Brownlee Gerry: Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBrownlee Gerry: Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 29 March 2016. Volume:712;Page:9956. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery): I will just speak to some of the issues that have been raised by speakers on the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill this afternoon.Firstly Dr Woods was interested in the prospect of the profits that might come out of Ōtākaro Ltd being reinvested into Christchurch City. I would have to say that although Ōtākaro Ltd is set up as a commercial entity the prospect of there being significant profit is not that great. If you think about the projects that it is going to have to work through on behalf of both the Government and the city some of those as anchor projects may have a return on them but in many ways the effort here will be to make sure that there is a commercial structure that is there for delivery and that there is as much reduction of ongoing costs to the end owner as possible. So that is a question that I think will come more into vogue when we see what the first year’s operations look like but I would be very surprised if it is able to at any near point return significant profit. I am sure that Ōtākaro’s chairman if he is listening to this would be upset to hear that knowing that he has a desire that we do get the best results by having the best commercial arrangements.Denis O’Rourke was keen to suggest that as much of the red zone as possible should go into sporting facilities with there still being some possibility of a return to the Crown at some point. I think that is everybody’s desire and I think rather than prescribe it through this bill that the arrangements that we have got for regeneration plans will allow that to develop over time.There are a couple of things that I think are important. Firstly those red zones have significant underground infrastructure running through them. If all of that were to be abandoned any time soon it would put a huge cost on the Christchurch City Council. Over a period of years some re-routeing of that infrastructure network might be possible so one of the first considerations—and Waimakariri has already done this through the red zone out there—is to work out what needs to stay in place what can be removed and what can be replaced in a schedule over time. I know that the council has been working on this for quite a time and that will be one of the first considerations there because otherwise you could end up through an unintended consequence putting a huge burden on to ratepayers for frankly infrastructure that they never ever see.I would hope that some of the great ideas that people have floated at the moment for that area do eventuate. I think someone earlier said it was a one-off opportunity for Christchurch and will not be repeated and so I am confident that those people who will be putting suggestions forward to Regenerate Christchurch and Regenerate Christchurch itself will want some kind of a process that allows people to put input into those plans and I am confident that a lot of those suggestions are likely to be of a sporting nature.There was a question from Eugenie Sage about Ōtākaro Ltd’s vision for the red zone. I think really this is much the same answer. Although Ōtākaro will represent the Government as owner of the red zone it will still be Regenerate Christchurch that puts forward any plans for its future use. Just thinking back to the diagrams that were used to say who does what the prime decider or promoter of use in the red zone—in fact the only promoter of plans for the red zone—will in fact be Regenerate Christchurch. Ōtākaro simply wants to be able to ensure that where there is a commercial opportunity it can put that forward. If it fits it fits; if it does not it will not.Eugenie Sage also mentioned the need for flood protection and other such things to be put in place around the river. Much of that work is being done by the Christchurch City Council at the moment where it is trying to work out what is required. I think we will all have different ideas about that. I for example think that it would be great if the Bexley area now abandoned did return to being the wetlands swamp that it once was—a wildlife sanctuary etc. Although I would love to be able to prescribe that I think it is important that the city itself makes that determination and that decision. I am sure that those sorts of things will come through in the process that Regenerate Christchurch will run.There was a question also about the role of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. The role is essentially to finish and coordinate the Crown’s input into the Christchurch district plan. At the moment the Christchurch City Council using the former legislation has got a district plan process going on under the chairmanship of the Hon John Hansen and his group. That is a big effort and it was supported by a unit in the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority—that unit will now transfer to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet—largely of a secretarial nature. Then there is the Crown’s representation on the horizontal infrastructure programme known as the Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuild Team. So you have two things there.The Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuild Team is actually an alliance of all of their contractors. “HIGG” is the Horizontal Infrastructure Governance Group which is the Christchurch City Council the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority and the New Zealand Transport Agency working as effectively the clients and the payers in this case. That work has to continue as the Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuild Team programme runs out towards the end of this year. They will also need to start monitoring the work that is being done in regeneration to make sure that the structures that we will put in place through this bill are working and to provide advice in the right place on that.Then there will be a lesser focus I suppose on providing advice about the lessons learnt out of this whole recent sequence. It was very interesting for me to be in Fiji last week looking at the work that the New Zealand Defence Force is doing in Vanua Bailavu an island off to the east of the main island in Fiji and then talking to the Minister inside Fiji’s Government who is coordinating all of its recovery efforts from Cyclone Winston. He was able to say: “Look we’ve borrowed this from the Canterbury earthquakes. This is the model that we’re going to use.” They are not using it entirely obviously but much of that structure is what is guiding them at the present time. So it is very interesting in that regard. So getting a group inside the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to look at and to capture all of the legacy that comes out of this—good and bad—will be I think an important thing.The other point is that Regenerate Christchurch is a body that starts out with a very low budget and so it will not have huge capacity to engage in lengthy policy exercises to the same extent that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet may be able to do. So I would expect that it will provide strong policy advice as required almost under contract to Regenerate Christchurch to supplement some of the capacity that that organisation may have. It also recognises that Regenerate Christchurch does not need to have a standing army for everything because most of what it does will be diverse and different.Kris Faafoi asked a question about the consultation process that Regenerate Christchurch may use. This has come up in our discussions cross-party over the past few weeks. My recollection is that we started to talk about the sorts of things that Regenerate Christchurch may do. Some will be big plans; some will be very small plans so to prescribe a consultation method we felt would be too restrictive but the expectation certainly and I suppose the oversight will be on it to have consultation at the right level for the right plan. You know that is not trying to shirk away from it. It is just that as we discussed in our deliberations some things are quite small and it may be smart just to have a 2-week exercise on that. Others will be larger and will require some months or so to make sure that we get all the information. So there is no intention there to you know remove the requirement or lessen the requirement for consultation; it is simply allowing it to craft it for purpose.Finally can I indicate that the Government is going to support the amendment moved by Dr Woods. One of the interesting things about a bill like this when you go through this process is that there are things that are not always picked up. I do not think anyone has any desire to see roads through Hagley Park or any other sort of structure that may further encroach on the park other than some of the excellent sporting facilities that could be put on the park. But let me just say that we are supporting it.I also want to indicate that we are supporting the amendment moved by Denis O’Rourke. It makes it very clear that where there is a compulsory acquisition then there is no issue about what is insured and not insured. It is simply that you go through a normal valuation process and then you reach agreement about the payment and then—failing that—there would be the process that gets us to an agreed position but the insurance status of the structures or other I suppose buildings is irrelevant in that discussion.Those two amendments will I think make the bill better and certainly are providing indications in the bill that are in line with all of the parties’ work. I hope that those few comments answer the questions that have been posed this afternoon. I would say that the good thing about a bill that is widely supported like this is that if we do find down the track that there is something that we have all forgotten then I think we will be in a better position to go and sort it out—not that any of us like retrospective legislation.