Dyson Ruth: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Dyson Ruth: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:18227] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 I am not quite sure what time the last plane to the West Coast leaves but I guess the previous speaker Chris Auchinvole wants to be on it. I would have thought that after chairing the Local Government and Environment Committee a little more of a contribution may have been justified but the member obviously thought otherwise. 
I begin by saying that I will leave the Chamber committed to doing everything I possibly can to make sure that the legislation we are about to pass the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill is successful. We need an enduring and sustainable recovery in our region. If the bill is the mechanism we have been asked to deliver that recovery through then we will give it our very best shot. That is the most important goal for us to have from today. 
The debate on the legislation has not been as I would have wished it to be. Politicians—and I have seen a few in my time in Parliament and even before I came into this House—have different skills. Some do not use any of their skills and some use their skills a lot. A number of politicians have the ability to explain a proposal and take with them people of many different political persuasions. Some politicians do that even with their own caucus. But other members—and the Hon Gerry Brownlee has demonstrated this skill in the last few days—have the ability to take a politically neutral commitment to working together for the betterment of our region and turn it upside down into resentment frustration and division. I do not know why. I do not know why anyone would want to do that. We all enjoy scoring points at each other’s expense in this place from time to time—perhaps with the exception of my colleague from Canterbury Kennedy Graham who does not seem to enjoy that but makes a jolly fine contribution in Parliament regardless—but when we have such an important issue which has been created through death and the destruction of the largest city in the South Island I would have thought we could get beyond point-scoring. But we did not seem to be able to. I would have thought we would say to everyone in the House: “Please give us your best ideas and we will make the most of them.” We have had a wasted opportunity. That is a shame. The bill was an opportunity that should have been grasped by Gerry Brownlee. He would have been amazed at the energy that we could have contributed to the debate and therefore to the recovery. He would have been overwhelmed by the enthusiasm with which the invitation would have been broadly received by Cantabrians. I know that people would have welcomed the opportunity to have a genuine input into the legislative framework for our recovery for the next 5 years. It is quite important to us. We want to be part of it and we were denied that opportunity. It is a waste it is a shame and I do not understand why the Minister chose that path when the other one would have been so attractive so much more successful and frankly so much easier for him. I am sure he will explain it when he writes his book but for now we will remain puzzled. 
I acknowledge my Labour and Green colleagues whom I have been working alongside for many years but particularly since the September quake and the more recent February quake. Lianne Dalziel is a tireless worker for her electorate. She has led the rebuild and recovery process in her electorate which is challenged with more inequities than other electorates and which has been devastated twice. Nobody understands the force of nature and the unfairness of it—it cannot be explained—but Lianne has led information distribution to her constituents so that they could at least understand the physical forces of nature that have destroyed their suburbs their homes and for many people their lives. She has represented her electorate extraordinarily strongly. She continues to do so and it is to my regret—and I am sure the House’s—that none of her amendments were given the consideration they should have received. 
I also acknowledge Clayton Cosgrove who is the Labour leader on earthquake issues in our region. He has been a strong and staunch advocate not just for his electorate but for the broader consideration of earthquake issues. 
Brendon Burns as the member of Parliament for Christchurch Central has not only the most devastated red zone within his constituency but also the business community and many residents who have been very harshly affected. He has continuously represented their views needs and aspirations through appropriate channels. 
Kennedy Graham had his office destroyed and has recently started driving around our city in a very flash mobile office. I welcome him into my electorate any time because I enjoy working with him. 
The amendments we put forward we thought would improve the bill. I really genuinely do not believe that every single one of our amendments bar one from those members I have just named—Kennedy Graham Brendon Burns Clayton Cosgrove Lianne Dalziel and me—should have been defeated. I believed the commitment the Minister gave to me personally to my face that the amendments would be considered properly. I am stunned. I am not politically naïve so I should not be stunned but I am stunned that I have been so cheated on such an important issue by a fellow Cantabrian. I do not care what party Gerry Brownlee is in but I am really stunned that I have been cheated in that way. I would not have thought that of all members the Hon John Carter would find it amusing. Of all members I thought he would be the one who would share my frustration. 
I will touch briefly on the select committee process. It was unusual as has been mentioned during the Committee and second reading stages. I acknowledge Chris Auchinvole. I have never been on a select committee with him for any length of time. He is a very good chairman of the committee. He made us all behave in a way we were not inclined to at the start. We got a better contribution in the debate as a result. He treated submitters with respect. He set a fine example for all of us in this Parliament on the way to conduct ourselves in a difficult environment with difficult submissions being heard. It was very frustrating to not have the bill before us and to not have any advisers at the committee. We were very frustrated at not being able to get information from advisers in relation to what the submitters told us and the submitters were frustrated as well. The process is not one I would recommend. 
I also thank the people who made submissions. As has been mentioned previously in this debate most of the people who made submissions saw the bill as it was introduced into this parliament or an hour later. When we found out the bill was not on the website Clayton Cosgrove raised a point of order—as members may recall—and explained to the Speaker that it was not on the website. The Clerk’s office got on the job and the bill was on the website within a matter of minutes. That was the first time that many of the people who presented a submission to us had seen the bill. It was 4 o’clock on Tuesday afternoon and at 10 o’clock on Wednesday morning they were giving us a submission on the bill. That is not an acceptable process for minor legislation let alone legislation that gives extraordinary powers with very few checks and balances to one person. It makes it more difficult when we feel so cheated of goodwill throughout this process to then be asked to trust the Minister to use those extraordinary powers in the way the legislation requires and in the way that is best for our city. I would hope that we do get a better response to that ambition in future. 
Labour put forward a minority report on this bill because we felt so strongly about our concerns and tragically not all of them have been listened to let alone addressed. The constitutional aspects the overwhelming powers that are given to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery the length of time and the lack of transparency and accountability are major concerns. The fact that the community does not drive the recovery process will be to our detriment and we will do everything we can to change that. 
As I said at the beginning of my speech I will leave the House this evening committed to doing everything I can to ensure that this legislation delivers the sort of vision we all share for a strong and sustainable recovery for our region.