Sage Eugenie: Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSage Eugenie: Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 17 March 2016. Volume:712;Page:9887. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]EUGENIE SAGE (Green): E te Māngai o Te Whare tēnā koe; ki ngā mema e huihui mai tēnā koutou katoa.[To the Deputy Speaker greetings; to the members gathered here greetings to you all.]I am very pleased to take a call on the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill. As Mr Simpson said it has been an unusual process and I thank him and Minister Brownlee for their comments recognising the role of other parties.When the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act expires in April this year with the extraordinary powers that it provides to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority—or CERA—it is certainly the opportunity for a major step change in terms of who makes decisions and how those decisions are made about Christchurch’s future. Now that we are 5 years on from the devastating quakes in February 2011 and are over that emergency and immediate recovery phase we do need to see a shift from central government to local leadership. Certainly the Local Government and Environment Committee did make some good changes to the bill as introduced one of them being the way “regeneration” is defined. It includes as Nicky Wagner noted improving the environmental economic social and cultural well-being and resilience of communities. That is a very positive change particularly as the Government has stripped out from the purpose of local government the promotion of community well-being. It is really good to see that at the heart of this bill.But the Green Party opposed the bill as it came back from the select committee because it did not provide for a genuine partnership between central government and local authorities in planning and guiding the next stage of Christchurch’s post-earthquake future. It contained far too many hangovers from the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority era and from the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority legislation. It left far too much power with the executive and with central government Ministers and agencies—particularly the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet—in their ability to initiate regeneration plans and then have the relevant Minister approve or decline those plans at the end of the process. This was particularly important because in this bill it is not just the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery who can exercise these decision-making and approval powers but it is also the relevant “Minister” depending on the function being exercised—so that could be the Minister of Transport or it could be the Minister for Land Information.That whole concentration of power at the centre was in total opposition to the strong and eloquent call by submitters during those 2½ days of hearings in Christchurch and through written submissions for local leadership for a reduction in the power of central government and Ministers and for a much stronger role for people in Christchurch. Certainly for me it has been organisations like Greening The Rubble and Gap Filler with their innovative creative community-orientated projects that have been inspiring in showing what Christchurch people are capable of. Some of the private buildings which are quite innovative in their design and their construction particularly where they use our local resource—wood—show what can happen in Christchurch when we have local people making those decisions. It is especially important too when we have had democracy denied to the Canterbury region with the half-pie half-appointed half-elected model that we have got at Environment Canterbury.This bill did need to establish a framework and a structure for decision making that put Regenerate Christchurch as this new agency that is to symbolise and really epitomise the partnership between central government and local government at the heart of decision making. Regenerate Christchurch has four members on its board who are appointed by central government one on the nomination of Te Rūnunga o Ngāi Tahu and it has another three members appointed by the city council. So it is an embodiment of partnership. The bill as reported back did not give it a big enough role. As a result of the negotiations with the Minister and the changes that will be in the Supplementary Order Paper we have got Regenerate Christchurch now having a much greater role in providing advice on what plans should proceed—particularly in the residential red zone where Regenerate Christchurch is the only agency that can be the proponent of a regeneration plan.As Ruth Dyson noted that residential red zone is a really central part of Christchurch because we are a place-based people here in Aotearoa New Zealand and a lot of people who had homes in the red zone still have a very strong connection with it. As Ruth said they left part of their lives there. The Government has spent billions of dollars in acquiring more than 6700 homes and there are very strong views in Christchurch about the future of the residential red zone. We have had an 18000-signature petition presented and considered by Parliament about the residential red zone. Some have strongly promoted parks there cycleways community gardens—a lot of public space. There is a need for improved flood protection using some of that land as a buffer from the more intense storm and weather events that we get. So the whole planning of the residential red zone is critical to the future of Christchurch and under the Supplementary Order Paper Regenerate Christchurch will be leading that.We are very happy that there has been that quite major change there. The bill as it was reported back from the select committee risked emasculating Regenerate Christchurch from the very start because it still left too much power with central government rather than in Christchurch. So it is now giving a much more influential role to this new agency which has yet to be fully established but has a very effective chair in André Lovatt who has led some very inspiring work in restoring the Christchurch Arts Centre. Regenerate Christchurch will be the major proponent of plans in the residential red zone and a major source of advice about whether regeneration plans proceed.One of the other areas in which we have succeeded in getting changes made is in gaining much more transparency around the planning process—making sure that the advice of agencies such as the other councils is made public before the public submissions occur and making sure too that the Minister has to provide clear reasons when he or she decides whether to reject or approve a plan.The Green Party is not totally happy with this bill. We sought that there be a commitment in the planning process to public hearings because a lot of the problems with the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority’s decision-making has been that written submissions have been called for but there has been no hearing process and there is nothing worse than faceless decision makers making quite critical decisions and us not knowing who they are. We did not get that change in the bill but I do encourage Regenerate Christchurch to ensure that there is a public hearing process. It gives people the opportunity to front up to decision makers and to have their say.We remain troubled by the powers that are available to relevant Government Ministers in clause 42 which allows them to override plans and policies that have been prepared through due processes under other legislation and that means some of the district and regional plans under the Resource Management Act Local Government Act planning documents and bylaws and regional transport plans. The Government says those powers will be used frugally and the Opposition will certainly hold it to account on that. But we did succeed here in getting some significant checks on the Minister’s power to use clause 42 in the fact that there now must be public consultation. That was not in the bill as it was reported back and the Minister also has to “have regard to” public views which is a stronger test than to just “consider” them.This whole process has been unusual. The debate desirably would have happened at the select committee but we congratulate the Minister on being prepared to consider change. I think there would have been quite considerable cost to the Government if the bill had remained as reported back from select committee. The negotiations have been good in the way that they have been conducted. I thank the officials who have put a lot of effort into these amazing flow charts which when you are dealing with a plan-making process have been very helpful in showing the different stages and what matters are to be considered at each stage. I would encourage the Government to use more of this consultative process when it is developing legislation and the anchor projects in Christchurch because we get better law where everybody is involved and where there is a strong provision for public input. I think it shows the opportunities that we are losing with the anchor projects and the secrecy around things like the convention centre which is such a critical site in the central city and is so costly. We need to have this consultation both with the public and with other parties. But I thank the Minister for the changes to this bill.