O'Rourke Denis: Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
O'Rourke Denis: Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 07 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6393. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 Deans Bush with its remnant of kahikatea forest and the Deans homestead since 1843 have been a very important Christchurch city asset one of many such assets in Christchurch that should be preserved for future generations. Its importance is in the bush area itself—the last kahikatea remnant in the built-up area of the city—in the house with its Victorian wooden architecture and of course in its being an important part of the history of the city having originally been the Deans homestead. This property has been well cared for but only since about 1990 using Christchurch City ratepayers’ money and that needs to continue. This bill the Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill will see that it does. 
Before that the property had been in a bad state and the bush had not been well protected. The early 1990s were the first time that the Christchurch City Council committed the adequate funding necessary for the preservation of this house and grounds including the bush behind it. As a member of the council from 1989 to 2004 I was one of the councillors who committed voluntarily the funding necessary to make sure that the past regime of neglect all changed and what we see now is a property that we can all be proud of despite the current earthquake damage. During the same period I was also a member of the Canterbury Museum trust board and that building was earthquake-strengthened during the same period especially the 1872 wing. I recall that it was in a sad state too. In fact it was in such a sad state that a good sneeze let alone an earthquake would have brought down. So a lot of work and a lot of expense had to be expended to make sure that it was preserved against earthquakes—in particular much stronger walls. In addition I set up and chaired a council subcommittee to save the old Government Building behind Cathedral Square. In due course it was purchased by the council for a few hundred thousand dollars. It too was strengthened against earthquakes and the sprinklers added and then it was resold with protective covenants and is now the Heritage Christchurch hotel. 
All these buildings including Riccarton House survived the recent earthquakes with minor damage in stark contrast to other Christchurch heritage buildings and I would like to mention three of them. First of all there is the Canterbury Provincial Council Chambers which for many years was under the wing of the Canterbury Regional Council which during those years did absolutely nothing whatsoever to strengthen it against earthquakes. The Anglican Cathedral in Cathedral Square under its ownership by the Anglican Church property trustees did very little to strengthen that building against earthquakes even though it had been seriously damaged in previous earthquakes. Obviously they did not really have the funds necessary for the purpose. The Arts Centre was an ongoing project for earthquake strengthening and that came from public funds—mainly Christchurch City Council funds too. We did the work as a council on Riccarton House the Canterbury Museum the old Government Building the Arts Centre and other such heritage buildings because we knew as citizens of Christchurch that that work was needed and we knew that it was valued by the people of Christchurch and that they would have it for posterity. That work has paid off as is now evident following the earthquakes. This bill will help to ensure the ongoing maintenance of Riccarton House and Riccarton Bush. 
But what about other Christchurch heritage buildings? The Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery has powers and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority has powers under the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act to ensure that buildings like Riccarton House are preserved and ultimately restored in whole or in part. Heritage issues are not just the elephant in the earthquake recovery room; they are a herd of mammoths in the room. New Zealand Governments have always been tardy at assisting with earthquake strengthening of heritage buildings and it is now tardy about recovering and preserving those buildings most needing it. There are many of those. I have asked questions for written answer of the Minister in charge of heritage and got a worthless smart-alecky reply which shows only that he should not be the Minister in charge of heritage because he clearly has not got a skerrick of interest about the subject at all. He would be better to resign. That would be the most positive thing he could do. I understand that the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority has a draft policy on heritage buildings for Christchurch and I understand that the Minister is happy for it now to be released. But why has it not been released Mr Brownlee? Why has that draft policy not been released? All Christchurch people want to know what the policy of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority and the Government is about these buildings. It is high time we found out from the Minister in charge. 
This bill is great for Riccarton House but what about all the others in much more urgent need of attention? In particular what about the Christchurch Cathedral? Why is that different from Riccarton House? Gerry Brownlee has said in answer to a question for oral answer that it is a matter only for the church but that is not correct. Like Riccarton Bush and Riccarton House for which there is a trust board there is also one for the cathedral. So why no action on the most important building in the city the Christchurch Cathedral? It obviously can be preserved in whole or in part. The whole Canterbury community contributed to its construction and maintenance including a lot of council ratepayer funding. The Minister and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority must act now to apply the funding they have to save the cathedral and in due course to see that it is restored at least in part. 
I and many other Cantabrians want answers from the Minister on this not just on Riccarton House. I and many others want to see the 2003 Act that empowers the Anglican Church property trustees and covers the cathedral to be amended so that in return for Government funding and in addition to insurance money donations and contributions from elsewhere there would be an Act very much like the bill now under discussion covering Riccarton House so that the cathedral could then be restored owned in trusts for future generations and used as a multi-faith facility and for concerts and other public events. If it works for Riccarton House it will work for the cathedral. But instead we have heard nothing but silence from the Minister and from the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority. It is not good enough. I want to hear now and the public wants to hear now what is going to be done. The alternative is for the cathedral to remain in its current trust and for it to be demolished for want of funding—a tragedy for Christchurch Canterbury and New Zealand and an indictment on this Government and this generation as a whole. 
Returning finally to the Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill now before us I say that it should obviously be supported. Reservations that New Zealand First had when the bill was first introduced relating to some aspects of the financial plan have been solved with the recent amendments to clause 23(3). So with those amendments New Zealand First is happy to support the bill but we wait in expectation for what will be done about the real problem in Christchurch: all of those heritage buildings most particularly the cathedral for which we have had nothing but silence silence and silence and for which action is now needed.