Brownlee Gerry: Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Brownlee Gerry: Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13956] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery) 
: 
 Firstly the issue of the controller: I think the mayors’ position was misconstrued in the reports that came out late this afternoon. As I have said all the way through I see that position—that of the mayor of each of the districts being the leader of the district council of his or her area—as being pretty pivotal to the success of the recovery. I was sufficiently concerned about the reports to have a telephone conference call with the mayors this evening. They have all assured me that that was not their position and that there had been a miscommunication. None of them is reported directly as having said that; it was just attributed to them. They have made it very clear to me that they are comfortable and very encouraged by the legislation that the House is dealing with tonight. 
I move to the amendment relating to the desire by Mr Anderton to see heritage mentioned in the bill. The first point is that the heritage decisions in each of the districts are still the responsibility of the district councils. I point out that in the part of the Canterbury district where that seems to be most contentious—Christchurch city—a new bylaw was passed I believe on Monday evening to afford and accord extra protections to heritage buildings. I think that it is best left in that space. As far as the Government’s contribution to ensuring that heritage buildings are where possible maintained there will be a statement from the Prime Minister on that in the next day or two. 
As to clause 11 in relation to the skills required for commissioners well there is a nice long list there; I do not think we have to prescribe it. I think that if this thing is going to work people will have to instantly see that there is capacity there. I would say that I do not think we want the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Commission to be any more political than what we will get anyway with three mayors. Ultimately if things spun out the chair of the regional council in the meantime is a commissioner so I do not think that prescribing that is necessary and it is not something that we will be supporting. 
On the Lyttelton earthquake I have had the same advice—that it was part of the series of aftershocks. We could argue this stuff around the tracks forever and I heard on the news tonight that the first earthquake was actually a small one that triggered the next one which was the big one on Saturday. I think that geologists are discovering more even as members of this House are passing legislation tonight and I do not think there is any doubt about any damage that has come from the seismic activity in the Canterbury region in the last short while. Let us be clear about the fact that while we are still having aftershocks there will still be damage and I think there is no question that the Lyttelton earthquake is included in that. 
I hope that I have covered most of the points. I will make the final point that I have put forward a typescript amendment that will make the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Commission an organisation for the purposes of schedule 1 of the Official Information Act. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to add to paragraph (b) “acknowledging that an important priority for the response is to enable the preservation and restoration of Canterbury’s architectural and cultural heritage”. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Kennedy Graham to clause 6 be agreed to: 
to add to subclause (3) “unless a High Court judge determines that fundamental principles of justice will be compromised by not allowing a case to be heard”.