Woods Megan: Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWoods Megan: Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 22 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7515. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): It is my pleasure to take a call on this piece of legislation and to signal that Labour will be supporting this bill at first reading. This is as the Minister outlined an important day for Christchurch on our path back to normality after the events of the last 5 years. I would like to say to the Minister that I think he missed an opportunity in not introducing this bill yesterday. We could then have called it the “Back to the Future Day for Christchurch Bill” and signified that special day. “Back to the Future Day” was the day on which Marty McFly signalled in a very significant movie that the world was going to come back—for the Minister’s edification. It was a day acknowledged worldwide.This is an important day in terms of the return—[Interruption] If we can settle down. This is an important piece of legislation. I would like to acknowledge every MP in this House on every side of the House who over the last 5 years has worked for their constituents and for the people of Christchurch and the people of Canterbury. Some of those MPs are no longer members in this House. I myself like some current Canterbury members of Parliament was not an MP when the first Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority legislation was passed. So I think we can all agree despite the disagreements we may have had over the last 5 years about what was best for our city and for our province that it has been quite a 5 years that we have all been through.I would also like to acknowledge all the local government members who have worked tirelessly for their communities over this period under very trying circumstances—and circumstances that probably no one imagined they were going to have to govern under when they signed up for the job. I would also like to acknowledge the work of the board and I would also like to acknowledge the many Cantabrians who took the opportunity to submit on the discussion document that was put out around what the future of Christchurch would be. There were very clear signals from the people of Canterbury around how they saw the future would play forward for them.This is a bill about our future this is a bill about what comes next and it is a very important piece of legislation. It is my hope and it is my wish—and it is Labour’s hope and wish—that what we put in place next captures something good out of what we have all been through in the last 5 years and that we manage to capture the creativity the innovation and the energy that is now so evident in Canterbury and in Christchurch. Terrible times do bring out the best in people sometimes and we have seen some remarkable initiatives spring up in our city and in our province and I want to see those people their ideas and their energy put back into the fabric of our reconstruction and in what the future looks like for us in Christchurch and in Canterbury.When the initial Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority legislation was passed it was a recognition that business as usual simply would not do—it would not be enough in a region and a city that had been through what they had just been through. It was an approach that was very much for the immediate aftermath of earthquakes. However it is now more than apparent that the need for these kinds of extraordinary powers has passed. It has receded and the legislation that we have in front of us today is putting this up as the option of what we do next. It is not a return to what we had in terms of the governance of our province prior to February 2011; it is a transitional arrangement through to 2021 when we can put in place alternative legislation.Over the last 5 years we have seen successful challenges to the exercise of powers that were contained in the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority legislation and there is a strong argument that now is the time to restore the recovery decision-making and regeneration decision-making to where it belongs—the community in the hands of the people of Christchurch and Canterbury to once again be masters of their destiny. I have a huge amount of respect a huge amount of belief and a huge amount of admiration in the locals and I believe that the locals are more than up to the task and that they are ready to face this challenge and to put in place governance arrangements and to make decisions that are for the betterment of their province. But I do acknowledge that there is a still a strong role for the Crown that is needed in the regeneration of Christchurch and that a strong Crown presence in Christchurch is still needed and a strong commitment from the Crown as to how it is that Christchurch and Canterbury are going to recover.What I would like to raise—and I have tabled an amendment to this—is the submission period that we are looking through here. The Minister has indicated that this bill has a report-back date of 25 February. In effect with the House not reconvening until 9 February it is expected that we will see everything done and dusted from submissions through to hearings by Christmas and I do not think this is adequate. I have put forward a submission which I sincerely hope that the Minister and other parties will consider that we extend this out to March. This would allow sufficient time for us to have the legislation passed in time for the expiration of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority legislation. This would allow us to have this legislation in place when it needs to be but most important for me is that this would allow sufficient time for the people of Christchurch to have their say to have their voices heard to make their submissions and then to be heard.I do not think this should be a rushed process. This is such an important process for Christchurch and Canterbury and I do not think we can hurry it. My natural inclination was to go for the 6-month period and put in an amendment to April but I acknowledge that that simply cannot be done in this case because we do need to have legislation in place in time for the expiry of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority legislation. But I do ask the Minister to consider that and to see whether that is something that he can do.We are putting a statutory authority in place that will have control over the Christchurch central business district the residential red zone and all other non-residential land surrounded by residential land. This is a big thing for us to do. This is a huge amount of ministerial power that continues for the next 5 years in Christchurch and we would be negligent in our job as the Opposition if we did not ask some serious questions about that power and the exercise of it. I think the select committee process is the right process for us to use to let Cantabrians and Christchurch people have their say to say whether this is what they think is now necessary at this stage of recovery that we are in.We have got questions that we would like to see answered through this process. One of them is exactly what we mean by “regeneration”. I think that will need some greater clarity in the bill that comes back to this House for second reading. We saw that the courts needed to define more what “recovery” was with the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority legislation. There is also reference to “public engagement” in the bill but there is no clarity or process around exactly what this means. I think that to make the next 5 years the best they can be we need to have clarity around that. We need to know exactly what it is that we are going to be doing.As I have signalled this is a process that is still almost entirely ministerially led and I want to know and ask questions and have a conversation with the people of Christchurch about whether this is the appropriate thing to be doing. Fundamentally the question we Labour members will be asking when we listen to submissions is whether this bill that we have is genuinely the local-led recovery—[Bell rung]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I apologise—1½ minutes.Dr MEGAN WOODS: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. Is this genuinely the local-led recovery that the people of Christchurch and Canterbury have asked for? I would ask that we consider such things as the membership of the committee. At the moment clause 95 of the bill allows for both the Minister and the council to appoint equal numbers of members to the board of Regenerate Christchurch. If this is genuinely a piece of transition legislation let us not just make it static; let us actually make it transitional. Could we have a ratcheting down of the Crown’s powers towards 2021 so we shift the balance of appointments in favour of the council as we move through the 5-year period that is under control? The Minister is nodding; that is good to see. I think there are good conversations to be had.But another question that needs to be asked is whether there are adequate checks and balances on power. If I can return to that philosophical touchstone it is going to be another movie reference Minister Brownlee—I do not know whether you will get it—and it is Spiderman who told us that with great power comes great responsibility. When we are looking at something such as this bill which puts so much power in the hands of one individual we have to be assured that the correct checks and balances on that power are there. That applies to whoever is the Minister.We also want to know why appeals are to the High Court and whether that is still appropriate and not the Environment Court when it comes to Resource Management Act decision-making—the point being that the High Court will make decisions on only matters of law whereas the Environment Court can actually ask questions about the evidence and have a more inquisitorial approach to what is happening. With Canterbury having a separate process we need to consider whether that is still appropriate 5 years down the track and let us be very clear that by the time this legislation is finished it will be 10 years after the event.Labour is supporting this bill. We are looking forward to the select committee process and we ask the Minister to consider extending that process out so that the people of Canterbury can have their voices heard. Thank you.