Graham Kennedy: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — First Reading 
Graham Kennedy: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:17907] 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 Of course none of us wanted this. We did not want the event of 22 February. We did not want the devastation. We did not want and never expected to have legislation of this kind before our House. I speak with some emotion having lived in the city through the past 7 months. I have experienced the sheer trauma of the death and destruction around us. I have organised volunteer groups to go into the suburbs to shovel and doorknock and initiated fund-raising for food delivery to those in need. I have attended the heart-wrenching memorial services for the dead. I have entered my office to retrieve equipment still cordoned inside a drop zone. I have visited civil defence headquarters on an almost daily basis. Just last week I toured the devastated red zone—a visually searing experience that simply breaks one’s heart. 
Yet the emotion all of us in Christchurch feel over this event must be separated from our perception of the legislation before us and our responsibility to be true to the basic principles of democratic society as we know it in this country. Not only is the Christchurch disaster unprecedented but so is this Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill. So how are we to assess it? By what criteria are we to judge it? I advance four criteria for judging this bill. Are the stated purposes appropriate and coherent? Are the powers granted for the purpose proper? Is the extent of public involvement adequate? Are our constitutional principles respected? I will begin with my conclusion: the purposes are appropriate the powers granted are excessive the extent of public involvement is inadequate and our constitutional principles are violated. 
I ask members to consider the first question. The purposes of the bill are stated to be fivefold. They are to provide appropriate measures for Christchurch to be able to respond and recover; to enable community participation in planning the recovery; to enable a focused timely and expedited recovery; to facilitate and direct the planning rebuilding and recovery; and to restore the social economic cultural and environmental well-being of Christchurch. Those purposes are entirely appropriate. We would comment in relation to the fifth purpose that the restoration of Christchurch should be pursued along sustainable lines that reflect 21st century values and technology. The devastation that is currently my city presents an opportunity not only to restore but to qualitatively grow in new directions. That is what being Green societally—not just politically—is all about. We invite the Government to proceed in that direction even if it cannot bring itself to use the word “sustainable”. 
Are the purposes coherent? It seems that they meet the Government’s purpose of ensuring that nothing stands in the way of a focused timely and expedited recovery. By “focused” the Government seems to mean that power will be concentrated enormously in one person. That in itself does not guarantee a focus of vision and effort. The goal of ensuring there is a timely recovery would seem to mean “at the appropriate time”. But then to state that the recovery must be expedited immediately contradicts that. The issue is more than semantic. Words mean something or they would not be there. The powers accorded under the bill would last for 5 years yet we are being asked to grant them in the name of expedition. That is a non sequitur. 
Let us consider the second question: are the powers granted proper for the purposes of the legislation? Clauses 20 to 40 give extraordinary powers to the Minister. They roam across 23 statutes but are not confined to those. Those 23 Acts are the bill says without limitation. We criticised that back in September when we debated the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill yet we were prepared ultimately to vote for that legislation. This time however the ministerial powers are far more extensive. There is a qualitative break in constitutional terms between the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Act and this bill. This bill accords immeasurably greater power to the Minister and over a much longer time period. Those powers are excessive in relation to the purpose of the bill. We can perhaps draw a distinction here between what could be called the recovery period which would last 9 months until the strategy and plans are in place and the rebuilding period which would last for the remaining 4 years and 3 months. Even if some were to defend those ministerial powers for the shorter period they are not we suggest proper for the rebuild period if that rebuild is to be led and operationalised by the Christchurch community itself. 
Let us move to the third question: is the extent of public involvement adequate? There is to be a community forum but the forum is to be peopled by the Minister. Members are to be suitably qualified but that does not mean they will necessarily be representative of the Christchurch community. The community forum should be appointed on the recommendation of the House. The Minister is obliged to have regard to the advice of the forum but having given such regard he may then disregard it. The community forum has no final say in the building of the community. The Minister from central government has that. So too are the local authorities denied any final say. There is to be a parliamentary cross-party forum composed of local MPs. This too is an advisory body but the bill does not even require the Minister to have regard to that advice. 
Then there is the matter of the role of the municipal authorities. The recovery strategy is to be developed in collaboration with Christchurch City Council the two district councils Environment Canterbury Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu and other persons and organisations considered appropriate by the Minister. Yet the final approval remains with the Minister alone. In developing the ensuing recovery plan the Christchurch City Council must take the lead and must consult with the affected communities but the Minister may make any changes to the plan or withdraw any part of it and he may review it at any time and amend or replace it. The coup de grâce is given in clause 20(3): apart from the Christchurch City Council the Minister has no duty to consult with any person about the development of a recovery plan. One sees a pattern emerging here: there is an appearance of community engagement but the reality of ministerial control. 
Finally are our constitutional principles respected? It is our considered view that the powers granted to one Minister of the Crown are excessive for the purposes of this bill. Accordingly—and we shall explore this further in the forthcoming debate and in the Committee stage—the conclusion is that the bill as drafted places an unacceptable strain on the constitutional precepts and principles of New Zealand. 
The people of Christchurch deserve to have a bill that gives them the power to rebuild Christchurch themselves not one that gives all the power to one man. We are asked to personally trust the Minister and we are assured that no abuse of power has occurred under the existing Act. My reply is that this is irrelevant. The exercise of excessive powers is not a matter to be adjudicated on trust. Constraints on governmental powers are a non-negotiable principle independent of one person. It is no disrespect to the Minister concerned to say he should not be trusted with such powers. This bill effectively gives unbridled power to the Beehive for 5 years and it sidelines local councils and communities. Yet international evidence shows that community-led recovery efforts work best. We shall oppose this bill at this first reading. In the Committee stage we shall propose a number of Supplementary Order Papers with a view to making the bill acceptable in a constitutional sense and politically appropriate in terms of a genuine and adequate community engagement. More generally the Green Party will work in the communities of Christchurch as I have been doing and with the Government as we shall strive to do to ensure that Christchurch is properly rebuilt and that the society can recover and indeed grow in wholly new ways relevant to our times.