Graham Kennedy: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Graham Kennedy: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:18168] 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 I just want to— 
Paul Quinn 
: Oh a soothing influence! 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM 
: A moment’s pause. I want to pick up an issue I raised earlier—and so did Brendon Burns who has just been maligned and others. It pertains to community engagement. I will make just one further point on community engagement and I wish to then address the issue of powers as well. On the issue of community engagement the Green Party has a further Supplementary Order Paper to offer. It is Supplementary Order Paper 235 and it would address clause 20(3) which currently reads: “Neither the Minister nor any responsible entity has a duty under this Act to consult any person about the development of a Recovery Plan except as provided under this section or in section 17.” That is one example of the difference I think between the Government and the Green Party in its perception of the philosophical thrust of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill. The Government in weighing the so-called balance between an expedited rapid recovery and community engagement opts for the former. The Green Party maintains that the balance is not struck in the bill and that there should be a greater involvement of the community to balance that expedited recovery without unnecessarily delaying it. 
I ask why the Minister has to have a complete escape clause that excludes him from any duty to consult with any person other than through clause 17. We look to clause 17 and find that it pertains only to the recovery of the central business district—just the central business district of Christchurch not elsewhere. In consulting on that we look at clause 17(5) and find that it covers the process for the development of the recovery plan. Of course the Minister is obliged to consult with the Christchurch City Council Environment Canterbury Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu and others and indeed the Christchurch City Council takes the lead. But where is the community engagement in that? Clause 17(5) states: “The process for the development of the proposed Recovery Plan for the CBD must include 1 or more public hearings as determined by the Christchurch City Council at which members of the public may appear and be heard.” 
Setting aside—well not setting aside—the drafting issue of whether we can have a mandatory “must include” provision that stipulates “either/or” which does not I think make drafting sense the substantive issue is that there is to be only one public hearing. Under clause 20(3) the Minister has a duty to consult on the recovery plan only in the context of one public hearing pertaining to the central business district. That is demonstrably insufficient and that is why we are proposing that clause 20(3) be deleted and replaced with the words “The Minister and the responsible entities have an obligation to consult affected communities.” That imposes an obligation on the Minister to ensure that all affected communities are involved in the recovery plan. Clause 17(5) states that the process “must include 1 or more public hearings” but it should perhaps be “must include a series of at least 4 public hearings.” We commend Supplementary Order Paper 235 on public engagement pertaining to clause 20 to the Committee.