Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill, Riccarton Racecourse Bill

The Business Committee determined on 9 March 2016 that the Committee stage of the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill and the Riccarton Racecourse Bill be considered as one question for the purposes of debate, with separate votes on each question at the end of the debate. The question, therefore, is that Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 to 3 of the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill and clauses 1 to 14 and schedules 1 and 2 of the Riccarton Racecourse Bill stand part.

It is my pleasure to take a call on the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill and the Riccarton Racecourse Bill in the Committee stage. We have said in previous readings that these are two pieces of legislation that started life in quite a different form—as a local bill, in one instance—and they are now coming back to this House for their Committee stage, after being worked on by the Local Government and Environment Committee, and are being heard as one question.

I would like to acknowledge the work that the Local Government and Environment Committee did on this legislation at the select committee stage. I think a number of very good changes were made that see better pieces of legislation returned to this House. I think it was fortuitous that a number of the permanent members of the Local Government and Environment Committee at the time were in fact Canterbury-based MPs. So in addition to myself, and Eugenie Sage from the Green Party, we also had Matt Doocey, Joanne Hayes, and Nuk Korako from the National Party, who heard this legislation. Of course, we were ably assisted by those not fortunate enough to come from Canterbury.

What this legislation does is it enables the development of housing in the area around the Riccarton Racecourse, which in itself is fortunately placed in the good electorate of Wigram. It will allow for the development of housing in that area. But in this contribution at the Committee stage, I want to concentrate on the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill part of this legislation, Part 2, and specifically clauses 9, 10, and 11 if time permits. I may have to come back to them in a later call.

Clause 9 of this bill is an important clause in this legislation, in that it sets out the minimum requirements for the development scheme, should it go ahead. The legislation is quite prescriptive around what the minimum requirements for the development scheme will be. There is a requirement for 180 affordable homes to be built on this development land: “issued with code compliance certificates under the Building Act 2004, and to have been sold for occupation primarily as the home or residence of not more than 1 household, no later than 5 years after the approval date.” That clause 9(a) there actually sets a bit of a gold standard for what housing should be, and, unfortunately, it is not what we are seeing in terms of housing in this country at the moment. We are not seeing enough affordable housing. There is a definition of “affordable housing” in this legislation, which we think is at the high end of what is affordable.

But also there is the issuing of code compliance certificates. If you are familiar with the number of repairs that have happened in Canterbury over the last 5½ years, it is not a foregone conclusion that you will have a code of compliance for your building. But I think to be sold “for occupation primarily as the home or residence of not more than 1 household” is an important part of clause 9(a). What is being said here is that a family home should not have a number of families squashed into it. Throughout other parts of my electorate it is not uncommon to have 17, 18, or 19 people living in a home that, really, should only be used for the purposes of housing one family. So I am very pleased to see that.

I am also pleased to see that there is a bit of a protection against “ghost houses” contained in this clause 9(a) as well, in that these houses do have to be occupied no later than 5 years after the approval date. These houses cannot be built and merely sit there and not be utilised, with the owners thinking that they are just going to wait for the capital gains to flow in rather than provide them for what a house should be, and that is: a home for people. I think it is really important to see those protections there in clause 9(a).

Some of the other requirements, not only of the house but also of the development itself, are set out in this broader clause 9. We need fibre-optic broadband connections to be provided to all premises so that we are building in the 21st century. There is also, in clause 9(c), talk around being: “capable of satisfying the relevant regional and district planning requirements, including in relation to providing any infrastructure to service the development in the manner proposed by the scheme.” This is very important. This development, when it was first proposed, was proposed to be what was going to be known as an “exemplar” project in Christchurch—an exemplar project for specific planning instruments that were put in place to allow for expedited housing development in Christchurch. Unfortunately, we have only seen one of these exemplar developments take place in the city of Christchurch over this time. Not only is it the houses that matter; it is the kind of planning that we put around these housing developments that is going to be what the future of our city in Christchurch hangs on.

What are the transport planning requirements that we are putting in place? I have been on record at other stages of this legislation as saying that I do have some reservations that not enough thought has been given to that vital piece of infrastructure that is provided for in clause 9(c). Not enough thought has been given. If this had been done through the instrument of an exemplar development, we would have had the kind of integrated planning that will make for good urban development. That could have been possible. Anyone from Christchurch knows how congested Yaldhurst Road gets at peak time, and simply putting the traffic from 600 more homes on to that road, with no thought, is not going to work. What we need to be doing is thinking, in a progressive and long-term manner, about the kinds of transport requirements for the new shape that Christchurch has grown into. We know there are large developments to the north, in the Waimakariri District, and also there are large developments to the west of Christchurch City, but also through into the Selwyn District. We need to give some serious thought to the infrastructural requirements of how it is that we provide for those developments.

The other note I would make here is that in clause 9(e)—and it is repeated in clause 10—Ngāi Tahu are given the first right of refusal on this parcel of land. This is, after all, land that has been protected under a reserves status, and so, under the terms of the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998, it is only right that this be offered, first and foremost, to the local tangata whenua, who then, through Ngāi Tahu Property, one of their development companies, have the opportunity to develop this land. The legislation is littered with enough clues that this seems to be something that Ngāi Tahu Property, one of the holding companies of the Ngāi Tahu iwi, is going to take up. And I think that we have seen Ngāi Tahu undertake a number of developments around Christchurch in the post-earthquake era, and I know, in my own electorate, in Wigram, that this will not be their first rodeo—that there are a number of developments that have sprung up and have some good factors to them.

So Labour will be supporting this bill. I think that we do need to give some good and genuine thought to the kind of development we are doing, and I think that clause 9 of this legislation offers a good guide for that.

It is a real pleasure for me to follow my colleague Dr Megan Woods, MP for Wigram, and, obviously, the local member for the area that we are discussing in these two bills. I want first of all to reflect on the fact that I do not believe that we have seen this scenario before: where we have started off with the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill as a Government bill and we have had the Riccarton Racecourse Bill as a local bill. They have gone to the Local Government and Environment Committee, and we have ended up with one bill, which is a Government bill—or two bills being debated as one bill, with all provisions in one part. It is very unusual to have that process, and I think that it is worthy of note, but it is also worthwhile noting that it has not been something that has been imposed on Parliament during this debate; it is something that Parliament has accepted. I think that that is a tribute to the way that the select committee has progressed the bills to this stage. So I want to put it on the record that the work that all members of the select committee appear to have done has made the original two bills better and also has enabled us to raise some of the concerns that we still have, regardless of the amendments that have been made—some of which have been referred to by Dr Woods.

The primary purpose of the Riccarton Racecourse Bill is to look at the powers of its board of trustees, and it looks at how the income from this proposed development can be used. That is important for Parliament to do. We have had a number of debates around pieces of legislation dealing with boards of trustees and whether that is appropriate in 2016, or whether, in fact, we should be looking at having such boards more properly act under the mandate of incorporated societies legislation or charities legislation—or whatever the generic legislation might be. But in this case, we have got yet another board, the Riccarton Racecourse Board of Trustees, being dealt with by specific legislation.

But it is good for Parliament to be debating the broader issues, because they, of course, go right to the heart of the lack of housing that we have for people in New Zealand generally. We are short of houses in a way that we have never been short of houses in our nation’s history. We are particularly changing the culture—the value, I suppose—of houses from the position where it certainly was when I grew up: that all of us knew that if we worked hard and saved hard, we would be able to put a deposit on a house and one day own that home. Whereas now, for many young New Zealanders, the idea of saving up and buying their own home is just completely off the agenda.

So that is something that it is important for Parliament to reflect on, because it does change a number of things. If a person is permanently in a rental, they are more vulnerable: they are more vulnerable to the whim of the landlord, they are more vulnerable to the rents going up, and they are more vulnerable to a situation where they become less connected with their community and their children might have to move not only home but also school as a result of those things. So the security—not just of an individual family in a home but of the broader community—is really important in the wider housing debate. Clause 6 of the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill touches on this very point, which is about the affordability of homes. I think it is debatable but quite sophisticated in the way that it has ended up in clause 6.

I want to move on to what happens if the affordable homes are not delivered; but, of course, there remains a debate that is certainly being held in Canterbury about whether $450,000 is a suitable determinant of a home that is affordable—that is the provision that is in this bill that we are debating. It goes on to say further on—after we have the requirement under clause 6 of the number of affordable homes within this housing development—what happens if they are not delivered. I actually think that is something that the select committee has not focused on enough. We go from a requirement in the bill to have this number of affordable homes to the compensation due to the Crown if that number of affordable homes is not delivered. What about some project-management in between? What about some accountability of the people who are going to be running this development back to the Crown and, indeed, to the city council, which has given some indication of support for the provision of housing in this area?

So I think there is a bit of a gap between the quite rigid and specified requirements for affordable housing in clause 6 and then the penalty for non-provision just three clauses later, in clause 9. So I would be interested to hear, perhaps from the Minister in the chair, Minister Lotu-Iiga—although I do not think he has any personal responsibility for housing provision in Christchurch under his portfolios—or perhaps from the chairman, Scott Simpson, or perhaps another member of the committee may well make a contribution about whether the in-between situation was considered.

I want to move on now to another concern—or gap, or requirement—that is in this legislation that, I think, does not fit comfortably with the way that the transition arrangements away from Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) and the total powers of the Minister, the Hon Gerry Brownlee, have been revoked and disestablished by this Parliament, and we have now moved into much more local control of decision making and, finally, some drive for development and rebuilding in our city.

In clause 11 of the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill, there is a specific provision that reads: “Before making a recommendation under subsection (1),”—and subsection 1 is—“The Governor-General may, by Order in Council made on the recommendation of the Minister, approve a development scheme.” Clearly, this is the housing development scheme that this bill relates to. But in subclause (2) of clause 11, it says that before making such a recommendation, “the Minister must—(a) consult the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery;”, even though that authority—those wartime powers that were granted because we thought they were needed so soon after the September and February events—has all been taken away; CERA has been disestablished. But here we have the Minister, once again, having his fingers in the pie, looking for control. Fortunately, the relevant Minister also has to consult with the Christchurch City Council and has to be satisfied that the scheme meets the requirements of the development scheme, as outlined in the legislation—and also Ngāi Tahu has been given the first right of refusal; that is specified—and that it will result in quality residential development.

I just want to conclude my current contribution with a further word on that. Dr Megan Woods, in her contribution, mentioned the fact that when this development was originally proposed, it was described as being an “exemplar” housing development, and that since that date and today, the exemplary nature of the development has just disappeared. I think that that is an opportunity that has been given away by the Government. It is an opportunity that has been lost for Cantabrians, and one that I think people were genuinely excited about when the Minister made that announcement. People looked at him, believing he was telling the truth, and now we are seeing no such indication in the legislation.

There are a couple of other obvious shortcomings with this proposal—in the lack of integration with transport, particularly. This is a large number of houses that are being proposed. They are in a good spot. They are close to the university, they are close to the main traffic routes, they are close to very large shopping areas—all those things make them very attractive—schools etc., and the nearby facilities. They have an excellent member of Parliament, and I know that that is a very important thing when people decide where to live, where to buy or rent a house. But Parliament—and the Minister, certainly—has not taken the opportunity to talk to the Christchurch City Council about the infrastructure needs and how we could make sure that the requirements of this big housing development sit alongside the plans and ability of the Christchurch City Council to deliver. I do not want to see people causing more congestion because the opportunity for better planning has not been taken.

Overall, I think this is going to be a very good step forward for Christchurch. As I say, I think it could have been even better: if the exemplar nature of the proposal had been delivered by the Minister—and it was not; if the city council had been given the respect that it deserved for better integration of issues such as transport; and if the select committee had, perhaps, pushed the Minister a bit to deliver those things, we could have got even better legislation. But I will be very happy to support it.

I want to thank my colleagues for their contributions on this legislation, which we support. To start off this contribution, I want to talk a little bit about what has led us to having these two bills before the Committee. I guess I want to talk about the meeting Dr Megan Woods and I had fairly early on with members of the board of the Riccarton racing club around their desire to ensure that that facility—the racing club, the grounds, and the buildings, some of which are old and historic—actually could remain a vibrant and useful facility for Christchurch.

In taking the step that they have in order to allow part of the racecourse to be developed—to look at the Reserves Act and allow a portion of their land to be developed for housing—they are ensuring the facility does continue to go on and be used by the people of Christchurch. It is a beautiful facility. The grounds are lovely. The Hon Ruth Dyson often gets to speak at Japan Day, which is one of my favourite days at the course because the gardens look wonderful, the blossoms are in full bloom there—it is just a delightful place to be. And, of course, on Sunday they have the market, which encourages people from all over the city to head out—south, in my case—to participate in it.

I think it is interesting legislation in that in clause 6 of the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill the Government has chosen to actually put in a definition of affordability for housing. I think some of my Auckland colleagues would be quite envious that we in Christchurch actually have a determination of what affordable housing is in a piece of legislation designed for Christchurch. I would like to see affordability in Auckland being $450,000. Then we would not be in the situation we are in currently, where people are forced out of the city, they cannot afford to live in the city, and they certainly cannot afford to buy a home in the city. It has become a paradise—a haven—for investors to actually thrive. Houses potentially earn more than workers do. I think it is an appalling situation. This piece of legislation actually tells us what the cost of affordable housing should be in Christchurch, so that is a very interesting part of that bill.

The aspect that both my colleagues have touched on previously is the notion of “exemplar”—that this development was to be an exemplar development. Many of us were very excited about that. An exemplar development, as referred to in clause 9 of the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill, has to have some key elements as part of it. The homes have to be affordable—clause 6 clearly defines what affordable is. The development has to be close to amenities, and the area that is being developed is close to good shopping, good road links, and schools in the area, certainly. The development has to meet certain criteria around good urban design, and there has to be suitable infrastructure and transport planning in place.

I know that when the development was first mooted, the very good local MP attended and hosted public meetings because there was a real concern from members of the community that having 600 new dwellings within the area would cause all sorts of pressures on infrastructure, particularly on roading and transport infrastructure. It is a very, very busy part of Christchurch. It links the southern part of the city with the northern part of the city, and links through to the airport, so there is quite a lot of transport that goes through there—quite a lot of trucks. The local people were concerned that the volume of traffic that would be pushed out on to those roads without good planning would cause them further delays within their commute to work and school and the like. There were some very real concerns about that.

There were also some concerns about what kind of pressure that will place on the horizontal infrastructure as well. To hear that it was an exemplar project at the beginning really caused us to think that we did not have to have concerns about this, because they would be taken care of throughout the development of this. But then when we heard the project was not an exemplar project, we asked some of the developers about that. They said it actually meets most of the criteria. Well, clearly, it does not meet enough of the criteria to be an exemplar project, and that is a real shame. I am concerned that although this is going to be a great development, it does not meet the standards of “exemplar”. It is a loss for the people of that community.

It is interesting, too, that at the beginning there were some Christchurch city councillors who had some concerns about what was going to happen with this development. One of their biggest concerns, of course, was the rationale for rezoning when there were, potentially, other areas that could be rezoned for development. I think that in the course of the passage of the legislation and the submissions that were made, those fears—those concerns—were actually allayed and they are now fully supportive of this development.

One of the big advantages of this development is the relationship it has with Ngāi Tahu. Ngāi Tahu not only have the first right of refusal but are also very much involved in a partnership to ensure there is a significant input from them throughout this development, and it is a good development because of it. Ngāi Tahu are known throughout the city for having provided lots of different types of housing options, and this one will be no different.

The fact we are looking at adding 600 homes to the community is great. We certainly need more housing, because that, of course, is going to allow us to balance out affordability across the city. I know that the Government has been crowing recently about housing affordability in Christchurch and saying it is largely due to its measures around ensuring that the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority got the right kind of policies in place. Well, actually, I do not think that is the case. I think that when you go through a major redevelopment where people are rebuilding homes, when there is all the insurance money that has come into the city—we did not necessarily have the issues around land costs that there are in places like Auckland, because, actually, the only place where we had any restrictions around our land was in the central business district, where we now find that development costs are escalating because of the cost of land and because that land had been restricted for so long.

I will make further contributions on this legislation. I am pleased to see we have put a benchmark—a line in the sand—around affordability. I am pleased to see the involvement and partnership that Ngāi Tahu play in this, and I am very pleased to see that Riccarton Racecourse and the racing board will get to preserve their fantastic grounds and facilities for the people of Christchurch.

I am pleased to take a call on the Riccarton Racecourse Bill and the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill.

I would just like to pick up the point of exemplar developments, because the Green Party also believes that this is a lost opportunity in terms of this development—Champion’s Mile, I think it is going to be called. If it has got a name like that, it should live up to that name. We have seen, under this Government, far too little commitment to sustainability principles in the rebuild in Christchurch, whether it is in housing or commercial buildings and standards for those. If we are going to have affordable housing, the houses not only need to be affordable to buy; they need to be affordable to operate. Where you get big houses that are not well insulated—yes, there are certain provisions in the building code, but you need houses that are energy efficient. That requires that they are oriented toward the sun. Exemplar developments would embrace those principles to ensure that we are building the most sustainable housing stock, which reduces the cost of operating it, in terms of energy. Exemplar houses would also be well situated so that they encourage a community to develop—they would have good play and communal spaces for people, and they would have good use of open space—yet this development, by not being an exemplar subdivision, is losing that opportunity.

One of our other concerns with the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill is with the 40 hectares of the Riccarton Racecourse reserve land being used to provide affordable housing. That is great, but there seems to be a philosophy of this Government—not only in this bill but also in the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill—where it is making it easier for recreation reserves and other reserves under the Reserves Act to potentially be built on and used for subdivision. That is very short-sighted if we are sacrificing the green areas and open spaces within our cities and towns for subdivision and housing development, because it reduces amenity values, because it has potential health effects if there is not open space where people can recreate, and because of the substantial benefits to mental well-being that being exposed to nature and green spaces provides. In sustainable cities, we have good green spaces. We do not want to see the changes in the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill that see those green spaces being compromised.

Here, the trade-off is that with this 40 hectares of Racecourse Reserve land having its reserve status revoked in order to build 600 new homes, 30 percent, or 180, of those homes will be affordable. But that leads us to the way in which “affordable” is defined in clause 6, and it is in relation to $450,000 being the maximum sale price. In New Zealand, where we have $450,000 houses being defined as affordable, that is well beyond the reach of many young people, and even of many two-income families. That we are setting it at such a high level in this bill—when the average house price in Christchurch is around $490,000—is a reflection that the Government has really failed to increase the supply of affordable housing by actually getting Housing New Zealand to build more homes.

This bill makes a small gesture, but it is not on the scale that is needed to increase the supply of affordable homes by having the Government, through Housing New Zealand, building those homes. That is another major issue. The Government might see this as part of its strategy to deal with the housing crisis, but the real answer to the housing crisis is for the Government to stop speculators, to restrict foreign buyers, to put in a capital gains tax except on the family home, and to build homes through Housing New Zealand for people who desperately need them.

The other issue I would like to talk about is in relation to clause 9, “Minimum requirements of development scheme”. In this clause, it says that as well as the affordable houses requirement, the development must “(c) be capable of satisfying the relevant regional and district planning requirements, including in relation to providing any infrastructure to service the development”. This is where the Green Party has very little confidence in Environment Canterbury being able to ensure that the transport infrastructure, in terms of bus services, is adequate, because it is that council that recently proposed, in its annual plan, to increase bus fares in Christchurch. If there is anything that is likely to reduce public patronage, it is a fare increase.

Where you have a council that even after the October elections will still have six commissioners on it, potentially—that council has really failed to pick up the ball, in terms of the changed configuration of Christchurch post-quake, to ensure that bus services are adequate so that people have easy access to public transport. Although there is this requirement in the bill, we do not have confidence that Environment Canterbury will provide the necessary services, so that people do not have to rely on private motor vehicles. This, again, is where, if this had been an exemplar development, it would have much better ensured that there were good walkways, cycleways, and integrated links with public transport. Here, public transport is relying on the city council and the regional council. The city council and the regional council, we hope, will rise to that opportunity, but we are not confident that Environment Canterbury actually will.

In relation to providing for the transfer of some land around Paparoa Stream, that is certainly a good part of the bill. The development does result in a number of the big trees that are on Riccarton Racecourse being felled to provide for sections and also road corridors. We would like to see the developers recognise that those open-space areas are being sacrificed for this development, and that they must therefore do their maximum to ensure that the remainder of the open space, which is not going to be covered with houses, is actually accessible to people and provides for the variety of recreation needs that people can currently have at the racecourse.

There are lost opportunities with this bill, with there not being an exemplar subdivision and with the fact that in the Local Government and Environment Committee there were suggestions from the Green Party that we tighten up the requirements around sustainability—for energy use in particular: passive solar and making sure the plan for the subdivision was well-designed—and I think that is disappointing. I think it is a bit of a lost opportunity, but we will be voting for the bill because it does provide for some more affordable homes.

It is an interesting point that keeps being made in the Christchurch press, that when you look at the average house price in Canterbury for this year, in the last 4 months it has increased by about 2.6 percent to $482,000. Other speakers have commented in respect of the degree of affordability of that, but the point that is made in respect of Christchurch, which the Government may wish to take heed of, is that there has been a cooling and a slow reduction in the level of increase of average house prices across Christchurch and Canterbury. This is because, as has been reported over and over and over again, we have a flurry—and we will eventually, I suspect, if you look at forecasts, have a glut, or a surplus—of houses within the region. Hence, if you go back to good old School Certificate fifth form economics, when supply exceeds demand, you have a stabilisation, if not a decrease; a slowing of an increase in house prices.

The moral of that story, for Government members, is that you can achieve those economic goals by one thing: building more houses. It is an extremely simple proposition. It is one that is debated every night on the news and every day on the radio and that is commented upon every day in the newspapers, but it is something—I think that there is some sort of mental blockage for the Government or the Minister for Building and Housing in respect of this point. The only way you are going to deal with the housing crisis—right through the country, but especially Auckland—is to build more houses. The issuing of consents, the issuing of compliances, or, as we have heard, special housing areas—those things in themselves do not put roofs over people’s heads, certainly not in the short term.

The evidence in Christchurch and the evidence that is flowing through this bill is that the flurry of building, or the excessive building activity, that has happened has actually cooled those house prices to some extent. The question is well made by speakers, though, as to whether $450,000—when an average house price is $482,000 on latest figures—is affordable for many folks, many of whom have been through the earthquake crisis and are still trying to reconstruct their lives and move into new housing. I want to look at the regulatory impact statement—page 3, paragraphs 17 and 18—which talks about this very point and notes that, nationally, just 5 percent of new supply is targeted; that is, housing targeted at the lower quartile. One of the bonuses of this project is that the targeting in the lower quartile in affordable homes is around 30 percent, which is pretty positive given the 5 percent figure nationally.

It is worth congratulating, as I said in my first contribution on this bill, the Riccarton racing club and those members who brought this proposition to the House. As I said in my first contribution, this was not a proposition that found its genesis on the Government benches or in the Cabinet room of this Government; it was a proposition and an idea that found its genesis in the innovation of local community stakeholders, particularly the Riccarton racing club itself, and was brought to the Government as a positive idea and a positive contribution that will provide a substantial number of houses and affordable homes for those in Canterbury. But I have got to say that if you were to look at the debate as it happened last week, I think, and subsequently, you would think, from listening to those Government members who have spoken, that this was some sort of brainwave of Nick Smith or some sort of innovative strategy launched by the Crown. It was not. Credit should go where credit is due.

As other speakers have said and have referenced in respect of infrastructure, particularly the previous speaker, clause 9(c)—the requirements that the scheme contain its own infrastructure in respect of the development—is silent, and Government members have been silent. I am sure the Minister of Local Government, who is in the chair, will be interested in this point, as he is wont to focus very heavily on local authorities and the needs of local communities: there has been relative silence around the infrastructure requirements that will be required in this part of Christchurch.

As I said in my last contribution, I spent the early years of my life one block away, in Yaldhurst Road, across from the Riccarton Racecourse. In those days, it was a slippery, sleepy area. On Yaldhurst Road, you would struggle to get a traffic jam. Getting to Hornby was relatively easy. Going down Johns Road to the airport or heading to Belfast was a pretty simple proposition. That is no longer so, not simply because in the Johns Road area the four-laning is happening; it is simply because of the quantum of traffic, the industrial developments that have happened in Hornby that have necessitated further traffic. So it cannot be the case, as other speakers have said, that you plonk 600 houses in a residential area and nothing changes. Of course there will be changes. There will be issues around congestion. There will be issues around traffic flow. There will be issues for that local community. There are very small roads and small access ways around the racecourse, hotel, and the little businesses that are there. They are going in and accessing through to Hornby. These are needs that will have to be dealt with not only by the local and regional authorities but also, I would hope, with the assistance of Government.

It would be helpful if the Minister in the chair, Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga—I am pleased he is in the chair given his portfolios—could perhaps assist us, with the aid of his officials, in giving us some assurance as to what infrastructural support the Government will provide around this project. What you have got here is a very positive project: Genesis Energy and the local community, the Riccarton racing club, bringing it to Parliament; Parliament giving it the stamp of approval; and the Government then, generally, being silent, apart from trying to take credit for many of the proposals in this legislation, on what its contribution may or may not be.

That area right through Avonhead, through Merrin, right out, as I said, to Johns Road, going right up to Church Corner; that whole area will be impacted by—what is it? It is about 2.5 people on average per house, according to the official statistics. So you are looking at a couple of thousand people, in theory, in that concentrated area. It is a very good proposal—something that I think Parliament should be proud of; something that local folks and local stakeholders have put a lot of time and effort into and have brought to Parliament. But that project will need support. I would hope that Minister Brownlee and other Ministers—the housing Minister, transport Minister, and other Ministers—are engaged with this very heavily so that we do not end up getting a really nice property development that meets multiple needs, including housing affordability needs, but, unfortunately, then has a knock-on effect through the local community because infrastructure does not follow development; that Government commitment does not follow that development.

So the local folks are doing their bit. They have consulted widely. Other colleagues have talked about the concern that there was initially, and I am sure that there are some residual concerns from many stakeholders in the community, but I know, having talked to many folks in that area, that it is the infrastructure issues that are of deep concern to them. I think many of the issues around the development itself have been put to bed, but what is the knock-on effect for that local community? I would ask the Minister whether he would mind taking a call perhaps or seeking some advice from his officials—or perhaps over the dinner break having a quick word to Minister Nick Smith and other Ministers, or whoever is going to be in the chair following the dinner break—to allay some of those concerns that people have raised.

The Riccarton racing club and that piece of dirt is an iconic piece, an iconic institution, in Christchurch, and it has been the scene, as other speakers have said, of some wonderful events, not just fantastic race days for the community but also its facilities and its grounds have been the focal point for a large number of community activities right throughout the year. There are none more successful, I suppose, than the Riccarton Market, which has become a real focus and a real focal point not just for those who run the market and those who produce the goods and services but also for the community as a whole.

I am delighted to have one more opportunity before the dinner break to speak on these two bills. I am really sorry that no Government member has chosen to make a contribution, given that it is an issue that, frankly, this side of the House has been praising Government members for—particularly the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee, Scott Simpson, for his role in leading the debate in a mature way. We do not always have an opportunity to praise National members of Parliament, and in the rare times that that opportunity arises I like to grasp it with both hands.

But I have to say that I am really disappointed that the chair of the select committee has not chosen to take a call on this, because it is worthwhile noting that although we are supporting this legislation, there have been some concerns expressed. This is a big step forward for the board of trustees. It is a big change for them. It is one that they are delighted to have contributed so strongly to, and they are very pleased with the outcome. But I think that the members do the board a disservice, actually, by not contributing to the debate. They could take just a brief call and acknowledge the hard work that the board members undertake and the fact that they have been driving this change so that they are able to proceed with this development.

As I said in my earlier contribution, I do think that it is also an unusual—I am hoping that somebody who follows Parliament very closely will say whether this is a unique—occurrence, where we have had a local bill and a Government bill, both on related topics, being referred to a committee and then, when they come back to the House, both bills being debated together as if they were one. That is a really unusual situation. I have been searching social media to see whether anybody has commented that this is indeed a unique situation, but we can check on that over the dinner break and report back to the Committee after 7.30 p.m.

The point of this bill is a housing development. The Riccarton Racecourse area is huge. It is 122 hectares of land—and that in itself is pretty unusual within the confines of a city—which is under the auspices of the Riccarton Racecourse. This housing development would take 40 hectares of those 122 hectares, obviously leaving a huge amount of space still for the other activities, including racing. My colleague Poto Williams mentioned the Riccarton Market. That has become one of the major attractions on that side of the city. It is not as good as the Lyttelton market or the Ōpawa market, I have to say, but it is certainly well worth supporting.

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

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Kia ora mai tātou. Tēnā tātou katoa. Members, the House in Committee on the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill and the Riccarton Racecourse Bill is resumed. Before the dinner break, we were debating all provisions of these two bills together. Hon Ruth Dyson had the call. She has 2 minutes and 8 seconds remaining.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. It is indeed a great pleasure to be able to take my 2 minutes and 8 seconds that are remaining in my contribution on this bill. During the dinner break, I went outside for a while. I suppose it was partly as a result of us reflecting on the fact that this contribution of 600 homes is going to make a difference—not solve the problem; but will make a difference—to the housing crisis situation that we have, not just in Auckland and Christchurch but also slowly spreading out throughout the rest of the country. But it just struck me how cold it was outside, and I was reminded of the many people throughout our country who tonight, unlike us, will not be going home to a warm, dry bed but will be sleeping in a car or a garage—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): This is Riccarton Racecourse, is it not?

—or somewhere totally unsuitable. The expansion of houses that is allowed through the development of the Riccarton Racecourse will put a dent in that problem, but, unfortunately, it will not solve it. I was hoping that the Minister for Social Housing might take a call and enlighten us on that, but she has been far too busy cleaning up the mess that she made for herself today. Yet again another bad week for the Minister. It was very Chris Bishop - like behaviour. Actually, I did not think that I would see that from a Minister, but I did.

I also, prior to the dinner break, was encouraging the chair of the select committee to take a call because this is legislation that, I think, has got the support of all parties in Parliament. It has been well shepherded through the select committee by Scott Simpson, the chair, and I think that a contribution from him would be well in order. This will resolve the frustration—I guess that is not too big a word—that some members of the board of trustees have had about their inability to do things in the way they would like to. It is a pleasure to be able to acknowledge the work that the members of the board, not just the current ones—of course the current ones—but also previous board members as well, have made to the operation of the Riccarton Racecourse, an important facility in Canterbury. I support the progress of this bill.

I seek leave for the vote on the provisions of the Riccarton Racecourse Bill to be taken as one question.

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

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 180 in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to Part 1 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 180 in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to Part 2 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 not agreed to.

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: Did Jami-Lee just vote from the table?

No. I put the motion again and there was a “no” on the lost. So I put the motion “All those in favour.”, and no one responded. Then I said “Those against?”, and somebody, thankfully, responded “No”.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: We were trying to hear what Jami-Lee was saying. What was that motion?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): So the members will know from Supplementary Order Paper 180 that there was a technicality in drafting—

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: Sorry—microphone. We can’t hear you.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): We will have another go. There was a technicality in drafting. It is outlined in Supplementary Order Paper 180, where a clause needed to be—to delete clause 3, and that required then that the vote on clause 3 standing part be lost. So that is what has just happened on the vote that was taken. Members, we turn to the Riccarton Racecourse Bill.

Clauses 1 to 14, and schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.

Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill to be reported with amendment, and Riccarton Racecourse Bill to be reported without amendment presently.