Hague Kevin: Taxation (Canterbury Earthquake Measures) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Hague Kevin: Taxation (Canterbury Earthquake Measures) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:672;Page:19042] 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 I begin by quoting my colleague Kennedy Graham from his general debate speech on 11 May: “We do not yet know precisely the nature of the land in our brave new world. We have had two massive earthquakes and half a dozen major aftershocks. We have had 6989 ripples”—I think we are over the 7000 mark now—“large and small as the land reconfigures and settles down to the new tectonic era. We know that the peninsula has jerked up by a metre the estuary has gone sideways a bit and the flat land has sunk by perhaps one-quarter of a metre. But is that the end of it? We do not know. We do not know how many more aftershocks we must endure or whether they will flatten out within a year a decade or more.” 
The series of earthquakes in fact over this extended period has been a crisis without parallel in New Zealand’s history. The Green Party has been doing its bit on the ground from day one with efforts towards fund-raising. We have been shovelling silt delivering food going door to door assessing people’s needs and helping them and now Dr Graham is holding a series of public meetings to look at what the future of Christchurch will be. 
Throughout that time one of the things we have appreciated is the opportunity to work with other parties and we would like to express to Mr Brownlee our appreciation for the times that it has been possible. We think though that that cross-party work has been patchy and we would like to see it improved. 
Similarly we think one of the crucial elements in the rebuild of Christchurch and in the relief work for people in Christchurch and Canterbury more generally has to be democratic participation. Again we thought it was great when that was able to occur but we note that it has been patchy and that decisions have been made about Canterbury and for Canterbury people without involving those people and we think that is poor process. 
The Green Party as my colleague Sue Kedgley indicated in the first reading supports the objectives of the Taxation (Canterbury Earthquake Measures) Bill and certainly will be voting for it. We think there are some improvements that can be made and I think one of them would be around the restricted scope of the tax relief measures that the bill sets out in terms of the duration of just those two particular earthquakes against the context of a series of very many earthquakes each of which has caused damage and each of which has caused trauma pain and suffering and loss to the people of Christchurch and of Canterbury. 
The task of coping with this earthquake and its aftermath is as I say an unprecedented one. It is interesting that the Government itself invites a comparison with this year’s Budget which we have just heard. The Green Party has proposed what we believe is a fiscally prudent approach to some of the costs associated with the Christchurch rebuild and some of the costs associated with the recovery of Christchurch people. Although the tax measures that are set out in this bill will provide some value and will actually assist people in getting on with their lives other things could also have been done. In particular we have proposed a suite of three measures: a temporary modest levy; some additional borrowing; and reprioritisation of Government expenditure to assist with some of the costs associated with the earthquake. We think it is a shame that the Government so far has chosen not to take up that approach. 
In this abbreviated second reading speech I will come to some of my concerns about the democratic process in relation to this bill. As I indicated when people are traumatised when they have already been damaged by the events caused by the earthquakes themselves their exclusion from processes and decisions that will affect them in their recovery from those earthquakes is actually a double victimisation. One of the concerns that the Green Party has about this bill although we support its objectives is that the Government has not taken the opportunity to have even an abbreviated select committee process in which the people of Christchurch and the people of Canterbury could have had their say about it. We think that is a major concern. There is no reason why the Government could not have done it. The bill was tabled on 4 May so there was plenty of time for such a process in the intervening period. It is a shame that that opportunity was not taken. 
That comes hard on the heels of a bit of a history from this Government of poor process that has excluded people in Canterbury. I guess the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill was the most recent predecessor. Once again Canterbury people were excluded from that process very largely with the exception of a cursory select committee process in that case. Once again there was absolutely no need for that to have occurred. The other example that I want to draw to the House’s attention is the termination of the Environment Canterbury councillors and the Government’s summary intervention in water conservation orders. Actually some really fundamental changes to democracy and to conservation in the Canterbury region have been undertaken absolutely without due process and absolutely without the involvement of the people who are affected by those decisions. Again that was entirely unnecessary. 
I will conclude by repeating that the Green Party will vote for this bill but we extend our hope that the Government will change its tradition in relation to Christchurch and Canterbury to ensure that in the steps that follow in the rebuild of Christchurch and in the rebuild of Christchurch people’s lives—in which this bill plays a small but significant part—the Government will begin the process of inclusion of the people affected by its decisions and begin the process of democratic engagement with the people of Christchurch over the decisions that affect them. Thank you.