Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill

I move, That the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill be now read a third time. Prior to the last election, the Government made it clear to the people of Christchurch that we would be looking to transition from the arrangements that we had post the 2011 earthquakes to a more locally led arrangement as Christchurch continued with its rebuild and recovery.

The first step was to transition the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority, a Government department, into being a business unit inside the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. The second significant point came in December of 2014 when I convened a board of local people from Christchurch, under the chairmanship of Dame Jenny Shipley, to look at what might be all of the aspects necessary to consider as we transition from very significant Government involvement in Christchurch to that local-led leadership. That board was made up of the mayors of the territorial authorities, the chair of Environment Canterbury, and a number of people who represented business, as well as the NGO sector. It was, I think, a very good process that enabled all of those people to put their particular considerations into the mix, measured against the needs of the wider community, and, of course, enabled us to hear from the mayors who were there in their own private capacity, including the Mayor of Christchurch, some of the concerns that those organisations might have post the arrangements that we might eventually have got to.

Eventually, there was the report brought down by the advisory board, which has been released in the last few weeks. That report, essentially, sets out the arrangements that were reflected in the bill when it was originally brought into the House about 6 months ago and then worked on the Local Government and Environment Committee over that period of time. In essence, what it does is create a new level of organisation in Christchurch that will be able to continue some of the work that was enabled by the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act, but have it led by local people—have it led, essentially, by a combination of appointees from the Government and appointees from the Christchurch City Council.

That organisation will be called Regenerate Christchurch, and, over a period of years, it will transition from being a fifty-fifty Government - Christchurch City Council partnership into being a fully council-controlled organisation. I am pleased some very capable people have accepted appointment to the board of that organisation, and we look forward now to its establishing under a chief executive and getting about its work.

If there is a question about what its work is, it should be seen in the context of a city that suffered significant devastation in the earthquakes and has gone through a recovery where we have now got some plans and a lot of work being done in a reconstruction sense, but, essentially, because of much of that, we need to regenerate many parts of the Christchurch city that have, perhaps, not suffered the same level of damage but, none the less, have changed because of the circumstances the earthquake has brought along. So I look forward to some very exciting prospects for regeneration in Christchurch, for, essentially, urban renewal being brought to fruition through the offices of Regenerate Christchurch.

It should be recognised that the Government’s commitment to Christchurch remains around the anchor projects. There is a lot of talk about when we will hear about the convention centre, when the Metro Sports Facility is going to be done—and I know Dr Megan Woods asks me this all the time, but she also appreciates that the Government is actually dealing with a number of complexities, not the least of which is that the private sector contractors who will deliver those facilities do like to be paid, and paid somewhat handsomely. So there is a necessity to ensure that on behalf of the future owners, whoever they may be, those facilities are going to work and be suitable for the wider community use that they are intended.

In order to continue that process—and I can assure the House that there will be some announcements in regard to both of those two projects I mentioned in the very near future—there is an organisation established by the Government called Ōtākaro Ltd. I hope, Mr Tirikatene, that I got the pronunciation of that correct. I apologise for not pronouncing that word appropriately, if I have mispronounced it. I promise not to criticise you for some other butchering that you do of the language that I am more familiar with. But may I say that the body is being set up as a schedule 4A company under the State-Owned Enterprises Act, and it will have strong accountabilities, but it will have a particular role in the delivery of the commercial interests that remain around those big projects.

The big issue in Christchurch that—well, not the biggest issue, but one that a lot of people talk about often is what happens in the residential red zone. The arrangements that we have got is that right now Land Information New Zealand is acting as the manager for that land and, effectively, making sure that it is kept in a reasonable state. The ownership will be represented by Ōtākaro Ltd, but the decisions about what its future use may be will be led by Regenerate Christchurch. People may think that is a very convoluted way of doing things, but one of the important things to remember in all of this is that this bill before the House today was finally constructed by a cross-party arrangement, where members, largely from Christchurch, sat down with the bill, looked at what the city needed, and made some conclusions about the nature and shape of the legislation we need going forward. So although it may appear a little cumbersome, I am quite sure that it is the best we could have done, moving forward.

I think the mere fact that we do have significant support for the bill in the House today indicates the ongoing commitment of Parliament to assist Christchurch as we get back into the place that we have been in the past, and even better. Alongside those two organisations the city council is also setting up what, effectively, will be one a one-stop shop for investment, called Development Christchurch. Across the three boards there will be a cross-pollination of the directorates, ensuring that the three do work well. And I think we are going to be in reasonable shape in that regard.

The bill necessarily maintains a backstop position that is held by a Minister. We discussed that extensively in the cross-party discussions that we had, and recognised that no matter who is in Government or who the Minister is, when you have a bill that sets aside other provisions in legislation—in other words, some Resource Management Act provisions—it is appropriate that, in the end, a Minister of the Crown takes that responsibility.

In the time that I have got, I want to make some scathing criticisms of an article that appeared in the Christchurch Press this morning—no one will be surprised by that. Under the guise of analysis, an opinion piece continued the generally negative approach that that paper has taken to anything that is progressive in Christchurch and largely ignored the fact that this bill is so well supported. It was a great disappointment, but there was but nothing unusual in that.

I would like to conclude by thanking some people. It is always dangerous when you do that, because you may leave some people out. So what I want to do first is thank all of those people who have worked for the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority over the years. I know that it has not been easy. Many of those people had their own homes damaged and other issues that they were dealing with in their lives as a result of the earthquake event, but they, none the less, put their heads down, and despite some of the critics of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority, they have done a marvellous job for the city.

I particularly would like to thank John Ombler, the original establishment chief executive of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority, who came back in at a difficult time, out of retirement, and has done a great job in pulling the team together, and, particularly, focusing the team on what, effectively, is their own endpoint. It is not an easy thing for anyone to do, and I again congratulate all of the people in the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority who have participated so positively in that wind-up. I also want to mention, just briefly, the late Michelle Mitchell, who was a very significant player in maintaining the focus we have on the psychosocial health in Christchurch. Part of her legacy will be the requirement set down by the transition advisory board that we do have an ongoing focus on that, and that has been reflected by Government announcements in recent days.

This is a good bill. It is a turning point for Christchurch. It does start the process over a short number of years to returning local leadership to our community.

It is my pleasure to take a call on the third reading of this bill and to continue Labour’s support for this piece of legislation, just in case, I say to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery, there are any questions in your mind. Our position has been very clear right from the beginning on this piece of legislation when it came to the House for its first reading. This had to be a piece of legislation that fulfilled the desire that was clearly evident in Christchurch for a locally led recovery. We listened very carefully at the Local Government and Environment Committee hearing and, in addition to the people that the Minister has acknowledged, I would like to acknowledge the people who took the opportunity to submit on this piece of legislation and to come to the select committee and present very ably their views..

I think there was some very good thinking that lay in these submissions, and it gave us the basis for many of the changes that we were subsequently able to make to this bill. As has been traversed on many occasions, when the bill was first reported back from the select committee Labour was not able to support it. We drew a very simple line in the sand, and that line in the sand was whether this delivered the kind of locally led recovery that the people of Christchurch desired, deserved, and needed for their city to be all it could be. The answer for us was no. But I would like to acknowledge the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery and his willingness to work afterwards across parties to reach a point where we could all agree on the final shape of this bill that we are debating here in the House. So we are thankful to the Government for doing that.

While we are acknowledging people, I would like to acknowledge some of the work that has gone on at the grassroots in Christchurch over the last 5½ years. I think we have seen a remarkable 5½ years—I hope we never see the likes of it again—and the kind of creativity and innovation that has sprung up in the adversity that has been Christchurch and Canterbury over the last 5½ years is something that I and many people across this House will always celebrate. This was always our vision: that what we would have for the next phase of our regeneration is a structure that could capture and allow for this innovation, this creativity, and this energy that lay within the people of Christchurch and Canterbury. We wanted that to be what took us forward in the next 5½ years, not a heavy, top-down Wellington approach. So I am thankful that we do have a bill that can do that. I would also like to acknowledge the work of the advisory board that the Minister mentioned, ably chaired by the Rt Hon Jenny Shipley, which came forward with a good structure in which we could put in place this legislation.

The Minister has given a good description of what this legislation does. It seems somewhat counterintuitive to be saying that this complex web of institutions we are setting up to replace one Government organisation—the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority—is what we believe is going to take Christchurch forward in a faster and better way towards the kind of city we could be, but I believe it will. What we are going to see is a joint venture, a power sharing, between the city and the Government in the case of Christchurch City. I would like to acknowledge the mayor of Christchurch City, who is in the gallery today to oversee the third reading of this bill, for the work that she has put into this legislation. It is going to be through relationships, not only with Christchurch City Council but with Selwyn District Council and Waimakariri District Council, that we are going to see productive moving forward in our region. It is with the other strategic partners, with Ngāi Tahu and with Environment Canterbury, that we can make the most of what the next 5 years will bring. I hope they do bring some more movement, some faster movement, on those anchor projects, Minister. That is something that we do share, and I wait with bated breath for the forthcoming announcements around those.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Oh, breathe a little.

I am breathing. I am breathing through my nose, Minister, and waiting—waiting. But one of the things that we are setting up is not only this joint venture between the city and the Crown but also, as the Minister outlined, another Crown entity that is going to take control of the residential red zone and the anchor projects, in the form of Ōtākaro Ltd. This, as the Minister has alluded to also, will be subject to normal public finance reporting requirements and scrutiny from this House. At the Committee stage of this bill we did raise some questions around the constitution of that company and the limits that need to be monitored in terms of that company and the way in which it operates.

What we have got now is a very useful structure for how we can take our city and our region forward, but what it requires now is an operationalisation. As I have been saying to many of the grassroots organisations in Christchurch: “Your job is not done. Your job is not complete here.” We have a good piece of legislation, but we still need community involvement more than ever. We still need that level of engagement, we still need that level of creativity, and we still need the level of vigilance that we have seen from the community in Christchurch over its future for the next 5 years as we enter this new phase of our regeneration. That is something that the Labour Party will commit to doing for the next year and a bit that it is in Opposition. It will continue to be vigilant in holding the Government to account, but these are structures that can work if we all work together and work for the betterment of our city.

We heard from many submitters in the course of the select committee’s consideration of this bill, but there was one recurring theme that just kept coming through time and time again, and that was around the time for local leadership. We heard from the Option3 group, which managed to get more than 100 submissions in to the process. It was a very tight time frame, but that group managed to get more than 100 submissions in. We heard from Keep Our Assets and Avon-Ōtākaro Network, all wanting greater cooperation between central and local government. I hope that they can find that this legislation fulfils their expressions in their submissions to an extent.

I am also very pleased that the Government has chosen to support the amendment in my name so we can put in place those protections for Hagley Park—we can put a symbolic kind of protection around it and say that generations of people before us have established this and protected it, and it is our turn to do the same now. I know that it is something that many people in Christchurch are very appreciative of, because it is such an important part of our city. We now face a very challenging 5 years ahead of us. We have gone through a challenging 5½ years, but the next 5 years are also going to be very challenging.

We still have many things to do if we are going to call our recovery a success. Many of these things are to do with organisations that are charged under this legislation. One of the changes that we got as a result of the Local Government and Environment Committee’s consideration, which I am very pleased to see, is that this legislation, unlike the Local Government Act, has the four well-beings in its purpose. So this is about the environmental, the economic, the social, and the cultural well-being of our city and our region. It is only by bringing those four elements together that we can have our city reach its potential. So I am very happy to see those in there.

We have a number of things to do. We still have a lot of very vacant land in our central city. I think that anyone who has taken a ride through what used to be central Christchurch in recent times will see some exciting new developments that are springing up. They are something that we all treasure, and we all look forward to seeing the next new thing springing up. But I think that we will also see room for improvement. There are many areas that we simply have to get going. We cannot have wastelands sitting in the middle of our city and our suburbs, which just sit there and have not been touched in 5½ years. I was heartened to read in Minister Brownlee’s favourite newspaper, the Press, earlier today that some movement on the Sydenham Heritage Church is going to happen, and the pile of rubble sitting on Brougham Street is going to move, 5½ years on. I think we will all heave a collective sigh of relief over that one. It is an eyesore and is just down the road from my house, so I am personally very grateful for that.

We cannot call the regeneration and the recovery of Christchurch a success until we have certainty and closure on the residential recovery of Christchurch. People still not knowing what is happening with their homes, what is happening with the Earthquake Commission, and what is happening with their insurance is a situation that cannot be allowed to go on. People cannot feel that their city is on the right path while they are still sitting waiting and having sleepless nights, not knowing what is happening with their very certainty and foundation in life. Labour is happy to support this bill. We have a framework; it is now up to us to make this work. Thank you.

I too am very pleased to speak at this third reading of the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill. I am particularly pleased because this House has given this bill unanimous support. I think that is because there has been so much thought, so much technical advice, so many public submissions, so much select committee energy, and so much cross-party discussion to make this bill fit for purpose. I am also pleased that the House unanimously supported Supplementary Order Paper 159 put out in the name of Minister Brownlee, and the amendments in the names of Dr Megan Woods and Denis O’Rourke. Mr Brownlee’s, of course, was the result of significant cross-party discussion and it has added real value to the bill. Dr Megan Woods’ amendment enshrines the protection of Hagley Park. Hagley Park, of course, is close to the hearts of all Christchurch people, so that is appreciated. Denis O’Rourke’s amendment has added to the compensation, and clarified that, so that added value too. Denis, thank you very much.

This bill is designed to deliver the step change that we are all looking for—the step change from recovery to regeneration. Over the last 5 years we have been through the emergency response, we have moved on to rebuild and replacement—but those are all reactive things. We are now looking for proactive leadership in our city to regenerate for urban development and urban renewal, with a focus on betterment. I think that we need to make sure that we take every opportunity to make our city and its environment a better place—a better place socially, a better place culturally, a better place environmentally, and a better place economically.

The bill is also about working together as we move on from this 5-year recovery phase towards local control, local leadership, and local decision-making. It is about working towards a new business-as-usual, as in 2021. I say “a new business-as-usual”, because I do not think that Christchurch will ever be the same again. We are totally committed to new ways of thinking, new ways of working, and increased innovation and collaboration. But, of course, regeneration does not stop when the legislation expires in 2021. Regeneration is ongoing, and, hopefully, will be ongoing for ever. In 2021 Regenerate Christchurch will become a council-controlled organisation. It will be back in local leadership.

Over the last 5 years there has been an enormous amount achieved, and much of it in a very innovative way. New organisations and methods of making things happen have really been introduced. I think they say that necessity is the mother of invention, and if that is the case, certainly Christchurch has been very inventive. I just want to give three examples of that innovation, and the way that we are thinking differently.

Christchurch people are very supportive of “SCIRT”. “SCIRT” is the Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuild Team, Mr Deputy Speaker.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have got you—thank you.

They appreciate that over 90 percent of the horizontal infrastructure in Christchurch has been rebuilt in the city by the Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuild Team. But many are unaware of the unique framework that the team provides. It is a collaboration of five contractors, and it has become a very successful model that has been recognised internationally as best practice, and it is now being implemented in other parts of the world in response to disasters.

Similarly, “EPIC”, which is the Enterprise Precinct and Innovation Campus, is a cooperative enterprise as well. That provides shared office space and mentoring support. That has allowed over 20 IT and high-tech companies to cohabit in the same areas and it provides opportunities for those businesses to deliver synergies between them, and new ways of growing those businesses and creating jobs. It is a very exciting new project in Christchurch. And, finally, in the creative sector, Gap Filler, Greening the Rubble, and the Ministry of Awesome are all fabulous new creative solutions that have been developed by the people of Christchurch to do something different in our city, and they are new collaborative ways of working.

This new governance structure that the bill delivers is all about collaboration as well, and the purpose of the bill is to enable a very focused and expedient planning process towards the regeneration of our city. It recognises the local leadership of the councils—Environment Canterbury, the Christchurch City Council, the Selwyn District Council, the Waimakariri District Council, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu—and also Regenerate Christchurch, and empowers each of those to make decisions. It also provides for more community input into those decisions, and into the development of regeneration plans.

Regenerate Christchurch, as the Minister explained, is the new entity created by the bill, and it is a seven-member board jointly appointed by the Christchurch City Council and the Crown, with one member nominated by Ngāi Tahu. It will be the vehicle to drive this new collaboration and regeneration, and to transit the city back to business-as-usual within those 5 years. But I think the challenge for all of us is to support this structure, this collaborative structure, and to put aside any petty politics that we have, to discard any patch protection, and to swallow up any individual organisational focus, and have one ultimate test for all decision making. That test should be: is this good for the people of Christchurch? Is this good for the future of our city and its environments? I believe that we can answer these questions positively. If our decisions are evidence based and solutions focused, I think we will get the right outcomes, going forward.

This bill is an empowering framework. It underpins that step change that we are all looking for, and I think it is a framework that can inspire and encourage Christchurch people to get out there, to engage, and to actively work to create the city that we want. I think it is very clear—the city that we want. We want it to be safe. We want it to be beautiful. We want it to be people-friendly, vibrant, and sustainable. We want it to be a place full of opportunity, a place that attracts all generations, so that there is somewhere for all of us to live, to work, and to play.

I really look forward to working with everybody in this House, the stakeholders, the new organisations, and the communities—all the communities—that make up Greater Christchurch as we embrace this next stage of our journey, and our city regenerates for the future. Thank you.

I too want to join with others in this House to acknowledge the work that has gone on behind the scenes by Minister Gerry Brownlee; by the Hon Lianne Dalziel, who is present in the gallery today; and by various members from across the House who have workshopped what was a piece of legislation that Labour could not support when it first came back to the House, but, with the collaboration and the considered work that happened behind the scenes, is now something that has support from across the House. This is no mean feat, Minister, and I want to acknowledge your leadership in ensuring that that has occurred.

There are some changes that happened in that process, in that workshopping, that are quite significant, and I want to remark on what they are. What this legislation now provides for us, as locals, is some better input into the planning and the decision making around what the future of our city will look like. It is about the residents and the communities actually having a much bigger say and much bigger buy-in into the kind of city that we can create together. This bill actually forms the basis of that relationship between the Government, Christchurch City Council, the other territorial local authorities, Ngāi Tahu, Environment Canterbury, and the structures that sit together to ensure that our people have a say in establishing a positive and forward-thinking, forward-looking city.

The plans, as they have been developed, needed to have greater input from the people who will eventually have to live within the implementation of those plans, and there is recognition that work has already been happening in this area. In that regard, I want to point particularly to a piece of work that happened last year called the EVO::SPACE project, by Eastern Vision and Avon-Ōtākaro Network. What this particular piece of work demonstrated was the power of the positivity of a community to see beyond the rubble and beyond the open spaces, and envision what could become fantastic areas for recreation, sports, and other facilities within the residential red zone.

But there have been other people who have contributed to continuing to have a vision for our city, and I want to mention those who are specific to the eastern suburbs. They are people and groups like Renew Brighton and the New Brighton Project, the New Brighton Business and Landowners Association, and all of those community organisations, from Southshore right up to Kainga, that have a vested interest in ensuring that this piece of legislation is fit for purpose for the kind of future city and future community that they would like.

The changes that this bill has brought about have meant that there is a transfer of power from Wellington to locals, that there is a reduction in the use of emergency powers—though there will be some use of those powers required in the future—and that there is also greater local input into the decision making. So what does that mean for the people of the Christchurch East electorate? Well, specifically, the residential red zone and the New Brighton area have special letters of intent with regard to the significance of the regeneration plans. For the residential red zone, there are opportunities and decisions that can now go in place. I mentioned the EVO::SPACE project, where locals talked about the types of facilities that they would like within the residential red zone, knowing full well that at some point development will have to occur. They would like also to see the opportunity to have wide open spaces, to have rowing lakes, to have dog-walking parks, and to have opportunities such as may be presented by the Eden project.

There are still some decisions to be made. What happens to the New Brighton Road? Is there an opportunity to use some of this land within the red zone for flood mitigation? What will happen to the stopbanks along the Avon River, which are causing quite some concern at the moment? How will Regenerate Christchurch actually recognise and celebrate the people, families, and institutions that were part of that vibrant community before they had to lock up their homes and leave, all those years ago? For some, this is a very emotional part of Regenerate Christchurch, because leaving meant that they felt like they had been cleared from their land and their property. It is very hard for some members of our community.

I would ask, when we are looking at plans for the residential red zone, that we acknowledge there is significant emotional response to that land, and that we are sensitive in our plans because of it. We already know that the Waimakariri District Council has been able to work on the potential remediation of land. Is that going to be possible in the residential red zone? How long will the land lie vacant? As my colleague Dr Megan Woods said, it is something that makes your heart sad, to see that where there had been families, there had been communities, and there had been children, that land is now lying vacant and, other than the care of some local people, much of it is not cared for well. So what is to become of that land? What, also, is to become of the residents who were either uninsured, unwilling to leave, or unhappy with the offer that was presented to them by the Crown? Those decisions have not been made. At least we have an opportunity to revisit that.

What about the iconic and fantastic community of New Brighton? We welcome the opportunity to work specifically with those community organisations and individuals around the restoration of this iconic suburb and its importance to the eastern suburbs of Christchurch. We all know—we have often heard talk, over the passage of this bill, about New Brighton as it was in its heyday in the 1960s. It was the only place where you could shop on a Saturday—right through to the development, in the 1970s, of the pedestrian mall. Those of you who come to Christchurch will now see that the commercial heart of the area has been in decline. It has been in decline for some years. There is a great sense of hope, now that the Government is on board as that significant third partner, along with the Christchurch City Council and local stakeholders, that we will now have the opportunity to put into effect the master plan—the plans that have been designed for the community and by the community that will really regenerate the retail and commercial heart of New Brighton and therefore regenerate the retail and commercial heart of the eastern suburbs. There are many people to thank for their continuation of that vision, throughout these long 5 years.

Just in conclusion, I want to say that I have valued the opportunity to talk with those people who will eventually go on to run those organisations, particularly Development Christchurch, and that they have sought the views of not only local people but local community leaders in the eastern suburbs. I really welcome the opportunity of seeing those plans enacted. On that note, we are very pleased to support this bill. Those of us in the eastern suburbs of Christchurch know that there has been a lot of work to get the legislation into a shape that we are comfortable with, and know that we can work together with the Government and our local politicians for the future of our city. Thank you.

As chairman of the Local Government and Environment Committee that shepherded this bill through the select committee process to its third reading, it gives me great pleasure to rise and speak in this debate this afternoon. I am very conscious that I am the first non-Cantabrian to be speaking in this third reading debate. As a non-Cantabrian and one who has, over the years, not had an awful lot to do with Christchurch, other than the occasional business visit or holiday trip, I have had an opportunity to get a real understanding of the destruction, of the tragedy, of the loss, and of the heartache that was Christchurch and Canterbury 5 years ago.

Five years ago that region was still in emergency mode. It was a region that was coming to terms with the physical impact, not to mention the emotional and traumatic impacts, of the earthquakes that took place 5 years ago. Then, of course, the region moved into a period of recovery. The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority transitional legislation was put in place. It was important legislation that was designed to ensure that the big decisions that needed to be made quickly and competently were done. Those decisions, by and large, I think, have been decisions that have stood Canterbury and Christchurch in good stead. But we have now got to a point where regeneration is the focus, and regeneration is what this bill is all about.

It has been an interesting learning curve. It has been an interesting part of the transition and knowledge-gaining for me, as a non-Cantabrian, and, I suspect, for some of the members of the committee who were not physically close to Canterbury over that 5 years but were there emotionally, in heart, and supporting what was going on there. The select committee got to a point where we were not able to resolve all the issues that were before us and that confronted us as a committee.

I want to acknowledge the very good work that took place subsequent to the committee’s report back to the House. I want particularly to acknowledge the Hon Gerry Brownlee for his work in bringing together Opposition parties and leads from Opposition parties to further work with the Mayor of Christchurch, with Environment Canterbury, and with other organisations, to ensure that we were able to collectively get to a point today where it looks like we have unanimity across the House for what is a very important piece of legislation for Christchurch and, indeed, for all New Zealand and New Zealanders. Without a strong, vibrant, growing Canterbury, the rest of the country cannot succeed in the way that we all want to.

I want to acknowledge the presence of Her Worship the Mayor of Christchurch, in the gallery this afternoon, and thank her for not only her work and commitment to this process but also her generous hospitality when the Local Government and Environment Committee met for 3 days, sitting in her council chamber and hearing passionate pleas and great submissions from a large number of people who wanted to express their points of view to the committee. It was a pleasure, indeed, to be able to do that, and I want to thank her for that.

This piece of legislation sets up a new governance structure—an important governance structure that will, I hope, lead to a bright, vigorous, optimistic future for Canterbury and for Christchurch. I get a real sense that, in a way, this is going to be a significant piece of history that will be completed here in this Parliament this afternoon, because it is a piece of legislation that will provide a decision-making process that will ensure that, in years to come, Christchurch and Canterbury have a real sense of optimism, of hope, and of positivity about the city and the region in a way that 5 years ago most of them could not have even begun to think about. I think it is a credit to everyone who has been involved in this process that we have come as far as we have.

It is one of the most ambitious enterprises that we, as New Zealanders, have ever embarked on—the rebuild of Christchurch and Canterbury. I think it is something that we can all take some pride in. It has not been without its hiccups, its speed humps and testing moments, and I am sure that in the future there will be more yet to come. But I think that what this piece of legislation does is it puts in place a genuinely community-based, collaborative, local decision-making process that will ensure that those important decisions for the Greater Christchurch region will, in fact, be made with the best interests of all concerned at front and centre of that decision-making process.

It is a very great privilege to have been part, in a small way, of this legislative process. I am looking forward, in years ahead, to visiting Christchurch again regularly to see the progress that continues to be made, and I look forward to, in many years to come, maybe being able to take grandchildren and even great-grandchildren to Christchurch and Canterbury to see the work that has been done as a result of this piece of legislation being passed by the House. I commend it with great pleasure to the House.

Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am very pleased to be speaking in the third reading of the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill. The Green Party supported the bill when it was introduced but then withdrew that support at the select committee in response to the public submissions and our better understanding there of the way in which the bill failed to provide enough local leadership to Christchurch, and to the extensive ministerial powers. So I am very pleased with the work that the Minister has engaged in, subsequent to the select committee, with Opposition parties and with the Christchurch City Council to deliver a much better bill.

It is in the next phase of post-quake recovery that in Ōtautahi Christchurch we have got a real chance to build a sustainable, creative, and people-centred city. We can create a city that is so much more than just a reconstruction of buildings, of infrastructure, and of transport links. We can create, in Ōtautahi Christchurch, a city that could lead New Zealand in the way that residents live, work, and play, and the way in which visitors enjoy the city. We want a vibrant, liveable city—one that attracts visitors, investment, culture, and that is really lively.

And so the anchor projects have been a source of frustration. We want to see some of the money that was proposed to be spent on the stadium, for example, not being spent on a potential white elephant but on creating a much more liveable city. It has been disappointing that the city council has had to slow the work that it has been doing on building new cycleways because of the financial constraints that it has, in part, because of the reluctance of the Government to renegotiate the cost-sharing agreement.

But this is a day to celebrate the changes that have been made in this piece of legislation, and the changes in the framework for Ōtautahi Christchurch going forward and the new governance structure there. It is providing the basis for ensuring that we live in a beautiful city; one that weaves its past—the central role of Ngāi Tahu—into the present and future, and that recognises the many diverse cultures that now call this city home, that celebrates its wonderful position in a stunning natural landscape on a floodplain created by the Waimakariri River, sheltered by the Port Hills, threaded by the Ōtākaro Avon and Ōpāwaho Heathcote rivers, and beside an estuary that hosts so many different bird species.

It is a beautiful location, but some of the last 5 years have felt quite oppressive in Christchurch. One of the pieces in this bill that I really welcome is schedule 6, with its long list of legislative instruments that the bill is revoking. Some of those emergency orders were obviously necessary, but others that overrode due process under the Resource Management Act and other legislation reduced the ability of citizens in Christchurch to have a say in major decisions influencing their future and their city’s future. So this bill is, in part, giving the city back to the people of Christchurch so that we can have much more influence on the major decisions about the city’s future.

I, like others, would like to acknowledge the work of the Christchurch City Council and the Mayor, the Hon Lianne Dalziel, because I do not think that if Opposition parties had not been working alongside the council and saying to the Government and the Minister “We need to make changes in this bill”, we would have been successful. The Christchurch City Council has had a crucial role in highlighting the need to restore local leadership in Christchurch to the city council, to Regenerate Christchurch, and to the other councils—Selwyn District Council, Waimakariri District Council, Environment Canterbury, and, of course, Ngāi Tahu.

So now we are providing the legal framework, the governance structure, but much will now depend on how Regenerate Christchurch and how the city council, in particular, use the opportunities that this bill provides to involve the community in strategic decisions and planning for the future of the residential red zone, the central city, and areas like New Brighton. There are certainly provisions through the regeneration planning process, and there is quite a lot of flexibility there to engage in different sorts of consultation, and that is something we would encourage Regenerate Christchurch to do. We note, as the Minister did, that some significant powers still remain in clause 42 to override existing Resource Management Act plans and policies, regional land transport plans, and council bylaws. The Minister has called these powers a backstop and we—and I am sure the community—will be watching quite closely as to how those are exercised. If they are done wisely and in a circumscribed way that may well be fine, but we do not want them to compromise the opportunity for much more public engagement through the regeneration plan process.

We have seen through Share an Idea an outpouring of creative and thoughtful ideas from Christchurch citizens about their vision for an accessible, green, and sustainable city, and it has been the community that has sustained that vibrancy and that feeling through projects such as Gap Filler and Greening the Rubble. It is these community, collaborative, gravel-led projects that have put Christchurch on the map internationally. There are the Pallet Pavilion, the Luxcity festival, the mosaic chair, and Greening the Rubble sites around the city. It has been those projects that have helped give us hope post-quake, rather than the big anchor projects led by Government.

One of the areas of the bill that I think we should all celebrate is the fact that the definition of “regeneration” includes improving community well-being and it also provides for resilience. That is a much-talked about phrase these days, but making Christchurch a more resilient city must involve planning for climate adaptation, planning for sea-level rise. That must be a central part of the regeneration planning and it must ensure that we have commercial and residential buildings and infrastructure development taking better account of sea-level rise, better account of more extreme weather events.

We heard in select committee this morning from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment that Christchurch has more homes on low-lying areas that are at risk from sea-level rise—some 10,000 homes—than either Auckland or Wellington. The city council, looking to the future, tried to introduce some planning provisions that sought to control development in areas of potential coastal hazard. The Government and the council withdrew those in the light of the response from property owners. It is too hard to leave it to local councils to have to deal with how to respond to sea-level rise on their own. There needs to be more national leadership here, and this a role where central government has to work in partnership with local councils and not just leave it to the councils.

We were very pleased to hear the Minister’s comments in the Committee stage about the former coastal wetland at Bexley, which was reclaimed and built on against the advice of the Department of Conservation, that he was reasonably supportive of that returning to its natural state. Areas like Bexley wetland, the sand dunes along the coast, and the margins of the estuary are really important in providing resilience and in giving the city a buffer against intense storm events, against more flooding; giving it the flexibility about where to locate stopbanks along the rivers and ensuring that there are areas where the water can go in those intense storm events. So we have to ensure that that is part of the regeneration plan for the residential red zone.

As Poto Williams has said, EVO::SPACE and others have already done a lot of public consultation to surface a lot of community ideas about what should happen in the residential red zone. In the Green Party we are committed to the Avon/Ōtākaro park becoming a reality. We think that should connect the city with the sea, the city with the eastern suburbs, and would strengthen Christchurch’s identity as a beautiful, creative, and enjoyable city for residents and visitors. It is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to do this with the land in the residential red zone. The future plans for that area need to acknowledge the residents who lived there and have had to leave homes in there and have those demolished. It needs to provide not just for formal sports facilities but also for a lot of informal community gardens, restore the mahinga kai sites, recognise wāhi tapu, and look at some detailed feasibility studies on projects like the Eden Project example.

We also need in the regeneration a much greater commitment to sustainability principles being implemented in new buildings so that they are more energy efficient, they make much greater use of wood, and they are more friendly to be in. There is a great opportunity to use wood in the rebuild; we have not seen that. But I am pleased that the Green Party can now support this bill and acknowledge the work of the Minister and the Christchurch City Council and other Opposition parties in achieving good changes to the bill.

Everyone in Christchurch is looking forward to a new, regenerated Christchurch following the initial recovery process. Now is the time to get things done. We need to see those major projects getting going. We need to see the red zone recycled and we need to see comprehensive urban renewal in the east of Christchurch and we need to realise some wonderful opportunities for recreation in many of the areas that are to be re-planned and rebuilt. But there is always a tension between getting things done and public involvement. As people from Christchurch in this room know, Christchurch people tend to have interminable debates on things like this, and so there is a need to provide for them the opportunity to do that, but at some point you do have to make a decision and get things done. I think this bill sets out a way in which all of that can happen.

At the outset, New Zealand First had seven objectives. Firstly, we wanted to ensure that the processes for initiation and approval of plans would be locally led and not Crown-dominated but would nevertheless protect Crown interests. Secondly, we wanted to ensure that the city council and Environment Canterbury would have the right to participate fully in the development of those plans. Thirdly, we wanted to give plenty of opportunity for public input, in the same way that they got through processes like Share an Idea. Fourthly, we wanted to make sure that the processes would not be secretive but would be open and informative. Fifthly, we wanted to see that the opportunities to enhance the environment and the residential values of the city would be fully realised. Sixthly, we wanted to ensure that the process would be a much speedier one than has so far been evident, without, as I have already said, compromising the collaboration needed between the parties and the provision for public input. Seventhly, and lastly, we wanted to ensure that the process did bring the public along with the parties through good communication and through good consultation.

I am pleased to say that I think that this bill is going to deliver on all seven fronts. The amended bill will now provide for much better public information and opportunity to comment than has previously actually been the case. There will be a much better process for the initiation, consideration, and approval or revocation of regeneration plans, because Regenerate Christchurch is the body that will initiate, lead, review, and advise the Minister on those plans. It is a genuine partnership between three Crown directors: three city council-appointed ones and one nominated by Ngāi Tahu.

It is important that all parties involved have faith in the board of Regenerate Christchurch because, in fact, legislation can only go so far. That board must provide firm leadership and be bold and visionary and push things ahead, but, of course, it must take the public of Christchurch along with it. Only Regenerate Christchurch can be a proponent for the red zone plans under the bill. It may be a proponent for plans for the Christchurch district, as the other strategic partners may be. Statements to the Minister of the views of those parties on an outline plan will be made public on the internet, so that will make it very accessible. There are similar requirements concerning the views of parties to an approval of a draft plan.

I believe that of special importance is the fact that the Minister, in approving or declining an outline plan, must have “particular regard” to the views of Regenerate Christchurch and the other partners. Those words are repeated elsewhere for approvals of final plans and for revocations, and I think these are very important words to limit the executive power of the Minister and, most particularly, to preserve the credibility, and the leadership functions especially, of Regenerate Christchurch and the local councils. The development of outline plans, I believe, is really the crux of the process, because that is where the ideas start and get pushed ahead. The process for those plans, for the Christchurch district and the red zone, has a number of requirements under the bill.

There is a requirement for a clear statement of intentions and scope, so that people will know what it is all about and there are good opportunities for public engagement, and there are requirements to show how the costs are going to be met. That is often overlooked, but it is a very important requirement. A proponent must seek the views of its partners, and Regenerate Christchurch must get the consent of Ōtākaro Ltd, as landowner, but that company cannot refuse consent, except for reasons that are consistent with the purposes of the Act, and I am sure it would be held closely to that requirement. The requirements prerequisite to ministerial approval are also very important. There must be a recommendation by Regenerate Christchurch for a plan for the Christchurch district containing advice, a statement of the views of the other partners, and, also, advice on how the views have been considered and addressed. There are similar requirements for approvals and amendments and for revocations.

We must all have confidence and faith in Regenerate Christchurch as the lead entity for the council and Crown partnership. What it means is that there will be joint responsibility and the joint commitment of resources by both the city and the Crown, and that is of extraordinary importance. There may be a letter of expectations as to what the council and the Crown require of Regenerate Christchurch in terms of strategic direction and priorities. I think it is very important that that happens. It may happen under the bill, but I think it is very important that those two parties get together soon, produce that letter of expectations, and make it public. That is a very important part of the process, in my opinion.

Finally, I want to say just two things: first of all, it has been a great pleasure to see a consensus on a good bill, and I enjoyed taking part in that process. I think it will ensure a very robust process, focusing, as it must, on regeneration, and I think it will mean that we will get a proper balance between redevelopment and the wider public interest, especially the public’s interest in achieving an excellent environment and a vibrant and viable community—especially in the east of Christchurch. In addition to that, there are some extraordinary opportunities for excellent recreation facilities, in the areas of the red zone in particular. It is very important that those have a very high priority, as I am sure they will.

The second and final thing I wish to say is simply that I and New Zealand First wish Regenerate Christchurch well in its journey, because it is a journey upon which nothing less than the future of our second-largest city depends. Thank you.

It is an honour and pleasure to rise in wholehearted support of the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill in its third reading. There is a saying I reflect on: when Canterbury rugby is doing well, the All Blacks are doing well. I think we can take that one step further and say that when Canterbury is doing well, the whole of New Zealand is doing well.

I would like to extend my support and thanks to all New Zealanders who have stuck up for Canterbury and continue to give us valuable support. I would also like to acknowledge the support and unwavering commitment that the Hon Gerry Brownlee and the Hon Nicky Wagner have provided to Canterbury as it has faced some tough times and looks to rebuild. I think that what this bill represents is a Government that has listened. It has listened to other parties in the House. It has listened to the Christchurch City Council, and it has listened to the strategic partners, like, in my electorate, the Waimakariri District Council. But most of all it has listened to Cantabrians on the ground, and I think the bill reflects that.

What we are doing here, as the Christchurch Earthquake Recovery Act expires in the next month, is providing a new legal framework, and that new legal framework will provide clarity. It will provide expectations of the Christchurch City Council, of the strategic partners, and of the Government. But overall, and underpinning this, and, I think, more important, is it provides the people of Canterbury with confidence as we move from recovery to regeneration.

I would like to make a few points in my call today, and one of them—and it is demonstrated and reflected in this bill—is that we need to include strategic partners. It is vital that we include strategic partners such as the Waimakariri District Council, the Selwyn District Council, and Environment Canterbury. They need a bigger part in the regeneration plans. Greater Christchurch and how we view that has completely changed, with population growth and shifts. In my electorate, Waimakariri District is now the third-biggest district in the South Island. Now it goes: Christchurch, Dunedin, and “Waimak”. So we need integrated systems when we look at things like transport.

Many people growing up in Christchurch will appreciate my story of the old days, when travelling from Bryndwr to Belfast was like a day trip. You would pack your lunch to go over the Styx Mill Bridge, but now Belfast would arguably be in central Christchurch. What we need to think about is how we connect towns like Rolleston, Rangiora, and Kaiapoi. So when we hear things about transport, like the Cranford Street extension getting voted down, to the detriment of commuters not only in north Christchurch but in North Canterbury, who very much need reliable travel times, it is great that strategic partners will have increased input into these regeneration plans.

I also want to make a point around social well-being being included as a purpose of regeneration. I think we need to make special note of that. International research shows that years 3 to 7 are some of the most problematic for psychological and social recovery, post disaster. So it was great to see the Government respond with an extra $20 million recently for mental health services. In the last Budget we allocated $16 million, which is still available, for counselling services. Overall it was great for me to bring the health Minister into Waimakariri, to see the work that the schools are doing in a town like Kaiapoi, which was hard-hit with the first earthquake, in helping students around issues like anxiety and stress. But I would like to make the point that MPs are here to help. If anybody knows someone who needs further support, they should get in contact with their local MP.

Just a final point. There are plenty of young Cantabrians who will go on their OE this year. They will get out there and discover a wider world view, and they will realise how competitive cities are around the world. They are competitive for tourists, for a skilled workforce, and for businesses that will provide jobs and growth. We need to take this opportunity to be aspirational and ensure that we have the chance of building the best new small city in the world. We should take that with both hands and ensure that the new Christchurch, the new Greater Christchurch, and the new Canterbury is an exciting place to live in, work in, and visit.

I just want to finish by saying that it is fantastic to see that this bill has cross-party, unified support. We are one region. We are Canterbury, and very proudly we are one-eyed. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is with pride and honour that I stand to speak on the third reading of the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill. As has just been said, it is really pleasing to see unanimous support for this bill in the House. There is no one questioning the absolute importance of this bill and of doing our best in this House to be able to support the people of Christchurch to move forward. I want to start this short contribution by acknowledging that it was just over 5 years ago that Christchurch was hit by a quake whereby the place that so many people loved and are so parochial about was destroyed, and we will never see that place again. We lost thousands of homes and 185 lives. That is no small thing that Christchurch has been dealing with and we as country and this Parliament have been trying to deal with.

In the wake of the quakes I think we have discovered a new spirit in Christchurch, and we have seen some communities pulling together in truly inspirational ways. I think of the communities in Lyttelton and Addington in particular, who just came together and totally looked after each other in the time of crisis. I think of the Gap Filler organisation and of people who just came together and dealt with the depression and the bleakness and the loss with creativity and an energy that people around the world have been looking to and being inspired by. It is that energy that the Green Party is so keen to see harnessed to be able to deliver the new city of Christchurch that will elicit the same passion as the old Christchurch did.

It is pleasing to see the Government come to the table and bring a bill to the House, with Supplementary Order Paper 159 at a late stage, that actually does recognise the vision of the people of Christchurch. It is an interesting thing to me that we are talking about the shift from recovery to regeneration. I understand that frame of the shift of moving forward and looking forward, but I also look to the Share an Idea campaign and the thinking that was happening quite soon after the quakes—or while the quakes were ongoing and quite present in people’s lives. People were in that place already, as well as dealing with the immediate crises and shock.

So it is very pleasing to see that this bill with amendments, which we are voting on tonight and passing into legislation, does increase the ability of local people to shape the future of Christchurch, and, very significantly, that Regenerate Christchurch is at the heart of the new model and represents a partnership between the Crown, which still is required to contribute a significant amount of money to this rebuild and local governments. I refer to local governments as the council and Kāi Tahu in this sense, in that it is a board with four appointees from central government, three from local government, and one from Te Rūnanga o Kāi Tahu.

When this legislation was initially reported back, that group Regenerate Christchurch did not have enough power, but through the Supplementary Order Paper introduced by the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery after significant negotiations with a range of people across this House, including my colleague Eugenie Sage, that has changed. That cannot be anything but a benefit for Christchurch. When we have seen the incredible ideas and the vision of the people of Christchurch right throughout these last 5 years, we would be stupid not to be harnessing their capacity into this next stage. It is an absolute pleasure to be able to help move this forward.

We are, and we do, remain unhappy with the retention of extended powers for a range of Government Ministers, which is present in clause 42 and enables them to override district or regional plans under the Resource Management Act or the Local Government Act, plans or bylaws, or regional transport plans. We think that degree of power is unnecessary at this stage. However, we are pleased—

I am sorry to interrupt the member. I have been trying to let her know that her time has expired.

I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your good grace over the last 24 hours in allowing me calls. This piece of legislation—and there will be many markers as we see Christchurch get back up on its feet—is a very important marker for the city of Christchurch following the earthquakes of 5 years ago.

This piece of legislation, I think, proves the worth of the legislative process here in this House. People may wonder why we have second and third readings, and why the Government does not just say what it wants to do and get on with it. But I think that this process, especially from our side of the House, proves that the legislative process is a good one here in this House, because this piece of legislation has taken an interesting route through this House.

Introduced 6 months ago, we supported the bill to the Local Government and Environment Committee. At the select committee there were changes made that we were not happy with, and through the good work of the Minister—and I acknowledge the Hon Gerry Brownlee—and various members of Parliament from the Opposition, and I acknowledge my colleague Dr Megan Woods, we have landed at a piece of legislation that every member of this Parliament will be in favour of. I think that is a very important note to make around the future of Christchurch, because there is no dissent. Everyone in this House is reasonably happy—and I think quite happy—with this piece of legislation that will frame the rebuild of Christchurch, a city that I grew up in. I think credit should be given to the Government and Mr Brownlee for looking around this House and saying: “OK, how are we going to make this work, if you are not happy with it after select committee?”.

Significant changes have been made to allow more community input, more consultation, and I think that will make it better in the fact that the people of Christchurch will feel much more connected to a rebuild that will happen over the next 10, 15, or 20 years. So I acknowledge the part that the Government has played and that it has been willing to work to a consensus where everyone in this House is happy with the legislation. One of the points that we are very happy with, as I have mentioned, is the ability for the community to have much more input. In the stages from the earthquake up until now, I think it is widely known that there has been some criticism—that they feel like they have been dictated to from Wellington. Not having spent enough time down in Christchurch to gauge whether or not that is fair—I think members from Christchurch on our side of the House may say that. But in this piece of legislation the people are given much more opportunity to have more of a say in how their city will look over the next 5, 10, 15, and 20 years, which we thank the Government for.

Also set out in this piece of legislation is an addition, post select committee. It is the inclusion of the four “well-beings”, which, despite being removed from the local government legislation, have, I think importantly, been included in this piece of Christchurch legislation. It is not just a matter of rebuilding the buildings in the city; it is about the heart of the city as well, and the soul of the city. The regeneration of Christchurch will take into account the environmental, economic, social, and cultural well-being that we on this side of the House think will be very important to the social cohesion and growth of Christchurch, so we thank the Government for taking that on board as well.

To again point towards a change that was made at the Committee stage by my colleague Dr Megan Woods, the protection around Hagley Park is to ensure that green space right in the middle of the city cannot be affected in any way by any changes or any rebuilding that might go on as part of the process as we look to make Christchurch a much stronger city. I think that is important. It is a very important recreational space, whether you play cricket, rugby, or hockey, or whether you are walking through the botanical gardens. The people of Christchurch value that space, and I think it is something that is relatively still the same as it was before the earthquakes. They want it to stay that way. It is a place that they value very much, and the amendment from my colleague Megan Woods ensures that and protects Hagley Park.

To finish up, because I have got very little time left, I would like to wish Regenerate Christchurch all the best, because it has got a very big task on its hands. I again thank the Minister for being willing to work towards a consensus that this House is happy with and that therefore, I hope, will serve the people of Christchurch much better.

Tēnā koe, e Te Mana Whakawā. Huri noa i Te Whare nei, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. Ā, ki a koe e te Tumuaki o Ōtautahi, e Mayor Dalziel, e mihi atu ki a koe.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Acknowledgments to you all throughout this House. To you, the Mayor of Christchurch, Mayor Dalziel, greetings.]

It is indeed an honour—and it is with great humility—that I stand and make a short contribution to this historic bill, the Greater Canterbury Regeneration Bill. We have heard from both sides of the House from the first reading all the way through to now, this third reading. One of the things that was spoken about right at the beginning, and then we have seen this right the way through, is what we call kotahitaka. We have indeed worked together to actually build—if you could use the analogy—a waka. Basically, we saw the terrible aftermath of the February 2011 earthquake and then we entered that dark period of the emergency, and then from there we came out of that into that part that we called the recovery, and then we continued to move into the light and then to the rebuild. And we are definitely finishing that journey of building this final part of the waka, which is regeneration.

In doing that, I want to acknowledge that, first of all, you need someone to actually lead this. You need someone to actually be able to lead everyone through those dark times and then into this world of light. So I acknowledge everyone here, but particularly the Hon Gerry Brownlee and also his able associate, the Hon Nicky Wagner. But it would not have happened also if we did not acknowledge those who were on the ground, the major stakeholders who also led it. So I need to acknowledge, first of all, our mayors—the previous mayor, Sir Bob Parker, and then moving through to our mayor of today, Lianne Dalziel—and also others, when we talk about the leadership of Environment Canterbury with Margaret Bazley. The others that I want to just quickly talk about—that major stakeholder too, which is part of it—are Tā Mark Solomon and Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu. Bringing all of those things together, they wove that really important part of kotahitaka, moving together to this final part, which we will see completed today.

When you look at mana whenua, right from the beginning when the Crown stepped in, when everyone came in behind, there was always that original acknowledgment about one of the major stakeholders in acknowledging Ngāi Tahu. As a Ngāi Tahu member of both Tūahuriri and Rāpaki, I know that our people were very, very appreciative, and they came in behind, and that is where we all worked together. So I hear these words today of wāhi tapu, mahinga kai, mana whenua, but we also have to remember that there are mātau waka. These are other Māori from other parts of New Zealand who actually live in Christchurch. So these, too, need to be acknowledged—even our Pasifika whānau from Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa. So they also came in, and we led the way through and brought them with us. The other part is tauiwi—those who actually are non - New Zealanders, immigrants, new immigrants who came in. They are all part of this process. So bringing all this together, when we look at what has been achieved, this is a historic bill. It has been a pleasure to be part of helping to weave this to its final destination and helping to guide it.

One last point here: we cannot forget the 185 victims who actually perished during that terrible time of the February earthquake. So we remember them also today, I am sure, and also their families and friends, whom they left behind. This bill will continue the really important and good progress, and it deserves, as we know it has, the unanimous support of this House. On that note, it is such an honour to be part of helping to build and see the final conclusion of this historic bill. Kia ora, e mihi atu ki a koutou.

[Thank you, and acknowledgments to you all.]

Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a great pleasure to speak at the third reading of this bill, and also to follow my whanaunga Tūtehounuku Korako, and the eloquent speech he just delivered. To continue on the Māori flavour, the Māori analogies, I would like to start off by quoting a famous Māori proverb. This is probably a bit deeper than Mr Doocey’s saying, but this famous Māori proverb is: “Ka mate kāinga tahi, ka ora kāinga rua.” Basically, what that signifies is: when one house ends, a second one arrives—or something good emerges. I guess we can apply those sayings in many contexts in life, but I believe that is particularly appropriate here, because we are entering a new phase. This is a significant transition in the ongoing journey, the ongoing progress of Christchurch. So I think that is most appropriate. Before Mr Brownlee rolls his eyes about all this Māori stuff, I do—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: That’s very unkind.

Well, no, actually, I do want to mihi to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery for leading this piece of legislation, and indeed to all of the partners, in particular, Her Worship the Hon Lianne Dalziel, the Mayor of Christchurch, and all of the strategic partners and everyone who has been involved in this, including the cross-party participation that had led us to this point. But I do acknowledge the Minister, because, to adopt another nautical analogy that Tūtehounuku mentioned, the leader of the waka is called the kaihautū. The meaning of that word is to stand in the breeze and not fall over. Mr Brownlee has been the kaihautū. He has been able to stand and lead this waka and not be blown over.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: It would take a very big breeze.

Exactly. It would take a big breeze, but he has held the waka down and he has led this waka through to this next phase of, we are hoping, more calm waters. Christchurch has been through significant—significant—change and upheaval and trauma and all sorts over the past 5 years, but we are entering into this step change whereby we are transitioning the ongoing regeneration work through to the local council and indeed through to the local community. So we do commend that.

I would like—as the member for Te Tai Tonga, obviously—to note and also endorse the provisions within this piece of legislation that affirm Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu as a strategic partner. I think it is wonderful that through Canterbury earthquake recovery legislation we are able to see a continuation of the evolving Treaty partnership and the roles that mana whenua can play as part of the whole community in the ongoing recovery and regeneration of Christchurch. So I do acknowledge those provisions and the fact that there is an opportunity for te rūnanga to appoint a board member to Regenerate Christchurch.

There are other things. I am excited by what Ms Eugenie Sage mentioned about restoring the mahinga kai site of Te Ihutai. I do want to mention that again as a possibility for the redevelopment of the red zone area, because Te Ihutai—for those who do not know, there is a long history, but it was land that was granted as a fishing reserve for specific landowners in Christchurch that was within easy access to the Heathcote and Avon estuary. That land was taken away under the Public Works Act in 1956 for a sewage treatment works, which is still there today and provides a valuable service to the whole of Christchurch. There was never adequate compensation to the owners of Te Ihutai around that whole series of transactions, so I would hope that with these new opportunities that are emerging some recognition can be given, perhaps to restore a mahinga kai site, but especially to grant the owners tūrangawaewae within the city to exercise their kaitiakitanga, because that is, in a sense, all Te Ihutai are asking for: to have that opportunity within the city for those lands that are obviously now used for other purposes, and have long been so.

Can I also mention my colleague Megan Woods for the great work that she has done, in particular the protection for Hagley Park—reaffirming those protections, and I acknowledge the Government for supporting that amendment. I think that is very important, but we also know that actually North Hagley Park was a Māori reserve back in the day. The Christchurch provincial government—when it was that back in those days—granted that as a Māori reserve there, but subsequent Crown actions turned it into the Hagley Park that we know today and that we all enjoy and we all love. You could not have got a better location for a big marae than right there on North Hagley Park, but alas, it is protected, so it might not happen. We do know there was a magnanimous gesture from the Christchurch City Council back in the 1970s, where they said “We need to have a national marae. We need to acknowledge and have a marae for all the community and make it a national marae.”, and the great council of that day said “Yes, let’s do it.”. Guess where it put it? It put it right by the sewage ponds on the land that was taken away from Te Ihutai. That is what it did. But we still value that important asset today, which is Ngā Hau e Whā marae, and the great service that it provides to the community of Christchurch and in particular the east of Christchurch.

I would like to, sort of, add a little bit of flavour from a Māori perspective, particularly from a hau kāinga perspective, to the wonderful array of different views and local views that are all part of the great city of Christchurch. I am very proud, as the member for Te Tai Tonga, to see all the progress that is being made. It is a bit slower in some areas than others, but I am sure that with Regenerate Christchurch and with Ōtākaro—oh, that is another matter. I would like to acknowledge the members for their efforts in the pronunciation of Ōtākaro, in particular the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery and various other members for at least having a mental probing to at least attempt to make a proper pronunciation of that name.

And I have actually inquired as to the meaning of Ōtākaro. It is a very secret name, so secret that we were not actually able to determine its origins, but I am sure it will come out in some korero. I do acknowledge all the members for supporting the use of Te Reo and the pronunciation of Ōtākaro—just like Pūtaringamotu, which is the centre of the Ilam electorate of Mr Brownlee over there. He does a pretty good job on that one as well. I do support this bill. We look forward to the next 5 years and beyond, to see the future development for the great city of Christchurch. I can only endorse this bill and commend it to the house. Kia ora tātou.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I am thrilled to be standing as the last speaker on the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill. I am thrilled because once this bill receives Royal assent, then the work can begin for Christchurch—the regeneration plans can begin.

For me, Regenerate Christchurch offers a lot of potential, especially—what I want to mention—around the future vibrancy of New Brighton. That area has waited, and waited a long time, and finally—finally—things are going to start happening for them. I want to thank the people who have worked diligently there: the people of the New Brighton Business and Landowners Association, led by Paul Zaanen and supported by all the businesses in that area. They have done a lot of work and a lot of planning, working alongside the council, and working with other community groups and organisations in the Christchurch east area. But this is much broader than New Brighton. It will affect the whole of the eastern area—an area that, residentially, was severely affected by the earthquakes, where whole suburbs were wiped out. But, in saying that, new suburbs are growing, they are popping up, and things are looking pretty good for the east so far.

I want to take this time to also acknowledge our Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery, Minister Brownlee, who has worked really hard on this bill, supported by his capable and dedicated Associate Minister, Nicky Wagner. Together they have driven this and worked across the Parliament, worked across all the parties—I want to thank Labour and the Greens and New Zealand First for their support as well, and the Māori Party, United Future, and ACT. I also want to acknowledge the support of the Christchurch City Council, and acknowledge the mayor, Lianne Dalziel, who is sitting up there in the Speaker’s gallery—kia ora and welcome, again.

I just want to say that in 5 years’ time, from today, the fifty-fifty partnership will go and the Christchurch City Council and the people of Christchurch will once again take ownership of their beautiful city, which is yet to develop into the beauty that it is going to be. This is a very good bill. It is led by hard-working teams across Parliament. I am very privileged to stand here, to be the last speaker, and to commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

Bill read a third time.