Dalziel Lianne: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — First Reading 
Dalziel Lianne: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:17905] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I should be standing here today to say that the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill is a bipartisan bill that has been through a consultative process that enables us all to have confidence that the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority will support the recovery effort in Christchurch in the best possible way based on international best practice—which is something we can find on the website of the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management. But it is incredibly sad that I cannot say that neither for me nor for colleagues who have worked tirelessly since the first earthquake to bring to the Minister’s attention advice on how to address the myriad of issues that these two events have presented. My sadness is for the people of Christchurch who deserve better—much better—than this. 
The legislation is flawed for a number of reasons but fundamentally for this reason: the Government has chosen the “command and control” model essential for disaster response but the antithesis of what is required in recovery. And the Government has chosen this model it says because it is writing a multibillion-dollar cheque and therefore it has to be in charge. But as all of the experts on recovery have said—and these are not people who just sit in ivory towers; these are people who have been to Haiti New Orleans and Queensland and who have now come to Christchurch—leadership is vital for recovery. 
A leader has vision has a plan and has an open frame of reference in terms of thinking outside the square. A leader surrounds himself or herself with talent when forming the team listens to all of the competing views exercises judgment and is capable of making hard decisions. But more important he or she inspires others to do great things. That is what a leader does because from all disasters great things can emerge. In my view if we are to make sense of something as dreadful as what has occurred in Christchurch then great things must emerge from it. 
When I think of the possibilities that can emerge from the devastation of our once beautiful city and the suburbs that have been ravaged along our waterways our cliff faces and the valleys below I look to the Hon Gerry Brownlee and a Government department called the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority but it is hard to find the inspiration that I know we ought to be able to feel. This is neither a criticism of the Minister nor of the civil servants who will take up their departmental duties; it is simply a statement of reality that the model cannot serve recovery. No other country has adopted this model and in fact on looking at the lessons that have been learnt overseas I believe there is a real risk of adding another layer of disaster to the disaster that has already occurred. 
The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority may be located physically in Christchurch but the decisions will be made here in Wellington. On Saturday the Minister was reported as saying that many of the groups that had formed in Christchurch were well-motivated but that the Government would have limited capacity to listen to everyone. From a Government perspective he said it does not want to get caught in a mire of constant consultation and meetings. He went on to say that the Government would look to established organisations for business advice on recovery which effectively sidelined the groups that have sprung from the heart of the cordoned-off central business district whose members have been critical of the Government’s position on access to buildings in relation to their getting their businesses up and running. That is what is wrong with the model: any criticism constructive or otherwise is classified as politicising the tragedy. That is what happens when politicians are running the show and that is why they should not be running the show. 
Today the Minister in defending the bill said that the consultation provisions in the bill were misunderstood. But what is misunderstood is the recovery process and it is misunderstood by the Minister. Let me explain with reference to the lessons that were learnt from Hurricane Katrina which devastated New Orleans. Much has been written about Katrina but the most compelling analysis for me was the one that identified the missing story: understanding what was going on in New Orleans pre-Katrina. People understand the storm and its aftermath including the involvement of the Federal Government but it is the missing story that offers the most important lesson for us here. 
The missing pre-Katrina story included the historic choices that had been made the patterns of physical development—a big issue in my electorate is the risk factors all around flooding—public risk and community resilience and sustainability. We have noticed whole suburbs that do not have a heart—that do not have a community centre. These are resilience issues we need to address as we recover. The lesson that was learnt by the ignoring of the third story in the recovery process was that pre-event vulnerabilities were simply re-entrenched and therefore the opportunity to reduce future disaster risk was lost. If we do not take this opportunity to ensure that we do not re-entrench those pre-event vulnerabilities then we will have learnt nothing from the overseas experience. 
From Hurricane Katrina we learnt that we need to balance speed and deliberation—and I reject the statement from the Government that this is about the balance it is putting forward. What needs to be understood—and this is where the Minister completely misses the point—is that we must reconcile the need to martial the authority of the State with the entrepreneurship of the market because together they will want to rebuild quickly. But at the same time that must be balanced with the necessity to plan in an inclusive deliberative innovative and transformative manner. I have not heard one of those words spoken on the other side of the House in either of the two Government contributions we have had so far. 
That is why the word “deliberation” is used as opposed to “discussion” or “consultation”. I use the word “engagement” a lot because that is what we are looking for. Deliberation means reflection it means dialogue and it means negotiation for decision making. It does not mean we have to agree on everything and it certainly does not mean we have to hold off until we have agreement on anything. It is not the talk-fest the Minister fears. The reason deliberation is required is that rebuilding too quickly and randomly simply imposes massive long-term costs and risks on society and when I say “society” I am reflecting on the impact that this legislation will have on New Zealand as a whole. 
The Government seems to be ignoring the fact that recovery is very complex. It is not linear; it is a very complex issue. It requires careful planning. There is no one-size-fits-all solution. I represent many of the affected suburbs. I represent Dallington Bexley Avondale the Horseshoe Lake Brooklands Spencerville and now Aranui and Parklands. What recovery looks like for each of those suburbs will be quite different from each other because their needs their issues and their environments are all different and that is why they need to be fully engaged in the process of recovery. I do not actually regard that as a disadvantage. In fact it is an enormous advantage and the Government needs to step up to the plate on this because in every single one of those suburbs recovery presents us with some real opportunities for restoration and renewal. 
The mistake is to think of recovery as rebuilding the buildings and the infrastructure—and all I ever hear the Government talk about is the buildings and the infrastructure. The rebuilding is actually only one component of the whole recovery process which demands that we look at the social the economic and the natural environments as well as our built environments. It is not a simple one-size-fits-all matter. 
I say that because these decisions will impact on our society for generations to come. That is why the process must be inclusive and must be deliberative innovative and transformative. All of the literature says that it must involve local people in joint learning and public decision-making. These are new skills that we can teach our communities and learn alongside our communities because no one person has the answer in each of those suburbs. We can capitalise on local culture and knowledge. There is so much richness of knowledge within the communities that I am privileged to represent. We can mobilise local capacity to rebuild. 
I know that the suburb of Aranui will have no difficulty with the community development model they have already locked in place over a decade of work working within their community securing the things that are good for the community and enabling them to discard the things that hold them back. I think that that is the key thing. This is an opportunity to actually get rid of some of the aspects of our communities that have been holding us back. 
What has happened in Christchurch is a disaster but we must now turn our attention to looking for the opportunities it presents to make us more resilient to make things better and to enable us in Christchurch to share those opportunities with the rest of New Zealand as well.