Dyson Ruth: Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dyson Ruth: Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 17 October 2012. Volume:684;Page:5934. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 That was a very gallant effort to drag that out a little bit by the member who has just resumed her seat Nikki Kaye. 
Can I begin as the Hon Nick Smith did in his contribution and just acknowledge and comment on the vision of the original supporters of Deans Bush and the people who ensured that this piece of Canterbury was protected by legislation nearly one century ago. I acknowledge their vision and say that I wish there was a bit more of it around at the moment as we watch huge swathes of our city getting bulldozed over when they could be protected and saved. To compare the lack of vision being shown by the current Government with the amazing vision shown nearly a century ago is pretty tragic. 
I want to acknowledge Gerry Brownlee the local member of Parliament for his efforts in bringing this bill the Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill to the House and also to acknowledge him as the former chairman of the Riccarton Bush Trust. I want to acknowledge the trustees for their work. This is a pretty small bill in the scale of things in Parliament but for the trustees who have worked on it it is a lot of effort. They were very ably assisted by the legal services team of the Christchurch City Council and I want to acknowledge them as well. 
The Local Government and Environment Committee heard only two submissions on this bill but it did make the effort of coming to Christchurch. Committee members considered the bill very carefully. They did not just rush it through or dismiss it and I want to acknowledge them for their work and the Department of Internal Affairs officials who assisted the committee. 
I was very surprised to hear the contribution earlier of the Hon Dr Nick Smith because one of his questions to the submitters on the bill was basically “Why the heck should we protect Riccarton Bush? There’s a lot of bush in Nelson that could do with a bit of legislation and I can’t for the life of me think why we should protect this bush as opposed to Nelson bush.” He left his colleagues and those of us on the opposite side of the table sitting there with our mouths open. The submitters thought he was joking which I think was a relief to everyone actually and they just moved on and got on with the bill. But I was pleased that he has since been pulled into line in supporting the bill and he realises that the reason we should do it and perhaps extend it to areas of Nelson is because of that original leadership that he referred to in his contribution. 
There were very few amendments needed for this bill. One of the amendments aligns the bill with the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority Order in Council in relation to the position that the trust would find itself in if a draft plan did not meet the approval of the city council. All that amendment really does is allow for a proper process to go through so that the city council would have to give the trust its comments on why it did not support the draft plan back to the trust; the trust would then revise its plan in accordance with the city council’s concerns. I think that is a very sensible modification that was made. 
Other people have alluded to the clear passion of the Hon Gerry Brownlee the local member of Parliament in regard to this piece of bush—this kahikatea that is within his own electorate. I would encourage him as Denis O’Rourke from New Zealand First did earlier in this debate to have the same sort of passion for the heritage that we are currently losing in Christchurch. A lot of people have talked about the cathedral. Other people have mentioned in this debate Cranmer Court but it is not just the odd one or two buildings. Fifty percent of the listed heritage buildings within the four avenues in Christchurch have been demolished. Many of them have been demolished needlessly. They could have been saved. They should have been saved and in my view the haste to go ahead with demolition and the inability of the Government to show leadership and say “This is our heritage. This can be protected and saved for the benefits of future generations and here is some financial support to allow that to happen.” have meant that we have lost a huge part of our history. I regret that. I think it is an embarrassment to the people of Canterbury and it is something that we will regret for a long time. 
The final point I want to make is in regard to the consolidation of the legislation. Other members have spoken of it. It is unusual for so much legislation—three separate pieces of legislation—to be on the statute book on our list of live statutes for just one small area of the country and I think it is a legitimate debate that we should have. Nick Smith raised concerns in this contribution that even though he agreed it was outside the scope of the legislation to amalgamate the legislation under this amendment bill actually you might not need historical pieces of legislation in order to restore the heritage. If we do need that to maintain our historical links I think we should keep all those pieces of legislation on the statutes register particularly given how much we have lost in Canterbury. 
We have lost it needlessly. We have lost it because of a lack of leadership and a lack of financial support. It particularly irks me when I see that $196 million was spent on making Eden Park a place where we could play rugby in the Rugby World Cup 2011 but in Christchurch heritage buildings have received only $10 million and that has been only when that funding has been matched dollar for dollar by community contributions. So the lack of support for retention of our heritage is tragic. I wish that the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery who happens to be the same member who is in charge of this bill would show as much passion for the rest of his city as he does deservedly so for Riccarton Bush.