Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGreater Christchurch Regeneration Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 17 March 2016. Volume:712;Page:9878. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Greater Christchurch Regeneration BillSecond ReadingHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery): It is not usual for the Minister proposing a bill to speak in the second reading but this is a bill that is somewhat unique and I think it continues the historically strong support that this Parliament has given Christchurch through the difficult years post the earthquake sequence—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I just ask the member—he needs to move that the bill be read a second time.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Oh sorry. Well there you go. It just shows that anybody who has been here for any length of time can demonstrate a bit of inexperience occasionally. I move That the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill be now read a second time.As I was saying this is I think a historic bill for the House and the events of the last couple of weeks where parties have come together to discuss the final shape of the bill—albeit post the select committee stage—have been particularly pleasing. I would like to acknowledge the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee for the work that he and his members did on this bill. It was in hearing the submissions that some of the complexities that needed to be dealt with in the bill were brought to light.The genesis of the bill though started quite some time ago when it was decided that there should be an orderly transition for the Government to exit some of its more prominent roles in the recovery of Christchurch. So in December of 2014 under the chair of Dame Jenny Shipley there was an advisory board set up. It was asked to consider a number of parameters that should be given a fair old going over before any transition plan could be put together and then it was asked to produce a report that would indicate a direction moving forward.That advisory board had on it the Mayor of Christchurch the Mayor of Waimakariri District the Mayor of Selwyn District and the current chair of Environment Canterbury as well as people from the business sector and a number of people from the NGO sector as well. The people who were on that board did I think a splendid job of thinking about the state of the city at present particularly in a governance sense and looking at what might be necessary moving forward. So what we have seen in the last 10 days when MPs have repeatedly met discussed and agreed is a continuation of a consultation process that has gone on for a very long period of time. The arrangements that are now going to be presented in the Committee stage as a Supplementary Order Paper to this particular bill when the House resumes after the adjournment I think are going to put into statute a series of arrangements that will work well for the future of the city.It is particularly pleasing—I will say it again—that we have been able to reach a broad consensus on how that should shape up and I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the hard work and actually the determined work I should say of all the MPs who were party to that. These were Denis O’Rourke from New Zealand First Eugenie Sage from the Green Party Te Ururoa Flavell from the Māori Party David Seymour from the ACT Party Megan Woods from the Labour Party—I think that might cover it. But my point is that when we were in those discussions the general perception of Parliament as being an adversarial place was for a time set aside while there were proper discussions about what the consequences of any law might be. I have to say that the bill is not for example in a shape that I would think meets in every way the requirements that I would see necessary but then I think every other person in the room would have come up with the same conclusion and that I think can give us all comfort that we are probably in about the right space.The most salient points that have come out of those discussions relate to the provisions that will go into the Supplementary Order Paper that effectively strengthen public input into any of the regeneration plans that will be developed in Christchurch City. It will strengthen the leadership of the new organisation Regenerate Christchurch and it will put a degree of constraint—a greater degree of constraint—on the exercise of ministerial powers to alter those plans under clause 42 of the bill.Those regeneration plans you could almost say are a copy of the recovery plan process that has been in place over the last few years. But essentially the bill recognises that although Christchurch has had its emergency and then has gone through a period of recovery and continues to do so we are now at a point where the consequences of the earthquakes have made such significant changes to the city and the greater Christchurch area that sharper processes are going to be necessary to ensure that we do develop new areas redevelop existing areas and renew existing areas in a way that make them most amenable to people’s ongoing living opportunities. So although there will be some who look at this and say “You’re replacing one bureaucracy that is centrally controlled by Government with a whole lot of smaller bureaucracies that are controlled by local organisations with lesser direct authority.” I think that they have missed the point that there are some very separate considerations that need to be put in place.So Regenerate Christchurch becomes the prime body for taking an overview of the city and its surrounds and making determinations about where some of the efforts of local authorities individual developers and others who have an interest in an area can be concentrated and then coming up with plans that will enable that to occur on a much more rapid basis than might occur through the Local Government Act or for that matter some aspects of the Resource Management Act.Then you have an organisation that the council is setting up called Development Christchurch Ltd. That is designed to be a front-face first point for people who are coming to the city who want to invest. One of the things that I hear over and over and have done for the last few years is that people come into town and say “Right we want to do something.” and then there is nowhere to go no one to talk to and nothing gets done. I think that is an overstatement of how things are but the council certainly does have a desire to see things move. I think the first thing that DevelopmentChristchurch has been involved in is the big bike park on the Port Hills which the rest of the country will soon learn is an absolutely splendid facility and I am sure there will be many who come to Christchurch because of it.There is also going to be an organisation referred to as Ōtākaro Ltd. Everyone will know that the Government has invested heavily in Christchurch. It does own a lot of land known as the red zone and does own a lot of land in the central business district where the different precincts are being established. It will hold the interest that the Government has in ensuring that the anchor projects that remain—at this point—unstarted are started and that those that are under way continue to their completion at as speedy a pace as possible.We have cross-pollinated all of those boards with the chairs of each so that there is a good understanding and good working arrangement between those groups. I think the structure recognises local autonomy and recognises the difference between a single body that does everything and the specifics that need to be dealt with and I am confident that they will be able to work together in a very very positive way.This is as I said before a historic bill. It is part of the efforts that this Parliament is making in support of Canterbury and it continues the unanimous support and generous support that the House has given since the days post-2011. The discussion that we will have in the Committee stage will make very clear I hope the unique nature of the structure that we have all agreed will be best for Christchurch.I want to once again thank the members of Parliament and the spokespeople who have been involved in those discussions. I would like to thank the officials for their forbearance with us all. Politicians are very good at coming up with great ideas and then being a little reluctant to accept that some of them might not be as good as they possibly could be. But we were well served by officials from both the Christchurch City Council and from Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and I thank them for their work. I look forward to the Committee stage when I am sure they will be on hand to answer any questions that those perhaps not quite so close to the process may have.I do commend this bill to the House. It is a good bill and well worth the House’s unanimous support.Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): It is my pleasure to take a call on this. I would like to acknowledge the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Gerry Brownlee who has just taken his seat who has taken this opportunity to come down to the House and give a speech in the second reading. Thank you because I think this has been quite a unique process in that we have been able to sit down and we have been able to thrash out what is a much-improved piece of legislation—once we have the Supplementary Order Paper that will be tabled at the Committee stage as the Minister has intimated. The Minister also took the somewhat unique action of outlining Labour’s position on this—thank you Minister for that—and I would like to confirm the Minister’s statement on that. Labour is supporting this legislation on the proviso of the Supplementary Order Paper that the Minister has outlined in his speech being tabled. He described those changes that will be delivered through that Supplementary Order Paper which will be tabled the next time we come back into this House to debate this bill at the Committee stage. We can offer back our support on this bill and I am very happy that that is the case.The Minister talked about the need to have cross-party agreement on the issues that relate to the recovery the regeneration and the governance of Canterbury around this. I think that this is important for Cantabrians. I think that we do need to have certainty as we enter the next phase of our history and Cantabrians can be sure that when the Government changes next year that there will not be major upheaval. So I thank the Minister for thinking ahead to that and for the work he put into that. The reason why we withdrew our support after the select committee consideration was that the bill simply was not good enough for Cantabrians. The bill did not give Cantabrians the locally led recovery that they desired and the locally led recovery that they deserved and needed. I would like to thank the Minister for recognising that. I think it is a pity that some of the Government members of the Local Government and Environment Committee had not listened a little bit more closely at the select committee and made that case a little earlier. But I am very grateful that the Minister did that and that we are seeing much better legislation.We are 5 years on from the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority legislation. I was not a member of Parliament when the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority legislation was introduced into this House in the immediate aftermath of the February quakes. I was in fact campaigning for the Wigram seat at the time. Those were emergency powers for extraordinary times. I think we can all think back to 5 years ago in Christchurch and what it was like. We no longer see what look like tanks in supermarket car-parks which is something that I think we are all very pleased to have moved past. We no longer have the military manning a cordon around our central business district. Sometimes it is very hard to think that it was only 5 years ago—or that that was even 5 years ago—that we were seeing these sights on the streets of Christchurch. And for the Labour Party the bill that emerged which is actually the bill that is sitting on the Table here today had not moved sufficiently past this phase of our recovery.The bill that the majority of the select committee reported back to this House was still too entrenched in that immediate aftermath and the emergency powers phase of our regeneration. We know that there is a difficult balance that needs to be struck in Christchurch. We in the Labour Party have never advocated that now is the time to return to business as usual—to go back and pretend that the earthquakes had never happened and completely put everything back as if it were. The Minister alluded to the report of the transitional board led by Dame Jenny Shipley and the report that it produced made it very clear that there was an intermediate step that was required before that return to business as usual. And that balance did need to be struck.We are never quiet on this side of the House when talking about the need for speed in the Canterbury recovery. We do recognise that there do need to be some bespoke provisions in order to have the speed that we desire in the Canterbury recovery and that is why we can support this bill. We also know that the Crown is making a significant investment and that when the Crown is making a significant investment of taxpayer money it needs to have good oversight of that money. It needs to have responsible and prudent oversight of that money and I think that what we are seeing here gives the Crown the oversight and the responsibility that it should take for taxpayer money without having to have overreaching ministerial powers that were only ever going to serve as a roadblock to the recovery of Christchurch. So I think that we have come a long way in terms of getting that balance right. I think one of the things that we can see is that the Minister has said that the Supplementary Order Paper that we have all worked on which he is going to table in the Committee stage—and it has actually been quite an enjoyable process working on that I have to say. I have enjoyed every moment of it Minister and I thank you for it.We will strengthen the position of Regenerate Christchurch. Regenerate Christchurch is an agency that is made up of both Crown appointments and council appointments and I think this reflects very well that balance. It does preserve public input into decisions and regeneration plans that can be made and as the Minister put it it more closely proscribes the power of the Minister which I think is a nice way of saying that it transitions quite a bit of power back into the hands of Cantabrians and that is something that I think is a positive thing. The submissions made it very clear—and there were two very strong themes that came through from the submissions that the select committee heard. Local leadership was something that came through time and time again—80 of the submitters focused on this as an issue that was something that needed to be given strength.I think that those of us from Christchurch and Canterbury can all recognise the energy the innovation and the vitality that has happened in our city in the last 5 years. For us it is in that energy it is in that innovation and it is in that creativity that we want the next 5 years to lie. We think Cantabrians are going to make good decisions about their future.I celebrate a lot of things that are happening in our city that never would have happened before the earthquakes. Just last weekend I spent time on an intersection in Riccarton painting the road. We made a painted intersection in Shand Crescent. The idea around this which is taken from Portland Oregon is about bringing communities together and having the ability of communities to think: “Just because it’s not usually done doesn’t mean we can’t do it.” That is the kind of spirit that has got to define the next 5 years in Christchurch—people taking charge of their lives.I would not like everyone to think I have got too carried away talking about how much I have enjoyed this process. Of course there are questions that we still have around provisions of this bill and they are questions that will be fully discussed in the Committee stage—as is appropriate—of this bill. There are questions that we need to ask about how the agencies are going to work and the Minister alluded to that. We are replacing one agency the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority with several agencies some of them Crown and some of them council. How are they going to work together? What are going to be the limits and the transparencies around those agencies? How is it that we are going to ensure that all that is made very clear? What are the letters of intent going to say—because the letters of intent are a very important instrument that lies beneath this legislation both with the Christchurch City Council and with the Crown entity of Ōtākaro Ltd which is given a very large function in our regeneration. What are that organisation’s responsibilities back in terms of reporting?These are all discussions that we can have at the Committee stage but I am very happy to be able to say that the Minister has been able to win back our support on this bill. It was not with any pleasure that we withdrew our support at the select committee and had to write a minority report. We voted for this bill in its first reading because we thought that it was important that we listen to the submissions. We listened and we are very pleased that the Minister also listened to the very able submissions that were made on this bill. Thank you very much.Hon NICKY WAGNER (Associate Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery): It is my pleasure too to support this Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill. There is absolutely no doubt that we all agree that Christchurch has come a long way since 4 September 2010. It has been a bit of an emotional rollercoaster but we are still learning how to reorganise our lives how to manage our emotions and how to cope with grief—cope with grief for the people whom we have lost for the homes that have been destroyed and for the communities that are changed. But together we have all survived that emergency phase. We are managing the recovery and now it is our turn to look forward to regeneration.The phases all morph into each other as our lives and circumstances change and as each of our individual futures evolve at different speeds. But 5 years on is the time to focus on the future and embrace regeneration as the road back to business as usual: local leadership local management and local control.Regeneration is a much bigger and more exciting concept than recovery. It is about building back better. It is about urban renewal and development restoration revitalisation and enhancement. It is our opportunity to improve the environmental the economic the social and the cultural well-being of our city and its surroundings. I think we all know where we want to end up. I think the submitters in the Share an Idea campaign made it very clear. We want to live in a leafy people-friendly vibrant city; a place where all generations want to come to live to work and to play; a city that focuses on community well-being; a city that we can be proud of; and a city that we can all enjoy. I believe we are well on our way towards that.I just want to make a note about the bill. The references to environmental social and cultural well-being have been elevated to the purpose clause of the bill to highlight their importance. Many submitters thought that “regeneration” did not include environmental well-being. Well it does and I am really pleased that the Local Government and Environment Committee has recommended that it should be moved to become more visible.The Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill and its Supplementary Order Paper will provide a framework within which we can all work together to get the best possible outcomes for our city and Greater Christchurch. The strategic partners which are the four councils—the Christchurch City Council the Selwyn District Council the Waimakariri District Council and Environment Canterbury—work with central government and Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu and we have all got roles to play to deliver on this outcome and to prepare local organisations to take over and continue the work in the future. This bill has only a 5-year term but regeneration and urban renewal will continue well past 2021. In fact it should be continual and ongoing so post-2021 Regenerate Christchurch will become a new council-controlled organisation. It is crucial that we get this bill right because it is an exciting opportunity for greater Christchurch.I want to thank everybody who has been involved with creating the bill: the drafters the submitters the select committee and particularly all those members who have worked with Minister Brownlee to make sure that this bill will support the collaborative process that we all need to embrace as we go forward.The bill specifically recognises local leadership through our councils and through Ngāi Tahu and provides each organisation with a role in the decision making under the Act. It requires community input to decisions into the development of regeneration plans and the decisions on the exercise of powers under clause 42. I think the bill represents an important milestone and allows for that much-discussed step change move—the move from recovery to regeneration and from the Crown being in the driver’s seat towards a progressive handover to local leaders.Submitters were really keen that the community be fully included and have a strong voice in future decisions. The Government agrees and the bill provides many opportunities for public input. The key is to develop a vision that will bring local people together and allow regeneration to happen quickly and efficiently. Engagement in the development of regeneration plans will be particularly important and the bill requires proponents at the early outline plan stage to set out the opportunities for public engagement and how that will be undertaken. Regenerate Christchurch also has a statutory role to engage with communities stakeholders and decision makers to achieve the purpose of supporting a vibrant thriving and engaged Christchurch.As I have already noted public engagement on regeneration plans was a key issue for submitters. I want to emphasise that the consultation provisions in this bill are a minimum. The Government expects local leaders to identify a range of public and stakeholder engagement opportunities for the issues covered by the draft plan. We want them to be creative. We want people to be excited and motivated by the possibilities for our city.The St Valentine’s Day earthquake last month reminded us of just what it was like 5 years ago but it also emphasised how far we have come since that time. It gave me real confidence seeing how our new homes and new buildings stood up so well and any damage—damage from rockfall cliff crumble or mass movement—happened only where we expected it to happen which was behind the barricades. There is no doubt that Canterbury will continue to be a shaky place. We know that our geography is constantly changing but I think we can all be assured that our geotechnical experts have got a really good handle on how earthquakes work in our region and I think most of us have learnt a lot about that too.We also know that there is still more work to be done to complete the final recovery work and before we move completely into regeneration and on to business as usual. So I support the continuation of the lands and works powers to finish the implementation of the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan and the final very difficult and complex demolition that has got to be carried out on the Port Hills.I believe the bill that is reported back from the select committee and its Supplementary Order Paper will provide that step change that we all seek. It will support a really exciting journey from recovery to regeneration and from regeneration to the new local business-as-usual. Along the way many doors will open. I think it is really important for the inhabitants of Greater Christchurch that we can embrace the new ideas the new opportunities and the new ways of working. I think that it is our challenge and our responsibility to make really good decisions—good decisions for those who have gone before us and good decisions for those who will come after us. I commend the bill to the House.Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I recall when this bill was first introduced and I suggested to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery that he stay in his seat—that he not stand up—because I was about to say that I supported the bill that he had introduced. I am delighted actually that at this stage our support is able to be returned. In between times we unfortunately had to withdraw it because it was clear during the select committee process that the balance had not been obtained to the level that Labour thought was appropriate. I am also delighted that both Minister Gerry Brownlee and I assume his associate the Hon Nicky Wagner listened to the submitters took a lot of time and trouble and made an effort to engage with all other parties in the House to the point I understand that with the tabling of the Supplementary Order Paper from the Minister this bill will now receive the unanimous support of Parliament. That is the sort of message I am delighted that Parliament will give to Canterbury. It is not a message that we have had a lot in the past—in the last 5½ years—and I am delighted that this is the opportunity for us to do it and that it has been taken by the Minister.Not much more than 5 years ago in the February quake of 2011 events happened in our city that really redefined Canterbury and its residents. We had the loss of thousands of homes and 185 lives. The fact that Parliament is able to come together for the recovery stage of that experience should be a tribute to those people who lost their lives and to their families and I just want to acknowledge them. At that time thousands of New Zealanders rallied to support Canterbury.I have reflected a lot—particularly around the 22 February commemorations—about the little things that happened that meant so much to people at the time. Of course there were big things that happened as well as my colleague Megan Woods said. We did have the military everywhere. As Dr Woods would know that was not such a bad thing for many in our city. Many enjoyed the companionship but also the feeling of security it gave. It was not an intimidating process at all—even the fact that we had tanks parked in the middle of our roads which sounds bizarre now was reassuring for people. It gave us comfort to know that competent professionals were there.It was the first time in our history that every single state and the Federal Government of Australia sent police to assist our country. That is something that we should not forget. And of course the first country that sent assistance was Japan which not long after tragically needed assistance of its own in a much bigger event. But we had many people in New Zealand who performed small acts of generosity that made such a big difference to well-being.Parliament of course responded in a way that we are now considering in this legislation because Parliament responded with the establishment of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority—CERA. We do not have women called Sarah in Canterbury; we have CERA as an organisation. It has caused a lot of confusion and could I recommend to all Ministers that they never have an organisation that can be confused with a woman’s name because every time we say CERA in Christchurch we say: “No CERA the department not the person.” It is a silly name but it was not a silly organisation; it was set up for good reasons. It gave wartime powers to the Minister and he needed some of them—some of them he used appropriately as well—and some of them he did not need to use but they were given to him in all good faith from Parliament because we thought they may have been necessary. In the end it did not work quite as Parliament envisaged—good things and bad things but certainly there were some good people.Talking of good people I want to pay a tribute to Michelle Mitchell who was an outstanding leader not just in CERA the organisation but actually in the Public Service. She tragically lost her life—a huge loss to the Public Service in Canterbury; a huge loss to the community. She was an outstanding leader and deserves acknowledgment during this process.This legislation now is the next step and it is a genuine step change which is what we have needed for quite some time. The Minister talked about some of the iterations that have led to this. There was the group led by Dame Jenny Shipley for whom members might be surprised to learn I have a great deal of time and respect. We do not share a single political belief but in terms of her competence and passion she has been outstanding and I think she led that process towards this legislation with courage. She is a pretty fearless person. Even the Minister would not scare her—that is right. I got agreement there pretty swiftly.I also want to acknowledge our three mayors the Hon Leanne Dalziel David Ayers and Kelvin Coe. They have been extraordinary contributors not just to this process but also to the much broader recovery in Christchurch. All three areas are at different stages. Of course Waimakariri and Selwyn were far more adversely affected by the September 2010 quake than by the February 2011 quake so they were able to get some things started and they are smaller areas and they had a different sort of loss. But they have faced huge challenges and I really admire the mayors of the three areas and the councillors for the commitment that they have demonstrated.I also want to acknowledge the community forum which I understand has played a really pivotal role in the Minister’s thinking. I regret that the Canterbury members of Parliament did not have any engagement with it. It was pretty well kept out of sight from us even though it was established under the legislation as a means of communicating community messages to the Minister. But I have heard that the Minister thinks highly of the work it has done so it certainly should be acknowledged. I know that its chairman was recognised in the recent New Zealand Royal Honours and that was a good thing. I also want to acknowledge Tā Mark Solomon and Dame Margaret Bazley who again have played a critical role from their perspective and their part in the Canterbury recovery.Looking specifically at the bill and where we go from here we have had a substantial Supplementary Order Paper signalled by the Minister and I look forward to seeing it and hearing the debate in the Committee stage. As I said earlier it has acknowledged the deficiencies that were in the bill it has responded to the submitters’ and Canterbury leaders’ call for a genuine transition to local leadership and I have confidence that the Minister’s word will be met by the detail in the Supplementary Order Paper. We will certainly be looking at it carefully.There are other parts of this bill that also deserve acknowledgment. One of the big tasks that will face the bodies that are being established under this legislation is determining the future of the residential red zone. That has more significance than disposal of land and I want to acknowledge the way that the Waimakariri District Council has led community discussion about this. People did not just have a wrecked house and leave; they had a wrecked house and they often had lost a life within their family—pretty well everyone in Canterbury knew somebody who died—but they were then told that their house could not be rebuilt in the area that they had been living in and for many of them it was for many years. That loss is not able to be easily described to people who were not part of that process. Living in a red zone became something of a—you cannot explain it to people who were not actually there at the time.So the process of determining what happens to that land in the future needs to involve the people who were displaced as a result not of the quakes but of the Minister’s decision to zone that land red—I think quite appropriately in most cases—but it needs to involve them because they have left a part of their life in that spot where their home was. They left their neighbours and their community.The other big part of the job that is ahead of us in Canterbury is the anchor projects. Some of them are still hotly debated. I am not a great fan of sitting outside on a cold winter’s night watching the Crusaders win—I would much rather sit in comfort in a lounge. So the idea if we are going to have a stadium to have it covered is quite attractive. But that sort of money as a priority—I have never been able to be persuaded on it particularly when I look at the significant loss that has been inflicted on Otago because of its stadium. So we have debates about the anchor projects but whatever the debate is can we get on with some of them? There are only five out of 16 I think that have made any progress and they were the big stars of the previous area.In conclusion one other point that I want to make is that in our community we have something that is outside this legislation but I hope the Minister takes up the charge. We want our school back on its home site in Redcliffs. It is a big part of our recovery even though it is not covered in the legislation and I am sure the Minister understands that need for community schools and genuine recovery from quakes. This is the step change that we need. I commend the Minister for his attention to the submissions and to other parties’ concerns and I commend this bill progressing to the next stage.SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): In rising to speak in support of the second reading of the bill I am very conscious that I am the first non-Cantabrian to speak in the second reading debate. As the chairman of the Local Government and Environment Committee which considered this bill—which has formed a cornerstone of a suite of legislation in fact relating to Canterbury Christchurch and the aftermath of the earthquakes that occurred 5 years ago—I can say it has been a bit of a learning curve and something that I have found as I say as a non-Cantabrian to be a really interesting insight into the experiences the tragedy the heartache and the physical and emotional rollercoaster that the people of Christchurch and Canterbury have undergone since those earthquakes back in 2010.The select committee met in Christchurch for 2½ days following the House’s rising for the Christmas break. We travelled to Christchurch and we heard a range of wonderful submissions from 56 organisations and individuals people who brought to the select committee their experiences their hopes for the future and their plans for their city and their region. We were very privileged I think to hear those submissions. We heard them in the council chamber of Christchurch City. We heard from such a wide range of people from individuals through to the very big and important project leaders and organisations that have been taking the city and the people of Christchurch from that phase that was initially emergency through to recovery and now looking forward to the future and to regeneration where the eyes of the city andindeed the country are upon what is happening in Christchurch now and what will happen in the future.Since 2010 as a Government and as a Parliament we have committed $16.5 billion to the initial response so the State has a very significant role to play in that future direction. This bill continues the historically strong support that this Parliament has provided to the people of Canterbury and Christchurch since the earthquake. Other speakers have made reference to and acknowledged the very good work that has occurred since the select committee reported back. I too want to add my endorsement to that work led by the Minister the Hon Gerry Brownlee and those other members from across the House who have individually met on a number of occasions with the Minister to work through some of the detail and some of the difficulties that we as a select committee were not able to resolve before reporting back. I am delighted that as the committee moved its report back to this Parliament we were of a mood to say that work still needed to be done. We knew that that needed to occur and we knew—and hoped I guess—that that work would be done. I want to place on record my thanks as chairman of the select committee to those people who have on behalf of their city and their region and their parties and this Parliament and the people of New Zealand made that a reality. That is a great credit to them as individuals but it is also a great credit to their parties and to the people whom they represent.I am not intending to go into the detail of this bill at this stage because there will be opportunity as we come together in the Committee of the whole House and consider the Supplementary Order Paper which the Minister has indicated he will be leading us through but the Supplementary Order Paper will include a number of changes. One will be to ensure that there is more public input into the regeneration planning process itself. I think that is a very good advancement. The second major point that the Supplementary Order Paper will cover is to give Regenerate Christchurch itself a greater role in the regeneration plans in the Christchurch district. It will also strengthen the leadership role of Regenerate Christchurch overall with more emphasis on public consultation around the use of clause 42 with the Minister now required to take public submissions into account. I think that is a good move as well.I want to just again conclude my comments in this second reading of the bill by thanking everybody who has been involved thanking my colleagues on the select committee and thanking the officials from the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority and our advisers for their good work. I endorse this second reading of the bill to the House.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.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): I think this is going to be one of the debates and one of the bills that I will remember most from my time in Parliament not only because it is such an important piece of legislation for my home city but also because of the remarkable degree of collaboration negotiation and in the end consensus that has been generated for the benefit of the people of Christchurch.I want to clear up one thing at the very beginning of my speech because in my first reading speech I said that New Zealand First would vote for the bill to go to the select committee subject to a change to clause 82(3) which said: “When determining the amount of compensation for the compulsory acquisition of land the Minister must have regard to the matters in subsection (4) but is not limited to determining the amount of compensation on that basis alone and may determine whatever amount the Minister thinks fit.” We in New Zealand First thought those words “and may determine whatever amount the Minister thinks fit” were far too wide and they have now been deleted so there is now no impediment to New Zealand First looking at the bill as a whole and supporting it.Consequently we have scrutinised the bill and we have looked for a process that will deliver our seven bottom lines. They were firstly to ensure the process for initiation would be locally led and not Crown dominated but would of course protect Crown interests. Secondly it would give the city council and Environment Canterbury the right to be fully consulted. Thirdly it would give plenty of opportunity for public input. Fourthly it would not be secretive but be open and informative. Fifthly it would seek to enhance the environment and/or residential values of the city and/or the red zone not just to facilitate a sell-off of the Crown land. Sixthly it would ensure a much speedier process and progress than had so far been evident but without compromising the collaboration needed between all of the parties. Seventhly and lastly it would bring the public with the parties through good communication.I am very pleased to say that I think that the bill as it is to be amended by the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper will get very close to delivering substantially on all seven of those bottom lines. So that means that it will be a pleasure for New Zealand First to be able to vote in favour of the bill.I want to say as others have that I am especially pleased that Minister Brownlee brought us and other parties into the process of amending the bill through that Supplementary Order Paper. His willingness to listen and to change things did produce in the end a consensus. I and New Zealand First appreciate the Minister’s efforts to involve us and we also appreciate the opportunity that we had through that process to hear what Labour and the Greens had to say and also what the Mayor of Christchurch had to say.The Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper to be debated more comprehensively at the Committee stage will mean having much more public information and opportunity to comment and to have that input genuinely considered and reported on. It will also mean having a much better process for the initiation consideration and approval or revocation of regeneration plans. Regenerate Christchurch is to be the primary body to initiate lead review and advise the Minister on those plans. It is a genuine partnership because Regenerate Christchurch will have three Crown directors three city council ones and one representing Ngāi Tahu.But I would have to say that legislation can go only so far. That board must provide firm leadership and must be bold in what it proposes and must explain it well to the people of Christchurch. It must take the people along with it. We must have faith in it and so must the people of Christchurch. I hope they will given the consensus that has been possible so far.Without trying to pre-empt the Committee stage I want to mention some of the most important provisions and changes that have been agreed to and that led to New Zealand First supporting the bill as it will be amended. One is clause 12A(1) and new clause 12A(3)(c). Those are important changes because only Regenerate Christchurch can now be a proponent for the red zone plans and may be a proponent for the Christchurch district plans as of course the other strategic partners may be as well including Environment Canterbury and Ngāi Tahu.New clause 13A(2) ensures that statements to the Minister on the views of other parties on an outline plan must now be made public on the internet and there are also similar requirements in new clause 20A concerning the views of parties to an approval of a draft plan. It is very important that the public be properly advised in that way.Clause 18(2) requires the Minister in approving or declining an outline plan to “have particular regard” to the views of Regenerate Christchurch and the other partners. Those words are repeated elsewhere for approvals of final plans and for revocations. Those are very important words in order to limit the executive power of the Minister and preserve the credibility and leadership functions of especially Regenerate Christchurch and also of course the two councils that will be involved as far as Christchurch City is concerned.New clauses 22A and 22H set out the process for outline plans for Christchurch City district and for the red zone. They include the need for a clear statement of intentions and scope time frames opportunities for public engagement how the costs are to be met—a very important consideration—and that a proponent must seek the views of its partners. Regenerate Christchurch must get the consent of Ōtākaro Ltd as the landowner but Ōtākaro Ltd cannot refuse “except for reasons that are consistent with the purposes of the Act.” So there is I think an appropriate balance between all of the objectives that are required.I also want to mention new clause 20(2)(j) which sets out the requirements prerequisite to ministerial approval. I think this is a very important new provision. There must be a recommendation by Regenerate Christchurch for a plan for Christchurch District and that must contain advice a statement of the views of the other partners and also advice on how such views have been considered and addressed. There are similar requirements elsewhere for approvals and amendments and of course for revocations which include a requirement for Regenerate Christchurch to review and make recommendations to the Minister. So effectively it is going to be Regenerate Christchurch that leads and advises and it will not effectively—in my view—be the Minister who really makes the decision. His function I think is going to be relatively formal. The grounds upon which he could refuse would be very limited.There is a lot more in the bill—many other changes. But one of the most important ones in the bill is clause 97 which specifies the roles of the city council and the Minister to oversee and manage the interests of both in Regenerate Christchurch. That means there will have to be joint responsibility and commitment of resources as there should be. In clause 97A there may be a letter of expectations along those lines and I hope that there will be because that is a very good way of setting out how that joint responsibility will be met.Finally it is a pleasure to see a consensus on what is going to be a very good bill and a very important bill for the future of Christchurch City and its people. I think it will ensure a robust process focusing on regeneration rather than just recovery that properly balances speedy redevelopment—which is much in need—with the wider public interest especially for an excellent environment and for the hoped-for public recreation facilities. It is going to be a pleasure to support the bill.SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): Thank you for the opportunity to take a short call in support of the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill. My colleague Mr Scott Simpson acknowledged that he is not a Cantabrian. I too am not a Cantabrian; I am a Southlander. So therefore I think it is appropriate to acknowledge that Cantabrians are still very much on the minds of Southlanders. Our sympathies went out to Cantabrians with the horror that they experienced 5-odd years ago.There is still very much an acknowledgment of what Cantabrians have had to endure and of their strength of character in surviving and living in Christchurch while the recovery has been going on and the city is being rebuilt. There certainly is a strength of character that Cantabrians exude and we acknowledge them for their persistence. But it is certainly a relief now after one of the most ambitious rebuild projects that we have undertaken in New Zealand to be moving forward into a regeneration phase. I am sure it is very much a relief for Cantabrians.This bill—as I understand it having not sat on the Local Government and Environment Committee—is a very good one that through collaboration will establish Regenerate Christchurch which is a jointly controlled Crown organisation with the Christchurch City Council. It will lead the charge in respect of regeneration in the Greater Christchurch region. I think one of the best parts of the bill is that it is returning to a local leadership model in that—well where else should ownership of the design and the planning and the moving forward of Christchurch rest but with Cantabrians themselves?I think this is a great win for Cantabrians as they look to the future as they look to rebuilding a very positive modern city that will serve them well into the future. I wish them all the very best with that. I look forward to the results.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call Mojo Mathers—a 5-minute call.MOJO MATHERS (Green): It is my pleasure to take a call on the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill. You know it has been 5 long years since the Christchurch earthquakes and the city is still very much in many areas in a bit of a limbo. It feels like time is going past and it is going to be fantastic to actually see the rebuild and things moving forward.I want to acknowledge the hard work of my colleague Eugenie Sage and other MPs who have helped to make this bill a better bill with the Supplementary Order Paper coming up and who have pushed really hard for local leadership and for Regenerate Christchurch to be at the heart of decision making and to have a much greater role in the development and planning of the anchor projects and the residential red zone areas and so on. It is incredibly important that that does happen and it is a relief to be at this point where there has been sufficient accommodation made for these very important issues that have been raised so that we can now support the bill.What I want to focus on—rather than rehashing what everyone else has said before me—is the importance of all these plans for the city incorporating genuine accessibility and universal design principles into the planning the design and the implementation. This is what the people of Christchurch want. It was one of the most popular ideas and common themes that was put forward during the Share an Idea campaign several years ago and it is absolutely critical to social recovery. We have a golden opportunity right now to rebuild Christchurch as the most accessible city in the world. There are absolutely no barriers to stop that from happening given political will local leadership and a genuine commitment to making that happen. It would be a city that is accessible for all—for children for the elderly for parents for the disabled—and it is critical to the social recovery. I have constantly raised this issue—will the city be accessible and will there be a commitment to accessibility implemented and taken on board by the planners and designers at all stages—and repeated assurances have been given to me that all the anchor projects would be accessible and that there would be independent accessibility audits incorporated into every step from design through to implementation.Now we have seen that some anchor projects have been accessible such as the Bus Interchange which is a very good example of that where all sorts of features have been incorporated to make using the Bus Interchange a generally positive and inclusive experience for many users. But there are other areas where they have not got it right and probably the most striking example of that recently was the Margaret Mahy Family Playground. This was a playground that was welcome. People were so excited when it opened. There was just this massive positive vibe and people were going to it and then a few days later there were people saying: “Well actually my child can’t use it. It’s not accessible for children in a wheelchair. There are not enough facilities for people in wheelchairs to use it.”This was an appalling failure and breakdown of the planning process. It was a reversal of what we really want and what we mean by an accessible city. We must not exclude children from that conceptualisation and we must not exclude disabled people. It must be independently audited because you cannot rely on the various design groups having in-house expertise. These projects right from the start must be independently audited. Thank you.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Poto Williams—5 minutes.POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): I must admit that when I reviewed my notes for my first reading speech on this bill I was less generous than I am going to be in this contribution. Before the bill had gone through the process that we have heard talked about in this House this afternoon I had some concerns about whether it was fit for purpose for the people of the area that I represent. My concerns were about the Minister’s powers particularly those to acquire and dispose of land at whatever price he could determine. I was also concerned that the public were by and large excluded from many of the discussions on the facilities and the future use of particular areas in which they would have a significant interest.But I have to say that the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery has listened to the people of Canterbury and has engaged in a process that has garnered widespread support across the House. It is not entirely perfect but it has gone a long way to ensuring that the interests of the people of Canterbury have been reflected in the legislation and more important in the Supplementary Order Paper that will come to this House during the Committee stage.I really want to focus my contribution on what this means for the people of Christchurch East. I have to say that during the passage of the last few years the people of the electorate of Christchurch East have been very vocal about what they would like to see within the residential red zone which sits largely within the boundaries of the Christchurch East electorate. There have been processes and opportunities for the community to engage with and I want to mention one in particular which happened 18 months ago and that is the EVO::SPACE project. That was an IT-driven consultation process for people to actually tell us—those who would be making decisions about the future of their particular area—what they would like to see done with the residential red zone an extensive area that actually covers some of the most beautiful parts of Christchurch particularly with the Avon River flowing through it.There were some fantastic ideas from treetop cafes and ideas from the Eden Project through to camellia and rhododendron groves and on to things like Barkerton Park—a place to go and let your dog run free. That process was about giving the people of the area—who actually have a vested interest whether they continue to live there or whether they have had to leave the area and leave behind a significant part of their emotional attachment to the area—an opportunity to feel like they could contribute to the future of that particular area.When we are considering plans for the use of the residential red zone I would ask that our ability to communicate well with the community and give it an opportunity to have input into that process is significant because it was not as the Hon Ruth Dyson has expressed it just about the loss of land. There were people who lived there. There were families who grew there. On some of the properties there were heritage trees that had been there for over 125 years. There were people who have significant history attached to the area. So these people have a vested interest in ensuring that their views and their hearts and souls go into any future development.I just want to finish my contribution by saying that I agree with Mojo Mathers that there have been opportunities missed here—particularly around accessibility—but also around ensuring that facilities are not taken out of the area before replacements can be put in. Here I want to talk particularly about the Burwood Birthing Unit which has been lost to the east of Christchurch because of what happened on Valentine’s Day only a few weeks ago—the 5.7 quake—and also the Central New Brighton School pool which is a huge loss to our community as we do not have a pool in the area.I do want to say that this has been a very positive process and along with my colleagues I commend the bill to the House.JOANNE HAYES (National): I stand to take a short call on the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill in the name of the Hon Gerry Brownlee. I am very pleased to do this because we are starting to move down the road a bit on this bill and it is a bill moving from recovery to regeneration—regeneration focusing on urban renewal and development and on restoration and enhancement of the city facilities. These are really important because this Government has been working very hard at restoring the various facilities that the city lost in the 2011 earthquake. Some of those facilities are sporting facilities. The Hagley Oval was opened last year and was able to host the Cricket World Cup. It is a beautiful facility. I have been there a few times enjoying a few meetings there. The next one is the Bus Interchange which had a little bit of a spit and a fart there along the way when it first opened and there was a little bit of congestion there with a few little trips. But after everything is said and done people got used to it and it is pumping along very nicely.Then the last facility in 2015 that we opened was the Margaret Mahy Family Playground. That is an amazing playground. I was visiting there just recently and was really impressed with the layout that that has for not only the people of Christchurch but also the people who are visiting because we need these facilities to bring in the tourists and bring in the overseas travellers so they too can bring their money into Christchurch and spend it to help us with the regeneration as well. In addition to all of these achievements in 2015 there has also been the increased funding to the Metro Sports Facility as well as the public sector precinct construction that has been happening. That is billions and billions of dollars’ worth that has gone into the city thus far.I want to take the opportunity to thank the workers of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority. They were the ones who started the recovery process. They have done a wonderful job to date and as they slowly move out—because they have done their bit; we are morphing into Regenerate Christchurch with a whole new team of people—maybe some of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority people may just go in there because it is quite good to have some old heads in there along with some new heads. We have started working also towards having a governance structure. As the Minister has said we have opened it up and we have seen that bureaucracy does rule and reign within the city as well.In some of the final parts of my contribution I do want to talk a little bit about the flat areas of the red zone which the previous speaker Poto Williams just touched a little bit on. I also want to acknowledge those volunteers who have been caring for the red zone flat areas through donations from the public or from their own personal pockets. I look forward to where we are going to be going with the red zone areas. There is a lot of work and a lot of thinking that needs to go on around there.Finally the Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuild Team otherwise known as SCIRT is now over in the eastern parts of Christchurch. It is going along very well. Yes businesses in Parklands and Bower Avenue are feeling the pinch with some of the missed opportunities but by the time the Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuild Team has finished which is by the end of this year that area of Parklands and Bower Avenue will look absolutely amazing with its new horizontal infrastructure that is going on at the moment. It does hurt. It does hurt but I can see that some of the businesses have been quite innovative. They have been meeting with Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuild Team and Downer Group and the electorate MP Poto Williams and I have been attending these meetings. It is quite good to get around the table and to actually nut out and help to find some ways that businesses can keep flourishing albeit at a slower pace while these repairs are going on.All in all this is a very good bill. I look forward to it passing into legislation with the amendments in the Supplementary Order Papers that the Minister has done. I think it is good not just for the people of this House but for all New Zealand when we can see that the whole of Parliament is working for the well-being of all New Zealanders. I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): I join as a member of Parliament in Canterbury with other colleagues in welcoming the passage of the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill. I think it is interesting though to recast a little history. I commend Minister Brownlee. I know that Minister Brownlee and my good self have often had a colourful and wide-ranging relationship and occasionally we have crossed swords—in the best of humour I know.Hon Members: Tell us more.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Tell you more—I could. I could go on for hours but I am sure the Assistant Speaker would fall asleep with some of my anecdotes. However I will say that that Minister Brownlee to use the Thatcherite expression is not one for turning and over many years he has not been a person who has been willing to change his mind on various things. But I do commend him—Denis O’Rourke: He had an epiphany.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: An epiphany yes. Maybe—being a good Catholic like me—he had a road to Damascus moment. But I do commend him on this occasion.I do note that there were members in the Local Government and Environment Committee—some of whom have spoken—who actually opposed the changes that were put forward by Megan Woods and others and I have to commend Minister Brownlee as the person who stepped in and said: “No no we’re going to listen and we’re going to make those changes.” It is difficult in politics to say: “Well there may be somebody with a better idea or a better way to do things.” None of us have a monopoly on knowledge in these instances and Minister Brownlee has indeed recognised—after 5 years but he has none the less recognised—that we have really smart people in Canterbury. We have always had incredibly entrepreneurial people people who have demonstrated—not just talked about it but demonstrated—the wealth of knowledge and commitment that they have to our province and have always been willing from day one if they were allowed to do it over the last 5 years to step up and say: “We’re prepared to have to have a go and work our guts out to get our province and our city back off its knees.” I would point out just for the record that they have not really had that opportunity in a great way over the last 5 years.However let us be positive about this new world order. This bill I think—if implemented correctly—will allow the unleashing of that energy and allow those smart folks in Canterbury to lead that recovery from grassroots to have a locally led recovery and to have local and substantial input that is not just dealt with via lip service but actually makes a massive and real and high-quality contribution to the recovery of our province. That is something that has been a huge chasm a huge gap over the last 5 years.People have talked about the Margaret Mahy Family Playground. People in this House have talked about the Metro Sports Facility an anchor project that we do not have. People have not talked about for instance the great need—and we have got a couple of tourism experts over there—for a convention centre in Christchurch. We desperately need that as an anchor project because we know there is hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of capital sitting there—it will not sit there for ever—waiting to be unleashed in respect of infrastructure and hotels. We know of course that one of our biggest supermarket chains wants to put a massive supermarket I am told right in the centre of Christchurch but it needs to know where the centres of population will be where the business activity will be whether there will be a stadium whether there will be a convention centre and whether these promises will come to pass so that the private sector—which is far better at these projects than I would wager any bureaucrat or politician is—can unleash that capital and build its businesses and bring life back into the centre of our city.So I welcome the bill and I say to my St Bede’s College counterpart Mr Brownlee in all seriousness that I am gratified and grateful that he has been prepared to listen to alternative points of view; that he has been prepared to say “OK we’re going to gut this bill and we’re going to insert these changes.” which ourselves and the Christchurch City Council and others proposed; and that he listened to submission after submission from people who said: “Look we want to lead our recovery as a city as a province. We want to lead it as local people. We want to take responsibility—greater and greater and responsibility.”Those local people are actually the experts because they live there and they have lived through tragedy they have lived through adversity and many continue to do that. They have battled every day many of them to survive and to look after their families in pretty strenuous social and economic circumstances. They have lived it. I said when I had the spokesperson role when the earthquake actually struck that I hoped we did not get an army—no disrespect—of Wellington bureaucrats parachuting in with their clipboards and their penholders saying: “Tut tut tut!” and “We have all the answers.” Sadly I would argue that we have done exactly that over the last 5 years. And it does surprise me that many of the folks on the other side who purport to be great free-marketers—those who just want to let the juices flow as it were whether that be in a business sense or economically or socially—allowed that to happen.Kiwis are smart. Kiwis in Canterbury are smart. People who have empathy are those who lived it breathed it ate it dealt with it and survived through it every day for 5 years; who live with it today; and who lived with it on Valentine’s Day when we had the big shove. We have them every couple of days and people get scared—and there are people in our province who are genuinely scared. There are massive mental health issues and I hope that—because we in politics especially on this side get accused of being political every time we raise issues. It is a nice little cheap shot by some which actually labels and negates any of the positive input. We know in mental health that kids and adults are struggling every day. We know our district health board is under massive strain. For those who thought that in any conventional sort of disaster you throw a few dollars at mental health for a couple of years Christmas comes along in summer the sun is shining and everybody is happy again they have not picked off the case studies around the world of natural disasters and they have not listened to clinicians and experts who tell you quite clearly that it will be 10 15 or possibly 20 years before some of these folks work these problems through in medical terms to get it out of their systems or if they cannot they learn to cope in their own way. To do that they need assistance and they need mental health resources and I implore the Government—using this bill as an opportunity to do so—to address those issues.If anybody thinks they have gone away go and talk to your local high school primary school or intermediate school principal and ask what is happening to many kids in our community. If anybody thinks those mental health issues have gone away make sure you are in town the next time we have a good shove like we did on Valentine’s Day and wander around and talk to people many of whom—I could use some vernacular but I will not—are scared very scared. It just brings that nightmare back again and again. This is not the fault of politicians; this is the fault of mother Nature. But none the less it exists and none the less it is real. So I hope out of this bill that local folks have a greater say and have greater standing with the Government and with the Minister—whomever he or she may be—and Ministers involved within the intertwined portfolios that will deal with the earthquake situation going forward. I hope that those people—those respected community leaders—are listened to.I had a meeting with the Canterbury Employers’ Chamber of Commerce along with other colleagues and even Peter Townsend the chief executive of the chamber of commerce said to us very clearly some weeks ago that he was deeply concerned—deeply concerned—about the mental health issues and the lack of resources. I hope—he may not feel he can say those things publicly—Dr Megan Woods: You can say it for him.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Yes well I have helped him out with that. I hope given that he has standing—and he is a respected senior business person a highly respected person in our community and I know he has standing with the National Party and with the Government as a senior business leader—that those members listen to Pete Townsend as he I am sure will make representations if he has not already as a responsible community leader in Canterbury on those issues.I commend the bill. I think it is one of those rare moments in a Parliament where Opposition members were allowed to put up counter ideas and were not napalmed by a Government through political labels—where a Government and a Minister respected those ideas and listened—and I think we have a better piece of legislation. I think the people of Canterbury will say: “Hey those politicians in Wellington actually now and again do listen to us.” I look forward to those wonderful smart community leaders within my province getting to take some of the reins back getting to take some of the power back and getting to put their fantastic skill base to work as we move through serving our community in this recovery.NUK KORAKO (National): Kia ora e Te Mana Whakawā. It is indeed my honour to be the last speaker in the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill’s second reading. It is also my honour as mana whenua from a whānau that comes from that region that can date back over seven generations. One thing that Ngāi Tahu have always said is that it is very important to actually look back to know where you are going to move forward.What I want to do is just quote a speech from our Governor-General on the first anniversary for the 185 victims of the Christchurch earthquake because in a lot of ways what Sir Jerry Mateparae said is coming to fruition with this bill. So just to quote him on the first anniversary he said that while it was a time for reflection the 1-year anniversary marked “the start of a new day and a new beginning for all of us and especially the people of Christchurch and Canterbury.” He said that “a new and vibrant city can arise.” in the future although “Achieving that aspiration will take time.” He said: “Lives communities and cities are not built in a day.” It would be achieved he said because of the resilience and preparedness Cantabrians had demonstrated over the previous year. He said: “It will be achieved because the people of Christchurch and Canterbury do not walk that pathway alone. Your extended family—the New Zealand family—are walking alongside you. … For your tragedy has been New Zealand’s tragedy.Such are the ties of this nation that there are few among us who have been untouched by what occurred.”We have heard today in this second reading a lot of what has happened particularly around the emergency and the incredible things that went on particularly following the aftermath. The thing is that he talked about resilience; he talked about vibrancy. When you look at the stages of the Christchurch earthquake you had the emergency then there was the recovery and then there is what we now call the rebuild and the transition from that rebuild into regeneration. This is what this bill is about.One thing that came out of that speech I think which was also talked about by other speakers on that day was that there also needed to be really good leadership to be able to achieve what was identified on that day. What we have in the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery the Hon Gerry Brownlee is exactly that leadership—that leadership over the last 5 years. When we talk about the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority when we talk about the Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuild Team and when we talk about the Christchurch Central Development Unit we cannot forget these people either who worked within that because they actually gave their hearts and souls to be able to contribute through all of those phases particularly around the recovery and the rebuild. Just think now that there is a transitional process going on at the moment what they must be thinking around: “Am I going to have a job? Am I going to continue through into this next phase?”. I think it is important that we think about them as well.But coming to the bill it is really great to hear from the other side of the House. The previous speaker the Hon Clayton Cosgrove—if Labour was in Government he would be sitting in Mr Brownlee’s seat I am sure and he would have been doing the same thing. I cannot see anything different. Is it not great to see that we do have that sort of cross-party bipartisan thing that we call kotahitaka? What we have is that the major stakeholders have all come together. There are the councils the businesses and also the iwi as well. We have mentioned the iwi here. This is the great thing about being on the Local Government and Environment Committee because we are able to strengthen the input of the iwi. So that is really—Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Why did you oppose it? Why did you oppose the measures that the Minister—NUK KORAKO: I cannot see him so I will not answer. I think the important thing—to keep moving on this—is the fact that nothing was opposed because what we have in the end is that everyone is hoe-ing the waka together. Everyone is moving in the same direction.At the end of the day this bill is a great bill even if some on the other side do not like it. This is a great bill—it is together. This Minister is the Minister who made it happen. He would be damned if he did or damned if he did not but at the end of the day we are the Government that is leading this through and we are actually taking it by the horns and really moving it and developing and Christchurch will be one of the greatest and newest cities in the world. It is all to do with this side of the House or a lot of it but at least we have got some real working togetherness here at the moment even if what we hear on the other side is negative because to those members the glass is always half empty—it is always half empty. Here it is half full. So kia ora. I commend this bill and I look forward to working with the other side of the House on the regeneration of Christchurch. That is what it is about.Amendments recommended by the Local Government and Environment Committee by majority agreed to.Bill read a second time.