Williams Poto: Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWilliams Poto: Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 29 March 2016. Volume:712;Page:9935. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): In the first of what I hope will be many calls on this bill I want to just perhaps flag for me and for my electorate what the key issues are. Of course the Christchurch East electorate holds the bulk of the residential red zone which is a really significant matter to be dealt with and also the suburb of New Brighton which we have spoken about quite a bit in this House in relation to the rebuild of Canterbury and Christchurch. This bill provides the mechanism for those key players to actually find a way to engage the community—those people who have been displaced from their homes and their usual way of living prior to the quakes—back into the conversation about their vision for the city and for the wider region. It ensures that Christchurch City Council Waimakariri District Council Selwyn District Council Canterbury Regional Council and Ngāi Tahu have a significant role in establishing the direction for our city going forward.What I appreciate has happened in the process that has led us to the redevelopment of this particular bill—and I want to thank the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery for taking the step of allowing the workshopping process to occur because it is a significant piece of work for our city and our region and the complexity of it could not be underestimated. I thank the officials for the work that they have done on this and the members of the Opposition who actually took the view that they wanted to get the best bill the best piece of legislation for our region. I think that although we would not completely concur with everything we have come to a place where the Minister can be assured he has broad agreement across the Committee for many aspects of this bill.I am concerned about when we come to deal with the matter of the residential red zone and what will happen with those significant pieces of land particularly as they are around the Avon River through the Christchurch East electorate where many many people had their homes where families had been for some time. There is a lot of emotional content still attached to those parcels of land. When I drive through the area particularly through New Brighton Road—which is still quite damaged I have to say—there is no doubt that people who lived there loved their community. They planted trees and gardens that are still evident today and there is still a lot of local buy-in for the particular area. There are groups of community members who keep the lawns mowed walk their dogs and actually keep the area active and keep people within the area. So when we come to look at the redevelopment of the residential red zone I urge the Government and I urge the members of this Committee to fully consider those people who have had to leave their land and this area behind because they have a vested interest.I am pleased that the bill actually provides an opportunity for those people to contribute to the discussion about what will happen in that area—around the design around what types of things might go into the area and around what kinds of developments will happen—because there is no doubt that something will happen with the area. Whether as many of my constituents would like it becomes much more recreational than it was in the past—that would be great but I know that there are other options and opportunities and I urge that our people actually have the opportunity to engage fully in that process. I think this bill actually provides a much stronger mechanism for that than the previous iteration.So too with what happens with New Brighton. I know that there have been many master plans for New Brighton but the community is well versed and well engaged in the discussion and what it would like to see. It is my desire that the community has an opportunity to be fully engaged in that discussion because some of the consultation that has happened up to this point in some aspects of the rebuild of the city has not been as robust as it can be. Although I do actually really like the Margaret Mahy Family Playground I use it as an example of where perhaps the process of consultation could have been far more robust. What I say about that is in relation to access for people with disabilities. When you go to the playground there are what people in wheelchairs call “islands” of bark around particular pieces of play equipment that are completely inaccessible for people in wheelchairs. They cannot ride over these areas. Also I am told by people in the disability sector that they were not consulted at the design phase of the Margaret Mahy Family Playground. That sits outside our obligations for the accessibility issues for our city.I know that that will not happen in the future. I have confidence that this process will allow those groups to actually be fully participant in the discussions about what the regeneration of their city will look like. So too the bus exchange: the bus exchange does not have toilet facilities for people with disabilities within it and that is again because those groups with the role to advocate for people with disabilities were not part of the design phase of that particular bus exchange. That is completely inappropriate. Just on those notes I will come back to some other issues within the bill but I would urge that those elements are considered when we are setting up the mechanism with which to ensure that the community is engaged in this discussion. Thank you.