Nash Stuart: Appropriation (2010/11 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Nash Stuart: Appropriation (2010/11 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:673;Page:19558] 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 It was good to have clarification from Amy Adams but as a first-term MP I would like to seek clarification from the Minister in the chair the Minister of Finance on this matter. As Ms Adams highlighted— 
Aaron Gilmore 
: Mrs Adams. 
STUART NASH 
: —Mrs Adams—it was 6 weeks between the February earthquake and the presentation of the estimates to Parliament. When we look at the figures in schedule 1 of the Appropriation (2010/11 Supplementary Estimates) Bill which we will talk about soon we see that they are very general. I was wondering whether in fact there is precedent for this. Did the Minister simply not have enough time? Or did he have an idea of how much money would be needed but had determined that it was not ballpark enough or was not robust enough to actually put in the initial estimates? We are talking about a significant amount of money. We are talking about $28 million. We are talking about one specific event. Is there precedent around this process? What sort of decision-making process did the Minister Cabinet or the officials go through when they made the decision that they would hold back from putting those costs into the supplementary estimates?  
It is not proper process. The whole of the supplementary estimates as we know has to go through a very good very robust very transparent process. But at some point there has to be a line in the sand that says we have to put that estimate in because at some point we will be debating it next year whether it is in or out.  
Although it is a lot of money in the scheme of things it is not a huge amount. I think potentially the Minister could have given an indication that it would cost us $20 million or maybe $30 million. He could have put a figure in there and tightened it up a little bit later. Or did the amount range between $3 million and $300 million? I suppose I am asking the Minister of Finance whether the figure was so unknown or so wide that he really felt justified in taking it out and then bringing a Supplementary Order Paper to Parliament for further debate.  
I know that when a lot of my colleagues who are Christchurch MPs were reading through the supplementary estimates they would have liked to know that this amendment would be here. I do not think it was signalled even though we are talking about a natural disaster that occurred 6 weeks or 2 months before these estimates were presented to the House. It had actually occurred; it is not as if we are dealing with something that occurred after the estimates went to the printing press.  
Amy Adams 
: We were still in a rescue phase. There were still people being pulled out of buildings at that stage. 
STUART NASH 
: I understand that. We are not talking about search and rescue here.  
Amy Adams 
: No I’m talking about the time frame. 
STUART NASH 
: Yes and I understand that. I am not making a judgment at all. 
Amy Adams 
: Just as well because you weren’t there. 
STUART NASH 
: I am not making a judgment I tell Ms Adams. I am asking questions in relation to how this process arose. I am not drawing any judgment on the Minister; I am not saying this is right or this is wrong. But I think it is important for the Minister to stand up and explain the sort of process that he and the officials went through when they determined that this was the best route to travel.  
As I mentioned I am not making any judgment whatsoever but Mrs Adams stood up and said: “Obviously this is what happened.” There is no “obviously” from Amy Adams because she was not sitting around the Cabinet table. I could be wrong here but I doubt that Mr English said that before he made a decision he had better go and check with Amy Adams because she knows. He might have done that—he might have done that.  
I am just curious as I am sure some of my colleagues are to know how this process arose just so that if future precedent arises we can say that back in 2011 this is how the Minister did it these are the tests he put in place these are the people he consulted and this is how it arose. That is all. It is just a simple process. As I mentioned I am not making any judgments. I know that the Minister has been in the House for a long time and as a consequence he will understand that it is often good to take a call just to clarify for a new member like me. I have not sat around the Cabinet table so I do not know how this process works.  
In a way I suppose this is a selfish call because I am just keen to know the process that the Minister used. That is all it is. Like I said I am not passing judgment in any way shape or form but ask whether the Minister could just stand up and explain it to the Committee to the new members and perhaps to a new member such as Amy Adams. She said it was obvious but it is not obvious to me. Maybe Ms Adams is a lot more intelligent than I am so it is obvious to her. I have no doubt that the Minister consulted Aaron Gilmore.