Canterbury Earthquake Response & Recovery Bill - 3rd Reading - Kennedy Graham

This has been one tough day, and we are faced with tough circumstances that still obtain in Christchurch and Canterbury. This is the third reading of the bill, and therefore the final opportunity to comment before it is enacted into law, so let me begin by reiterating our appreciation to the Government and to Minister Brownlee, Minister John Carter, Minister Smith, and others for their good intent and their cooperative spirit down in Christchurch during and after the earthquake, and for that matter, here in the House.


Our abiding concern, I suppose, in Opposition is that we are always so squeezed by time pressure when legislation of this nature comes through so compressed. This has been a good debate, but we are left with the feeling that there has been insufficient time to properly work through some of the issues in good faith between parties. We tend to emerge with a feeling that we are left with the crumbs of democracy that have fallen from the tables of power, and are left to exit the Chamber feeling that we have not done justice to the depth of significance of some of these issues. To that extent, not only are we dissatisfied, but we are saddened, for the health of democracy in this country.

This is a tough day, and these are tough circumstances, and indeed this is a tough bill. It is a tough bill in the sense that it has far-reaching powers. Ruth Dyson used the word "Draconian", but she did not associate the bill with it. She said that some people regard the bill as Draconian. I heard that word spoken on this bill independently of Ruth Dyson earlier today. We can take our choice. It is a semantic issue. But let us all agree, and I think we do, that extraordinarily far-reaching powers are about to be enacted.

The basic attitude of the Green Party to this bill, as we said in the first reading and reiterated in the second reading and during the Committee stage, is that it is excessive for the purpose. We do not deny the purpose; we share in the purpose. We regard the powers as excessive to that purpose.
Some of our concerns have been allayed, and I say to Minister Smith that I appreciate his explanations about the territorial application. We took his point in the first reading, and we had a Supplementary Order Paper prepared on the territorial jurisdiction issue, which we did not submit. However, we did take on board the concerns from the very beginning. I identified six principles in the Committee stage.

Going backwards, as it were, the sixth principle is municipal transparency, the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act. We appreciate the effort of the Government to respond positively to that. That reflected an initiative on our part, which is shared by the Labour Party, and we appreciate the Government's response.

With regard to community participation and whether there should be more city councillors from Christchurch involved, I hear the Minister's reassurance that he is interested in a flat, non-bureaucratic structure and that there is mayoral involvement, and so on; we hear that. I do not know that that completely allays our concerns around community participation, but I think we are all agreed that there needs to be adequate local community participation.

With regard to accountability to Parliament, and the 24-hour rule that we were putting forward, we accept the ministerial explanation that there will be gazetting normally, although we still retain the preference that there should have been automatic reporting to Parliament under the bill. Our principal concerns run deeply, and I trust that the Government acknowledges in good faith the depth of our concerns on these points.
There are three fundamental concerns, and I think they have constitutional implications. The first relates to the need for a sunset clause to limit how long the emergency powers should last. Our preference was for 6 months. We did not think it was beyond the imagination of the Government to recognise that 6 months is quite a long time in a fluid situation of this nature, and that the legislation could easily have been reviewed in that time. However, so be it, the lifespan of the legislation is 18 months, and we acknowledge that it is still a finite time period.

The two fundamental principles that we think are in severe jeopardy here are the limitation of scope and the issue of judicial review. I must say we are not satisfied on those points, and our concerns run deeply. I understand the Minister's assurances about political trust. We already commented in the first reading on the issue of trust, and there is no need for us to repeat ourselves now. I acknowledge the good intent on the part of the Government. I acknowledge that I offered the odd extravagant comment at the time. In lame defence I simply say that I was registering a point by extreme analogy. It is all fine in the give and take of debate, and I acknowledge the good intent of the Government in that respect.

I conclude by addressing not the Government but the people of New Zealand. I make two points. First, the Green Party flags for the people of New Zealand our deep concern over two provisions of this bill: clause 6(3), which pertains to legal immunity and has been debated at length, and clause 6(4), which pertains to the lack of limitation in scope of the bill. We flag our concern on those issues and we invite the people of New Zealand to watch very closely those issues.

On the second point, I address the Government. It is on notice tonight to act by the standards it has proclaimed for itself, which from now on will be arbitrary political determination on its part, rather than normal legal constraint. We shall vote for this bill, notwithstanding those very deep concerns. We do so for one reason: national cohesion in a state of extreme urgency in Christchurch. But let our support for this bill not go without an appreciation and acknowledgement of the fundamental concerns we have about those two points in particular.

Thank you.