Graham Kennedy: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Graham Kennedy: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:18156] 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 I want to address the immediate practical issue of the Green Party’s Supplementary Order Papers and in doing so I want to divide my time. I will talk initially to the issue of community engagement. As I said during the first reading debate on the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill our concerns revolve around a twofold process: firstly the lack of adequate community engagement; and secondly the extensive powers. I would like to treat our Supplementary Order Papers accordingly. I will focus for the moment only on the community engagement aspect of our concerns. On Supplementary Order Paper 232—members will have it in front of them I think—we have two amendments: one to clause 6 and one to clause 7. On Supplementary Order Paper 235 we have an amendment to clause 20 and I will address that later as well. 
With regard to Supplementary Order Paper 232 we propose to insert the following words into clause 6(2): “and broadly representative of communities and organisations in Christchurch”. Those words would come after the words “suitably qualified” in the provision as it stands. We submit that amendment because we believe that the people of Christchurch have a right to a say in how their city should be rebuilt. Currently the proposed community forum will be hand-picked by the Minister and in our view this compromises its independence. Our amendment to clause 6 also requires that membership of it be approved by the House of Representatives. In a similar vein our amendment to clause 7 would add the following subclause after subclause (2): “The Minister and the chief executive must have regard to any advice that they are given by the cross-party group.” 
In putting forward those Supplementary Order Papers we have special regard to some of the comments by a number of recognised lawyers throughout the land—constitutional lawyers and others. Let me quote if I may from one Dean Knight who says the following—and I remind members that this is not the Green Party speaking; I am quoting a recognised legal authority. I quote Mr Knight: “I acknowledge the gravity of the task facing Christchurch and other districts. The recovery and rebuilding project is a massive one one that is probably beyond the capacity of present local authorities and other agencies. I accept therefore that central government involvement is essential. However I question the top-down rather than bottom-up model that has been adopted. … The legislative scheme does not build in the usual elements of local democracy and community participation that is traditionally seen and expected in legislation dealing with town planning and management of local resources.” 
He further says: “The predominant thinking nowadays is that’’—and this is in rebuttal to the comments that the international experience is that recovery delayed is recovery denied and that therefore we have to have a timely and expedited recovery. Our understanding of the international experience is that if it not the reverse it is at least balanced by the requirement that there be adequate community engagement because if we need a timely recovery we also need a legitimate recovery. So I appeal to the Minister and to the Government to have regard to balancing expedition of the recovery and rebuild with the legitimacy from community engagement. I know that the phraseology is there in the Act as it stands; it is a matter how it is enacted and how we observe it once this bill passes. Dean Knight observes that: “The predominant thinking nowadays is that town planning or resource management decisions ought to be made at the local level in a way that allows the affected communities to have their say in their development. It recognises that they will be best-placed to assess the propriety of the plans and generally enhances the legitimacy of the measures adopted. It is also consistent with the principle of subsidiarity which says that decisions ought to be made at the lowest possible level within the governmental framework.” Further he says: “In practical terms a community-centred model would charge the local authorities themselves with developing the overarching recovery strategy—without the need for ministerial sign-off. CERA would still have a role in assisting local authorities. It could operate as a portal through which governmental assistance could be provided to support these efforts through cooption of staff to assist the local authorities … and to coordinate central government assistance necessary to convert that vision into action.” 
That is the philosophy on which the Green Party rests this particular Supplementary Order Paper. There is a need for community engagement not only to be present in the Act but also to be the dominant theme running through the Act and for decision making that is to be made by the nation as a whole through the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority the Government and the Christchurch City Council to be reflective of community input. So I commend our Supplementary Order Paper relating to clauses 6 and 7 to the Committee. I look forward to the response of the Minister.