Chauvel Charles: Canterbury Earthquake Commemoration Day Bill — Procedure First Reading Second Reading Procedure Third Reading 
Chauvel Charles: Canterbury Earthquake Commemoration Day Bill — Procedure First Reading Second Reading Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:670;Page:17145] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 It is an honour to have an opportunity to speak in the debate on the Canterbury Earthquake Commemoration Day Bill. As others before me have done I begin by acknowledging the people of Christchurch and Canterbury and in particular those who have died or who have been injured and their families and friends. I also echo the words of appreciation that have already been said in the House about the work of the emergency services—both the workers in the domestic New Zealand services and also all of those from overseas who have come to assist New Zealand in its hour of need. There would not be one person in the Chamber who has not been moved by that extraordinary gesture of support that was so quickly forthcoming and so reassuring. It almost seemed as if we did not need to ask. The help was there and it has been and is magnificent. I know that the police and others have been incredibly impressed by the level of the support they have been able to call on and have also said what a difference it has made in practice on the ground. I do not think that we as MPs can do enough to stress just how important that support has been. 
Obviously it is also appropriate to acknowledge all the many New Zealanders who have volunteered in many ways—through fund-raising or their own labour and through donating cakes at the bake-off in Auckland the other day—or who have simply got on with providing assistance in whatever way they have been able to. The importance of what we are doing today by moving to enact this bill I think is to acknowledge all those people and to say that we want to do something concrete by way of demonstrating appreciation as well as doing the appropriate thing to remember all those who have been so devastated by the event itself. 
I had a family member in Christchurch on the day of the quake. For my family and me it was an anxious time while we waited to hear about her safety. She told us just how terrifying it was to be in the quake itself. She managed to get under a table when it started and when she got out from under the table after the earthquake she saw that a bookcase had fallen right on to the chair she had been sitting on and crushed it. She then described just how awful it was to be there for another 24 hours hearing the roaring sound of the aftershocks. I know that Canterbury members who have experienced this must have found that it really wears them down on a daily basis. It was hard enough to hear about a family member being trapped in it for a day. The sense of relief that we felt when she arrived back in Wellington was extraordinary. If that is what it feels like to have a connection on that sort of intimate level for 24 hours it must be much more harrowing to be living this day to day in Canterbury and participating in the recovery efforts. 
I also acknowledge a staff member of mine who moved to Wellington from Christchurch last year and who has family and friends still down there. I have seen firsthand what she has gone through in terms of finding out about loved ones affected by the quake and about people close to her who have died. Again it is not a firsthand experience but it gives some insight into just what people in Canterbury are going through at the moment. It makes it doubly appropriate I think for us to be mindful of those experiences while we have this debate today. 
Of course other memorial services have already been held across the nation and I speak in particular of the ones that were held on 1 March. There was the service here on the steps of Parliament which was organised by the Anglican Cathedral next door and in which a number of other faiths participated. It was a real privilege to be able to participate in that service on behalf of colleagues. The deputy leader of the Labour Party has said previously that it is appropriate that it has been agreed that the procedure to be followed on 18 March is that partisanship will be set aside and there will be speakers from across the House. That is absolutely right. These affairs ought to be ones where we can participate as a Parliament in a solemn and non-political occasion. I hope that that will always be the convention in respect of these sorts of matters. We should not even have to ask about them; it should be second nature that these events are held in this way. 
In respect of the present bill I do not think that anybody disagrees with the absolute appropriateness of a day of commemoration a day of honouring the work that has been done already in relation to the Canterbury recovery. I am not sure how the House will progress this debate—or whether there will be a traditional Committee stage where the Minister will discuss any issues concerning the bill. Depending on how we proceed it might be appropriate to ask her a couple of questions about what is planned. I will foreshadow a couple of issues now that I hope she might be able to have a think about. Whether we have a Committee stage or whether the Minister chooses to deal with questions in her second or third reading speeches I am happy either way. 
Obviously there has been a concern about timing. A lot of people in Canterbury are still engaged in the recovery and clean-up. There are still lots of people without power sewerage or water and we know that all effort is being put into prioritising the restoration of those services. We know how important that is but will the commemoration day be too soon for some of the people working in essential services the people who have contributed in the aftermath: police officers civil defence staff fire brigades doctors and nurses other health workers drainlayers contractors demolition crews and many others? It would just be fantastic to be assured that appropriate provision will be made so that everybody who wants to come together to participate in the service on 18 March will have the opportunity to take a little bit of respite from the dreadful recovery work and have the opportunity to do that. 
Of course there are the 70000 people who have already left Canterbury and who are only just beginning to think about whether they can return. It would be good to know that the Government has thought about their position as well. Obviously people who have had to leave but want to come back and be part of the commemoration process need to be considered as well. 
I do not think there is any doubt about the appropriateness of a public holiday. I do not think we should be concerned about the economics. I had a call from one of the MPs in Christchurch today who was working with a delicatessen in Lyttelton that has had to move premises. The owners need to apply for a new licence because they serve wine. They were told by the city council that if they applied for a new licence it would be opposed because the policy now is that delicatessens are not the ideal place to serve wine. Well that is the sort of red tape we need to cut through rather than worry about whether we should be having a public holiday and the effects of that. With those words I congratulate the Government on moving to a commemoration and I commend the bill to the House.