Dyson Ruth: Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDyson Ruth: Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 17 March 2016. Volume:712;Page:9884. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I recall when this bill was first introduced and I suggested to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery that he stay in his seat—that he not stand up—because I was about to say that I supported the bill that he had introduced. I am delighted actually that at this stage our support is able to be returned. In between times we unfortunately had to withdraw it because it was clear during the select committee process that the balance had not been obtained to the level that Labour thought was appropriate. I am also delighted that both Minister Gerry Brownlee and I assume his associate the Hon Nicky Wagner listened to the submitters took a lot of time and trouble and made an effort to engage with all other parties in the House to the point I understand that with the tabling of the Supplementary Order Paper from the Minister this bill will now receive the unanimous support of Parliament. That is the sort of message I am delighted that Parliament will give to Canterbury. It is not a message that we have had a lot in the past—in the last 5½ years—and I am delighted that this is the opportunity for us to do it and that it has been taken by the Minister.Not much more than 5 years ago in the February quake of 2011 events happened in our city that really redefined Canterbury and its residents. We had the loss of thousands of homes and 185 lives. The fact that Parliament is able to come together for the recovery stage of that experience should be a tribute to those people who lost their lives and to their families and I just want to acknowledge them. At that time thousands of New Zealanders rallied to support Canterbury.I have reflected a lot—particularly around the 22 February commemorations—about the little things that happened that meant so much to people at the time. Of course there were big things that happened as well as my colleague Megan Woods said. We did have the military everywhere. As Dr Woods would know that was not such a bad thing for many in our city. Many enjoyed the companionship but also the feeling of security it gave. It was not an intimidating process at all—even the fact that we had tanks parked in the middle of our roads which sounds bizarre now was reassuring for people. It gave us comfort to know that competent professionals were there.It was the first time in our history that every single state and the Federal Government of Australia sent police to assist our country. That is something that we should not forget. And of course the first country that sent assistance was Japan which not long after tragically needed assistance of its own in a much bigger event. But we had many people in New Zealand who performed small acts of generosity that made such a big difference to well-being.Parliament of course responded in a way that we are now considering in this legislation because Parliament responded with the establishment of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority—CERA. We do not have women called Sarah in Canterbury; we have CERA as an organisation. It has caused a lot of confusion and could I recommend to all Ministers that they never have an organisation that can be confused with a woman’s name because every time we say CERA in Christchurch we say: “No CERA the department not the person.” It is a silly name but it was not a silly organisation; it was set up for good reasons. It gave wartime powers to the Minister and he needed some of them—some of them he used appropriately as well—and some of them he did not need to use but they were given to him in all good faith from Parliament because we thought they may have been necessary. In the end it did not work quite as Parliament envisaged—good things and bad things but certainly there were some good people.Talking of good people I want to pay a tribute to Michelle Mitchell who was an outstanding leader not just in CERA the organisation but actually in the Public Service. She tragically lost her life—a huge loss to the Public Service in Canterbury; a huge loss to the community. She was an outstanding leader and deserves acknowledgment during this process.This legislation now is the next step and it is a genuine step change which is what we have needed for quite some time. The Minister talked about some of the iterations that have led to this. There was the group led by Dame Jenny Shipley for whom members might be surprised to learn I have a great deal of time and respect. We do not share a single political belief but in terms of her competence and passion she has been outstanding and I think she led that process towards this legislation with courage. She is a pretty fearless person. Even the Minister would not scare her—that is right. I got agreement there pretty swiftly.I also want to acknowledge our three mayors the Hon Leanne Dalziel David Ayers and Kelvin Coe. They have been extraordinary contributors not just to this process but also to the much broader recovery in Christchurch. All three areas are at different stages. Of course Waimakariri and Selwyn were far more adversely affected by the September 2010 quake than by the February 2011 quake so they were able to get some things started and they are smaller areas and they had a different sort of loss. But they have faced huge challenges and I really admire the mayors of the three areas and the councillors for the commitment that they have demonstrated.I also want to acknowledge the community forum which I understand has played a really pivotal role in the Minister’s thinking. I regret that the Canterbury members of Parliament did not have any engagement with it. It was pretty well kept out of sight from us even though it was established under the legislation as a means of communicating community messages to the Minister. But I have heard that the Minister thinks highly of the work it has done so it certainly should be acknowledged. I know that its chairman was recognised in the recent New Zealand Royal Honours and that was a good thing. I also want to acknowledge Tā Mark Solomon and Dame Margaret Bazley who again have played a critical role from their perspective and their part in the Canterbury recovery.Looking specifically at the bill and where we go from here we have had a substantial Supplementary Order Paper signalled by the Minister and I look forward to seeing it and hearing the debate in the Committee stage. As I said earlier it has acknowledged the deficiencies that were in the bill it has responded to the submitters’ and Canterbury leaders’ call for a genuine transition to local leadership and I have confidence that the Minister’s word will be met by the detail in the Supplementary Order Paper. We will certainly be looking at it carefully.There are other parts of this bill that also deserve acknowledgment. One of the big tasks that will face the bodies that are being established under this legislation is determining the future of the residential red zone. That has more significance than disposal of land and I want to acknowledge the way that the Waimakariri District Council has led community discussion about this. People did not just have a wrecked house and leave; they had a wrecked house and they often had lost a life within their family—pretty well everyone in Canterbury knew somebody who died—but they were then told that their house could not be rebuilt in the area that they had been living in and for many of them it was for many years. That loss is not able to be easily described to people who were not part of that process. Living in a red zone became something of a—you cannot explain it to people who were not actually there at the time.So the process of determining what happens to that land in the future needs to involve the people who were displaced as a result not of the quakes but of the Minister’s decision to zone that land red—I think quite appropriately in most cases—but it needs to involve them because they have left a part of their life in that spot where their home was. They left their neighbours and their community.The other big part of the job that is ahead of us in Canterbury is the anchor projects. Some of them are still hotly debated. I am not a great fan of sitting outside on a cold winter’s night watching the Crusaders win—I would much rather sit in comfort in a lounge. So the idea if we are going to have a stadium to have it covered is quite attractive. But that sort of money as a priority—I have never been able to be persuaded on it particularly when I look at the significant loss that has been inflicted on Otago because of its stadium. So we have debates about the anchor projects but whatever the debate is can we get on with some of them? There are only five out of 16 I think that have made any progress and they were the big stars of the previous area.In conclusion one other point that I want to make is that in our community we have something that is outside this legislation but I hope the Minister takes up the charge. We want our school back on its home site in Redcliffs. It is a big part of our recovery even though it is not covered in the legislation and I am sure the Minister understands that need for community schools and genuine recovery from quakes. This is the step change that we need. I commend the Minister for his attention to the submissions and to other parties’ concerns and I commend this bill progressing to the next stage.