Chauvel Charles: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Chauvel Charles: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:18152] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I had the opportunity to sit on the Local Government and Environment Committee over the past couple of days as it fulfilled its task as it was required to do by the House on Tuesday to hear evidence on the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill. I will make a couple of points in what I take will be a wide-ranging debate given that all the parts of the bill are being heard and debated together. My first point is to agree with an observation made by Amy Adams in her second reading speech which was that members on this side of the Chamber agree that the Canterbury situation calls for emergency powers. That was made crystal clear in the minority view set out by the committee and reported back to the House. 
But members on this side of the Chamber differ from members of the Government in the following ways: we do not believe that this process merits urgency; we do not believe that the Minister requires powers beyond the reach of the courts; we do not believe that the ordinary rights of New Zealanders to have recourse to the courts by way of appeal need to be abridged; and we do not agree that the powers of Parliament in particular to extend laws should be delegated just to the executive particularly not this executive. That is an unnecessary usurpation of the role of Parliament. It is unconstitutional. It should not have been done after the September earthquake but it was. 
Nicky Wagner 
: You voted for it. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: We have just heard Nikki Kaye in her first interjection during this debate. Let us hope the future interjections if there are any— 
Amy Adams 
: At least get the name right. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: Oh I am sorry. It was one the generic members on the other side. It was actually Nicky Wagner. My apologies for the confusion but sometimes they all blur into one. She said “You voted for it.” Well I tell Ms Wagner that we voted for it because we believe that we need to get on as has been said and deal with the emergency in Canterbury. But that does not mean we need effectively to elect a dictatorship to do it. The problem that will happen when people look back at the way this Parliament has dealt with this situation is the problem that applies to all attempts at dictatorship. It looks like a great idea to make the trains run on time at the point when the attempt is made. But the precedent is incredibly regrettable. 
Amy Adams 
: Come and live in a broken house over winter and talk about precedents. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: Amy Adams should know that; she has a law degree. Maybe she slept through the constitutional law section of that degree. The reality is that it does not pay to disturb constitutional arrangements. We are acting in haste and we will repent at leisure. I am putting that on the record now so that Labour’s position is crystal clear. 
If there had been proper process in relation to this legislation we would have a better bill. It would reflect better practice—better international practice—in relation to recovery. There would be a Crown entity in place not one completely amenable to the control and direction of the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery. There would be much better provisions in relation to collaboration with the community. Those are the sorts of things that are paid lip-service to by members opposite but which they plainly do not mean given the provisions of the bill. 
The Minister has just told us that there is a 21-page summary that has been made available to us. It contains his decisions in relation to which recommendations by the submitters to the select committee are to be accepted and which are not. I want to be fair in paying tribute to the Minister for that exercise. There are some important matters that have been taken on board and I look forward to eventually seeing the Supplementary Order Paper that carries them through. Unfortunately the ones I have drawn attention to in relation to the very wide powers that will go to the executive at the expense of this Parliament and in relation to appeal rights are not actioned. That will be a problem going forward. 
This as I have said is not an optimal bill but it is better because of the insistence of Labour on some sort of select committee process so that there could be at least some sort of input from persons other than in this Chamber. It would have been better if there had been more time more notice and better public input. It would have been better if we had had officials’ advice which was not available to us in the process and if we had the evidence that was presented to us recorded and transcribed. But because of the way this was done none of that was available. As I said the bill is better because of some public input. It could have been so much better if we had had a better process. 
Having said that I pay tribute to a number of people who participated in the process to make the bill better than it otherwise would have been. I start with the Clerk of the House. This was an unusual procedure. We were blessed to have her guidance late at night as it happened on Tuesday. That guidance was extremely valuable I think to all members of the committee in terms of discharging their responsibilities. 
I pay tribute to my Labour colleagues for the work they did on the committee. They were diligent and careful in terms of their hearing of the evidence. I reject the very unfortunate comments made by Louise Upston to the contrary. I actually expected better from that member because she played an important and constructive role on the committee itself. I would have thought she might have recognised that Labour members in insisting on the process to start with and then participating fully in it more than discharged their parliamentary responsibilities. 
I will say that the chair did a good job in difficult circumstances and ultimately when we came to consider the production of the minority report National members recognised that their ultimate responsibilities lay with their roles as parliamentarians and it is appropriate to put that on record. 
I also pay tribute to Heather Roy and Kennedy Graham. They were true respecters of such parliamentary process as we could have in the process and it is valuable to record their contribution. I will say more about the detailed concerns I have at a later point in the Committee stage debate particularly in respect of the dangers around the delegation of powers to the Minister and to the executive by Parliament. Meanwhile I will repeat my rejection of the words of Louise Upston in her second reading speech. Members on this side of the House are not playing politics. If we were we would be voting against the bill. As it is we are voting for the bill at this point. That is our contribution to ensuring that the right thing is done in Canterbury. Members on the other side of the House should not expect that that means a blank cheque. I conclude my remarks by echoing something that was said earlier by Clayton Cosgrove. This recovery model has been chosen by the Government. We will try to make it work but if our concerns are realised that the model will not work as well as it might and if the very wide powers that are conferred by the model are abused then it is very clear where the responsibility for that failure and that abuse will lie.