Christ Church Cathedral Reinstatement Bill

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’d like to make some comments on Part 1, just to start this bill off. Basically, Part 1 deals with quite a lot of concerns that came out of the submissions, and the main theme that it deals with is the need to have a very clear purpose clause and carefully thought through definitions. This was, basically, to ensure that we got it right in terms of appropriate methodology for reinstatement. To do that, the Environment Committee made several amendments to the bill.

I’d just like to have a look at Part 1, new clause 2A; we added this in. This is to give a little bit of background to the Act. Basically, what it does is it explains that this legislation is part of the Government’s offer and that it does reflect a very long period of facilitation, negotiation, and investigations, and it references the two key reports, including the Cathedral Working Group report. It reflects on the Miriam Dean report, which was that engineering report, and then also on the Cathedral Working Group report. We thought that was particularly important, simply because this was the document that we managed to get agreement on from stakeholders around the table. This was the document that people did the negotiating in. This is how they did the thinking for the governance, the thinking for the costing, the thinking for the fund-raising, and the thinking for the future of the cathedral. People around that table had to make some kinds of trade-off, and so it was important that that was included in the bill.

We also added to the purpose of the bill. We added the purpose of the bill—and this is in clause 3(1)—to highlight the importance of this legislation and the importance of the building itself and its reinstatement, in terms of the well-being of the city of Christchurch and the people of the city of Christchurch. We said it was important because of its contribution to the cultural, the social, and the economic well-being of the city—in other words, for the people of Christchurch and for our tourist industry. We also noted its importance in terms of the regeneration of Christchurch—the fact that the building was being left to decay meant that the city centre wasn’t coming alive, wasn’t having the vitality that we want to see in the city centre. We also noted its heritage value, because, of course, that is the guiding light of this particular building. So we increased the purpose there.

We also made sure that we made it very clear what this legislation was going to do in terms of the process. What it was going to do was it was going to mean that we could expediate the process so that we could do this in a timely manner. It was also to help with the cost-effectiveness of the process, and it was to give the greatest certainty and confidence that both the owner of the cathedral and the Christchurch community needed. This was particularly important because we do want to get this work underway, we want to get it done quickly and efficiently, and we want to make sure that we can pay for it.

Further down, in clause 4, we were just very careful to make sure that the definition of “cathedral” didn’t just rely on the particular body of the church itself but also its auxiliary buildings that were directly related to the cathedral, and we made sure that we gave the definition of the lot, and then also we talked about, as I’ve said, the detail of the Cathedral Working Group report as such.

If we just go over to the next clause, which is the actual reinstatement definition, we did quite a lot of work on this, because submitters were concerned that we had the word “demolition” in there, and they were concerned that people might feel that we were going to destroy some of the building without replacing it. So we replaced that clause with “construction, reconstruction, or restoration of any part of the Cathedral”, and we also talked about the use of new materials. We did also debate whether we should include the use of new technologies, but we felt the new technologies were connected to the new materials; so that covered it.

Finally, we talked about the fact—it was sort of like belts and braces—that the activity was reinstatement if it was not full reinstatement or it didn’t get back to the original condition of the state. That was to give flexibility around the term “reinstatement”. So I think we did a good job to clarify the purpose, and I think we did a really good job to put flexibility around the definitions of those words. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to make a contribution in my area of earthquake strengthening and the powers that are provided in Part 1. I gave up my position at the Environment Committee to my colleague Nicky Wagner; I defer to her expertise on the bill and the work that she put into it. But this is an important issue.

The purpose of the bill sets out the objective to reinstate it. It talks about cost-effectiveness, and then in clause 7 we are providing for very wide powers for the Minister in the chair, Dr Megan Woods, to be able to use Orders in Council to exempt the cathedral reinstatement project from the Building Act, the Resource Management Act, heritage laws, and a number of others.

Here’s the bit I want some reassurance on, and that is in respect of the standard of earthquake strengthening that is going to be achieved. A lot of work was put in by the previous Government in response to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Building Failure Caused by the Canterbury Earthquakes, requiring that all buildings be upgraded to a minimum standard of 34 percent of the new-build standard, and a timetable associated with it.

Now, when we reflect on the fact that the Christ Church Cathedral has been damaged six times by earthquakes since it was built: in 1881 it was knocked around, in 1888, in 1901, in 1922, and in the main quake in September 2010, as well as the devastating, very close quake in February of 2011. A strict interpretation of this bill would say that—look, they get short of money, $100 million to do the project. Are we going to short-change, in my view unwisely, on making sure the building is as strong as possible so that this Parliament’s not going to be debating—let’s hope it’s at least a couple of hundred years, Nicky, before the great city of Christchurch faces another quake.

But the honest truth is we don’t know, so the key bit I would want to know from the Minister is: what are her intentions in respect of the Building Act exemptions that are provided for? Does she have a benchmark of percentage of new code that she would want the strengthened Christ Church Cathedral to have? It would be my view that the people of Christchurch, whether they are the ratepayers, whether they are the parishioners of the cathedral, or whether it’s the taxpayers that are making a substantial investment in this area, will want to know.

Now, I’m not picky about it. It’s not my view that Parliament should necessarily be in this area, but given the very, very wide powers that are being given to the Minister, the assurance that I would seek is that we would not consider any Order in Council that would set a standard that is less than what the Building Act requires. In fact, in my view, for a large, heritage, iconic building of this sort, we should be seeking a standard substantially above that. I think it is important that we get this on the record. The legislation does require cost-effectiveness but does not make anything specific in terms of the standard of the strengthening and the reinstatement of the cathedral.

I think we would do a disservice to all of the effort that has gone into the process if we did not clearly have in our minds some level of baseline as to the standard of strengthening that we would want for that cathedral. Six quakes in 140 years that have damaged the cathedral—I would say we’d want to guarantee at least a couple of hundred years’ future for that building with the provisions that are provided here. I’m supportive of the bill but really looking for some reassurance from the Minister about her expectations around percentage of new-build standard that we’ll want for a reinstated cathedral.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair Williams. It is a pleasure to take a call in the committee of the whole House and also an opportunity to address the Minister in the chair, Megan Woods, as well.

I think it’s pretty clear for the Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration, from not only the first reading but now the second, to hear how much the Cathedral Working Group Recommendation Report was referred to not only in the readings but in the discussions in the Environment Committee as well. We felt it important that the Cathedral Working Group Recommendation Report and subsequent recommendations were embedded in the bill and the legislation.

So coming back into the House from the select committee process, we have the reference to the report in the background of the Act, under Part 1. There was discussion around including it in the preamble, but it was felt, and landed, that it was best to go in clause 2A “Background to this Act”, and it refers to the Cathedral Working Group report. It was also included under clause 4 “Interpretation”, where we talk about the report and also in the definition of “reinstatement”: “ ‘reinstatement’ includes 1 or more of the following: … any activity in relation to any part of the Cathedral that the [Cathedral Working Group] Report contemplates as being a reinstatement activity:”.

But one thing I would want to raise with the Minister, and possibly get the feedback and advice from the Minister about: there was discussion whether the Cathedral Working Group report could be referenced in other parts of the bill, and more specifically in clause 10, “Reasons for order must be published”. This is around the reasons for the Order in Council. We were working with whether the Minister, who made the recommendation, needed to include why the order is appropriate and consistent with the Cathedral Working Group report. So I’d be interested in hearing from the Minister, in her view, why that wasn’t included in clause 10, and, in fact, whether it could be included in clause 10.

Another issue that’s come up in the committee as well: we talk a lot about the physical building of the cathedral—quite rightly, because we are talking about the cathedral—but to many Cantabrians and people from Christchurch, as my learned colleague Rino Tirikatene did refer to, it’s not only the cathedral but it’s the Cathedral Square, and we’ve all got great memories of going into the square as well, and all the eccentric characters of the Wizard and, of course, the Birdman as well—we’ll never forget the Birdman.

What we did as a select committee, we had an indicative map of the cathedral area drawn up, and that is now in schedule 3. However, there was some discussion about how we ensure that we protect the interests of businesses already operating on the edges of that Cathedral Square. No doubt there are some issues as we rebuild the cathedral. In a purely logistical sense, a lot of the blocks will have to be close by. The handling of them—the double handling—will take a lot of time, so how we streamline that process.

There was discussion around some real thought of how we needed to protect the interests of business operating at the edge of that identified area. One good example of that—and I know it quite well because I did take my wife on it, but equally it’s a great North Canterbury business—Continental caterers. They run the night tram and the dinner tram car, and, of course, this cathedral area covers the tram as it circles round behind the cathedral. So it would be good to hear from the Minister as to how we can ensure that pragmatically, as this legislation goes forward, we ensure that some of the working businesses in the Cathedral Square area can be supported to ensure that their businesses are protected, as well. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I’m just intending to take a very quick call to answer some of the questions that have been put to me. First of all, to address the very important question that Dr Nick Smith raised in his contribution, and one that I think does require some explanation—

I’m so sorry to interrupt the Minister, but the time has come for me to leave the Chair and to report progress.

House resumed.

Progress reported.

Report adopted.

Sitting suspended from 9.56 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)