Cosgrove Clayton: Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13936] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I want to raise a couple of questions. I thank the Minister in the chair the Minister of Civil Defence for noting that Minister Brownlee will be available after dinner and I note that we will be rising in about 5 minutes’ time. I will raise a couple of questions between now and the dinner break but I will not expect answers. 
The Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery was good enough to release Cabinet’s advice to us. In essence we received one paper from the Ministry for the Environment. I raise that issue and I flag it; I accept that there is pressure of time in pulling all this together from the various departments. I note from the paper that a vast number of Government departments and agencies were consulted. The date on the document is 13 September. I see though very little if anything at all in here about the responses from those departments. I know that there must have been a wide range of views and that a wide range of agencies may have had some stake in the paper but that is not reflected in it given that I was told by Minister Brownlee that it was basically “the” advice paper. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet gave no written formal advice and neither did the Department of Internal Affairs or any other agencies so I would be interested to know what response was put forward by the agencies that were consulted. 
The second issue we have is in respect of Part 2. Clause 6(4) states: “An Order in Council made under subsection (1) may grant an exemption from or modify or extend any provision of any enactment including (but not limited to)—” and I would be grateful if we could get some feedback on Acts like the Cadastral Survey Act— 
Hon John Carter 
: What clause was it? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Part 2 clause 6(4). I am not a surveyor or an expert in cadastral mapping but I would be grateful to know why that Act is included. I would also like to know about the Social Security Act given that that Act provides for quite a few waiver powers I am advised. So I ask why that Act is specifically listed in this document. I will raise those issues with the Minister and colleagues after dinner. We will also have some other issues to raise. 
I accept the need for a swift approach to this crisis and I absolutely accept the pressure that Government agencies were under just to pull things together. But it is of concern that the only advice paper that has been released or “pulled together” according to Minister Brownlee as formal advice to the Government is one paper in the name of the Minister for the Environment on 13 September. I am sure that the Minister in the chair accepts that this legislation confers on the Government very very wide discretionary powers. Even given the pressure of time I am surprised that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet the Department of Internal Affairs and the Department of Building and Housing which will have a huge interest in this have not had given that it has been a number of days since the crisis some formal written input into this legislation. I find it slightly odd that they would have provided only verbal advice. Again I accept that the paper had to be pulled together very very quickly. But it has been a number of days since we met the Minister on Friday or Saturday and I would have thought that between then and now those departments would have formalised their advice in order to if anything get on the record their advice to the Government and to ensure that they had executed their duty appropriately. 
As I say there is a wide range of agencies. Even the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs—damn near every Government department—I think have been consulted. Yet there is not any reference that I can find in the Cabinet paper as to what their views were conflicting or otherwise. I do not note that in order to be obstructive but either there was total unanimity on the part of every agency—having been a Cabinet Minister I know that that would be a unique moment in our history and I am sure that the Minister in the chair would agree—or there were different views and different flavours. That would then point us to possible risks. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I appreciate the Minister in the chair the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery being present to answer some questions. Before the break I raised some issues in respect of firstly the Cabinet paper that he was good enough to provide to us. I do not raise these issues out of any criticism. I understand that this legislation was pulled together very quickly but I note in the consultation section that a wide—almost an exhaustive—range of Government agencies were consulted. I would be grateful for some information because the difficulty I have is in knowing how those agencies responded if they did at all. I am assuming that the advice if any that was received from agencies like the Department of Building and Housing which would have a huge interest in this legislation the Department of Internal Affairs the Ministry for the Environment and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet as a central agency of course may have provided initial advice orally in order to aid with the construction of the legislation but I would have thought that—as it was signed off or conversations were had almost a week ago and as this legislation had been signalled—those agencies would have come back and provided written advice if only to place on record from themselves as agencies the fact that they had executed their duties appropriately in giving Ministers due advice. I am sure the Minister would accept that it would be unusual although I accept these are unusual and swift circumstances for agencies like the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to provide no written advice. Certainly agencies like the Department of Building and Housing provided no advice at all. 
The second issue I raise is in respect of certain items in the legislative list for modification extension or exemption in clause 6(4) in Part 2 namely the Cadastral Survey Act and the Social Security Act. I am advised that there are wide-ranging and quite discretionary powers in respect of the Social Security Act. I am not a cadastral specialist so I bow to the Minister’s and his officials’ expertise in respect of the Cadastral Survey Act. I can see the relevance for a number of other Acts but it would be interesting to know why those Acts have been included. 
I want to return to the point I have made. I understand in respect of the Cabinet paper which is only some six and a bit pages long that that is the only advice we have received. I am grateful that the Minister provided that paper to us before the debate but as I say I would have thought as this legislation was signalled after the event a week or so ago that even though the paper was signed off on 13 September agencies would have been in a position by now to provide their views. They have been consulted. That is clear. Even the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade I note has been consulted. I presume there is some relevance in terms of communicating the status of our well-being to other countries especially in respect of trade and tourism but I would have thought that those agencies would have responded to Ministers and I would have thought that Ministers would have made it a requirement as they went through to quality-control the legislation even if just to check their thinking and that of their officials. Presumably that would have also presented unless there was total unanimity amongst every Government agency consulted—and I think members would agree that that would be a unique moment in our history—some varying views on the effectiveness of the legislation which would have pointed out any risks and we could continue to work with the Government to examine those risks and perhaps resolve them in this debate. But I do come back to it. It is rather unusual that a document of six pages and two paragraphs appears to be the only written advice to Ministers in respect of this legislation. I say that not to be obstructive; I simply say it because like the Minister we want to see the best-possible legislation come out of this Chamber tonight so that he and his colleague John Carter and others can present the best-possible outcome for the people of Canterbury. But it does concern us that as I say a document of six and a bit pages under the name of one Minister is the only written advice and other agencies have been consulted but have not provided any responses at all. I would be grateful if the Minister could take a call and at least advise us whether any of the agencies consulted were opposed to or had concerns about any parts of the bill especially the wide-ranging powers. Again I say to the Minister that we accept that this is very wide-ranging and powerful legislation that technically could be abused.