O'Rourke Denis: General Debate 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
O'Rourke Denis: General Debate 
[Sitting date: 05 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7160. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 The National Government is too hard on Christchurch. Immediately after the February 2011 earthquake in Christchurch the Government did succeed in providing comfort to the people there who had been affected. There were visits as we know by the Prime Minister and genuine concern was shown. Later there were Government programmes for those whose land had to be red zoned. The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority and the Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuild Team were established and later the Christchurch Central Development Unit as government instruments for the rebuild process. All of this did appear to be a good start and had the support of most people. 
But since then the Government’s actions to assist the recovery have not been so positive. In fact the National Government in many ways has been too hard on Christchurch and in fact the Government is now no longer so much a part of the recovery as part of the problem. Last Saturday’s march for democracy in Christchurch shows the extent of the resentment which is still growing about Government actions in Canterbury. The open letter on behalf of the protesters delivered yesterday on Parliament’s steps to the Prime Minister by Lianne Dalziel Eugenie Sage Megan Woods and me sets out the issues in some detail. But it all began with some serious mistakes made by the Government concerning red zone land. The use of 2007 valuations in Christchurch and 2008 valuations in Kaiapoi was unfair to too many red zone people. There were some winners but far too many losers. Those with genuine grievances about what they were offered were not reviewed by any genuine review process. The offer of 50 percent of the valuation of land that did not have any homes built on them and the offer of 50 percent for the land of uninsured homeowners was also grossly unfair. Excuses made about land damage did not make any sense. 
Currently the requirement for red-zoners to leave their homes by 30 April next year is also unfair and urgently needs review. It is too hard on too many of those people because there is still a severe shortage of affordable homes in Christchurch to buy and the influx of workers for the rebuild only makes that worse. New sections coming on the market will be too late for many of these people and there is also a rent explosion. I had a person approach me only a few days ago to tell me that they had had an increase of $100 a week from $450 to $550 in one hit. This was a family with nine children. And yet the Government still refuses to act on the rent explosion. New Zealand First has repeatedly called for a short-term rent freeze until things quieten down but still nothing from the Government. It is too hard on renters in Christchurch. 
As far as the central city is concerned the issue now is the failure of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority’s process to involve landowners in development proposals before resource consents are obtained. This is intimidatory for those people and the authority should see that they get the opportunity to be involved if possible. Price offers also need to be reasonable and to reflect the future opportunity value of that property and accusations of bullying by some do have some validity especially when only half of the real value is being offered. Earthquake Commission repairs of homes are also inadequate. This week we had in answer to a question a list of figures about how many properties had been repaired. That is just window dressing. Yes some repairs have been done but far too few and most still have not been attended to. So there has been a loss of confidence by many in Fletcher’s and there is a bit of a “don’t care” attitude by that particular organisation. Fletcher’s should never have been the sole project manager. It needs competition. 
But when we come to education matters get even worse. Again the Government was much too hard on an already traumatised city. The Parata bombshell was just disgraceful. It shows clearly the use of the earthquake aftermath to pursue what was really just—