Greater Christchurch Regeneration Amendment Bill

I move, That the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

I am pleased to be here today to give this second reading speech—pleased because this amendment bill supports the transition back to local leadership of the regeneration in greater Christchurch, something for which there is broad support at both central and local government levels. In 2016, when the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act was passed, it was necessary to provide an enabling framework for the Crown to continue to have an active role in regeneration. However, it has become clear that it is time; time to accelerate the transition of regeneration responsibilities back into the hands of local leadership. The 2019 annual review of the Act, completed in September 2019, supports this notion, having identified that a tipping point had been reached and that the Act is no longer required in its current form. We know the people and the long-term institutions on the ground in Christchurch are capable of leading regeneration, and this bill will allow them to take on more of an active leadership role.

I’d like to thank the members of the Governance and Administration Committee, and particularly the chair Dr Jian Yang, for their consideration of the bill and the submissions that were received. I acknowledge the additional effort the committee put in to be able to report back to the House on this bill in the first week of June. Given the impact of the COVID-19 restrictions on work environments and the request for a shorter than usual time frame for consideration initially, this required some swift work, and I would like to thank all members for that.

Given my well-known expectation to be the last Minister for regeneration that Christchurch needs, it is crucial that we were in a position to be able to pass this bill prior to the election, and I thank the committee for making sure we are in a position to be able to achieve this. The bill will provide certainty for the communities of Christchurch about the rules and the institutions in place to govern regeneration, and it will be great for this House to be able to provide that.

I’d like to take a moment to acknowledge the many people in Christchurch who, for over a decade, have worked to get us to this point. The quest for local leadership after the devastating earthquakes that began 10 years ago in 2010 is something that has long been wanted on the ground in the city. There are many and numerous people—and I’m not going to even start naming names because I know inevitably I will miss someone off. But I think we, and I see members across the House from Christchurch too, can think of a number of people who over the years have worked tirelessly for the regeneration and the recovery of our city.

This bill recognises the progress made on regeneration, providing for earlier removal of provisions no longer considered necessary. And, as I’m keen to tell anyone who will listen, the work undertaken over the last four years in greater Christchurch has made significant strides on regeneration. In particular, if we point to the last 12 months, we have seen significant effort to complete a huge amount of work, including the approval of the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor Regeneration Plan, which provides a greenprint for the future use and development for the red zone land; and the signing of the Global Settlement Agreement, which includes decisions on how we transition Christchurch back to local leadership. This means it is possible to propose the amendments in the bill to revoke the section 71 power, which provides for an expedited way to make changes for planning documents, and to provide for early disestablishment of Regenerate Christchurch, which will reduce the number of institutions working on regeneration in Christchurch. It will extend certain land powers required for reconfiguration of land titles in the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor to provide a backstop to ensure the Crown can complete the agreed work prior to the transfer of the land to the council and the removal of the requirement for an annual review of the Act and changes to implement the three major changes noted, such as amendments to the regeneration plan process to account for the early disestablishment of Regenerate Christchurch. The time is right to simplify things to help make this transition back to local leadership seamless and efficient. The bill supports this by simplifying the organisations working on regeneration in Christchurch and removing the Crown’s extraordinary powers under section 71.

The committee report notes that submissions were received from six parties, including from local institutions, Christchurch City Council, Environment Canterbury, and Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu. I thank all the submitters for taking the time to make their submissions. No submitters oppose the amendments proposed, with many noting their support for the proposed amendments, in particular the removal of the section 71 power and the disestablishment of Regenerate Christchurch. I think this is a reflection of the broad support at a local level for the amendments proposed through the bill and recognition that the changes proposed make sense and will help make greater Christchurch continue on its progress on regeneration. I would like to acknowledge the Opposition for their support on this bill; we have had a history of working together across the House on the overarching legislation around Christchurch over the last decade. And I would like to acknowledge those members from Christchurch who are in the House for this debate, for their support for these amendments.

I also note that what we are doing today is made possible in part by the work undertaken by Regenerate Christchurch. The board and the staff have undertaken significant projects and reviews over the last four years that have been a tremendous asset to greater Christchurch. I want to thank them for their work—the work that will leave a lasting imprint on the landscape of Christchurch, but also the work they have done to disestablish themselves. At a very human level, that is something I think we need to thank individuals for.

The committee also recommended two amendments to the bill: one to help clarify the definition of the area the exceeded land powers will apply to, and the other to insert transitional provisions for any section 71 proposal or plan process under way at the date the process provisions for those are repealed. With regard to the first recommendation—this was suggested to better define the definition of the geographical area of application for the extended land powers—the extended land powers will be available for the Crown’s land title reconfiguration work in the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor. It does this by clarifying the land the provisions will apply to by reference to land in the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor in Crown ownership at 1 July 2021 and also provides a map to aid in interpretation. This suggested change does not change the area the extended land powers apply to, but, rather, ensures that it is clear what area is included. The extended land powers ensure the Crown has the time to complete its work to put Christchurch in the best position to continue its regeneration in this area. The other change is to include transitional provisions for any section 71 proposal or plan process under way at the time the relevant provisions in the Act are repealed. While transitional provisions were not originally seen as necessary, during the course of the committee’s consideration, it became clear that clarity on the application of the current provisions to any application under way at the repeal of the relevant provisions would be pragmatic. The provisions included will ensure clarity for any proponent pursuing a proposal or application at the date the relevant provisions were repealed. This will provide certainty around the step in the process that needs to have been reached for a proposal or application to be continued under the current provisions in the Act. So these are very technical descriptions, but I want to finish up by thanking the committee for these recommendations, which have helped clarify these two matters.

This bill is all about the time being right for greater Christchurch to take further progress in the transition back to local leadership of regeneration. Christchurch has shown it is ready, able, and willing, and this bill shows central government’s faith that this is the case while also ensuring the Crown has the required ability to complete its work in the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor to support the ongoing regeneration. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. As the Minister has already said, National will be supporting this bill because it’s the next step in the parliamentary legislative response to the Canterbury earthquake sequence of 2010 and 2011. Our first legislative response was the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act of 2011, which really focused on the immediate recovery and rebuild of the city. That Act morphed into the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act 2016, which really marked the shift from post-earthquake, immediate recovery to the ongoing regeneration of greater Christchurch. This bill is the next step in the process, and provides for a transition for decision making back to local government and local stakeholders.

The Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act did have a sunset clause—it had a clause that the Act would expire in June 2021. So this amendment bill means that that will just happen a little bit quicker. The bill has three main amendments. The first is the repeal of the powers that were given under section 71 of the principal Act, which allowed the Minister to work with local stakeholders to fast track resource management decisions that underpinned approved regeneration plans. It was designed to support essential urban renewal and development, and to empower that to happen as quickly and as cost effectively and efficiently as possible.

Stakeholders that were involved in these decision making mechanisms included all the local government bodies in greater Christchurch, Ngāi Tahu, and Regenerate Christchurch. Now, Regenerate Christchurch was the agency that was established to consult with the community, to bring parties together, and to deliver on development plans. The Act really allowed for the fast tracking of rebuilding, repairing, improving, and converting land, buildings, and infrastructure. But all of that had to be done within regeneration plans, and plans could be proposed by any of the local stakeholders.

It was an empowering piece of legislation, but, unfortunately, it was rarely used. In actual fact, there were only two regeneration plans that were propagated. The first was in 2017, and that was already in process before the Act was passed, and another was in 2019. It was envisioned at the time that these powers would be extremely helpful to the regeneration of the city, but, disappointingly, they were not really appreciated or embraced by local authorities, making them largely redundant in the long term.

The second amendment to this bill is the disestablishment of that agency: Regenerate Christchurch. Now, this body has spent the last four years developing plans for the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor and for other parts of the city. Work was supposed to be completed by June 2021, when it was to be wound up. Unfortunately, much of that proposed work is still not finished, and I’m hopeful that that work that has been done won’t be wasted.

The third proposed amendment was to extend land powers for title reconfiguration within the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor. This will support regeneration by preparing the land for future activities—something the people of Christchurch are eagerly awaiting. As the Minister has noted, this bill went to the Governance and Administration Committee in early March. There were nine written submissions, three oral submissions, and the oral submissions were received by video conference because of COVID-19. I would like to also thank the members of the committee for working on this bill during lockdown.

The select committee recommended two main amendments. The first was to clarify the geographical description of the land in the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor. This land includes sites that the Crown has held under previous legislation, but also adjacent land owned by the city council. This new description doesn’t change the amount or the type of land included; it merely changes the way that it is described. Also, an indicative map and further detail will be attached to the Act to assist in interpretation.

The committee was also concerned that the bill as introduced did not contain any transitional provisions following the repeal of the section 71 powers and planning process. The committee believe that transitional provisions are required to allow for the completion of any proposals that are presently under way. They recommended the insertion, via clause 29, of sections 10A, 10B, and 10C—all part of New Part 2—into Schedule 1 of the bill to allow for this transition.

As I’ve said, this is the third piece of legislation pertaining to the 2010 Canterbury earthquakes. It repeals the special powers that were put in place to fast track the regeneration of Christchurch and it winds up the body established to manage those regeneration plans. All decision-making powers will now go back to local government, and I think this is an indication that greater Christchurch is now returning to a more business-as-usual governance arrangement.

The last decade in our city has been enormously traumatic. We’ve had thousands of earthquakes, liquefaction, and flooding, lethal fires, and terrorist attacks—and now, of course, a pandemic, but we are generously sharing that with the rest of the country! I’m hopeful that the passing of this bill will see greater Christchurch return to a new normal that we can all embrace, and I’m also very hopeful that this is the end of any emergency or disaster-related legislation in Christchurch and Canterbury for a very long time to come. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I’m especially pleased that you are in the Chair to hear another part of the passage of the journey of this particular bill. I have a short contribution to make, because I think that the Minister, and the previous speaker, who’s just resumed her seat, Nicky Wagner, have articulated what we’re here about to do today. But I do want to make a couple of points.

The first point I want to make, is I want to say a word of thanks to Dr Thérèse Arseneau and her board and Ivan Iafeta and the staff and the team at Regenerate Christchurch, for whom this piece of legislation actually ends that organisation. I know that they have handled the transition extraordinarily well, and I want to thank them for their work and to also acknowledge that the work that they have done will always, always be within the fabric of Christchurch.

It’s important that we acknowledge that this piece of legislation now allows for Christchurch to fully embrace its own regeneration, that the Crown now steps back from that piece of work and acknowledges the passage of time and the importance of Christchurch now determining its own future. I’m extraordinarily proud of that.

I want to thank the select committee and the chair, Dr Jian Yang, for ensuring that this piece of work was completed in an expeditious way and returned to the House. I also want to commend them for a couple of significant pieces of work that they did—recognising that the section 71 transitional provisions needed to be inserted as an amendment to this piece of work—and I thank them for that. I also want to thank them for ensuring that, when the land title reconfiguration work happened, we included a very clear definition of the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor, and I thank them for that as well.

So, just to end, this is another step in the journey and we will soon be putting the final stamp on returning Christchurch’s leadership for its own regeneration back into its own hands. I’d like to commend the bill to the House.

I rise to speak briefly on the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Amendment Bill in its second reading. Now, it has been almost a decade since we had the Canterbury earthquakes in 2010 and 2011. I have visited Christchurch a number of times and, initially, I saw devastation and vacant land and, later on, I saw more development when, again, I attended events in Christchurch. So we can see the development, but, on the other hand, there was much damage because of the earthquakes.

Initially, we responded with some immediate measures such as for the safety issue and the livelihood issue, but later on, we needed a longer and longer plan, and for that reason we needed to some legislation, or extraordinary measures, and that was why they had the particular bill, or the particular Act—the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act—in 2016. So that Act was there for some extraordinary measures to fast track the rebuild of Christchurch and the Canterbury region, and it worked to some extent. It was supposed to have central government and local government consultations speeding up, and it did achieve some results. At the same time, we did see that it was necessary, now, to transfer the power back to local government, and this bill itself is trying to, basically, speed up the process. We think it is time to speed up the process to make sure that we have certainty so that local government knows what to do and how it should happen. Also, the bill itself will give sufficient time to complete the required title configuration work in the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor before its transfer to the council.

Now, the Governance and Administration Committee itself has worked quite, I would say, constructively in the process. We heard submissions from the officials and from other people, and then there was COVID-19, so we stopped for a while. But as soon as we came to the level 3 lockdown, we actually started working again. So we had a meeting just a couple of days after we entered into level 3 lockdown, and we made some suggestions. Here, I would like to thank our members from both National and Labour, and also, in particular, I want to thank the Hon Gerry Brownlee for his contribution and also the Hon Nicky Wagner for her contribution to this particular bill.

As I said, we worked constructively. We support the bill, and the committee, in the end, made a couple of major amendments. Previous speakers have mentioned those amendments, but mostly I would say that with the clarification of the area covered by the bill—that is, the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor area—we have made it very clear. As a matter of fact, the officials provided a map so that we could see very clearly what the area covers. So it’s very, very detailed work.

We also have included the transitional provision for section 71 powers and the plan process. Basically, we’ve made it very clear that we would like to improve the bill to make it clearer for the transitional process and also for the area that the bill itself covers.

So I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, I will only take a short call on behalf of New Zealand First, firstly to congratulate the Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration on the sterling work she’s done and also to recognise the Christchurch-based MPs from across the House who have put in so much effort, so much work, and their support in behind this legislation. I have lived in Canterbury, as you know, Madam Speaker, on and off for about 30-odd years, and I lived in many suburbs out at Burnham, at Rolleston, before it became a mini-city, as it is now, I think, unfortunately, in many ways thanks to—you hate to say it like that—the Christchurch earthquakes. Having a son in the police down there, who’s been a long-serving member, and many family members down there who deployed in response to the Christchurch earthquakes—a son-in-law, who I’m very proud of, who won New Zealand’s highest valour award the Fire Service has got to give for his actions in the Christchurch earthquake, and that’s Scott Shadbolt—and seeing Christchurch come through what have been very, very challenging times, I don’t think I’ll ever lose the love for Christchurch. It was my home for many, many years.

And as, Madam Speaker, you know, I stood for Parliament many, many times there and had an electorate office down there—out of Parliament office, I should call it. And I’ve gotten to know quite a number of the members of Parliament who held those seats down there, and I recognise Clayton Cosgrove, who did good work down there, and Gerry Brownlee. We’re political adversaries on occasions and we’re political allies on occasions, but I have to say that Gerry was left with a very difficult task over those times.

Christchurch has come through, and Christchurch is at that stage now where it needs to transition again, and this bill supports the return of the leadership in Christchurch’s regeneration following those devastating earthquakes to local organisations and local leadership, and that is a very welcome thing. I know that members across the House—Matt Doocey, who’s the MP for Waimakariri, my daughter’s member of Parliament, has likewise been a strong supporter and political representative down there, alongside you yourself, Madam Speaker, and everybody else. It’s been challenging times. The transition that we’re now making through this legislation is, I know, very welcome down there. The work and the effort of all of the members of Parliament and the Ministers both present and former in the last Government should be recognised. I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I’m sure you will agree with me when I say how good Christchurch is. What a fantastic city it is. And I must say it’s a pleasure to be listening to the Christchurch MPs from across the House—to their contributions today. It clearly demonstrates how we get on well together as MPs from across the House but from one region. Unlike those other nasty MPs from different regions around New Zealand, we clearly get on, but I suppose what we galvanise behind is having the best rugby team in the world. That’s what clearly brings us together.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): I might just ask for the clock to be stopped so you can go on.

Yes—I seek leave to have a 20-minute call!

But a bit more seriously, today is another small milestone in what is a long journey in recovery for a great historical city. We do have a significant milestone coming up in September of this year, which will be, of course, the first earthquake. Quite rightly, we focus on the second earthquake in February 2011 with the fatalities involved, but, of course, we had the first earthquake in September 2010, which severely affected a town in my electorate, the town of Kaiapoi, where we lost over a thousand residential houses and to this day we still have the only other red zone outside the Christchurch City area.

But I must say it’s great to see the recovery and strength of a parochial town like Kaiapoi as they bounce back. They’ve had huge Government and private sector investment. We’ve got the marina development now, a new boat on the Kaiapoi River, and we’ve got a proposal for a new international aqua sport park to be built on the red zone, which is going to be great for the growing population out there and to bring some confidence and jobs and incomes for a town that was severely impacted.

This bill seeks to bring some leadership and decision making back to local leaders. And of course, I say that Greater Christchurch has changed significantly post the earthquakes and now towns like Kaiapoi or Rolleston and Lincoln and Selwyn are termed as part of Greater Christchurch. So when we do talk of this return to local leadership, it has not only, quite rightly, Christchurch City Council, but “Waimak” District Council, Selwyn District Council, Environment Canterbury, and, very importantly, Ngāi Tahu as well—and aren’t we lucky to have an iwi like Ngāi Tahu down in Christchurch who are a strong strategic partner but also a cornerstone in the driver of our cultural recovery as well.

We would say on this side of the House, though, that potentially some of the ability for this regeneration power in the previous bill, where parts are being repealed today, were underutilised. I think when you look at the impacts now of COVID-19 on local economies, it’s important that local leadership does have a lens for ensuring that they have strong local economies that drive jobs and better incomes for the benefit not only of the wellbeing of the residents but also for improving environmental standards as well. And why I say that is I feel, potentially, some of these powers that we are repealing today could have been used with more urgency to drive several key projects over the line.

We are still left with a lot of questions around the stadium. As I joked before, being one of the world’s best rugby regions, we should, quite rightly, have the architecture and infrastructure that points to that. You only need to go to some of the cities around the world who might be, you know, European premier football team winners. They have those big stadiums. And I think that, quite rightly, Canterbury deserves that again. We all have a lot of childhood memories of being on that embankment during the early 80s of the Ranfurly Shield era of the Canterbury rugby team and it would be great to see that return as well. The Metro Sports Facility is another one that’s struggling to get traction and also, disappointingly for Waimakariri commuters, the northern corridor has been delayed as well, potentially to the start of next year.

So I think if we are going to repeal section 71 we are disbanding Regenerate Christchurch. It does put some responsibility on this local leadership team that will be picking this up to ensure we continue the recovery. I will acknowledge the Government for their mental health programmes that they have put in the schools in Greater Christchurch post-earthquakes. We know we still have a lot of young people—and not so young now as we are 10 years down the track—who are still struggling with the mental and psychological impacts of the earthquake.

But this bill today isn’t seeking that this local leadership will have the powers and the ability to make decisions to drive forward Greater Christchurch’s regeneration—because we have a lot to do. We started off very aspirational, saying that we wanted to rebuild the best small city in the world and I think we should hold on to that aspiration. It’s pretty clear when you go round parts of Christchurch City and the central part of Christchurch, there’s a lot of work to be done, and I know there’s a lot of historical, traditional families in Christchurch who could have taken their capital very easily to other parts of the world—Australia, for example—but have decided to stay to invest into some of the infrastructure projects we’re seeing now: the Riverside Market’s a good example. And we just want to acknowledge that private sector who is backing Christchurch.

But it is still disappointing. You know, we don’t hear much from Christ Church Cathedral. Regenerate Christchurch were going to do a lot more around the cathedral precinct. And that’s why I think—you know, we’ve heard from around the House today it is important we repeal section 71 and return that local decision-making. But what we want to ensure is that these local decision makers pick up that challenge and run with it because, you know, we are going to be on the back foot with the economic recession ahead of us with COVID-19, and what we want to know is that once we get through that, we’ll be focused again on our regeneration and looking forward to one day hosting the Rugby World Cup in the new Christchurch rugby stadium and to a Canterbury rugby player scoring the try to finally beat the French and put that there.

💬 Paul Eagle: That’s going too far now.

OK, thanks, Mr Paul—oh, he told me to sit down, the Wellingtonian. There was a good game in Athletic Park one day I went and—thank you very much for your leniency, Madam Chair, and I commend the bill to the House.

E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe. I’m very pleased to speak on behalf of the Green Party on the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Amendment Bill. Yes, 10 years since that 4 September earthquake does seem to have gone very quickly, and a lot has happened in that time.

I’m very pleased with the initiative to repeal the section 71 powers in the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act early. I can well remember the discussions in this House, and having the Hon Gerry Brownlee come to the Local Government and Environment Committee to consider whether there could be some more requirements on him, as Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration, to do some consultation around the regeneration planning process, because the Greens had some concerns about the very Draconian powers in the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act. So I’m very pleased that section 71, which enables the Minister to override plans under the Resource Management Act to revoke resource consents, is being repealed a year early. Those provisions, when they’ve been used—such as for the night lights in Hagley Park for the Hagley Oval—have been controversial with citizens because they have cut across their powers to provide their views.

I think what others have recognised is that this bill is an important signal that the central government powers exercised by the Minister, the Hon Megan Woods, are now returning very much to local councils, Ngāi Tahu, who are providing that local leadership. One of the important things about the principal Act and this one is that word or those words “Greater Christchurch”, because, as the previous speaker, Matt Doocey, noted, it is that conglomeration of councils—Christchurch City, Selwyn, Waimakariri—Environment Canterbury, and mana whenua, Ngāi Tahu, that do really provide the sense of a bigger region of councils and Ngāi Tahu working together for the people of the region and Greater Christchurch. It’s not just Christchurch City, because of the connections with Waimakariri, with Selwyn, the growth that’s happening in Rolleston, so it’s working together for a common aim, building on the Greater Christchurch Urban Redevelopment Strategy, and recognising the critical importance of transport connections between the city, Waimakariri, Rolleston, whether it’s by rail or by some of those longer bus links.

So I acknowledge the work, as the Hon Poto Williams did, of Regenerate Christchurch; the board, led by Thérèse Arseneau; Ivan Iafeta; and the very inclusive approach that Regenerate Christchurch took to public consultation, to developing that vision for the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor. And I was really pleased with the change that the Governance and Administration Committee made by including a map in the bill of the whole of the river corridor area to make it very clear to folk what geographic area that encompassed.

One of the other provisions in the bill, which is important, is the ability for Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) to continue on with its work to stop roads, to amalgamate titles—because there are about 5,500 titles in what was the residential red zone—to enable further development, if appropriate, to happen in that area. LINZ expects that work to be completed by July next year, but the bill does enable that to go on until 2023, all of that survey work.

So it is a significant transition now back to councils, back to Ngāi Tahu, in providing that leadership; central government and the agencies it had in partnership with councils retreating those two agencies, Development Christchurch and Regenerate Christchurch, being wound up. I hope that we have, as we approach the 10th anniversary, no more quakes in the area and no more need for the provisions in this bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I don’t wish to bring you into the debate, but I just feel it’s very appropriate that you’re sitting in the Chair for this bill, and I just want to pass on my thanks to you and to all Christchurch MPs for the enormous amount of case work that you would have done in the days, weeks, and years since the 2010 and 2011 Canterbury earthquakes.

I’m not a Christchurch-based MP. I grew up just down the road in Ashburton, about an hour down the road, but I spent many years of my life in Christchurch. I went to boarding school at Christchurch Boys’ High School and then went on to university at the University of Canterbury. Like our colleague Ron Mark across the House, I lived in a number of suburbs; in St Albans, in Riccarton, and in Papanui. In fact, I think it was just around the corner from Clayton Cosgrove’s electorate office at the time.

💬 Paul Eagle: Oh, you poor thing—poor man.

But it’s a real privilege for me to stand here and speak on a bill that relates to Christchurch, which is our gateway to the South Island and, of course, the undisputed second-largest city in New Zealand, Mr Eagle.

The earthquakes had a profound effect on Christchurch and on the people that live there. Many buildings were destroyed. Many of the landmarks on the skyline that we treated as normal were, unfortunately, lost—buildings like the Grand Chancellor Hotel, which in a very flat city, was often used as a bit of a bearing when you were lost in the city. To this day, I still find myself getting lost in Christchurch, not helped, of course, by its famed one-way streets within the four avenues. But the greatest loss was not the buildings, not its landmarks, but its people. There are very few families in Canterbury who didn’t know someone who was lost in those Canterbury earthquakes, and my family is no different. We lost a friend of ours, Philip McDonald, an accountant from Ashburton. That initial loss was tragic, but so has been the ongoing trauma, and very few of my family and friends who lived in Christchurch or in the city at the time of the earthquake, unfortunately, still live there, having moved to places like Rolleston, Banks Peninsula, or further afield.

Many hung in there for many years, in fact, helping to rebuild some of those shattered communities. I’d particularly like to acknowledge my friend Sam Johnson, a good Mayfield lad, and Erin Jackson, who created and ran the Student Volunteer Army. That organisation has continued to provide support to Christchurch and to Canterbury as recently as the COVID-19 response, delivering groceries to places like Timaru and Ashburton, and it’s now led by new leadership, by people like Ashburton’s Alyce Lysaght.

National does support this bill. It helps build on the work led by Gerry Brownlee when he was Minister in the initial response and then later by Nicky Wagner. I also want to acknowledge the work of Megan Woods in recent years. It’s not an easy job, and with a population of around 400,000 people there’s certainly always someone to give their opinion.

This bill removes some of the alternative and extraordinary legislation that was introduced in the days, weeks, and months after the earthquakes. Those provisions were needed at the time, just as we’ve seen with the response to the Kaikōura earthquakes and enabling legislation there and again, more recently, with COVID-19. I do understand the argument that some put forward sometimes that our legislation should be sufficiently robust and flexible to accommodate disaster circumstances. However, the Canterbury earthquakes were absolutely unparalleled in this country in the modern era. Powers that enabled things like zoning, consenting, construction, and rebuilding were necessary at a time when things didn’t deserve to wait, and some of those powers worked very well, as we can see today, with new towns and suburbs in places like Rolleston and the wider Selwyn and Waimakariri districts. But it’s appropriate that over time those powers are removed, making the way for life as normal in places like Christchurch and other areas hard hit like Kaiapoi.

The Christchurch of today is a very different place to just a handful of years ago. From shattered infrastructure, we now have wonderful assets in the city. The innovation and determination of Cantabrians was never quelled but is now on full display. Despite the trauma and disruption, Christchurch is a vibrant world-class city, and this bill is an important part in that process.

Greg O’Connor—this is a split call.

I asked for the opportunity to speak on this bill because, like Ron Mark before me, and Andrew Falloon, while not a Christchurch MP, I did live there, and it sounds like we have to name, to prove it, the suburbs we lived in—Merivale, in my case, Mr Falloon.

But, seriously, I also was privileged to spend three weeks in Christchurch—I was in Christchurch within 18 hours of that earthquake. I spent most of that time in the red zone, when the real trauma and the understanding of the depth of just what the earthquake had done to Christchurch and Canterbury was being realised, and on behalf of Cantabrians, I don’t think the rest of New Zealand still realises just the depth of change, the depth of angst, that still remains in Canterbury, and I think this bill will be just another one of those small things that Cantabrians go through, yet another chapter in rebuilding.

I can’t help thinking that all New Zealanders now will remember COVID; this is a time in their lives that changed much. They’ll go back to this moment. Cantabrians, I think, for a generation—and perhaps more—will always think of that morning that this occurred, and now they are able to be part of this legislation going through. I think anyone that has ever spent any time in Christchurch will know they are a parochial bunch; they’ve got a lot to be parochial about. I was just saying that for the people of Kaiapoi to be parochial in Canterbury must be pretty parochial to be overtaking the general population down there.

But appreciating that this is recognition that Christchurch is getting back on its feet, there’s a long way to go, and it gives me great pleasure to commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a privilege to stand and speak on the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Amendment Bill in its second reading. I want to say that I have just left the Christchurch East electorate to move up north, but in my time since arriving there in 2014 and right up to the start of this year, I have felt a lot of warmth there. I didn’t know what I was going to, but the Christchurch East people made me feel at home and part of their family, so I just wanted to acknowledge them.

Pertaining to the bill, I want to acknowledge the Hon Gerry Brownlee and Nicky Wagner for the work that they did directly after the earthquake. It was a huge job, and I think that they’ve done an amazing amount of work to actually get it to where the Hon Megan Woods is able to pick and carry on and carry through with the next stage of the regeneration project. You know, National always felt that it was dealing with an unwilling partner in the Christchurch City Council, but the people have spoken, and, as my colleagues on this side and across the House have actually talked about, it was about repealing section 71 so that the power could end up going back into the hands of the local people so that they can do the projects that they wanted to do. In saying that, there were a couple of projects already in line with that: the cranberry—not “the cranberry”—the Cranford Basin, which I’m really pleased to see that the Christchurch City Council is picking up as a project as well as looking after it, and the other one we’ve heard about is the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor regeneration plan, as part of the red zone.

I think that I also need to mention here the investment of the taxpayers of New Zealand in the regeneration project, with the $300 million of taxpayers’ money available for the regeneration projects of Christchurch. That kind of brings the whole of New Zealand into Christchurch in supporting them to grow and regenerate into, actually, what’s going to be a bigger and better city than it was pre-earthquakes. So I think that the council have done an amazing job in being able to work alongside of Regenerate Christchurch, Development Christchurch Ltd, and other organisations to grow their city.

Finally, I just want to acknowledge the developments in New Brighton. They weren’t regeneration projects, but, I tell you what, the work that was done there on the children’s playground and the hot saltwater pools has regenerated the—

💬 Hon Member: Don’t mention the playground.

—ha, ha!—spirits of New Brighton. It has regenerated the heart and the soul and the spirit of those that live in the New Brighton area. That’s why it is my pleasure and privilege to commend this bill to the House. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It was a great privilege to be on the select committee that considered the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Amendment Bill, the Governance and Administration Committee, and it was really good to hear all those submissions that did come through. The Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act was enacted, really, to try and see the progress made kept in a space where it really did. As a former head girl and student of Avonside Girls’ High School, and knowing so many of those from Christchurch who have had a hard time in the last decade, it’s really good to see such progress going forward, and I look forward to seeing the excellent work in rebuilding a city where I have a lot of strong feelings and good memories. I look forward to seeing that continue, and it’s great to see this legislation pass another milestone. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you very much for the chance to speak. I’m now on the select committee that saw this bill through its initial passage stages—the Governance and Administration Committee. I must admit, I wasn’t on the select committee when this was going through, but it is a privilege to have a chance to say a few words in support of the bill. We all remember 2010 and 2011 and those fateful days and events and how much it affected New Zealanders, not just Cantabrians, and how our hearts stopped for those moments, those hours, those days, those weeks, those months. Now here we are, years later, doing our best via parliamentary processes to do our best by Canterbury and all those families affected.

We do support the bill. We know that its aim is to transition back to local leadership. We know that there needs to be a transitioning back because we know that, in practice, the bill is fixing up some of those anomalies, or those redundancies, should I say, around the Government and local authorities and the powers that are no longer appropriate. We know that there needs to be evidence around these changes that we’re seeking, and I commend everyone on the select committee and the process that they went through to make sure that what we’re doing here this afternoon and into the early evening is appropriate.

We know that the Government has said the time is right for local leadership to deliver the regeneration. We accept that full local decision-making is the right way to go. And it would always happen. This bill is bringing it forward, but we also need to be very mindful that we’ve all got skin in the game. Taxpayers all around New Zealand have skin in the game, and we need to ask some very fundamental questions, and the select committee process did. There were good contributions around: is the funding the right funding? Will money be spent wisely? Is the regeneration taking place at the right time line and in the right speed and will people be transported in a timely fashion?

We all know that change is tough no matter where it is in New Zealand. And of course, there’s some very much detail around that Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor and the time line for that. We also note the Government’s described that corridor as multigenerational and wants timely delivery. I’ve got a personal comment around city council delivery, having been a city councillor myself, not in Christchurch, but in Auckland. Sometimes—

💬 Andrew Bayly: A very good one, too—a very good one.

Yes, that’s right. I’ll give no comment, Mr Bayly.

So when it comes to council delivery, sometimes timeliness is not very timely, and I speak from experience there. So from our side of the House, we’d hope that there would be somewhat more of a maintenance of Crown interest to increase the likelihood of timeliness, given history and the speed at which councils sometimes undertake projects.

But having said that, this is a bill that we support. We’re not in Government, the transfer of power and decision making is a decision that has come—it was coming anyway, but it’s come ahead of what we would have said in terms of a process just to make sure that the council gets things right. We do wish all the teams well, and I include council teams in that, again, knowing how sometimes council teams can unnecessarily delay things.

We’re pleased with the minor changes in the select committee process. Other speakers before me have clearly outlined the two major—the two major minor, I guess you could say—changes. We know that clause 21 of the bill as introduced would amend section 8 of the Act in terms of the Act’s geographical application. The select committee decided that the geographical description wasn’t sufficiently clear, and so they worked diligently to make sure that there was an indicative map attached to the bill to help with interpretation. I think that is a very practical decision. That’s something that will be responded to well, I’m sure, by those who look at any great detail as this bill passes its passage in Parliament. There is also the inclusion of transitional provisions for section 71 so that the power in section 71 is used to make changes to planning and other documents through a streamlined process with limited public engagement. That’s something that is applied in other legislation in Parliament. It gives a Minister power to approve applications through a bespoke process. So, again, something practical. Hats off to the select committee for picking this up in the process.

My final comment is that I wish Cantabrians—and New Zealand, because as I said before, we’ve all got skin in the game here for the rejuvenation process. It’s a big undertaking. It’s a changed city. There were changed lives. And we’re doing our best here in Parliament to make sure that those affected lives are affected for the better. Thank you.

It’s a pleasure to take a brief call on this bill, because, while I didn’t sit on the Governance and Administration Committee, I understand how important this bill is in terms of being a milestone for Christchurch’s regeneration. And I think, basically, what this bill does is pave the way for the transition back to local decision-making by local leadership and local institutions, which is incredibly important for Christchurch moving forward. So I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a second time.