Dyson Ruth: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Dyson Ruth: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:18205] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 I want to complete the sentence that I started at the end of my last call which was to correct the misunderstanding that Louise Upston had. Miss Upston was on the Local Government and Environment Committee which considered the evidence and she said Labour was trying to have it both ways: it was trying to say some people had noted that the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill had been improved yet we were saying some people had not seen the bill. But actually both of those points are correct. Some people who had seen earlier drafts of the bill noted that it had been improved as did I. The first draft that we saw did not have a definition of the central business district in it and I thought that was quite foolish. I am glad that the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery agreed with that point and added a definition of the central business district. But many other leaders in Christchurch including our elected councillors had not seen the draft of the bill. That was the point being made from this side of the Chamber. People whom we will rely on to lead our communities have not been party to any discussion about the legislation. 
I have quite a lot of stamina so I will try again with the Minister. He still has not heard what I have been trying to get through to him in respect of the Canterbury District Health Board and I would really appreciate it if the Minister either did not take a call and dismiss my contribution or if he wants to take my amendment seriously that he first of all reads the piece in the legislation that I am referring to. He is right that in the responsible entities clause the district health board does not need to be named. That is fine; let us put that to one side. I think it would have given it good message if the Minister had named it but he disagrees so let us leave it at that. 
But the second point I made and I am not sure whether the Minister is able to talk and listen—he is a multitasker; excellent. That is very good. In Clause 11(4) a small number of organisations are listed that must be consulted in relation to the development of the recovery strategy. It is my view that alongside the Christchurch City Council Environment Canterbury Selwyn District Council Waimakariri District Council and Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu we should include the Canterbury District Health Board and that is what I am asking the Minister to do. I will have one more shot at that. There are a lot of other really serious amendments that we propose which the Minister has dismissed. But I think that having another go at that one is worth it. 
The Minister dangled a little carrot in front of me and said that if I changed the wording of my amendment in relation to the Disability Strategy and its consideration in the preparation of recovery plans he would give it another glance. He promised that he would give that amendment good consideration so I have rewritten it word for word on the basis of what I recall the Minister saying. By now he will have a new copy of that amendment. I do not consider that it would be a victory if that amendment was agreed to. I just think it would be a small step forward for disabled people who want to have a bigger say than they might otherwise have on the future of the region in which they live. I want to take the Minister back to the commitment that he made to me because I still feel cheated. I urge him in the little time that we have left to give it another shot. 
One of my other amendments was in relation to the instructions that the Minister can issue— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: In the middle of my speech? 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Well no because I know the member has more time to go and I just want to indicate to the Committee that the member’s amendment relating to consideration being given to the New Zealand Disability Strategy is under consideration. It may be that it could go in a different part and be more suitable for inclusion there and those discussions will take place with the member as soon as she has concluded her speech. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the Minister for that. It is actually not a point of order. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: It certainly was not a point of order. The Minister could have taken a call and done that. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I can’t do anything right. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Well it was not a point of order although the Minister raised it as one. That is the point that is being made. 
The other amendment that I proposed was in relation to the power that the Minister has to require councils or council organisations to perform a function. What we heard from the three councils to the best of my recollection—but certainly from two councils—was that they did not mind that. They thought it was fine that the Minister was able to instruct them either to start or to stop something because of the very unusual situation that we have. But they thought it would be just a mark of common courtesy if the Minister talked to them about it before issuing an edict from on high. That is all that my amendment asks the Minister to do. My amendment is to insert a new clause (1A) in clause 49 of Part 2. Again I say to the Minister that the reason I feel cheated is that I do not think this is a big ask and I cannot imagine how the Minister has given this amendment the serious consideration that he gave me a personal commitment to give to any amendments that we put up. All that the amendment asks is that the Minister should talk to the local authority about the direction that he is by law allowed to issue. There is no argument about that. It is just a little process. We are not asking him to go through a great long rigmarole. We are not asking him to leave himself vulnerable to be dragged before the court; we are just asking for a civil conversation with elected representatives in our three areas. I do not know why the Minister would not take the opportunity to provide for that. 
I thank the Minister for giving consideration to the Disability Strategy amendment. I really urge him to look at all our amendments. We spent quite a lot of time working on them. The Minister’s officials have taken until after 2 o’clock today to prepare Supplementary Order Papers based on the submissions that we heard which were finished yesterday afternoon. We have done our amendments ourselves without the resources of the brains talent and time of departmental officials. We actually had more amendments than the Minister but it is not a competition. However our amendments were done with the same degree of seriousness as the ones that the Minister prepared. It is nearly time for the debate to end. There is a limited opportunity for the Minister to change his behaviour and meet the commitment that he gave me at the select committee in front of a number of our other colleagues to give serious consideration to our amendments.