Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): All of the Acts of Parliament passed since 2009 in support of Christchurch through the earthquake sequence that saw from 2011 some 13500 sizable quakes shake the city have been unanimously supported by this House and I'm sure that's going to be the case today. There's no doubt that things have moved on and it was always the intention of the group that put together the current legislation that has enabled a bit of speed around Christchurch—or should have enabled a bit of speed around Christchurch in the planning aspects of it—that this would have a terminal point. There is a sunset clause in the bill. The fact that we are getting there a little time ahead of that is no bad thing—or is it is the question that I might just pose.Firstly I still don't think anybody outside of Christchurch fully appreciates exactly what has had to be done down there. People who have lived there people who have lived through it people who have put up with all the trials and tribulations of their own circumstances and the I suppose disappointments of the unavailability of various civic facilities know full well what's gone on. The people who've constantly lived with road cones who had compromised services for extended periods of time all know what this has been all about. I don't think though that in a wider context around New Zealand there is an appreciation of that to the extent that perhaps it is only ever real if you experience it yourself.This bill today does allow the continuation of aspects that will be of value to the Christchurch community but it does in my opinion too end possibilities of more speedy planning particularly in the area of the Resource Management Act that have not been as well used by the city council and others who had the opportunity to use those processes as perhaps they could have been. So a thing like a recovery plan that we all thought sitting around the table from across the Parliament would be a useful tool for all sorts of people has only been used on two occasions. On one of those occasions the planning for it had already begun. So on the one hand you might say that this means that the council and the councils and all the bodies involved didn't need the tool. I'm not convinced that they saw the potential of it to the extent that they could have. None the less there is progress there.I don't want to say anything today that in any way mars what people have been able to achieve over the last couple of years but I do want to say for example that when it comes to the city council they could have dealt with the collection of buildings they refer to as the Dirty 30". These are buildings that you know 10 years on nearly are still in a derelict condition post the earthquakes; buildings that have—what are they called?—shipping containers providing shelter for anybody that might walk past them for fear that they might fall into the roadway or somewhere else; buildings that are barricaded up so that the public can't enter or no one can enter except for those who want to tag them who clearly take their life in their own hands by putting some pretty impressive tags on those buildings. While some may see those as artistic I see them as ugly and I think they are a mar on the face of the city. I'm disappointed that the council did not use the capacity that was there under the law that we are effectively repealing today to deal with those situations.It is appropriate that some of their land amalgamation facilities that were in that other bill carry through after today. People seem to forget that the land that people had to exit because it was no longer strong enough to economically provide housing on it is in excess of the size of Hagley Park. Hagley Park—anyone looking at a map of Christchurch will see what a dominant land structure that is right in the middle of our city. So those red zones are slightly bigger in accumulation than that area.It does provide an opportunity for the city and I think the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor is going to be a splendid thing. Some of us might like to see more things go in there and I think over time that will happen but you've got to remember that they were people's residences they were individual titles they were roads they were easements for all sorts of services and sorting that out in the context of good land management does take time and it's appropriate that there is that facility provided in this particular bill.When it comes to the Christchurch City Council one of the things that bothers me slightly is that they have become a very closed-shop organisation. They're not easily accessible and they seem to have a view—they have a view—that the city has an indeterminate amount of capacity to pay higher rates. When you have rating increases on an annual basis running at a percentage-plus higher than some of the highest floating mortgage rates available in this country then I think there is a question that needs to be asked about their capacity to deliver good services for the people of Christchurch. I am a critic of that openly; so I hope that when they reassume all responsibilities they want they do bear in mind that there is not an endless capacity for people to continually pay higher rates on properties that have escalating values on them. That is a thing that I think they need to be very cautious of.Just as an aside they're not the worst. The Canterbury Regional Council—ECan—want to put a 9.45 percent rate increase on people. I think the excuse that keeps coming back that we've got infrastructure deficit as a result of the earthquake is extremely thin when anybody can see how much was spent in the city on the infrastructure during the relatively short time. And we didn't argue—no one argued—about betterment. So if the 3-metre pipe was taken out and it was replaced by a much bigger diameter and a longer length of pipe and generally in materials that have a much longer life than some of the asbestos piping that got taken out then that's all to the good. But it's the advantage of the city that unfortunately is not being seen enough by the current rating base.I do hope also that they don't continue to have a proliferation of other organisations. If there was any mistake it was that in moving from the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority—which I think was absolutely necessary at the time but was a big proponent of getting into the new structure the regeneration structure—there are now too many bodies in Christchurch. You have the Christchurch City Council along with their sister councils in Selwyn and Waimakariri who I think do perform very very well—that excludes Christchurch City—and then they have Christchurch New Zealand. No one really knows what that does but any ratepayer having a look at the salary structure there would have good reason to be concerned about what it does. And then there is the Christchurch Foundation. No one quite knows what that does but once again it has a bureaucratic structure with a lot of costs that ultimately will come back on ratepayers. So I hope that if they are taking the leadership opportunity that this passing of this legislation today affords them they do so with a mind that says "We are doing this in the best interests of the ratepayers." and that they're not just getting themselves into all sorts of talkfest organisations that can't really put their finger on anything that they've actually achieved. I hope also that they become more open—just the chief executive actually having a phone number that would be answered by the chief executive might be a reasonable start.Can I also just say that I do hope that the goodwill that's been expressed here—and I certainly express that goodwill to the Minister who has brought this bill here. I do think it's timely. I agree that it was always a stopgap thing and although I've been critical of their not being used you can't have legislation like this that is so exclusive going on for ever. So I do respect the fact that you've brought that forward. But I do hope that we're not sort of seeing some kind of a rewriting of history here because as I say no one can really ever know or capture the feeling that was in the city—which we do know about no question about that—in those very early days and the fervour there was to have mechanisms and facilities to get things done.With those comments can I say that the National Party is going to be part of what I hope will be the unanimous passing of this bill today which is really just an extension of the goodwill the care that this Parliament has shown toward Christchurch from the outset."