like people standing up and giving a view that is different from his: I renew the pledge of Canterbury Labour members and others on this side of the Chamber that after the legislation has passed we will try to work with him to make the legislation work even though we hold grave fears that it is flawed and even though we now know that it has not had the appropriate parliamentary scrutiny or the appropriate input from the public bearing in mind that we could have had 1 more day 24 hours—not a week not a month—and that would not have altered or delayed anything in terms of the recovery for the people of Canterbury. We will try to make this work with Mr Brownlee because there is a higher interest involved. 
But I say again to Mr Brownlee who is obviously preoccupied with other more important matters because he is not attending to my speech that he needs to take on board this tenet in politics: he needs to listen. Part of the test of Mr Brownlee who will hold the pen with wartime powers over the chief executive of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority will be whether he is true to his word engages with the community and listens to the words thoughts concerns and input that come out of Canterbury or whether he acts as the earthquake tsar as he has exhibited time and time again over the last couple of months and as he has exhibited in the last 48 hours and simply rejects all ideas that do not come from him and mows over the top of everybody else. This is not about my colleagues and me and other MPs in Canterbury. It is actually about the people whom we represent. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Really? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Really I say to Mr Williamson—the people whom we represent. He might want to take heed of that. We get our ideas from our community we bring our input to the table from our community and that community has an absolute right to be heard. 
I have never come across a process like this in my time in Parliament. As I said to Mr Brownlee it is either incompetence or mismanagement or the tactic which has been tried by him many times and that is to drop these things on us and the public from a great height with very little chance for input. 
I conclude on this point. The testament to the fact that we needed a select committee process is that all bar one of the amendments in Mr Brownlee’s own Supplementary Order Paper found their origin in the people of Canterbury and those experts who came before our committee. That seems to suggest to us that one the people were right when they called on us to call on Mr Brownlee to have a select committee process; and two that had there not been that process there probably would not have been a Government Supplementary Order Paper. Mr Brownlee has trashed all other amendments and failed to listen to any of them so it would have been his way or the highway. 
Labour will support Mr Brownlee in terms of trying to make this work but I do note this—and he will call it politics but to be honest I do not really call what he calls it. He will be judged in respect of whether this legislation and the authority that flows from it— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: You’re a hero Clayton. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I am a hero am I? That is a really good comment from a guy who should be a bouncer in a Porirua public bar. I say to Mr Brownlee that he will be judged by the people of Canterbury on whether the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill assists them as swiftly as possible to recover their lives their livelihoods and their houses. 
Hon Member 
: We’ll all be judged by it. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: No we will not all be judged. I say to Mr Brownlee that if this legislation fails and the authority fails the responsibility will sit squarely on his shoulders and his shoulders alone because he has rejected all the ideas put forward to him and he has done everything in his power to cramp any input from those outside his small group and his Government. Labour members look forward to trying to work together to make this work. We will participate in the political cross-party forum as we have participated in the informal cross-party forums that he initiated for months up until at least Christmas. We have cooperated. But all we can do at the end of the day is to put up ideas that our community asks us to in the vain hope that Mr Brownlee may listen to them that he may take them on board and that he may act on them. That may be a vain hope but we still believe in that concept called hope we still treat this issue with good faith and we will continue to do so. But I say the track record that has occurred and the modus operandi exhibited in Parliament in the last 48 hours are shameful. I hope Mr Brownlee has got this right. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 I want to complete the sentence that I started at the end of my last call which was to correct the misunderstanding that Louise Upston had. Miss Upston was on the Local Government and Environment Committee which considered the evidence and she said Labour was trying to have it both ways: it was trying to say some people had noted that the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill had been improved yet we were saying some people had not seen the bill. But actually both of those points are correct. Some people who had seen earlier drafts of the bill noted that it had been improved as did I. The first draft that we saw did not have a definition of the central business district in it and I thought that was quite foolish. I am glad that the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery agreed with that point and added a definition of the central business district. But many other leaders in Christchurch including our elected councillors had not seen the draft of the bill. That was the point being made from this side of the Chamber. People whom we will rely on to lead our communities have not been party to any discussion about the legislation. 
I have quite a lot of stamina so I will try again with the Minister. He still has not heard what I have been trying to get through to him in respect of the Canterbury District Health Board and I would really appreciate it if the Minister either did not take a call and dismiss my contribution or if he wants to take my amendment seriously that he first of all reads the piece in the legislation that I am referring to. He is right that in the responsible entities clause the district health board does not need to be named. That is fine; let us put that to one side. I think it would have given it good message if the Minister had named it but he disagrees so let us leave it at that. 
But the second point I made and I am not sure whether the Minister is able to talk and listen—he is a multitasker; excellent. That is very good. In Clause 11(4) a small number of organisations are listed that must be consulted in relation to the development of the recovery strategy. It is my view that alongside the Christchurch City Council Environment Canterbury Selwyn District Council Waimakariri District Council and Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu we should include the Canterbury District Health Board and that is what I am asking the Minister to do. I will have one more shot at that. There are a lot of other really serious amendments that we propose which the Minister has dismissed. But I think that having another go at that one is worth it. 
The Minister dangled a little carrot in front of me and said that if I changed the wording of my amendment in relation to the Disability Strategy and its consideration in the preparation of recovery plans he would give it another glance. He promised that he would give that amendment good consideration so I have rewritten it word for word on the basis of what I recall the Minister saying. By now he will have a new copy of that amendment. I do not consider that it would be a victory if that amendment was agreed to. I just think it would be a small step forward for disabled people who want to have a bigger say than they might otherwise have on the future of the region in which they live. I want to take the Minister back to the commitment that he made to me because I still feel cheated. I urge him in the little time that we have left to give it another shot. 
One of my other amendments was in relation to the instructions that the Minister can issue— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: In the middle of my speech? 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Well no because I know the member has more time to go and I just want to indicate to the Committee that the member’s amendment relating to consideration being given to the New Zealand Disability Strategy is under consideration. It may be that it could go in a different part and be more suitable for inclusion there and those discussions will take place with the member as soon as she has concluded her speech. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the Minister for that. It is actually not a point of order. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: It certainly was not a point of order. The Minister could have taken a call and done that. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I can’t do anything right. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Well it was not a point of order although the Minister raised it as one. That is the point that is being made. 
The other amendment that I proposed was in relation to the power that the Minister has to require councils or council organisations to perform a function. What we heard from the three councils to the best of my recollection—but certainly from two councils—was that they did not mind that. They thought it was fine that the Minister was able to instruct them either to start or to stop something because of the very unusual situation that we have. But they thought it would be just a mark of common courtesy if the Minister talked to them about it before issuing an edict from on high. That is all that my amendment asks the Minister to do. My amendment is to insert a new clause (1A) in clause 49 of Part 2. Again I say to the Minister that the reason I feel cheated is that I do not think this is a big ask and I cannot imagine how the Minister has given this amendment the serious consideration that he gave me a personal commitment to give to any amendments that we put up. All that the amendment asks is that the Minister should talk to the local authority about the direction that he is by law allowed to issue. There is no argument about that. It is just a little process. We are not asking him to go through a great long rigmarole. We are not asking him to leave himself vulnerable to be dragged before the court; we are just asking for a civil conversation with elected representatives in our three areas. I do not know why the Minister would not take the opportunity to provide for that. 
I thank the Minister for giving consideration to the Disability Strategy amendment. I really urge him to look at all our amendments. We spent quite a lot of time working on them. The Minister’s officials have taken until after 2 o’clock today to prepare Supplementary Order Papers based on the submissions that we heard which were finished yesterday afternoon. We have done our amendments ourselves without the resources of the brains talent and time of departmental officials. We actually had more amendments than the Minister but it is not a competition. However our amendments were done with the same degree of seriousness as the ones that the Minister prepared. It is nearly time for the debate to end. There is a limited opportunity for the Minister to change his behaviour and meet the commitment that he gave me at the select committee in front of a number of our other colleagues to give serious consideration to our amendments. 
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”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 11 
Green Party 9; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment to the amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments as amended set out on Supplementary Order Paper 237 in the name of the Hon Gerry Brownlee and the following amendments in his name be agreed to: 
to add to the definition of  
greater Christchurch 
 in clause 4 “and includes the coastal marine area adjacent to these districts”; and 
to insert in clause 23(1)(a) “restricted discretionary” after “consent for a”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments as amended and the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 11 
Green Party 9; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendments as amended and the amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (b) and substitute the following paragraph: 
(b)to enable community participation in the recovery of affected communities in order to promote a focused timely enduring and expedited recovery. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to add the following paragraph: 
(j)to build the health and well-being of the communities of greater Christchurch. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to amend the definition of “responsible entity” by inserting “Canterbury District Health Board” after “Public Service”. 
A party vote  was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The Hon Ruth Dyson’s typescript amendment to clause 4 relating to the inclusion of the Canterbury District Health Board in the definition of “greater Christchurch” is out of order as it is inconsistent with a previous decision. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to add the following subclause: 
(3)In this Act unless the context otherwise requires the principles of consultation consist of the following principles: 
(a)that persons who will or may be affected by or have an interest in the decision or matter should be provided by the local authority with reasonable access to relevant information in a manner and format that is appropriate to the preferences and needs of those persons: 
(b)that persons who will or may be affected by or have an interest in the decision or matter should be encouraged by the Minister or CERA to present their views to the local authority: 
(c)that persons who are invited or encouraged to present their views to the Minister or CERA should be given clear information by the local authority concerning the purpose of the consultation and the scope of the decisions to be taken following the consideration of views presented: 
(d)that persons who wish to have their views on the decision or matter considered by the Minister or CERA should be provided with a reasonable opportunity to present those views to the Minister or CERA in a manner and format that is appropriate to the preferences and needs of those persons: 
(e)that the views presented to the Minister or CERA should be received by the Minister or CERA with an open mind and should be given by the Minister or CERA in making a decision due consideration: 
(f)that persons who present views to the Minister or CERA should be provided by the Minister or CERA with information concerning both the relevant decisions and the reasons for those decisions. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel be agreed to: 
to insert the following clauses after clause 4:  
4ADefinition of Recovery 
Recovery means planning for the restoration and rehabilitation of the social economic natural and built environments of greater Christchurch taking into account the specific needs of the CBD the rural sector and the affected residential suburbs. 
4BDefinition of Community Participation 
Community Participation means openly engaging with the affected communities in partnership with key stakeholders to— 
(a)involve local people in joint learning and public decision making; 
(b)capitalise on local culture and knowledge: 
(c)mobilise local capacity to rebuild: 
(d)enable local communities to make choices that build safe and sustainable communities: 
(e)secure the positive attributes of the community and discard the negative elements and thereby entrench resilience. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 232 in the name of Dr Kennedy Graham to clause 6 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Brendon Burns to clause 6 be agreed to: 
to insert the following subclauses after subclause (2): 
(2A)The community forum will include the chair or a member nominated by the chair of each community board from each Canterbury authority where a community board exists. 
(2B)The Minister in inviting persons to participate in the forum will include representatives nominated by the following organisations: 
(a)the Christchurch City Council: 
(b)the Selwyn District Council: 
(c)the Waimakariri District Council: 
(d)CanCERN: 
(e)representatives from other affected communities; 
(f)representatives from the business health education heritage and union sectors.; 
to omit from subclause (3) “6 times a year” and substitute “monthly”; and 
to add the following subclause: 
(5)Within 2 weeks following every meeting the community forum must publish in the  
Gazette 
 a report on the Minister and chief executive’s performance in meeting community engagement requirements.  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel to clause 7 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) “from time to time” and substitute “at least monthly”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 232 in the name of Dr Kennedy Graham to clause 7 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove be agreed to: 
to insert the following clause after clause 7:  
7ARelationship with local authorities 
The Minister must meet at least quarterly with council mayors and the chairperson of the regional council.  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel be agreed to: 
to insert the following clause after clause 7:  
7AJoint community and cross-party forum 
(1)The Minister must arrange for the cross-party parliamentary forum and the community forum to meet together with the Minister. 
(2)The Minister must ensure that the meeting is held at least 6 monthly. 
(3)One of the purposes of the meeting is to provide feedback to the Minister on the community participation in the recovery effort led by CERA. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 236 in the name of Dr Kennedy Graham to clause 10 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel to clause 11 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (3) “may” and substitute “must”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel to clause 11 be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (3) the following paragraph after paragraph (a): 
(ab)the spatial distribution of social cultural and environmental assets and those that contribute to community wellbeing. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to clause 11 be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (4) “Christchurch District Health Board” after “Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu”; and 
to insert the following subclause after subclause (4): 
(4A)In developing the Recovery Strategy the chief executive must give effect to the New Zealand Disability Strategy. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel to clause 12 be agreed to: 
to insert the following subclause after sublcause (1): 
(1A)Notwithstanding subsection (1) the Minister must provide for community engagement in the development of the Recovery Strategy. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 235 in the name of Dr Kennedy Graham to clause 15 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel to clause 15 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (2) and substitute the following subclause: 
(2)On and from the notification in the  
Gazette  
of the Order in Council approving the Recovery Strategy the Recovery Strategy is to be read together with and forms any part of the document or instrument. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Brendon Burns to clause 17 be agreed to: 
to insert the following subclause after subclause (1): 
(1A)In developing the Recovery Plan for the CBD the Christchurch City Council must not propose the full or partial sale of any assets which it or any of its subsidiaries hold. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We have a typescript amendment to clause 18 in the name of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove. This is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to clause 20 be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (1) “community participation” after “consultation”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 235 in the name of Dr Kennedy Graham to clause 20 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to clause 20 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (3) and substitute the following subclause: 
(3)The process for the development of a Recovery Plan must include 1 or more public hearings as determined by the chief executive at which members of the public may appear and must be heard. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to clause 20 be agreed to: 
to add the following subclause: 
(5)For the purposes of subsection (2) the direction must include a requirement for all recovery plans to give consideration to the New Zealand Disability Strategy. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to clause 21 be agreed to: 
to add the following subclause: 
(5)No recovery plan shall be approved without an impact assessment being completed to assess the social cultural environmental and community impacts. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The next amendment to clause 22 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 236 in the name of Dr Kennedy Graham to clause 24 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 66 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 2; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel to clause 26 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (3) and substitute the following subclause: 
(3)A Recovery Plan is to be read together with and forms part of the instruments to which subsection (1) applies. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 66 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 2; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Brendon Burns to clause 27 be agreed to: 
to add to subclause (1)(d) the following subparagraph: 
(vii)a regional public transport plan under the Public Transport Management Act 2008. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 66 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 2; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 236 in the name of Dr Kennedy Graham to clause 27 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 66 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 2; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to clause 27 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (7) and substitute the following subclause:  
(7)Compensation is payable under this Act for any loss suffered as a result of an action taken under this section.  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 66 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 2; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 236 in the name of Dr Kennedy Graham to clause 30 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 66 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 2; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel to clauses 31 and 32 be agreed to: 
to omit these clauses.  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 66 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 2; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The next amendment to clause 48 in the name of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to clause 49 be agreed to: 
to insert the following subclause after subclause (1): 
(1A)The Minister must engage with CERA the local authority and the council organisation on the proposed notice and the Minister must have regard to any information he or she is given by the affected organisations. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 66 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 2; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to clause 50 be agreed to: 
to add the following subclause: 
(6)The council or council organisation may appeal to the High Court against a decision of a Minister under subsection (1). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 66 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 2; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel to clause 54 be agreed to: 
to add the following subclause: 
(8)To avoid doubt all interests in land compulsorily acquired under this section including but not limited to a mortgagee are nullified. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 66 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 2; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The amendment in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to clause 68 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel to clause 70 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) “or expedient”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 66 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 2; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 233 in the name of Dr Kennedy Graham to clause 70 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 66 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 2; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to clause 70 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (3) “include (without limitation)” and substitute “are”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 66 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 2; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 234 in the name of Dr Kennedy Graham to clause 71 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 66 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 2; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 234 in the name of Dr Kennedy Graham to clause 72 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 66 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 2; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to clause 72 be agreed to: 
to insert the following subclause after subclause (2): 
(2A)A copy of all draft Orders in Council must be provided to all political parties in the House of Representatives on the same date on which they are provided to the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Review Panel. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 66 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 2; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 233 in the name of Dr Kennedy Graham to clause 73 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 66 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 2; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel to clause 73 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (2). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 66 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 2; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel to clause 74 be agreed to: 
to add the following subclause: 
(6)To avoid doubt nothing in subsection (5) limits the right to challenge the validity of regulations by way of judicial review. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 66 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 2; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The amendment to clause 83 in the name of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Brendon Burns to clause 87 be agreed to: 
to add the following subclause: 
(3)For clarification the description will list the instances in which each power was exercised whether notification and/or consultation was required and carried out.  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 66 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 2; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I seek your advice briefly on a procedure. You will recall that during the Committee stage of the debate one of my amendments was being discussed and the Minister in the chair the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery agreed to give it consideration if it was worded in a different way. As he spoke I wrote it out and tabled it thinking that the Minister would then do as he had offered and give it consideration. He did but he then referred it to his officials for a reason that I do not understand but I guess that is not important. I was then given by his officials— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I have an answer to the member for that. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I have not asked the question. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The question is for consideration of the amendment. It was lodged after we had started the vote on the questions so— 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: That was not my question. If you would not mind Mr Chairperson— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I will hear the Hon Ruth Dyson. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Thank you. The officials gave me what the Minister had then agreed to I presume but it was past the time at which I could table it. The officials gave it to me after the voting had started and therefore the Minister was not able to deliver it. I ask whether there is any way of seeking leave for that reason. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Yes certainly. I invite the member to seek leave. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I seek leave to table an amendment as I have just outlined. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave is being sought to table this amendment in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: And allow voting on it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: First of all we are tabling it. Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection. We now move to a vote on it. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I do not have to seek leave for that? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No because we already have leave. That is what we have just done. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to clause 20 be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (2) the following paragraph after paragraph (c): 
(ca)The New Zealand Disability Strategy; and. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clauses 1 and 2 Parts 1 and 2 and schedules 1 and 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 2; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 11 
Green Party 9; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Clauses 1 and 2 Parts 1 and 2 and schedules 1 and 2 as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Third Reading 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery) 
: 
 I move  
That the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill be now read a third time 
. The events of the last couple of days and the last few hours have been I think quite interesting. Personally it has been a bit like being at an encounter group finding out all the worst foibles of one’s personality etc. But those matters are pretty unimportant when we consider the lives that have been so disrupted in Christchurch now for such a very long time. The passing of this bill does not change that immediately; it provides a framework for a transition from a state of emergency to a state of urgency leading towards what we hope will be a very full recovery in a speedier period of time. 
Before I make any further comments I want to thank the officials who have worked with me on this bill particularly Benesia Smith Rosalind Plimmer John Ombler Matthew Palmer and many others. They have worked tirelessly over the last couple of weeks to make sure we had a bill that covered as many bases as we could anticipate in the lead-up to what I hope will be the development of a series of recovery plans for the Greater Christchurch area and the Canterbury province under a single strategy that will be developed over the next 9 months. 
While there was a big team working on things here there was an even bigger team working down in Christchurch. Thousands of people are going the extra mile doing that extra bit to try to make life a little easier for their fellow Cantabrians their fellow residents of Christchurch City. I pay particular tribute to those who are doing the difficult part of the job—in the trenches up to their elbows in the muck trying to connect the pipes trying to put the electricity back on trying to make sure that the waste water runs away and trying to make sure that water is connected to houses. 
Those people have done very long hours. They continue to work hard and go that extra mile and they will keep doing that we hope for some time to come. I want to acknowledge that huge contribution in the very practical sense and the very practical way in which it is delivered. 
I do not think we need to spend a lot of time rehearsing aspects of the bill. I make a commitment to work with Bob Parker David Ayers and Kelvin Coe and their executive teams under Tony Marriott Paul Davey and Jim Palmer. 
I also acknowledge the work done over the last couple of weeks through their giving of advice on the bill by Mark Solomon and Sasha McMeeking from Ngai Tahu and the many others in the community who have expressed their views particularly those who took time to make submissions albeit at short notice to the Local Government and Environment Committee. The bill reflects many of the comments that were made during that hearing of evidence. 
I have great confidence that this bill provides the sort of framework we need to effect a solid recovery in the Greater Christchurch area. There are two aspects on which I want to make very brief comments. The first is the cross-party forum. Although we can have a little bit of acrimony about process and everything else as we move forward we will need a lot more unity and I make it clear that it is my intention to engage properly with that cross-party forum. 
I acknowledge that there was a discussion after the hearing of evidence last night when a number of things were shared in confidence and those confidences have been kept and I think that shows the underlying effort that people are making to understand and to be part of a bigger solution for people in Canterbury. 
I also want to give a commitment that the community forum will be a body that is representative of the many organisations and persons out there who have become leaders in our community but do not have a particular elected role. It goes without saying that in working in collaboration with the Christchurch City Council in particular there will need to be engagement with community boards as well as at council level. 
I express my great empathy for the great difficulties that everyone in Christchurch is facing at the present time but also my great confidence that we will emerge from this event as a very very strong city. We will have a central business district the development of which will be led by the city council that will be one of the safest places in the southern hemisphere to live and I think it will meet many of the tests that one would expect to apply to a city that looks forward to hundreds of years of success in the future. I look forward to the passing of the bill. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 Like all Canterbury members and other members of this House who have taken the trouble and shown the commitment to come down and assist the fellow members of our community I understand very clearly the difficulties our fellow citizens are dealing with. When we had a number of memorial speeches in the Parliament I think I used the phrase that there is a dust cloud—a metaphorical one now at least—hanging over the people of Canterbury. I think I said that cloud is filled with tears the tears of people who have lost loved ones who have lost their livelihoods and their homes and who have had their lives disrupted and their children’s lives disrupted. 
I also said at the time that I believe we will rebuild our province. We will rebuild it and it will reflect the grit the generosity of spirit and the good nature and guts of the people of Canterbury. We will have a modern city and we will have a modern province although it is hard to look constituents in the eye and make that commitment to them. It is hard for those constituents to believe that especially those who still do not have the basics of life such as a toilet. Elderly folk still have to go down in the early hours of the morning to a thing called a Portaloo which is a pretty ugly encounter for those of us in our younger years let alone for those vulnerable people in our community. 
I note as I have noted throughout this debate the Labour members of Parliament Ruth Dyson Brendon Burns and Lianne Dalziel. Lianne cannot participate in this debate given that she is required in Christchurch at another public meeting assisting her community but I think it is noteworthy to breach the Standing Orders in that respect and note that she cannot be present. Jim Anderton has also worked diligently as has Kennedy Graham. All those members on this side of the House have committed in good faith. We keep our word to this process. We have kept our word. In fact in my capacity I have stood in public meetings that I have organised and actually defended Gerry Brownlee and his Government when I thought it was appropriate. That is not in my nature I have to say but there is a higher calling in respect of this disaster we face. When cheap shots have been taken I have stood and defended the Earthquake Commission defended Mr Brownlee and defended his motives and his Government. 
I have to say our commitment to a bipartisan process has been sorely tested by that member in the last few weeks not just in the last few days when we have received commitments from the Minister when he has looked us in the eye and said he will do certain things and provide certain information. He has then—without a flinch I have to say and that shows the character of the man—observed that he has changed his mind and breached those commitments. I observed that. 
We and the people of Canterbury have been placed in a situation in which legislation the powers of which I have certainly not seen in my time in this Parliament has been put before this House in such a way that it has not had proper scrutiny. There will be people watching the show as it were and people who are listening who are in deep trouble in Canterbury and they are probably saying “Look Clayton you guys just work together and get on with it.” We understand that principle and we agree with that principle. I say to those folks that indeed we need to get on with it but our commitment and the expectation of the people of Canterbury was that this Parliament would deliver legislation to them that would meet and exceed their needs that would help them as swiftly as possible to get their lives back their homes back and their livelihoods back and that would restore them to a place where they were prior to 4 September and a better place of course than prior to the 22 February disaster. The people of Canterbury expect us to deliver the best possible authority for them and the best possible outcome for them. 
I say to the people of Canterbury that that has not been possible today because the Minister has embarked on a course akin to that of a parliamentary steamroller. He did accede to a 1-day select committee—it was not actually a day; it was 4 hours and 40 minutes of public hearings plus deliberation. Out of that select committee interestingly came all but one of the amendments that the Minister put on the Table of the House I think 4½ hours into the Committee stage. Had it not been for that select committee process that the Opposition demanded—and we demanded it because there are experts out there who have contributed in a positive way to this bill—the Minister it seems would have had but one amendment as he trots off to an early shower. 
Hon Nathan Guy 
: No no! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Yes I can say that. I tell members to read their  
Standing Orders of the House of Representatives 
. I say had we not had that select committee process the Law Society; the Legislation Advisory Committee; the three local authorities who received very short notice—a few hours’ notice—to attend; the Insurance Council critical to the process; the Canterbury District Health Board; and other elected folk would not have had any opportunity to bring their views forward and bring their positive ideas. It must have been positive for the Minister because his Supplementary Order Paper contained all of their ideas and only one of his own. So that is a win for the people of Canterbury. But then that Supplementary Order Paper was not allowed to have appropriate scrutiny and we will be guillotined in about an hour and 5 minutes because that is the process that Mr Brownlee has embarked upon. 
We support the legislation. We will support it. Even though we have grave reservations about the quality and whether it will deliver for our people we will and have given a public commitment to do so continue to work with the Government to attempt to make the legislation work for the people of Canterbury: for all those people Mr Brownlee mentioned who have worked their guts out in the last 6 or 7 months to help their fellow Cantabrians; for those people around New Zealand who have contributed money and time and who just appeared in Christchurch in Kaiapoi and Mount Pleasant with shovels in their hands to help people; for those people who now shed a tear most nights because they do not know when they will get their lives and their houses back; for those people in Kaiapoi who have been told that it could be 3½ years—despite the fantastic work of the Waimakariri District Council which has set a benchmark and a template for all other local authorities in our region—for those people who shed a tear because it will take sadly 3½ years for some of those people to get the keys to their new home. 
But I say to this House that I think Cantabrians expected better from us better from this Parliament. There will be those I am sure who will get up as Mr Brownlee and others have and as did the member for Taupo I think it is who got up and spat some political acid over to this side of the House accused us of playing politics and accused us of—I cannot remember the exact words— 
Louise Upston 
: Petty politics! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: —petty politics yes. She spat some political bile over to this side of the House as is her wont. 
Louise Upston 
: We’re sick of it. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Well that says it all. The people of Christchurch are not sick of members of Parliament—the Green member Mr Anderton myself and others—who got up and proposed amendments in a serious way to ensure that this bill is in the best possible shape it could be despite the political acid and bile that has been spat from that member. 
I will not resile from anything I have said or any criticisms I have made because those criticisms are made in good faith and they are made to ensure that there is accountability. There is a clause in this bill called an ouster clause clause 73(2) and it reads thus: “The recommendation of the relevant Minister may not be challenged reviewed quashed or called into question in any court.” That is the sort of “tsar clause”. It cannot be challenged by any legal organ in this land. If that power which is absolute is used appropriately and with diligence and discipline to help the people of Canterbury then we will support the use of that clause. But if it is abused and if it is used in a surreptitious way and if it is used without transparency or without accountability then we will expose that and the member for Taupo will again spit acid and say that we are being political. Well so be it. That is the nature of democracy and the nature of being a parliamentarian in this place—to hold to account the absolute power that the Minister and his Government will have as well as him. 
I will finish on this point: John Key made a pledge after 4 September a public pledge that was repeated by locals at many a public meeting I held that no one in Canterbury would be worse off. That is the acid test he will be judged by. Mr Brownlee is now shouldering the burden of this legislation squarely himself because in this process he quashed every amendment bar one. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 I fully support the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 I am not quite sure what time the last plane to the West Coast leaves but I guess the previous speaker Chris Auchinvole wants to be on it. I would have thought that after chairing the Local Government and Environment Committee a little more of a contribution may have been justified but the member obviously thought otherwise. 
I begin by saying that I will leave the Chamber committed to doing everything I possibly can to make sure that the legislation we are about to pass the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill is successful. We need an enduring and sustainable recovery in our region. If the bill is the mechanism we have been asked to deliver that recovery through then we will give it our very best shot. That is the most important goal for us to have from today. 
The debate on the legislation has not been as I would have wished it to be. Politicians—and I have seen a few in my time in Parliament and even before I came into this House—have different skills. Some do not use any of their skills and some use their skills a lot. A number of politicians have the ability to explain a proposal and take with them people of many different political persuasions. Some politicians do that even with their own caucus. But other members—and the Hon Gerry Brownlee has demonstrated this skill in the last few days—have the ability to take a politically neutral commitment to working together for the betterment of our region and turn it upside down into resentment frustration and division. I do not know why. I do not know why anyone would want to do that. We all enjoy scoring points at each other’s expense in this place from time to time—perhaps with the exception of my colleague from Canterbury Kennedy Graham who does not seem to enjoy that but makes a jolly fine contribution in Parliament regardless—but when we have such an important issue which has been created through death and the destruction of the largest city in the South Island I would have thought we could get beyond point-scoring. But we did not seem to be able to. I would have thought we would say to everyone in the House: “Please give us your best ideas and we will make the most of them.” We have had a wasted opportunity. That is a shame. The bill was an opportunity that should have been grasped by Gerry Brownlee. He would have been amazed at the energy that we could have contributed to the debate and therefore to the recovery. He would have been overwhelmed by the enthusiasm with which the invitation would have been broadly received by Cantabrians. I know that people would have welcomed the opportunity to have a genuine input into the legislative framework for our recovery for the next 5 years. It is quite important to us. We want to be part of it and we were denied that opportunity. It is a waste it is a shame and I do not understand why the Minister chose that path when the other one would have been so attractive so much more successful and frankly so much easier for him. I am sure he will explain it when he writes his book but for now we will remain puzzled. 
I acknowledge my Labour and Green colleagues whom I have been working alongside for many years but particularly since the September quake and the more recent February quake. Lianne Dalziel is a tireless worker for her electorate. She has led the rebuild and recovery process in her electorate which is challenged with more inequities than other electorates and which has been devastated twice. Nobody understands the force of nature and the unfairness of it—it cannot be explained—but Lianne has led information distribution to her constituents so that they could at least understand the physical forces of nature that have destroyed their suburbs their homes and for many people their lives. She has represented her electorate extraordinarily strongly. She continues to do so and it is to my regret—and I am sure the House’s—that none of her amendments were given the consideration they should have received. 
I also acknowledge Clayton Cosgrove who is the Labour leader on earthquake issues in our region. He has been a strong and staunch advocate not just for his electorate but for the broader consideration of earthquake issues. 
Brendon Burns as the member of Parliament for Christchurch Central has not only the most devastated red zone within his constituency but also the business community and many residents who have been very harshly affected. He has continuously represented their views needs and aspirations through appropriate channels. 
Kennedy Graham had his office destroyed and has recently started driving around our city in a very flash mobile office. I welcome him into my electorate any time because I enjoy working with him. 
The amendments we put forward we thought would improve the bill. I really genuinely do not believe that every single one of our amendments bar one from those members I have just named—Kennedy Graham Brendon Burns Clayton Cosgrove Lianne Dalziel and me—should have been defeated. I believed the commitment the Minister gave to me personally to my face that the amendments would be considered properly. I am stunned. I am not politically naïve so I should not be stunned but I am stunned that I have been so cheated on such an important issue by a fellow Cantabrian. I do not care what party Gerry Brownlee is in but I am really stunned that I have been cheated in that way. I would not have thought that of all members the Hon John Carter would find it amusing. Of all members I thought he would be the one who would share my frustration. 
I will touch briefly on the select committee process. It was unusual as has been mentioned during the Committee and second reading stages. I acknowledge Chris Auchinvole. I have never been on a select committee with him for any length of time. He is a very good chairman of the committee. He made us all behave in a way we were not inclined to at the start. We got a better contribution in the debate as a result. He treated submitters with respect. He set a fine example for all of us in this Parliament on the way to conduct ourselves in a difficult environment with difficult submissions being heard. It was very frustrating to not have the bill before us and to not have any advisers at the committee. We were very frustrated at not being able to get information from advisers in relation to what the submitters told us and the submitters were frustrated as well. The process is not one I would recommend. 
I also thank the people who made submissions. As has been mentioned previously in this debate most of the people who made submissions saw the bill as it was introduced into this parliament or an hour later. When we found out the bill was not on the website Clayton Cosgrove raised a point of order—as members may recall—and explained to the Speaker that it was not on the website. The Clerk’s office got on the job and the bill was on the website within a matter of minutes. That was the first time that many of the people who presented a submission to us had seen the bill. It was 4 o’clock on Tuesday afternoon and at 10 o’clock on Wednesday morning they were giving us a submission on the bill. That is not an acceptable process for minor legislation let alone legislation that gives extraordinary powers with very few checks and balances to one person. It makes it more difficult when we feel so cheated of goodwill throughout this process to then be asked to trust the Minister to use those extraordinary powers in the way the legislation requires and in the way that is best for our city. I would hope that we do get a better response to that ambition in future. 
Labour put forward a minority report on this bill because we felt so strongly about our concerns and tragically not all of them have been listened to let alone addressed. The constitutional aspects the overwhelming powers that are given to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery the length of time and the lack of transparency and accountability are major concerns. The fact that the community does not drive the recovery process will be to our detriment and we will do everything we can to change that. 
As I said at the beginning of my speech I will leave the House this evening committed to doing everything I can to ensure that this legislation delivers the sort of vision we all share for a strong and sustainable recovery for our region. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 This is a rather historic moment. Apart from in wartime New Zealand I think we are passing into law arguably the most Draconian legislation ever passed by a New Zealand Parliament. I do not wish to be melodramatic but we have experienced a dramatic event and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill is a dramatic bill. It has generated much heat yet only occasionally some light—but enough light—to shine a faint torch on what we are doing here today. This bill is a dusty mirror to who we are as a society. It raises issues of an underlying nature I think about our national identity our national style and our beliefs and I shall say more about that later. In the meantime let me make three points. 
The fundamental issue at stake is that this bill accords unprecedented peacetime powers to the Government in the name of recovery from a natural disaster. Those powers are justified on the basis that extraordinary events justify extraordinary legislation or “going the extra mile” as the Minister has just put it. That is the fundamental premise on which the Government rests its legislation. The Green Party rejects that premise and believes it has refuted it. An extraordinary event does not in itself require or justify extraordinary powers. It requires extraordinary effort—yes; extraordinary compassion—we are showing it; and extraordinary cooperation—we are getting there. It does not necessitate extraordinary powers. We are told the people of Christchurch are crying out for these powers to be rushed through for a focused timely and expedited recovery. The Green Party is being told precisely the opposite. We are being told people want to engage want legitimacy and want to express a vision. They are being denied that under this bill. The people of Christchurch would have preferred 2 more weeks of the state of emergency so that the bill could be properly debated. So we in the Green Party are critical of the process by which this bill is being born. It says little of its genealogy and it portends badly for any progeny that might—God help us—follow. 
My second point is this: why make central government sovereign over a local municipality as this bill does? Why the overriding assumption that national government knows better than local government? We reject that notion. Local government knows its city better than national government. Has anybody heard of the Christchurch City Council aspiring to run the country? I see the seeds of the substantive problem I am identifying even within the process itself. At yesterday’s select committee hearing down south the Christchurch City Council was essentially in disarray. The mayor was regrettably absent. Clearly something more important than this legislation detained him. The councillors had never seen the draft. Some of them think they have been consulted about the concept though this is rather unclear. The deputy mayor rather hesitatingly expressed general support but then in a forlorn and poignant action the council appealed for collaboration from central government and sought a protection of its statutory powers and rights. Other councillors spoke out against the process and the substance. There was I sensed a touch of apprehension. That is generally how these things begin—with just a look in the eye. 
My third point is that there has been a tendency probably a decision about mixing all phases into one in the name of justifying these powers. We should be seeing three phases: an emergency when central government is naturally in control; a recovery when central and local government cooperate; and a rebuild when local government is in control. But we are seeing central government retaining the purple robe over the lot. There are too many rationales here. Are these extraordinary powers justified? So said Mussolini so said Musharraf and so says Bainimarama. They talk of the doctrine of necessity and we recall what ultimately happens to all these regimes. 
My final comment is this. The bill is a commentary on who we are. New Zealanders are by and large by nature not a theoretically minded people. We like to see ourselves as pragmatic and casual decent and fair-minded. No. 8 wire takes precedence over encyclopaedic script. We tenaciously refuse to write a formal constitution proud of our British heritage. We disbanded the Upper Chamber on the grounds it might get in the way. We are slow to write into the books our natural obligations pertaining to human rights and freedom of information. We glue our society together on personalised trust rather than idealised obligation. These ingredients make for a fragile society more fragile than we realise. The pure taste of these ingredients is in this legislation which the New Zealand Parliament claiming sufficient electoral strength to muster the numbers is about to adopt in the name of we the people whose characteristics we witnessed today. In this bill we have ridden roughshod over the statute book. We have pushed the bill through a unicameral Parliament. We have suspended certain basic rights and we have rested its operationalisation on the blithe assurance of personal trust the trust of one Minister backed by a group of Ministers. Is this the moment to acknowledge that in the forty-ninth Parliament whose time is not yet at an end we have witnessed the resignation of two Ministers on the grounds of violating political and personal trust? Every society when it starts down the road to repression claims that extraordinary events justify extraordinary law. That is the basis of martial law. 
Let us not opt out of human society and claim that because we are pragmatic casual decent and fair-minded we are different. We are not. We have witnessed emergency powers prevailing in countries we know well. It is not just Egypt and Syria. I know what it is to live in societies where freedoms are circumscribed or where situations are tense. I have lived in Jordan a beautiful and wonderful nation where to criticise the king would place one in serious trouble. I have entered Haiti 3 days after a dictator was ousted and the sandbags with machine guns peered out at people. I have been to Burundi between genocides where we appealed in the Parliament at Bujumbura for calm and mutual understanding. That experience incidentally carries a personal note that illustrates my point. On that occasion I took eight members of Parliament with me from around the world. Four were from the West four were from Africa. Our lead parliamentarian was an outstanding Opposition leader from West Africa. He was renowned for his courage his acumen and above all for his compassion for the people. He later went on to become a popular president whom the people loved and trusted. Who was that man? He was Laurent Gbagbo. 
Is Africa so very different from these far-flung shaky isles we call home? Are we so benighted as to say yes so provincial as to believe ourselves to be superior? To those who might let me refer them to Chile Argentina Mexico and Uruguay and respond to the obvious prejudice—and of course Italy and Germany. We generally relate to those countries and others in times of trouble. I ask colleagues not to think we are immune. It is not that I do not trust Gerry Brownlee; it is that I do not trust myself. I would feel reassured if we had a codified constitution and that our constitution foresaw such an event and required for it in a measured and prescient manner rather than require through our constitutional ineptitude this kind of legislative nightmare. We could take the example of a close Commonwealth partner India from whom we could learn much about democratic principle. India has a constitutional arrangement for a state of emergency in its framework. It has declared emergencies three times in its history. That is not to comment on the precise states of emergency that India has declared—they are controversial each one—but rather to focus on the fact that India has a constitutional framework for a state of emergency. 
The Civil Defence Emergency Management Act and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill do not do it. If we have learnt anything from this episode it is not about how courageously we are surviving the physical ordeal—we all knew we would. After all we once were warriors Celtic and Polynesian. If we have learnt anything it is what we do not know or know less well about ourselves—call it the political ordeal. If there is one lesson of today it is that we need to enshrine this kind of reserve power in a constitution. 
Hon HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to speak on the third reading of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill. This is not the sort of legislation that the ACT Party would normally consider supporting and I have to say that although I do not often agree with the Green member Kennedy Graham on this occasion I agree with just about everything he mentioned in his speech. I think the points that he has made certainly resonate for others in the House. But we do have exceptional circumstances in Canterbury at the moment and we need to be able to move forward and help Cantabrians and the people of Christchurch as best we can in these circumstances. 
The Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery assured us at select committee and in the Chamber that he will not use the powers that Parliament is bestowing on the Government and particularly on the Minister responsible for the Canterbury recovery—he will act very responsibly; and I think this Chamber has to trust his word on that. Certainly that will be tested in the forthcoming months and in fact in the forthcoming years. Although this is not legislation that we would normally support we are today supporting the Government in these measures. We will be watching very carefully to see how things progress. 
I will also make a very short comment on the select committee process in respect of this urgency motion. It was pleasing that the Minister agreed to have hearings of evidence and I congratulate him on that. But I have to say that the process followed was less than what we would have liked to see. In particular the lack of technical advice really did hinder the committee in coming quickly to the best decisions. I agree with some of the others in the speeches that they have made already in the Chamber in saying that we wanted the very best for people in Canterbury and in order to do that we needed to have the best advice available to us. I think that is a lesson for the future and I hope that will be recognised and realised if this sort of occasion arises again. The ACT Party supports this legislation but I think those points have been important to make. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 Kingi Tawhiao Potatau Te Wherowhero left us the immortal words “Ki te kahore he whakakitenga ka ngaro te iwi”—without foresight or vision the people will be lost. At this time in the third reading of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill it is important that we consider those words as we evaluate all the checks and balances that have been built into the Act. Have we provided sufficient opportunity for the vision of the people to come forth? Throughout all of the powers created under the bill to ensure a focused timely and coordinated recovery effort is there also flexibility—and importantly willingness—to allow for the natural foresight of all our people to shine through? Have we listened? Are we prepared to listen and learn? 
The bill specifies that the powers legislated for in Parliament today are mainly reserve powers to be used only if they are necessary. It also stipulates that checks will be in place to guard against the inappropriate use of the powers given to the Minister and to the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority. Like other parties in this House the Maori Party cannot emphasise enough just how critical it is that these powers are exercised only in accordance with the purpose of the Act and only if reasonably necessary. 
I guess if there is one overriding consideration that might guide us all in our deliberations it will be to reflect on the simple yet bold tribal proverb that Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu suggests for the recovery of Christchurch: “Mo tatou a mo ka uri a muri ake nei”—for us and our children after us. It was in this sense that the Maori Party has appreciated the very clear endorsement from Ngai Tahu for this legislation as an important step in pursuing the vision of Christchurch becoming a global city with a strong vibrant community that provides for our grandchildren and their grandchildren. It is essential that we consider the bill as one step along the journey of a long lifetime plan. The earthquake was not a usual event an event to which the normal powers of local government authorities could be applied to reorganise and rebuild. 
How will any of us ever forget these last 2 months of our lives? Our lives have been interrupted by an event of such a catastrophic proportion that even now it is hard to believe that it happened. The physical disruption to our lives the ongoing frustration of normality disrupted has been on a massive scale. As has been said previously the earthquake of 22 February 2011 has altered the course of history for Christchurch and for our nation. But the crumbling bricks and mortar the devastation of homes in ruin and the ongoing impact of the demolition of buildings as severe as these effects are all pale in comparison with the inconsolable grief of families mourning for those lost in the quake. We remember the extraordinary outpouring of anguish that washed over us all as we attended a tangihanga observed a 2-minute silence at the national memorial services and simply listened and watched and read the very real human stories of heartache. 
But now we must move forward remembering to honour all those who lost their lives. There is no question that the powers being conferred on central government through both the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority and the responsible Minister are extraordinary. But we agree with Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu that extraordinary powers are warranted by the extraordinary circumances: “A narrower set of powers would result in an inevitable amount of case by case management of the recovery effort creating delays uncertainty and contributing to community frustration.” So the Maori Party is backing the bill as we believe that it is essential in order to establish a clear overall direction for the recovery efforts. We agree with the necessity of producing a mandatory recovery plan for the Christchurch commercial business district within 9 months of the bill’s enactment and that the recovery plan should then be read into statutory plans. 
I have been impressed by the work of the disability sector and the advocacy and leadership of the Minister for Disability Issues Tariana Turia in recommending that the Christchurch recovery effort presents a unique opportunity to ensure that Christchurch is a truly accessible city for disabled and older people. So we are pleased that Minister Brownlee has agreed to the Hon Ruth Dyson’s amendment. 
I want to talk about representation which is perhaps the most critical factor underpinning the recovery of Christchurch. Ngai Tahu made the point in their submission that there is a distinction between statutory participatory rights and community leadership. There must be a collaborative working relationship between the authority and community leadership that is close open and generates innovation. The purpose provisions of the bill are explicit in their direction that community participation must be planned for in order to restore the social economic cultural and environmental well-being of Greater Christchurch communities. The community forum and the cross-party forum are fundamental to the way in which these relationships will be activated. We must act in ways that demonstrate the saying “He waka eke noa”—a canoe that we are all in with no exception. 
There can be no exceptions. The need for this bill to work cannot be understated. We must in this Parliament provide the appropriate measures to ensure that Greater Christchurch and the councils and their communities respond to and recover from the impacts of the Christchurch earthquakes. As Ngai Tahu put it so eloquently “the community is the recovery. The identity strength and vitality of Christchurch is in the hearts of our people.” We must not falter in the steps we take. Our future as a city as a nation will depend on the quality of the relationships and the collaboration with the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority local and central government and the wider community. 
The Maori Party supports this bill as we support every effort of all the parties involved to plan for the rebuild process and to make the appropriate decisions that will help to protect and preserve the well-being of whanau. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I support the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill and look forward to the recovery and rebuild of Christchurch. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I will take a short call. Normally this call would be taken by my colleague Lianne Dalziel but she has asked me to say that she is unable to speak in the third reading debate as she is holding a community meeting in her electorate which is something she has been doing regularly I think since the first earthquake. The first thing then is that I convey her apologies for not being able to be in the House for the conclusion of this debate and I explain the reason for that absence. 
Other members of the Labour team have explained that on a collective basis we have decided to support the Canterbury emergency legislation. They have also made a commitment particularly those Canterbury members who will continue to work on the ground to try to make this model work. They have said that it is not the model that Labour would have chosen. We would have preferred to see evidence that the Government had taken into account best international practice in recovery. If that had been done there would have been much more emphasis on collaboration with the communities affected by the earthquake and there probably would not have been a model held so closely to the Crown by the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery. There probably would have been the continuation of some sort of Crown entity structure that allowed less direction and more community cooperation than we will see under the model we have. But it is what it is; rather than oppose it given that it is the only option from the Government on offer as it were Labour members have decided that it will be supported. As I have said the decision is that we will simply try to make what we see as a less than ideal model work on the ground. 
I said in my earlier contribution that I thought there were a number of areas where the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill goes too far. It is unconstitutional in at least four or five respects and I will repeat for the House why that is so. First we have legislation that can be suspended by regulation and at a low test for that suspension. The Minister just has to think that it is expedient in order for that suspension to occur. Wars have been fought over less but here we go conferring that power merrily on the executive in 2011. 
Then there is the attempt to say to the High Court that it cannot review the exercise of the Minister’s decisions to make regulations that suspend statutes. The way in which that is done is inelegant and it is probably ineffective as experts have pointed out. Most members of the House probably do not take a huge or close interest in the way in which there is an interplay between the competing sources of power in our constitution but it is something that I do take an interest in. I am aware as I am sure other lawyers in the House are aware that there is actually fragility in the balance of power in our constitution. The judges and the courts are watching closely now that the final right of appeal sits across the road and now that this Parliament is apparently seized of a desire to surrender certain of its powers to the executive to see whether that exercise of power by this House is appropriate. Kennedy Graham said in his earlier contribution that there is no written constitution in this country. The danger that we face if we provoke the judiciary with provisions such as the one I have just spoken about is that we may run the risk that the courts will start to discover unwritten rights that they will none the less enforce against this place because they will regard us as having changed the constitution in unacceptable ways. My concern about this legislation today is that we are doing this now and that that is the risk we are running. 
If it were a necessary risk to run and if it were obvious that the Minister needed those powers—if the powers had for example been required under the September 2010 Canterbury legislation and been used time and time again for good purpose—then maybe it would be possible to be relaxed about it but that is not the case. These sorts of powers have not been required although they have existed under that earlier legislation. They have not had to be used so I ask why we risk causing a constitutional crisis by seeking to enact the sorts of powers that we are told and that I accept are very unlikely ever to be required. It is folly it is irresponsible and it may have I fear much wider consequences than most people in this House have thought about. The risks we have incurred today to the way in which it is accepted that our constitution ought to be balanced unfortunately cannot be overstated. 
There are other problems with the bill. There is no need to water down privacy rights in the way that is contemplated under clauses 29 and 30. We already have a perfectly acceptable solution to information-sharing issues which was put in place by the Privacy Commissioner the independent expert charged with responsibility for these matters. We are retrospectively validating the activity of officials when they already have validation under the Civil Defence and Emergency Management Act. That is again unnecessary and provocative and it is an overreach of our powers to do it twice. The question has to be asked about why it is being done. 
Finally the rights of citizens to have their interests declared to be of a certain nature by the courts are disturbed by clause 68. Restrictions are to be placed by this Parliament on the way in which appeals are to be carried out but I say that there is no need to interfere with the processes of the court in this way. A simple legislative direction that the court is to have regard to its inherent powers to control vexatious or unduly prolonged litigation would have been sufficient; instead the drafters have insisted on an outdated model by which to proceed. Again it is provocative and it may be constitutionally dangerous. It is no answer that these powers already exist in the 2010 law and that they have not been abused. It is wrong for Nicky Wagner Rahui Katene and others to assert that there are sufficient checks and balances—there are not. These are bad precedents; they are unconstitutional. Our arrangements are more fragile than many understand and this is as I say folly. It would have been much better just to enact the Legislation Advisory Committee’s model for emergency legislation and to have left it at that. 
There have been criticisms of the process and I believe that many of those criticisms are entirely justified. But I have also seen some very good behaviour from certain parliamentarians and I record my thanks for that behaviour because some people have actually risen above their baser instincts and behaved nobly in this process. I have seen parliamentarians taking their scrutiny job seriously and I respect those people for the way in which they have discharged their responsibilities. But a really unfortunate tone has also crept into this debate. There has been sniping there have been accusations of bad faith and there have been petty exchanges across the House that the subject of this legislation really should have rendered inappropriate. Many people say that there is nothing worse than a bad loser; I think there is and that is a bad winner. I hope that that is not a portent of things to come in the way in which this legislation will be administered because if it is then it will be a very bad thing for Canterbury and for this country. 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I support the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill. I will make just this one point. The recovery and rebuild in Christchurch the rebuild of the many broken hearts and homes does not lie within one piece of legislation and one Minister; the burden lies with all of us. All New Zealanders including people from Auckland share the burden of Christchurch. I am proud in this House to be passing this bill—an urgent and necessary piece of legislation for New Zealand. 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 The speech I am embarking on in the third reading of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill will conclude my first week back at Parliament since the 22 February quake. I am very grateful my colleagues in caucus have provided support so that I and others have been able to be on the ground in my electorate in Christchurch because there is no shortage of work to be done assisting those constituents whose lives have been nothing less than shattered. Residents and suburbs are still struggling with sewerage and housing problems and business people have faced enormous frustration at not being able to access their premises. 
I have to confess tonight that I am feeling a little weary and a little wary. I am weary because I as an MP and my electorate staff to whom I pay homage tonight have absorbed a lot of the emotions generated by the quake. I think we have seen more tears in recent weeks than in a whole year of watching soppy movies. I think I have given more hugs out than Nelson Mandela and I think most of us as MPs on the ground in Christchurch have absorbed a lot of anger and have diffused a lot of anger and annoyance as we have dealt with frustrated homeowners and business people. Business people of course are carrying not only the loss of premises but the very strong financial stresses of trying to keep businesses alive in the face of frustrations about access to premises data and files. 
But that is the job we do as constituency MPs and I think all MPs across Christchurch have worked hard and are working hard to do their best to help. I particularly pay tribute to my colleagues: to Lianne Dalziel the feisty battler for her very hard-hit electorate out in Christchurch East; to Clayton Cosgrove our lead spokesperson on earthquake recovery; to Ruth Dyson who is a tireless worker for her constituents out in Port Hills; to Jim Anderton who never ceases to be on the case in respect of his constituents; and to Ken Graham who brings a very valuable constitutional view to matters before this House. I also acknowledge Gerry Brownlee Amy Adams and the list MPs of Christchurch for the work that has been done. I think we are all feeling a little weary but we know that this is an ultra-marathon in most respects. 
Just a few weeks ago on a short quake break I visited Napier to look at the recovery there from the 1931 disaster. I spent half an hour or so with Mayor Barbara Arnott who conveyed to me her view that it takes a full generation to recover fully from the impacts of a disaster of this scale and I think she is absolutely right when we consider we are facing a $30 billion rebuild in Christchurch and a time frame that will stretch across many many years. I think that is underlining the critical importance that we as Labour MPs attach to the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill and to getting it into the best possible shape. 
I have to say I came to this House with some optimism about that process. We as a party had negotiated and effectively won the right if that is what I should call it to a select committee hearing which we thought was crucial to making sure given the rapid nature of the passage of this bill that we at least had some reference back to the community to the experts so that we could iron out some of the wrinkles that are always likely to emerge in urgent legislation. It was disappointing to say the least as our parliamentary colleague Heather Roy has noted to arrive at the select committee and discover that we did not have technical advice available to us as we set about that very rapid but important process of trying to make sure the bill had the worst of the fish-hooks removed from it. 
That is where I come to the second word “wary”. I thought after last night’s firstly formal and then informal briefing from Minister Gerry Brownlee we would conclude this bill in a broadly bipartisan spirit and I had hoped genuinely for that. It was to use the word again disappointing to get to the Committee stage and see all of Labour’s 100 or so amendments simply discarded. That does not bode well for the bill or for the genuine commitment I think the bill needs to embody. I want to say there is absolutely no question about the issue of the need for rapidity. That is the essence of what is required in Christchurch at this point. But the Government cannot pretend to have some monopoly to be the brains trust on these issues. I note that of the changes brought through in the Government’s own Supplementary Order Paper only one came from the Government itself—plus I think the removal of a comma—and the rest of all of those changes came from the select committee process which I think underscores the value of it. It should not really have had to be wrangled from the Minister because there are benefits to him as much as there are to the citizens of Christchurch in terms of that process as rushed as it was as truncated as it was and frankly as flawed as it was. 
The Minister tonight in his third reading speech gave us an assurance that he wants to work properly in the cross-party forum. I will take him at his word on that even if past experience of what was effectively a cross-party forum following the 4 September quake did not really work. Ideas were generated and letters were written. Sometimes replies were not received and ideas were not picked up. I say to the Minister we cannot have that this time round. We simply have to have all hands on deck. All ideas deserve the courtesy of at least being considered. The Government has no monopoly on wisdom and Christchurch people want nothing less than all of their MPs being able to contribute to the recovery that lies before us and the many years that it will involve. 
I noted too Minister Brownlee’s commitment to the community forum and the fact that he is determined that it will be truly representative. That puts an enormous onus on him because as the bill defines he is choosing the 20 or more representatives on that forum. I note from the Committee stage that the Minister said he thought there needed to be consultation with the cross-party forum in respect of the membership of the community forum. I intend to hold him to that because the community forum is not simply an adjunct to the process. I think that forum has to be at the heart of the process. 
Given that the Minister is from Catholic origins he would well remember and be aware that the road to another place is paved with a lot of good intentions but it is the delivery of those good intentions that gets one to that other place. It is of course always easier for a Government or anybody in authority to issue commands rather than to genuinely consult and engage but the value of consultation and engagement can be enormously important in bringing about the sorts of results we want. Although it is especially tempting when time pressures are upon us to go past genuine engagement there are huge risks and we cannot afford to get things horribly wrong in Christchurch as we embark upon our so essential recovery. We are all travelling on the same road in Christchurch towards that recovery. We can walk together or we can fall behind a shadow. I say that for the sake of Christchurch we have to have the chance to walk together. I also have to say that I think we have had a rather stumbling start. 
The next steps will be instructive. My colleagues and I will be watching very closely to see whether engagement is truly possible and the cross-party forum can truly work and whether there is truly an opportunity for real genuine input and the potential for the community to provide advice and instruction to the Minister and to walk alongside him and make sure we get it right this time. There is a lot before us. There are a lot of questions about whether we are able to deliver it via this bill. But the Minister has given us his assurance. I accept him at his word. I will hold him to account in respect of that assurance he has given to the House and I can say only that from here on it is perhaps a case of que sera sera. 
AARON GILMORE (National) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to speak last on the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill. For me as the youngest Canterbury member of Parliament I look forward to this bill being implemented over the next number of years and my home city being rebuilt. This is an extraordinary bill that gives extraordinary powers to an extraordinary man. I think that in years to come—in many years to come—when we sit in this House again in 5 years’ time we will see that my city is on the path and not just the path of rebuilding and when sewers roads homes schools and power supplies are repaired because of the Government’s framework that this bill put in place. I look forward to seeing those results. 
We heard the previous speaker Brendon Burns talk about community consultation. It was a pleasure to be with the Prime Minister this morning in one of the hard-hit suburbs of Christchurch where over 200 people were talking about some of the issues they are facing and the concerns they have as a result of this bill. There are some concerns that exist in the community—many of them were put in people’s minds by Opposition members and I think that is unfortunate. This bill will not ruin people’s lives; it is the Government’s framework to allow our city to be rebuilt in the way that New Zealand and Canterbury in particular wants it to be. 
I look forward to sitting in this House in 5 years’ time and seeing the fruits of this bill: results so that we can actually flush our toilets drink our water turn our lights on and off live in our homes that are not leaky live in homes that have no cracks or breaks have roads that are flat and our kids can go to school from 8.30 to 3 like normal kids do up and down the country. I look forward to being back in the central business district where our business people can sit and work in their businesses like they used to do prior to September and prior to 22 February. I look forward to seeing thousands of tourists coming back to our city and seeing the beautiful buildings we have and enjoying the good company of Cantabrians. I look forward to seeing the Crusaders and the All Blacks playing again at the AMI Stadium or Jade Stadium as I would rather call it or Lancaster Park as that member may recall and enjoying the great things that have occurred in Christchurch. 
This bill will allow the Government’s framework for those things to happen and that has to be a good thing. The people of Canterbury are tough we are resilient we are stoic but as we say we need a bit of help. This legislation will put in place a bit of help to help our good friends in Canterbury wherever they come from whatever their political persuasion whatever side of town they live in to be able to get to the situation where they can look back and say yes the Government put in place a framework to help them and to rebuild their city. I think that is a wonderful thing. Thank you. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 2; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 11 
Green Party 9; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Bill read a third time.