Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill

I move, That the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Local Government and Environment Committee to consider the bill, and at the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 25 February 2016.

When we passed the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act in 2011, we were responding to a national disaster with significant losses of life and massive damage to houses, commercial buildings, infrastructure, and other property. The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act provided wide-ranging, although not absolute, powers to ensure a swift response to recovery barriers and issues. But almost 5 years on it is time for this form of extraordinary legislation to be replaced. We are moving on from emergency and recovery to a time of regeneration. This is an exciting time. Much of the groundwork has been laid and many significant building projects, both public and private, are under way or have been completed, but there is still much to be done.

Regeneration of a city and its people’s well-being is a mission that cannot be completed in a short number of years. Legislation, therefore, is still required to ensure a continuum of planning and land use provisions that support the regeneration of Christchurch and its surrounds beyond the narrow constraints of earthquake recovery.

It is essential that the momentum generated in the last 5 years is continued with local leadership resuming the role of shaping our region. The draft transition recovery plan was released on 2 July for public submissions, which were taken into account in the development of the final recovery plan released last week. There were two strong themes running through those submissions, and I received those submissions with the desire to put them into the legislative proposals that are seen not only in the draft transition recovery plan but also in this bill. The need for a shift to local leadership and Christchurch institutions in the next phase of Greater Christchurch’s regeneration was a central theme to that.

I am delighted to report to the House that discussions between the Government and the Christchurch City Council and other councils involved have been extremely positive. At the beginning of this year I established an advisory board to give us advice about what we needed to consider in transition from a heavy role played by the Government to that role being assumed by local government. That board was led by Dame Jenny Shipley. The board consisted of 12 members who were all leaders from local government, Ngāi Tahu, and the community and business sectors. They worked extremely well and produced very good advice for me, which was able to form the basis for that constructive dialogue, particularly with Christchurch City Council.

The report of the board made a number of recommendations for new legislation, most of which we have been able to adopt in the bill before the House today. There is consensus that the step change needed is to deliver regeneration, not just to fix what was broken. It is also becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish between actions that have a recovery purpose and those with a wider purpose. For the purpose of this bill, it is the regeneration of Greater Christchurch that is to the fore. This is defined as restoration, enhancement, urban renewal, and development. No authority should read any constraint into the bill by tying the provisions of this bill to earthquake recovery. This is deliberately quite different from the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act, which places a strong emphasis on recovery in its purposes. The bill must be interpreted as enabling regeneration and development that is not limited to recovery or building back just what we had before.

In a similar vein, Regenerate Christchurch will be squarely focused on regeneration and not limited to earthquake recovery. This bill establishes Regenerate Christchurch as an urban development authority to guide the regeneration of the city. It is an independent body that will provide independent advice. It will have a mandate to get on with the task, jointly granted by the Crown and the Christchurch City Council. It will be run by a board of appointees, made by both the Crown and the Christchurch City Council, with a mix of commercial and strategic skills. The board will also have a representative of Ngāi Tahu, and that person will be appointed in conjunction or in discussion with Ngāi Tahu, the Government, and the council. Its scope will include central Christchurch, the Christchurch residential red zones, and the New Brighton area. Other potential regeneration areas may be added to the schedules in the future.

After 5 years, Regenerate Christchurch will have become a fully council-controlled organisation, reflecting the ongoing transition to local institutions over those years. The bill contains a regime that allows the development of regeneration plans that make broad changes to planning and land use rules, along with the power to directly change plans and by-laws by public notice. Local leadership will have considerable input into the development of regeneration plans. It is my view that the regeneration plans will be almost exclusively promoted by local interests. Local authorities, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, and Regenerate Christchurch can all propose regeneration plans, and lead and consult on their drafting.

The new approach will ensure that these powers are exercised in a way that reflects locally driven objectives. These powers will, however, continue to ultimately vest in the Minister. This, I know, will cause some degree of concern, but I have discussed this extensively with the Mayor of Christchurch and with the advisory board, and it is an agreed position that it is the best thing to do, given the nature and significance of the powers that are granted under this Act. The bill also contains provisions that are intended to clarify the relationship between regeneration plans, the exercise of powers under the bill, and the powers available to the chief executive or Minister outside the bill.

The scope of powers in this bill should not limit or circumscribe the powers that are otherwise available to the Government, nor constrain the common law power of elected central government to make decisions. The decision of the Supreme Court in the Quake Outcasts v Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery invited this clarification, and these clauses make it beyond doubt and should be seen as removing any cloud that may influence the thought coming from the bench. The bill contains a number of powers relating to land, such as the power to acquire and dispose of land and to undertake work such as the demolition of buildings. These powers are necessary to support the regeneration of Christchurch.

The geographic scope of the bill is broadly consistent with the boundaries of the urban development strategy agreed by the affected local government councils—the Christchurch City Council, the Waimakariri District Council, the Selwyn District Council, and Environment Canterbury.

The bill will have a sunset clause and will expire on 30 June 2021. This is effectively the ultimate check. It will ensure that after this period any further bespoke powers will require consideration once again by Parliament. It is my hope that the Government of the day will receive from the strategic partners an advocacy for the flexibility provided in this bill to continue beyond 2021, as Canterbury further develops as a dynamic place to do business, to work prosperously, and to live well.

The process leading to today has been, I think, a very, very constructive one. I have very much appreciated the way in which the local authorities have worked with the Government: firstly, stating clearly the needs that they see they would have, going forward from this point, but also recognising that the landscape changed—literally, figuratively, and significantly—after the 2011 event, and that now is the time for the entire Greater Christchurch area, including the Waimakariri and Selwyn districts, to regenerate themselves. This bill gives them the tools to do that. I commend the bill to the House.

It is my pleasure to take a call on this piece of legislation, and to signal that Labour will be supporting this bill at first reading. This is, as the Minister outlined, an important day for Christchurch, on our path back to normality after the events of the last 5 years. I would like to say to the Minister that I think he missed an opportunity in not introducing this bill yesterday. We could then have called it the “Back to the Future Day for Christchurch Bill”, and signified that special day. “Back to the Future Day” was the day on which Marty McFly signalled, in a very significant movie, that the world was going to come back—for the Minister’s edification. It was a day acknowledged worldwide.

This is an important day in terms of the return—[Interruption] If we can settle down. This is an important piece of legislation. I would like to acknowledge every MP in this House, on every side of the House, who over the last 5 years has worked for their constituents and for the people of Christchurch and the people of Canterbury. Some of those MPs are no longer members in this House. I myself, like some current Canterbury members of Parliament, was not an MP when the first Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority legislation was passed. So I think we can all agree, despite the disagreements we may have had over the last 5 years about what was best for our city and for our province, that it has been quite a 5 years that we have all been through.

I would also like to acknowledge all the local government members who have worked tirelessly for their communities over this period, under very trying circumstances—and circumstances that probably no one imagined they were going to have to govern under when they signed up for the job. I would also like to acknowledge the work of the board and I would also like to acknowledge the many Cantabrians who took the opportunity to submit on the discussion document that was put out around what the future of Christchurch would be. There were very clear signals from the people of Canterbury around how they saw the future would play forward for them.

This is a bill about our future, this is a bill about what comes next, and it is a very important piece of legislation. It is my hope and it is my wish—and it is Labour’s hope and wish—that what we put in place next captures something good out of what we have all been through in the last 5 years and that we manage to capture the creativity, the innovation, and the energy that is now so evident in Canterbury and in Christchurch. Terrible times do bring out the best in people sometimes, and we have seen some remarkable initiatives spring up in our city and in our province, and I want to see those people, their ideas, and their energy put back into the fabric of our reconstruction and in what the future looks like for us in Christchurch and in Canterbury.

When the initial Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority legislation was passed it was a recognition that business as usual simply would not do—it would not be enough in a region and a city that had been through what they had just been through. It was an approach that was very much for the immediate aftermath of earthquakes. However, it is now more than apparent that the need for these kinds of extraordinary powers has passed. It has receded and the legislation that we have in front of us today is putting this up as the option of what we do next. It is not a return to what we had in terms of the governance of our province prior to February 2011; it is a transitional arrangement through to 2021, when we can put in place alternative legislation.

Over the last 5 years we have seen successful challenges to the exercise of powers that were contained in the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority legislation and there is a strong argument that now is the time to restore the recovery decision-making and regeneration decision-making to where it belongs—the community, in the hands of the people of Christchurch and Canterbury to once again be masters of their destiny. I have a huge amount of respect, a huge amount of belief, and a huge amount of admiration in the locals and I believe that the locals are more than up to the task, and that they are ready to face this challenge and to put in place governance arrangements and to make decisions that are for the betterment of their province. But I do acknowledge that there is a still a strong role for the Crown that is needed in the regeneration of Christchurch and that a strong Crown presence in Christchurch is still needed and a strong commitment from the Crown as to how it is that Christchurch and Canterbury are going to recover.

What I would like to raise—and I have tabled an amendment to this—is the submission period that we are looking through here. The Minister has indicated that this bill has a report-back date of 25 February. In effect, with the House not reconvening until 9 February, it is expected that we will see everything done and dusted, from submissions through to hearings, by Christmas, and I do not think this is adequate. I have put forward a submission, which I sincerely hope that the Minister and other parties will consider, that we extend this out to March. This would allow sufficient time for us to have the legislation passed in time for the expiration of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority legislation. This would allow us to have this legislation in place when it needs to be, but most important for me is that this would allow sufficient time for the people of Christchurch to have their say, to have their voices heard, to make their submissions, and then to be heard.

I do not think this should be a rushed process. This is such an important process for Christchurch and Canterbury and I do not think we can hurry it. My natural inclination was to go for the 6-month period and put in an amendment to April, but I acknowledge that that simply cannot be done in this case because we do need to have legislation in place in time for the expiry of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority legislation. But I do ask the Minister to consider that and to see whether that is something that he can do.

We are putting a statutory authority in place that will have control over the Christchurch central business district, the residential red zone, and all other non-residential land surrounded by residential land. This is a big thing for us to do. This is a huge amount of ministerial power that continues for the next 5 years in Christchurch, and we would be negligent in our job as the Opposition if we did not ask some serious questions about that power and the exercise of it. I think the select committee process is the right process for us to use to let Cantabrians and Christchurch people have their say, to say whether this is what they think is now necessary at this stage of recovery that we are in.

We have got questions that we would like to see answered through this process. One of them is exactly what we mean by “regeneration”. I think that will need some greater clarity in the bill that comes back to this House for second reading. We saw that the courts needed to define more what “recovery” was with the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority legislation. There is also reference to “public engagement” in the bill, but there is no clarity or process around exactly what this means. I think that to make the next 5 years the best they can be we need to have clarity around that. We need to know exactly what it is that we are going to be doing.

As I have signalled, this is a process that is still almost entirely ministerially led and I want to know and ask questions and have a conversation with the people of Christchurch about whether this is the appropriate thing to be doing. Fundamentally, the question we Labour members will be asking when we listen to submissions is whether this bill that we have is genuinely the local-led recovery—[Bell rung]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I apologise—1½ minutes.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Is this genuinely the local-led recovery that the people of Christchurch and Canterbury have asked for? I would ask that we consider such things as the membership of the committee. At the moment clause 95 of the bill allows for both the Minister and the council to appoint equal numbers of members to the board of Regenerate Christchurch. If this is genuinely a piece of transition legislation, let us not just make it static; let us actually make it transitional. Could we have a ratcheting down of the Crown’s powers towards 2021 so we shift the balance of appointments in favour of the council as we move through the 5-year period that is under control? The Minister is nodding; that is good to see. I think there are good conversations to be had.

But another question that needs to be asked is whether there are adequate checks and balances on power. If I can return to that philosophical touchstone, it is going to be another movie reference, Minister Brownlee—I do not know whether you will get it—and it is Spiderman, who told us that with great power comes great responsibility. When we are looking at something such as this bill, which puts so much power in the hands of one individual, we have to be assured that the correct checks and balances on that power are there. That applies to whoever is the Minister.

We also want to know why appeals are to the High Court, and whether that is still appropriate, and not the Environment Court when it comes to Resource Management Act decision-making—the point being that the High Court will make decisions on only matters of law whereas the Environment Court can actually ask questions about the evidence and have a more inquisitorial approach to what is happening. With Canterbury having a separate process we need to consider whether that is still appropriate 5 years down the track, and let us be very clear that by the time this legislation is finished, it will be 10 years after the event.

Labour is supporting this bill. We are looking forward to the select committee process, and we ask the Minister to consider extending that process out so that the people of Canterbury can have their voices heard. Thank you.

Before I call the next member, I just want to make clear the process going forward. The Minister has indicated that he intends to move a particular date for the report back. The member has indicated that she has the intention of moving an amendment. Neither the Minister’s motion nor that amendment will be debatable, so if members want to comment on it they should comment on it as part of this debate.

I rise to support the first reading of the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill, and I would like to thank Dr Megan Woods for her support and for her kind words. We need to make sure that the future brings the very best out of Cantabrians and that something not just good but very good comes out of our tough times.

The recovery, the redevelopment, and now the regeneration of Greater Christchurch following the Canterbury earthquakes are an ongoing challenge. More than 15,000 earthquakes resulted in mass devastation, the loss of life, strain on our communities, and damage to our built environment. The Government, facing a seemingly insurmountable task, made the Christchurch rebuild one of its four main priorities and committed over $16 billion to support Christchurch and its communities.

In the last 4½ years the Government has acted not just to replace what was lost in Greater Christchurch but also to build back smarter and create more opportunities for Cantabrians, and I think we are making great progress. In December 2014 the cricket oval in Hagley Park became the first anchor project, and it is now fully completed. We are a proud sporting province, Canterbury, and hosting thousands of visitors to the February 2015 International Cricket Council Cricket World Cup was good for our soul. The Te Papa Ōtākaro/Avon River Precinct work continues along The Terraces and the new promenade. Already the environmental benefits can be seen in the precinct, and the riverside trail is being enjoyed by Cantabrians and visitors alike. More recently, the new bus exchange has become operational. It is built for the future and especially designed to be accessible to everyone. That interchange is expected to handle 70,000 passenger movements a day by 2041.

We have also recognised the need for a place to reflect on what occurred during our earthquakes and to pay our respects to the 185 people who lost their lives on 22 February 2011. A national earthquake memorial has been approved to do just that. Next year stage one, the more informal family-focused area, will be ready for the anniversary of the 22 February earthquake, and stage two, the more formal part of the memorial, will be ready for the following new year.

Although much is being achieved under the current Act, the time is right for a change of approach, a change to move the focus away from rebuilding and recovery and towards regenerating and creating a 21st century new city, with everyone working to develop new opportunities for the people of Christchurch. This is what the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill is all about. It is about finishing projects begun during the rebuild period but, principally, allowing Greater Christchurch communities to engage and embrace new opportunities for Christchurch to become fully functional again, not just with new buildings but also by engaging communities with new-found civic pride and entrepreneurial spirit.

The bill does feature some remnants of the current Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act, but only those necessary to allow continued momentum. Other parts have been designed to ensure more voices are heard in the decision-making process, and I look forward to working closely with the community and the councils. The bill allows local government to not only be involved in decision making but to actively direct regeneration activities. The Selwyn District Council and Waimakariri District Council have been active, working hard to provide new space for homes and industry, and they, along with Environment Canterbury, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, and the Christchurch City Council will now be actively involved in ministerial decision-making in the form of regeneration plans. Regeneration plans will allow new ideas and even grand visions, if they are so desired by their communities.

The bill encourages the people of Greater Christchurch to have their say by providing for public input when regeneration plans are developed, or are amended, or are revoked. This bill also recognises that the out-of-the-ordinary and transitional role of central government in the regeneration of Greater Christchurch is expected to continue for the next 5 years.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I am just going to warn the member. She has read her entire speech to date. There are circumstances where members are allowed to read their speeches—when they are very technical, and especially when a Minister is introducing a bill, or where the member is relatively inexperienced. I am ruling that none of those apply to this member. She is an experienced member, she is not introducing a bill, and, frankly, it is not that technical. So I am now going to ask the member to cease reading her speech.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Yes, I will continue. As I have said, this bill will underpin the relationship between the council and local government for the next 5 years. But I think it will progressively move forward, so that we move the power from the Crown to local government and go back to a more business-as-usual relationship that is similar to that of any other place across the country.

This bill builds on the significant progress that has been made over the last 5 years, and it will allow for an orderly transition from the Crown to local government. It will be a good time for Christchurch. It will mean that we will be able to realise the expectations of the people of Christchurch. We will be able to build a city that is people friendly, that is smart, and that provides opportunities for this generation and generations going forward. I commend the bill to the House.

First of all, I just want to advise the Hon Gerry Brownlee to stay in his seat, because he otherwise might fall over. I want to congratulate him on the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill. I cannot recall doing that before. I did not want him to be standing, and collapse in shock. This is a really good next step in the recovery, moving from post-quake disaster response to recovery, and now to regeneration. I am looking forward to the opportunity to hear the submissions on this legislation from people of Canterbury, who I think will be generally supportive but will raise some concerns, in the same way as my colleague Megan Woods just has in her contribution.

The bill, from my point of view, has the real opportunity to now speed up activity in the city. I think everyone would agree, particularly in relation to the anchor projects and in relation to decisions that have not yet been made about some of the key projects, that they have actually slowed down other activity. I hope that this new body that is formed under this legislation can give some grunt, some commercial rigour, and some drive to the investment that we so badly need.

The second point I want to make about the legislation is that it finally allows local voices and local leadership. It has been a long time—since the September 2010 quake, and then the February 2011 quake—for us to feel as if somebody else is running our city. In some circumstances it was absolutely needed, but in others, I think, it was not necessary. We have had those debates in this House and other places in the past. There is no need to dwell on them now, but I think this is a good restoration of local voices, local leadership, and local decision-making.

The third point I want to make is, I suppose, about the area for which I have the most concern, and that is about the special powers that are retained in this legislation. I know that the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery will need to retain some special powers post - Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority. It is a delightful expression: “life in Canterbury after the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority”. I am so looking forward to it. But I am not convinced that all the powers that are being proposed to be retained by the Minister under this legislation are necessary, nor am I convinced that the checks and balances that you would assume would be part of giving Ministers special powers are contained in this legislation. The words are too high-level, and not specific enough for my satisfaction.

It is the same as it was in the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority legislation, actually. The Minister had special powers, which we understood would be needed, but they were to be granted if they were in the interests of earthquake recovery. Well, that is too broad a description, in the same way as “regeneration” is too broad a term. We need the Minister—whoever is holding the portfolio—to be able to be held to account by this Parliament and by the people of Canterbury when exercising special powers. I think that is a gap that would need to be filled. Actually, it would not take much to give more specificity to the “regeneration” term, as one way of doing it—but to make sure that we will have confidence in knowing that when the Minister does use any special powers this Parliament grants him, they will be for the purposes for which they were granted. That has not been the case in recent times. We have seen the use of section 38 of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act to demolish buildings, which was not in the best interests of earthquake recovery, actually. I think the destruction of the Majestic Theatre is an obvious example, but there have been more.

I want to commend the Advisory Board on Transition to Long Term Recovery Arrangements, which was, from the outside looking in—because we never got an opportunity to meet them formally, unfortunately—but the transition advisory board was, from all accounts, very competently and ably chaired by Dame Jenny Shipley, a former Prime Minister in this House and member of a National Cabinet. In my view, Dame Jenny conducted the activities of the advisory board in an inclusive way, where she listened respectfully but showed no fear at all when driving ahead with what the board agreed was in the best interests of Canterbury. I think that was a very good thing. I also want to commend the other members of the transition advisory board. I think they have done a very good job in presenting us with a path and a way forward. I am not sure that the legislation will be 100 percent to their satisfaction, and I do not suppose they would feel they were in a position to make a submission, but I certainly think, from reading their commentary to the Minister, that the Minister has taken on board, in large parts, their suggestions and their contributions.

I also want to acknowledge our undemocratically appointed regional council, but with no offence to the appointed commissioners, because I think they have been playing an active role in preparing this transition plan. Dame Margaret Bazley was a member of the transition board, so I want to acknowledge them and I want to acknowledge our three councils, Waimakariri, Selwyn, and Christchurch. The three mayors, the Hon Lianne Dalziel, David Ayers, and Kelvin Coe were all also represented on that transition advisory board. Again, from the outside looking in, it appears that they made very strong contributions and comments on the future of the governance of our city.

I want to move on to two opportunities that I think have been missed in this legislation. That is not a criticism of the Minister. I think he has looked at what needed to be done, what the transition advisory board recommended, and he has got on with that task. But I would hope that there may be an opportunity during the select committee process—and I really urge the Minister, now that he has recovered from the shock of my congratulating him on the legislation—to consider two opportunities that I would grasp at, rather than miss, which is the current situation. The first one is in relation to transport as part of the regeneration of our city. We have a model that in a post-quake environment does not work to the best that I think it could do, so I would encourage the Minister to look at this legislation as an opportunity to have integrated transport planning for 50 years out, not for 5 years out. You know, what do we need in Canterbury, where has our population gone, and what opportunities are there? I know that the Minister is quite good at transport stuff. He has done a lot of work in a ministerial capacity on that, so he is certainly the right person to be thinking about that—possibly better than the current Minister of Transport, but who am I to compare? So I do think we have an opportunity to look at the integration, to look at the planning, and to look at what, if we had a blank sheet of paper, which we just about have in parts of Christchurch, we would do in terms of a transport system. So that is the first area that I would really encourage the Minister to look at.

The second area is one that I think we have missed the boat on almost entirely during the last 5 years, despite the best efforts of many people who are involved in the health system, and that is looking at the long-term psychosocial impacts of the quakes. What happened to families, what happened to residential living, and what happened to employment? The grief process, the trauma, the disruption that everyone went through—what does that mean for now, and what will it mean for 10 or 20 years’ time? I know that we have got a psychosocial recovery plan, but it is so high-level that I do not think it will have any impact on what we need on the ground. I think we need a more specific plan. That is not a criticism of the actual plan. It just does not drill down enough.

I think we need a more specific plan that looks particularly at integration of all the different agencies that are involved in touching our citizens who have been impacted on negatively. That includes the health system, of course, but it also includes our housing providers, it includes our education system, and it includes all our social service providers. Everyone who touches our citizens should be part of the planning of a detailed psychosocial recovery plan. I think that the pressures in our city are going to remain. We know that, as Canterbury members of Parliament, and I do not think they are being recognised in the system. The current exercise that the Canterbury District Health Board is being asked to go through is an example of the lack of recognition from the capital towards what impact the quakes have had on our delivery of services and our ability not just to do business as usual but to meet greatly excessive demands on what we would have formerly planned.

I just want to conclude with that commendation again. This is a good step forward. I have got some questions to ask about it. I have got some concerns that I have put on the record. I think there are two areas where we have currently missed an opportunity, but we could remedy that during the select committee process. I have looked at the bill, and I am sure that including transport planning and integration and including psychosocial planning would be within the scope—they are certainly within the regeneration space. There is also, of course, looking at making sure that those three concerns that I had—the special powers, the speeding up of activity, and the local leadership—are acknowledged during the coming stages. So I am looking forward to the submissions. I hope that we are able to have a decent length of time to hear them, by extending that time out. I commend the progress of this bill.

Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā. It gives me great pleasure to be able to stand here and talk about the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill in its first reading. If we go back over 4 years ago, Rūaumoko visited the city of Christchurch, and we were ripped apart. Iconic buildings were destroyed and the face of our beautiful city was changed forever, but far more important were the 185 people who lost their lives. Even when we look to the future, it is also important that in the next phase of the regeneration of Christchurch we remember them.

We saw months and years afterwards that disaster brought out the best in Christchurch people. Students rallied together to help their city, neighbours helped neighbours, and search and rescue, police, fire, defence, and other services went well beyond the call of duty. The Government also stepped in and stepped up. In the week following the quake the Government acted quickly to establish the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority, or CERA, as we all know it, and it was at that time that we needed those powers. Since then the Government has gone into two elections with rebuilding the city of Christchurch as a top priority, and committed over $16 billion to the rebuild effort. The Government’s response received the greatest endorsement possible, and the fact of that is the approval of Christchurch voters in two elections.

The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority structure put in place in 2011 has served our city very well. The ability to plan the rebuild centrally and the powers given to the authority have allowed a relatively quick rebuild, and excellent progress continues to be made. But it is now time for transition—transition from recovery to regeneration to a new phase. Although there is plenty of building still going on, this change is about putting the focus on regeneration of our city, and not just fixing what was broken. It is also important, as part of that process, that we bring local authorities back into the role of shaping our city and our region.

So this bill replaces the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority with a new entity: Regenerate Christchurch. This will be jointly controlled by the Crown and the Christchurch City Council until 30 June 2021, when it will become a council-controlled organisation. I think this is the essence here: that word “transitional”, and the fact that at the end in 2021 it will go back to full authority under the council. Regenerate Christchurch will be governed by a board of seven members. Three will be appointed by the Christchurch City Council, three by the Minister—and this one here I think is very important, particularly when we talk about partnerships and we talk about stakeholders, because there is a further appointment by the Minister after the consultation with Te Rūnunga o Ngāi Tahu.

This bill repeals the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 that established the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority, and consequently many of the powers that that Act gave the authority will cease to exist, but there will continue to be a number of powers that will support the regeneration of greater Christchurch. These include powers for the Minister, such as the power to suspend, amend, or revoke Resource Management Act documents, council plans, or other documents, and the power to amalgamate any land acquired under the bill or previously under the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act. It also gives important powers to the chief executive officer of Regenerate Christchurch, such as the power to carry out or commission demolition of buildings, to restrict access to buildings and roads, and also to dispose of land. These powers are needed to support the regeneration of our city, but, just as important, they are limited. They must be exercised within the purposes of this bill. They must actually be necessary to achieve the purpose of the bill, and that is the regeneration of Christchurch.

Another important aspect of this bill is the way in which it acknowledges the key leadership role that Te Rūnunga o Ngāi Tahu played in the emergency, the recovery, and the rebuild, and the role it will continue to play in the regeneration of Christchurch. After the earthquake I was part of Te Awheawhe Rū Whenua, which was a special committee put together by Te Rūnunga o Ngāi Tahu, set up during the emergency to ensure that Ngāi Tahu was responding to the needs of our people and assisting all of the other mandated entities involved in the emergency response and recovery. Ngāi Tahu’s role is recognised through the requirement for the Minister to consult with Ngāi Tahu before the appointment of one of the board members. So I think that is a very important part of this—that acknowledgment of the fact that Ngāi Tahu did stand up, Ngāi Tahu did understand that very important thing about partnership, or kotahitaka.

As part of the transition from recovery to regeneration, this bill introduces regeneration plans that set out the direction and details for regeneration in a particular area. These plans are intended to ensure that regeneration happens in a timely and collaborative way. It is really reassuring to hear the speakers on the other side of the House, Dr Megan Woods and also the Hon Ruth Dyson. The fact is that they do indeed have a job of opposition in this House, but I can feel, as we all do, I believe, on this side of the House, that there is a desire for kotahitaka—to work together for the benefit of the regeneration of Christchurch so we can then continue through to try to really come together with our people around the aspirations that they have for their city and also their region.

Collaboration and cooperation: local authorities, central government, and Ngāi Tahu all have something to contribute. Cooperation between all of us will ensure that we get the best structure for Christchurch. There are also many others—the opportunity for not just those major stakeholders but many other voices to be heard. There are community groups, there are businesses, and there are individuals throughout Christchurch with something to contribute. This bill ensures that they are heard by requiring the provision of opportunities for public comment before the Minister makes a decision on regeneration plans.

Christchurch is ready for its next phase. Although rebuilding work continues, now is the time for us to shift our focus to regeneration, to look ahead to what we want our city to be and look like in the future. This bill takes us on a waka on a journey from recovery to regeneration, and I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

Tēnā koe. I am pleased to take a call on behalf of the Green Party on the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill. The Green Party will be supporting the bill at its first reading and referral to the select committee because we are very interested in hearing public submissions on it. That said, we do have a number of concerns with the bill.

I guess the options open to the Government were to allow the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act to expire and then to go back to the normal processes under the Public Works Act, in terms of land acquisition, and the Resource Management Act; or to amend the existing Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act and extend its time frame; or to go ahead with new legislation, which is obviously what this bill is doing.

We are certainly pleased that the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act is not being extended, because it is a very Draconian piece of legislation. It has centralised a lot of power in the Beehive and it had the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery making major decisions about the future of the city. Also, it has shut out the public from having significant input into the demolition of heritage buildings across the city, for example. It has significantly truncated the normal processes under the Resource Management Act for public participation in planning documents—the Lyttelton Port recovery plan is one. The Christchurch district plan review is going through under a different process from the Resource Management Act. So we are glad that the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act is not being extended and that we have got new legislation.

The concern is that the quite significant powers that are given to the Minister in the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act are carried over into this bill. The Hon Nicky Wagner said they were remnants of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority powers. They are fairly significant remnants. They are significant because the powers available to both the Minister and the chief executive officer of the new agency—which, as others have explained, will be a joint agency between the council and the Government—include the ability to suspend, amend, or revoke Resource Management Act documents, council plans, regional land transport plans, and plans or policies under the Local Government Act. They allow the Minister to amalgamate any land acquired under this bill or the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act, and the chief executive of Regenerate Christchurch can carry out or commission works such as demolishing buildings, restricting access, and closing or stopping roads. So these are quite significant powers, particularly the powers to override existing Resource Management Act documents and policies and plans under the Local Government Act.

I acknowledge that the Government has put in the bill some constraints on those powers. They have got to be exercised in accordance with the purpose of the legislation and they have got to be deemed to be necessary by the chief executive or the Minister. There are other safeguards too, in relation to regeneration plans, that require the Minister to consult with the strategic partners—namely, the Christchurch City Council, Waimakariri District Council, Selwyn District Council, the Canterbury Regional Council, and Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu—and to have particular regard to their views.

That is a good test, because it does indicate that the Minister will have to take those views into real account. The agency is to be subject to the Official Information Act. We applaud that, but the scope of the powers is still very wide. It is a giant experiment, really, in urban planning that this bill is embarking on. The Government has not yet introduced its Resource Management Act changes. We suspect that those will significantly reduce opportunities for public input. And here, with this bill, the way in which it overrides the normal planning processes under the Resource Management Act in order to, theoretically, advance the purposes of regeneration and to have an attractive, liveable city, is an experiment.

What the experiment has been with the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority, of course, is that the public is not always able to be involved and its views are not heeded as much as they should be, and we have seen that with the disastrous proposals by the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority for Victoria Square, and the major changes there. We have seen it also with the extravagant expenditure on the Avon/Otākaro River project—$98 million-odd being spent there. Again, nobody actually said they wanted that. We have seen it too in the squandering of the really strong support for a much more sustainable city that came through in that massive and innovative consultation exercise that the Christchurch City Council undertook with Share an Idea. Yes, we will be supporting the bill, but we will be very interested in the submissions that come through and in what Christchurch people think of having the Minister retain the power to sign off on all of these regeneration plans.

I will just make a point about the Crown company that is being set up under the bill to deliver the anchor projects. We had the chief executive officer of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority in front of the Finance and Expenditure Committee earlier this week, and the opaqueness that has surrounded the anchor projects continues. It was originally proposed that $280 million would be spent on a new convention centre. That bill is skyrocketing, yet there is nothing available to the public in terms of the details about the business case. The chief executive officer was unable to tell the select committee even who would own the convention centre, despite the hundreds of millions of dollars of public money that is going into this project. So we have this Crown company that is going to be delivering the anchor projects, and we do not know whether it is accessible under the Official Information Act or whether there will be any increase in the transparency with which those anchor projects are being planned.

There are massive amounts of money being put into the anchor projects, there is the huge financial burden that they are on the Christchurch City Council, and there is the fact that the council has had to significantly change its long-term plan with the proposals for asset sales to generate revenue in order to fund its commitment to these anchor projects, for which we have yet to see any detailed business cases that show that they are justified, that they will generate revenue, and that they actually meet the needs of Christchurch citizens. They are, potentially, white elephants, and this bill, with the Crown company being proposed to deliver them, may not be any improvement on the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority and the opaqueness with which the authority has proceeded in terms of all of the anchor projects.

The prospect of the regeneration plans is certainly being welcomed by residents in places like New Brighton because of the major changes that the earthquake has caused there and the major loss of population, but these plans must be about sustainability. We have not seen that as a major thrust in the other plans that have been developed. With the port company plan, for example, we are seeing a major increase in the reclamation that the port company is proposing in order to deal with an increase in container traffic, yet we have not seen adequate attention being paid to the impacts that that will have on the loss of amenity values in the harbour, such as the major changes to the crater rim bluffs to provide rock for that reclamation.

We are seeing lost opportunities with a lot of the building that is happening in the central city. There are great sheets of steel, probably imported from China, when we have in the city of Christchurch world-leading expertise in the use of laminated wood for buildings, but we are not seeing the Government encouraging the use of that technology. We are seeing road widening and some cycleways being initiated by the city council. We have not seen a major increase in the frequency of bus services—Environment Canterbury has really dropped the ball—and the Green Party has proposed having an integrated transport agency to significantly improve public transport in the city, but we are not seeing that investment by the Government. Instead, it is going into major new motorways.

This bill has the potential to set a course for a much more liveable, sustainable city, but it needs—in terms of the way in which Regenerate Christchurch operates and the people who are appointed—to have a much more reflective look back at the ideas that came through Share an Idea. We also have concerns that the board of Regenerate Christchurch is going to be appointed by both the council and the Minister. Members of the board need to be in communication with citizens, because they do not have the accountability that an elected mandate would provide. So we will be supporting the bill’s referral to the select committee, but we will also be supporting Megan Woods’ amendment so that the public gets a good chance to comment on the bill. Thank you.

This is a very important bill for the future of Christchurch. Indeed, it may be the most important bill for the future of Christchurch that has ever been presented to this House, and it therefore needs thorough scrutiny.

I am happy to say that it does enable a transition from recovery—a recovery that is far from complete, of course—to regeneration. It does provide for a genuine partnership approach that I think is very pleasing, and that is now essential. It provides for a new entity in Regenerate Christchurch, as a vehicle that will concentrate council and Crown efforts and assets, and that, too, is positive. It also contains a number of extraordinary powers—perhaps too many extraordinary powers, and I am going to refer to those later.

New Zealand First does approve of the concept of this bill, but we do have one very particular reservation that I will describe later, so we will vote in favour of the bill to the select committee, but if that reservation is not later met or satisfied we will not then hesitate to vote against it if necessary. So I will refer to that later, but I want to go on and say this: I think the purpose of the bill is very well set out, and it focuses on two things—on regeneration and on local leadership.

I see from the dictionary that the word “regenerate” means “to recreate in a better form or condition”, and that is going to be the challenge for the new process. It is going to be a challenge, more than anything, in three particular areas: how the red zone is regenerated or recreated; how New Brighton is recreated, because it desperately needs it, having received far too little attention so far; and I agree with several other speakers who have referred to transport as a particular area in which Christchurch and Canterbury need a much better result. They need more options than just more motorways, bigger roads, and more cars. We do need to see better treatment for rail, light rail, cycling, and other forms of transport, and they do need to be integrated.

It is particularly positive that there is also a focus on local leadership, because the input of Environment Canterbury, the Selwyn District Council, Waimakariri District Council, of course the Christchurch City Council, and Ngāi Tahu is absolutely essential if we are going to take the people of Christchurch and the people of Canterbury with us in this process. That process has not, in fact, been well carried out so far under the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act. It has been lacking in the past. Canterbury people need to be able to take ownership of this process, and unless that partnership is carried out genuinely and comprehensively we will not get that, so I hope that is the result of this bill. Regenerate Christchurch does mean recreation, and it is very important that that happens in a comprehensive way.

I am very pleased to see, therefore, that under clause 95 there will be a board of seven members: three appointed by the city council, three by the Crown, and one, effectively, by Ngāi Tahu. I do not think there will be any need to change that over the period that this bill will operate; I think that is a good balance, and it is good that they will have to agree on things. So I approve of that, but I also particularly approve of clause 97, which provides how that partnership will operate. It makes a provision for the city council and the Minister to “agree on how they will exercise their respective roles and responsibilities in relation to Regenerate Christchurch”, that the role of the city council and the Minister is to “jointly oversee and manage … the Crown’s interests in … Regenerate Christchurch;”, and, in particular, that the city council and the Minister may produce a “letter of expectations” as a means of overseeing and managing the council’s and the Crown’s interests in Regenerate Christchurch. I hope and expect that we will see that letter not too far in the future, so we will know what they intend in that regard, but that is a good basis upon which a partnership should proceed.

This concept of regeneration, or, as I have defined it, recreation, is at the heart of the bill, and I note with some satisfaction that the Minister, in making decisions concerning those regeneration plans, must seek the views of the strategic partners—that is to say, Environment Canterbury, the city council, Selwyn, Waimakariri, and, of course, Ngāi Tahu. I am particularly pleased about the words “have particular regard to their views”, because that means not just to listen to what they say but actually, effectively, to incorporate their views in whatever the plans are, so it will not be open to the Minister to simply decide what he thinks is best. He will, in fact, have to do as the bill says and have proper regard to the views of those stakeholders. I am very pleased about that, and approve particularly of that part of the bill. Those words “particular regard to their views”, I think, are probably the most important words in the bill as a whole.

I want to move on now, however, to the powers that are contained in the bill. They are extraordinary powers, and they are really just as extraordinary as the powers that were in the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority legislation. And I have no difficulty in saying that, actually, those powers are needed. If we are going to get the recreation of Christchurch, particularly in the ways that I have mentioned, then, yes, there do have to be extraordinary powers to make sure that that can happen. There is a whole list of those about suspending, amending, or revoking Resource Management Act documents. I do take on board what Eugenie Sage said about that. There is some risk associated with that, but, on balance, I do think it is appropriate that those powers are there and there are other powers about amalgamating land; about the chief executive being able to commission works; about the chief executive being able to dispose of land, subject to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery’s approval; and, also, this very difficult question of the Minister being able to compulsorily acquire land. That is where, I think, the problem lies in this bill, and that is where New Zealand First has a serious reservation.

The Minister’s power to decide compensation under this bill is far too wide, and I want to refer to clause 82(3) to (6), which says in subclause (3) “When determining the amount of compensation for the compulsory acquisition of land, the Minister must have regard to the matters in subsection (4)”—which includes the Public Works Act consideration, and those sorts of things—“but is not limited to determining the amount of compensation on that basis alone and may determine whatever amount the Minister thinks fit.” If those words remain in the bill, New Zealand First will vote against it in the future stages. The reason I say that is simply this: I and New Zealand First have been appalled at some of the decisions this Government has made about compensation for landowners, especially those involved in the Quake Outcasts situation. I think some of those decisions were appalling, irrational, and unfair, and I do not trust this Minister or this Government to make future decisions about those issues under this legislation any more than I trusted them under the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority legislation.

So if those words are going to be there, then our vote will be against. If those words are removed, our vote will be for this legislation. So I ask the Minister to seriously consider whether he really actually needs those words there, because I do not think he does. I think the provisions in the bill otherwise are more than sufficient to ensure a fair regime for compensation for landowners whose land is compulsory acquired. I want to make that a very, very important issue as far as New Zealand First is concerned.

Finally, I do think that the provisions, especially those in clauses 16 to 23, and clauses 16 to 22, in particular, relating to the development and amendment of plans, are perfectly appropriate if we are going to have a recreation of Christchurch in the way that we all hope will happen under this legislation. And, again, I note with satisfaction that the Minister will have to have particular regard to the views of the stakeholders and also give a good opportunity for the public to be consulted. So, with that, New Zealand First will vote for the bill at this stage, and I hope we will be able to vote for it at later stages too.

It is an honour and a privilege to rise and speak at the first reading of the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill, a bill I wholeheartedly support. As a very proud born and bred Cantabrian, I am looking forward to its transition through the legislative process to the Local Government and Environment Committee, a select committee that is full of very energetic and able Cantabrians from all sides of the House who will be working very closely to ensure the quality of this piece of legislation. Can I say that, for me, I think this, personally, will be the most important bill that I speak on this year in the House—important for me and for all people of Greater Christchurch and Canterbury.

As I have always said, I am a very proud, one-eyed Cantabrian. I remember growing up in Christchurch in the old days, when Belfast was out of town. It was a day trip, and you would go over the Styx Mill Bridge. But now, after the earthquakes, Greater Christchurch has been redrawn and we have seen great urban movement to towns in my electorate like Rangiora and Kaiapoi. It is great that we are moving from recovery into regeneration, because many young people growing up in Christchurch, like myself, decided to go away and go on their OE, and a lot of the reasons I left Christchurch to go on my OE and see a bit of the world were the reasons that actually drew me back to Christchurch and Canterbury. It is a small town in the bottom of the world, and when you go out and see other countries and you expand your world view, you see how competitive the world is out there—but you see how fantastic, vibrant and dynamic other cities are.

I am passionate that through this regeneration bill we are going to be supporting Christchurch to be vibrant and dynamic and to be the best new small city in the world. I must say at this stage, though, talking about the future and aspirations like that—I must acknowledge that we are in a very difficult stage. International research around psychological and social recovery shows that years 3 to 7 post-disaster can be still problematic for some. I would urge any who still need help, or Cantabrians who know anyone—their friends or family—who still need help, to come and see their local MP. We are here to help and support and advocate on your behalf.

If I focus on this bill and around the purpose, the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act will expire in April 2016, and we are moving from recovery into regeneration. I know from my own background—coming from a background in mental health and working in a model of recovery for a long time—it is about moving people through and transitioning them into a better quality of life. That is something I will be touching on in my call today, how this regeneration bill is about moving through the stages and transitioning the people of Canterbury from recovery into regeneration. It is a new legal framework to support the regeneration of Greater Christchurch over the next 5 years.

The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act was, probably, a bit wider geographically than this bill, which is looking at Greater Christchurch. I have a unique view on this, with my electorate covering part of Christchurch City and north Christchurch. There are residents of Christchurch City Council as well as residents of the Waimakariri District Council, which covers towns like Rangiora and Kaiapoi. The Greater Christchurch region will cover those towns, and around Fernside as well.

What we need to do is make sure we maintain the momentum, because what we are doing is rebuilding the city, regenerating it. Not only do we want to protect the past but if I look at the definition in the bill—I did write it down somewhere—around regeneration, it is described as restoration and urban renewal and development. For me it is not only about restoring the past and protecting our history—as you know, Christchurch was deemed the most English city outside England—but it is also thinking about what the city will be used for in 20 or 30 years’ time. My daughter, when she grows up—what type of city do we want for her in the future? That is what we are talking about.

I just want to acknowledge that earthquake recovery and regeneration is one of the top four priorities of this Government, and we are committed to the people of Canterbury. But when you look at this bill and the top five priority issues for the next 5 to 10 years that this bill will cover, it will be about revitalising central Christchurch, maintaining economic performance, improving people’s well-being—and I would just like to acknowledge the work of the Associate Minister for Earthquake Recovery, Nicky Wagner, around her psychosocial performance plan—repairing and replacing housing, and repairing and replacing infrastructure and facilities.

I just want to acknowledge New Zealanders who have supported Cantabrians, who have stayed beside them and continued to support them. We have heard and talked about great stories, like the Student Volunteer Army, which came into a town in my electorate, Kaiapoi, straight after the earthquakes. But it is also about acknowledging Cantabrians who have got back up on their feet. In a region like Canterbury—we talk about the Christchurch earthquakes, but they were actually the Canterbury earthquakes. They were hard hit in the first earthquake—we lost about a thousand houses—and they have got back up on their feet, and it is great to see Kaiapoi doing so well.

I just want to acknowledge the role of this Government, which has supported Cantabrians and especially the earthquake recovery Minister. I say this not out of arrogance or complacency—now we sit on our hands—but the reason we won the party vote in the last election in Canterbury was that we put up a framework of policies that people believed in. We showed leadership, we made decisions, and we took action. And that is what people want. This Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill continues that momentum, it continues that leadership, it continues that decision making, and it continues that action to support the best new city in the world being rebuilt.

When we look at regeneration, there are some really good examples out there. Waimakariri is a fantastic example of getting on and regenerating its towns. We have opened the Ruataniwha Kaiapoi Civic Centre this year, the Rangiora Town Hall, the Oxford Town Hall, and the Ashley Bridge. We have got the health hub in Rangiora opening up in a few weeks, and retail precincts, and that is because we are investing into the local economy. But I must say for Christchurch, specifically in the central business district, a large part of which this Regenerate Christchurch entity will look at around anchor projects—they have had a lot more complexity to deal with. It is quite right that the focus will now be more constrained to the central business district, around things like anchor projects. That is what I spoke about before, when we look at what cities operate around, around the world—vibrancy and dynamism.

What we need is to ensure that over the next 5 or 10 years we implement and develop the anchor projects—the Metro Sports Facility, the convention centre—that will be an economic catalyst for the city, bringing better jobs and better incomes, and, of course, a stadium. We are very parochial in Canterbury. If you look at our Super 12 and Super 15 history, we are the best rugby region in the world, and we need a stadium that represents that. If you look at the Rugby World Cup at the moment, with the Cardiff stadium of 80,000 people coming in to watch a game—it energises a city. It is these anchor projects that we need to ensure that we guarantee and we move forward, to make sure that the city is regenerated for the next generation, as well.

Overall, I wholeheartedly support this bill. I look forward to following it through the legislative process, and I commend it to the House. Thank you.

A 5-minute call on behalf of the Green Party—Jan Logie.

There is a sense of honour, I guess, and responsibility in taking a call for the Green Party on this bill, the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill. I would like to add my voice to others in the House this evening acknowledging those who died in the earthquake, those who were harmed, the families who have been left behind, and all the people of Christchurch who are continuing that process of healing and recovery today. It was an event the consequences of which those of us who do not live in Christchurch cannot truly understand, but I have family in Christchurch and I know the impact on them, so I have some insight but do not pretend to have a total understanding of it.

The Green Party is supporting this legislation to the select committee. The bill repeals the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act and establishes a new legal framework for post-quake recovery in Christchurch from the period of July 2016 until 2021, and it repeals some earthquake-related Orders in Council, while retaining others. I think the Minister talked about remnants of that original legislation, but it does seem to be rather more than remnants. There are some very significant provisions of control from Wellington that are still present in this proposed piece of legislation. It will give a range of power to Ministers and the new entity Regenerate Christchurch, and it will also establish a Crown company to deliver the anchor projects.

I know that in Christchurch there is quite a lot of interest in the new entity Regenerate Christchurch, and there is a degree of support that we have heard so far for this. That body will have oversight of the progress of the central city, the red-zoned residential areas, and New Brighton. It is very pleasing to see New Brighton specifically in that organisation’s planning oversight, because New Brighton has felt left behind. The state of some of the basic amenities out in New Brighton—it really is visibly left behind. It is incredibly important that that is not continued any longer and that there is an absolute step change and focus on ensuring their ability to recover and regenerate.

For us, what we in the Green Party want from this bill is a shift towards democracy and an assurance that the aspirations of the people in Christchurch are able to be realised. That is what I hope everyone in this House is going to work towards. Our focus in the select committee process will be on listening to the people of Christchurch—what do you want for your future—building on that amazing consultative process that happened around Share an Idea after the quake and whether this will help to realise those visions. If not, can it be amended to do that better? We will certainly be listening with great attentiveness to the ideas of people from Christchurch. I must say that we are disappointed at the shortened process. I hope that it will not affect at all the ability of people from Christchurch to participate and share their views with this House. Here, in this place, we cannot understand. We cannot know what is best for Christchurch. It must be that this legislation is focused and is delivering on the aspirations of the people of Christchurch. We will be supporting Megan Woods’ amendment to extend that report-back time.

I would like to mention just a couple of things that the Christchurch City Council pointed out to me, as to the concerns it has about how things have been operating. The Minister, in the sense of Wellington, has come in and blocked the aspirations of the Christchurch people. They are mostly around environmental factors, around the protection of groundwater. If you know anyone from Christchurch, believe me, you will know that they are proud of the quality of their groundwater—that is so true. My mother will not drink the water from my place. The Government is not protecting that from quarrying, and there is a real concern—

I am sorry to interrupt the member but her time has expired. I call the Hon Clayton Cosgrove—a 5-minute call.

As others have said, I too pay due respect to those who passed away during the earthquakes, both those who were directly earthquake victims and also those who subsequently, through stress and other things, are not with us. And also those folk who still—and I take Mr Doocey’s point and I agree with it—grapple with the stresses and strains, physically, emotionally, economically, and mentally 5 years on from the quakes. I think his point about mental health was extremely well made. It is, however, slightly disappointing that the Government—even though Mr Doocey is right—cut the funding for that mental health support, as it is needed, even though it is 5 years down the track.

As my colleague Megan Woods and others have said, we will support this piece of legislation to a select committee. Like others, we would want to see full and open scrutiny and the opportunity for as many Cantabrians and others—because there are smart people all over New Zealand—to participate in the process. We are disappointed that it is a truncated process. I know the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery will say it is 5 weeks. I think that is the time. However, that does not take into account, of course, that the House rises on 9 December, we come back on 9 February, and the report-back date is 25 February. For those people, generally it is a protocol in this House, especially over pretty essential bills like this, that the Christmas period is a bit of a no-go zone because people obviously are focusing on families and getting away, and actually having a bit of time off, especially those in Canterbury.

Generally we normally give extensions to cater for that, so people can, either beforehand or after, make a contribution. My colleague Megan Woods has proposed an extended period, to 24 March. That should be no impediment to the Government, because it still allows an enactment prior to the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority legislation expiring. So I would just ask the Minister to consider that as we go through. If he is genuine, and I take him at his word—there is reference to public engagement, and of course we would like to see how that is going to be practically manifest through this legislation—but if he is genuine in wanting Cantabrians to have as big a contribution as they can, then it would not be out of the ordinary and we would cooperate to extend that report-back period. If it is the case that we just want to do the usual, which we have had for a few years in Christchurch—ram it through and pretend that the Government has listened to the people, and that sort of thing—well, that will stand as it is.

I would also like to make a couple of comments on the Minister’s powers. He retains very wide powers, as Denis O’Rourke has alluded to, particularly in respect of compulsory acquisition and compensation for land. I share Denis O’Rourke’s concern about that. Yes, there may well be a need for the compulsory acquisition of land, of course, and under the Public Works Act and the various transport Acts when that happens there is proper, appropriate, mark-for-mark compensation. I dealt with some transport cases when we were in Government, and they are very diligent, I have say, generally, the transport folk, in ensuring that if a piece of land or an area or a dwelling is compulsorily acquired there is mark-for-mark, like-for-like market compensation. It does worry me, particularly with this Minister. He can make reference to the Public Works Act, but he can determine how many dollars there are going to be. I think that is inappropriate. I share Mr O’Rourke’s concerns.

I would also say that in the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority legislation we, of course, did support—and I still support—voting for the so-called “wartime” or extraordinary powers that we gave the Minister. We took a bit of flak—he shakes his head, of course. He is good at that. We took a bit of flak from our constituencies for doing it, but I was the shadow at the time and I think we did the right thing. The constituencies were a bit concerned that the Minister would overreach, but I have to say we were astounded that our concerns were that he underused those powers in certain cases, as problems arose when he could have intervened and we would have supported him. We wrote to him—I do not know how many letters I wrote to him—and supported his intervention to sort out—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Two.

No. I know that the Minister can count only with five fingers of his hand; it was far more than two. We would have supported him using those powers, but he underused them, so it will be interesting as we go forward to see how the Minister will, indeed, use those powers.

I think that the people of Canterbury want to see this work. They have moved through extraordinary circumstances, they are people of good will, and they have been knocked around by both the earthquakes and the Government. The Government from time to time has done very good work—more often than not, I have to say—but I think the Minister struggled to strike a balance between the bull at the gate approach and the leadership approach and the consultation approach. I hope that he does not continue to confuse consultation with consensus. If you consult with folks, you will never get consensus, but people will feel they have had a fair shake and they will buy into the process. I hope as we go through this that the Minister will take note of that.

I stand to take a call on the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill. My contribution is going to feature the regeneration of New Brighton. I was not born or raised in New Brighton; I arrived last year. I stood at the top of the mall at New Brighton and I looked down on a very dismal day, and any people who visited New Brighton on that day would have thought: “Oh dear! Things are going not too good here.” But I saw a New Brighton mall that had potential—potential for vibrancy, potential for growth, and, most important, I saw potential for regeneration. That is why I am very pleased indeed to stand and speak up for the people of New Brighton, for New Brighton, and the transition to regeneration plan released this month.

I want to thank Mr Brownlee for the work that he has done for the Christchurch earthquake recovery, and now through the Christchurch transition to regeneration. I want to thank him because he has done a marvellous job in a very difficult situation. He has come down back to his hometown and he has given all his time and his energy to rebuilding Christchurch and to ensuring that it is restored to an even better Christchurch—a world-renowned Christchurch that is much better than its former glory. In the brief time that I have been privileged to serve as a Christchurch list MP, I have continued, and I am determined, to immerse myself into this community, to give it a voice. In these hallowed halls of Parliament and Government, very rarely do we hear “New Brighton” or “Christchurch East”.

To date I have met with thousands of constituents within the Christchurch East electorate, with many businesses, and with many community groups. Over 92 community groups I have met with, and all of them—all of them—have told me about their concerns about the regeneration of New Brighton. What are we going to do? What are we doing to do with New Brighton? So, therefore, the transition to regeneration plan is a very great start to where we are heading off for the New Brighton area.

I have met with the New Brighton Business and Landowners Association manager, Mr Paul Zaanen, and just recently his contract finished. But this man continues—continues—in his work, in his drive, to make sure that New Brighton is regenerated back into a better and a more prosperous area. Although the funding is not there for him, he continues, and some of the business owners are helping to support him along the way. I want to see this man, Mr Paul Zaanen, take a key role in the regeneration of New Brighton under the new urban development authority because he has a lot to give. He has done a lot of work, and I believe that through his careful leadership he will be able to help with the urban development authority.

The transition to regeneration transition recovery plan is not just a good thing for New Brighton; it is a great thing for New Brighton. It covers areas from Pages Road bridge, down Hawke Street, Keyes Road, Rawhiti Avenue, Marine Parade, south to Mountbatten Street, to Union Street, and north back up to Pages Road bridge. Some people can sit in here and can go: “That’s not big enough. We want it to go from Southshore all the way up to Waimairi Beach.”

This is a start. It is a great start for the people of New Brighton. It is a great start for New Brighton per se. I must say that when they do say that to me, I say to them “Let’s start with small bits and let’s start to grow it from there.”, because I believe that once the New Brighton business district has been regenerated, it is going to build the economy and everything else will flow on from that. That is the way business development works. That is how the economy, and growing the economy, works: a little bit can develop into a big result—and that is what regeneration is all about.

The regeneration of the New Brighton area is a key investment for the Government and the city council. There is a real need for this, and for this Christchurch beach suburb, whose properties are worth less than those around the airport, we need to reverse that trend through this regeneration so that those property prices and values will actually rise.

I want to say thank you to our Minister down here. Thank you, Mr Brownlee, for the work that you have done. I want to thank the Canterbury councils. I want to thank the Mayor of Christchurch, Lianne Dalziel, for the work that she has done in working with Government to get us to this point. I want to say thank you to those in New Brighton who have kept the faith, who have kept the faith and said: “New Brighton regeneration is where we’re going. We’re sticking there and we’re going to do it, and if you are a list MP who is going to help us do that, then kei te pai, welcome.” And that is exactly what has been happening.

I look forward to the implementation of this wonderful regeneration plan to see a newer New Brighton—a newer New Brighton. That is where we are going to. I am very proud to commend the bill. I look forward to the submissions to our Local Government and Environment Committee, capably led by our chair here, Mr Scott Simpson, who will be visiting our wonderful Christchurch again to come and see the great things from start to finish as we start to move through this bill. As I said, I commend this bill to the House. I look forward to the results. Thank you.

Kia orana, Mr Deputy Speaker. Greetings to everyone in Christchurch, and particularly those in Christchurch East, who I know will be listening—

💬 Grant Robertson: Who’s the MP there?

—I do not know; perhaps it is me—with great interest because we all know that the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill is an opportunity for us to transition from what has been to what could be. I want to spend a few minutes just reflecting not only on those who lost their lives but also on those who lost their homes, those who lost their communities, and those families who were displaced by the effects not only of the earthquake sequence but of what happened post-earthquake with regard to the red zoning of the land—people having to move from communities they have lived in for a long time, and the disruption that has happened in our communities, which will change not only their lives but our lives forever.

I want to say that I am concerned that the regeneration plan, the transition plan, misses out some significant voices. It misses out the voices of our children, who will be the people who take over the city in its new and shiny form once we have regenerated it. It misses out the voices of our communities and it misses out the voices of those who are most impacted. I urge the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery to reconsider the opportunity for our community voices to be heard during this process by extending the process to include those voices. I am concerned about the powers that the Minister does hold in this transition phase. The people of Christchurch are not being given the opportunity to take the power back into their hands. There is no doubt that the transition is required and that we cannot move from one organisation, one entity, one phase to another without a transition plan and without good thinking around that. However, 5 years is 5 years too long. We have good people in our city who can do this work and should be charged with taking care of their own and should have the power to do that.

I am concerned that the Minister has the ability to change plans that have already been set in place, plans that have been consulted on with the community, and plans that make sense to people who live in the city. I am concerned that the Minister also has the ability to acquire land and to set the compensation that may be offered to people who currently own that land. I remind the Minister that there are still some very disaffected people, like the Quake Outcasts in the eastern suburbs of Christchurch, where a decision that was made in the High Court has not been honoured by the Minister. I am concerned about the ability to dismantle the Resource Management Act. The Minister has the ability to change what is a very, very good document, and I am concerned that the appeal rights with regard to the Resource Management Act have to go to the High Court instead of going through the Environment Court. We have the ability to take evidence and to hear evidence.

I am concerned that the select committee is going to take evidence, complete its deliberations by the end of the year, and that the report-back date is February. I completely concur with Megan Woods—it is a sensible idea to ensure that everybody has the opportunity to present to the select committee and the process should be extended out to March. There will be lots of people who want to have their say. There have been decisions made by this Government throughout the last 5 years that have impacted on the way people have lived their lives because they have not had the ability to have their say—or, if they have had their say, it has been disregarded. I am talking about the thousands of people who had to leave their homes when their homes, their land, and their properties were red zoned. Minister Brownlee, I just want to remind you of the distress that is caused to people when they have to leave a place that they love behind. With regard to these processes, please take full regard of the fact that our communities want to have a say and want their voices to be heard. What is the input for our community? We would really love for you, Minister, to spell out how they can be engaged in this, and that you will give them the full regard that they deserve.

This plan should not be about just regeneration. It should be about aspiration. It should be about a city that we want to create together for the people who will live there, not only now but in the future. It should be about putting behind us the physical hurts, the emotional hurts, and the trauma and coming out of this process with something that is better than we currently have.

I want to speak particularly about what is happening in the New Brighton area, and I pay tribute to our local elected members and our mayor and councillors for their encouragement and, I guess, advocacy to ensure that New Brighton is part of the regeneration plan. If any of you have the opportunity to come to Christchurch, I urge you to come to New Brighton to see what remains to be done. It is a very, very visible representation of what has not been achieved in our city. I urge you to come. I urge you to see what still needs to be done. So I am encouraged, Minister, to see that New Brighton is part of the regeneration plan. It has its own specific area. One point, though, that I am concerned about is that the area does include the Rāwhiti Domain and what that may mean for that domain.

💬 Kris Faafoi: Talk about the golf course.

The golf course is actually excluded from that.

💬 Kris Faafoi: Oh, thank you. I just wanted to be sure.

That is all right. When we look at the area that, in schedule 4, outlines New Brighton, included as the Rāwhiti Domain—I am sorry, there you go, Mr Faafoi. The Rāwhiti golf links is—

💬 Kris Faafoi: It is a public golf course.

It is a public course, yes. It is not part of New Brighton, apparently, according to schedule 4. But what is included is the mall. What is included is a small area at the southern end of New Brighton, which really is the heart of the revitalisation of our area.

If we get this right in New Brighton, it has the opportunity to lift the eastern suburb to be the gem of Christchurch, as those of who live there actually know that it is. We love the New Brighton mall, but I urge this Government to recognise that there has been significant work done on the revitalisation of New Brighton in terms of the master planning. Mrs Hayes mentioned Paul Zaanen, who is part of a wider New Brighton conglomerate of groups such as the New Brighton projects Renew Brighton and the Strategic Urban Rejuvenation Force, which have done an extraordinary amount of work to ensure that the plans for New Brighton include that the New Brighton master plan as devised by council has been consulted widely with our community. The vital piece that has always been missing from the revitalisation of New Brighton has been central government. I am heartened to see that New Brighton is part of this regeneration plan. I urge you to listen to the voices of local people. Please do not mess this up. New Brighton deserves much better than it currently has. I commend this bill. We will be watching it with great interest. I encourage you, Mr Brownlee, as Minister, to sit in on as many of the hearings as you can, to hear the voices directly from the people. Thank you.

As chairman of the Local Government and Environment Committee, it is a pleasure for me to be taking the last call in this first reading debate on the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill in the name of the Hon Gerry Brownlee. I want to commence my contribution to this debate by acknowledging the very measured and carefully considered contributions of members from across the House this afternoon, in what someone earlier on mentioned may well be considered perhaps the most important piece of Christchurch legislation to be brought into this House in many a long year. It is a piece of legislation that, when the history of New Zealand and Canterbury is written 100 years hence—the contribution that this House has made to the recovery and to the regeneration of Christchurch will be marked out by this piece of legislation. I am not a Cantabrian, I do not come from Christchurch, but over the years I have had a lot of business relationships in Christchurch, and I have visited Canterbury on many, many occasions. I think I speak on behalf of all New Zealanders when I say that we who are not Cantabrians have been sharing, albeit from a distance, the pain, suffering, and anguish that has occurred in Canterbury over these last 5 years. It has been a difficult, testing time. It has been a time when we have moved from crisis and pain and disaster into, now, a regeneration period.

I want to just quote from the Minister’s speech, when he led off this debate. He said: “We are moving on from emergency and recovery to a time of regeneration. This is an exciting time. Much of the ground work has been laid and many significant building projects both public and private are under way or have been completed, but there is still much to be done. Regeneration of a city and its people’s well-being is a mission that cannot be completed in a short number of years.” I want to, as I say, pay tribute to the Minister for his contribution, not only in terms of political leadership of all that has occurred in Christchurch over the last 5 years but also in terms of his personal contribution.

This bill has been well-received by most stakeholders. In fact, I cannot think of any who have expressed concern about it, at all. I wanted to pay particular attention to some comments that were made by the Mayor of Christchurch City, the Hon Lianne Dalziel, a former member of this House. She said, in the Press on 29 September, only a short period of time ago when this bill was first being spoken about publicly: “The new collaborative working environment the city council and the Government have created through the Regenerate Christchurch is a game-changer.” And it is a game-changer. She said: “I haven’t felt so optimistic for the future of Christchurch than I do today”. It goes on to say, in this article: “Both Brownlee and Dalziel said that the new agency represented a unique partnership and offered a new way of thinking about how central and local government could cooperate in the future.” Mayor Dalziel said: “To me this creates an extraordinary opportunity for the city where the council and the Government can work hand-in-hand”.

Earlier on in this debate Denis O’Rourke gave a dictionary definition of “regenerate”. I too had done a little bit of checking to see what “regenerate” meant. His dictionary definition was slightly different, but the same theme. As a verb, “regenerate” has a dictionary definition that says: “to grow after loss or damage, to bring new and more vigorous life.” Indeed, this bill attempts and will actually do that. I am very confident that, as a Parliament, it is not going to be beyond our wit to ensure that the dictionary definition of “regenerate” is actually manifested in terms of the legislative definition and the legislative outcome that will occur as the process of this bill coming through the Parliament occurs.

I want to make a very strong commendation for this bill to the House, because it is becoming very obvious, as we move through the process of the change and regeneration in Christchurch, that it is difficult to distinguish between the actions that have a recovery purpose from those that have a wider purpose. We now need to move and transition from that emergency response, that recovery response, that took place in the initial stages, and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority legislation that was set up to cope with that phase, into this transitional phase. This bill enables that regeneration and development, and it will not be constrained by reference to the disasters that were the earthquakes or by building back to what we had before.

It is a future-looking piece of legislation. It is a piece of legislation that will encompass growth, regeneration, new growth, and an exciting future for Canterbury and Cantabrians. I do not want to continue on about the process for the select committee other than to say that I find it quite fascinating that members on the Opposition benches castigate the Government for not moving quickly enough and yet want to slow down this piece of legislation. I find that a very difficult juxtaposition. There will be absolutely every opportunity for Cantabrians and other New Zealanders to participate in the submission process.

As the chair I am going to make sure—as we always do in the Local Government and Environment Committee—that all submitters get a good and fair hearing. I encourage people to take part in the select committee process. It is a very important part of our democratic process and it is a part that I think New Zealanders can have a real input into, if they choose to do so. My invitation, as the chair of the select committee, is for them to participate and to be involved in it.

I commend this bill to the House. It is a good bill. As the chair of the select committee, I am very much looking forward to guiding it through the select committee phase. Once again, I commend the work and effort that the Hon Gerry Brownlee has put into bringing this bill to the House with other stakeholders involved in Canterbury. I commend the bill to the House.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is somewhat unusual. I think we are about to vote on this bill—we have not started the voting process, so I am not interrupting it—and it would appear that there is widespread support for the bill, albeit that there have been a number of points that have been made quite constructively, I think, by parties outside the Government. I was, therefore, going to seek the leave of the House to make a very, very brief response to some of those comments, given the fact that this is a bill that is likely to get significant, if not unanimous, support.

Leave is put for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

💬 Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: There are four things that I will pick up on, in no particular order—in fact, there will be five things that I will make a comment on.

Firstly, with regard to the ministerial powers that have been spoken to by a number of people, it was interesting that the Hon Clayton Cosgrove noted that the powers extended under the other legislation were not all used, and they certainly were not used indiscriminately. The discussion about the powers will, I think, be interesting for the select committee, particularly hearing from the mayors of the local authorities, who are quite certain about what they expect. I think it will also become apparent during that process that those powers are going to be constrained by the types of requests that might come through.

I think that the next point about the psychosocial health of the city was well made by Megan Woods. There is a psychosocial health plan that sits outside this bill. I can arrange for people to become more familiar with what that is. It is not something that the Government is walking away from.

Mr O’Rourke mentioned the compulsory acquisition stuff. I agree with him that you have got to be very careful about all of that. We have not excessively used the provisions that have been there during the past 5 years, and there are some very interesting reasons that led to some of the compulsory acquisitions. What I would suggest is that before the select committee even gets into too many hearings, officials could, perhaps, have time with Mr O’Rourke so that there could be an understanding of why we think there is a necessity to have that there. That may help in some way with the concerns that he has. I am not diminishing those concerns in any way.

I welcome the suggestion about a transport agency. This bill would enable it, but if people are interested in doing something outside of that, then I think we are interested in talking about that.

The final point is the time factor. We will be voting for the 25 February report back. That gives a total of 15 weeks between now and the report back, when the House could expect it to be working—so 7 weeks between now and 18 December, and 8 weeks from 18 January to 25 February. On that basis, I think that we are not cutting the time short. What I am trying to indicate is that given the level of support, there is a lot of room to talk about the issues that are perhaps causing concern at the moment.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.

I move, That the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill be reported back to the House by 25 February 2016.

Members, Dr Megan Woods has moved an amendment to the motion replacing “25 February 2016” with “24 March 2016”. The question is that the amendment to the motion be agreed to.