Dyson Ruth: Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dyson Ruth: Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 07 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6389. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 It gives me a lot of pleasure to speak in support of the motion. I want to begin by acknowledging the Hon Gerry Brownlee the member of Parliament at the current time for Ilam and commend his passion for this Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill for this area and indeed for his own electorate. I wish to repeat the expression that I used in an earlier part of this debate which is that I just wish that the Minister the member of Parliament for Ilam shared that same passion for heritage buildings in our city and was able to exude the sort of amazing ability to not only bring this legislation through but ensure that it has support I think unanimously across the House. I wish he was able to use those skills in turning his attention to what we have been seeing in Christchurch: the cranes and the bulldozers rolling over beautiful heritage buildings which according to engineers’ reports could be saved. They are being demolished for lack of money and commitment and vision and leadership. I just wish the Minister would turn his attention to that. Perhaps now that this bill is reaching its final stages he might have some spare opportunities to look around our city and help preserve what is left. 
I also want to acknowledge as the Hon Nick Smith did in his prior contribution to this debate the people who originally looked at Riccarton Bush and said that it is worthy of special protection the people who first put this into a legislative protective measure and said that it is the sort of vision that they would like to see more of particularly in Canterbury at the moment. The trustees of Riccarton Bush who prepared this bill alongside the legal services team of the Christchurch City Council also should be acknowledged. 
In the scheme of things this bill is quite small for Parliament to consider. It is not a bill that has had hours and hours and hours of debate or that has had hundreds of submissions. But actually for the people who prepared it—the trustees the legal services team and others who are interested and supportive of the cause—they certainly have put a huge amount of effort into it and I want to acknowledge them. 
I also want to thank the Local Government and Environment Committee which not only considered this bill but quite properly at its own effort came to Christchurch to hear the submissions on the bill. I am very pleased that it did that. There were only two submissions heard. They were both in support but that is not the point. The committee made the effort to come to Christchurch and I am very pleased that it gave this bill and the member who has introduced it the respect they deserve by doing that. 
There have been some very minor amendments made to this bill through that select committee process and I think that is a bit of a reflection on the rigour that probably went into its preparation. It is interesting to note that alongside this bill the Local Government and Environment Committee is also looking at the changes that the current Government is pushing on to local authorities by taking out the “four well-beings” in the Local Government Act and how upset and distressed every single local authority around the country has been at that gutting of the mandate of local authorities. I have sat at the select committee and watched in amazement at the embarrassment of National Party members as mayor after mayor after mayor has come in and complained about it. It is surprising that under the regime of a local authority the management of a very special piece of bush is sitting alongside the gutting of what local authorities are able to do in terms of the overall economic and social well-being of their district. I wonder how this bill would fit alongside it if it was being considered in terms of the well-beings being taken away from local authorities. I am sure that that has occurred to the select committee as it has considered both of these pieces of legislation. 
But the fact remains that this bill is going to be supported by this Parliament and I am very pleased to have my name put alongside it. I just want to reiterate the point I made earlier that as we are watching protection deservedly of a very important part of Canterbury we are at the very same time seeing the wholesale destruction of much of the heritage of our city of our region. It is heritage that could be saved if the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery demonstrated the same sort of passion that he has demonstrated in regard to this bush. I know that he has that ability because he has demonstrated it through this process. I actually think he has probably got the passion for those heritage buildings as well. Perhaps now he will have the time to see that done. 
It is particularly frustrating when you see that about $196 million was spent on making Eden Park in Auckland a place that was fit to host the Rugby World Cup. What a great sporting event that was last year. But in Christchurch we have seen less than $10 million from the Government put into supporting the retention making safe and repairing of our heritage buildings. It just does not weigh up in my view. Once those heritage buildings are lost we cannot recapture them. We cannot suddenly recreate the decades and decades of architectural commitment that we have seen from them over that past time let alone the emotional commitment that people have to their buildings. We have many that are going. The Lyttelton Tunnel control building is the latest one to have the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority sign-off for demolition. It is one of Peter Beaven’s buildings one that is not particularly attractive actually but that is not the point of architecture; it is what it represents in our time-scale of architectural design and ability and commitment in our region. That is another building that is going to be lost for the sake of just a couple of million dollars. 
I am very supportive of this bill. I look forward to that vision and that time now being made by the member for the rest of the historic structures in our region which are worthy of that same support.