Brownlee Gerry: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Brownlee Gerry: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:18202] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery) 
: 
 I do not want to cross over the top of what the member Ruth Dyson might be saying but I do think it is important to respond to those points. I think that was a very considered speech there was a bit of a message sent in it and I appreciate that. I will deal with the substantive points that the member made. The first relates to the district health board. The district health board is an instrument of the Crown as it stands so it already is a responsible entity and any suggestion that it will be in any way sidelined or unimportant in the recovery organisation is I think not correct. My expectation would be that people from the district health board would be seconded into the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority for the purpose of developing that recovery plan for health services in the Greater Christchurch but also wider Canterbury area. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Please read it; don’t just listen to poor advice. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Well that is the advice I am taking and the advice I am sticking to. On the issue of the New Zealand Disability Strategy the member’s amendment places a very high test and a very high requirement on people using that strategy or looking to that strategy by saying it must give effect to the strategy. It is very very prescriptive. I think having that as a prescriptive requirement when the plans that will be put together for the recovery will be incredibly diverse steps a bit too far. If the member were to look at an amendment that might say that the recovery plan should take into account aspects of the New Zealand Disability Strategy then I would like to look at that and test it against the legislation. 
The member spoke about the need for everyone to be on board. I understand that but at a point the Government has to say what it wants to be tested against. The Hon Clayton Cosgrove has made it abundantly clear that we will be tested against that and it is very hard to say an adversarial position is the one that will be followed from this point on and then say “Let’s all sit around the table be great mates and work out what’s in the best interests of our community.” 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: No one said that. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Well no one is saying we want to sit around a table and be best mates; at least we are clear about that. But the idea of putting into the legislation the formalising of the cross-party forum was a desire to recognise that all MPs in Canterbury—regardless of their electoral status if you like—all those MPs who have a residence in Canterbury have a stake in how the recovery is put together. How well that cross-party forum works will be largely up to the members of it. If it will be a weekly or monthly—or whatever it might be—inquisition on how the Minister is performing and a recitation of the Minister’s failings in any regard then it will not work. So it is up to members to decide how that might work. From my point of view it is a genuine attempt to formalise an arrangement that has been in place since 4 September 2010. It did not have to be there and I can tell you the advice was that maybe it should not be there but I felt it was a reasonable thing. Sorry Mr Chairperson what are you saying? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: You are bringing the Chairperson into the debate. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I did not say “you”. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Yes you did. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Did I? Dear me I do apologise to you. Far be it from me to suggest that you are part of the Opposition caucus Mr Chairperson. I let myself slip. My point is that we also have the community forum in the bill. If that is to work it also has to have wide buy-in from all parties sitting in the House. While everyone says: “Well let the Minister appoint whom he likes.” and all the rest of it trying to prescribe within legislation who might be appointed to it would be an even bigger nightmare than the one that will be faced once the legislation is in place. 
Of course there will be discussions. Last night in the closed hearing I indicated to members of the Local Government and Environment Committee that I have already talked to at least one member on the other side of the House about his views on who should sit on that forum and what they have to offer. I have to say I think the people he has put forward look to me to be exactly the right sorts of people to be involved in this exercise. I say to Ruth Dyson that I cannot see us accommodating the issue around the district health board. I realise that that causes the member frustration but I have an obligation to protect the legislation as it is before the House.