Wagner NickyHon NICKY WAGNER (National): Thank you very much Mr Speaker. As you heard National will be supporting this bill. It's been really interesting listening to the conversation that's been going on today because it does remind us of a very traumatic time in Christchurch and it does remind us of numerous—13000 or 15000—earthquakes that happened in our city. I think that it also reminds us that during that time politicians whether they were local government politicians—and I recognise the people sitting in the gallery today—or whether they were central government politicians got together and worked together to deliver the best way that we possibly could for our communities.It's good to see this bill coming through now. It's good to be having this discussion. Although I do note that there is a sunset clause in this bill. The original bill was going to disappear only 12 months later. So I'm wondering whether this discussion is a particularly useful use of parliamentary time.Just going back to that thought of April 2016 when the original Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill was created. It was created with the very best of intentions it was a cross-party group it was a multi-stakeholder process and it was really good to see it pass unanimously in this Parliament. It was created in the face of a need to build the rebuild of Greater Christchurch on to move it on from the immediate disaster response to regeneration and to support that regeneration as quickly and as efficiently as possible. Now what this original bill did was it allowed for regional stakeholders the local governments the Canterbury Regional Council the Christchurch City Council the Selwyn District Council the Waimakariri District Council Ngāi Tahu and then Regenerate Christchurch—which was the agency established through the legislation to deliver development plans—to have a role in decision making to have a role to put regeneration plans forward. And once those plans were put forward there was a streamlined process to complete that planning in land management—really to help speed up the whole recovery process as we worked through the earthquakes.I think it's interesting what the Hon Poto Williams spoke about in terms of New Brighton because of course originally it was in the legislation and then I think it was an accepted idea that a regeneration plan would be developed by the Christchurch City Council to do exactly that. I do remember the discussions at the time and that's what the mayor was particularly interested in because of course it was an area that she was particularly connected to.So again it's with a bit of regret and disappointment that we look back to how this bill has actually been used because it was designed as empowering legislation. It was designed to have the power to cut through planning red tape and to speed out well-thought-through planning developments and that would lead to that faster regeneration and lead to those areas that have been severely damaged—and of course the east of Christchurch was particularly one of those. Obviously by supporting the legislation unanimously in Parliament Parliament hoped that those provisions would be fully utilised. We believed that we wanted to streamline the rebuild process and we wanted to support the quicker and more efficient regeneration of Greater Christchurch. But in reality it wasn't.Although other cities and areas of the country were particularly envious of the empowering nature of this legislation and the opportunities it allowed it was never fully appreciated in Greater Christchurch. Stakeholders never seized the opportunity they had to create regeneration plans to take those opportunities and the advantages that they were provided. In reality they were only rarely used.Plans were used to fast track housing in the Cranford Basin and of course they have been used to coordinate planning in the Avon-Ōtākaro residential red zone. They were also used with more minor details around the district plan such as the correcting of the coastal overlay which was an issue that was very concerning to people who lived in those areas. It was used to expand the Yaldhurst sports centre and more recently as we've heard from the Hon Poto Williams to upgrade the Hagley Oval so that Christchurch could host the Women's Cricket World Cup in 2021.But the legislation could have done so much more. It's hard not to feel disappointed that the opportunities provided by this legislation were not as fully utilised as we as politicians in Parliament envisaged and that the agency that was created under the bill—and that's Regenerate Christchurch—has really not had the opportunity to work with regeneration plans and has not performed as we hoped and as we expected.However the Act still has some relevance. We note that the Minister is seeking to retain certain provisions for use by LINZ—that's Land Information New Zealand—in relation to titles in the Avon-Ōtākaro corridor and possibly extending those provisions to 2023.So National will support this bill. But it is with disappointment that we reflect that the original legislation was created by a cross-party parliamentary group it was designed to give local councils and stakeholders in Greater Christchurch a real hand up in terms of regeneration but I believe the full potential was never realised. Thank you Mr Speaker.