Whaitiri Meka: Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWhaitiri Meka: Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 29 March 2016. Volume:712;Page:9944. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti):Tēnā koe Mr Chair—good call. Tēnā tātou katoa. It is indeed my honour to stand in support and solidarity with my colleagues particularly from the Canterbury area who stand up in support of the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill. I am a member on the Local Government and Environment Committee but for the duration of this particular bill I gave way to those Canterbury MPs who obviously know of the impact more than I could ever do. But I do want to make a small contribution of support.About this time last year in 2015 we had tens of thousands from Māoridom descend on Hagley Park for one of the showcase pieces of New Zealand’s Māori calendar of events Te Matatini. It was at that gathering that Sir Mark Solomon held a function as the chairman of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu to which he invited iwi leaders civil leaders and other people of importance. At that dinner Mark shared the story that he never had the opportunity to individually go to the many iwi across the country and the many agencies to say thank you—thank you—for the support that iwi and agencies across the country gave in support of the Ngāi Tahu Canterbury people during the earthquakes. It was a very telling time at that dinner to hear him relay the stories of not only the tragedy that was bestowed on the people of Canterbury but also the challenges that Ngāi Tahu themselves as the iwi of that area put their hand up to play an active role in. I just start with that as a small contribution—that this bill reminds me of the challenges that both the people of Canterbury have faced and this bill will face in addressing us over the next wee while.We are here talking about Part 1 “Preliminary provisions”. I particularly want to make some comments on clause 3(1) and (2) and also to touch on clause 7 in that part in the time I have got remaining. People have mentioned—and I want to also acknowledge Minister Brownlee in terms of his shifting on the original bill after working with Opposition members through the select committee. There were concerns clearly about the experience of the Environment Canterbury example in ensuring that the local voice was heard. So when I look to clause 3(1)(c) where we talk about enabling community input—I mean that is a great start. I need to commend the Minister for making sure that the local voice is not lost in this commitment to regenerating Christchurch.But then we go to clause 3(1)(d) and we talk about who will be on this Regenerate Christchurch organisation. We talk about Canterbury Regional Council Christchurch City Council Selwyn District Council the council at Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu and Waimakariri District Council. If you follow me and turn to clause 4 I believe it describes what a “strategic partner” is and it lists again those five groups that I have just mentioned. So I guess my point here is that if we have defined these five organisations as “strategic partners” then the question in my mind is why they were not given the sole responsibility of rejuvenating and leading the plans in Canterbury.Then we will get to the second part around the role of the Minister. I guess it goes to the heart of taking clause 3(1)(c) to its ultimate conclusion which is that if these organisations are strategic partners then why do we not invest the regeneration with these strategic partners? That is the question and maybe the Minister can help us. I understand that central government is putting a lot of resources into it and it does need to have an overview but when I read that particular part in clause 3 where we describe them as “strategic”—and no one is going to challenge that any of these five groups do not know how to manage and that they do not have good governance structures good management and good plans—then we need an answer for this Committee around why I guess if they are strategic we are not using them to their fullest extent. I understand that many came to submit during the select committee process and there was a proposal there but for me—like I said maybe the Minister could share some clarification around why those groups are on the one hand strategic but we are using them for only some parts of the regeneration and the veto power still rests with the Minister.Moving to clause 2 there was some previous mention of the return to what many people will regard as the four well-beings. We are looking at clause 3(2)(b) where we talk about improving the environmental economic social and cultural well-being and resilience of communities throughout the area. For many people out there who value the role that local government plays in our local communities on the one handwe are removing the four well-beings from the Local Government Act but here—and I am not debating that it does not have a role here in this bill but what I am saying is that on one hand we take from local government authorities and yet in this bill we are acknowledging and putting it back in here. I guess the question to the Minister again is whether we will see some consistency. If it is good enough for Christchurch then why is it not good enough for the rest of the country?Finally I do want to just talk about clause 7 “Application of the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998”. For me not to say anything contrary to my colleague the member for Te Tai Tonga—I am glad that it is there. I am glad that it recognises not just the role that Ngāi Tahu will play in the Christchurch regeneration but the role that Te Waipounamu katoa will play in terms of where they have started where they are and where they plan to be.I think it is an opportune time when we start talking around regeneration that we start getting serious about partnerships particularly with iwi post-settlement and the opportunities that it brings with us working in collaboration. I just hope that this particular clause is actually implemented in its fullest—i.e. the values around partnership working in collaboration and us seeing that we actually want the same things. We have different resources and I guess perspectives to bring to the table so I want to acknowledge that that is there. The test for me is whether we live up to that in terms of the way that we interrelate with each other and how the larger Regenerate Christchurch group sees the value that Ngāi Tahu can bring across the four well-beingsin the previous clause which I have just mentioned. I will leave the rest of my contribution on the other parts until later on in the bill. Kia ora tātou.