Faafoi Kris: Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFaafoi Kris: Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 29 March 2016. Volume:712;Page:9955. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): I am speaking to Part 2 of this bill. During the debate on Part 1 we on this side of the Chamber showed our delight at the willingness of the Government to work with Opposition parties to ensure that there was more consideration taken of the community in this next phase of the rebuild of Christchurch and Part 2 operationalises that.I just wanted to take you through a couple of the levels of proposed workings with the community where things will have to be either approved or consulted on. I think the Government has actually done quite a good job and that is when someone is looking to revoke or amend or propose a new part of a plan within this piece of legislation. There are a number of groups that a proponent must seek the views of. An example of that is new clause 22B in Part 2 added by Supplementary Order Paper 159 where someone who is looking to—I think in this instance—amend part of a plan for the Christchurch district they have to seek the views of the Christchurch City Council Canterbury Regional Council Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu Regenerate Christchurch and Ōtākaro Ltd and the chief executive. So in that respect I think it is good that that level of consultation and the views are being sought for proposals that are being put to either amend revoke or put forward a new plan.But when we are looking for the detail of the level of consultation that Opposition parties wanted with community groups—we wanted to make sure that that was in there and I think again that is good work by the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery and the likes of Megan Woods in our party to make sure that there will be some grassroots consultation. I think you can see an example of that in new clause 30H of Part 2 for where in this instance a part of a plan is looking at being revoked. In clause 30H(4) it says “Regenerate Christchurch must seek the views of the following on any material amendment it proposes to make to the proposed revocation: (a) each party specified in section 30B(1):” which are the parties that I spoke of before—those five entities that I named earlier—and in subclause (4)(b) it says “any other party that Regenerate Christchurch thinks appropriate.” I think that is where in this piece of legislation we will have the opportunity hopefully for public submissions.One of the questions that we might pose to the Minister in the chair the Hon Gerry Brownlee is what those kinds of entities might be. Would it be similar to a select committee process? Would you put the word out and say “Come one come all.” or would it just be specifically targeted groups in specific areas that those parties or Regenerate Christchurch might look at having to consult with? Because in subclause (4)(b) as it stands “any other party that Regenerate Christchurch thinks appropriate” could be taken a couple of ways. I think if it is in the spirit of the piece of legislation that we have amended before us that would probably be a rather wide range of consultation within the community so that you would get a broad range of views. But if you were to take quite a miserly view of clause 30H(4)(b) then Regenerate Christchurch could say: “Well we think only these people are the people whom we should consult around this particular amendment and we will just speak to those people.”I am not sure whether or not that would speak in particular to the kind of spirit that we have got around the House for input from the public to some of the changes that may happen through this next phase of this piece of legislation. It would be interesting to hear just how wide you might cast a net when you are looking at “any other party that Regenerate Christchurch thinks appropriate.”Just one little thing before I end my contribution on Part 2 and again it is on Megan Woods’ amendment which looks in Part 2 to amend the bill around Hagley Park—which as a former Cantabrian I think is great. It is a jewel in the crown of Christchurch. I think it is something that most Cantabrians and most New Zealanders who know Christchurch well want to make sure is protected and as it currently stands in the bill it is not so that is why Dr Megan Woods has seen fit to make sure that there is explicit protection within this piece of legislation for the land that is known as Hagley Park. Thank you.