Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill

Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill; First Reading
Hon Tariana Turia, Co-leader of the Maori Party
Tuesday 14 September 2010; 4.00pm

There has been one word on my mind, in the aftermath of the events of 4 September – and that is the word, manaakitanga.

This bill, at its very core is about showing manaakitanga, by helping the people of Christchurch and its 30,500 Māori to recover from the earthquake; to rebuild their homes, to renew their spirits; and most of all, to restore the quality of their lives and of their whanau around them.

Manaakitanga, as defined by Professor Hirini Moko Mead, focuses on positive human behaviour and encouraging people to rise above their personal attitudes and feelings towards others.

The aim is to nurture relationships and to respect the mana of other people no matter what their standing may be in society. Being hospitable and looking after visitors is given high priority.

And so it is in this Bill – as so evident in the days interrupted by hundreds of aftershocks and further disarray – that priority is given towards looking after the people of Canterbury, today and in the future.

The Bill enables an effective response to the Canterbury earthquake to be put in place, with the associated statutory powers necessary to assist with the response.

A key priority in the Bill is to facilitate the gathering of information about any structure or any infrastructure affected by the Canterbury earthquake.

An important note in the fine print, is that the information sought through the processes introduced in the Bill are defined as: ‘relevant to understanding how to minimise the damage caused by earthquakes’. And this is where we come back to the concept of manaakitanga.

How much more relevant to the issue of damage is it, than to focus on the wellbeing of the people?

And I want to speak here, and re-iterate the remarks of the ACT spokesperson about the amazing efforts made by Work and Income to make contact with any person over sixty-five years of age; to provide that basic level of contact, which can be so appreciated at times of need.

The numbers were absolutely remarkable.

As of earlier today, Work and Income staff have contacted 16,233 Superannuitants by phone and home visited another 706 elderly people in the days following the quake.

In addition, I want to commend Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu, who have telephoned over 700 kaumatua to check on their wellbeing.

Telephone teams organised by Te Runanga have also been calling whanau in other age groups, with the aim of calling all whanau in badly affected areas for whom they have contact details.

And I want to also draw attention to the commitment of local MP Rahui Katene, who has spent her every moment, visiting Maori communities and whanau in the worst affected areas of Otautahi following the 7.1 magnitude earthquake.

Mr Speaker, when we talk about infrastructure – and the damage incurred – it is the human infrastructure that must prevail.

I am so pleased that in the Government’s initial response to the earthquake, a fund of $2.5 million dollars was established for trauma counselling, to be drawn from the Community Response Fund.

And I have to say how saddened I was that in the immediate aftermath of the earthquake last Saturday, police reported that incidents of domestic violence had increased 53 percent.

Such a statistic mirrored the research issued by Victoria University earlier this year, revealing that after a disaster there are up to triple the number of reports of domestic violence.

The ugly face of violence; the escalating rates of anxiety; the levels of mental illness, of stress, of depression are all casualties of the damage caused by any disaster, including the recent Canterbury Earthquake.

And so I welcome the purpose of this Bill, to gather the information about the extent of such damage not just to the bricks and mortar, but also to the human experience.

The response and recovery provisions outlined in Part Two of the Bill, deal with some 22 Acts which may be affected by the granting of an exemption from the provisions contained within.

And I want to focus specifically on two areas of special interest to the Maori Party – and that is the ongoing provision of public health.

The Health Act 1956 and Health and Disability Services (Safety) Act 2001 are the key means by which legislation ensures that there is adequate drinking water, sewerage, waste and sanitation and so on.

While there are no concerns with ensuring decisions are made quickly to ensure the Canterbury region gets back to normal, there are some concerns with affected parties having no recourse after the responsible Minister makes a decision.

We need to ensure that those affected parties or groups who are already disadvantaged are not further disadvantaged with any decisions made.

And I am thinking in particular of tangata whenua, people with disabilities, people with low-incomes, refugee and migrant communities, Pasifika peoples, those in poor housing and other groups who may be more vulnerable at this time of instability.

There must be some assurances that all decisions will be consulted with affected parties and groups before the final decisions are made. In addition, the basic human rights of people and international conventions such as our United Nations commitments must also be taken into account.

Mr Speaker, we absolutely support this bill as this gives those who are involved in the rebuilding effort another tool to aid the recovery of Christchurch.

But I want to be quite clear, that Part 2 Section 6 (3) causes us some concern, and that the statement that the recommendation of the relevant Minister may not be challenged, reviewed, quashed or called into question in any court, might suggest that liability, and logically accountability and culpability are all removed.
We table this concern now, to enable the Minister to provide assurance as to how issues of liability can be addressed.

And if I could make one final suggestion, it would be to recommend – indeed to strongly advise the Minister – that mana whenua must have representation on the Commission.

There are some 30 thousand Maori living in Selwyn District, Waimakariri District and Christchurch City.

We want to ensure that Maori have a guaranteed voice on the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Commission - that the unique needs of marae, of whanau, hapu and iwi are actively respected in the recovery commission, and we strongly urge the Government to reserve a place for Ngai Tahu amongst the four appointed persons of the seven-person Commission.

And I return, once more, to the expression of manaakitanga.

While we debate the Bill in the House today, I want to extend our heartfelt gratitude to the offers of assistance that have been made by many other iwi and indeed by the Papatipu Rūnanga to supporting Kai Tahu, and other iwi living in the rohe of Otautahi and to those other people who have made significant contributions.

There are volunteers throughout Aotearoa who have devoted themselves to the task of supporting the people of Canterbury.

All of us in this House, have been touched by the generosity of spirit demonstrated by social service providers, non-governmental organisations, government agencies and members of the greater public alike; who have spared a thought for kith and kin in Canterbury; and have reached deep, and have shown their support.

This is also an opportune time to make our acknowledgements to all the hardworking local MPs from all sides of the House, who have been working to support the people of Canterbury. E mihi atu nei ki a koutou. Tēnā koutou.

ENDS

Home Page | Parliament | Previous Story | Next Story

Copyright (c) Scoop Media