Dyson RuthHon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): It is a real pleasure for me to follow my colleague Dr Megan Woods MP for Wigram and obviously the local member for the area that we are discussing in these two bills. I want first of all to reflect on the fact that I do not believe that we have seen this scenario before: where we have started off with the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill as a Government bill and we have had the Riccarton Racecourse Bill as a local bill. They have gone to the Local Government and Environment Committee and we have ended up with one bill which is a Government bill—or two bills being debated as one bill with all provisions in one part. It is very unusual to have that process and I think that it is worthy of note but it is also worthwhile noting that it has not been something that has been imposed on Parliament during this debate; it is something that Parliament has accepted. I think that that is a tribute to the way that the select committee has progressed the bills to this stage. So I want to put it on the record that the work that all members of the select committee appear to have done has made the original two bills better and also has enabled us to raise some of the concerns that we still have regardless of the amendments that have been made—some of which have been referred to by Dr Woods.The primary purpose of the Riccarton Racecourse Bill is to look at the powers of its board of trustees and it looks at how the income from this proposed development can be used. That is important for Parliament to do. We have had a number of debates around pieces of legislation dealing with boards of trustees and whether that is appropriate in 2016 or whether in fact we should be looking at having such boards more properly act under the mandate of incorporated societies legislation or charities legislation—or whatever the generic legislation might be. But in this case we have got yet another board the Riccarton Racecourse Board of Trustees being dealt with by specific legislation.But it is good for Parliament to be debating the broader issues because they of course go right to the heart of the lack of housing that we have for people in New Zealand generally. We are short of houses in a way that we have never been short of houses in our nation's history. We are particularly changing the culture—the value I suppose—of houses from the position where it certainly was when I grew up: that all of us knew that if we worked hard and saved hard we would be able to put a deposit on a house and one day own that home. Whereas now for many young New Zealanders the idea of saving up and buying their own home is just completely off the agenda. So that is something that it is important for Parliament to reflect on because it does change a number of things. If a person is permanently in a rental they are more vulnerable: they are more vulnerable to the whim of the landlord they are more vulnerable to the rents going up and they are more vulnerable to a situation where they become less connected with their community and their children might have to move not only home but also school as a result of those things. So the security—not just of an individual family in a home but of the broader community—is really important in the wider housing debate. Clause 6 of the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill touches on this very point which is about the affordability of homes. I think it is debatable but quite sophisticated in the way that it has ended up in clause 6.I want to move on to what happens if the affordable homes are not delivered; but of course there remains a debate that is certainly being held in Canterbury about whether $450000 is a suitable determinant of a home that is affordable—that is the provision that is in this bill that we are debating. It goes on to say further on—after we have the requirement under clause 6 of the number of affordable homes within this housing development—what happens if they are not delivered. I actually think that is something that the select committee has not focused on enough. We go from a requirement in the bill to have this number of affordable homes to the compensation due to the Crown if that number of affordable homes is not delivered. What about some project-management in between? What about some accountability of the people who are going to be running this development back to the Crown and indeed to the city council which has given some indication of support for the provision of housing in this area?So I think there is a bit of a gap between the quite rigid and specified requirements for affordable housing in clause 6 and then the penalty for non-provision just three clauses later in clause 9. So I would be interested to hear perhaps from the Minister in the chair Minister Lotu-Iiga—although I do not think he has any personal responsibility for housing provision in Christchurch under his portfolios—or perhaps from the chairman Scott Simpson or perhaps another member of the committee may well make a contribution about whether the in-between situation was considered.I want to move on now to another concern—or gap or requirement—that is in this legislation that I think does not fit comfortably with the way that the transition arrangements away from Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) and the total powers of the Minister the Hon Gerry Brownlee have been revoked and disestablished by this Parliament and we have now moved into much more local control of decision making and finally some drive for development and rebuilding in our city.In clause 11 of the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill there is a specific provision that reads: Before making a recommendation under subsection (1)"—and subsection 1 is—"The Governor-General may by Order in Council made on the recommendation of the Minister approve a development scheme." Clearly this is the housing development scheme that this bill relates to. But in subclause (2) of clause 11 it says that before making such a recommendation "the Minister must—(a) consult the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery;" even though that authority—those wartime powers that were granted because we thought they were needed so soon after the September and February events—has all been taken away; CERA has been disestablished. But here we have the Minister once again having his fingers in the pie looking for control. Fortunately the relevant Minister also has to consult with the Christchurch City Council and has to be satisfied that the scheme meets the requirements of the development scheme as outlined in the legislation—and also Ngāi Tahu has been given the first right of refusal; that is specified—and that it will result in quality residential development.I just want to conclude my current contribution with a further word on that. Dr Megan Woods in her contribution mentioned the fact that when this development was originally proposed it was described as being an "exemplar" housing development and that since that date and today the exemplary nature of the development has just disappeared. I think that that is an opportunity that has been given away by the Government. It is an opportunity that has been lost for Cantabrians and one that I think people were genuinely excited about when the Minister made that announcement. People looked at him believing he was telling the truth and now we are seeing no such indication in the legislation.There are a couple of other obvious shortcomings with this proposal—in the lack of integration with transport particularly. This is a large number of houses that are being proposed. They are in a good spot. They are close to the university they are close to the main traffic routes they are close to very large shopping areas—all those things make them very attractive—schools etc. and the nearby facilities. They have an excellent member of Parliament and I know that that is a very important thing when people decide where to live where to buy or rent a house. But Parliament—and the Minister certainly—has not taken the opportunity to talk to the Christchurch City Council about the infrastructure needs and how we could make sure that the requirements of this big housing development sit alongside the plans and ability of the Christchurch City Council to deliver. I do not want to see people causing more congestion because the opportunity for better planning has not been taken.Overall I think this is going to be a very good step forward for Christchurch. As I say I think it could have been even better: if the exemplar nature of the proposal had been delivered by the Minister—and it was not; if the city council had been given the respect that it deserved for better integration of issues such as transport; and if the select committee had perhaps pushed the Minister a bit to deliver those things we could have got even better legislation. But I will be very happy to support it."