Graham Kennedy: Appropriation (2010/11 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Graham Kennedy: Appropriation (2010/11 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:673;Page:19564] 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 I will make just a few comments about schedule 1 of the Appropriation (2010/11 Supplementary Estimates) Bill. I will pick up on one or two of the points that have been made earlier and perhaps explore them a little further. We understand well that the intent of Supplementary Order Paper 246 is to provide supplementary money to the tune of $27 million for property output expenses and demolition and $3 million essentially for demolition-related property purchases. We understand that the reason for the Supplementary Order Paper is that the Budget moratorium period from 11 April to 19 May covered the period of Cabinet decision-making that spanned 22 February. I make it clear from the beginning that the Green Party has no difficulty in voting for this Supplementary Order Paper.  
Perhaps the Committee could advise with respect the Hon David Cunliffe to resist the temptation to speak on behalf of the Committee when he is in full knowledge of the fact that the Green Party opposed the original Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill at the time and that we did so for good reason. I will not rehearse the reasons; we conveyed them at the time. We supported the recovery purpose of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority but we judged the powers granted under the bill to be excessive for that purpose. That said it is history and we do not oppose—we never did—an appropriate amount of funding for the rebuilding of Christchurch.  
I believe that we are all cooperating across party lines to that end. I for one have held three public forums entitled Vision Christchurch since April through to June with the aim of engaging experts and the public together to embrace a vision of a future eco-city that would reflect 21st century values and technology. There was one forum in central Christchurch at the end of April one in New Brighton a few weeks ago and one just 2 days ago in Lyttelton. They have been very well attended with about 100 to 200 people at each meeting and there have been superb presentations and animated discussion. Geotechnical consultants landscape planners architects civil engineers transport specialists community sociologists and iwi leaders have attended. I plan to get all that information from those meetings and before very long channel it into the cross-party forum under the chairmanship of the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery. We are all collectively combining our strengths to rebuild the city in good faith but I point out that it would be presumptuous to assume on behalf of the whole Committee that we are all in favour of everything that has gone before.  
I will make a couple of specific points about schedule 1 and also just touch on an issue that attends it: mainly that the psychology has changed. I think Mr Cunliffe was correct when he said that after 13 June the psychology in Christchurch has changed—indeed it has. The psychology has changed from 4 September to 13 June with all the trauma of 22 February. In the first two meetings I spoke about there was an upbeat mood about rebuilding Christchurch. After 13 June at the most recent meeting I convened in Lyttelton there was this new psychology. I would not call it a malaise but a deep trauma on the part of the residents. It has bifurcated the city into those who basically are making a definitive decision to leave—anything up to perhaps one-fifth of the city; we will find out—and those who will remain.  
I was apprehensive about that mood as we went into this forum on Sunday but I found that from those 60 to 80 percent of the residents who are still resolved to remain in Christchurch the determination to rebuild the city after 13 June came through. Just last Sunday afternoon in this meeting with about 115 people present the determination came through loud and clear. It was arguably the most inspiring experience I have had in the whole of the earthquake experience to date. I think we can take consolation from that determination and a certain amount of confidence that we are actually going to get there.  
I will pick up on the figures from where Mr Nash left off and address these questions to the Minister in the chair the Minister of Finance. I want a bit more specificity. We are talking about $27 million for demolition; I have no query of that. I just query whether $3 million for property purchases will prove to be enough in the fullness of time.  
I have been down to the central business district. I come and go from Christchurch. I live there most of the time. I left at 8 o’clock this morning. I went in for a Radio New Zealand interview in downtown Christchurch this morning at 7.15. I have been into the red zone a couple of times. Mr Cunliffe’s description is correct: it is an eerie experience. Most likely now 1000 buildings will come down. A couple of months ago it was 242 then it was 300 and then it was 900. Over 1000 buildings will come down. Anything from 50 to 60 percent of the buildings are coming down. There will be $3 million for property purchase.  
As I understand it we are talking about $3 million for just the central business district. With a broad operating assumption of 1000 buildings coming down I ask the Minister what percentage of those buildings that $3 million pertains to. Under the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority powers the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery has the powers of requisition. What percentage of those buildings—if it is possible to answer this question—does that $3 million pertain to and does it pertain in any way to requisition? Mr Nash talked about purchasing private property if it is being sold and about insured property. 
My question is—and in all three meetings I have found this the most excruciating challenge of all I think for the rebuild—about the relationship and the cooperation between the private sector and the public sector. I sat through a business meeting last night in Christchurch of about 30 business people and people interested in heritage. I know the agony that those business owners are going through and there is a risk of capital flight out of Christchurch sooner rather than later. They are on the verge of moving.  
On the other hand there will also be private owners who will refuse necessarily to act in the public interest. With my three meetings I am trying to generate a public mood where the public interest in a re-envisaged city becomes palpable and the public interest can be expressed by the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery and Roger Sutton. Even with the 40 percent or 50 percent of buildings left standing there may be intransigent private owners.  
I think the single biggest challenge to the Government—and it is a challenge to all of us as a society—whether or not there is a cross-party forum is how we deal with that situation. If we have a vision and I have seen architects’ PowerPoint presentations with a vision of a new eco-city some buildings could be in the road. Does the $3 million pertain to requisition? I would not necessarily critique it. I was critical of excessive powers but I understand the powers exist and they can be used in the public interest. I would be intrigued to hear the answer on that point.