Cosgrove Clayton: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:18178] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I will go back and deal with the process we are in. I will make a couple of points because I heard the rebuttal from the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery. Here is where we find ourselves in an absurd way. No one on this side of the Chamber is holding up the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill—no one. We are now finding filibustering from Government members; the Minister took three consecutives calls which is rather unusual—normally it is two. The members opposite are getting up and speaking to the legislation to allow time for the Government Supplementary Order Paper— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I have confined my comments entirely to dealing with amendments proposed by the Opposition. If they do not want those given serious consideration guess who is filibustering? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: That is not a point of order. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I note that this is a wide-ranging debate. We find ourselves in a holding pattern waiting for the Government at a quarter to one 15 minutes before the luncheon adjournment to provide a Supplementary Order Paper. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: It will be 1 o’clock. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: The Minister says it will be 1 o’clock. Let us do the calculation. We have been in a holding pattern all this morning. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Probably 2 o’clock. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: The Minister says it could be 2 o’clock. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Yes it could be or it could be 3. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: It could be 3 o’clock. That is very interesting. I thank the Minister. The interesting thing is that if we hold to the timetable as specified by the Minister then after the lunch break the Committee will come back at 2 o’clock and then there will be question time for roughly an hour or an hour and 30 minutes. Let us assume that we get back to the Committee stage at half-past 3 with 30 minutes to run in order to allow time to vote. We will then have a 2-hour debate from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. unless the Minister wants to work overtime—and we stand charged and ready to go. Getting the bill through by 6 p.m. which was the Minister’s timetable and was stated publicly would allow less than 30 minutes to debate a Supplementary Order Paper. 
The Minister has used an alibi that the timetable is cramped and his officials have worked all night. I acknowledge that; I am sure the officials have worked all night—people like Mr Palmer and eminent lawyers and others who briefed us who have worked all night to try to get this thing out and who are working and writing the Supplementary Order Paper as we speak. The responsibility for that lies in the Minister’s own hands. He set the timetable for the bill. Had he allowed another 24 hours given that the state of emergency is in existence until 16 April then the officials would have been under less pressure and we would have time to scrutinise the Supplementary Order Paper. We are now in the absurd situation that if the House rises at 6 o’clock as scheduled there will be virtually no scrutiny of a Government Supplementary Order Paper. It is embarrassing for the Minister to sit in the chair and not have a Supplementary Order Paper available. That is not our fault. It is not the fault of his officials. The Minister set the time frame. He finally acceded to a request for a select committee which heard public submissions for 4 hours and 40 minutes. 
The Local Government and Environment Committee which was well chaired by Mr Auchinvole delivered on this timetable as rapidly as it could in order to get the report back here at 9 a.m. And we delivered; we on this side of the Chamber furnished Mr Brownlee ahead of time with our amendments—as I believe did the Green member Kennedy Graham—so that there was no ambush and so he had time to scrutinise them. Having listened to the Minister’s debate I take it that he has trashed the lot. We note that. We are prepared and we stand ready to scrutinise a Supplementary Order Paper. It is a portent of disorganisation mismanagement and incompetence—they are not political words; they are facts—that the House is treated with such contempt that we are not allowed to see the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper. 
Journalists have even told me they asked for the so-called summary sheet and the Minister’s office refused to give it to them. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: That’s not true. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Yes it is. I will not name the journalists. I have been to see a few. The issue about the summary sheet is that Mr Brownlee says he has given us a summary but we requested it. He had no intention of giving us a summary sheet until I requested it in a private session with him last night. With generosity he provided that summary sheet but there a couple of problems with it. It does not provide the technical wording we need in order to scrutinise the legislation. It does not provide any of the technical definitions. It basically states what the officials agree on disagree on or note and a few colloquial words about what that means in essence. We are here—I say to Mr Brownlee as a former Leader of the House—to scrutinise the technical detail of the legislation. The bill is one of the most important bills to go through this Parliament and the Minister sits there not having furnished us with a Supplementary Order Paper. He set the deadline not us. He set the programme. He could have allowed another 24 hours. I would like the Minister to answer the question of what a delay of 24 hours—so he could get his act together and get his officials to draft a Supplementary Order Paper for proper scrutiny—would have done to the people of Canterbury. It would have done nothing. Another 24 hours would have had no effect and caused no delay at all.