Cosgrove Clayton: Taxation (Canterbury Earthquake Measures) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Taxation (Canterbury Earthquake Measures) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:672;Page:19024] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 The Opposition of course supports the Taxation (Canterbury Earthquake Measures) Bill. Those of us who are from Canterbury and those members of Parliament—there have been many—who have visited the province in recent days weeks and months will know of the devastation that still exists in many parts of the province. We should acknowledge again the tragedies that occurred more recently on 22 February and leading from that the devastation that has occurred in the Christchurch central business district in the outer suburbs in the east in the electorate of the member for Port Hills and through Lyttelton Sumner and that area and in my own electorate specifically in Kaiapoi. And latterly in my patch in a superficial way there has been damage throughout not only many parts of the rural area but also the northern part of Christchurch and equally in the Selwyn district which was at one point the epicentre as it were of the original quake. 
Kiwis across New Zealand and in Canterbury specifically have shown a huge generosity of spirit. It was inspiring to those of us who were there and had been working in that area to find just how generous folk were. It was amazing. As a member of Parliament a city councillor or anybody else in a position of influence in these times of crisis one realises how generous people actually are and one realises the privileged position one is in because it gives one an ability to ring up all sorts of strange individuals entities and corporates and ask for help. I know personally that when I approached—as other colleagues have done in their patches—companies and individuals for food shelter and all sorts of commodities and assistance in the vast majority of cases the folks who were asked to assist did so immediately. 
I recall a chap called Dave Pilkington who runs a vegetable pack-house in Belfast. In the days after the initial quake I rang him. He is a packer of vegetables; he is not a producer of vegetables so he does not own them. The call had gone out from the Kaiapoi rugby clubrooms that there was a need for vegetables for the food bank. I recall ringing Dave who is the president of the Belfast Rugby Football Club—a great humanitarian and sporting aficionado—saying that the folks needed some help and asking whether he could provide anything. He said: “Well”—I could hear him scratching his head—“I do not actually own the vegetables; I pack them. They are owned by others. Give me 5 minutes.” He rang back and used some interesting and colourful language that when translated meant “To hell with it. I’ll sort it out.” Within a couple of hours a couple of truckloads of potatoes carrots and goodness knows what else turned up. I just raise that from personal experience as an illustration of how generous people are. I do not know how Mr Pilkington organised payment for that. I have a strong suspicion that it came out of his own pocket because he is a generous guy. 
I return to the bill. We support the bill. It would be a tragedy I think if somehow the generosity of employers—and many and most employers were very generous in providing goods and services a bit of top-up money time off and all sorts of other assistance to employees—fell within the net and was penalised through the tax system. I am pleased to see that the bill looks to future-proof as it were for future events. We hope they will not happen. We hoped that after the 4 September earthquake we would not experience a further major event but tragically we did. Certainly for those of us who live in Canterbury we are now all quite used to the aftershocks and the shakes that occur. People are under an extensive amount of stress. I think it is noteworthy as we proceed through this bill that this measure will take away a wee bit of stress. It is another little brick in the wall if you like to take another worry or another bit of stress off the shoulders of people. As I say it cuts down a bit of red tape as well. It cuts through that. It takes a weight off the mind of those people who especially in respect of their employees went the extra mile and were generous. 
It is worth noting as we reflect on this bill that all of us probably through our respective electorate offices from talking with Government agencies and non-governmental organisations dealing in the social sector and dealing with the welfare and care of people are aware that for folks the battle is not over. In fact for many it has just started. Thousands of people in Canterbury are living in difficult conditions. I know that my colleague Lianne Dalziel who is not here at this point—and I say that out of respect for her—would want it noted that in her area of the eastern suburbs of Christchurch there are people who are racked and stacked if you like six or 10 deep within their houses and who are without lavatories and without some of the necessities of life. I think it is worth within the context of this bill noting that for the record. The battle for these folks will be a long one. This bill goes some way as a contributing factor towards easing their struggle. They seek a pathway to get their lives back their jobs back their kids back into a routine and their houses back. They face a winter as we do in Christchurch and Canterbury that will be cold. There have been some difficulties with home heating. 
I note in passing given the lack of contention about this bill as opposed to the previous one that the money that has been put aside or committed to by the Government is $5.5 billion to assist Canterbury in its recovery from the earthquake. We welcome that as the people of Canterbury would welcome it. We do not know whether it is enough. Possibly none of us know whether it is enough. It has to be a case of whatever it takes to get our problems resolved. Christchurch is an engine room for this economy. It is our second-biggest city and Canterbury our second-biggest province. Given that the Government now has its own department it has wartime powers effectively to cut through all sorts of red tape and get on with it as the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery is fond of noting and given that it now has a bucket load of cash we look forward to the hastening of the recovery. There should be no excuses. The people of Canterbury would expect that and this bill is part of it. There should be no more delays. There should be an increased pace in respect of the recovery process leading to people getting back to a normal and fruitful life. This is critical. 
I suspect that the folks in Canterbury who are listening to this debate may not as with the previous bill take a lot of notice. Again I say that not out of any disrespect. They are focused on the here and now. It is difficult for people who are in grave difficulty within their homes and who face a high degree of uncertainty in terms of their livelihoods. We know that by 31 May the business support package comes off. We know that there are 67000 - odd employees who are depending on that and that businesses are in dire straits and on their knees. We do not know what will be put in place to replace that package. If people are sitting in a house that has no heating and no toilet have kids whose lives and education have been disrupted and have lost their job or have the uncertainty and inability to predict whether their job or business will be there then life ain’t too great for them at this point or for our communities. This bill will go some way towards easing that. People should not have to be looking over their shoulder saying: “Hang on. Do I have tax liability because I was generous?”. I am pleased as I say that the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery has put in a future-proofing provision so that if we find ourselves in difficult circumstances whether it be the difficulties in Hawke’s Bay or caused by the tornado on the North Shore if it is warranted and if the circumstances fit within the definition then the Commissioner of Inland Revenue can move and if you like with the flick of a switch can put these mechanisms in place. I think this will encourage people not that they need it because they are Kiwis and Kiwis are always generous to continue with their generosity and look after their fellow man or woman. 
We support this legislation. It is common sense. It will reduce the burden the worry and some stress on our people. But I just say in passing and I am sure the media somewhere are listening that the battle for Cantabrians goes on and the focus on that for the rest of the country should not be forgotten. We support the bill.