Doocey MattMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much Madam Deputy Speaker. It's a great sense of pride standing in wholehearted support of the Christ Church Cathedral Reinstatement Bill in its second reading. There is only one thing worse than a cathedral sitting half-damaged and derelict in Cathedral Square. There's only one thing worse than that and that's a half-built cathedral sitting in Cathedral Square for the people of Canterbury.So there was a lot of importance and there was a lot of pressure on the Environment Committee to ensure we got this enabling legislation right. I don't think anyone wants to see this reinstatement project go ahead only to falter two three five or seven years into the expected period of 10 years. So I think it's great that we're bringing this bill back in in good shape.It's important that a bill goes to a select committee. It gets hearings by the public. The select committee reflects on the submissions and makes appropriate amendments. I think this bill is in good shape. At the risk of being flippant one of the reasons it's in good shape is because it started off in good shape and I do want to acknowledge the Greater Christchurch regeneration Minister the Hon Megan Woods for her work on that but also of course the Hon Nicky Wagner the former Greater Christchurch regeneration Minister for all her work previously in driving the stakeholders forward getting them together collaboratively and tying this up with the Cathedral Working Group report and recommendations.I feel this bill is coming back from the select committee in good shape also because of the submissions. The submissions demonstrated to the people hearing them that the stakeholders although acrimonious at times actually are somewhat speaking from the same page now are somewhat aligned as much as they can be and I think that puts this bill in good stead.Finally I think this bill comes back in good shape thanks to the work of not only the members of the select committee—the cross-party members from not only Canterbury but around New Zealand who see the importance of getting this enabling legislation right—but also the advisers the Parliamentary Counsel Office and also the secretariat of the select committee who were able to respond and be responsible responsive and flexible to ensure that this bill was turned round in a short time frame. So I would like to acknowledge them at this time. Like I say if this bill wasn't coming back in a good shape not only would we be at risk of having a half-damaged cathedral sitting in Cathedral Square but we would also be at risk potentially of one thing worse which would be a half-built cathedral sitting in Cathedral Square.So when we went down last week to listen to the submissions we had about 78 submissions and we heard about seven in Christchurch and Wellington. It actually rained last Tuesday which probably doesn't sound that unusual but if you're from Christchurch you'd actually know that we went 47 days without rain—the driest period in 75 years of the history of Christchurch—yet when we arrived it was raining. Without drawing too much of a conclusion it's fair to say the drought had broken and I firmly believe the drought has broken on the issues of the Christ Church Cathedral and its reinstatement. I am looking forward to the passing of this enabling legislation that will drive forward the reinstatement of our loved cathedral.One of the areas we touched on as a select committee that caused a wide-ranging debate—which was very helpful and very productive—was the inclusion of further Acts under schedule 2. So it includes now the Building Act 2004 the Land Transfer Act 2017 the Local Government Act 1974 and the Local Government Act 2002 the Public Works Act of 1981 and the Reserves Act of 1977. I think it's important that all these Acts are now in the schedule. We are looking at legislation that will cover a 10- to 15-year period and so I think it's quite right that those Acts are now included coming back from the select committee process.One of the points I raised in my call on the first reading was how important it was going to be for the select committee to enshrine the Cathedral Working Group recommendations in this bill. It's important that we knew we weren't starting from scratch. We weren't going to relitigate a lot of the debate that had gone on. In a sense we were going to enshrine the Cathedral Working Group recommendations in this bill. So I'm happy to report back that we were able to do that.In clause 2A Background to this Act" in Part 1 it says: "(1) This Act fulfils part of the Government's offer to support the reinstatement of the Cathedral. (2) The proposed reinstatement is the culmination of a long period of facilitation negotiation and investigations and is intrinsically linked to 2 key reports facilitated by the Government including the [Cathedral Working Group] Report." So right from the start this will direct the readers of this bill and ultimately the legislation to the background of this Act which is primarily the report from the Cathedral Working Group and its recommendations.We also after much discussion agreed on inserting under clause 4 "Interpretation" a reference to the Cathedral Working Group report as well as under the definition of "reinstatement": "(aa) [that] any activity in relation to any part of the Cathedral that the [Cathedral Working Group] Report contemplates as being a reinstatement activity:". Clearly again we were able to enshrine the Cathedral Working Group report and recommendations in this bill. That will direct our further direction of travel because what we're talking about is a building process that will unfold over 10 to 15 years.One submission I want to talk to specifically is from the Pacific Youth Leadership and Transformation Council. There'll be many Canterbury MPs that know this organisation a Christchurch-based organisation that assists Pacific young people to participate in democracy. I was invited as well as Poto Williams from Labour to be on a candidates debate during the election. They got a fantastic crowd there and it was great to see the young people engaging in the democratic process.They put in their submission which I think is worth highlighting that they wanted young people to be involved in the review panel for Orders in Council. Now speaking personally—but I'm sure the other people on the select committee would agree—we would have loved to have had them on the review panel for Orders in Council but unfortunately the review panel is not meant to be representative; it's actually a technical panel. So of course if those young people have the technical expertise the knowledge and the skills hopefully we'll see them on the panel but I wanted to state for the Hansard that in fact because it's a technical panel not a representative panel that's why we didn't proceed with their submission and their recommendations.Just to point out for that organisation under clause 9—and I know I've got the Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration in the House here—there is an opportunity for the Minister to seek comments and engagement from young people. So I would request that the Minister would do that not only with this young persons organisation but with all young people's organisations in Canterbury because we do know that in Canterbury we are rebuilding and regenerating not necessarily for our generation but for our children's generation what this city will look like in 20 and 30 years' time.Just a final point and remark as I close: it was fantastic to see the Christchurch City Council agree to the $10 million funding grant that they had previously pledged. They voted on that this morning and that will go ahead as well as the Crown contribution and other fund-raising initiatives. It gives me great pleasure to commend this bill to the House."