O'Rourke Denis: Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Rourke Denis: Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 17 March 2016. Volume:712;Page:9890. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]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.