Woods Megan: Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWoods Megan: Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 29 March 2016. Volume:712;Page:9962. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): I want to speak specifically to my amendments which address clauses 34 and 42 but before I do I just want to pick up where my colleague Rino Tirikatene left off with his pronunciation lesson on Ōtākaro. Kelvin Davis my Ngāpuhi colleague sitting next to me tells me that the translation is either “dodging weeds” or “a place where people laid”—Kelvin Davis: Played.Dr MEGAN WOODS: Sorry—“played”. So we are hoping very much that it is the latter and not a place where people are dodging weeds. But that could just be as Rino would say Ngāpuhi business going on there. Thank you very much for that service I say to the member beside me Kelvin Davis.If we are going to talk about the amendments that I am putting forward the amendments to clauses 34 and 42—and I am grateful to all the other parties in this Committee supporting these amendments because I think they are important to the people of Christchurch. It is not so much that we think there is an imminent threat of anyone doing anything heinous to Hagley Park that jewel in the centre of our crown but it is really about our responsibility as Cantabrians to protect that treasure. Generations of people before us have done it and it is our responsibility in this generation to continue that protection and ensure that that place—that magical place in the centre of our city—endures and remains there.In order to do this there are a number of instruments that are used in this legislation and what my amendments do ensure that the management plan of Hagley Park is the primary instrument and that it is not overridden by anything else that might be in this legislation. Then we have amendments that ensure that where there are any inconsistencies between a regeneration plan and the park’s management plan it is the park’s management plan that prevails. So what that means is that if anyone wants to put up any kind of change of use for Hagley Park they will have to go through a process that is business as usual—the same process they would have had to go through in 2010 in order to have a changed use for Hagley Park.As we are drawing to the close of this stage I would like to reflect on subpart 1 in Part 2 which is clauses 12 to 23 and really pay honour to the people who made submissions and who really were the voices behind the charge for a locally led recovery in Christchurch. One of the things that as a Canterbury member of Parliament you could not not hear was that the time was right for Canterbury people to take charge of their own destiny and that the time was right for us to have a locally led recovery. This needed to be balanced with the Crown’s need to endure within our region within our city and within its province and its obligations and its responsibility to our regeneration. I think that the changes that we have made get this balance better and we can have that and there will be some satisfaction that locals can take charge of their destiny as well.But also in the later stages of this Committee stage debate I want to pay tribute to all the Christchurch and Canterbury-based members of Parliament across this House from various parties. I would also like to note that by a rough count there are probably eight or nine of us in this Chamber today debating this legislation as Canterbury members of Parliament who were not here when the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority legislation was enacted in 2011. I think that speaks to a number of jobs that some of our colleagues have gone on to do with one of course being to play an important part of this legislation as the Mayor of Christchurch—Mayor Lianne Dalziel. We also have a number of colleagues from all parties who worked tirelessly in the immediate aftermath of the earthquakes in 2010 and 2011 and who have since retired and I would like to honour the contribution that they have made to our city and our province over the last 5 years.I think that what we have set up in this legislation—particularly the grunt of it lies here in Part 2 in terms of how we propose regeneration plans how it is that we get the anchor projects moving and how it is that we now grasp that thorny issue of the residential red zone and capture some of the creativity and the innovation that we have seen flowing through our city in the last 5 years. That lies in this legislation. It is our responsibility as Cantabrians and it is our responsibility as Parliamentarians to make sure this works. Labour is happy to commend this legislation to the Committee.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 159 in the name of the Hon Gerry Brownlee to Part 2 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Dr Megan Woods to clauses 34 and 42 be agreed to:insert in clause 34(1)(e)(iv) “(with the exception of the Hagley Park Management Plan)” after “Reserves Act 1977”;insert in clause 34(2)(b) “specified in subsection (1)” after “an instrument”;insert in clause 34(3) “specified in subsection (1)” after “an instrument”;add after clause 34(4) the following subclause:(5) The Hagley Park Management Plan prevails where there is any inconsistency between it and a Regeneration Plan.insert in clause 42(2)(d)(iv) “(with the exception of the Hagley Park Management Plan)” after “Reserves Act 1977”; andinsert in clause 42(3)(a) “(but not changes or variations to the Hagley Park Management Plan under the Reserves Act 1977)” after “Wildlife Act 1953”.Amendments agreed to.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Denis O’Rourke to clause 79 be agreed to:delete clause 79(b)(iii).Amendment agreed to.Part 2 as amended agreed to.