O'Rourke Denis: Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Rourke Denis: Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 29 March 2016. Volume:712;Page:9952. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): I want to speak to my amendment which relates to clause 79(b)(iii) of the bill. It is the second version that I want to speak to because the first one has been amended. So those who have only the first version please look at the second one. It has the last sentence beginning with the word “Following” deleted from it so it is the same apart from that deletion.The point about this particular amendment—which by the way I have discussed with the Minister and we are in agreement that this amendment should be made—is that it would delete clause 79(b)(iii) of the bill which contains the words “any part of a loss that ought reasonably to have been insured:”. The reason for that is that when you look at the bill as a whole you realise that compensation will be payable in respect of an amount fixed by valuation under other parts of the bill for land that is taken compulsorily. So there would be a valuation and that would be the amount that would be payable. This particular clause is therefore redundant. It can have no application. The Minister and I are agreed on that so I trust the other parties in the Committee will see their way clear also to support the amendment.The only other comment I want to make is around some of the comments made by Megan Woods about the destination of funds resulting from the sale of land or other assets I guess as a result of procedures under this bill. I have always expected that the Crown would recoup some of its investment and I am sure that everybody else would think so as well. But the point is this: in deciding how much the Crown will simply keep to recoup some of its investment and how much it will invest in Christchurch through Ōtākaro it does need to look holistically especially at the red zone. It is the red zone really that I have got in mind when I am thinking about this.It is very important to not just sell as much land as is reasonably possible and then invest a minimal amount back to ensure that whatever is put in place is done satisfactorily but it is important that it be looked at holistically so that entire communities can be rebuilt not just houses and roads or whatever else is needed. More than that as I said in my speech previously today it is very important that we think in Christchurch about taking the opportunity to do things that we have never had the opportunity to do before especially in the red zone and in particular in terms of opportunities for recreation because I and others who live in Christchurch know that there has always been a deficit especially of some things in those parts of Christchurch because they tended to be the older parts of the city where what you would do in modern subdivisions was simply not done in those days and therefore it is a really difficult catch-up game to play.So we must take this opportunity to invest some of the funds resulting from the sale of property in those areas back into the city not only to see that we get good communities back in those areas where it is appropriate to rebuild homes but also so that we can take the opportunity—which we will never get again—to provide recreational opportunities for the whole of Christchurch. I just hope that those are the sorts of considerations that are taken into account. I will be interested to hear what the Minister says about that and Dr Megan Woods has said she is as well. Thank you.