Burns Brendon: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Burns Brendon: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:18236] 
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.