Cunliffe David: Appropriation (2010/11 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Cunliffe David: Appropriation (2010/11 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:673;Page:19563] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I thank the Minister in the chair the Minister of Finance for his intervention in a previous question. We are on schedule 1 of the Appropriation (2010/11 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and we are touching on the amendment that includes the substantive part of Supplementary Order Paper 246 which is the addition of $27 million for non-departmental output expenses for the demolition efforts in Christchurch and another $3 million for associated demolition-related property purchases. I will not take a long call but I want to underline a couple of important points. The first is that obviously the whole Committee is unanimous in its support for this provision. It reflects that the whole country is unanimous in its support for the people of Christchurch. We all stand shoulder to shoulder with them even though we are not living day to day through the aftershocks the disruption the lack of water the lack of sewerage services and in some cases the lack of electricity and heating. Any of us who have families or relatives there or elsewhere understand how terribly disruptive and morale sapping that must be.  
On the subject of morale I think it is fair to say that there has been a perceptible shift in mood since the last major aftershocks. People have if you like shifted the questions they are asking from how they will get through the immediacy of this to what is the longer-term game plan for recovery and rebuilding. There are many streets in the low-lying areas of Avonside Bexley and other areas where those living there are living through terrible terrible disruption. They are living in broken homes and they are unclear whether they will be able to rebuild whether their insurance costs will cover it or whether they will be forced to move— 
Amy Adams 
: This is not the SOP though. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The Supplementary Order Paper is around demolition costs and I am talking about demolition. 
Amy Adams 
: No it isn’t. It’s around CBD costs not Bexley. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Yes and it includes central business district costs of course. But as the mood is around the central business district so the mood is around where people live. It is the need for certainty and the need for a plan and at the moment people do not have that. They are now turning to the Government and they are asking how long it will be before they will know what the plan is.  
I was in Christchurch not long ago and I had a look at the central business district. It is an extraordinary sight as we all know. The scale of the devastation on a brick-by-brick basis is so much more than is captured on our TV screens. It was even more eerie at night frankly when one would expect the central business district to be lit up but in the centre of Christchurch there is nothing. There is only darkness because there is no power there are no people and there is nothing going on. It is just walled off. 
It is clear that much of that central business district will have to be demolished. The latest aftershocks only increased the concentration of sites where that will be required. What is not clear is what will be rebuilt where it will be rebuilt whether it is actually tenable to build a central business district on the same spot or whether it will need to be shifted. What design would proof us from future earthquakes? On the upside what design would give us the world’s best small city to live in? That is the opportunity that is before Christchurch.  
We will sense the shift in the mood from getting through the days weeks and months of hardship caused by an earthquake to asking the positive questions about this new place that we will get to. If it is not simply the rebuilding of what we had—and sadly it cannot be—then what is the new place that we will get to? It is for that reason that in my earlier remarks I drew the connection between the rebuilding of Christchurch and the rebuilding of New Zealand more broadly because all New Zealanders are feeling— 
Amy Adams 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Has this debate now become one of a general discussion about the rebuilding of Canterbury? My understanding was that it was reasonably tightly constrained to the two specific changes on the Supplementary Order Paper that are around demolition costs and property acquisition costs related to demolition. If it is in fact a wider debate around the rebuilding of Christchurch then I would be grateful for your advice on that because it seems to me that the member is straying well off the matters in the Supplementary Order Paper.  
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is correct in saying that it should be around the non-departmental output expenses and capital expenditure but I have given the member a little bit of latitude given that there was some confusion at the start of the debate. The member’s time is almost completed. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I think that for the people of Christchurch and Canterbury although they appreciate that there is important work to be done in the central business district around the direct demolition costs any discussion of that legitimately touches on the broader concerns and feelings about the need for a clear plan for a rebuilding of the whole city and of the Canterbury economy. The same mood exists around the broader country about the need to rebuild our shattered economy.  
The Committee joins together in supporting these amendments because the Committee joins together in supporting the people of Christchurch. I want the people of New Zealand to understand that Labour Opposition members—who are citizens of New Zealand like National members and members from every other party in this House—care deeply about Christchurch and its people and about New Zealand. That is why we are here and why we support these amendments. Thank you.