Cosgrove Clayton: Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCosgrove Clayton: Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 29 March 2016. Volume:712;Page:9958. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): Can I thank Minister Gerry Brownlee for his very full answers to those questions. I think we are meeting new heights today in a piece of legislation like this. It has not been my experience that I have seen many Ministers who are prepared to get up and point by point go through and give full explanations to very worthwhile questions so I thank him for that.I am gratified for his support for the amendment from Megan Woods in respect of Hagley Park but I do hope that he will give great consideration to the odd light that may go in around the old cricket pitch there. I recall naysayers—not pointing at the Minister because I know he was in support of it—about 120 of them I think who were very vocal in their opposition to the wonderful new facility that we have. You would have to have a high level of cynicism not to say that that is a world-class facility that does not impinge—in fact it enhances—the quality of life of folks around it given the thousands of people who turned up to watch the Black Caps time and time again. But I note of course that that particular facility does need lights and does need a few extra bits and pieces.I suppose that in retrospect we could look back and say to those naysayers that maybe they should have just held their breath a little and had a look it because it is very very easy of course to be negative and to be opposed to everything that people want to put up in terms of enhancing our environment. If you look at Hagley Park especially with it having had a history of sporting facilities there many of us shook our heads at the time and thought: “What is there to object to?”.I am also gratified at the Minister’s comments around flexible consultation and I take him at his word. I think it is logical to suggest that consultation be tailor-made and fit for purpose depending on the scale and size of a particular project or proposal. I have got to say that the people of Canterburywill I believe endorse that. They will endorse it also because it is led by local leadership. No disrespect to our fine Public Service but I think there has been a feeling for some years that the level of direct input that the so-called faceless bureaucrat to use the cliché has had in Christchurch—those folks do a job they do their job based on what their political masters tell them and that is as it should be. But it is only the political masters ultimately who can be held accountable—all those local people or politicians in leadership who can be held accountable for the decisions that are made. I think it has been a point made by many in Greater Christchurch and Canterbury that we have had too many bureaucrats parachuted in saying “Tut tut tut.”—or certainly that has been the perception—and that many decisions have been made without due consultation.I greet the Minister’s comments positively because I think there has now been a realisation that to consult does not mean you are ever going to get consensus. Of course you will never get that and those who feel that if you are somehow forced to consult you will never get anywhere because you have to gain total consensus—that is a false assumption. You will never gain consensus but with quality consultation there will be I think quality input. People even if they disagree with the decision at the end—I think Cantabrians and most people of common sense would say: “Well we had a fair shake. We were allowed to have a go and we put our views forward. We didn’t win at the end of the day.However you know we’ll get in behind and we’ll get on with it.”I think that where in the last 5 years there has been a history of people who have been less than supportive it was based in fact not on a wish to oppose for opposition’s sake but on a concern that their voices were not heard or if they were that they were just completely disregarded or if they were not that the decision had been preordained. Rightly or wrongly that was the perception of many in the communities.I think that with this bill—where the rubber hits the road of course is clause 16 onwards under “Development and amendment of Plans relating to greater Christchurch”. I believe you will see high-quality proposals generated from grassroots level with people who have standing and leadership positions through this bill who will take account of that. But as I say that does not mean everybody is going to get everything that they want and I think people in Christchurch know and acknowledge that. What they want to know—and I think I said in a speech I made when the House sat directly after the major earthquakes that local people generally are the experts in their own environment and their own communities. They know where resources have to be they know where the needs are and they can provide in my view the highest-possible quality input. But they need credibility integrity and confidence around the process.I think this bill given that it does have support across the parties given the spirit in which we are dealing today—it is not often members will put up amendments and have them immediately reviewed and accepted by a Minister—and given that the Minister is prepared to provide reassurance as we go through this process will provide I think in large part very high-quality outcomes.