Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill

I move, That the Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill be now read a second time. I am very pleased to make a contribution to this second reading debate on what is, I think, a very good augmentation of the Acts that currently preserve this piece of Christchurch. Just to be clear, Riccarton Bush is the last remaining kahikatea remnant on the Canterbury Plains, and it is situated right in Christchurch City, right in my electorate, as it happens. It is also the home of the original settlers in Canterbury, the Deans brothers, who came out in about 1840 and struggled away for quite a few years before growing into the family that has been so influential in Canterbury since.

Their original story is a little tragic. The two brothers came out from Scotland in the late 1840s. They originally went to the Wairarapa, and then moved to Canterbury. One of the brothers was drowned, tragically, trying to get sheep across a river. The other brother established the farming operation at Riccarton and one of the features of his work was his closeness to Ngāi Tahu. He had a lease for 6 miles in all directions, in a radius, from Riccarton Bush. I recall at the time that we brought down a new management plan for the bush, about 1991, Rick Tau from Ngāi Tahu made the comment that they were pleased to see this happen. The place is known as Pūtaringamotu, or “place of the severed ear” in Māori mythology—or Māori folklore, I should say. His view then was that when the New Zealand Company, the first Canterbury settlers, came in the first four ships to the province, both the Māori and the Deans brothers got done—an interesting part of our history. It is also suggested that Hagley Park was put in place to keep the separation between the Anglicans in the centre of the city and the Presbyterians at Riccarton. As one of Catholic persuasion, I have no particular view about that.

It was my great honour to be the third chairman of the Riccarton Bush Trust. The trust is a body that has had great continuity since 1914 and during the time I served on the trust we faced the prospect of losing the house and quite possibly losing the bush as well. But it was due only to the foresight of the Deans family that that bush remains now. John Deans was originally quite alarmed, as was his wife Jane, at the rate at which timber was being cut down in the near vicinity of Christchurch City and made the conscious decision to preserve that piece of bush. You know, Jane Deans was a remarkable woman. She lost her husband, one of the original two brothers who came to Canterbury, within 12 months of her coming back to New Zealand, having waited for him in Scotland for about 11 years while he established the farming operation at Riccarton. It is a great history for people to read and to understand the struggles that early settlers went through, and I think that, given the circumstances in Christchurch at the moment, it is quite an inspirational sort of story.

What this bill does is make sure that protections are in place for that very, very special taonga—the kahikatea forest—and that the other grounds, which are much more of an English country estate style, remain available for people to use and to enjoy. I think it is a good thing that we are able to have a body like this that has a long history in New Zealand terms and has not been swallowed up by other local government activities, etc. They do work very, very closely with the Christchurch City Council, and it is the legal team in the Christchurch City Council that has promoted this bill, and I have been delighted to sponsor the bill because of that past association.

With those few words, can I thank the Local Government and Environment Committee members for the work that they have done on this bill. They have made a small change, which recognises the fact that between the bill coming to Parliament and today there have been the earthquake events. That has meant that the long-term plan for the Christchurch City Council has been pushed out to 2015. The amendment here allows the plan for the trust’s stewardship of the assets here to be also pushed out to a similar date. With those words I commend this bill to the House and look forward to its rapid passing through the remaining stages.

Labour supports the Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill. I want to begin by acknowledging the local member, Gerry Brownlee, for bringing this bill to the House. I also acknowledge the Riccarton Bush Trustees for the work they did alongside the Christchurch City Council’s legal services team, which did much of the work in preparing this bill. I would also like to say that I have fond memories of Riccarton House. This is my only association with it, as I am not a Cantabrian, but many a good party was held at Riccarton House in my days as a student and I met many fine people at those parties, I have to say.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Narrow it down a little.

Gerry, you were not one of them, but I have many fond memories of the house itself. But, seriously, I do know how important Riccarton Bush and the Riccarton buildings and land are to the people of Canterbury.

I was interested when I listened to the first reading speeches—and we heard some of it today from Gerry Brownlee—and heard the history of this land and the buildings. Dr Megan Woods, when she was speaking—what she said was the historian in her—set out how the bush itself had been a very important part of the natural history of the place, and that there were protected remnants of bush that you once used to see over the entire Canterbury Plains. There are species and plants that you see growing there that, if you look at them, you are able to see what the Canterbury Plains looked like. She also set out, along with Rino Tirikatene, how important Deans Bush, the buildings, and so on were to Ngāi Tahu. It had been a very important site for them. In fact, many of the carvings for the waka and their important carvings had come from that bush. It had also been a very important gathering place for pigeons and food sources. So it was, I think, a really good exercise in people getting to know more about this historic site.

But what this bill set out to do was to modernise and update the governance arrangements of Riccarton Bush, of the trustees themselves who manage Riccarton House and the bush, and define what the trustees’ functions were more precisely, and also to provide for the continuation of the trust’s work and to improve the finances and the administration arrangements. There were only two submissions to be heard on this bill. I was not there, because the Christchurch members were very keen to sit on the Local Government and Environment Committee that day. The submissions were heard in Christchurch. My understanding is that the Deans family themselves turned up in force for the hearing of those submissions on that day.

The select committee did make some amendments, and one of the amendments that was made was to change the date when the first financial plan must be prepared, from 1 July 2013 to 1 July 2015. This was to line it up with changes that had been made because of the Christchurch earthquake. The Canterbury Earthquake (Local Government Act 2002) Order 2011 has the long-term plan for the Christchurch City Council being prepared in 2015. So what the committee has done with this date for the implementation is to align the bill with that Order in Council. With those few words, we support this bill and wish for its speedy passage through this House.

I am very happy to rise in support of the Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill at its second reading, and congratulate the Hon Gerry Brownlee on his second reading speech. It was good to be reminded of the importance of the Deans family—not the Dean family—to Canterbury and Christchurch, and to be reminded of the rich history and the generosity of the Deans family to the people of Canterbury and to New Zealand. I have a family member who lives on Kahu Road in Christchurch and so I often, when I can, go past Deans Bush. It is a beautiful place in the middle of Christchurch, and so it is with great pleasure that I am speaking today on this amendment bill. It is special. My colleague Maggie Barry is going to be speaking later in this debate and I do hope she touches on some of the special botanical features of Deans Bush. In particular, we know that it is a kahikatea flood plain forest. To me that means something; it means kahikatea, which I know to be rather beautiful, but that is it—that is all I know. So I am looking forward to Maggie Barry’s contribution later in this debate, as it will indeed round out the knowledge of this House of this Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill.

The purpose of this bill—it is always good to get around to the purpose of the bill—is to modernise and update the governance arrangements of the board that administers Riccarton Bush and Riccarton House, and they are known as the Riccarton Bush Trustees. The purpose of this bill is to provide a better definition of, to better define, the board’s functions—which is very important—to provide for the continuation of its work so that it can continue doing its work, but also to make provision for better definition and enhancement of its finance and administration functions. It also vests with the board the land at 30 Kahu Road in Christchurch, so that is part of the purpose of the bill.

What the bill does is it amends the Riccarton Bush Act of 1914, the Riccarton Bush Amendment Act of 1947, and the Riccarton Bush Amendment Act of 1949—here we are in 2012 having another crack at it. I understand that the trustees are not finished and would like some further work, and that might come to the House at another time.

The Deans family were the first European settlers on the Canterbury Plains in 1843. Riccarton House, which is a wonderful old building, is a grand—and it is grand—Victorian-Edwardian homestead that was built in stages between 1856 and 1900. Subsequent to the Christchurch earthquakes, those buildings have become even more precious to the people of Canterbury and to New Zealand. It was about that time that settlement also occurred in the town I live in, Ōāmaru. My town, luckily, has missed most of the impacts of the Canterbury earthquakes that have blighted Christchurch and the people of Christchurch. I think the people of Ōāmaru are very well aware of the importance of these buildings to Christchurch and are very supportive of every effort to rehabilitate those buildings that can be rehabilitated.

The 15 acres of Riccarton Bush were gifted by the Deans family—a significant gift—to the people of Canterbury. That happened in 1914, and the Riccarton Bush Act of 1914 was passed by Parliament to provide for the preservation and management of the property. At that time the board was constituted to become the controlling body of that gift by the Deans family to the people of Christchurch. Then, in 1947, the Christchurch City Council, the Waimairi County Council, the Heathcote County Council, the Paparua County Council, and the borough of Riccarton joined together to purchase Riccarton House. Thank goodness for local government amalgamations, I say. They are much more efficient. So they banded together to purchase Riccarton House and the associated grounds from the Deans family, to add to the original gift from the Deans family.

The Local Government and Environment Committee considered this bill, as with the previous member’s bill. There was not terribly much dissension amongst the committee. We had a look at this bill, and I guess we will talk about the amendments made when we get to the Committee stage. But we did recommend some amendments to clause 2(1) and to proposed section 23(7), set out in clause 10, by extending the date on which clause 16 would come into force, and that is around the provision of the first financial plan, from 2013 to 2015. Of course, as previous speakers have noted, that takes into account the time frames, which have now been extended because of the Canterbury earthquakes. We also recommended amendments to proposed section 23 to provide for the event that the council does not approve the board’s draft financial plan.

The Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill, at its second reading, is getting a thorough going-over in this House, and so it should, because it is a bill and a matter that is very important to the people of Canterbury and also to the Christchurch City Council. I recommend it to the House.

It is my pleasure to take a call on this Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill at its second reading. I do want to, as did my colleague the Hon Annette King, acknowledge the local member, the Hon Gerry Brownlee, who has brought this legislation to this House. But I also want to acknowledge the Riccarton Bush Trustees for their very hard work that they have put into this piece of legislation, along with the Christchurch City Council’s legal services team, who have done much work in preparing the bill that we are examining now.

Riccarton Bush is an incredibly important part of Christchurch and its natural and built history—Riccarton Bush and Riccarton House, which members have alluded to—stand on that land. It has been an incredibly important part of our city for some time, but I would like to suggest that it is even more important in Christchurch as it is recreated post-earthquake. That heritage has become something of a contentious issue in our city. This is a very important part of our heritage. It is part of our natural history and it is also part of our built history. We are having the second reading of this legislation at a time when much of Christchurch’s heritage buildings are being subjected to the wrecker’s ball. There are many people who are feeling a great sense of grief and a great deal of loss of heritage in our city. So anything that this House can do to protect heritage, and to ensure that something of our past remains in Christchurch, is something that members on this side certainly are pleased to support.

I noted that Gerry Brownlee in his speech in this reading of the bill talked about Hagley Park and its role in dividing the Presbyterians and the Anglicans in settlement Christchurch. I would like to suggest that maybe some new parks are going to be needed between the current Anglican Church synod and the people of Christchurch over its decision to bowl the Christchurch Cathedral. These are things that Christchurch people feel dearly. Their attachment to our history and our built environment is something that runs very deep. As members and I have noted in the previous reading of this bill, this is an incredibly important part of our history. It speaks to so many aspects of it, from, as I said, our natural history, through to very early Māori settlement history pre-dating Ngāi Tahu, through to the colonisation of Christchurch, and to how it was that our city grew, where it grew, and the different strains of migration involved in that.

There are a couple of other things that I would like to acknowledge in this call that I am taking on this bill. I have already acknowledged the work that the trust board has done in terms of preparing this legislation to bring to the House, but I would also like to acknowledge the Riccarton Bush Trust and the members of that trust who did come along to the Local Government and Environment Committee hearing in Christchurch. It was probably somewhat of a surprise for committee members there to know that members of the trust had gathered around listening to the first reading speeches on this piece of legislation, and that it was an incredibly important occasion for them. It was important, because they had put so much work into this. They know that to preserve this incredibly important part of our history, that work was needed. I think it was touching for all members of the committee to know that those trust members had watched the first reading and had taken it on board. It is also worth noting that members of that trust did bring a book to gift to our Parliamentary Library that further outlines the history of this incredibly important part of Christchurch. I would like to acknowledge the members of the trust who did that and to thank them for their gift to our library.

One of the things that I would especially like to commend in this legislation is the way in which the board was very involved in putting together this piece of work and the way in which the local people were consulted. I think the way in which this piece of legislation was worked through, the way in which local communities were involved, and the way that there has been absolutely no contention whatever with this piece of legislation, shows us what happens when you actually do involve local people in decision making. When local people feel that they have a stake in what is important to them, be that their heritage building, their local school, or anything else that is important—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Their regional council.

Their regional council—that is right, the Hon Ruth Dyson—and whether or not they get to vote for their local regional councillors. So it is very important. You can see the difference. What we see is great anxiety in Christchurch about so many decisions that this Government is making at the moment. But when, such as in this bill, local people are consulted, and it is done very well, we can see the very real difference that is made.

We do support the tidying up that is in this legislation. People have talked about the various pieces of legislation that it tidies up. I think an important point to note in this is that although there was some suggestion that there should be a repeal and a new piece of legislation, for many people it was incredibly important that there was the perseverant of the historical Acts, because they were as much a history of Riccarton Bush and Riccarton House as the grounds and the flora and fauna itself. The legislation was an incredibly important part of the story of how this part of our city had come to be such a protected part of our land. So we very much welcome this tidying up.

We welcome this particularly—and I made this point in my first reading speech—in light of the local government reforms that are currently going through this House. Who knows whether Riccarton Bush and Riccarton House would be deemed a core service under the new regime that we are going to be living under soon, with the local government reforms that would come through? This bill gives this incredibly important historical site within our city protections and, importantly, it gives the funding that it receives some protection, even under those local government reforms. There are many people, ourselves included, who are sort of not quite sure what is going to fall under this core funding and whether or not it is going to fall outside of what the Government opposite considers to be core—you know, V8 Supercars races, garden shows. Who knows when it would come to Riccarton Bush and Riccarton House?

So we congratulate the local member, the Hon Gerry Brownlee, on bringing this bill to the House and sponsoring this local bill to the House, so that we can ensure that this incredibly important part of our heritage is preserved. In fact, we would welcome that honourable member bringing more bills to this House that would look to preserve the heritage of Christchurch. We think that it is a great road for him to go down. [Interruption] We look forward to the “Cathedral Bill”—that is right, Ruth Dyson. We would welcome it, and indeed offer support, if the Hon Gerry Brownlee were to bring a bill to the House seeking to protect the Christchurch Cathedral, Cranmer Court, and the list really could go on. Perhaps the Hon Ruth Dyson in her call on this bill might suggest a few other bills that the Hon Gerry Brownlee could bring to this House, because it will be a very long catalogue of heritage bills that we would like to see here.

So, well done to everyone in bringing this legislation. It is important. It was important before the earthquakes in Christchurch, but it is even more important in post-earthquake Christchurch. I think that it shows us what can be achieved when we work with our local communities, rather than imposing decisions on them, and when we involve local people in local decisions and we let their voices be heard. There are so many salient tales for us in this piece of legislation, and so many key learnings that we need to draw out from how this was done: involve local people, have good and accurate information to make your decisions on, and respect your past. Labour is happy to commend this bill to the House.

I am pleased to take a short call on the Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill, which, as other speakers have noted, amends the Riccarton Bush Act 1914, the Riccarton Bush Amendment Act 1947, and the Riccarton Bush Amendment Act 1949. I join with other speakers in congratulating the member for Ilam, the Hon Gerry Brownlee, on bringing the bill to the House and also on his interesting explanation of the history of Deans Bush.

The Green MPs’ office is just along the road from Deans Bush. It is a very attractive part of Christchurch. It has got a very nice cycle route through it to the university. The remnant kahikatea forest, and the work that has been done there in putting a predator-proof fence around the forest to sustain its biodiversity values and to allow for the introduction of skinks and other fauna so that they are safe from predators, have been really important in providing such a fundamental natural asset in the heart of the city. Also, because of the buildings there—Riccarton House, which is an Edwardian-Victorian wooden building and is a category I heritage building, and Deans Cottage, which is also one of the oldest wooden buildings in Canterbury—it has got significant heritage values. As Dr Megan Woods alluded to, it is very unfortunate that we are not treating some of our other heritage buildings in Christchurch with the respect that we are giving to Riccarton House and Deans Cottage. They similarly have that significance by being listed in the city plan, and they deserve to be treated as more than old dungers.

Coming back to the bill, we certainly support the bill. The area was given in 1914 to the Mayor of Christchurch as the representative of Canterbury people. The trust organisation is a council-controlled organisation. Six of its nine trustees are appointed by the Christchurch City Council. Given that the trust has had quite substantial funding assistance from the city council, particularly to renovate and refurbish Riccarton House in the 1990s, what will the local government changes that this Government is introducing mean for the future care and protection of Riccarton House, Deans Cottage, and these surrounds and grounds? With the changes to the Local Government Act and the deletion of the four well-beings—social, economic, environmental, and cultural—as the purpose of local government, and their replacement with a much more restrictive purpose, which limits local authorities to meeting the needs of their communities for “local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions.”, will Riccarton House and Riccarton Bush still qualify for that funding assistance from the city council? Given that organisations like Westfield have challenged the city council in submissions on the long-term plan for funding that goes towards social housing in the city, will we see other organisations challenging the city council’s funding for Riccarton Bush and Riccarton House with the changed purpose in the Local Government Act?

This bill is a good one, but it is potentially affected by other legislation. It is a good bill because it better defines the trust board’s functions, and it improves its financial reporting and its administration by requiring a financial plan. It certainly makes sense to do this, given the important assets that the board is charged with caring for. New section 14 in clause 7 of the bill updates the existing legislation and will allow the board to charge the public for services, such as the guided tours around the kahikatea forest remnant, but not for entry to that.

The bill also allows the board to grant a lease or a licence over all or part of Riccarton Bush and Riccarton House, and when Riccarton House is refurbished again and the cafe becomes operative again, that is the sort of lease and licensing that the bill envisages. The Local Government and Environment Committee recommended amending clause 21 so that the terms of any lease or licence that the board grants must reflect the protection and conservation responsibilities that the board is charged with, and must recognise and protect that right of free access.

As others have alluded to, certainly there was the suggestion, which the Green Party made in a first reading speech, that the four pieces of legislation be consolidated into one. That would make it more readable and it would modernise it, but that was not legally possible, because the notice of the bill was of a certain scope and that would have gone beyond the scope of that notice. It was also not the wish of the board and the trust that the legislation be merged, because it preserves that sense of history by continuing as separate enactments.

This bill is a good one. It is timely, but we do have a concern about the changes to local government and to the purpose of local government, and potential challenges from those who do not see funding going to the trust as being valuable. We think that the area is really important, because of both the protection of the built heritage of Christchurch and the very substantial amenity values in the grounds of Riccarton House, which many people enjoy on a day-to-day basis and at the market. We congratulate the trust on the work that it does to maintain these natural and built assets for the people of Christchurch, and the member on bringing this bill to the House. We support it.

We should firstly acknowledge the vision of 98 years ago when Parliament initially passed the law for the protection of the Riccarton Bush area and the original Deans home in Christchurch. The area that is covered by the Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill is of both natural and historical heritage value. In fact, as we reflect on all of the challenges of Christchurch, the magnificent stand of kahikatea trees is a reminder of what Canterbury was prior to substantive settlement, both Māori and European. The original Deans family home is an iconic piece of heritage from that both internationally and “New Zealandly” significant period of colonisation that occurred in the mid 19th century. It is entirely appropriate and I join with other members in congratulating Gerry Brownlee on bringing this bill, which modernises those arrangements that were put together nearly a century ago.

I want to make just two points. Firstly, I do find it extraordinary that both the Green member Eugenie Sage and Labour have argued that without the four well-beings in the Local Government Act—social, economic, cultural, and environmental well-being—you could not have a Riccarton Bush. Well, that is a bit interesting, because for 90 of the 98 years of Riccarton Bush, we did not have those four wishy-washy terms in our local government law. Most of us would say that Riccarton Bush was wonderfully protected between the period of 1914 and 2002, when the previous Government with The Alliance gave a blank cheque for local government to do everything. We on this side of the House think that local government should not be doing everything. But one of the things on which we are very clear is that a core purpose of local government is to provide for those reserves, those public spaces all over New Zealand that make our country special. What we would argue is that our councils are more effective for concentrating on these sorts of things, rather than being all things to all people, replicating that which is the responsibility of central government and the private sector. That is a far more logical place for us to be.

It is my view that at some stage we should consolidate the legislation around Riccarton Bush. If we are serious about having an efficient economy and not having legislation on the books for the sake of it, it does not make sense for us to now have four Acts of Parliament to manage and govern the area of Riccarton Bush. That does not make sense. I do not accept the argument that somehow you expunge the history by consolidating the legislation. I would challenge the Riccarton Bush Trustees, as well as the Christchurch City Council, that at some time in future we consolidate it down so that we need have only a single Act of Parliament for the management of the Riccarton Bush area. That is something, as the Green member noted, that the Local Government and Environment Committee explored but was not able to do within the scope of this bill, and I hope we can do that at some time in the future.

The very last point I want to make is that protecting both the natural and historic heritage of Christchurch today is actually probably more significant than it has been for a number of years. The huge challenges that that city has with the devastating earthquakes in both 2010 and 2011 have put huge pressure on a number of heritage properties. Thankfully, the Deans buildings, dating back to the 1850s, are able to be protected and are able to be managed for the future, and I think every member of Parliament would welcome the fact that at least that part of Christchurch heritage is going to be able to be maintained in the future.

This is a good bill, and we should get on and pass it. We need to let the trustees continue with their excellent work of maintaining this very precious part of Canterbury, of Christchurch, and of New Zealand’s history.

Deans Bush, with its remnant kahikatea forest, and the Deans homestead since 1843 is an area of extraordinary beauty on the banks of the Avon River in Christchurch, as we all know. It is, therefore, a very important Christchurch City asset—one of many assets in Christchurch that should never be sold. The current Acts and, now, this bill, the Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill, will continue to ensure this—we hope.

This property has been well cared for, but, I think, since only about 1990 using ratepayers’ money, and that needs to continue. Before that, in fact, the property fell into disrepair. The early 1990s was the first time that the Christchurch City Council committed the adequate funding necessary for the preservation of this house and the grounds, including Riccarton Bush behind it. I was a member of the council from 1989 to 2004, and I remember going to the property and inspecting the roof, the unsafe rooms that could not be used in the house, the fencing, and the state of the bush itself. The fencing was important, because cats, dogs, and all sorts of other animals were able to enter and do damage to that valuable piece of kahikatea forest in Christchurch. So we committed as a council—voluntarily—the funding necessary to make sure that the past regime of neglect would all change. What we see now is a property that we can all be proud of, despite the earthquake damage that it has received. We knew it was worth preserving, because it was valued by the people of Christchurch—and still is—all of whom can, of course, visit the property free of charge. I am glad to see today in the Press that the Christchurch Earthquake Appeal Trust has given $128,000 to repair the building after the earthquake damage it has received. This, together with insurance money from the property, will ensure the building’s survival in the future.

This bill will help to ensure the ongoing maintenance of the house and Riccarton Bush, and that is what all Canterbury people want to see. But what about other Christchurch heritage buildings? The member in charge of this bill, the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery, knows that he has the powers and that the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority has the powers, under the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act, to ensure that buildings like Riccarton House are preserved and ultimately restored, in whole or in part. As others have said, what about the Anglican Christchurch Cathedral? Why is that different from Riccarton House? Gerry Brownlee has said that it is a matter for the Church, but that is not correct. Gerry Brownlee knows that it is not just a matter for the Church; it is a matter for the whole community, and, I think, for this Parliament as well. Like Riccarton Bush and Riccarton House, where there is a trust board, so is there a trust board for the cathedral, and there is an Act under which that trust board operates for the cathedral. It is very much like the situation with Riccarton House.

So why has no action been taken at all on the preservation of the most important building in the city, and one of the most important buildings in New Zealand in terms of heritage, the Anglican Christchurch Cathedral? It obviously can be preserved, in just the same way that Riccarton House is being preserved, in whole or in part. The whole Canterbury community contributed to the construction and maintenance of the Christchurch Cathedral, including a lot of council ratepayer funding. I was on the council when that was committed—hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. So it is not just a Church concern, it is not just a Church asset, it is a community asset. The Minister and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority must act now to apply the funding they have, which includes provision for heritage buildings, to save the cathedral and, in due course, to see that it is restored, at least in part. Many Cantabrians want answers on that, and they want them now.

For the same reasons, this Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill should now be supported. It updates the old 1947 Riccarton Bush Amendment Act, as we know. The new sections 5 and 5A in clause 14 of Part 2 provide for a board of nine people: five are appointed by the city council—two of them must be community board members—the Deans family appoint two, the Royal Society one, and the board itself can appoint one as well. That is an appropriate mix of members of the board, and the council supplies the money. It is therefore appropriate, on behalf of the community, that the council should appoint five out of the nine board members.

The reservations that New Zealand First had when the bill was introduced related to some aspects of the financial plan. The city council, in the new section 23(3) in clause 10 of Part 1, could only approve, not disapprove, of the financial plan, which was a defect. It was actually not good law to make it possible for the council only to approve the plan and not to disapprove it. The Local Government and Environment Committee has recommended that this be remedied by the addition of new section 23(3A), which says: “If the council does not approve the draft financial plan … the council must provide its reasons for not doing so to the Board; and … the Board must, within 90 days after receiving those reasons, deliver a revised draft financial plan to the council.” This meets New Zealand First’s concerns as expressed in my speech some weeks ago by allowing the council to not approve the financial plan and to give its reasons. The board must then provide a revised plan within 90 days. The council has a majority, as I have said, of appointees on the board, including two community board people, and so should be able to influence the board to ensure that a sensible, achievable, and, I might say, affordable plan is achieved. In this way we can be confident of an appropriate balance—that the board’s aspirations for funding of its financial plan are achieved within reason and within prudential limits, while on the other hand protecting the interests of ratepayers, who will, in the end, be the funders. I am glad to see that the concerns I expressed when the bill was introduced have been met in this way. Therefore, New Zealand First can now support the bill without reservation.

I want to finish by again pointing out the inconsistency between what we see here with this piece of legislation and the very welcome intention to ensure that Riccarton House, as a very important heritage building, is preserved and ultimately restored—in fact, it has been substantially restored, except for earthquake damage, and that will be done—and what we see about the Christchurch Cathedral in Cathedral Square, possibly one of the most important heritage buildings in the whole country. There is a gross inconsistency between the way that Riccarton House is being dealt with and the way that the cathedral is not being dealt with.

I put it to Gerry Brownlee, who is the sponsor of this bill and who is also responsible as the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery, to see that he acts consistently and actually does something about the heritage buildings in Christchurch that have not been attended to so far. Christchurch people are still waiting to hear what the plans for the preservation of the heritage buildings in Christchurch are. Why is there this silence? Why is Gerry Brownlee silent? Why is the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority silent? Why is nothing being done about that cathedral? It is high time that it was. This piece of legislation demonstrates the inconsistency and the incompetence of both the Minister and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority with regard to heritage buildings in Christchurch, and it is no wonder that people are getting so upset. If you were in Christchurch, you would know how upset people are. I am upset. We should all be upset to see a building like the Christchurch Cathedral being ignored in this way. It is high time that we saw action happen, as it is with Riccarton House.

I am very pleased to be speaking today on the Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill. I want to start by acknowledging the local member, the Hon Gerry Brownlee. I want to also acknowledge the trustees. They obviously came and submitted to us. I also want to acknowledge the many members for Canterbury. As has been expressed by many members in this House this evening, at a time when Canterbury has been through a huge amount, we must recognise what are community assets. Riccarton Bush is very important to the people of Canterbury, and that is why I am pleased—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

As I was saying, I just want to acknowledge, obviously, the Hon Gerry Brownlee as the local member for this bill, the Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill, but also, next to me, the Hon Amy Adams, and all Canterbury members across this House—I can see Ruth Dyson as well. It has been a tough time, so I think it is right that we acknowledge a community area of significance like Riccarton Bush through this bill. We also acknowledge the generosity of the Deans family in gifting this bush area—just like in areas of Auckland, where we have had families like John Logan Campbell, who gifted Cornwall Park—and the significance, particularly given the last couple of years and the issues that we have had in Canterbury as a result of the earthquakes.

I want to just touch on a couple of things. I want to, obviously, mention the purpose of this bill. We have got three primary purposes: to modernise and update the governance arrangements, to better define the board’s functions and provide for the continuation of its work and enhance its finance and administration, and also to vest the land at 30 Kahu Road, Christchurch, in the board. The Local Government and Environment Committee did make several amendments. One of them was to amend clause 2(1) and new section 23(7) in clause 10 by extending the date, which has already been mentioned by the Hon Gerry Brownlee, on which clause 16 would come into force. The second thing was to acknowledge and recommend that amendments to new section 23 provide for the event that the council does not approve the board’s draft financial plan, which was mentioned by Denis O’Rourke. I want to acknowledge as well that the select committee did make a decision around the issue of consolidation of legislation—not to go down that road, as we did believe that it went further, actually, than the scope of the bill. But we have heard from, obviously, my learned colleague the Hon Nick Smith around the difficulty of having several pieces of legislation on the statute book. But there was a submission from the promoters of this bill saying that they actually did prefer the fact that you could see that legislative history.

Finally, I want to make a couple of comments. I know that Maggie Barry is going to address the significance of Riccarton Bush. It is right that she does that. She is a horticulturalist by background. She also, I understand, through Maggie’s Garden Show has actually been to Riccarton Bush and had a programme on the bush itself. She studied at Lincoln University, so she knows this bush pretty well. So I am going to leave to her the intimate knowledge of Riccarton Bush. I know that it has also had an international profile via the David Bellamy show.

Finally I just want to say that it is an area of significance to Canterbury. It is a result of the generosity of the Deans family. The bill is, I think, a particularly collaborative piece of legislation—we have seen members across the House work on it. It is the result of a good local member, the Hon Gerry Brownlee. It is also important that we have made several amendments via the select committee process, and we acknowledge that we did not go down the consolidation road because it was outside the scope of the bill. I commend this bill to the House.

That was a very gallant effort to drag that out a little bit by the member who has just resumed her seat, Nikki Kaye.

Can I begin, as the Hon Nick Smith did in his contribution, and just acknowledge and comment on the vision of the original supporters of Deans Bush and the people who ensured that this piece of Canterbury was protected by legislation nearly one century ago. I acknowledge their vision and say that I wish there was a bit more of it around at the moment, as we watch huge swathes of our city getting bulldozed over, when they could be protected and saved. To compare the lack of vision being shown by the current Government with the amazing vision shown nearly a century ago is pretty tragic.

I want to acknowledge Gerry Brownlee, the local member of Parliament, for his efforts in bringing this bill, the Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill, to the House and also to acknowledge him as the former chairman of the Riccarton Bush Trust. I want to acknowledge the trustees for their work. This is a pretty small bill in the scale of things in Parliament, but for the trustees who have worked on it, it is a lot of effort. They were very ably assisted by the legal services team of the Christchurch City Council, and I want to acknowledge them as well.

The Local Government and Environment Committee heard only two submissions on this bill, but it did make the effort of coming to Christchurch. Committee members considered the bill very carefully. They did not just rush it through or dismiss it, and I want to acknowledge them for their work and the Department of Internal Affairs officials who assisted the committee.

I was very surprised to hear the contribution earlier of the Hon Dr Nick Smith, because one of his questions to the submitters on the bill was, basically, “Why the heck should we protect Riccarton Bush? There’s a lot of bush in Nelson that could do with a bit of legislation, and I can’t for the life of me think why we should protect this bush as opposed to Nelson bush.” He left his colleagues and those of us on the opposite side of the table sitting there with our mouths open. The submitters thought he was joking, which I think was a relief to everyone, actually, and they just moved on and got on with the bill. But I was pleased that he has since been pulled into line in supporting the bill and he realises that the reason we should do it, and perhaps extend it to areas of Nelson, is because of that original leadership that he referred to in his contribution.

There were very few amendments needed for this bill. One of the amendments aligns the bill with the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority Order in Council in relation to the position that the trust would find itself in if a draft plan did not meet the approval of the city council. All that amendment really does is allow for a proper process to go through so that the city council would have to give the trust its comments on why it did not support the draft plan back to the trust; the trust would then revise its plan in accordance with the city council’s concerns. I think that is a very sensible modification that was made.

Other people have alluded to the clear passion of the Hon Gerry Brownlee, the local member of Parliament, in regard to this piece of bush—this kahikatea that is within his own electorate. I would encourage him, as Denis O’Rourke from New Zealand First did earlier in this debate, to have the same sort of passion for the heritage that we are currently losing in Christchurch. A lot of people have talked about the cathedral. Other people have mentioned in this debate Cranmer Court, but it is not just the odd one or two buildings. Fifty percent of the listed heritage buildings within the four avenues in Christchurch have been demolished. Many of them have been demolished needlessly. They could have been saved. They should have been saved, and in my view the haste to go ahead with demolition, and the inability of the Government to show leadership and say “This is our heritage. This can be protected and saved for the benefits of future generations, and here is some financial support to allow that to happen.”, have meant that we have lost a huge part of our history. I regret that. I think it is an embarrassment to the people of Canterbury, and it is something that we will regret for a long time.

The final point I want to make is in regard to the consolidation of the legislation. Other members have spoken of it. It is unusual for so much legislation—three separate pieces of legislation—to be on the statute book, on our list of live statutes, for just one small area of the country, and I think it is a legitimate debate that we should have. Nick Smith raised concerns in this contribution that even though he agreed it was outside the scope of the legislation to amalgamate the legislation under this amendment bill, actually, you might not need historical pieces of legislation in order to restore the heritage. If we do need that to maintain our historical links, I think we should keep all those pieces of legislation on the statutes register, particularly given how much we have lost in Canterbury.

We have lost it needlessly. We have lost it because of a lack of leadership and a lack of financial support. It particularly irks me when I see that $196 million was spent on making Eden Park a place where we could play rugby in the Rugby World Cup 2011, but in Christchurch heritage buildings have received only $10 million, and that has been only when that funding has been matched dollar for dollar by community contributions. So the lack of support for retention of our heritage is tragic. I wish that the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery, who happens to be the same member who is in charge of this bill, would show as much passion for the rest of his city as he does, deservedly so, for Riccarton Bush.

I rise with great pleasure to talk to the Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill in its second reading. As others have alluded to, I am very familiar with Riccarton Bush. I have been there many times during the period when I studied horticulture at Lincoln University. Subsequently, we filmed it for Maggie’s Garden Show on many occasions. That is because it is unique to New Zealand, and that is part of the reason why I am particularly in support of this effort to make sure that it is set in proper governance and that the ability of the board to preserve, protect, and conserve this remnant of New Zealand native bush is allowed to happen in the best way possible.

It seems to me, as someone who has looked at native reserves over a long period of time—nigh on 30 years—that this, as the oldest protected natural piece of bush in New Zealand, really does require our protection as the people who legislate. Before us, there was the Deans family. We have heard from the Hon Gerry Brownlee, the sponsoring member of Parliament for Ilam, that this has a proud history and a unique history. The brothers Deans, one of whom drowned at an early age—and I guess the mantle of protecting that wonderful piece of bush was then taken up by his widow, Jane—and the Deans family were original colonial conservators. They decided that this was a piece of land that needed to be preserved and they took a leadership role that, I would have to say, many have followed down the decades, but perhaps not quite as diligently as the Deans family.

When the Deans gifted it to New Zealand, they did so with sums of money involved and they did so with a rigorous governance structure around it. It really did set a benchmark and a gold standard for the sort of governance that we have seen in covenanted land with the Queen Elizabeth the Second National Trust and so forth. Riccarton Bush remains a unique feature. I am going to explain a little bit about why it needs to be preserved in the way that has been suggested by this legislation.

As I have said, I have filmed there many times. It is highly significant in this country. It was formed at a time when Victorian gardens were the vogue, so therefore we have the oldest pear tree in New Zealand, which is a French cultivar that was planted in 1846. It is still fruiting, I believe—I have not seen it in the last few years—but it is something that is a unique species and a unique feature. I know that people who do heritage fruit growing and so forth have taken cuttings from it, and it continues to live on. This is one of the truly attractive elements of people like the Deans, who were visionaries and who made sure that something was preserved in perpetuity. Gardeners then take on that mantle in their own way. For me, that pear tree, this French cultivar from 1846, lives on in thousands of gardens through the Canterbury area and throughout New Zealand.

At the time when the Deans were putting their own private garden down, conifers were in vogue—that was the Victoriana moment—so it has the oldest living conifer in New Zealand that has been imported. It is a Western Himalayan fir. At nearly 30 metres tall, it is a remarkable tree. It has been protected, and, again, that would not have occurred without the visionary determination and tenacity of the Deans family.

For most of us who have ever been to the bush, it is the kahikatea, as it is known, the white pine, that really sets it apart. This is a tree that has truly been part of our colonial heritage. It was cut down and used for furniture, for buildings, and for butter boxes—can you imagine—to send butter back to the United Kingdom. It was not highly valued, but it was decimated. It was originally called a podocarp when John Banks came here—no, not that one; Joseph Banks—with Captain Cook, back in the mid-1700s. He looked at the way in which it was classified and thought it was a unique species. He thought it was a podocarp. It was subsequently renamed—

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Did he get investigated?

—and it is called a Dacrycarpus. So there you go—say that fast three times, Shane Jones, and see how you fare.

The kahikatea is called the white pine, but it is not a pine at all. The Deans family, when they did chop it down, used that colonial approach of making the most of what was around them but not over-abusing it. Many of the existing older buildings that remain at Riccarton Bush have actually come from the felled kahikatea. The buildings have been made from those trees, which is a fantastic living legacy, once again.

Fossil remains of the kahikatea date back some 130 million years. It is a Gondwanaland tree, and it has been recognised internationally. David Bellamy came across to New Zealand in the mid-1990s and filmed a programme, Moa’s Ark, which was based at Riccarton Bush because of its unique heritage. He was endlessly impressed—in that knowledgable and lisping way that he had down to a fine art—and said that this was a remarkable piece of bush. He praised these New Zealanders, the Deans, for having the foresight to make sure that it would be preserved in perpetuity.

It has also been a sacred place to Māori. It is called Pūtaringamotu, which translates to meaning, basically, that the location is “Pū”, “taringa” is the ear, and “motu” is the isolated clump of trees that is Riccarton Bush itself. Māori legend has it that at a clearing in the bush, if a trained person put their ear to the ground, they could hear people coming. They could hear if there was an enemy approaching, because this is very swampy land. I think, ultimately, that is why the Deans were so successful in keeping it intact, and I commend them for that.

When we were at the Local Government and Environment Committee—and many other members have talked about how we went as a select committee to Christchurch to hear the submissions—we had a great-grandson of the original founders of Deans Bush come to talk to us. We were also privileged to talk with Brian Molloy, who edited a book on Riccarton Bush, Riccarton Bush: Pūtaringamotu. He donated that book to our Parliamentary Library. In fact, I went and had a look at it. I have got one at home, but I went and got it out of the library this afternoon to remind myself of what an extraordinary heritage the Deans family have left us.

And what a huge responsibility we now have, as legislators, to ensure that it remains as easy as possible for this family to continue to keep this piece of bush and the surrounding historic buildings in perpetuity. The trustees were very excited when they came to talk to us, because the cottage had been damaged by the earthquakes and they were looking to raise funds and to restore the cottage. There is an enormous amount of support.

As I think Gerry Brownlee said very eloquently earlier, it remains a symbol for the people of Christchurch, who love their gardens. It is, of course, the Garden City. It remains a symbol of what is possible. It can uplift people and carry them through difficult times, because of its longevity and because it has been there for a long time and will endure beyond this generation and successive generations. So as legislators I think we take that responsibility very seriously. Certainly as someone who has visited the area and the city after the earthquake, I was encouraged to see that Riccarton Bush had not sustained very much damage. As to why that would be, more educated seismologist-orientated people than I could hazard a guess, but it seems to be, without getting too fanciful about it, that the spirit of the Deans family has enveloped it. I think that as a group of Christchurch people—Cantabrians—they have led the way in an inspirational way.

It behoves us as legislators to ensure that the board and the chief executive officer of Riccarton Bush will be able to do what they want to do in as easy and as expedient a way as possible. They have struggled with bureaucracy. There are three pieces of legislation that inform the governance of Riccarton Bush. It is pretty complicated. I know that the Hon Gerry Brownlee looked at it carefully, and decided to take this course of action with this piece of legislation so that it could be done in a fast way and would be done in a way that keeps the integrity of this extraordinary property.

So in the second reading of the Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill I commend it to the House, and I commend us all in the select committee, which was very well led by our select committee chair who made sure that we argued this through in a very good way.

In fact, as with the previous piece of legislation we talked about today, this has been relatively trouble-free. The Opposition has had the occasional pot shot tonight about protecting other heritage and has tried to broaden it out into a political issue, as is its wont. But I think, generally speaking, as we heard the submissions when we went to the people of Christchurch and they came to us and said that this needs to be preserved because of these reasons, we listened to them carefully with an open mind, and also with the sort of tolerance and informed decisions that I have not seen on very many other occasions in my 10 or so months in the House. The political stuff was pretty much left to one side, and I think that is, again, something that reflects well on us as politicians. Even the most obdurate Opposition person could not possibly not support this bill in the spirit and intention with which the Hon Gerry Brownlee put it together.

Riccarton Bush, of course, was gifted by the Deans family to the people of Canterbury. That is going back to 1914, but beyond that I think it has spread to encompass, I suppose, their affections, and has gone well into the hearts of all of us in New Zealand who like to go to see intact bush. Last week I was at Outward Bound, and the kahikatea grove there was a place where we climbed the trees. I think the spirit and intention of that white pine and these Dacrycarpus are things that I—

💬 Hon John Banks: Who climbed the trees? You climbed the trees?

—personally treasure and want. Yes, I might go and climb the trees at Riccarton Bush—this is entirely possible, Mr Banks. I will not be falling out, either, much as the Opposition might like that to occur. People like us who are gardeners—

Order, your time has expired. I am advised that call 11 will not be a split call—it is going entirely to the Greens. It is not going to the Greens now.

It is very much my pleasure to take a call on this Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill’s second reading. During the dinner break I had the pleasure of going to hear an angel investor talking about his work in the city. It was very interesting to hear about listening to 300 or so people coming up with business ideas, filtering them down to 20 that they would look at very carefully, and actually investing in three or four. It was very encouraging to me to hear about so much entrepreneurial activity going on here in Wellington and in New Zealand. It is highly relevant to the issue of Riccarton Bush because fundamentally here we are celebrating the protection of a fine stand of kahikatea and bush in Christchurch, but the foundations of it, of course, lie on the success of the Deans brothers and the Deans family who came to New Zealand in the 1840s from a little village called Riccarton in east Ayrshire in Scotland. They were entrepreneurs and that is what this country has been based on: people going out to the other side of the world, and taking on enormous risks in order to create the wealth that we in New Zealand enjoy. They had to navigate their way past floods, disease, fire, sharp depressions, wars, diseases of their own body and mind, and also diseases of the sheep and the cattle back in the 1840s, 1850s, and 1860s, in order to build the great sheep stations that the Deans owned and that provided the wealth from which they were able to hold on to and preserve this Riccarton Bush, which this piece of legislation seeks to continue to preserve as it has.

When we look at that question of entrepreneurship, which has been so central to the history of New Zealand and the formation of our economy, what do we look at? What do entrepreneurs like to have in their environment? What do they need for a supportive environment? When you start running through the list of things, one of the things is a good sound rule of law—one of the great inheritances we had from the system of government that came to New Zealand through the United Kingdom. They need access to capital. A lot of them brought that, their few carefully saved gold sovereigns, in order to buy the sheep and the land, to survive the years when it took a long time to convert these sheep stations into places that were productive, and to get through the many depressions—a very sharp depression there was in the 1850s. They needed access to capital, as they do indeed today, but they also needed and relied upon sound money. There were not politicians around back then who were trying to water the milk and somehow think that this was going to create wealth in the country by debasing the currency. No, they were relying on sound money, the gold standard back in the 19th century. They were relying on access to resources, because they had the ability to go out there, and there was a clear understanding that New Zealand was a relatively empty wilderness. There were maybe 100,000 Māori living across the whole of New Zealand at that time. Maybe a thousand or two living in the South Island, so there was a very large area waiting for—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: A thousand or two. Where have you been?

I read my history books, Mr Peters.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, you haven’t.

It is true that you may feature in the history books, but I read my history books, and you have been around for a very long time. It is probably not unfair that we should celebrate such a long and extended career in the House, but perhaps it has come towards the end of its usefulness. I am not sure. That is not for me to comment on.

When we focus on things that were so essential to the formation of the wealth that is the foundation of our economy, then we are looking at that access to resources. Then, I suppose, another issue is our access to skilled workers, workers who can work out on the field, and that was so important to how the Deans built their stations and created their wealth. Funnily enough, when you run through all those sorts of things—rule of law, access to capital, sound money that has not been watered down by tyrannical politicians, access to resources and workforces—those are just the sorts of things that this Government has been promoting and proposing in its Business Growth Agenda, which underlines most of the activity of this Government in the economic growth area, which underlines the strength that we have here and the ability for us to keep on doing what we are doing.

I would just like to now draw at this point of the speech towards the Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill itself, where we look at the objects of this, being the Christchurch City Council’s promoted bill. It is all about modernising and updating the governance arrangements for the board known as the Riccarton Bush Trust, in order to better define the board’s functions to provide for the continuation of its work and to enhance its finance and administration—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is this guy Don Brash’s biographer?

You are just jealous that I have never written anything about you. The bill vests the land at 30 Kahu Road, Christchurch—

💬 Hon Member: Yes, you have—I read it on a dunny wall.

Oh, that is true. Well, you know, I write about interesting people, people who have achieved things—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Like Don Brash?

Yes, that is right. If we drill down further to some of the things, I just want to draw attention to some of the work that the Local Government and Environment Committee did. It received and considered two submissions. I remember it very well. At Antarctica New Zealand we listened to the submissions, and the committee recommended that the bill be passed with amendments. On that matter I would like to continue just to say that I very much recommend this bill to the House and congratulate the MP Gerry Brownlee on his fine work in bringing this bill to the House. Thank you.

Bill read a second time.