Canterbury Earthquake Response & Recovery Bill - 1st Reading - Kennedy Graham MP

I begin by paying tribute to the Government and particularly to Ministers Gerry Brownlee and John Carter for their work and their cooperation over the past week. That is much appreciated, I think, by all of us.

I believe that all of us in this House today would prefer not to have to address this bill, the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill. It is the product of the ravages of nature and the cause of far-reaching human distress, yet the bill is a symbol of human resilience. It shows a determination to respond to a natural disaster with purpose and resolve and to show that our communities can rally together in the face of disaster even stronger than we were before.


The Green Party enters this debate in a constructive spirit. At this moment our nation is one, united in a societal sense. The Green Party shares in that and celebrates it. I have suggested to Mayor Parker in Christchurch that Christchurch hold a celebration of life this weekend for the city's residents to enjoy each others' company and share in the glory of just being alive. In the here and now, down under, just for the moment, we are one world.

Those of us in Parliament also carry an obligation to ensure that the political process continues unabated. That includes a requirement to ensure that democracy remains intact. That requirement is continuous and non-derogable. So we have no option but to approach this bill with a constructive attitude for the sake of national cohesion, and yet a critical attitude for the sake of political principles that underpins and gives meaning to that cohesion; and to do so on the basis of an overnight-reading of a bill and one day of debate.

The bill has been described by the earthquake Minister as a fairly powerful piece of legislation. He has never got it so very right before. It accords enormous powers to the Government and through it to the local authorities. It gives full protection from legal liability for any acts of omission or commission. This is not a normal bill. These are not normal powers. We shall not speak of the nanny State for this is no time for banter, but let us all acknowledge that this Parliament would be ceding the most far-reaching power to the executive at least in a generation if not before.

I agree with Minister Brownlee that it is not business as usual, but it is a question of what type of business we should be doing from now on. The question must be asked—and the Green Party will not shirk the question—whether the circumstances justify such far-reaching suspension of powers.

Mayor Parker said last night that no building can be demolished without consent. So what will be the nature of that consent? Presumably, the three city councils will receive consent applications as before and process them. So what is this bill changing?

As drafted, it allows the central Government to suspend virtually any piece of New Zealand legislation to enable the three councils to proceed rapidly to demolish and rebuild. The point of consent in times of normalcy is to ensure that the broader public interest is served beyond the immediate private interests involved. So why is that changing? How does an earthquake change that? Where is the emergency? Has there been loss of life? No. Is there an emergency in the recovery and reconstruction period? No. Is there a security threat? If there is a security threat or a humanitarian disaster then there is a justification for emergency powers of this kind. But emergency powers are lifted when these end and the recovery period begins.

The Government makes it clear that we are about to exit from the emergency period. This is to end tomorrow. The bill is not titled "The Canterbury Earthquake Emergency Bill" but the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill. So if we are out of the emergency and into the recovery why are we according emergency powers and why are those powers so very sweeping? If all we are seeking to do is expedite reconstruction then let us find proper ways of doing this that are proportionate to the challenge. We do not have to potentially suspend virtually the entire New Zealand statute book to rebuild Christchurch.

There are many people in the city who are moved by the opposite concern of the Government. They are worried that the city will be rebuilt too damn quickly and that insufficient thought will go into the concept design and the planning work. As I said in the House last week, this setback is an opportunity for us. It is a chance to introduce new methods and techniques of sustainability. We could have green shoots where there is currently rubble. But if we rush headlong into sprouting concrete edifices, within months, simply because there is a new and temporary hold on the ground, we shall live to regret some of the decisions we made.

So what exactly does the bill do? The bill establishes a commission. The commission advises the relevant Minister about an Order in Council. The relevant Minister then makes a recommendation to the Governor-General to issue an Order in Council. That recommendation is above the law essentially. It may not be challenged, reviewed, quashed or called into question in any court. What is the Order in Council to address?

It may grant an exemption or suspend any provision contained in 22 New Zealand statutes, these include: the Building Act, the Commerce Act, the Health Act, the Historic Places Act, the Land Transport Act, the Local Government Act, the Public Works Act, the Ratings Valuations Act, the Resource Management Act, the Social Security Act, the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act, and the Waste Minimisation Act. I repeat: any provision of these acts may be suspended by the head of State because of an earthquake, because of the Government's desire to respond to and recover from the earthquake.

But that is not all; the bill allows exemptions not just from these 22 Acts but from any other piece of New Zealand legislation, with exception of five Acts pertaining to the constitution and some custody and detention provisions.
So the relevant Minister can, because of an earthquake in Christchurch, suspend the application of virtually any legislation in New Zealand. Is that truly what this Government intends? Are we, perhaps, losing all sense of proportion here? There is even a supremacy clause: no order is invalid in the event that it is repugnant to, or inconsistent with, any other Act, with the few exceptions already cited. That means that the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Act will be, with those exceptions, the supreme law in the land.

A related concern is the jurisdictional application of these sweeping powers. There appears to be no territorial limitation in the bill. Does this mean that, in pursuit of recovery in Canterbury, there could be a suspension of consent outside Canterbury? Is that far-fetched, perhaps? Then there will be no problem in introducing such a limitation.

The point of legislating is to add clarity, so let us do that. I take the points that Minister Smith has made and that these need to be pursued and we look forward to doing that. In the response and recovery mode we should be moved by personal plight and communal aspiration but not by shock and awe legislation. The Government is, essentially, saying that we must trust it; it will not do anything silly. But trust is not the normal ingredient of the political process.

The reason for political principles, for legislative acts, and for judicial review is so that the societal trust can be applied to executive action. This is no disrespect to the Government; our Cabinet Ministers may be as pure as the driven snow and that would be irrelevant. Personal trust and societal trust are different creatures. We can all personally trust Cabinet Ministers and yet require that they remain within the law and not suspend it. It appears to us that the Government has been galvanised in this by its broad economic philosophy: do not let the GDP fall, do not let the tourists become concerned, rebuild as fast as possible, and time is money.

But time is also wisdom. Time enables people not simply to rush headlong into the coming months, but to reflect—not for ever, but for a decent interval—on what we wish to do. The Green Party will support this bill through its first reading. In the Committee stage we shall advance amendments designed to turn this extreme law round to be more modest and appropriate to the circumstances. If our concerns are met, we shall ultimately vote for the bill. If they are not, our support may not be forthcoming in the third reading.

Thank you.