Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGreater Christchurch Regeneration Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 29 March 2016. Volume:712;Page:9931. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Greater Christchurch Regeneration BillIn CommitteePart 1 Preliminary provisionsHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery): I just want to make the point before the debate starts this afternoon that the bill as tabled in the Committee incorporates a significant Supplementary Order Paper that was negotiated between the Government the Opposition parties and officials to ensure that we got a bill that reflects fully the views of the Parliament—those views essentially being that Regenerate Christchurch should take a central and lead role from this point as the city recovers from the events of the earthquakes.Over the last 5 years the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act has provided a legal basis for a lot of things to be fast tracked in the city as people were going about the business of getting their lives back intact. But now we have a situation where although some things that need to be done are not directly related to damage caused by the earthquakes they are most certainly consequential to it. For the concept of regenerating the city—recognising that some of the worst statistics that were on the table 5 years ago have not materialised and that people are making a huge commitment to the rebuild of the city—we need a legislative framework that will enable that to happen while respecting many of the aspects that would normally be pursued through consultation with communities etc. and of course we need a framework that will enable things to happen at a pace that will mean that Christchurch is not catching up with the rest of the country for decades and decades and decades.So I just start with those remarks. I am happy to answer questions as we go through the afternoon and I would like to once again convey thanks to all of the parties that participated in the seminar style that we deployed to get to a good and agreed position for this particular Act.Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): I would like to take a short call on Part 1 of this bill. The preliminary provisions of this bill are actually far more significant than they often are in a piece of legislation. They are covered in clauses 3 to 11 and they contain some very important provisions in this legislation before we get to the meat of the bill in Part 2. The first of these is the purposes clause clause 3 of this legislation which before we even got around to fixing this bill in the seminar style that the Minister has outlined was a very well discussed clause at the select committee. It was a clause that attracted a vast number of submissions—I think that 60 of the people who submitted actually submitted on the purpose of this bill and what it was going to achieve and I think this is where some improvements were able to be made during the select committee’s consideration.Clause 3 states first and foremost: “(1) This Act supports the regeneration of greater Christchurch through the following purposes:” and it then goes through a number of purposes including “(a) enabling a focused and expedited regeneration process:”. But one of the most significant gains that was able to be made at the select committee consideration of this piece of legislation was in clause 3(2)(b) if we are going to drill down into the detail which was “improving the environmental economic social and cultural well-being and the resilience of communities”.So although the Local Government Act may have done away with the four well-beings what we have here in this bespoke Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill is the well-beings in writing—it is not about just the economic recovery of Christchurch. We all know that that is incredibly important but we also all know that there is a far greater project that has to happen in terms of the regeneration in Canterbury. That primarily is about putting people at the heart of the recovery and ensuring that this is a recovery that is there to take people forward to let people mend their lives and often mend their very broken selves.It is not only their homes and their businesses that have been broken in Canterbury—and I think we can see through the mental health statistics that we face in our region the scale of the human impact that the last 5 years have had. I would like in my first contribution—the first of many Minister Brownlee—on this bill to acknowledge the human impact that has taken place on the people of Canterbury in the last 5 years. My real hope is that this piece of legislation signals a new phase as we go forward in the regeneration and recovery of Christchurch. So that is clause 3.The next clause I would like to talk to in some detail is clause 8 “Geographical application of Act”. This is something that also changed during the select committee’s consideration. When the bill first landed on the floor of this House for its first reading it defined areas of Greater Christchurch that were going to be specially marked out for attention in regeneration. These were defined as Christchurch City and New Brighton which were singled out for special attention and these were covered off in schedule 4 of the bill. But I think a sensible amendment was made to this at the select committee. It was decided that we would not try to statutorily define suburbs of a city as that gets very complicated. What instead was put in place was the ability for regeneration plans to cover the whole of Greater Christchurch—Greater Christchurch of course being largely the urban development strategy area that Cantabrians are well aware of and were operating under pre-earthquakes.I think this is sensible but what I think also has to very much be part of it is something that comes under Part 2—and I would not like to wade into that during the debate on this part but I will talk when I talk about the letter of expectations in terms of Regenerate Christchurch about making sure that primacy is still given to those areas of Christchurch City and New Brighton as areas signalled out for regeneration as the original Act intended. I am sure that is something that the Minister and the mayor are working on together and are working very closely on.The other important part of this legislation is of course clause 4 the interpretation clause which is in Part 1 of this legislation. Some very important definitions are there including what exactly is meant by “Christchurch central city”. Although we have not tried to define it in terms of schedule 4 it does occur within clause 4. The clause also defines what a “Recovery Plan” is and what a “Regeneration Plan” is—and what regeneration will look like is actually what the future of our city and Greater Christchurch rests on. It is about what form these plans will take and how these will be implemented in the wider area. These are plans and we will talk more fully about these when we get into Part 2 of the legislation where we talk about what a regeneration plan means and who has power.This bill is a significant move forward for Canterbury. I think we see that in the purpose of the bill—that we now have a mandate to consider the environmental economic social and cultural well-being of our city as we move into phase 2. That is something that some of us have thought there has not been enough of. So we welcome the opportunity under this new phase of Regenerate Christchurch in this legislation to incorporate those well-beings into our future and to provide the framework as to how we can finally get some movement on some of the projects that certainly we on these benches have been saying have been taking a bit of time and we would like to see some more movement on.Labour is supporting this bill subject to the amendments that have been made and now append to this bill as the Supplementary Order Paper that the Minister alluded to which we worked on constructively in a cross-party way. I am very happy that Labour is able to come into the House despite the minority report that we wrote after the bill came out of the select committee phase and now support it. I would like to thank the Minister for listening at that phase and taking on board the changes that were incorporated. It is a pity that some of the Government members of the select committee could not have made more use of the select committee process. But none the less we do have a piece of legislation before us now that does allow for locals to lead the next phase of the regeneration of Christchurch to a far greater extent than they have been able to in the last 5 years. That is certainly something that we welcome.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): I welcome the passage of this legislation. As Megan Woods has outlined Labour will be supporting the legislation. I think it is worth noting—and it is worth commending the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery for it—that it is difficult in politics from time to time to take a position other than the one that you set out to. I said at the first reading that the Minister had listened to the submissions in the select committee. He obviously had listened to the Opposition parties. It is worth recounting as we look at Part 1 and go through the purposes of the bill that the overwhelming statements that were made coming out of the select committee and by Opposition parties were as Megan Woods has said in essence that smart people in our province wanted to shoulder greater leadership roles wanted to shoulder greater capacity and take a greater part in leading the recovery of our province and our city.I think what we started with was a piece of legislation where in the words of many of the submitters the centre of power and the centre of gravity lay with the Crown and with the Minister and that was something that the vast majority of submitters found difficult to swallow. There was a view—and I do not believe that anybody on this side certainly in the Labour Party had ever articulated the view—that the Crown should not be involved. Of course it should. I know there were one or two people—I think I might have been on talkback with one on Newstalk ZB—who tried to purport that the Labour Party thought that we should have the Crown exit completely and hand it over to the locals 100 percent. That was never our position. Our position was that the Crown had to be there—it had to maintain more than a presence obviously.The Crown through the Minister is an integral part of the recovery. But our view was that it was about time that the centre of gravity if you will the emphasis by which this legislation facilitated the ongoing recovery of Christchurch and Greater Canterbury shifted to a far more robust and local and representational role. As I said in the first reading we do have smart people in Canterbury. We do have eminent people in business in the social sectors and in the community who were willing and showed not simply by their words but by their actions from day one that they were willing to get stuck in put their shoulders to the grindstone take responsibility take leadership positions if they were offered to them or take responsibilities if they were conferred on them to assist as we went out of an emergency phase and went through to a long-term recovery phase.I acknowledge the Minister in all seriousness. I think he has done a job of listening and moving his position to what I think now is a far more acceptable bill a far more robust bill and a bill that I think will satisfy—these things never satisfy everybody in the community—those people who want an interest in the recovery of our province as it moves forward. I think a number of submitters were concerned that the original legislation essentially gave the Crown similar powers to what we have seen before—that is essentially a power of veto—and this legislation now enables people to be at the centre of it. Mr Lovatt and others who will be at the pinnacle if you like of the leadership of this recovery and facilitating this legislation going through are people who are smart operators. Clause 3 talks about enabling the Crown to efficiently and effectively manage the recovery as it moves through and as we talk to clause 3 we see that they are people who are joined with all the community and want to see this recovery move more swiftly move more effectively and move more efficiently.There are still major issues out there that are holding back the recovery of our provincein an economic sense. We know for instance that the convention centre which I acknowledge is an extremely complex issue to negotiate through is a major project but at the end of the day it is not Stonehenge. It is not one of the eight great wonders of the world. It should not take longer to actually put together than some of the great structures around the world took but we have been waiting and we are missing opportunities because the deal has not been concluded.The Minister might be interested to know that in the last 3 weeks a bank told a group of us that $80 million in capital aimed at the hotel and tourism sector had left town—80 million bucks in the last 2½ months. Some may say “Well on the scale of the billions of dollars being spent who cares?”. But $80 million is a reasonable chunk of dough and I am told it moved primarily because we cannot get agreement we cannot get a signal and we cannot get certainty around that convention centre. Whether it is a lack of creativity on the part of the designers I do not know.An eminent business person in Christchurch said to me recently that the convention centre that we did have which I think was pretty world-class was essentially a concrete box with a nice facade around it and extremely high-class technology through it. Another business person said “If we’re talking anchor projects the convention centre and the stadium maybe we should ask whether we combine the two. Has anybody thought of that? Economies of scale like many of the great convention centres and the stadiums around the world—combined together economies of scale one footprint one platform.” I do not know whether that has been considered in the mix but essentially that is a key component that I hope will through the purpose of this bill through the mechanisms within this bill be efficiently and effectively actioned.The people of Canterbury are crying out particularly for that anchor project because it will generate and release massive amounts of private sector capital as I am sure the Minister knows through hotels through recreational facilities and others. That will give in an economic sense the biggest shot in the arm and I would argue the swiftest shot in the arm for money going into that province and economic growth than most other things. But I would be interested to know whether any consideration has been given as an eminent business person said to me a couple of weeks ago—at the footy actually—to combining the two projects saving some money having some world-class facility and doing what other jurisdictions have done around the world. I do not know. It may have well have been considered.There are other anchor projects of course—the Metro Sports Facility and others. One would hope that now that we are going to have some pretty eminent people involved in this and making decisions around this—perhaps people who have had more standing with the Government than other groups in the community; political parties for instance—those people will be listened to in a far more effective and efficient way. I think that what we as representatives of the community want to see from this piece of legislation is the button hit the foot on the accelerator and actually some intense speed and development go through our city and our province so that we can move ahead.As Megan Woods has said it is also of course not just about dollars and cents and bricks and mortar and jobs though those things are extremely important. It is as noted in clause 3(2)(b) about the social well-being of our community. As we did last week or the week before I take the opportunity to note for the Minister that people like Pete Townsend chair of the Canterbury Employers’ Chamber of Commerce and others have said to us on this side of the House that they are deeply concerned about the mental health of communities as we sit today. They are deeply concerned about the lack of resources.I know and I acknowledge that the Government has put money in but there is a lack of resources and the district health board is under a strain in dealing with those ongoing mental difficulties—and they are there. It is not just politicians making it up. It is not just politicians who from time to time are labelled as political if they dare to raise their head and dare to raise an issue—no. Go to the schools talk to the medical practitioners talk with the teachers and principals and the parents and you will see evolving mental health issues flowing through even though we are 5 years from the tragic day.I would make a plea to the Minister that he may wish to talk to some of his other colleagues—the Minister of Health and others—and ask them to look very very carefully at the level of resources that are going into Canterbury on that front. Teachers parents and others will tell you that there are people in dire straits with those mental health issues. It is not a case of just saying: “Well it’s 5 years on. The sun’s out. The birds are singing. A few people are smiling. The odd building’s gone up. Don’t people feel good about themselves?”. No—if a child was 5 years old when the earthquake struck that child is now 10 and actually as a teacher said to me that is all that child has known in its life. When we had the Valentine’s Day quakes and others that triggered it for many many people. Some are robust; others are not. Many deal with it by themselves in their own way but I do count the opinions of medical professionals and educators and others when they say that these people need more resource and help.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.EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe Mr Chair. The Green Party is pleased to be supporting the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill. Acknowledgments to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery for the process that he put in place after the Local Government and Environment Committee had considered the billto make these changes. Of course it would have been desirable if it had been while the bill was at the select committee. Supplementary Order Paper 159 the Supplementary Order Paper with all the changes amalgamating them with the bill itself is hot off the press—it is still warm—but we are very pleased with a number of the changes in it particularly to Part 1.In the purpose of the bill it talks about supporting the regeneration of Greater Christchurch and recognising the local leadership of the Christchurch councils—the Christchurch City Council Selwyn District Council Waimakariri District Council Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu and Canterbury Regional Council—but in the original bill before the Supplementary Order Paper there was no mention of enabling and recognising the local leadership of Regenerate Christchurch. So Supplementary Order Paper 159 in putting Regenerate Christchurch there at the heart of the purpose has been a major change and a good change.That is in line with a lot of the submissions from the city council and others who highlighted that the bill as it was originally introduced was modelled far too closely on the powers that the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority had in the emergency legislation and that too great a power resided still with Ministers to override local views and to both initiate regeneration plans—initiate them through their chief executive officers—and sign them off. So it gave Ministers far too great a say in what the proposals for those regeneration plans would be the whole process for developing them and then the sign-off. But now with this Supplementary Order Paper Regenerate Christchurch is mentioned there in clause 3(1)(d) and there is the change too to the definition of “regeneration”.As I noted in the second reading the Government has stripped out the promotion of environmental social cultural and economic well-being from the purpose of local government but improving the environmental economic social and cultural well-being and the resilience of communities is part of the definition of “regeneration” in clause 3 of the bill. So this billcould potentially be a model for urban regeneration elsewhere in New Zealand with the partnership that it has between both the Crown and local authorities particularly Christchurch City Council as expressed through this new entity Regenerate Christchurch which will be the proponent of plans and when it is not the proponent it will have a major role in providing advice to the Minister both on the outlined proposal document and on the plan itself.We have not seen before in New Zealand entities such as this involved in plan making and the bill is really breaking new ground on this. There is quite a lot of trust involved here Minister Brownlee because the Supplementary Order Paper that incorporates the bill and melds the draft Supplementary Order Paper that Opposition members had seen previously has just been tabled in the House today. So if there are any major differences between the draft and this one we would appreciate the Minister outlining those but we will be going through it quite carefully.The Green Party still has some reservations about the bill particularly the powers that remain with the Minister in Part 2 and we will talk about those later on. But we wanted to make sure that when the Government changes after the elections next year there is a clear commitment to the people of Christchurch that there is an agreed process going forward for planning particularly for the residential red zone which as Poto Williams noted a lot of people have a very strong connection with even though they may no longer be living there and will want a say in what happens to that land.In the purpose of the bill set out in clause 3(e) it talks about “enabling the Crown to efficiently and effectively manage hold and dispose of land acquired by the Crown under the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 or [under this current bill]”. “Efficiently” may mean that the Crown makes a large return from disposal but those decisions must be in consultation with the people of Christchurch because of the connections that people have with the land in the residential red zone. I would also note that in Part 1 clause 7 provides for the continued application of the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act which means of course that if the Crown is going to dispose of any land that it has acquired it must offer that first to Ngāi Tahu in accordance with that Act.So the Supplementary Order Paper process and the discussion with Opposition parties around that has been very useful and as others have said we hope that this is a template for other critical decisions going forward—for decisions on the anchor projects where there has been very little information provided by the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority; things like the convention centre where there has been no formal business case that has been made public. This bill has been substantially improved through the input of other parties and through changes to the purpose and the process for preparing regeneration plans. Decisions around the anchor projects and the way in which the substantial Crown and ratepayer funding that is going into those is spent would benefit from a much greater involvement not just of Opposition parties but of public discussion.So Minister this bill does make major changes that we thank you for in being prepared to listen to the Opposition parties but we think that that same ethos of engaging with the Opposition and with the public needs to be taken over to the anchor projects. But the Green Party will be pleased to support this bill despite some of our reservations about the significant powers that the Minister retains and clause 9 in Part 1 which provides in subclause (1) that a person exercising a power under the legislation “need not consider any Recovery Plan or Regeneration Plan” and we would be interested in some comments from the Minister about why that power is necessary. Given the major changes to the processes for developing regeneration plans what is the point of having those plans going through the consultation with other councils with the public if a Minister or chief executive when exercising powers under the legislation does not then have to have regard to a recovery plan or a regeneration plan? But we will be supporting the bill with reservations. Thank you.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): I like other speakers am also very pleased actually with the outcome of the discussions on this bill. I do not think there has been a piece of legislation that has had so much cross-party involvement and discussion and I actually enjoyed it. I enjoyed hearing what all the parties had to say about the various issues that were brought up but I am particularly pleased that what was discussed was actually done. We can see that in the amendments made to the bill. Since the first reading a lot of progress has been made and it has given me and New Zealand First a lot of confidence in this legislation.Fundamentally what the bill seeks to do is to put in place a regime for the regeneration—as distinct from the recovery—of Christchurch. In doing so it will have to do something that in my quite long experience in local government I had to do on many occasions which is to balance the natural tension that exists between the need for public participation public consultation and public information with actually getting things done because you can go on consulting and involving people forever—some of that is of great value; some of it is of not so much value. So in the end there has to be a decision and that means getting things done.Consequently what we need to see as a result of this legislation is actually very good leadership that does bring the people of Christchurch together with the organisation and that in the end does produce plans that can be—and are in fact—acted on. So far in the Christchurch recovery process the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority has I think had rather patchy success in all of this. It did get some buy-in; there have been however a lot of delays in projects. I understand what can cause those sorts of delays but people are now 5 years on feeling a little bit dissatisfied about the lack of progress—especially on some of the major projects—and the lack of information also about all of that.The Christchurch City Council I thought did a very good job in its consultation process over the central city plan and people gained a lot of confidence from that. However I would have to say that you do not get the same feeling in some of the suburbs of Christchurch especially those in the east where there has been not much demonstrable progress in rebuilding both the streets and the public areas and also the communities themselves—there is a long way to go there. So that is something that Regenerate Christchurch is really going to have to concentrate on.But I have a lot of faith in this concept of Regenerate Christchurch because it does include local people as well as those who will be representing the Crown and that is necessary too. There are now in the bill as Eugenie Sage said much better provisions for public information for transparency and for the participation of the public in making plans but more particularly the collaboration of the councils who will be involved as well as the Crown itself.For those reasons as I said especially in my second reading speech I now have a lot of confidence in the bill with its ability for Regenerate Christchurch to provide the leadership that is necessary to consult to respond to be transparent and in the end it must actually get things done. We can then put all that demolition behind us all that bare land into work and I hope take what are some very significant opportunities for improving the transport system within Christchurch in particular for creating better recreation opportunities for better areas for vibrant business to operate and to build houses—again where that is possible and desirable.In doing so there is obviously going to also have to be a balance between the magnitude of the sale of what was residential land so that the Crown can recoup some of its investment but also on putting significant areas aside for recreation and creating—where possible—new suburbs where there were old ones. I’m particularly looking forward for example to the Avon Loop and whether that can be restored as a suburb—because it was a very very good suburb. It was an excellent community as were some of those around it.It is my hope that it might be restored as a community with houses and as there were in past parks and recreational opportunities and there will be some other areas as well. I don’t know whether that is possible for technical reasons but I hope it is.There will be other areas where some very significant recreational opportunities will be possible and if we do not take this opportunity as a Government and as a city to actually build those opportunities the opportunity may never come again.So those are my preliminary comments on this. They are founded on high expectations which reflect the expectations of the people of Christchurch themselves and a high degree of confidence in the structure that is being set up in this bill to achieve those objectives. I will have more to say in other parts of the bill about some of the problems that I think may still be there but overall and especially with regard to the institution that will be Regenerate Christchurch with the collaboration of all the strategic partners that will be involved I think it is going to be a success and I am very optimistic about it.KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): It is a pleasure to take a call in this Committee stage of the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill. You may be asking why I am standing up and taking a call in this debate at all but as Mr Brownlee will know I am a former Christchurch boy myself and a proud Crusaders supporter—Hon Member: The Hurricanes.KRIS FAAFOI: —as well as the Hurricanes—and very interested in the goings-on in Christchurch. I grew up in the fine suburb of Hoon Hay which my colleague Megan Woods who is sitting to my right now is the representative of.It is an interesting life that this bill has had since it was introduced to this Parliament late last yearI think it was. At first reading it got support to be referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee but had a rocky time at the select committee—well to a degree Mr Brownlee. But then with some work from Mr Brownlee and my colleague Megan Woods it has arrived back in the Committee in a much better state than it was when it came from the select committee.One of the reasons for that as some speakers have spoken to already in this debate on Part 1 is that there is going to be a lot more input from the Christchurch community itself in this next phase of the recovery for Christchurch. I think it has been a well-spoken criticism that as we get to this regenerate stage of Christchurch’s rebuilding there has been a lot of Wellington-focused decision-making and that not enough has come from grassroots people in Christchurch. Although those who are actively doing the building in Christchurch have got a fair bit to say about how things go there the actual citizens have for some time been saying that not a lot of their voice has been heard.In Part 1 as some speakers have said in the purposes part of Part 1 around clause 3(1)(c) it does enable “community input into decisions on the exercise of powers” under this regeneration bill. Further down in clause 3 it also goes on to say that in doing so the agencies concerned have to look at the “environmental economic social and cultural well-being and the resilience” of the communities of Christchurch which I believe is a good addition to this bill because of the concern that I raised earlier in my speech.Interestingly enough there was a documentary on Television One on the anniversary of the Christchurch earthquake which I believe Mr Brownlee featured in. He may not have seen it when it went to air but there was a considerable amount of comment in that documentary from I would say mum and dad Christchurch Cantabrians who were concerned about the lack of the level of input that they were having into the Christchurch rebuild. But I think some of the changes that have been made with the input of Opposition parties to this piece of legislation will enable them to have that voice through the enabling of community input into the regeneration plan and importantly through the inclusion of those well-beings—the environmental economic social and cultural well-beings—that have been explicitly put into this piece of legislation.Looking a little bit further down the line in Part 1 to clause 11 “Conditions applying to exercise of powers by Minister or chief executive” within this piece of legislation there are still massive powers that are held by the Minister who is sitting in the chair and the heads of the agencies that are described in Part 1 and they include being able to acquire or to carve up or to sell off land—one of the many powers anyway—that may be needed as part of the regeneration. That is still I think a very hefty power in this piece of legislation and one that I think will need a lot of oversight by us as Opposition MPs and by those of my colleagues who are Christchurch-based MPs to make sure that what they are doing is within the realms of this piece of legislation.I think it is a carry-over power from the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority legislation which was passed very speedily and needed to be passed very speedily in the moments after the February earthquake. But because it is a carry-over power it does not necessarily mean that the level of critique that—on this side of the House we will need to pay attention to some of the decisions that get made by the Minister and also by the agencies concerned. We could see—I guess the worst-case scenario is the mandatory acquisition of land taken for a purpose that is not necessarily the best purpose for that land. We will keep an eye out for things like that.There is an amendment under the name of my colleague Dr Megan Woods that will amend clause 4 in Part 1 which will insert the name “Hagley Park Management Plan” into this piece of legislation. That will go some way to protect Hagley Park from the kind of acquisition that I have just spoken to. As a Cantabrian who grew up playing cricket and rugby at Hagley Park I know how important a resource and actually a jewel it is for the people of Christchurch. So to make sure explicitly in this piece of legislation that Hagley Park as it stands now is protected is I think a very good amendment.People who are not from Christchurch will realise if they have travelled to Christchurch just how important Hagley Park is. When Lancaster Park—or I think it was AMI Stadium—was hit by the February earthquake and was therefore rendered not usable Hagley Park became the cricket sporting centre for Christchurch and for the Canterbury region. So I guess we do know the importance of Hagley Park. It holds not just the Hagley Oval; Hospital Corner is where they play cricket. I think it is south—or north—Hagley Park where rugby is held on a Saturday morning for little nippers like me—Hon Gerry Brownlee: Both.KRIS FAAFOI: Both—OK. Some cold mornings at Hagley Park are had by some and will continue to be a bit of a rite of passage for Cantabrians who very well verse themselves on the rugby field when they get to senior levels. So I think to protect Hagley Park in that respect with Megan Woods’ amendment is a very good amendment to this bill.Just wrapping up all those together it is a much better piece of legislation because of the intervention of not just the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery but the Opposition parties. It means that because of the involvement of those in the community we will have a unified regeneration phase of Christchurch—at least at this point anyway. We would hope that because this piece of legislation has been improved and has got wide-ranging support from around this Chamber the spirit of that will continue not just in the legislative phase but also in making sure that it is continued in the actual regeneration. As we have said on this side of the Chamber we will be keeping a close watch on that to make sure that the spirit of the law is continued. Thank you.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery): I just wanted to respond to three speakers who have raised the issue of ministerial or chief executive powers in the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill and they come under clause 11. Those powers as are prescribed there relate specifically to clauses 47 53 59 60 61 62 and 75 of the bill. In each case they interestingly would give effect to some of the matters that have been raised by each of the speakers.If we start with clause 47 we are talking there about the ability for either the chief executive or a Minister to be able to ensure that certain works are done at a certain time in a certain place. So if you think about a city that is still discovering at this point undiscovered damage then having that ability to get something done very very quickly is fairly important. It would be I think a stretch to image that either a Minister or a chief executive might go around looking for opportunities to use a provision like this. It would be with some disappointment that there was a necessity to exercise this particular power. None the less I think it is quite a reasonable sort of power to have.Clause 53 deals with temporary buildings. Anyone from Christchurch will know that at the moment although temporary buildings are starting to recede a little bit from our landscape they have been pretty much a norm—an accepted arrangement—for the last 5 years. There may still be occasions when in order to achieve some regeneration of an area some temporary building may be necessary and this simply ensures that. Going through all processes remembering that Christchurch City Council is a 50:50 partner at the start of this legislation’s life and by the end of it it will be 100 percent the controller of Regenerate Christchurch then I think you would expect that this would be a very seldom-used power.Then we go to clause 59 which is also fairly prescriptive. It talks about the acquisition of and other dealings with property. It simply means that if you are to have a regeneration plan that is going to require a small bit of land somewhere or a variation to land—in fact the next two powers all deal with that right through to clause 62—then there is the capacity to do that through firstly discussion with the owner but ultimately the whole of the regeneration plan could not fail for someone perhaps holding out as often happens in various commercial arrangements already around the country.We then jump to clause 75 which deals with the disposal of land. Just before I do that let me talk about clause 67 which is also covered where we are looking at—if you think about the comments that were made about the red zone by people wanting that land to become much more amenable to the community as well as perhaps being an area where some cost recovery may occur where you have got thousands of titles it will be necessary to amalgamate some of those and that is one of the other powers that a chief executive has through a Minister.There is then the final issue where powers lie around the disposal of land. It simply makes it clear that a chief executivemay with the Minister’s approval dispose of lands held by the Crown as acquired under the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act which is the one that this bill replaces. That seems to be—in my opinion certainly—an eminently sensible thing to do where someone else might be able to do something with that particular piece of land that is of value to the community. All of this will be quite tempered by the views that Regenerate Christchurch has about the reshaping of the city.So some of the fears that I think people have not necessarily expressed but have pointed to—concerns rather than fears—I do not think should be seen as anything other than mechanisms to be able to achieve the goals that Regenerate Christchurch itself will take to the communities throughout Christchurch as it goes about its work. In the end these are backstop powers. They are not foremost as far as the plans to regenerate the city are concerned. If you think again of what I said before the structure of this bill has been for the first few years of the existence of Regenerate Christchurch sort of a 50:50 membership appointed by the Crown and appointed by the council. Although I have to say that it is the Crown that has provided a place on Regenerate Christchurch for Ngāi Tahu and the Crown has agreed with the Christchurch City Council on the chair position—so that is an agreed position. Between us we have also agreed that appointments will be made to the regeneration board from the two other organisations that will be active in the city—so that is Ōtākaro Ltd and Development Christchurch. So you are getting a full circle of integrated organisations working through that Regenerate Christchurch lens and I think that some of the concerns about the indiscriminate use of powers under the bill need not be as prominent as some might suggest.I would also point to the fact that the House very generously gave a lot of powers to Ministers and the chief executive under the former Act the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act which expires on 18 April this year and many of those powers were not used. They were described by some as wartime powers “Henry VIII” powers and all sorts of things but very few of them have been actually used. They were there as a backstop to ensure that there was capacity to actually get things done. I take the point from Denis O’Rourke that in the end we have to have legislation that allows things to be done while taking into consideration the views of the wider community.So I would simply say that although the bill itself has changed over the last couple of weeks it still has and did have Regenerate Christchurch at the centre. I reject the idea that the new arrangements have put it back in. I see the Green Party is saying: “No no that’s not true. Look what we did.” Well in part that is true but by and large what we have ended up with is a stronger affirmation of what was already in the bill in my opinion.RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): It is a pleasure to take a brief call on the Committee stage of the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill and can I acknowledge the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery for clarifying how the amendments will be empowering the locals more—or giving locals more of an opportunity—to take part in the important plan-making processes and regeneration developments that will be happening for the great city of Christchurch. I am very proud to be a representative member for the Christchurch area and I do want to acknowledge all of the work that all the cross-parties in particular the Minister have afforded all members in progressing the bill to this point and incorporating and addressing a lot of the concerns that have been raised.I want to offer a slightly different angle to the debate thus far. I really want to focus on the clauses in Part 1 that relate to the interests of Ngāi Tahu—Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu. Obviously I am a proud Ngāi Tahu. It is part of my whakapapa and indeed it is a huge part of the constituency that I represent in Te Tai Tonga.I do want to give a few bouquets to start off with. I am pleased that the legislation particularly in Part 1 affirms Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu as a strategic partner in the legislation. I think that continues the very good relationship that was forged out of very unfortunate circumstances through the earthquakes and through the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority legislation which made Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu a partner with the Christchurch City Council and the Crown under that piece of legislation. It is commendable that Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu is a strategic partner but I do lament that the legislation was not able to go that step further and insert a Treaty clause that placed some obligations on this new hybrid entity which is a Crown - local government type of entity.I know that Ms Eugenie Sage mentioned in her contribution before that this was a model piece of legislation for regeneration and indeed it is. I just regret that there was an opportunity here to go further. Indeed in Ngāi Tahu’s submission to the Local Government and Environment Committee it advocated strongly for the placement of a Treaty clause that is more than just recognising the existing rights that Ngāi Tahu has under its deed of settlement and its legislation with the Crown. They are obviously well known. They have been preserved not only in the existing Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority legislation but also here under clause 7 in Part 1. That is unchanged so there are no real qualms about that. But what we could have achieved through this piece of legislation was the placing of more distinct obligations around a partnership which includes this new hybrid organisation that can stem and flow over through to the obligations of local authorities in terms of recognition of mana whenua. Rather than just leaving it to the operational level there could have been some high-level guidance and some high-level obligations imposed in the legislation to ensure that this is the importance of the Crown partnership that this is the importance of the Treaty relationship—as obligations are devolved back to local government.I do regret that the select committee did not see the need to go that far because what we see now is that Ngāi Tahu has a very very strong relationship with the Crown. Minister Brownlee knows that—he has done a lot of work in that regard—and Minister Adams and various other Ministers. What is not happening though—or what is unknown really—is how receptive this new Regenerate Christchurch organisation will be in giving full effect to the mana whenua rights to Ngāi Tahu’s Treaty rights. I guess that is a whole new grey area that is yet to be developed and it really is incumbent on those leaders within the papatipu rūnanga in the Greater Christchurch area to assert themselves to assert their mana whenua and to build relationships with this new Regenerate Christchurch organisation.I do acknowledge that steps have been taken in that regard. The six papatipu rūnanga have come together and have been initiating discussions at the operational level within the council and with the new Regenerate Christchurch establishment just to assert their mana whenua status to drive their pouwhenua in the ground and to make sure that this new body which will be including more local input will also have a strong respect for and recognition of the mana whenua Ngāi Tahu in the application of its role.We certainly hope and I do that operationally the Christchurch City Council and Regenerate Christchurch will have much greater recognition for Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu for the papatipu rūnanga across the whole Canterbury region and indeed give effect to the Treaty partnership. I guess the way that the legislation is phrased at the moment it is like: “OK the Crown and Ngāi Tahu have their deed of settlement. We’re just going to park that over there. Yeah that’s there and we’re going to get on with everything else as Regenerate Christchurch and do all these wonderful things.” But they are not exclusive. They should be incorporated and be fundamental to the operations of how Regenerate Christchurch works. I certainly hope that the new organisation will be very receptive and open to working with its Treaty partners to ensure that they give full effect to the Treaty settlement and to ensure the great regeneration of the mighty city that is Christchurch. Kia ora tātou.MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti):Tēnā koe Mr Chair—good call. Tēnā tātou katoa. It is indeed my honour to stand in support and solidarity with my colleagues particularly from the Canterbury area who stand up in support of the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill. I am a member on the Local Government and Environment Committee but for the duration of this particular bill I gave way to those Canterbury MPs who obviously know of the impact more than I could ever do. But I do want to make a small contribution of support.About this time last year in 2015 we had tens of thousands from Māoridom descend on Hagley Park for one of the showcase pieces of New Zealand’s Māori calendar of events Te Matatini. It was at that gathering that Sir Mark Solomon held a function as the chairman of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu to which he invited iwi leaders civil leaders and other people of importance. At that dinner Mark shared the story that he never had the opportunity to individually go to the many iwi across the country and the many agencies to say thank you—thank you—for the support that iwi and agencies across the country gave in support of the Ngāi Tahu Canterbury people during the earthquakes. It was a very telling time at that dinner to hear him relay the stories of not only the tragedy that was bestowed on the people of Canterbury but also the challenges that Ngāi Tahu themselves as the iwi of that area put their hand up to play an active role in. I just start with that as a small contribution—that this bill reminds me of the challenges that both the people of Canterbury have faced and this bill will face in addressing us over the next wee while.We are here talking about Part 1 “Preliminary provisions”. I particularly want to make some comments on clause 3(1) and (2) and also to touch on clause 7 in that part in the time I have got remaining. People have mentioned—and I want to also acknowledge Minister Brownlee in terms of his shifting on the original bill after working with Opposition members through the select committee. There were concerns clearly about the experience of the Environment Canterbury example in ensuring that the local voice was heard. So when I look to clause 3(1)(c) where we talk about enabling community input—I mean that is a great start. I need to commend the Minister for making sure that the local voice is not lost in this commitment to regenerating Christchurch.But then we go to clause 3(1)(d) and we talk about who will be on this Regenerate Christchurch organisation. We talk about Canterbury Regional Council Christchurch City Council Selwyn District Council the council at Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu and Waimakariri District Council. If you follow me and turn to clause 4 I believe it describes what a “strategic partner” is and it lists again those five groups that I have just mentioned. So I guess my point here is that if we have defined these five organisations as “strategic partners” then the question in my mind is why they were not given the sole responsibility of rejuvenating and leading the plans in Canterbury.Then we will get to the second part around the role of the Minister. I guess it goes to the heart of taking clause 3(1)(c) to its ultimate conclusion which is that if these organisations are strategic partners then why do we not invest the regeneration with these strategic partners? That is the question and maybe the Minister can help us. I understand that central government is putting a lot of resources into it and it does need to have an overview but when I read that particular part in clause 3 where we describe them as “strategic”—and no one is going to challenge that any of these five groups do not know how to manage and that they do not have good governance structures good management and good plans—then we need an answer for this Committee around why I guess if they are strategic we are not using them to their fullest extent. I understand that many came to submit during the select committee process and there was a proposal there but for me—like I said maybe the Minister could share some clarification around why those groups are on the one hand strategic but we are using them for only some parts of the regeneration and the veto power still rests with the Minister.Moving to clause 2 there was some previous mention of the return to what many people will regard as the four well-beings. We are looking at clause 3(2)(b) where we talk about improving the environmental economic social and cultural well-being and resilience of communities throughout the area. For many people out there who value the role that local government plays in our local communities on the one handwe are removing the four well-beings from the Local Government Act but here—and I am not debating that it does not have a role here in this bill but what I am saying is that on one hand we take from local government authorities and yet in this bill we are acknowledging and putting it back in here. I guess the question to the Minister again is whether we will see some consistency. If it is good enough for Christchurch then why is it not good enough for the rest of the country?Finally I do want to just talk about clause 7 “Application of the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998”. For me not to say anything contrary to my colleague the member for Te Tai Tonga—I am glad that it is there. I am glad that it recognises not just the role that Ngāi Tahu will play in the Christchurch regeneration but the role that Te Waipounamu katoa will play in terms of where they have started where they are and where they plan to be.I think it is an opportune time when we start talking around regeneration that we start getting serious about partnerships particularly with iwi post-settlement and the opportunities that it brings with us working in collaboration. I just hope that this particular clause is actually implemented in its fullest—i.e. the values around partnership working in collaboration and us seeing that we actually want the same things. We have different resources and I guess perspectives to bring to the table so I want to acknowledge that that is there. The test for me is whether we live up to that in terms of the way that we interrelate with each other and how the larger Regenerate Christchurch group sees the value that Ngāi Tahu can bring across the four well-beingsin the previous clause which I have just mentioned. I will leave the rest of my contribution on the other parts until later on in the bill. Kia ora tātou.NUK KORAKO (National): Kia ora Kaiwhakahaere. Mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. I want to just first of all acknowledge all of the previous speakers particularly as we are talking about the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill because it has cross-party support. We call that kotahitanga—actually working together. Also the other part of this is that it is a really unique template and the fact is that this template can really serve other parts of New Zealand well in the future.I just want to come back because there has been a lot of talk about Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu Ngāi Tahu iwi and also mana whenua. My colleague and whanauka Rino Tirikatene actually brought up the fact around the Treaty of Waitangi—first of all when we actually did discuss the clauses of the Treaty of Waitangi at the Local Government and Environment Committee it was considered. But I think that the most important part of this is that when you look at mana whenua in Christchurch—in Ōtautahi Canterbury Te Wai Pounamu—we understand the Treaty and what you see there particularly in Christchurch and particularly in this bill is that this is the Treaty of Waitangi in motion. That was the situation here right from the darkest days in 2011 when the earthquake struck when Rūaumoko visited us for the first time. The situation here though is that everyone came together—that is what kotahitanga was and particularly with Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu. They were actually included right from the beginning as a major stakeholder. They set up a committee in conjunction with the Crown and in conjunction with Christchurch City Council and all the other major stakeholders. It was called Te Awheawhe Rū Whenua. I was privileged enough to be a member of that committee.That was the first part of this whole thing put in motion. What we had was the emergency. Then following the emergency we actually had the recovery and the rebuild. What we see now is the regeneration of Greater Christchurch in this legislation.We have seen the inclusion of mana whenua Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu all the way through this process. What happened here is within the bill itself what we have seen is an acknowledgment. It is right throughout the first part of the bill particularly in the inclusion of a major stakeholder within that collective—that is Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu.What the select committee did was it really looked at this—and particularly in the second part of the bill which I want to talk about—and that is the recognition of mana whenua. That was strengthened through the select committee process. I think the important part of this is that Te Tiriti o Waitangi has actually been very very much in motion all the way through and that is particularly why the decision that we came to was that it had already been included in how we were implementing this legislation.That is the first part of it. The other part is how well we all worked as a committee. I am particularly using the word “kotahitanga” again—collective working together. That is really the hallmark of this bill the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill. Kia ora.Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): I would just like to take another short call specifically on the amendment that is in my name and the parts that pertain to Part 1 of this legislation. But I would just like to respond to a comment that the Minister who was in the chair the Hon Gerry Brownlee made when he said that the changes that had been made post the Local Government and Environment Committee consideration were minor.Well I think the Minister is being coy and that actually the Minister came in and cleaned up what was an inadequate piece of legislation that the select committee reported back to this House and that the select committee did not make the changes that were required to make this a piece of legislation that Labour could support. In fact we like other Opposition parties withdrew our support at the select committee because the bill was inadequate and we would like to have seen more. So I think that the Minister is being coy and kudos to the Minister for cleaning up what was a very messy process that occurred at the select committee.I want to talk to my amendment which inserts alphabetically into clause 4 and which is the interpretation clause “Hagley Park Management Plan” and defines the Hagley Park Management Plan. This is the first part that is required for a broader amendment that I am putting up that would ensure that we protect Hagley Park and make sure that Hagley Park has the kinds of protections that our forebears in Canterbury have given that piece of land in the centre of our city.All through this legislation Labour has consistently argued that it is not time for Canterbury to return to business as usual and that there are bespoke provisions that are required for these next 5 years in terms of how Christchurch moves forward. But what we are saying is that when it comes to Hagley Park and the protections that have been built up over that piece of land it actually is time to return to business as usual. When it comes to that particular taonga in the centre of our city we do need to be able to say “It is as if the earthquakes never happened and it is as if the bespoke legislation that is put in place to aid our recovery and our regeneration does not exist.” So in order to do that it is necessary in clause 4 in Part 1 to define the Hagley Park Management Plan.As I alluded to in my first contribution on this legislation it does get difficult in terms of defining geographical parts of the city but we are incredibly blessed I guess in Christchurch that we already have good statutory definitions of this area. The Hagley Park Management Plan “means the management plan adopted for Hagley Park in 2007 under the Reserves Act 1977.” So it is specifically that area of land that is to be protected—and in Part 2 I will speak more broadly to those protections—but this part of the bill does put in place those provisions.Hagley Park has something of a history of being protected. It was established in 1855 and people who tried to make changes to it pretty quickly found that it was very difficult to do so. In the 1860s it was considered that it would connect to Great South Road which is now known as Riccarton Road through to Armagh Street but that was a plan that fell over. Christchurch has only ever had two-term mayors and one of them tried to put a road through Hagley Park in the “road through the park plan” in the 1970s and Ron Guthrey soon found in 1971 that he was thrown out of office when he tried to connect Harper Avenue to Salisbury Street through Hagley Park. It was just not going to fly.Hagley Park is a special place for the people of Canterbury. It is protected and it has been protected for generations in our city. Labour is putting up an amendment and saying that it is time now for us—it is our responsibility—to carry on those protections that have been built up for generations and ensure that while our city recovers and we regenerate our taonga in the centre of our city remains dear and those protections for Hagley Park that have been built up endure for the next 5 years and beyond. Thank you.POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): I want to take just a short call and reflect on a couple of clauses as they apply to the area of New Brighton.Those clauses are clause 3(1)(e) and clause 3(2)(b). What I want to relate to New Brighton is that the New Brighton area is quite a unique area within Christchurch City. It is unique. It has an interesting and eclectic mix of people living within it. It has one significant feature and it is one of the things I find really quirky about the area. In many communities a lot of the community life is driven by NGOs and community groups and the like. That is not unusual and that is part of what happens in New Brighton but there is a significant business interest in the New Brighton area. Many of you will recall that New Brighton was the first place to have the shops open on the weekends. It was what really stood New Brighton apart from the rest of the country and it has always been a unique and unusual community because of it. It has a very strong business focus. You can appreciate Mr Chairman that the earthquakes have really disrupted a lot of business throughout the whole region throughout Christchurch but particularly in New Brighton which was suffering a downturn before the earthquakes struck anyway.Why these clauses are significant for this particular area is that the regeneration of the New Brighton area is dependent on the support that we can gain for the businesses of the area. The New Brighton Business and Landowners Association is a very strong group within the area that is really striving to bring business back to the area and that is largely dependent on what happens with the New Brighton master plan.Why I am really hopeful that this model of collaboration between central government local government and other stakeholders goes as well as it can and has some significant input from the community is because I believe that in terms of the eastern suburbs their regeneration is really based on the regeneration of the New Brighton area as their retail and commercial centre. It is an area that has as I have said suffered an awful lot but it has been through a period of neglect. To ensure that the New Brighton master plan is developed to full effect will require this piece of legislation to proceed through the House—particularly with regard to the ability to acquire land because some of the issues that have occurred in the New Brighton business area have been because landowners and business owners have wanted to hold out to see what kind of return they can get on their investment and that has significantly hampered the ability to redevelop the New Brighton area.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am just going to interrupt the member and say that she is making a very good speech but it is a speech to Part 2 of the bill especially in the areas of specific plans and the acquisition of land. She might like to now come back to Part 1.POTO WILLIAMS: Thank you Mr Chairman. I will speak to the disposal of land in the residential red zone which is also significant for many people who are my constituents and has some relation to a group of people known as the Quake Outcasts. Many of you will know that the Quake Outcasts are a group of people who joined together because of the offer that was made to them to acquire their properties when the areas were red-zoned. Some of the residents in that area decided that they would not accept the offer for whatever reason—and there are many valuable reasons—and they made a decision themselves. But there is a small group who are concerned that this legislation—[Bell rung]The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Before I call the member I am going to reiterate the advice I gave her a couple of minutes ago. I am willing to call her again. I have read the bill and I do know which bits are in which.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 159 in the name of the Hon Gerry Brownlee to Part 1 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Megan Woods to clause 4 be agreed to:In clause 4 insert in its appropriate alphabetical order:Hagley Park Management Plan means the management plan adopted for Hagley Park in 2007 under the Reserves Act 1977.Amendment agreed to.Part 1 as amended agreed to.Part 2 Functions powers and processes relating to regeneration of greater ChristchurchThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): We are now debating Part 2. This is debate on clauses 12 to 117 schedules 2A to 8 and the substance of the bill.Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): This is one of several contributions that I wish to make to Part 2. There is of course the very meaty part of Part 2 that deals with regeneration plans—how we make them who exercises powers the limits on power and appeal rights—but in this part I specifically want to speak to clauses 102 to 107 which are I think where the real business end is that this legislation gets down to. This is about the transfer of assets liabilities and Crown agreements.There is much said about Regenerate Christchurch the joint venture between the Crown and Christchurch City that will be responsible for the regeneration of many parts of our city. That is vitally important and I will return in a later contribution to discuss those regeneration plans but what we also have to remember very carefully is that what this legislation does is set up is a new organisation—which in previous iterations of the legislation was known by the somewhat superhero moniker of CrownCo but now has the name of Ōtakāro Ltd. This is the agency that is empowered not only with getting the anchor projects up and running but also with developing the residential red zone and the land that lies within it. I have some very specific questions for the Minister in the chair Nicky Wagner around what lies between clauses 102 and 107 because these set up the tertiary instruments that transfer and give delegated powers to a Crown entity under this part of the legislation. When one goes and has a look at the detail of this organisation Ōtakāro Ltd there are some questions that we would like answers to.If we look specifically at the constitution of Ōtakāro Ltd there are some questions there one of which Minister is about the definition of “major transaction” as it sits within the constitution of Ōtakāro Ltd. This is defined as being $25 million or half the value of the entity. When you are dealing with the size of the transactions that Ōtakāro Ltd is going to have to undertake whether they relate to anchor projects or the residential red zone these are figures that do need some explanation around why it is that that is the definition that is given because if you compare this with similar Crown entities that hold similar functions and similar powers this is a different definition fromwhat has been used. Other entities would use the Companies Act definition of “major transaction” whereas Ōtakāro Ltd under the constitution that comes into effect under these clauses of the legislation institutes a dollar amount. I would just like to hear from the Minister why it is that a different road has been taken with Ōtakāro Ltd from the one taken by other Crown entities such as the Tāmaki Redevelopment Company Crown Asset Management Ltd and Southern Response Earthquake Services. And of course the Crown research institutes also operate under the Companies Act definition as given there. So that is something that we do have some questions around.The other thing that we do have some questions aroundin regard to Ōtakāro Ltd and something we are interested in the answers around is the section of the constitution that deals with distributions because this is really where a lot of the business end of the legislation is. At the moment the distributions—if you read this in concert with the objects of the constitution—allow Ōtakāro Ltd to work essentially as a clearing house for the Crown. I would like the Minister to take a call and state whether it is desirable or possible to insert into the objects of the company the regeneration of Christchurch and the putting back of any profits into the regeneration of Christchurch because as Ōtakāro Ltd’s constitution currently reads any money that is generated through Ōtakāro Ltd does not have to be put back specifically for the regeneration of Christchurch or for the benefit of Christchurch. We think this is something that does need to be addressed.We think that Ōtakāro Ltd can be a very positive vehicle not only for the moving forward of the anchor projects but also for getting some great things done in the residential red zone but we would just like some more detail on how it is that this company is going to operate. It will of course be subject to Public Finance Act stipulations that it is accountable to Parliament and to its select committees so there is a clear audit path that will be there for the company that is established and has assets transferred to it under clauses 102 to 107 of this legislation. But there are some questions that we do have around how it is going to operate what it means for Canterbury and—to use a phrase that my colleague the Hon Annette King likes to use a lot—why this would not be a hypothecated account in terms of Christchurch.Why would this money go back into the consolidated account and why would this not be money that is there?Any profits that are generated are there for the benefit and regeneration of Canterbury—that is something that we would like to see. As the constitution currently reads and as it is enacted under this legislation there could be a huge profit made through the regeneration of Christchurch and then that money could go and be spent on housing in Auckland. Housing in Auckland—I am not that one-eyed. I know that it is a vitally crucial thing that this country needs as are roads in the regions of New Zealand. But I would like to know why it is that this company has not been set up and why the transfer of assets that happen under this legislation has not been set up so that those benefits do flow directly back to Christchurch and sit squarely with Cantabrians. I am looking forward to a contribution from the Minister to answer those queries on that. Thank you.Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I have to say that shortly after the House had risen at the end of last year—it was not the most thrilling news that I had—I had to sit for 3 days on the Local Government and Environment Committee in Christchurch to look at the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill. But having been somewhat less than thrilled to get the opportunity I actually enjoyed the experience in the end because I thought that the submissions that the submitters brought forward were heartfelt they were well considered and I thought the committee was well chaired by Scott Wilson—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Simpson.Hon DAVID PARKER: Simpson—sorry Scott. Scott Simpson—memory blank there. I thought that we did do justice to the submitters many of whom were giving up in the end their weekends because we continued to hear submissions on the Saturday morning.The theme that was clear to me which is expressed in Part 2 of the bill was that as we transition from the state of affairs post-earthquake back to normality there is a need for a gradual transfer of power back to the city. Of course after the earthquake this Parliament under urgency passed legislation that effectively took control of the aftermath of the earthquake away from Christchurch City and gave very wide regulation-making powers to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery to essentially take over any function that the Minister thought was necessary to take over at a central government level in order to pursue the recovery after the earthquake. I think overall the Minister has exercised those powers sparingly and although the powers that were granted by Parliament were very wide—in fact probably too wide—the Minister has been responsible and has not sought to garner too much power to himself.Having said that the form of the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill that came to the select committee and was submitted upon by submitters was seen by many of the residents of Christchurch—Canterbury I should say with not just Christchurch but also Kaiapoi being affected—as being broader than was necessary. “Paternalistic” is probably the wrong word but the bill did not sufficiently begin to devolve powers back to Christchurch City Council.The Christchurch City Council is not a small council. It is one of New Zealand’s largest councils. It has got a large staff and a lot of very competent people and so I was one of those who thought that perhaps the mayor and other submitters had something when they were saying that too much power was being retained by the Minister as to what would or would not be done by Regenerate Christchurch.The point was well made at the select committee that Regenerate Christchurch cannot spend the Government’s money. If the Government is making contributions to things then either those contributions are bound by other deeds that have already been entered into between central government and local authorities or it was unspecified spending by the Government which of course it can control by refusing to spend it. So it was not a matter of who controlled the purse strings because the Government always does—central government always does—in respect of central government’s money. No one else can force central government to spend central government’s money.I thought that the proposals that came forward from Mayor Lianne Dalziel and others were reasonable. I had expected that they would be put into the bill by the select committee. I was somewhat surprised to learn that by the time the bill came back to the House some of those amendments had not been made. Having said that I am pleased that the Minister has seen sense because I do not blame the select committee for that. I am sure that Government members had at that stage—I am not implying any wrongdoing here—a Minister who was not yet willing to make those changes. The Minister through consultation with other parties and perhaps with members of his own party came to the view that it was proper to move further and Part 2 is where we do that.The description in the explanatory note of Supplementary Order Paper 159 which includes the alterations to which I have just referred makes it clearer that the board of Regenerate Christchurch which is an amalgam of people from central government Ngāi Tahu and the city council now has an enhanced role and effectively the Minister’s roles are truncated by the additional roles that are given to Regenerate Christchurch. I think Parliament can be pleased that it has got to an outcome that parties on all sides of this House can agree is a fair enough compromise. My understanding is that the Christchurch City Council is happier with this than it was with the previous provisions.I will say one other thing. I think we now do need to learn the lessons from the Christchurch earthquake more broadly in respect of what powers we should take off local authorities and what powers we should leave with them. I think some of the broad regulation-making powers that this Parliament voted for—and I was one of those who did vote for them—were broader than they needed to be. The ministerial powers of intervention in regulation-making powers went further than was necessary.I know that the Regulations Review Committee was at one stage hearing submissions as to what lessons we could learn for the future—whether there was some form of legislation that could apply in all future national disasters where there could be some sort of menu from which regulatory powers could be drawn. There were some including me who were a bit suspicious that that went too far and that it was effectively saying in advance that we will give carte blanche to Ministers in the future to override a lot of legislation that might not ordinarily need to be overruled and that we should not give those general discretions to override Acts of Parliament if you do not need them. Given that these events are pretty rare I think there is always a case when you have a national disaster of the scale that we did in Christchurch for Parliament to pay particular attention to it and to pass specific legislation in respect of that event if it is necessary.I hope that the benefit of the experience in respect of the Canterbury earthquakes is that next time something like this happens we know what powers are likely to be needed by a Minister to override normal statute law and to override normal city council powers. We can be more specific as to the powers that we give to the Minister in respect of that post-disaster phase and also that through this now modified Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill we have got to the right sharing of powers between the Minister and the city.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): I want to speak to my amendment which relates to clause 79(b)(iii) of the bill. It is the second version that I want to speak to because the first one has been amended. So those who have only the first version please look at the second one. It has the last sentence beginning with the word “Following” deleted from it so it is the same apart from that deletion.The point about this particular amendment—which by the way I have discussed with the Minister and we are in agreement that this amendment should be made—is that it would delete clause 79(b)(iii) of the bill which contains the words “any part of a loss that ought reasonably to have been insured:”. The reason for that is that when you look at the bill as a whole you realise that compensation will be payable in respect of an amount fixed by valuation under other parts of the bill for land that is taken compulsorily. So there would be a valuation and that would be the amount that would be payable. This particular clause is therefore redundant. It can have no application. The Minister and I are agreed on that so I trust the other parties in the Committee will see their way clear also to support the amendment.The only other comment I want to make is around some of the comments made by Megan Woods about the destination of funds resulting from the sale of land or other assets I guess as a result of procedures under this bill. I have always expected that the Crown would recoup some of its investment and I am sure that everybody else would think so as well. But the point is this: in deciding how much the Crown will simply keep to recoup some of its investment and how much it will invest in Christchurch through Ōtākaro it does need to look holistically especially at the red zone. It is the red zone really that I have got in mind when I am thinking about this.It is very important to not just sell as much land as is reasonably possible and then invest a minimal amount back to ensure that whatever is put in place is done satisfactorily but it is important that it be looked at holistically so that entire communities can be rebuilt not just houses and roads or whatever else is needed. More than that as I said in my speech previously today it is very important that we think in Christchurch about taking the opportunity to do things that we have never had the opportunity to do before especially in the red zone and in particular in terms of opportunities for recreation because I and others who live in Christchurch know that there has always been a deficit especially of some things in those parts of Christchurch because they tended to be the older parts of the city where what you would do in modern subdivisions was simply not done in those days and therefore it is a really difficult catch-up game to play.So we must take this opportunity to invest some of the funds resulting from the sale of property in those areas back into the city not only to see that we get good communities back in those areas where it is appropriate to rebuild homes but also so that we can take the opportunity—which we will never get again—to provide recreational opportunities for the whole of Christchurch. I just hope that those are the sorts of considerations that are taken into account. I will be interested to hear what the Minister says about that and Dr Megan Woods has said she is as well. Thank you.EUGENIE SAGE (Green): I endorse the comments that Denis O’Rourke made and similarly I would call on the Minister to make a few comments about what Ōtākaro Ltd’s vision is particularly for the residential red zone because under Part 2 it is Regenerate Christchurch that can be a proponent for plans in the residential red zone and only Regenerate Christchurch but it needs Ōtākaro Ltd’s agreement and consent to submit an outline for the plan process and it also has a role in providing almost a veto power there. So Ōtākaro Ltd and what its ambitions are will become quite critical. That outline document is really important because the plans as they are developed must be done in accordance with those outlines. So we would certainly be interested in what the Minister can say about what Ōtākaro Ltd’s role is to be.But what I really would like to talk about in this call is clauses 16 to 22L I think it is and the development of regeneration plans. The Mayor of Christchurch Lianne Dalziel described this bill as the most significant opportunity for the city since the earthquake sequence 5 years ago and as a chance for a real legacy. I would agree with that and why it is really critical is that in November last year I think it was the Press said that about 75 percent of Christchurch people felt that there was not a strong vision to lead the city.When the city council conducted the Share an Idea consultation back in May 2011 there was a very clear vision that came forward from Christchurch people about having a very green and sustainable city. There were a lot of ideas about slowing down transport and having more active transport more green spaces more sustainable buildings and greater energy conservation and we have seen a lot of those hopes not carried forward in terms of the work that is being done around the anchor projects. Certainly there are cycleways being developed by the city council but that vision—that really colourful and engaging process that the city council ran with Share an Idea—has not flourished to provide the commitment to a sustainable rebuild that the Green Party and many members of the public would have liked to see.So it is absolutely critical in terms of Regenerate Christchurch and the process that it uses from here to develop these regeneration plans that it involves people in a similar way to Share an Idea—that it is transparent that the engagement is authentic and active and that Regenerate Christchurch is implementing community wishes—because the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority has not always done that. One of the changes that the Green Party wanted but did not achieve in terms of persuading the Minister was ensuring that there is a hearing in the public engagement process.One of the problems with the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority has been that decisions have been made by faceless officials and there has not been the opportunity for the public to present to those making the decisions to have their say and to know that they have been heard and know who is actually going to make the decision. So the bill in terms of the process for the preparation of regeneration plans allows a hearing process but it does not actually commit to that. That is not a requirement but we do encourage Regenerate Christchurch to highlight the importance of good process in this plan development.I would also like to record at this opportunity our thanks to officials from the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority. It would be fair to say that the Green Party has certainly been quite critical of the substantial powers that the authority and the Minister have had under the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act and the way that those powers have been exercised. But the authority’s officials have been very helpful in the process of discussion with the Minister in developing flow charts to explain the new plan process the changes that the amendments would make and the way that process would work.We recognise that it is quite a difficult time for officials as the organisation winds up. Many have already left. We would be pleased if the Minister in the chair the Hon Gerry Brownlee would take a call in terms of how he envisages the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet operating and how big the department’s additional responsibility is under the bill to monitor its implementation. We know that several dozen staff from the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority have transitioned over to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and we would like to hear what the Minister envisages the role of Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet being in relation to the implementation of the bill and just how extensive the department’s engagement will be. Obviously it will be providing advice to Ministers and not necessarily just the Minister for Earthquake Recovery but it does have a new role with the winding up of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority.In terms of Regenerate Christchurch and the regeneration plans Lyttelton for example was one of the areas where the community board led a process for developing a master plan for the Lyttelton community that did engage the people of Lyttelton and it was not always about big projects. There have been changes made with the new square in Lyttelton the process around the recreation centre and a lot of what will happen in terms of public spaces. The community board and the city council ran that process. They involved the community and the community has now seen some of their ideas actually taking shape particularly with the new square—a really good place for people to gather for public events for people to meet and for building community networks.Regenerate Christchurch needs to have that same commitment to good engagement so that the people’s wishes are what this next phase is about if we are to fulfil the hopes that many people have in terms of the way they made submissions and fulfil the hopes that the city council has and that the mayor has in terms of her comments about it being the chance for a real legacy. It was I think the mayor who described regeneration as not what the Government does to the city but what the city does itself. That is what this bill with the regeneration plan process provides for. It does allow people to really influence what happens in the central city and in areas like New Brighton where regeneration plans will be prepared and in that critical residential red zone where the Crown has spent tens of millions of dollars purchasing properties and where certainly as Denis O’Rourke noted the Crown will be wanting a return. But it is an opportunity to be visionary as Christchurch has been in the past with the protection of Hagley Park as that core green space in the heart of the city and with the protection of areas of the Port Hills which provide a major backdrop to the city—an area for recreation and an area now for tourism with facilities like the gondola and with the proposals for the big new mountain bike park.We need to do something visionary with this residential red zone and its future. There were submissions on the bill that highlighted the need for environmental well-being to be at the heart of the regeneration process. We are pleased that that is now in Part 1 but it also needs to be at the heart of decisions around the residential red zone. There is a major flooding hazard issue in Christchurch. The residential red zone lands can be used as a buffer for the Avon - Ōtākaro River. We can add to the areas that are already protected in Travis Swamp which provide a buffer against flooding as well as a major area for recreation and a heart for biodiversity in the city.There have been many public ideas for what should happen with the residential red zone such as the Avon-Ōtākaro Park proposal with the city to the sea network of cycleways community gardens urban parks and sculpture parks. If Ōtākaro Ltd is to realise those sorts of ambitions that Christchurch folk have wanted for this area which is now largely devoid of houses we need a good public consultation process. We need Regenerate Christchurch to commit to authentic and genuine community engagement and we would be very interested in the Minister’s comments on how he sees Ōtākaro Ltd carrying out its responsibilities under the bill. Thank you.KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): I am speaking to Part 2 of this bill. During the debate on Part 1 we on this side of the Chamber showed our delight at the willingness of the Government to work with Opposition parties to ensure that there was more consideration taken of the community in this next phase of the rebuild of Christchurch and Part 2 operationalises that.I just wanted to take you through a couple of the levels of proposed workings with the community where things will have to be either approved or consulted on. I think the Government has actually done quite a good job and that is when someone is looking to revoke or amend or propose a new part of a plan within this piece of legislation. There are a number of groups that a proponent must seek the views of. An example of that is new clause 22B in Part 2 added by Supplementary Order Paper 159 where someone who is looking to—I think in this instance—amend part of a plan for the Christchurch district they have to seek the views of the Christchurch City Council Canterbury Regional Council Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu Regenerate Christchurch and Ōtākaro Ltd and the chief executive. So in that respect I think it is good that that level of consultation and the views are being sought for proposals that are being put to either amend revoke or put forward a new plan.But when we are looking for the detail of the level of consultation that Opposition parties wanted with community groups—we wanted to make sure that that was in there and I think again that is good work by the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery and the likes of Megan Woods in our party to make sure that there will be some grassroots consultation. I think you can see an example of that in new clause 30H of Part 2 for where in this instance a part of a plan is looking at being revoked. In clause 30H(4) it says “Regenerate Christchurch must seek the views of the following on any material amendment it proposes to make to the proposed revocation: (a) each party specified in section 30B(1):” which are the parties that I spoke of before—those five entities that I named earlier—and in subclause (4)(b) it says “any other party that Regenerate Christchurch thinks appropriate.” I think that is where in this piece of legislation we will have the opportunity hopefully for public submissions.One of the questions that we might pose to the Minister in the chair the Hon Gerry Brownlee is what those kinds of entities might be. Would it be similar to a select committee process? Would you put the word out and say “Come one come all.” or would it just be specifically targeted groups in specific areas that those parties or Regenerate Christchurch might look at having to consult with? Because in subclause (4)(b) as it stands “any other party that Regenerate Christchurch thinks appropriate” could be taken a couple of ways. I think if it is in the spirit of the piece of legislation that we have amended before us that would probably be a rather wide range of consultation within the community so that you would get a broad range of views. But if you were to take quite a miserly view of clause 30H(4)(b) then Regenerate Christchurch could say: “Well we think only these people are the people whom we should consult around this particular amendment and we will just speak to those people.”I am not sure whether or not that would speak in particular to the kind of spirit that we have got around the House for input from the public to some of the changes that may happen through this next phase of this piece of legislation. It would be interesting to hear just how wide you might cast a net when you are looking at “any other party that Regenerate Christchurch thinks appropriate.”Just one little thing before I end my contribution on Part 2 and again it is on Megan Woods’ amendment which looks in Part 2 to amend the bill around Hagley Park—which as a former Cantabrian I think is great. It is a jewel in the crown of Christchurch. I think it is something that most Cantabrians and most New Zealanders who know Christchurch well want to make sure is protected and as it currently stands in the bill it is not so that is why Dr Megan Woods has seen fit to make sure that there is explicit protection within this piece of legislation for the land that is known as Hagley Park. Thank you.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.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): Can I thank Minister Gerry Brownlee for his very full answers to those questions. I think we are meeting new heights today in a piece of legislation like this. It has not been my experience that I have seen many Ministers who are prepared to get up and point by point go through and give full explanations to very worthwhile questions so I thank him for that.I am gratified for his support for the amendment from Megan Woods in respect of Hagley Park but I do hope that he will give great consideration to the odd light that may go in around the old cricket pitch there. I recall naysayers—not pointing at the Minister because I know he was in support of it—about 120 of them I think who were very vocal in their opposition to the wonderful new facility that we have. You would have to have a high level of cynicism not to say that that is a world-class facility that does not impinge—in fact it enhances—the quality of life of folks around it given the thousands of people who turned up to watch the Black Caps time and time again. But I note of course that that particular facility does need lights and does need a few extra bits and pieces.I suppose that in retrospect we could look back and say to those naysayers that maybe they should have just held their breath a little and had a look it because it is very very easy of course to be negative and to be opposed to everything that people want to put up in terms of enhancing our environment. If you look at Hagley Park especially with it having had a history of sporting facilities there many of us shook our heads at the time and thought: “What is there to object to?”.I am also gratified at the Minister’s comments around flexible consultation and I take him at his word. I think it is logical to suggest that consultation be tailor-made and fit for purpose depending on the scale and size of a particular project or proposal. I have got to say that the people of Canterburywill I believe endorse that. They will endorse it also because it is led by local leadership. No disrespect to our fine Public Service but I think there has been a feeling for some years that the level of direct input that the so-called faceless bureaucrat to use the cliché has had in Christchurch—those folks do a job they do their job based on what their political masters tell them and that is as it should be. But it is only the political masters ultimately who can be held accountable—all those local people or politicians in leadership who can be held accountable for the decisions that are made. I think it has been a point made by many in Greater Christchurch and Canterbury that we have had too many bureaucrats parachuted in saying “Tut tut tut.”—or certainly that has been the perception—and that many decisions have been made without due consultation.I greet the Minister’s comments positively because I think there has now been a realisation that to consult does not mean you are ever going to get consensus. Of course you will never get that and those who feel that if you are somehow forced to consult you will never get anywhere because you have to gain total consensus—that is a false assumption. You will never gain consensus but with quality consultation there will be I think quality input. People even if they disagree with the decision at the end—I think Cantabrians and most people of common sense would say: “Well we had a fair shake. We were allowed to have a go and we put our views forward. We didn’t win at the end of the day.However you know we’ll get in behind and we’ll get on with it.”I think that where in the last 5 years there has been a history of people who have been less than supportive it was based in fact not on a wish to oppose for opposition’s sake but on a concern that their voices were not heard or if they were that they were just completely disregarded or if they were not that the decision had been preordained. Rightly or wrongly that was the perception of many in the communities.I think that with this bill—where the rubber hits the road of course is clause 16 onwards under “Development and amendment of Plans relating to greater Christchurch”. I believe you will see high-quality proposals generated from grassroots level with people who have standing and leadership positions through this bill who will take account of that. But as I say that does not mean everybody is going to get everything that they want and I think people in Christchurch know and acknowledge that. What they want to know—and I think I said in a speech I made when the House sat directly after the major earthquakes that local people generally are the experts in their own environment and their own communities. They know where resources have to be they know where the needs are and they can provide in my view the highest-possible quality input. But they need credibility integrity and confidence around the process.I think this bill given that it does have support across the parties given the spirit in which we are dealing today—it is not often members will put up amendments and have them immediately reviewed and accepted by a Minister—and given that the Minister is prepared to provide reassurance as we go through this process will provide I think in large part very high-quality outcomes.POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): I just want to make a brief contribution on the second part of this bill and really to refer my comments back as I said in my previous contribution to the area of New Brighton and the importance that this bill has in supporting the rebuilding of the business infrastructure in the area.There have been stacks and stacks of plans to regenerate the New Brighton area and one of the things that I have been really mindful of in my community is to say that I have always felt that the partner that has been missing in any opportunity to rebuild the area has been central government. So this legislation actually brings to the table all of those parties that actually will now be able to fulfil some dreams for the people of New Brighton. It brings together the local government in relation to the Christchurch City Council it brings on board the regional government it brings on board Ngāi Tahu and also central government and the key stakeholders behind what will be we hope a significant opportunity for our community to rebuild its business retail and commercial heart. In order for our eastern suburbs to develop and grow we need to return and restore our commercial and business interest particularly to the New Brighton area.I for one am very pleased that this opportunity has come to us to pass but I do also have a note of caution to add in there which is that there is a high level of expectation in the community that this bill will deliver what the community expects. I know that as my colleague the Hon Clayton Cosgrove said we do not necessarily want the world. We know that our expectations do need to be tempered with a dose of reality but it has been too good an opportunity for our community to pass up and not make some contribution to the discussion. So I for one am pleased that we are going to be able to voice our hopes and desires for our New Brighton community and that this bill will allow for those dreams to be realised.There is a significant amount of infrastructure that needs to go in place to support that development and I know that there is a great deal of work that is happening in the eastern suburbs at the moment. I want to ensure that what happens post the transition from the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority to Regenerate Christchurch is actually as smooth as it can be because we in the eastern suburbs still have significant amounts of horizontal infrastructure yet to be completed. It has been commissioned at this stage and I would hope that the transition from one entity to the next does not diminish the work that is in place at the moment but actually enhances it. We have got some concerns about the speed at which the horizontal infrastructure is going into place in Christchurch East in particular and I would hope that this legislation facilitates that not only to happen speedily but to happen well.I did make a note in my previous contribution about the acquisition of land and how important that may be in the plans that we have for the New Brighton area particularly around the redevelopment of the business area—the New Brighton mall and the reorientation of the mall to take most advantage I guess of diminishing the effect of the easterly wind on the people who visit our particularly beautiful part of Christchurch.I guess the only thing I do need to add to this is what may happen to the disposal of the land particularly the residential red zone. I have noted in a previous contribution that there is a significant amount of emotion attached to that land by the people who have had to leave it and not by their own choice. So I would hope that in the discussions about what happens to that land full consideration is given to the wishes of the people who used to own that land and that property and that they will be able to be a part of a very considered approach to not only what happens with the disposal but what happens with the redevelopment of that land. I agree with Denis O’Rourke that there is no doubt that not only will that land be developed for great recreational use but there will be other facilities and amenities that will go into the residential red zone.So I advise a bit of caution and I ask people to take full cognisance of the importance that those parcels of land had for the families that lived there prior to their having to leave when the area was red-zoned. On that note thank you and I conclude my contribution.RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Kia ora Mr Chair. I just want to make a brief contribution on Part 2. Part 2 obviously contains really the guts of the piece of legislation. It constitutes all of the respective bodies Regenerate Christchurch and Ōtākaro Ltd and really it follows very standard and sound practice the way that the entities have been set up.But I do want to just propose a pronunciation lesson on the name Ōtākaro Ltd. I have heard “O-to-karo” and “O-te-karo” and other different variations but if we are going to establish these entities let us make sure we pronounce the names properly. So I would encourage this Committee—and we have got helpful guidance because we have got macrons over the “Ō” and over the “ā”. So let us say it is Ōtākaro Ltd and people can just process that and maybe repeat it a few times—“Ō-tā-karo”. It is a beautiful name. Obviously it is a name for the Avon and you do see it all over beautiful Ōtautahi as we drive around our beautiful city.But just talking about Ōtākaro Ltd you know I do note the composition of the board and I do acknowledge the trust that the Minister has placed in some outstanding and very experienced company directors and chair governors—in particular Ross Butler who is the chair. We will not hold it against Mr Butler that he lives in Nelson but we know that he obviously has a very vast corporate governance experience and he chairs a number of significant companies across a wide range of sectors including Rangitāne Holdings Ltd. For those of you who do not know Rangitāne is a relative of one of the great South Island tribes centred up there in the Wairau region from the Kurahaupō waka. So I am pleased to see that Mr Butler has experience of working with the Māori economy. He has experience working with Māori organisations. I believe that if he can handle the politics of a Māori organisation he can pretty much handle anything—in particular his role as the chair of Ōtākaro Ltd.I do hope that the company that is charged with project managing and delivering on these key anchor projects is well capitalised to actually fulfil its role. We know that the Minister mentioned that he wants it to be a lean mean commercial entity and we certainly hope that. But we also hope that it has the actual resourcing to do its job properly and expeditiously.I know that all members here who are from Canterbury will lament the big doughnut that has emerged in the Christchurch central business district area. You know a lot of the development now has gone out to Addington way or out to Harewood way and there is still a lot to be done for the completion of these anchor projects. So we certainly hope that that doughnut will be no more and that it will be completed within a 5-year time frame in order to really step up its role to project manage some very important anchor projects.One other point I would like to make in terms of the disposition of land responsibilities which I think fall on Ōtākaro Ltd is to mention the piece of land Te Ihutai and obviously my relation over on the other side Tūtehounuku Korako will be well familiar with Te Ihutai. I think back to my uncle—we all call him uncle Uncle Rick Tau—Rākihia Tau who was the upoko for Ngāi Tūahuriri and I know that in respect of Te Ihutai which is a piece of land in the estuary there is some unfinished business around giving recognition or the return of Te Ihutai. Now there is obviously the devolution of powers from the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority to Regenerate Christchurch and Ōtākoro Ltd I would hope that consideration would be had to the issues around Te Ihutai and perhaps the fact that that land is no longer available or is pretty much unsuitable for its original purpose which was a mahinga kai—a significant mahinga kai—for the hau kāinga Ngāi Tūahuriri back in the day.I would just appeal to the Minister through whatever influence he may have through the new bodies that we are establishing that some full consideration be given to the issue around Te Ihutai and that some compensation or recognition whether it be by a land swap or some other creative arrangements could be entered into with the owners of Te Ihutai with the responsibilities that Ōtākaro Ltd and Regenerate Christchurch will now have in their responsibilities as custodians and as developers of the land that is available in the Christchurch area. Kia ora tātou.Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): I want to speak specifically to my amendments which address clauses 34 and 42 but before I do I just want to pick up where my colleague Rino Tirikatene left off with his pronunciation lesson on Ōtākaro. Kelvin Davis my Ngāpuhi colleague sitting next to me tells me that the translation is either “dodging weeds” or “a place where people laid”—Kelvin Davis: Played.Dr MEGAN WOODS: Sorry—“played”. So we are hoping very much that it is the latter and not a place where people are dodging weeds. But that could just be as Rino would say Ngāpuhi business going on there. Thank you very much for that service I say to the member beside me Kelvin Davis.If we are going to talk about the amendments that I am putting forward the amendments to clauses 34 and 42—and I am grateful to all the other parties in this Committee supporting these amendments because I think they are important to the people of Christchurch. It is not so much that we think there is an imminent threat of anyone doing anything heinous to Hagley Park that jewel in the centre of our crown but it is really about our responsibility as Cantabrians to protect that treasure. Generations of people before us have done it and it is our responsibility in this generation to continue that protection and ensure that that place—that magical place in the centre of our city—endures and remains there.In order to do this there are a number of instruments that are used in this legislation and what my amendments do ensure that the management plan of Hagley Park is the primary instrument and that it is not overridden by anything else that might be in this legislation. Then we have amendments that ensure that where there are any inconsistencies between a regeneration plan and the park’s management plan it is the park’s management plan that prevails. So what that means is that if anyone wants to put up any kind of change of use for Hagley Park they will have to go through a process that is business as usual—the same process they would have had to go through in 2010 in order to have a changed use for Hagley Park.As we are drawing to the close of this stage I would like to reflect on subpart 1 in Part 2 which is clauses 12 to 23 and really pay honour to the people who made submissions and who really were the voices behind the charge for a locally led recovery in Christchurch. One of the things that as a Canterbury member of Parliament you could not not hear was that the time was right for Canterbury people to take charge of their own destiny and that the time was right for us to have a locally led recovery. This needed to be balanced with the Crown’s need to endure within our region within our city and within its province and its obligations and its responsibility to our regeneration. I think that the changes that we have made get this balance better and we can have that and there will be some satisfaction that locals can take charge of their destiny as well.But also in the later stages of this Committee stage debate I want to pay tribute to all the Christchurch and Canterbury-based members of Parliament across this House from various parties. I would also like to note that by a rough count there are probably eight or nine of us in this Chamber today debating this legislation as Canterbury members of Parliament who were not here when the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority legislation was enacted in 2011. I think that speaks to a number of jobs that some of our colleagues have gone on to do with one of course being to play an important part of this legislation as the Mayor of Christchurch—Mayor Lianne Dalziel. We also have a number of colleagues from all parties who worked tirelessly in the immediate aftermath of the earthquakes in 2010 and 2011 and who have since retired and I would like to honour the contribution that they have made to our city and our province over the last 5 years.I think that what we have set up in this legislation—particularly the grunt of it lies here in Part 2 in terms of how we propose regeneration plans how it is that we get the anchor projects moving and how it is that we now grasp that thorny issue of the residential red zone and capture some of the creativity and the innovation that we have seen flowing through our city in the last 5 years. That lies in this legislation. It is our responsibility as Cantabrians and it is our responsibility as Parliamentarians to make sure this works. Labour is happy to commend this legislation to the Committee.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 159 in the name of the Hon Gerry Brownlee to Part 2 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Dr Megan Woods to clauses 34 and 42 be agreed to:insert in clause 34(1)(e)(iv) “(with the exception of the Hagley Park Management Plan)” after “Reserves Act 1977”;insert in clause 34(2)(b) “specified in subsection (1)” after “an instrument”;insert in clause 34(3) “specified in subsection (1)” after “an instrument”;add after clause 34(4) the following subclause:(5) The Hagley Park Management Plan prevails where there is any inconsistency between it and a Regeneration Plan.insert in clause 42(2)(d)(iv) “(with the exception of the Hagley Park Management Plan)” after “Reserves Act 1977”; andinsert in clause 42(3)(a) “(but not changes or variations to the Hagley Park Management Plan under the Reserves Act 1977)” after “Wildlife Act 1953”.Amendments agreed to.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Denis O’Rourke to clause 79 be agreed to:delete clause 79(b)(iii).Amendment agreed to.Part 2 as amended agreed to.Schedule 1 agreed to.Schedule 2The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 159 in the name of the Hon Gerry Brownlee to schedule 2 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.New schedule 2AThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 159 in the name of the Hon Gerry Brownlee to insert new schedule 2A be agreed to.New schedule 2A agreed to.Schedule 3 agreed to.Schedule 5The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 159 in the name of the Hon Gerry Brownlee to schedule 5 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Schedule 5 as amended agreed to.Schedule 6The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 159 in the name of the Hon Gerry Brownlee to schedule 6 be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.Schedule 6 as amended agreed to.Schedule 7 agreed to.Schedule 8 agreed to.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 agreed to.Bill reported with amendment.Report adopted.