Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill, Riccarton Racecourse Bill

I am pleased to take a short call on the Riccarton Racecourse Bill and the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill. The Green Party is supporting both of these bills at the first reading because the law changes that they will make will result in additional and much needed housing in Christchurch and there is a component of affordable housing.

We are disappointed that such a large area of green space in Christchurch is being sacrificed. Next week, of course, is cup day—a high point in the racing calendar in Canterbury—and it is certainly the majestic surrounds of the Riccarton Racecourse, with the big trees and the expansive open space, that adds to a lot of the enjoyment of that day. There has been increasing concern about nature deficit in children and the loss of access to wild nature and green areas where children can play. The loss of a quarter of the racecourse—some 38 hectares that were set aside as a reserve quite a while ago, back in 1878, for the racecourse, but that is now used for a variety of purposes: the Riccarton Market is, of course, at the racecourse. Some of the area that is proposed for subdivision has been made available by the racecourse trust board for community events: there was a big, very successful fracking-free festival and concert held there. It is this green space that is being lost through this bill because the bill revokes the reserve status that was established in 1878 that made the area a racecourse, to allow the subdivision and development to occur. We need green space in our cities because they make them attractive and pleasant places to live; they clean up air quality; they provide significant amenity values; and for neighbouring houses they often offer a place for people to go walking, to walk their dogs, and for children to play.

So we will be very interested in the development plans for the racecourse and the extent to which the trust board, working with Ngāi Tahu Property, provides for reserve areas and green space so that it is not just a mass of houses. This area is certainly within the city limits, but we have seen that a lot of the building that has occurred post-quake to accommodate people who had to move has been of mediocre quality. We have not seen high standards in urban design, and we have not seen a strong emphasis on medium-density housing. We have seen developments that encourage sprawl. You can go down to Rolleston, where a lot of people have moved. There are very few solar photovoltaic panels on the rooves of new homes there. We are losing an opportunity to promote good urban design and medium-density housing that is close to public transport links, that has good links to cycleways, and that is sustainable in terms of reducing energy costs for the owners and households that take over those homes.

So we want to see where we are, through this legislation, sacrificing open space and reserve land in Christchurch for housing that that housing development and subdivision is of very high quality. There is nothing in the bill that sets the standards for that. The one safeguard in the bill is that there is a requirement that the scheme for the development includes a significant percentage—at least 30 percent—targeted at so-called affordable homes, which will be around 180 houses. But “affordable” here is defined as the threshold for first-home buyers to access the KiwiSaver HomeStart grant, and that is currently $450,000 in Christchurch. That is within no one’s definition of affordable. It would require a major proportion of household income towards a mortgage for a house of that price. Certainly, if the development scheme does not proceed, there are penalties in the legislation, but we would like to see both the trust board and Ngāi Tahu Property, if it is the joint-venture partner, commit to providing homes at a more affordable price than that, as well as ensuring that the subdivision is of very high quality.

We have seen under this Government a major attack on urban trees and on green space in our cities with the changes to the Resource Management Act that require any urban tree to be specifically identified and scheduled and planned for it to have any protection and require resource consent before it can be trimmed or felled. We are seeing in places like Auckland significant loss of large urban trees. So here with this bill sacrificing the reserve land for housing, there is the loss of a quarter of the racecourse and the green space that that provides.

We will be supporting this bill to the select committee, but we will be very interested in submissions, particularly from the surrounding community, because this bill was promised by the Minister Nick Smith in May, and it has taken until now to be introduced. The racecourse has had these proposals for development for some time. We want to be assured that there will be the normal 6-month report-back period so that there is adequate opportunity for people to make a submission, because it seems that we are seeing quite a rush of bills in the last part of the year that affect Canterbury residents. We have seen the “Environment Canterbury (Half-pie Democracy) Bill”. We have got another bill being discussed this afternoon about changes to the way in which land title and surveying is done. We want to ensure that there is good opportunity for people, particularly for Riccarton and upper-Riccarton residents, to make submissions about what they think the implications will be of this loss of a quarter of the racecourse, and its designation and making it available for housing development, which will benefit the racecourse.

At the weekend the finance Minister, Bill English, talked about changes to both the Conservation Act and the Reserves Act to enable more housing development in our urban areas. We would view those changes with significant concern because it is not green space that threatens or impedes housing development, it is the failure of the Government to actually have the promotion of good sustainable planning and good medium-density housing; housing that is based around strong public transport connections and good cycleways so that community facilities and work environments are accessible. We need a promotion of sound urban design, not more urban sprawl. We will be very interested in the submissions on this bill. Thank you.

First of all, I want to thank the Christchurch City Council for the very good information that it has provided in support of its promotion of this bill. As we who live in Christchurch know, the Riccarton Racecourse is a very important piece of reserve land for racing in Canterbury, but there is a lot of land there and I think it is quite appropriate that the surplus land should be available for housing because that is also a major objective in Christchurch these days.

The objectives of the bill are well set out in the city council letter of 14 September to members of Parliament, and it says this: “The objects of this bill are to: (a) identify part of Riccarton Racecourse to be available for housing development; (b) provide the Board of Trustees with the powers to prepare, finalise, and implement a development scheme in relation to the development land; (c) confirm that the balance of Riccarton Racecourse continues to be held by the Board of Trustees on trust for the purposes of racing; (d) provide for the continuation of the Board of Trustees in whom Riccarton Racecourse is vested …; and (f) otherwise provide for the administration of the Board of Trustees.” What that means is that we are going to get two important objectives achieved. One is racing, as it always has been achieved there, and the other is the provision of more land for housing, which is also an urgent priority in Christchurch.

So the key purpose of the bill is to increase the supply of affordable and market housing in Christchurch because, following the earthquake sequences of 2010 and 2011, the Christchurch housing market has faced significant challenges as far as both the availability and pricing of rental housing and new housing are concerned. In addition to that, there has been further pressure resulting from the influx of workers on the Christchurch rebuild. The pressures have resulted in high prices for houses and extraordinarily high rents for rental homes. So with this bill, the board of the Riccarton Racecourse will be making better use of land that is surplus to provide for that major objective in the greater provision of housing in Christchurch.

I am pleased to see that the proposal involves building at least 600 new homes on the site, with about 30 percent of those to be reserved for more affordable houses. Now, that is totally in line with New Zealand First policy—that is what we want to see, although I think we would prefer to see 50 percent as affordable homes, rather than 30 percent. Nevertheless, this is a pretty good effort. “Affordable” is actually defined in the bill as “below the threshold for first home buyers to access the KiwiSaver HomeStart grant”. Clause 6 actually says this in defining the meaning of “affordable house”. It says: “ ‘affordable house’ means a house that has a maximum sale price at the date on which the house is sold as required by section 9(a) of—(a) the amount at which a person eligible for a HomeStart grant in Christchurch City would be able to purchase the house and receive the grant; or (b) if the HomeStart grant scheme no longer exists as at that date, the last amount that applied under paragraph (a) when the HomeStart grant ceased; or (c) $450,000 if the amount referred to [in paragraph (a) or (b) (as the case may be)] is less than $450,000.” So I think that is a very comprehensive and very appropriate definition of what an affordable home would be for the purposes of this bill.

The bill would provide for a development scheme meeting specified minimum requirements to be submitted to the board by the Minister. In that regard, clause 9 says this: “Minimum number of affordable houses requirement—[A scheme submitted to the Minister must—] (a) require a minimum of 180 affordable houses on the land to have been issued with code compliance certificates …; and (b) provide for compensation payable to the Crown in accordance with section 14 if that minimum number of affordable houses requirement is not met.” That means that we will see at least 180 affordable homes—and I think that is a good effort—but, as I have said before, 50 percent or 300 affordable homes would have been better.

However, the whole development is very welcome in Christchurch where there is still a very significant shortage of homes, and what the Government has done is, I think, quite insufficient to meet that shortage, as in Auckland. But it is especially pleasing that this development is happening because it is quite near to the central city, and it is very proximate to excellent public transport, existing schools, shops, doctors, and many other facilities.

The enabling bill also provides for compensation to the Crown if affordable housing is not achieved within a specified time frame, as I have already mentioned. In that regard, clause 14 says this: “(1) A scheme submitted to the Minister must (a) provide for the compensation payable by the Board to the Crown if a scheme is approved and the Board fails to meet the minimum number of affordable houses [requirement] referred to in section 9(a) …; and (b) specify the amount payable, or the method to be used for calculating the amount payable, which must include or provide for the following: (i) monthly compensation, starting 5 years after the approval date, of $1,500 per month for each house by which the number of houses that meet the time limit in section 9(a) is less than 180; (ii) maximum compensation payable for each house of $17,000 …; (iii) the remission of compensation in part or in whole if, for reasons specified in the scheme, it would be unreasonable for the Crown to enforce the compensation …”. So there is a bit of a let out clause if it is unreasonable that that compensation should be paid. I think that is a very adequate way to ensure that there is a very firm incentive for the developer to ensure that the affordable houses that are to be built are actually achieved.

I very much approve of legislation that has teeth. This has teeth. I think it will mean that the affordable houses we want to see will actually be built. I think the bill is well drafted and well-thought-out. Indeed, it could be a good template for others in similar circumstances elsewhere in the country or, indeed, elsewhere in Christchurch, because there is actually a significant amount of other surplus land available, both in Christchurch and in Auckland where the shortage in houses is the most acute. This is one good way of achieving more affordable houses and more homes generally in areas where there is a housing shortage. New Zealand First is happy to support the bill and to congratulate those who have conceived it.

Kia ora, e Te Mana Whakawā. It is indeed my pleasure to be able stand here today and talk about the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill and the Riccarton Racecourse Bill. I do this as a member of this Government, as a Christchurch ratepayer, and also as a member of the Ngāi Tahu iwi. This is just great legislation, when we think back 5 years ago to the devastation that happened right across Christchurch and other parts of Canterbury. We are able to talk about legislation that really does give us a vehicle to be able to continue on with the great development that has happened to date under this Government. And, particularly, we are talking about the 13,000 houses that were lost and the incredible job that has been done to rebuild that housing stock and to make them very much warm, safe, and healthy houses. Just listening to a couple of the speeches from the other side of the House leading up to mine, the other thing is that in some ways I congratulate them, but in other ways some of the discussion is that the glass is half empty. I want to talk about the fact that the glass here is very much half full and continues to be topped up all the time, particularly with this legislation.

When we look at these two bills, I think the important thing—and it follows on from my speech 2 weeks ago now around the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill when I talked about this—is kotahitanga. I talked about how the major stakeholders who make these things happen in Christchurch actually do work very, very closely together and work in a sort of true partnership. So when we look at this bill, this bill is definitely about cooperation. It is a cooperation with the Crown, it is a cooperation with the Christchurch City Council, and it is a cooperation with the Ngāi Tahu iwi and also Riccarton Racecourse.

In that sort of cooperation, what are the benefits then, and what does it bring? What it does is pave the way for a really exciting, innovative new housing development in Christchurch—that is what it does. Then the other part of this is what those stakeholders actually bring to this development through this legislation. Looking at the Riccarton Racecourse first of all, what it brings is the land. In doing that, it will be able to ensure that it is actually able to generate income as well. The next one is the Ngāi Tahu iwi. What the Ngāi Tahu iwi will bring, through its property company, is specialist knowledge within property development. What that does in turn, particularly for iwi members, is generate income for those iwi members. It generates more income for them that gives them more education scholarships, it gives them more access to the fine savings scheme that they have called Whai Rawa—all of these sorts of incremental value things that are done through the various subsidiary companies of the iwi.

The other thing is the benefits that it also brings to the Christchurch City Council and to the Crown itself. Looking at the Christchurch City Council and then looking at the people of Christchurch themselves, what this does is give another 600 houses within this development. But the real unique thing about this development is the fact is that within it, they are able to include something that is actually possibly, in some of the other developments, something that has been very difficult to achieve. And what I am talking about here is affordable housing. Within this development—which, as I say, is very unique—is the fact that within the 600 houses there is going to be a minimum of 180 houses that are actually going to be classified as affordable housing. That classification works. The fact is that in practice this means that the houses need to be priced below $450,000 and then they are only for first-time homebuyers who can actually access the Government FirstHome scheme. So it all sort of really connects together on moving forward in partnership.

To me, though, this legislation also allows—as the previous speaker from New Zealand First, Denis O’Rourke, said—for a template to be developed by which we have legislation that allows land to be released, because originally it was actually tied in with these ancient laws as being about land use. So it is actually enabling land use to continue through using land not for the specific purposes that it was laid down for but for a more specific purpose now in the 21st century, and particularly around the aftermath of the tragic earthquakes in Christchurch.

I think that this legislation really does define the way forward, particularly with healthy homes. It goes forward, particularly when we talk about Treaty settlements and what could be, when we look at the template that it is developing. Ngāi Tahu also have the right of first refusal, and so they are able to sort of work that through where they are contributing to this development using that right of first refusal process. The other part is around those businesses, particularly the Riccarton Racecourse, being able to sort of shed some of that land, and even keep the original intention, which is the racecourse itself, but then be able to use a large part of that land for social development, particularly houses.

These bills are indeed part of an excellent process that is freeing up land for economic development in Christchurch, letting Riccarton Racecourse secure its own future through the assets it already controls and bringing in those partnerships that I have talked about. This is great legislation. This is really a way forward. It is an excellent template also for the future of freeing up land to do such excellent work as this legislation will allow it to do. I have no hesitation, and I would like to commend these bills to the House. Kia ora.

I think my colleague Eugenie Sage has already indicated that the Green Party will be supporting this legislation at first reading. We will then be very interested to hear the submissions that are made, particularly by local Christchurch people, and then determine what position we take on the legislation thereafter.

The earthquakes that devastated large parts of Christchurch, and indeed the wider Canterbury area, have, according to the ledger of effects, left a permanent and highly negative impact on those communities. If there is one positive thing to have arisen out of those terrible earthquakes, it must surely be the opportunity to make decisions about the future that are less constrained by poor decision making in the past; that the opportunity to reimagine what the city could be is in front of citizens of that city—and early on in the rebuild process it seemed as if that opportunity was going to be grasped. There was a process that involved a lot of public input into how Christchurch should be in the future. Unfortunately, it seems that some of the momentum behind that process—some of that opportunity—has been lost and is being lost. Our concern about the bills that sit before the House today is that this might be another case of a lost opportunity or an opportunity at least half lost.

The opportunity that arises from the need to build new houses is the opportunity to build houses in a different way—to build houses, as Bob Burnett has done in Christchurch, to a much higher standard of energy performance, for example. Why can these houses not be 10 Homestar - rated, for example? The opportunity arises to create medium-density housing that is clustered around public transport nodes. I am not sure that that is going to be the case with this housing development. Once again, possibly it is an opportunity lost—the possibility of creating housing development that sits in balance with the natural environment around it—and one of the unfortunate aspects of this legislation is that we are losing, as Eugenie Sage has said, one of the few areas of green space, aside from Hagley Park, that is available in the city. So that is the concern that we have.

Auckland is a city built on volcanoes, which gives us the opportunity to stand on top of some of those, and I invite any member of the House to stand on top of Mount Wellington and have a look at the housing developments nearby because they demonstrate pretty neatly what could go wrong with this development. What we see are cookie cutter mansions where developers have done the thing that is the logical commercial thing to do, which is to develop houses to the boundaries, or as close to the boundaries that they can, to create the houses that they can sell for the most. So what we end up with is a development that I believe may well come to be a slum in the future because it provides poor-quality housing, and we do not have to do that.

Other colleagues have spoken about the issue of affordability, and, yes, it is great to see a requirement for some of the houses, at least, to be affordable. Would it not be great to see them all being affordable houses or for it to have an affordability standard that actually relates to the real lives of the people who are actually in need? So there are some reservations. On balance, we support the legislation at this point, but we look forward to hearing what the people of Christchurch have to say about it.

I note the coincidence of our debating the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill and the Riccarton Racecourse Bill on the biggest day of Australasia’s racing calendar, Melbourne Cup day, and I think in about an hour all the competitors will be entering the gates. My money is on Who Shot Thebarman, and the lazy money is on the Prince of Penzance, which was paying about $97 when I last checked, so it has got absolutely no show. So that is money that is gone.

But, having said that, Riccarton Racecourse itself is an important piece of, I guess, social infrastructure for Christchurch, and about 138 years ago a piece of legislation was put in place to protect the land that is Riccarton Racecourse for the purpose of racing in Canterbury. I was not there, but when it was put there Riccarton Racecourse was out in the country. Because it was seen as an important piece of infrastructure that land was protected in legislation, and because of the events of an earthquake we are now here legislating to amend that legislation to release some of the land that has been protected under that legislation for much-needed housing in Christchurch. Obviously, there is high demand for more housing in Christchurch because of the events of the earthquakes in 2011 and in 2010, and 600 more homes will be built on these about 40 hectares, I believe, that will be released around the corner of Steadman Road and Yaldhurst Road.

I grew up in Christchurch. I spent more time at Addington Raceway, but Riccarton Racecourse for the gallops is obviously an important event, especially in the next coming week—show week—where cup day will be held on Saturday.

There is some debate, and that will be had at the select committee, as to whether or not there is enough housing set aside under this project that is deemed affordable in the quantum and also in the price. Colleagues have made the point in this first reading debate as to whether we think that the level of what we think is affordable in Christchurch, which has been set by the Government, is the right level. We will support the debate being had at the select committee. There is a line in the sand but, I think, given what has gone on there and the affordability of houses in general in Christchurch and the lack of affordable housing for those who are really struggling in Christchurch, whether or not we have got that setting right—as many of our speakers on this side of the House have said, we are supporting this piece of legislation so that that will be fully debated at the select committee.

I would like to congratulate all the parties involved in this, actually—the Christchurch City Council, Ngāi Tahu, the Canterbury Jockey Club, and the Riccarton Racecourse—because I think they have found a pragmatic solution to problems that they each have. Obviously, the housing issue will be addressed with bringing 600 new homes online—the city council, you know, freeing up land—but, as our racing spokesperson, it also addresses an issue that the Canterbury Jockey Club has. It faces issues, just like all the other racing clubs around the country—as do most sports clubs, actually—about how it raises money to run its operations and, importantly for racing clubs, about how it raises prize money. The ability of Riccarton Racecourse to release this land, to go into a partnership with Ngāi Tahu and to hopefully make some profit out of the development, will allow them to keep up the racecourse; to develop the sport in Canterbury, which is very important; but, also, hopefully, to generate some more prize money, because the racing industry, as we see it now, is struggling right around the country, with a lot of clubs really struggling to do the basics.

So in one way this obviously is designed to deal with a housing issue, but it also allows the Canterbury Jockey Club and the Riccarton Racecourse to deal with a serious issue around cash flow and making themselves fit for the future. So in that respect I think it is very forward-looking, from a racing perspective, to be able to let the Canterbury Jockey Club and the Riccarton Racecourse get some more revenue. They have struggled alongside the rest of the city to keep themselves going, and I believe my colleague Megan Woods said that, at the time of the earthquake, Riccarton Racecourse became a very important part of the community to farewell those who had passed away.

So to make sure that this racecourse stays strong—it is an important part of the city. Our forefathers knew that 140 years ago and protected it, but we do need to release some of this land now to make sure there is more housing and there is more investment for the race club to make sure racing is strong in Christchurch.

I stand to take a short call on these companion bills, the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill and the Riccarton Racecourse Bill. I am very pleased about where we have got to with these, getting them into first reading and especially the fact that the Riccarton Racecourse board is allowing 33 hectares of the 123 hectares that it has to go into housing development. Many of the people here have already spoken about the type of housing development, but it really is a reflection of the way that the people of Christchurch and of Canterbury are starting to develop and are starting to move from the recovery stage into the regeneration stage.

In 2010 and 2011 we stood and we witnessed that about 13,000 homes were destroyed through those two earthquakes, and this Government has committed, where it can, to replacing as many of those homes as it can. In 2014 the Government built 4,400 homes in Canterbury. These particular companion bills will add another 600 new homes to the housing project in Christchurch City. I guess the beauty of these bills is that 30 percent of those homes are being set aside and priced on a cap of $450,000, which allows those homes to be set into the affordable housing category—something that was part and parcel of the Christchurch Housing Accord, which was signed with the Christchurch City Council. That accord increases the supply and the affordability of houses in Christchurch.

I too want to add my thanks to the Riccarton Racecourse board, to Ngāi Tahu, and to the Christchurch City Council for their foresight in this proposal for the development of these homes. I look forward to hearing the submissions from people in Christchurch over these particular bills, and I look forward to the full select committee process as we start moving these bills through into legislation. I have no hesitation; I am very proud to stand here and commend this bill to the House.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. It has been well traversed, the history that sits behind this bill: that the racecourse, of course, was set up over 100 years ago. At that time it was actually countryside, and I think it might have been a day trip to get out there to watch the races. So it is certainly a facility that is well and truly rooted in the history of Christchurch, and the city and the suburbs have grown around it. It is a beautiful example of green space, open space, in the heart of Riccarton. I know that it was a difficult decision for the board to make to relinquish some of its land for this very worthwhile project, but it is a decision that the board has had to make, and we support it in doing so. But not only is it about the survival of the racing club; it is also around ensuring that the facilities, the buildings, the outbuildings, the stables—all of those facilities—are able to be maintained, not only due to damage from the earthquake but actually just over time and the maintenance costs, etc. So in that regard it is important for us to be supporting the club on this bill.

We do, however, have some concerns. The local community, when the bill was first promoted, of course spoke with the local MP, Dr Megan Woods, about the loss of use of the land. It is a piece of land that many of the locals walk through. They walk their dogs in it. It is a lovely park area, quite open, but also sheltered at the same time—beautiful trees. So they were concerned about the loss of that land, and I know that in discussions with the board at that meeting that Dr Megan Woods held and at other times there has been a lot done to reassure the community that the facilities and the ability to enjoy that part of the racing club will be protected and will still continue to provide some recreation for them.

I do want to say it is an important partnership, too, with Ngāi Tahu Property. It is a very interesting venture, and one that Ngāi Tahu are definitely in the right position to take advantage of, but I do recall when I and my colleagues Dr Megan Woods and the Hon Ruth Dyson went to speak with them about the development, I had some questions about the level of affordability they were predicting. I remember at the time suggesting that around $450,000 was out of the purview of many local Christchurch people, and at the time I did make the statement that for many people it is not affordable. The repayments on a 15-year mortgage with a 20 percent deposit would take 75 percent of the wages of a household on the median income before tax, and I think that is fairly significant, because it does suggest that affordability is a topic that we perhaps need to resolve at the select committee consideration. What is truly affordable for the people of Christchurch?

The other issue that we raised at the time was around the exemplar status. From what I recall, and I am happy to be corrected on this, I had believed that this particular development did not meet the criteria for exemplar, although I see that it is quoted as being one of the six fast-track exemplar subdivisions. I was of the view that even though it met most of the criteria, it did not meet all of them, and it was not actually an exemplar subdivision. An exemplar subdivision has percentages of affordable homes within the development. It has a certain level of urban design. There are many other criteria—the type of building materials that are used, etc. I am unsure, and I would like to have that corrected if that was the case, but I am unsure that this is actually an exemplar subdivision.

I am also concerned that property development in this city has tended towards the larger three and four-bedroom homes, where, really, a range of different types of properties—smaller properties, particularly—are really needed across the city. I know that this is a development that will require a certain look and has a certain price point, but I would be encouraging anyone who is listening to this debate who is involved in property development to really look at the opportunities that lie in providing homes for different family groupings—whether it is for single people, for couples, or for smaller families—because we have tended to go down the route of the larger four bedroom executive-type homes. A lot of the developments, of course, that happen on the North Island are on the very, very fringes of cities and have difficult transportation connections into work and schools, or very loose connections to major facilities.

I am not going to talk too much more on this bill. It has been well debated across the House. Just in reviewing, I am concerned about $450,000 being set as an affordability level. I think we could do better than that. As I say, I would hope that the concerns of local people are addressed during the select committee process. There is an awful lot of select committee work being undertaken in Canterbury over the next few months. I hope that the select committees and those who will be involved in hearing submissions on the range of Canterbury bills are actually given an appropriate period of time and that people who want to submit on a vast array of legislation—going from our local democracy, to housing, to the way the governance of our city and future developments will go into the future. Just on that final concern about the select committee process and the period for submissions, I hope that the public is given enough time and enough information to provide for the appropriate consultation of local communities. On that note, I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

I am rising in support of the first reading of the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill and the Riccarton Racecourse Bill. As a Cantabrian, I can only but think, when I hear the name Riccarton Racecourse—I remember Reon Murtha with his catchcall: “Racing this time.” Every time I hear that phrase, I think of Riccarton Racecourse. “Racing this time”—I have great memories of Riccarton Racecourse.

When you think about the housing that we need post-recovery—losing about 13,000 houses—there are some real lessons that have come out from the earthquakes about how we deliver housing. It is very much a supply side issue. If you look at average house-price inflation, it is, roughly, probably about 7.5 percent—5.5 percent in Canterbury. But if you look in my electorate of Waimakariri, it is about 3.5 percent. The learning there is that if you free up land, you deliver housing, and that meets demand. I think this bill supports that philosophy. Around 600 houses will be built—this bill will free up around 33 hectares—and 180 of them will be affordable, as we have heard, costing around $450,000. That is also because people will be able to buy these houses and still attain the HomeStart grant that this Government has brought in, the KiwiSaver HomeStart grant. When you look at some of the developments in my electorate—around Beach Grove and Kaiapoi and Silverstream—that policy, that legislation, has incentivised the market to deliver at under $450,000, so that should be supported.

I think the racecourse is in a fantastic location for housing. It is about 13 kilometres to the central business district, but is also placed strategically for both universities, Canterbury as well as Lincoln. It is very handy to the shops at Church Corner and not too far from Riccarton Mall, as well. There are a lot of business parks around Rolleston, around Yaldhurst, and Russley, which many Cantabrians are working in now. So this housing stock will put them in a great place to access that, as well.

In summary, I wholeheartedly support this bill and commend it to the House, and am looking forward for it to go through to the select committee and to hearing the submissions. As has been spoken about, there are a lot of bills around Canterbury at the moment, but I think this demonstrates the commitment this Government has to rebuilding a city that is recovering. It is regenerating. Ultimately, what we are building is the best new city in the world. Thank you.

Bills read a first time.

Bills referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.

I move, That the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill and the Riccarton Racecourse Bill be reported back to the House by 7 March 2016.

Motion agreed to.