Greater Christchurch Regeneration Amendment Bill

Thank you, Madam Chair. If I could start with some opening remarks, and then, enjoying this new committee process, I welcome taking questions from the floor.

This is a bill that seeks to amend the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act. There are three main parts to it—the first, to revoke the powers given by section 71. Section 71 is a special part of the legislation which allows for amendments to be made to planning rules, which provide for streamlining or fast-tracking of particular processes. The second main amendment would be to disestablish Regenerate Christchurch from 30 June 2020. This is a year earlier than was originally anticipated, and I’m mindful of the fact that we are talking about a group of people for whom they’ve had the regeneration of our city at the heart of the work that they have been doing. So I do want to pay particular acknowledgment to them at this time. The third proposed amendment is to extend the powers for the reconfiguration of the land contained within the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor. That will allow Land Information New Zealand to continue the work in terms of the reconfiguration and the transfer of titles. And one other piece: it repeals the requirement to make annual reports with regards to the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act.

I want to thank the select committee, ably chaired by Dr Jian Yang, who brought the piece of work quite expeditiously back to the House. They did make a couple of amendments to the bill as it was introduced. The first, really, is with regard to the powers under section 71. Because of the shortening of the actual piece of legislation, the powers under section 71 were required to have a transitional provision within it in case a proposal was made under this particular section before the end of the bill on 30 June. The second was with regard to the description of the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor, just to allow for appropriate reconfiguration to occur, and the inclusion of a map within the bill.

Just with those points, I do want to thank officials and the Parliamentary Counsel Office and, again, the select committee—the Governance and Administration Committee—for bringing this back to the House in a timely way, and I’m happy to take questions.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. National supports this bill of course, but we do question the urgency of passing these amendments when there was a sunset clause in the original Act. The Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act expires in June 2021, and this bill just speeds the process up.

Part 1 of this bill is about disestablishing Regenerate Christchurch. Now, Regenerate Christchurch was the agency that was created to manage regeneration plans in the city, and for the past four years Regenerate Christchurch has developed those plans, working with the other stakeholders for various parts of the city. But the majority of their work has been done in the redevelopment of the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor. This space will eventually become a fabulous people-friendly community space, and I believe it will be a real asset for our city, because it goes right from the centre of the city right down to the shore. So you’ll be able to bike, walk, and travel all the way from our city to our beaches. We’re all keenly awaiting the opening up of this area and we’re just hopeful that, with the disestablishment of Regenerate Christchurch, the progress in this area doesn’t slow down.

So, for Part 1, we support Part 1. We support the disestablishment, but we are concerned that the work that they have been doing should not slow down. We need it completed as quickly as possible. Thank you, Madam Chair.

If I could just respond to that—thank you for that question—I think one of the overriding ambitions for Christchurch has been the restoration of local leadership, and this is what this bill provides: the ability for local leaders to make decisions that affect Christchurch. We’ve heard for a significant period of time from Christchurch leaders, particularly from Christchurch City Council, that they wanted the ability to make decisions that affected Christchurch going forward, and I think that Christchurch is ready for that.

I am mindful, though, that this does disestablish Regenerate Christchurch and it does mean that people who have worked in this space and done a great job, really, in identifying regeneration plans and the opportunities—particularly in the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor—will be losing their jobs. I do want to send my really grateful thanks to them for the work that they do, but also acknowledge the fact that the work that they have completed in Christchurch and in Canterbury is forever within the DNA of that space. But the overriding concern, really, is that Christchurch now is able to conduct its own affairs and make its own decisions.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, National does support this Greater Christchurch Regeneration Amendment Bill, but I do have a question for the Minister, if I may. It just seems that the local authority or authorities involved or captured in this bill don’t seem to have taken up the opportunity that was presented to them when this bill was enacted back in, I think, 2016, from memory. I might have that slightly wrong, but I think it was about 2016, 2017. While there was a great deal of cooperation across the House and a number of agencies in the development of this bill, the opportunities don’t seem to have been utilised. I understand there are a couple of plans, regeneration plans. But for a piece of legislation which tackles such a huge issue, I wonder if it has been underutilised. I am interested in the opinion of the Minister in charge, Hon Dr Megan Woods, about whether Christchurch City Council, for example, could have taken a more proactive approach to utilising the mechanisms in this bill for the good of Christchurch.

Thank you—I thank the member for that. I just want to quote something that I think the Hon Gerry Brownlee said at the first reading of this, that the opportunity to use the legislation for regeneration plans perhaps wasn’t used as it was envisaged when the legislation was written. However, that is the decision for proponents of regeneration, and now I think it’s absolutely the time for any of those decisions to actually be returned to local councils. But, as I say, it’s easy to look back in hindsight and say perhaps we could’ve used the legislation—a bespoke piece of legislation for Christchurch—in a particular way, but it would’ve required people to propose plans. That didn’t happen; it’s no longer really a requirement. Those decisions are now able to be sheeted back to local leadership, and I think that’s entirely appropriate.

Now, Part 1 of the bill, the Governance and Administration Committee, actually, basically agreed to all the clauses. The key amendment in this part is the amendment to clause 10. Clause 10 amends section 121. Section 121 established Regenerate Christchurch and provides that it continues until it is disestablished on the close of 30 June 2021; the amendment changes that date to 30 June 2020—that’s one year ahead.

So other changes are largely inconsequential amendments. In terms of Part 1, we think that it is basically there. This particular bill itself, of course, made changes to the principal Act—that’s the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act. The Act itself made some achievements. Now, there is a list here, according to officials, and that is that under this Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act, Regenerate Christchurch has developed the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor Regeneration Plan, and that, I think, is the key achievement. There are some other minor achievements, but, overall, it appeared that the Act itself did not really achieve a lot.

In 2017, there was a review, and the review found that the Act was in effect for a purpose but then, later on, it became clear that the Act started to become redundant. For that reason, particularly in the 2019 review, it was noticed that it was necessary to repeal the Act and move some clauses ahead, and that is why there is this particular bill. While we agree that it is necessary to move ahead, we still have some concerns regarding some implementation—for example, because this Act itself still involves a large sum of taxpayers’ money, we would still like to know some details, such as whether regeneration will take place in a timely fashion and when we will see the detail of what is going to occur within our own Ōtākaro River Corridor. These specific questions, we still need to really consider, while we agree, in principle, that Part 1 of the bill is largely fine. Thanks.

💬 Matt Doocey: Madam Chair?

I call—Matt Doocey.

That’s right! Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Late in the night—late in the night.

It’s very good—a great choice, I thought.

💬 Hon Member: Who are you?

Thank you very much for—

💬 Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: It’s Todd Muller.

—for granting me permission to—just a shorter version, ha, ha! So to start off with the Minister in the chair, we are talking about the regeneration of Christchurch post-earthquakes, and we are building one of the best small cities in the world. And what we know about the city of Christchurch and the region of Canterbury—intrinsically linked is our rugby history. We do know we are one of the best rugby regions in the world. So I just want to start off by acknowledging the Crusaders’ win over the Hurricanes on the weekend—39:25—which was a historic win, beating the mighty Canes. So my first question is to the Minister. I’ll be interested in her view.

💬 Ian McKelvie: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Surely that’s out of order. Ha, ha!

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): It’s certainly nothing to do with the bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Back to the bill. As I was saying—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): You haven’t got to it yet.

The regeneration of Christchurch is intrinsically linked to our rugby history. So my first question to the Minister was, with the Crusaders playing the Chiefs, our first home game of Super Rugby Aotearoa, this weekend, I’d be interested to know whether she had a view on who would be winning that game this weekend.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): That’s nothing to do with the bill.

My second question to the Minister as well—we’ve talked about the regenerate entity being disbanded. And as the Minister will know, there’s real concerns in Christchurch of ensuring things carry on with pace. One of the responsibilities for Regenerate Christchurch was looking at the cathedral precinct and Cathedral Square. So I’d just be interested from the Minister in how we ensure that projects like that continue, because, of course, it’s all very good handing back responsibility and local decision-making. But equally I think, as we’ve seen in the House for almost decades since the earthquakes, Parliament has stood behind Canterbury and has served the people well from all parties, ensuring that there is legislation that ensures Christchurch rebuilds. I feel there is some concern with areas like the cathedral precinct, not necessarily the cathedral itself, but of course the land around it that Regenerate Christchurch were previously drawing up plans for. So that is my second question. The first one, the rugby score; the second about the issue of disbanding Regenerate Christchurch as an entity.

And then, just my third question, I’d be interested in the Minister’s view—you know, we are handing back responsibility to local decision-makers and I would be interested to know—I’m just noticing the Minister is seeking advice from the advisers, so we might be getting some sort of result on the score there; maybe not. But what I was interested in is also looking at the red zone area, because what we do know is that is an important area. The Minister will know it covers quite a bit of her electorate as well. How does disbanding Regenerate Christchurch ensure that, when we hand back the responsibility to local decision-makers, whether that be Christchurch City Council, Waimakariri District Council, Selwyn District Council, Environment Canterbury, and Ngāi Tahu, projects will carry on and progress well?

The Minister is able to answer questions two and three, but question one is completely out of order—being a Chiefs supporter.

It may be out of order, but I think the member will know that the Crusaders will be victorious on the day.

Thank you. I just want to reply to Dr Jian Yang that this is within the—and this also will speak to the question that the member has just posed—part of the council’s 30-year plan. We have confidence that the council now has got the plans in place to take this forward. We all know that, from the discussions that we’ve had over quite a few months now, the council’s view of this is that the Avon Ōtākaro—I always get it round the round the wrong way—the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor is a huge opportunity for us in Christchurch in terms of the significant work that it will do, not just regenerating the red zone area itself, or what we have formerly known as the residential red zone, but the opportunity to really activate those suburbs that sit alongside the corridor, and also a particular favourite of mine, actually drawing people through right out to New Brighton.

The establishment of the advisory groups to look at transitional land uses, for example, has already sparked quite a bit of interest, and people are keen to submit ideas to that particular group about what may happen. But we already know that part of the corridor will be used for potential mitigation of sea level rise and climate change effects. There are some opportunities in terms of flood mitigation and the like, but the overriding opportunity for us in that area is to create great recreational space, opportunities for activity, and opportunities to really link up the city and the eastern suburbs of Christchurch.

Just in terms of the other question, the cathedral really doesn’t come within this piece of legislation; there is another piece of legislation that was shepherded through by the Hon Nicky Wagner that really takes care of that piece of work. But I do thank the member for raising that as a concern going forward.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Limited extension of powers for dealing with land