Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:669;Page:16446] 
4. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
 to the  
Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery 
: Is he satisfied that the Canterbury earthquake business support measures undertaken by the Government have worked as intended? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery) 
: 
 To the extent that any Government support measures could ever make up for the impact of a global recession and New Zealand’s largest natural disaster yes. But if there are some unintended consequences the member wishes to put in front of me I will certainly consider them. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Is he satisfied that his package of $600000 made up of 2½ full-time employees and $100000 in cash for business promotion will have any practical effect to help businesses across the Canterbury region when local retailers have predicted as late as today that 20 percent of businesses in Kaiapoi for instance are likely to close as a direct result of the earthquake? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: There are two points I will make about that. First: yes I am. The money is being administered by authorities that are outside of Government—non-governmental organisations effectively—and I know that they are leveraging that sum against very kind offers from APN and from Fairfax media and that the local authorities are also contributing to it. The important thing for those businesses is to get customers so advertising the fact that they are available to provide services is a very important factor. In the case of Kaiapoi it is estimated that about 80 percent of the space north of the river is likely to be demolished. There is not much a Government can do about that. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Does he agree with his colleague Nicky Wagner who said in an email to Canterbury business person Roger Thomas on 8 December 2010: “Businesses that are struggling need to have a good look at themselves to identify whether it is just the earthquake or whether they are at a stage that they need to do more work on their business model and the earthquake has just brought it to a head earlier than it would normally.” or does he think that those comments are out of touch and rather insulting to business owners struggling in the aftermath of the biggest earthquake in New Zealand’s history? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister is not responsible for what Nicky Wagner might say but the Minister is capable of handling his responsibility. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I can sympathise with the member’s concern about businesses that are struggling. He is asking me to comment about that particular exchange without knowing the full exchange. I know the gentleman concerned Roger Thomas. He is a former travel agent—he may still be in that business. There are a number of businesses that are thriving at the present time and there are many that are in some difficulty. I say to the member that no business can ever afford to be static at any time so reconsideration of a business model is something all businesses regularly do. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I seek leave to table the email—also to assist the Minister who has not seen it—of Wednesday 8 December 2010 from Nicky Wagner to one Roger Thomas noting that businesses have to have a look at themselves. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Brendon Burns 
: Given that an estimated 30 percent of San Francisco businesses folded after that city’s 1979 quake has the Minister any estimate of Canterbury business closures following the 4 September quake and would 30 percent or more be acceptable to him? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I do not think that anyone could compare the two earthquakes for the simple reason that New Zealand is one of the most highly insured countries in the world. Our uptake of business interruption insurance is very high. That is not the case in San Francisco—I have made checks on that. As to what an acceptable level of business closure is there is no level that would be acceptable in its entirety. But inevitably when there is a disaster there are disastrous consequences for some people. We are trying to mitigate as much as possible against that. 
Brendon Burns 
: Does the Minister have the Prime Minister’s full support for his portfolio given that Mr Key told the Canterbury Employers Chamber of Commerce shortly after the 4 September quake that the Government would do “whatever it took to assist the region”—a pledge that last week saw the Cabinet reject a modest $4.1 million package sought by the chamber and the Enterprise North Canterbury board to stop Canterbury businesses from bleeding jobs and closing their doors? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The final part of that question is pure supposition on the part of the member; it is unnecessary scaremongering. The Government has put up the money for the reinforcing of those suburbs to ensure that New Zealanders who own those houses—Canterbury residents—do not lose their equity. We have also ensured that there has been no delay to the Earthquake Commission making payments. I ask anyone to tell me whether the $450 million paid into Canterbury substantially for chattel damage is having a positive economic effect. I can quote the Canterbury Employers Chamber of Commerce which is saying that yes it is having a big effect.