Sage Eugenie: Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSage Eugenie: Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 29 March 2016. Volume:712;Page:9953. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]EUGENIE SAGE (Green): I endorse the comments that Denis O’Rourke made and similarly I would call on the Minister to make a few comments about what Ōtākaro Ltd’s vision is particularly for the residential red zone because under Part 2 it is Regenerate Christchurch that can be a proponent for plans in the residential red zone and only Regenerate Christchurch but it needs Ōtākaro Ltd’s agreement and consent to submit an outline for the plan process and it also has a role in providing almost a veto power there. So Ōtākaro Ltd and what its ambitions are will become quite critical. That outline document is really important because the plans as they are developed must be done in accordance with those outlines. So we would certainly be interested in what the Minister can say about what Ōtākaro Ltd’s role is to be.But what I really would like to talk about in this call is clauses 16 to 22L I think it is and the development of regeneration plans. The Mayor of Christchurch Lianne Dalziel described this bill as the most significant opportunity for the city since the earthquake sequence 5 years ago and as a chance for a real legacy. I would agree with that and why it is really critical is that in November last year I think it was the Press said that about 75 percent of Christchurch people felt that there was not a strong vision to lead the city.When the city council conducted the Share an Idea consultation back in May 2011 there was a very clear vision that came forward from Christchurch people about having a very green and sustainable city. There were a lot of ideas about slowing down transport and having more active transport more green spaces more sustainable buildings and greater energy conservation and we have seen a lot of those hopes not carried forward in terms of the work that is being done around the anchor projects. Certainly there are cycleways being developed by the city council but that vision—that really colourful and engaging process that the city council ran with Share an Idea—has not flourished to provide the commitment to a sustainable rebuild that the Green Party and many members of the public would have liked to see.So it is absolutely critical in terms of Regenerate Christchurch and the process that it uses from here to develop these regeneration plans that it involves people in a similar way to Share an Idea—that it is transparent that the engagement is authentic and active and that Regenerate Christchurch is implementing community wishes—because the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority has not always done that. One of the changes that the Green Party wanted but did not achieve in terms of persuading the Minister was ensuring that there is a hearing in the public engagement process.One of the problems with the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority has been that decisions have been made by faceless officials and there has not been the opportunity for the public to present to those making the decisions to have their say and to know that they have been heard and know who is actually going to make the decision. So the bill in terms of the process for the preparation of regeneration plans allows a hearing process but it does not actually commit to that. That is not a requirement but we do encourage Regenerate Christchurch to highlight the importance of good process in this plan development.I would also like to record at this opportunity our thanks to officials from the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority. It would be fair to say that the Green Party has certainly been quite critical of the substantial powers that the authority and the Minister have had under the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act and the way that those powers have been exercised. But the authority’s officials have been very helpful in the process of discussion with the Minister in developing flow charts to explain the new plan process the changes that the amendments would make and the way that process would work.We recognise that it is quite a difficult time for officials as the organisation winds up. Many have already left. We would be pleased if the Minister in the chair the Hon Gerry Brownlee would take a call in terms of how he envisages the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet operating and how big the department’s additional responsibility is under the bill to monitor its implementation. We know that several dozen staff from the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority have transitioned over to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and we would like to hear what the Minister envisages the role of Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet being in relation to the implementation of the bill and just how extensive the department’s engagement will be. Obviously it will be providing advice to Ministers and not necessarily just the Minister for Earthquake Recovery but it does have a new role with the winding up of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority.In terms of Regenerate Christchurch and the regeneration plans Lyttelton for example was one of the areas where the community board led a process for developing a master plan for the Lyttelton community that did engage the people of Lyttelton and it was not always about big projects. There have been changes made with the new square in Lyttelton the process around the recreation centre and a lot of what will happen in terms of public spaces. The community board and the city council ran that process. They involved the community and the community has now seen some of their ideas actually taking shape particularly with the new square—a really good place for people to gather for public events for people to meet and for building community networks.Regenerate Christchurch needs to have that same commitment to good engagement so that the people’s wishes are what this next phase is about if we are to fulfil the hopes that many people have in terms of the way they made submissions and fulfil the hopes that the city council has and that the mayor has in terms of her comments about it being the chance for a real legacy. It was I think the mayor who described regeneration as not what the Government does to the city but what the city does itself. That is what this bill with the regeneration plan process provides for. It does allow people to really influence what happens in the central city and in areas like New Brighton where regeneration plans will be prepared and in that critical residential red zone where the Crown has spent tens of millions of dollars purchasing properties and where certainly as Denis O’Rourke noted the Crown will be wanting a return. But it is an opportunity to be visionary as Christchurch has been in the past with the protection of Hagley Park as that core green space in the heart of the city and with the protection of areas of the Port Hills which provide a major backdrop to the city—an area for recreation and an area now for tourism with facilities like the gondola and with the proposals for the big new mountain bike park.We need to do something visionary with this residential red zone and its future. There were submissions on the bill that highlighted the need for environmental well-being to be at the heart of the regeneration process. We are pleased that that is now in Part 1 but it also needs to be at the heart of decisions around the residential red zone. There is a major flooding hazard issue in Christchurch. The residential red zone lands can be used as a buffer for the Avon - Ōtākaro River. We can add to the areas that are already protected in Travis Swamp which provide a buffer against flooding as well as a major area for recreation and a heart for biodiversity in the city.There have been many public ideas for what should happen with the residential red zone such as the Avon-Ōtākaro Park proposal with the city to the sea network of cycleways community gardens urban parks and sculpture parks. If Ōtākaro Ltd is to realise those sorts of ambitions that Christchurch folk have wanted for this area which is now largely devoid of houses we need a good public consultation process. We need Regenerate Christchurch to commit to authentic and genuine community engagement and we would be very interested in the Minister’s comments on how he sees Ōtākaro Ltd carrying out its responsibilities under the bill. Thank you.