Christchurch Earthquake bulletin edition 26
new-zealand-labour-party
Thu Apr 14 2011 12:00:00 GMT+1200 (New Zealand Standard Time)
Christchurch Earthquake bulletin edition 26
Thursday, 14 April 2011, 12:43 pm
Press Release: New Zealand Labour Party
Christchurch
LABOUR MPs
14 April 2011 MEDIA STATEMENT
Christchurch Earthquake bulletin edition 26
The Labour Party’s Christchurch electorate MPs, Clayton Cosgrove (Waimakariri), Ruth Dyson (Port Hills), Lianne Dalziel (Christchurch East) and Brendon Burns (Christchurch Central) have started a regular bulletin to keep people in their electorates and media informed about what is happening at grass roots level.
CLAYTON COSGROVE: My Christchurch colleagues and I attended yesterday’s bizarre select committee hearing in Christchurch on the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) legislation. I have lost count of the number of days I have spent on select committees during my time as an MP, but I have never been involved in a process quite like yesterday’s hearings. This was a select committee of immense importance to Canterbury people, but key stakeholders were given less than 24 hours to prepare submissions. They hadn’t even seen the Bill until the afternoon before. Earthquake Recovery Minister Gerry Brownlee has adopted a high-risk strategy pushing through the legislation without giving members of the select committee or submitters’ access to key technical expertise, or without input from officials. I believe at least one extra day of hearings in Christchurch would have been appropriate. In fact, we only got the one day because Labour MPs demanded it. The Government made no offer itself, and Gerry Brownlee refused to release the legislation early so key stakeholders could study it. Gerry Brownlee denied before the select committee yesterday that he had wartime powers, but the reality is that he had such powers even before this legislation. Clearly, Gerry Brownlee’s approach is ‘do it my way or the highway’. Labour will continue to move amendments to the legislation today. We are reserving our position on the legislation until we see the Government’s SOP, but we have grave misgivings about the extent of the Minister’s powers and checks and balances, and about the genuineness of any commitment the Government has to engage with Canterbury people. My full speech at the stage of the second reading is available here: http://inthehouse.co.nz/node/8372
Advertisement - scroll to continue reading
RUTH DYSON: Everyone in Canterbury needs to have a strong voice in the recovery. There is an opportunity to ensure that what happens to our streets, or suburbs and our communities during the recovery addresses inequities that have existed and produces a better Christchurch as a result. Minister Gerry Brownlee doesn’t understand the difference between a rebuild and a recovery. We could tragically miss the opportunity not just to get it right for Canterbury, but to get it better. Yesterday’s select committee provided an ironic commentary on the ‘new normal’ in Christchurch. These aren’t usual times. The select committee hearing in Christchurch certainly wasn’t usual. Most Christchurch people didn’t have a bill to comment on or submit on. There were no technical advisers available. There were no officials. These facilities are normal, but they were denied to Canterbury stakeholders. Gerry Brownlee did answer some questions, and he promised to get back to us with other answers. We have to trust that he will. It would have been far better to take more time to get the process right, rather than rushing it through. Parliament should be able to send a united voice to Canterbury people. Instead we have a hotpotch, rushed last-minute process without any technical advice. There were high-quality submissions yesterday, but people had less than 24 hours --- and had to work through the night --- to prepare them. I believe it has been disrespectful to Canterbury people to get the bill to them at 4pm one day and tell them they must have submissions ready by 10am the next day. There has been a lack of genuine community engagement. My full speech at the stage of the second reading is available here: http://inthehouse.co.nz/node/8374
LIANNE DALZIEL: Today I made two preliminary statements. Firstly, disagreeing with government does not mean that we are not taking this process seriously. Secondly, I reject the assertion that advocating for my constituents is playing politics. Yesterday’s select committee took place under challenging circumstances. There was criticism of the lack of notice given to submitters and the lack of access to draft legislation. This criticism has great merit. People came to the table with good will- and due to time constraints were under-prepared. I was disappointed with the Christchurch City Council’s submission. I was disappointed that the Christchurch Mayor and the CEO--- representing the largest council affected by the legislation---choose not to change their prior commitments in order to come to the select committee. Instead, they sent the Deputy Mayor and an in-house counsel. Their contributions were none-the-less valid especially those of the counsel- who was in the unique position of having had seen the legislation a week beforehand. Individual councillors had valuable contributions despite lack of time for preparation, but it does not excuse the absence of the Mayor and CEO. The Christchurch City Council has been treating recovery as ‘business as usual’. Its decisions have been predicated on the wrong information. The Council’s approach to recovery shows that it has not read the literature; it has looked to none of the international benchmarks or to other authorities for advice. The Government and the Christchurch City Council continually miss the mark. I have worked behind the scenes with the council to raise these issues and I resent the call that we are making political capital out of this situation. The Council has missed the boat on recovery and this is not due to lack of trying on mine and my colleagues part. My colleagues and I have done everything we can to look after the interests of our constituents and bring their concerns to the attention of the Council and Government. Despite what the Minister believes community consultation actually promotes a focused, timely, and expedited recovery of greater Christchurch and its communities. We have been trying to work with the Minister for months now and we have reflected to him that trust has been damaged since the September quake and that residents’ tolerance levels are low. I tabled four pieces of correspondence in the House this morning and intend to make these publically available as soon as possible. My full speech at the stage of the second reading is available here: http://inthehouse.co.nz/node/8378
BRENDON BURNS: This Government would have you believe that community engagement and progress are mutually exclusive. That is not the case. Communities, if given the opportunity for real participation rather than surface level ‘consultation’ would bring valuable expertise to this debate. The select committee process yesterday was farcical. Submitters had only received the bill the evening before, despite the fact we requested it for distribution the Friday before. So out of 12 submitters only half had had a chance to look at the bill before the hearings. This is not satisfactory and it makes a mockery of the efforts of those who have a genuine contribution to make. Some heard about the Bill on the radio! And it was only at the request of my colleague, Clayton Cosgrove, that the Bill even made it online. The Minister has taken out newspaper advertisements proclaiming thorough engagement with the community, which is a joke. I would have thought that some lessons from the September quake were learnt--- there are gains to be had by involving the community. I say again this process needs to be Christchurch driven, not Wellington driven. No one is here intentionally impeding progress. I am also concerned the community forum within this legislation will become a sideshow. Christchurch people are strong-willed, ambitious and want to be involved. We need to let them have their city back. My full speech at the stage of the second reading is available here: http://inthehouse.co.nz/node/8381
________________________________________
Advertisement - scroll to continue reading
a.supporter:hover {background:#EC4438!important;} @media screen and (max-width: 480px) { #byline-block div.byline-block {padding-right:16px;}}
Using Scoop for work?
Scoop is free for personal use, but you’ll need a licence for work use. This is part of our Ethical Paywall and how we fund Scoop. Join today with plans starting from less than $3 per week, plus gain access to exclusive Pro features.
Join Pro Individual Find out more
Find more from New Zealand Labour Party on InfoPages.