Woods Megan: Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWoods Megan: Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 29 March 2016. Volume:712;Page:9949. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): This is one of several contributions that I wish to make to Part 2. There is of course the very meaty part of Part 2 that deals with regeneration plans—how we make them who exercises powers the limits on power and appeal rights—but in this part I specifically want to speak to clauses 102 to 107 which are I think where the real business end is that this legislation gets down to. This is about the transfer of assets liabilities and Crown agreements.There is much said about Regenerate Christchurch the joint venture between the Crown and Christchurch City that will be responsible for the regeneration of many parts of our city. That is vitally important and I will return in a later contribution to discuss those regeneration plans but what we also have to remember very carefully is that what this legislation does is set up is a new organisation—which in previous iterations of the legislation was known by the somewhat superhero moniker of CrownCo but now has the name of Ōtakāro Ltd. This is the agency that is empowered not only with getting the anchor projects up and running but also with developing the residential red zone and the land that lies within it. I have some very specific questions for the Minister in the chair Nicky Wagner around what lies between clauses 102 and 107 because these set up the tertiary instruments that transfer and give delegated powers to a Crown entity under this part of the legislation. When one goes and has a look at the detail of this organisation Ōtakāro Ltd there are some questions that we would like answers to.If we look specifically at the constitution of Ōtakāro Ltd there are some questions there one of which Minister is about the definition of “major transaction” as it sits within the constitution of Ōtakāro Ltd. This is defined as being $25 million or half the value of the entity. When you are dealing with the size of the transactions that Ōtakāro Ltd is going to have to undertake whether they relate to anchor projects or the residential red zone these are figures that do need some explanation around why it is that that is the definition that is given because if you compare this with similar Crown entities that hold similar functions and similar powers this is a different definition fromwhat has been used. Other entities would use the Companies Act definition of “major transaction” whereas Ōtakāro Ltd under the constitution that comes into effect under these clauses of the legislation institutes a dollar amount. I would just like to hear from the Minister why it is that a different road has been taken with Ōtakāro Ltd from the one taken by other Crown entities such as the Tāmaki Redevelopment Company Crown Asset Management Ltd and Southern Response Earthquake Services. And of course the Crown research institutes also operate under the Companies Act definition as given there. So that is something that we do have some questions around.The other thing that we do have some questions aroundin regard to Ōtakāro Ltd and something we are interested in the answers around is the section of the constitution that deals with distributions because this is really where a lot of the business end of the legislation is. At the moment the distributions—if you read this in concert with the objects of the constitution—allow Ōtakāro Ltd to work essentially as a clearing house for the Crown. I would like the Minister to take a call and state whether it is desirable or possible to insert into the objects of the company the regeneration of Christchurch and the putting back of any profits into the regeneration of Christchurch because as Ōtakāro Ltd’s constitution currently reads any money that is generated through Ōtakāro Ltd does not have to be put back specifically for the regeneration of Christchurch or for the benefit of Christchurch. We think this is something that does need to be addressed.We think that Ōtakāro Ltd can be a very positive vehicle not only for the moving forward of the anchor projects but also for getting some great things done in the residential red zone but we would just like some more detail on how it is that this company is going to operate. It will of course be subject to Public Finance Act stipulations that it is accountable to Parliament and to its select committees so there is a clear audit path that will be there for the company that is established and has assets transferred to it under clauses 102 to 107 of this legislation. But there are some questions that we do have around how it is going to operate what it means for Canterbury and—to use a phrase that my colleague the Hon Annette King likes to use a lot—why this would not be a hypothecated account in terms of Christchurch.Why would this money go back into the consolidated account and why would this not be money that is there?Any profits that are generated are there for the benefit and regeneration of Canterbury—that is something that we would like to see. As the constitution currently reads and as it is enacted under this legislation there could be a huge profit made through the regeneration of Christchurch and then that money could go and be spent on housing in Auckland. Housing in Auckland—I am not that one-eyed. I know that it is a vitally crucial thing that this country needs as are roads in the regions of New Zealand. But I would like to know why it is that this company has not been set up and why the transfer of assets that happen under this legislation has not been set up so that those benefits do flow directly back to Christchurch and sit squarely with Cantabrians. I am looking forward to a contribution from the Minister to answer those queries on that. Thank you.