Sage Eugenie: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Text is subject to correction 
Sage Eugenie: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 01 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4200. Text is subject to correction.] 
EUGENIE SAGE (Green) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on schedule 1 of the Appropriation (2012/13 Estimates) Bill. Vote Canterbury Earthquake Recovery totals over $90 million. As the Finance and Expenditure Committee report notes this is a substantial reduction on previous appropriations as most of the demolition costs and purchases of the red zone properties were funded over the past 2 years. But $42.5 million of that $90 million is funding to support the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority in planning and facilitating the city’s recovery and for policy advice. Quite a chunk of that money in last year’s appropriation has obviously gone into the blueprint document which was released earlier this week.  
I would like to congratulate the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery and the Christchurch Central Development Unit team of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority on many of the concepts that are in that blueprint. The “frame” on the south and east of the city to contain a much more compact central core is a very good idea as is the potential for more intensive residential development in that area to make Christchurch a more compact city and to reduce urban sprawl. The Otakaro Avon River park is narrower than some of us would like it at the moment but that is a welcome concept as is the proposal to improve water quality in the river. There is very welcome recognition of Ngai Tahu and its heritage in Otautahi. So certainly the team deserves congratulations on the hard work that it has put in.  
But one of the key principles in the recovery plan is to listen to the people—whakarongo ki te tangata. That is based on the very innovative consultation exercise that the city council did in Share an Idea. So the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority needs to continue that theme of listening to the people. People in Christchurch have a strong voice. They want it to be one that the authority listens to not just in developing the recovery plan but also in implementing it. Where concerns have arisen have been in the authority’s very hasty demolition of a number of heritage buildings—the way in which it issues notices under section 38(4) of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act. That needs to be followed up. We need a recovery strategy for heritage. It is supposed to have been produced but has not been. Then there is the issue of the public being shut out of decisions around heritage buildings. But there is also a concern that the public is likely to be shut out of decisions around buildings and facilities in the heart of the city. The recovery plan provides that where buildings breach the development standards in the plan in relation to matters that are quite fundamental for the amenity of the city like recession planes and the amount of sunlight those resource consents are restricted only to discretionary non-notified activities so there will not be a chance for public input.  
Another key issue is that several of the civic facilities that are proposed in the authority’s blueprint are much bigger and more expensive potentially than those proposed by the Christchurch City Council in its annual plan and long-term plan. So that raises the fundamental issue of who is going to make the decisions on the affordability and the scale of some of these civic facilities—the city council or the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority and the Government? The Christchurch City Council’s long-term plan provides for example for a 21000 - square metre convention centre at a cost of $205 million plus inflation but the blueprint provides for a bigger facility of 24000 - square metres. The Christchurch City Council in its plan has a preference for retaining the iconic Christchurch Town Hall and the outstanding acoustic qualities of the auditorium in the town hall. Yet the blueprint maps show that the town hall is demolished and that area is completely green. So the Christchurch City Council and the people of Christchurch need to have a say in the funding of these facilities and whether we are going to get the big shiny facilities proposed in the blueprint or something that is more affordable. Today’s  
Press 
 reports that there have been discussions between the Christchurch City Council staff and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority about the council contributing another $155 million for new projects in the central city. That would bring the council’s contribution to more than $787 million. I assume that the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority will encourage the councillors on behalf of the people of Christchurch to decide whether that $155 million should be provided— 
Vote agreed to.