O'Rourke Denis: Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Rourke Denis: Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 22 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7526. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): This is a very important bill for the future of Christchurch. Indeed it may be the most important bill for the future of Christchurch that has ever been presented to this House and it therefore needs thorough scrutiny.I am happy to say that it does enable a transition from recovery—a recovery that is far from complete of course—to regeneration. It does provide for a genuine partnership approach that I think is very pleasing and that is now essential. It provides for a new entity in Regenerate Christchurch as a vehicle that will concentrate council and Crown efforts and assets and that too is positive. It also contains a number of extraordinary powers—perhaps too many extraordinary powers and I am going to refer to those later.New Zealand First does approve of the concept of this bill but we do have one very particular reservation that I will describe later so we will vote in favour of the bill to the select committee but if that reservation is not later met or satisfied we will not then hesitate to vote against it if necessary. So I will refer to that later but I want to go on and say this: I think the purpose of the bill is very well set out and it focuses on two things—on regeneration and on local leadership.I see from the dictionary that the word “regenerate” means “to recreate in a better form or condition” and that is going to be the challenge for the new process. It is going to be a challenge more than anything in three particular areas: how the red zone is regenerated or recreated; how New Brighton is recreated because it desperately needs it having received far too little attention so far; and I agree with several other speakers who have referred to transport as a particular area in which Christchurch and Canterbury need a much better result. They need more options than just more motorways bigger roads and more cars. We do need to see better treatment for rail light rail cycling and other forms of transport and they do need to be integrated.It is particularly positive that there is also a focus on local leadership because the input of Environment Canterbury the Selwyn District Council Waimakariri District Council of course the Christchurch City Council and Ngāi Tahu is absolutely essential if we are going to take the people of Christchurch and the people of Canterbury with us in this process. That process has not in fact been well carried out so far under the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act. It has been lacking in the past. Canterbury people need to be able to take ownership of this process and unless that partnership is carried out genuinely and comprehensively we will not get that so I hope that is the result of this bill. Regenerate Christchurch does mean recreation and it is very important that that happens in a comprehensive way.I am very pleased to see therefore that under clause 95 there will be a board of seven members: three appointed by the city council three by the Crown and one effectively by Ngāi Tahu. I do not think there will be any need to change that over the period that this bill will operate; I think that is a good balance and it is good that they will have to agree on things. So I approve of that but I also particularly approve of clause 97 which provides how that partnership will operate. It makes a provision for the city council and the Minister to “agree on how they will exercise their respective roles and responsibilities in relation to Regenerate Christchurch” that the role of the city council and the Minister is to “jointly oversee and manage … the Crown’s interests in … Regenerate Christchurch;” and in particular that the city council and the Minister may produce a “letter of expectations” as a means of overseeing and managing the council’s and the Crown’s interests in Regenerate Christchurch. I hope and expect that we will see that letter not too far in the future so we will know what they intend in that regard but that is a good basis upon which a partnership should proceed.This concept of regeneration or as I have defined it recreation is at the heart of the bill and I note with some satisfaction that the Minister in making decisions concerning those regeneration plans must seek the views of the strategic partners—that is to say Environment Canterbury the city council Selwyn Waimakariri and of course Ngāi Tahu. I am particularly pleased about the words “have particular regard to their views” because that means not just to listen to what they say but actually effectively to incorporate their views in whatever the plans are so it will not be open to the Minister to simply decide what he thinks is best. He will in fact have to do as the bill says and have proper regard to the views of those stakeholders. I am very pleased about that and approve particularly of that part of the bill. Those words “particular regard to their views” I think are probably the most important words in the bill as a whole.I want to move on now however to the powers that are contained in the bill. They are extraordinary powers and they are really just as extraordinary as the powers that were in the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority legislation. And I have no difficulty in saying that actually those powers are needed. If we are going to get the recreation of Christchurch particularly in the ways that I have mentioned then yes there do have to be extraordinary powers to make sure that that can happen. There is a whole list of those about suspending amending or revoking Resource Management Act documents. I do take on board what Eugenie Sage said about that. There is some risk associated with that but on balance I do think it is appropriate that those powers are there and there are other powers about amalgamating land; about the chief executive being able to commission works; about the chief executive being able to dispose of land subject to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery’s approval; and also this very difficult question of the Minister being able to compulsorily acquire land. That is where I think the problem lies in this bill and that is where New Zealand First has a serious reservation.The Minister’s power to decide compensation under this bill is far too wide and I want to refer to clause 82(3) to (6) which says in subclause (3) “When determining the amount of compensation for the compulsory acquisition of land the Minister must have regard to the matters in subsection (4)”—which includes the Public Works Act consideration and those sorts of things—“but is not limited to determining the amount of compensation on that basis alone and may determine whatever amount the Minister thinks fit.” If those words remain in the bill New Zealand First will vote against it in the future stages. The reason I say that is simply this: I and New Zealand First have been appalled at some of the decisions this Government has made about compensation for landowners especially those involved in the Quake Outcasts situation. I think some of those decisions were appalling irrational and unfair and I do not trust this Minister or this Government to make future decisions about those issues under this legislation any more than I trusted them under the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority legislation.So if those words are going to be there then our vote will be against. If those words are removed our vote will be for this legislation. So I ask the Minister to seriously consider whether he really actually needs those words there because I do not think he does. I think the provisions in the bill otherwise are more than sufficient to ensure a fair regime for compensation for landowners whose land is compulsory acquired. I want to make that a very very important issue as far as New Zealand First is concerned.Finally I do think that the provisions especially those in clauses 16 to 23 and clauses 16 to 22 in particular relating to the development and amendment of plans are perfectly appropriate if we are going to have a recreation of Christchurch in the way that we all hope will happen under this legislation. And again I note with satisfaction that the Minister will have to have particular regard to the views of the stakeholders and also give a good opportunity for the public to be consulted. So with that New Zealand First will vote for the bill at this stage and I hope we will be able to vote for it at later stages too.