Sage Eugenie: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Sage Eugenie: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 03 April 2012. Volume:679;Page:1632. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
EUGENIE SAGE (Green) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the review of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority at pages 47 to 52 of the combined reports of select committees. The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority as the previous speaker Lianne Dalziel has alluded to was established in March 2011. It has extensive powers under one of the most Draconian pieces of legislation this House has passed since World War II. Its task is to plan and coordinate Christchurch’s recovery until 2016. I certainly acknowledge the considerable work that it has done in carrying out land and building assessments as a basis for rebuilding and insurance decisions and its work with the Christchurch City Council Orion and others in coordinating the rebuilding of water sewerage electricity and other infrastructure. But I want to concentrate on the authority’s role in overseeing demolitions which is specifically referred to on page 50 of the combined select committee reports. 
In the last year the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority has decided that more than 1200 buildings should be demolished in Christchurch’s central city with 900 of these in the cordoned-off central business district area. This is roughly half the buildings in Christchurch’s commercial and cultural heart. They include more than 140 heritage buildings that are recognised in the Christchurch city plan more than 70 buildings that are listed and registered with the Historic Places Trust and hundreds of buildings that have contributed to the city’s character even if they are not formally recognised as heritage buildings. Yet because the public has had such limited access to the red zone with only a few bus tours very few people know how much has gone and how little is going to be left.  
The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority has in its haste to demolish failed to heed international best practice and international experience. Dr Kit Miyamoto of Miyamoto International which has helped and advised a number of cities recovering from more than 100 natural disaster events from hurricanes to earthquakes warned that Christchurch was headed down completely the wrong track with the authority’s strategy of demolishing half of the central city. He said it was more appropriate to have a take-down rate of between 10 and 20 percent of buildings. He said that many of the buildings now—or that have been demolished by the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority—could be repaired for 20 to 30 percent of the cost of a new building.  
So it is the haste and the extent of the building demolition strategy of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority that is impeding the city’s recovery. The authority is creating a stark and bleak wasteland with huge vacant lots which may remain that way for decades particularly if the former owners of the buildings that have been demolished take their insurance payouts and go elsewhere—as the owners of the big Crowne Plaza Hotel are understood to be doing.  
Christchurch is known internationally for its stone Gothic revival buildings. They include the Arts Centre of Christchurch the Christchurch Cathedral the Canterbury Museum the Canterbury Provincial Council Chambers and numerous churches. They are a key part of the city’s architectural heritage. They are objects of beauty and of considerable artisanship and they have a key commercial value in attracting visitors to the city and providing the backdrop to a vital cultural life. Yet the authority’s enthusiasm for demolition and its failure to seek proper advice from engineers who are experienced in retrofitting rebuilding and strengthening heritage buildings mean that the Wizard is now conducting regular pray-ins to try to save that symbol of Christchurch—the Christchurch Cathedral.  
The  
Listener 
 reported last November: “ ‘We have owners desperate for us to say the building has less than 33% of new code strength and is therefore classed as a dangerous building’. Then they go along to Cera and have an exchange of letters. The owners hand over the letter from the engineer saying it’s under 33% and Cera hands them a letter saying ‘Tell us how you’re going to knock it down within 10 days.’ ” Because of that when owners have the option of repairing their damaged buildings or getting an insurance payout there is a very powerful incentive to go for the cash. With the cathedral not enough has been done to investigate ways of repairing and strengthening the building. The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority is encouraging with its haste to demolish to meet its April deadline a bleak and stark wasteland within the city.  
We need the authority’s extensive powers to be curtailed. We need the city council to go back to making decisions on the buildings that should be demolished using a public process where there is an opportunity for public submissions. The Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Act has a lifespan of 5 years and it includes a commitment that it will be reviewed annually. The previous speaker has indicated that the Government is going to make some announcement tomorrow. That 1-year anniversary is approaching and the powers of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority need to— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Is the member going for another call?  
EUGENIE SAGE 
: —be substantially curtailed.