Dyson Ruth: Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Dyson Ruth: Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13953] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 I congratulate the Minister the Hon Gerry Brownlee on listening very carefully to the views expressed in the Committee tonight considering them appropriately and responding to them. He has not responded to all of them yet but I am sure he will finish—[ 
Interruption 
] Only one of my three amendments was commented on. I was hoping he would comment on all three. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I didn’t want to embarrass you with the other ones. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I thank the Minister for that contribution. We were doing so well in our bipartisan approach until then! But I am pleased to see that all the issues have been taken seriously even if they are not agreed on. 
I want to start with the amendment in my name that the Minister has referred to and that is the amendment to add paragraph (c) to clause 10. It states: “appoint a recovery co-ordinator to be appointed to carry on the powers of a civil defence controller should that be necessary.” The reason I have put forward that amendment—and it is surprising that the Minister has disregarded it so swiftly and said that the local authorities do not need it—is that our three mayors made a joint statement to say that this position lapses when the emergency provisions lapse at this stage still at midday tomorrow and that the mayors of our three regions would not support this legislation as they had seen it in draft form if such a provision was not included. 
I thought that the Minister might have overlooked it in his haste. He has had only a few hours really to think up the bill put it together and do all the work and consultation with other parties. I thought he might have omitted it. The mayors have put out a statement that is on the wire now as being the most current position they have on the legislation. In their view the appointment of a controller who has the ability to direct rather than to suggest could be a critical factor in the success of our recovery plan. I was amazed that the Minister concluded that the mayors would be able to do that. A mayor cannot direct an organisation outside his or her own local authority to comply with his or her wishes even if the mayor is appointed a commissioner because the commissioners in this legislation do not have that authority. In my view there will be some situations where the ability to direct is important. The civil defence position seems to me to be the appropriate one and that was certainly the point the mayors made. I look forward to hearing from the Minister as to whether he has overlooked the statement by our three mayors that they considered that this legislation would not be supported by them unless that position was included in it. The Minister may have more news than me. He may have spoken to the three mayors on that particular point more recently than their press statement indicated. 
The second amendment I want to refer to is in my name but I am putting it forward on behalf of the Hon Jim Anderton who as we speak is in Christchurch hosting a public meeting about the historic buildings and the architectural concerns many have raised. He is starting the community conversation about the vision we need to talk about and share with regard to the future shape of our cities. My amendment would insert in clause 3(b) the following words: ‘ “acknowledging that an important priority for the response is to enable the preservation and restoration of Canterbury’s architectural and cultural heritage.” after “to the Canterbury earthquake”.’ 
This is quite a significant omission from the original legislation and it seems to be one of the most important concerns that is being raised in our community at the moment—what will Canterbury look like in the future? We have already seen a lot of our historic buildings threatened. Some have already been pulled down. There has been huge debate about whether they were pulled down too early. If the commission has no guidance at all from this House about what we see as important with regard to our architecture our heritage and our historic buildings then it would be correct in presuming that Parliament did not care about it—because we did not put it in the legislation. In my view it is critical that we have the backing of the entire House for that message to go from here to Canterbury and to the commissioners. So that addition would resolve that omission. 
The final amendment in my name amends clause 11 and it would resolve the situation which I mentioned in both the first reading and the second reading debates with regard to the skills that will be required of the commissioners. When the Government abolished Environment Canterbury our democratically elected regional council at least it put in the replacement legislation a description of the skills it thought would be necessary in order to do the job—the job that we previously voted for but which we now have appointed commissioners to do. But at least a skill set was described in that legislation. 
This legislation does not have that and in my view it would not only be useful guidance from the Minister to have a view from Parliament about the sort of skills that we consider the commissioners should have but also be another opportunity to send a message to New Zealand in particular to Canterbury and the commissioners themselves about what we think are important roles for them to undertake and what we think are priorities. 
I have prepared a list and I would be very happy for the Minister to make any deletions or additions. I would be interested to hear whether he thinks the list is too long or whether he does not think we will be able to find people who have that range of capabilities or whether some skills are more operational skills and expertise that he might consider less appropriate in commissioners but more appropriate in staff. I would be really happy to have that discussion and to alter my amendment accordingly rather than see the entire list voted down by this Parliament which I think would remove the opportunity for that skill set to be defined and for that message to go to our home territory. 
The list of skills I consider important to have in the legislation include knowledge of civil defence matters tikanga Maori as it applies in the Canterbury region knowledge of the Canterbury region itself and its people public health issues water resource management heritage architecture small and medium enterprises and infrastructure. That is quite a big range of skills but they are all really important. They are not in any particular order of importance in terms of the ranking I have given them—they are just (a) to (h)—but they are certainly the skill set that I think needs to be defined not just in terms of this debate but also in the legislation. 
The final point I want to make in the Committee stage is that I had a very useful discussion with the Hon Nick Smith in relation to an issue that is mentioned at the very start of this legislation in clause 4. Clause 4 defines the Canterbury earthquake. People will probably say “Well that’s blindingly obvious; we’ve heard about it on the news.” I know it has been mentioned a couple of times outside our region—it is certainly all we talk about at the moment in our region—but the Canterbury earthquake is defined as “the earthquake that occurred on 4 September 2010 in Canterbury and includes all of its aftershocks”. 
Minister Smith is far more qualified in this area than I will ever be because of his training at the finest university in the country—[ 
Interruption 
] except for medical studies. He has assured me that the second earthquake which was on Wednesday 8 September is counted as an aftershock. We do not count it as an aftershock; we count it as a separate earthquake. I want assurance from the Minister that the earthquake that was centred somewhere near the Lyttelton Harbour Basin and certainly had a huge impact on Lyttelton Diamond Harbour Governors Bay and Heathcote Valley compared with the first quake on Saturday is covered by this legislation. It would be a silly oversight if it were not. It does not seem to me to be defined in that way because we have been told that it was not an aftershock and that it was a separate earthquake from a separate fault line. I have no idea how many thousands of years ago there were tremors along that fault line—compared with the 16000 or 17000 years or whatever in respect of the one centred on Darfield—but I would like the assurance before the conclusion of this debate that that second earthquake is covered by clause 4 the interpretation clause. 
I know that the time is getting on and we are keen to progress this legislation through to its conclusion. I heard Dr Russel Norman mention that the Minister has a Supplementary Order Paper coming with regard to the coverage of the commissioner’s activities under the terms of the Local Government Act. I have not seen that Supplementary Order Paper yet. I am keen to see it before the conclusion of the Committee stage. [ 
Interruption 
] That will be excellent I say to the Minister. I hope it is tabled soon. It is not tabled yet by the look of it. It is not on the Table. I am very keen to see it so that we can support it if possible. I also look forward to the Minister responding to my other two handwritten amendments.