Greater Christchurch Regeneration Amendment Bill

The National Party is supporting this bill, as we have supported Christchurch all the way since those early days, some years back now. The original legislation that was passed unanimously by this House provided an opportunity to set up a recovery process. When that recovery process was no longer required, the House, once again, unanimously decided to support a regeneration bill. That bill was constructed as a result of discussions across the Parliament, with representatives of every party and the Minister at the time—who happened to be me—putting together a bill that was designed to allow there to be a reasonable transition between the need to get things done quickly and to have a policy shop that was a little bigger than the Christchurch City Council or Waimak or Selwyn could provide themselves, and to create a framework that would allow a rapid approval for projects that would need to be completed to assist with that ongoing recovery of Christchurch.

The problem is that that original arrangement, I think, got somewhat captured—captured by an excessive degree of bureaucracy; captured by a degree of timid attitude toward using the provisions in the bill itself, and, I think, also a degree of uncertainty among the people who were inside Greater Christchurch, or the Greater Christchurch Regeneration organisation, and the Christchurch City Council particularly. So there was always going to be need to change. The bill itself had a provision for a transition over a period of years, but this bill that’s in front of us today brings that forward quite substantially, and I think it is the right thing to do. I’m pleased that some of the provisions that are in it will allow for the rapid approval, the rapid development and implementation, of things that would make a difference to the community in the Greater Christchurch area.

Where I am disappointed is that in the last three years, there has not been even one new project for Christchurch approved—not one. There are plenty that were under way that have been stalled or modified, but no one has come up in the last three years with anything new at all. So I’m hopeful that by getting this bill through today, the Christchurch City Council will grab up the extra tools that they’ve got available to them and get into some negotiation with the Government about what can be done to get more of the shovel-ready stuff in Christchurch under way.

In many parts of the country, there will be a reliance on a further Act of Parliament to allow some of those shovel-ready projects to go ahead. That won’t be the case in the Greater Christchurch area because of this bill. It will provide the opportunity for some of the fast-tracking that might be needed. What we don’t need is the inertia of the last three years, inertia that saw, for example, the Metro Sports Facility reduced in size, would anyone believe—reduced in size—only to end up costing more because of the time delays—quite extraordinary. Then there has been the long and torturous discussion about a stadium in Christchurch.

Those are just two of many things, I think, for me personally—massive disappointment that some of those people who had considerable responsibility put on their plate managed to completely, in my view, miss an opportunity to provide a water facility in the east of Christchurch. It would have been transformational for the east of Christchurch and provided New Zealand with a high-class facility that could have accommodated a large range of sports that are played or carried out on water, including triathlon or open-water swimming—any of those sort of individual-type sports, or, for that matter, the use of kayaks or rowing skiffs. That’s all gone because of the, sort of, general inertia and the desire to have every single little viewpoint accommodated somewhere. While I do, believe it or not, have a strong view that there should be community consultation about these things, sadly, in my view, in this case, the majority of people were ignored.

So I do hope that when the city council gets this law available or has it available to it, it’s able to recognise that in these straitened times, we don’t want to see massive rate rises for people to pay for some of this stuff, particularly when every shade of political engagement in this House knows that we are going to have to borrow for infrastructure to expand the domestic economy over the next few years. Christchurch needs to use this bill, use the provisions in it, to get a good deal out of all of that and to create employment in our city.

I want to, although it’s a little bit out of the bill, recognise that all MPs in Christchurch have worked constructively to get it through Parliament. That has been the case all the way through. But I want to particularly single out Dr Duncan Webb, who I think is the most honest politician in the Labour Party—no question about that. He’s come out and he’s said that he thinks the Christchurch City Council’s budget is one of austerity. So in an age where so many people have lost jobs, so many people have had income reduced, so many households no longer have income from casual work or part-time work, so many households are fearful that there may not be a job to start at next Monday, Dr Webb comes out and says the council should be putting the rates up by a considerable amount, loading huge extra expense on to households. Well, I congratulate him for being honest.

But I want to make it very clear that in supporting this bill, in wanting that infrastructure, we do not believe the Christchurch City Council should be running massive rate increases for their ratepayers—and I freely concede I’m one of them. But there are so many living on fixed incomes, so many living on incomes that are potentially compromised, and so many that are living in fear of not having an income that such a move advocated by Dr Webb should not be considered. But it is an honest position, and we know, eventually, that’s what the Labour Party will do. Should they be returned—and I doubt it—then taxes will go up, but it’s not something that we want to see happening at a local body level because of this bill.

I’ll say it again: the country is going to borrow considerably—$140 billion, according to the current Government, in order to boost or expand—and that’s the real question: the local economy. Is it expansion or is it just paying for what we’ve got? That is going to be some of the battleground in the months ahead towards 19 September.

But in the end, I say again, I hope that the Christchurch City Council recognises the goodwill of Parliament in giving them a tool that will be useful for the ongoing recovery of the city; that they recognise that there is going to be an opportunity to bid in much, much more strongly than they have so far for those shovel-ready projects, with the surety that the consenting process that will still be required for those projects can be facilitated through this piece of legislation.

I understand too that the period for which that provision is going to be in existence has been extended from the original bill as a result of select committee deliberations. So I want to add my thanks, as others, I’m sure have and will, to the Governance and Administration Committee for the work that’s been done, and once again make the commitment, as it’s always been there from the National Party, to Christchurch and to the support of this bill.

I stand to speak in favour of the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Amendment Bill, and in doing so, can I firstly acknowledge the work of the Minister, the Hon Megan Woods, in shepherding this legislation through the House; members of the Governance and Administration Committee; and members across the House, because it’s clear that this is a piece of legislation that enjoys wide support, which is born out of the widespread commitment across political lines to see the regeneration of Christchurch move forward.

What is significant and important about this bill is that it does move us into the next stage. The broader effect of this bill is to continue the transition back to Christchurch being able to make its own decisions about its regeneration and its future. It’s clear to everyone that in the wake of the devastating earthquakes there needed to be strong direction from central government, including strong direction in terms of the planning and infrastructure support. There were debates about whether the line should be drawn there, but that was clear as a matter of principle.

It’s clear that 10 years later, particularly under the investments that this Government has made, that there is good progress being made. It is time to let the people of Christchurch and their duly elected representatives really hold the mantle in terms of how Christchurch moves forward. I do just want to note some of the significant decisions that have been made by Regenerate Christchurch, which does, effectively, get wound down a little bit earlier under this bill as a result of the progress that’s been made under this Government in recent times. It’s approved the investment cases for the Canterbury multi-use arena, the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor red zone, and a big suite of roading projects. So there is good progress being made there.

This Government is going to keep making the investments, keep partnering with local people, and keep partnering with local government in Christchurch to make sure that that regeneration continues and that the great city of Christchurch gets the support that it needs. The people of Christchurch can be guaranteed that under this Government. I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. As you hear, National supports this bill and it is the next and final step in the legislative response to the Canterbury earthquakes of 2010 and 2011. As we’ve heard from the Hon Gerry Brownlee, who was the Minister at the time, the first Act was about recovery. That morphed into the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act, and this bill now amends that Act.

However, we would be remiss if we didn’t question the urgency of passing these amendments right now when there is a sunset clause in the original Act and parts of this new Act will be in force even longer than the original one. The Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act expires in June 2021. So there has been a lot of time and a lot of resource spent on these amendments merely to speed up parts of those provisions. I do find it ironic that the Governance and Administration Committee has added transitional provisions to the bill, provisions that will ensure that any planning proposals under section 71 of the Resource Management Act presently under way can continue under the existing planning mechanisms even beyond the 2021 deadline. I think it’s hardly efficient and, in fact, it’s a bit like two steps forward and one step back.

Just to recap, this bill has three main purposes. The first is that it repeals the fast-track resource management planning process that was provided under section 71 of the Resource Management Act. And that section 71 provision was important. It was a mechanism that was designed to support essential urban renewal and development after the Christchurch earthquakes in 2010 and 2011. It was designed to speed up regeneration. It was designed to ensure that that work could be done as quickly, as efficiently, and as cost-effectively as possible. It was all about the community having the tools to recover and to regenerate. Unfortunately, as we’ve heard discussed in this House, those tools were not fully appreciated and the development opportunities that could have come from those tools were not fully realised.

Secondly, the bill disestablishes Regenerate Christchurch. Now, Regenerate Christchurch is the agency that was created to manage regeneration plans for the city. In fact, although local stakeholders—and when I say local stakeholders, I mean the Christchurch City Council, the Waimakariri District Council, the Selwyn District Council, Environment Canterbury, and Ngāi Tahu—all had the power to develop and propose regeneration plans, very few were proposed.

So for the last four years, Regenerate Christchurch has worked with the community on a number of plans for various parts of the city, but the majority of their work has been in the redevelopment of the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor. Now, that space will eventually be a fabulous, people-friendly community asset in the centre of the city. But we are disappointed that some of the opportunities that that space provided have not been realised. And I say that it eventually will be a people-friendly space—I say “eventually” because it’s taken an enormous length of time, an enormous amount of resource and energy, and we still haven’t seen the progress that we want. There’s been lots of ideas, lots of promises, and we’re all keen to start using that space and enjoying that area. And I’m really hopeful that the disestablishment of Regenerate Christchurch doesn’t slow that progress down.

Finally, the bill provides for land powers for title reconfiguration and amalgamation of land parcels within that Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor. That’s about combining Crown lands that were made available under previous Acts and adjacent city council land. And that power continues on to 2023, again, long after the original Act expires. The select committee looked at the bill and recommended that a geographical description of that reconfigured land should be clarified. They added a map and further detail to assist interpretation. Although the passing of this amendment bill still provides some special legislative powers, it returns most of the decision-making processes in greater Christchurch back to local government and back to pre-earthquake, business-as-usual governance.

Just before I finish, I’d like to echo the disappointment of the Hon Gerry Brownlee in terms of the lack of progress in the city over the last three years. Projects that were under way, such as the Metro Sports Facility, have stalled, and it is horrifying to see the increased costs of those projects because of the stalled timing and also that new projects, such as the multi-use arena or the stadium, depending what you want to call it, haven’t made any progress at all. So I’d like to say I support this bill, National supports this bill, and, after nearly 10 years of disasters and recovery management in our city and the ongoing redevelopment and regeneration in our community, this is a very welcome thing. We just need to do it faster. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I want to start by acknowledging the previous two speakers, Mr Brownlee and Nicky Wagner. I think, as I acknowledge those speakers on our side, or the members of Parliament from Christchurch, that it’s just about understanding—New Zealanders don’t seem to really quite understand just what the earthquakes did to Christchurch. It was brought home to me in my previous job. I had the police take of the earthquake actually happening, and the emotion and the reports coming in, and those different police officers and those reporting on the radio. I played that tape about a year later at a conference, and those people who were from Christchurch who heard that tape were emotionally and visibly upset.

It just brought it home to me, and I had been in Christchurch—I arrived in Christchurch within hours of the earthquake, the big earthquake in February, and spent three weeks in the red zone. Again, because I was so involved at that stage, it took me some time to realise—many people in Canterbury had never actually been inside the city for some time. And there was a whole series of milestones that they had to cross, and, again, I was probably there or thereabouts as those milestones were reached. So it gives me great pleasure to actually speak on this bill, because I see this as yet another milestone where those in Canterbury start to get control back of something that was a massive change and will continue for a whole generation to change the way in which Christchurch not only physically looks but in the way that life exists in Christchurch.

So it gives me great pleasure to be part of the final debate on this bill, and I believe that those people in Christchurch will look forward to knowing that this is another milestone, another step, on their road to recovery from an event which, as I said, will have an impact certainly on this generation and probably generations to come. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure, on behalf of the National Party, to rise in support of this bill, the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Amendment Bill, but I do want to start by echoing my colleagues the Hon Gerry Brownlee and Hon Nicky Wagner. There was a lot more potential under this legislation that we are repealing today.

I want to reference an area in my electorate of Waimakariri—Silverstream. Now, that development didn’t exist before the earthquakes, but under the earthquake powers, the former National Government was able to free up town planning and bylaws to free up large tracts of land. And what we learnt with that experience is that when you free up land, it increases supply, which equals demand. Interestingly enough, with all the housing pressures in the last term, the region of Canterbury was one of the very few areas where we didn’t feel that housing pressure, and that was a result of that legislation.

It was disappointing that, in fact, the current Government couldn’t learn that formula. It wasn’t about the cost of the housing; it was about the ability to free up land. And now that development, Silverstream in my electorate, probably has 2,000 to 3,000 houses. But what’s even more important, in a time of one of the biggest economic recessions in our generation, is that development has now earmarked another $600 million for development—that’s much-needed housing, but also jobs and incomes. That’s what this legislation that we’re repealing now allowed for.

Something, I think, we don’t talk enough in this House about is the value of private capital in the earthquake rebuild. Yes, there was a big role for local government and central government, but equally, some of the biggest developments in greater Christchurch were led by private investors, because, of course, with the economic response needed in COVID-19, it is going to be largely driven out of the private sector. So we are disappointed on this side of the House—there was real potential to do more. There are huge tracts of land in the red zone in Christchurch City, where we want to see projects that will see this best new small city in the world forward.

So when we pass this ability back to our local leaders to make decisions, we want to know that they are going to make decisions that will drive the local economy forward, because the local economy, for us, is employing mums and dads in our communities. So by now passing the decision making back to our local leaders, what we don’t want to see is further delays. You could list the delays under this Government in Christchurch: the convention centre, the multi-use stadium, the Metro Sports Facility, the Christchurch Northern Corridor. So it’s incumbent on our local leaders to pick up the bill and run with it, not only Christchurch City Council, but Waimakariri District Council, Selwyn District Council, Environment Canterbury, and, of course, Ngāi Tahu as well—all major players that need to come together to drive our regeneration forward.

In a town, Kaiapoi in my electorate—in the first earthquakes; we’re coming up to a decade now since that first earthquake in September 2010—we have the only red zone outside of Christchurch. We lost over a thousand residential houses for a town that probably only has 5,000 or 6,000 houses. I’m proud of the way Parliament has stood behind the people of Kaiapoi, of Waimakariri, of Greater Christchurch and Canterbury during these challenging times.

This piece of legislation is no different to the other pieces of legislation that have come before this House over the last 10 years. It’s proudly being supported by Canterbury MPs across the House. I must say, whatever party our Canterbury MPs are from at the moment, I believe Canterbury has been well-served by their representation from all political parties in the recovery and the regeneration. But what we must ensure is that the progress of our regeneration continues. Christchurch and Greater Christchurch were facing some real challenges post-earthquake, and now that is compounded by this economic recession that we have not seen for a generation.

I too want to acknowledge Duncan Webb, because Duncan Webb has been very public with his views—he’s a socialist; he states that publicly. He believes in high taxes. In the end, he’s allowed his views and good on him for standing up and stating them. But, unfortunately, that sort of ideology will actually get in the way of the progress of Christchurch. So if we are going to devolve decision making back to local leadership, then I would question what role is it for an MP to go blindly into their decision-making processes and slam them for making decisions for their local ratepayers? Because, in the end, what local ratepayer wants to see increased rates, considering the amount of expenditure that they have covered over the last 10 years? So I would caution. Here we are repealing section 71, which will give decision making back to local leadership, but we’ve already seen Government MPs stray in and interfere in that, although I must say it was an interesting message with Duncan Webb at the start of his submission when he said he wasn’t there as a Government MP, but a Christchurch-centric MP.

💬 Hon Nicky Wagner: He wore red.

Yes. To conclude: this is an important piece of legislation. I think the House wants to see local decision-making now. But if we are going to say that we are giving powers back, then maybe the Government needs to rethink their behaviour over the last week. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

This is a split call—five minutes.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to stand to take a short call on what is a bill that’s supported across this House, and it’s always a pleasure when we all agree and it’s always special. I want to congratulate Minister Dr Megan Woods for shepherding this bill through this House with such great support, as well as the Governance and Administration Committee, who sound like they did work very hard on this. Also, I do want to acknowledge every member who has spoken and worked on this bill who is from the Canterbury region and is from Christchurch. As others have said, we all know that what Christchurch has been through over the last decade or so has been difficult and traumatising in a way that perhaps the rest of New Zealand—although we’ve felt that sense of empathy and aroha for that city, we can’t know what that community has been through. So it is special that we’re coming together in this House to support regeneration for Christchurch and for that community.

It’s also, I think, commendable and something to celebrate that democracy at that local level is being restored today and through this bill in terms of the decision making that will be made on what that regeneration might look like on the ground, because we know that that local democracy was suspended for some time and that, in turn, added to the trauma of that city as decisions were centralised and removed from that community level. So we do hope, I think, across this House, and others have said, that the council will take up its role and take up the new powers and the support that’s being given to hasten that recovery process.

It is always a welcome thing when we’re in consensus in this House, so I won’t go on any further, but only to say that it is a day to celebrate that regeneration will happen for Christchurch and that it will happen via local decision-making, which the Green Party has always supported. I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to stand in support of the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Amendment Bill. As has been mentioned by all the speakers in this House, this is a bill which has got cross-party support. Christchurch is the second largest city of New Zealand. I had the opportunity to visit Christchurch after both earthquakes and saw the terrible damage that the earthquakes did to that city. Every member of this House was of the same view that we have to rebuild Christchurch, and that is why, from time to time, special powers were given by this Parliament so that as soon as possible we can bring the city back on to its feet. There was cross-party support, and I would like to acknowledge all the members of Parliament from Canterbury who stood and represented well their constituents in this Parliament.

I would like to particularly acknowledge the Hon Gerry Brownlee, the Hon Nicky Wagner, and the Hon Amy Adams, who were part of the team who finalised a lot of the programmes to build up Christchurch that have been seen from time to time. I have visited Christchurch on a number of occasions in recent times, and every time I go, I see that there is progress that has happened and people are living in a very safe atmosphere.

This bill repeals some of the provisions which were given, removing some of the extraordinary powers that were given which are not required any more. This bill will repeal those powers so that it can go back to the local council to make the decisions at the local level. It is very important that we involve the local council in making decisions, and it should not be the Parliament’s role to supervise some of the things which are to be done by the local council. So, with these words, I support this bill.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m pleased and privileged to be able to speak on the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Amendment Bill in its third reading, and I think it’s a lovely way for me to say my farewells to the people of Christchurch, through this bill. I want to acknowledge the Hon Gerry Brownlee, the Hon Nicky Wagner, and the Hon Amy Adams for the work that they did in the original bill, the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill, because it was a lot of work, and being in Christchurch East, we saw a number of families that were affected by the by the earthquake, and a lot of displaced families. I think we’re moving and turning the corner on the regeneration of Christchurch, and to be able to hand back to the council and to the people of Christchurch a project, a bill, that has actually helped to get the regeneration projects moving is great.

I, like my colleagues on this side of the House, have been quite disappointed with the, I suppose, inaction of the Government over the three years in terms of getting major projects sorted in Christchurch. There, to me, was really no excuse for that to not happen, actually, and to advance some of those big projects like the metro sports centre. The rugby grounds are always used each summer. That’s where, as Matt Doocey voiced yesterday in the committee stage, the Crusaders rule and will continue to rule in their patch—I won’t say any more than that. But anyway, I just want to say that the work that this side of the House has done to actually be able to prepare this and move it across into local hands has been amazing.

I just want to voice the regeneration project of the Ōtākaro/Avon, I suppose, strip, and I just want to voice a concern around regeneration of the Southshore area. You know, it’s a really lovely area for the people of the east and very picturesque. It has, you know, birds, very sacred birds, that come in there each year and nest there and then they fly out. People flock there to take photos, to row down that part and that stretch of the river out through the river mouth. I would’ve liked to have seen some of that Avon/Ōtākaro corridor go right through to the end of that spit and give it some emphasis, some kaha and some mana, down there.

So anyway, without any further ado, I think that having the regeneration office in Carnaby Lane during that whole period gave the people of the east some hope that there would be some extra projects, and so they were quite disappointed when nothing came of that. But anyway, as I said, I’m very privileged to speak on this bill alongside of my colleagues to support the bill and to wish everybody in the Christchurch-Canterbury area the very best. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Bill read a third time.