Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill Riccarton Racecourse Bill — Second ReadingsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRiccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill Riccarton Racecourse Bill — Second Readings[Sitting date: 01 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11592. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling BillRiccarton Racecourse BillSecond ReadingsDr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): I move That the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill and the Riccarton Racecourse Bill be now read a second time. These bills are part of the Government’s both pragmatic and extensive response to New Zealand’s housing challenges and they will introduce a further 600 homes into the Canterbury market. I want to begin by thanking members of the Local Government and Environment Committee particularly the chair Mr Scott Simpson for the work that the committee is doing on a number of housing bills that are about addressing the very practical issues. Last night we passed the legislation regarding home insulation and smoke alarms we have got a big Resource Legislation Amendment Bill and this bill is just part of this package of measures that the Government is taking. I want to acknowledge the sensible refinements that the select committee has made to these two bills.The housing market in Christchurch is recovering well following the devastating Christchurch earthquakes in 2010 and 2011 and increasing supply has been at the core of the Government’s response. The rebuild has seen a number of very successful repair programmes as well as new builds and progress continues to be made to contribute to the residential recovery of the Christchurch and Canterbury housing market. The current pressure on the Christchurch housing market particularly the importance of the issue of more affordable homes comes at a time when the board of trustees that governs the Riccarton Racecourse is proposing to convert part of the large racecourse into housing development to make better use of the racecourse’s land and to be able to support the racing club and industry as well.It is noteworthy that these bills are amending legislation that dates back to 1878. In 1878 it is interesting to note in the New ZealandParliamentary Debates the comment was made that the racecourse was too far out of town and that Christchurch would never expand that far and the area of land for it was questioned for some of those reasons. That was even before the motorcar had arrived in New Zealand. The Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill and this Riccarton Racecourse Bill effectively take 40 hectares of that Riccarton Racecourse area with the support of the raceway’s trustees and enable 600 homes to be built on this. A condition of the Government allowing that to occur is that at least 180 of those homes need to be within the KiwiSaver HomeStart scheme and below that $450000 price point.Phil Twyford: Boy lucky they’re not in Auckland.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: A total of seven submissions were received on the bills—and I note the interjection from the member about the situation in Auckland. I would say it is true that the situation in Christchurch has changed quite dramatically. That is because the Government’s programme is working. In the last 12 months rents in Christchurch have dropped by 5 percent in the last year. It is interesting to note that actually in Christchurch houses prices are absolutely static. The truth is as my colleague Matt Doocey would note that there are hundreds of good quality three-bedroom homes—brand new—available for about $420000. That is because the Waimakariri District Council has taken a very effective approach to issues of land supply. I would invite members opposite if they are genuinely interested in housing solutions for Auckland to reflect on the Government’s programme in Christchurch and the programme that we have made because it gives us a strong direction as to what the answer might be.In the submissions that were received by the Local Government and Environment Committee some submitters raised concern about the loss of open space. Although the bill does facilitate the loss of the some of the reserve area it is the Government’s view that that reserve space is not that well used. The truth to anybody who has been down there is: is it really just to have many hectares of land sitting effectively under-utilised when we have got families across New Zealand in need of additional housing? That is why we say this bill is the right approach.It is interesting that even after the loss of the area from this reserve for housing it will still be one of the largest racecourse reserves in New Zealand with over 82 hectares of land for this racecourse which is surprisingly close to the city centre. There were concerns that were heard by the select committee about the operation of the Riccarton Market and I want to assure you Mr Assistant Speaker that the board of trustees that administers the racecourse reserve has been working with the community and reserve users like the Riccarton Market operators to ensure that that need can be met and to continue to provide the open public space for public use as well as racing activities. Again this emphasises the point that even with these bills 82 hectares of public space remain.The select committee also heard some concerns raised about the suitability of the land for housing. I can assure the House that the bill ensures that this is a quality residential development—that the land like so much land in Christchurch is suitable for housing. In fact I would invite members who have concerns in that regard to look at the very similar land surrounding it which has proved eminently suitable for that purpose.This legislation is part of our Christchurch Housing Accord which we signed back in April 2014 to get on top of the housing issues in Christchurch. It included the Awatea housing development and if anybody doubts the effectiveness of the Government’s Crown land programme I invite them to go to Awatea and see the hundreds of good quality homes coming on stream at an affordable price. I invite them to visit the developments that are occurring in both Welles Street and Colombo Street which will deliver 420 homes for that city.Phil Twyford: Actual houses or just consents?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes they are houses and if Phil Twyford would bother to go to Awatea he would see the success that this programme is delivering.Phil Twyford: So actual houses that people can live in?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: This pathetic line—[Interruption]—it is pathetic—is that the member says that you are not allowed to use building consents as a measure of how much building activity occurs. Here is a simple challenge for him: would someone spend $15000 getting a building consent for a house if they were not going to build one? The second point is that in all of the last five censuses if you add up the number of building consents and you add up the number of houses that are actually built there is a difference of less than 1 percent indicating that it is in fact a very fair measure.I do want to acknowledge the board of trustees of the Riccarton Racecourse. I want to acknowledge the Christchurch City Council. I want to acknowledge Ngāi Tahu. We have worked very effectively together to be able to progress these bills and unlock this land for housing development in Christchurch.I expect this to be the last phase of the Government’s necessary interventions to support the housing recovery in Christchurch. There were members opposite who questioned whether the Government’s housing response in Christchurch would work. I again draw the attention of the House to the number of homes that have been built in Christchurch the fact that rents have dropped by 5 percent over the last 12 months and the fact that house prices in Christchurch increased by only less than 1 percent in the last 12 months indicating that the housing recovery in Christchurch is well on the way but this further development of 600 homes at the Riccarton raceway will ensure that we complete the important work of the recovery of residential Christchurch from those devastating 2011 earthquakes.Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): It is my pleasure to take a call on the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill and the Riccarton Racecourse Bill a piece of legislation that I know started its life as a local bill and is now back in this House as a Government bill. It was a pleasure to be involved in working through this legislation. It of course covers a very important part of Christchurch: the Riccarton Racecourse area being in the Wigram electorate and a part of the city where I have very good connections about what is happening in that community. This is legislation that is changing the Christchurch Racecourse Reserve Act which was put in place in the 19th century in 1878 to establish on the outskirts of the city a racecourse for the city of Christchurch. This was a place that was imagined to last for generations. What we are seeing with this legislation is the continuation of that racing facility to the west of our city situated at Riccarton Park. We can all still go and enjoy the New Zealand Cup there and hopefully have a good flutter.But what is going to change once this legislation is enacted giving the potential for people to be able to develop on that site? I think it is very important to acknowledge that this legislation in no way starts the process of building houses. What this legislation does is make it possible for development to occur on this site—that is the purpose of the legislation. I am reliably told by the trustees of the Riccarton Racecourse that some of those houses will actually be down the long-stretch starters run at Riccarton and they are assuming that for those who are keen on racing that will be some of the most sought-after land in this development.This development has not been without some concerns for locals who live in the area. They were real concerns—concerns that needed to be listened to and concerns that needed to be considered while we went through this legislation. One concern that came through very strongly from constituents and locals in the area was around the lack of transport planning that sits alongside this development. When the idea for this development first came to the fore it was going to be an exemplar project. An exemplar project was a fast-tracked way of doing development in post-quake Christchurch. To qualify as an exemplar development several factors needed to be met. There needed to be a proportion of affordable houses in the development. Although this is not proceeding as an exemplar project I do note that the same number of affordable houses—under the definition of affordable that would have been used in the exemplar project—will still be in place. In an exemplar project there needed to be thought given to the amenity and to the urban design that went into the development and there also needed to be consideration of the infrastructure and transport planning that sat beside the development.As the local member in this area one of the things that I have growing concerns about is that we are not putting adequate transport planning into the west of Christchurch as we expand into that area and the city grows in a westward direction. Anyone who travels along Yaldhurst Road on a regular basis will know that you cannot simply tumble another 600 households into this area and not give serious thought to how we are going to move people around. We have a huge and really exciting opportunity in Christchurch as we are rebuilding and recovering and making our lives again in that city to actually do some stuff that makes us fit for the 21st century—to put in place proper public transport planning as we plan our housing developments and to not just take a 20th century view of how it is that we do development.We have the opportunity to think: “What is the potential for rail from the west of the city that would go through this area?”. I note and the Minister for Building and Housing noted in his speech that when Riccarton Racecourse was first established one of the most important parts of establishing that racecourse was getting a rail siding in place so that you could get the people of Christchurch out to the races in the 19th century. That rail siding is still there. I think it is time that we started thinking in our city about how it is we can be a progressive modern 21st century city that is not burying its head in the sand and looking backwards not forwards. Because that is what is happening with the kind of planning that this Government is putting in place and I think it is a real shame to lose the opportunity to do this kind of transport planning and infrastructural planning to sit alongside it.Another concern—and a valid concern—that residents in the local area had was the way the development would face; that we are seeing far too many subdivisions happen around this country that turn their backs to the road and to the local community where front gardens face inward to the new development rather than outward to existing streets. That was something that we were able to work through in a public meeting with the developers—around whether or not this really would be part of the existing community that has flourished in that part of Riccarton and around the racecourse. There is a real community that lives in this area. The racecourse employs hundreds of people on site and many of them live in this area and have for several generations. It is an important part of their home.For the locals who already live there and who have made their lives and their homes there it was important to them that there was an ability to integrate these new homes and this new development into their neighbourhood. That is something that I as the local member for Wigram am happy to support them on because I think it is important that we are building communities and neighbourhoods as well as houses and homes and that we are building strong and resilient communities as we go through. I would also like to acknowledge the board of trustees of Riccarton Racecourse which was were more than willing to work with the local residents and to talk through concerns that residents had as we went through there.I just now want to turn my attention to some of the comments that the Minister made in his speech. What we heard was the Minister respond to a very innocuous interjection from my colleague Phil Twyford with quite a tirade—a very defensive tirade—about how it is we can look to Christchurch’s progress as a strong direction for Auckland. I have been listening to this kind of nonsense from that Minister and his boss the Prime Minister for days now and this is complete nonsense. What we have is a completely unique and different set of circumstances in Christchurch. We had a natural disaster where in the course of a few days we lost thousands of houses. It was with that loss of houses that we had the coming in of insurance money. Of course it was too slow—that insurance money has not tumbled in at the rate that we would like to have seen—but what we had was the ability to redevelop and rebuild in a way that for the Minister and the Prime Minister to say it was the exemplar for Auckland just sends a chill down my spine.This sounds suspiciously like the kind of softening up that Nick Smith did before he sacked the regional council in Canterbury. He is laying the blame on the Auckland Council rather than accepting blame for a housing crisis that he has created and has failed to address. What he is doing is he is softening up to sack another council and he is unwilling to take the responsibility. He and his boss the Prime Minister have been going around saying: “We can look to what’s happened in Christchurch.” The Prime Minister who can never get a name right talks about how “ECANZ” has been granting consents in the city. The Prime Minister should take note that ECan Environment Canterbury the regional council in Canterbury is not the body that grants building consents. So if the Prime Minister is going to go around and talk about what he wants to see as the model in Auckland as a way to fix it perhaps he could actually get his facts straight. But why should he bother? This is he and Nick Smith softening up to sack yet another democratically elected council because they want to sidestep the blame for their failure in Government to do what they were elected to do.I am happy to support this legislation. Labour is happy to support the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill and Riccarton Racecourse Bill but I would like to see the Government keep its rhetoric in check. I would like to see the Government stick to the facts and I would like to see the Government actually talk about and have some concerns for the local communities that it is impacting when we do this kind of legislation. This is not a chance for the Minister to stand up and progress an agenda that he clearly has. This is a chance for him to talk about a particular community in Christchurch in a particular community that is going to be impacted in a particular way. I would like to hear some discussion on that in contributions from subsequent Government speakers. Thank you.SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Well that member Megan Woods started off her speech—and in fairness most of it was pretty good apart from the last couple of minutes when she flew off into a rage and a tirade about some flight of fancy about what she may think is going to occur in other parts of the country. But it is a pleasure to rise in support of these two bills and to follow on from the Minister Nick Smith who I thought gave a very good address and a comprehensive history of why it is that we are debating these two bills in their second reading in the House this afternoon.Back in 1878 when the original enabling legislation that set up the Riccarton Racecourse was put through the Parliament of New Zealand the area that was designated as reserve land for the racecourse was of course way out in the boondocks. It was a long long way from what was then Christchurch City. As the Minister said in his speech if you go back to the Hansard reports of the original debate you will find there was some scepticism about how successful this park of racetracks would be because it was so far away from the city. Well in the hundred or more years that have ensued since the original legislation was passed and the reserve was put in place of course the city has expanded and it has built itself around what is now a very important part of the Riccarton suburb and of course the entire Christchurch City make-up. It is a very important part of the city.These two bills are actually a combination of legislation that will mean the racing club can move forward in terms of providing some real estate for the regrowth—the regeneration—of Christchurch in a meaningful way and I am very supportive of that. The Local Government and Environment Committee was fortunate enough to be able to travel to Christchurch and actually hear the two submissions that we received from submitters who wanted to be heard in person at the Riccarton Racecourse. I have to say I had not visited the racecourse previously. So for me as a non-Cantabrian it was a real treat and a privilege and a pleasure to actually visit the site and to go there and see the beautifully manicured grounds the lovely racecourse and of course the big extensive area that makes up the racecourse.Of the 120-odd hectares—which is a very large footprint I have to say for a racecourse—some 82 hectares will remain after this legislation has gone through and after the nearly 600 homes that are to be built on the 40 hectares that will be designated for residential building have been built. That still leaves a very big footprint. I got a sense from hearing the submissions and from touring and visiting the site of just how important it is to the people of Riccarton and Canterbury that that site be maintained in a way that is accessible to the public which is important for the maintenance of the fine racing tradition that occurs in Canterbury. I guess I got a sense of how that balance could be achieved.One of the things I think is particularly important is that of the homes that will be built on the 40 hectares that are being designated for residential building a minimum of 180 of those homes are to be affordable. In terms of a definition affordable will mean they will be below the $450000 KiwiSaver HomeStart cap that exists in Christchurch. I think that is going to be important for part of the regrowth of Christchurch and the regeneration of Christchurch. The Minister made passing comment about how many homes are needed and how large the city is going to become. Of course this is part of a suite of legislation that the Local Government and Environment Committee has been considering on a whole range of Canterbury and Christchurch - related issues. I guess I could put it in terms of it being almost a silver lining that came out of the tragic situation that was the Canterbury earthquakes 5 years ago. I suspect that had those earthquakes not taken place and had the tragedy not occurred we would not be considering this bill today.I want to along with the Minister acknowledge and thank the board of trustees of the Riccarton Racing Club for its support for its ability to take on board some of the issues that the select committee raised. I want to acknowledge Ngāi Tahu Property which will be the organisation that manages and oversees the development. I want to thank the local submitters—the people who came to the select committee and gave us a very clear steer about their views both in writing and in person and I particularly want to thank the officials who worked on the bills with the committee. These are good pieces of pragmatic legislation. They provide assistance to the solution of the much-needed need for further residential accommodation to the built in Christchurch and I have very great pleasure in commending them to the House in their second reading.Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): It is a particular pleasure for me to speak at this peak listening time. Talofa lava. Malo le soifua. Can I acknowledge the fact that today is the very day of the 53rd anniversary of Samoan independence. Samoa was the first Pacific country to gain that status and I acknowledge our brothers and sisters across in Samoa. It has been wonderful to hear the Samoan language that has been used.Given the bills that we are debating this evening can I particularly acknowledge the Christchurch City Council which is one of the key players in this legislation not just for its contribution to and support of the bills but also for the fact that it has a marvellous answering service in Samoan this week describing the fact that it is Samoan Language Week in Samoan and in English which also acknowledges the Samoan citizens of our city. I just want to add that given that the Christchurch City Council has a direct relationship with these bills.As my colleague Megan Woods noted these bills started as a local bill and a Government bill and it has now ended up that we are debating them together as a Government measure. I think it is a bit of a tribute to the Hon Nick Smith that he has managed to pick them up and progress them in this way and he has done so I think with a lot of understanding and support of the issues. He has perhaps not fixed all the concerns but I think the process of these bills has been very constructive. I also want to acknowledge as well as the Christchurch City Council the board of Riccarton Racecourse and also of course Kai Tahu who will end up being the direct property managers of this development which will go ahead once this legislation has progressed.As the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee noted these bills are changing something that is 138 years old. So 138 years ago the Christchurch Racecourse Reserve Act was introduced and passed by this Parliament which protected the area that we are talking about tonight—120 hectares of land—to ensure Cantabrians had the benefit of a racecourse. I do not know whether we would be that visionary in this current Parliament but 120 hectares is a huge amount of land to use as a racecourse. Obviously over recent times the board that operates Riccarton Racecourse has gone to the council and then subsequently to central government and said: “We want to make better use of this huge piece of land and make sure that of course we preserve a very satisfactory racecourse operation but also look at some property development.”For Canterbury it probably could not have come at a better time. We know not only that thousands of homes were destroyed as a result of the series of earthquakes that we had from 4 September 2010 but also that a lot of the land on which many of those houses were built was no longer deemed suitable for rebuilding. So not only had we lost the houses but also we could not use the land they had been on. We are short of homes and places to put them on.This legislation is proposing that 40 hectares of that original reserve 120 hectares is put aside for residential development. That is allowing for the possibility of 600 houses being built. Thirty percent of those houses are going be classified as affordable and “affordable” is using the maximum cost of the KiwiSaver HomeStart grant which is I think about $450000—somebody might correct me if that is not correct—in Christchurch. It is about that level. So 30 percent of those 600 new houses will be affordable and I think that is a very good thing.As I mentioned the properties will come under the management of Kai Tahu and I presume that is just a straightforward commercial arrangement between central government or the city council and them. I am not privy to the details of that but I am sure other members who were on the select committee will be able to give us those details.I want to acknowledge the way the select committee operated and particularly the fact that it travelled to Christchurch. The bill did not get a huge number of submissions. You know in some ways the committee could have said “Look we’ve got very few submissions. We could hear them in Wellington.” but it did not. It showed respect to the local people and I think the decision of that committee in saying “We will all go to the effort of travelling to Christchurch.” should be acknowledged. There is—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.Hon RUTH DYSON: Talofa lava. Malo le soifua. As I acknowledged earlier in my contribution I want to re-acknowledge the fact that this is the very day of the 53rd anniversary of independence for Samoa. It is appropriate that we make the most of the fact that it is also Samoan Language Week and use the greetings of that great sister nation of ours.I think that when the bell rang for the dinner break I was acknowledging the good work of the Local Government and Environment Committee led by Scott Simpson particularly in making the decision to hear submissions in Christchurch. It is a bit of a call for a select committee. Of course if it is a local bill that could be the inclination but with very few submissions the committee may have been inclined to say: “No we’re going to just hear them in Wellington and make people come to us or do it over the phone.” But the Local Government and Environment Committee members to their credit made the decision to travel to Christchurch. I think that was a very respectful thing to do. It also allowed people who have concerns about the legislation who may not have made a submission but still had concerns about some aspects of the bills to at least know that the select committee was in town and was listening to people who had made submissions.So this is a big deal. This is turning a 138-year-old reserve into a mix of reserve for the purpose of the Riccarton Racecourse and the remainder of 40 hectares of the 120 hectares into a residential development which I understand is going to be commercially managed by Kai Tahu. That will allow for about 600 homes. That is a very important need that will be met in Christchurch. When the series of earthquakes from September 2010 to quite recently destroyed so many homes there was a double disadvantage for Canterbury. Not only were literally homes lost but also the land on which many thousands of those homes had been built was no longer suitable for building on. We did not just lose the properties immediately; we also lost the potential to rebuild on much of the land particularly in Poto Williams’ electorate of Christchurch East and indeed in Waimakariri as well.This measure enables some of that gap to be filled but it is by no means enough. I am hoping that the 30 percent of those 600 homes that have been committed to being built at an affordable rate which is being determined by the KiwiSaver HomeStart grant level which is just under $450000—I hope it ends up that they are actually affordable. We have lost in New Zealand the ability for many people to save up for a deposit and buy their own home and I think that is a tragedy. So having 30 percent of these properties 30 percent of 600—do the maths quite quickly and you will work out how much that is—will I hope enable some people to get into their homes; to own them.But if you think of $450000 for a person on a low wage that is still a huge deposit to have to save. I do not think that the Government has done nearly enough in the broader space of housing in New Zealand to address what we all know is a crisis. We have people who not only have nowhere at all to call their home but also actually have no prospect ever of being able to save up enough to buy their own home. I think homeownership is quite a fundamental part of the Kiwi culture what we frequently refer to as the Kiwi Dream—that people are able to work hard save hard and end up buying their own home. It is not just an asset that people have although that is important in order to have financial security into the future. It also means that people have security of tenure they have a place to call their own and they become generally a much stronger contributor in the community because they know that that is their community and they are not at the whim of a landlord.I heard today during question time the Minister for Building and Housing talking about how many resource consents had been issued. I want to make it really clear that although resource consents are an important fundamental part of building a house in the end we do not want building consents; we want houses to be built and we want those houses to turn into homes for good New Zealand families. So here is my little drawing contribution to the evening. This is a building consent. This is what a building consent looks like. It is just a bit of paper. You cannot actually live in a building consent. In order to progress the situation where people can move into a warm dry home—hopefully one that they can call their own—you actually need to build houses. I think these bills which will be progressed tonight will progress that opportunity for some Cantabrians and I think that is a very valuable contribution.Debate interrupted.