O'Rourke Denis: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Text is subject to correction 
O'Rourke Denis: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 01 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4196. Text is subject to correction.] 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First does not underestimate the magnitude of the issues facing New Zealand over the Canterbury earthquakes. We acknowledge the efforts made so far by the Government to address these but we do have a duty to highlight what we see as the Budget inadequacies of those efforts. 
Firstly regarding the new central city plan it is of course the people’s plan not the Government’s plan. It was based on submissions by Christchurch people and the employment of local architects and others. It is conceptually sound. The use of a green “frame” the emphasis on the Avon River and anchor projects are well identified. But all this is very expensive to implement. It is all very well to dream up a vision; it is another thing to see how it might be implemented. Private insurance and Earthquake Commission contributions will be very substantial but council insurance is completely inadequate. Additional council investment in the plan will mean a large burden to meet all demands. 
Additional Government investment is required over and above the land purchase requirements. It is not good enough to leave the Christchurch ratepayers to foot the bill alone. That would require excessive borrowing beyond prudential limits by the council. It is also likely to so pressure the council and community that unwise and short-term decisions might be made. Christchurch deserves better from the Government. The whole country has an essential stake in Christchurch’s success and early recovery. Without additional Government investment the risk is that the rebuild will take far too long to achieve the building of the major anchor projects especially the convention centre the stadium and the sports facility in particular. 
What is not an option would be Government pressure to sell the city’s strategic assets especially airport shares port company shares and Orion shares. They deliver a dividend stream far exceeding the cost of borrowing: 15.2 percent on average recently versus under 5 percent. They also underpin the city’s asset base which enables borrowing on advantageous terms. I have had decades of experience serving on the boards of some of these companies and I am certain that the sale of any part of the shares in them would weaken the city’s recovery and would not enhance it at all. To do so would be only a band-aid fix and what we need is long-term recovery. 
So what should the Government’s priorities be? Firstly to ensure that the residential areas are fixed very soon—that is the first priority—then to assist the city council in the overwhelming burden it faces concerning the central city recovery. Firstly it should actually invest adequately in the major projects indicated in the plan such as the convention centre the stadium and the sports facility. Secondly of course it should ensure that basic infrastructure is quickly repaired—and that is happening far too slowly currently if you look at the performance especially that of New Zealand Transport Agency. The third priority would be to fast track the replacement of major Government buildings—courts police administration offices and so on. That also needs a boost. So the Government’s provision for these purposes I think is completely inadequate. 
The Government often talks up the Christchurch recovery as one of its main priorities. But I question its actual commitment to dealing with those priorities for the reasons I have just given. But that is not all. There are other issues and one of them is insurance. It is still too hard to get. Insurance companies are still acting far too slowly—some quite deliberately I think. And it is not enough for the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery just to talk tough about this. We need some funding support too. The funding would be used for issues such as a decent disputes resolution process that is able to take classes of issues for resolution and to ensure practical results for people and that is not happening currently. In addition long term we need to reassess the whole regime of disaster insurance the place of the Earthquake Commission and the need—we in New Zealand First think—for a State-operated New Zealand insurance company to ensure availability of cover on fair terms and to be more responsive in a large-scale disaster. 
I would like to go on and talk about the white zone because there we have similar issues. Delays so far taken are excessive—acknowledging the technical issues involved. The issue here is also who pays for remediation actions. Uncertainty causes failure to act especially for example with rockfall fencing. I know of one area near me in Sumnervale where people are very worried by the fact that the council originally decided to put up rockfall fencing because it thought that it was going to be paid for by—shared between—the Government and the council. When the council found out that that is not likely to be the case it suddenly decided that it would not put such fencing up any more. Of course this is a serious safety issue. The Government needs to take its fair share of that sort of burden to make sure that those safety issues are dealt with. 
When we come to resources generally for the rebuild with homes progress is still far too slow. Yes thousands of homes have been repaired but there are tens of thousands still to go. Fletcher EQR is the sole manager. We in New Zealand First think that what we need is at least one other manager to ensure competition. That would allow a cross-comparison of the performance of the two and would increase the management resource available and in those ways would speed up we think the progress with the repair of homes. 
Similar issues apply to the business rebuild. We think there needs to be a 5-year target for the central city for people to focus on for investment. They need incentives. They need rates holidays tax holidays and fees exemptions. We see none of those sorts of incentives in this Budget which is silent on those obvious needs. 
When we come to red-zone purchases yes there has been good progress made and that is good to see. But our concern is for people trapped by red-zone land decisions because in too many cases the sale price is not enough for a new home and no other funds or mortgage are available to many people. New Zealand First calls again on the Government to ensure there is bridging finance for people in this position of up to $100000 at zero interest repayable upon sale or upon death. That sort of provision would help people who are trapped in the red zone because they cannot afford a new home with the proceeds of sale to move on. 
Those are the sorts of practical provisions that New Zealand First wants to see implemented. Again we are not seeing any good practical policies of that kind included in this Budget. So it is not good enough to hear Government members constantly say that one of their top priorities is the Christchurch rebuild and recovery when there is a complete failure to address so many of these issues and to make a real commitment in the Budget to see that those things are done. 
I was at an announcement on Monday hearing the Minister talk about the new central city plan and it was good to hear it—there is a lot of good stuff there—but he did mention that there would be billions of dollars more required. But there were no details no serious commitment and no indication of where that money would be spent and what it would be spent on. 
What we in Christchurch want to know is what those priorities are. How will people in their homes find that their repair programme can be sped up? How will people with businesses in the central city know that there is going to be not just a plan but actually a financial commitment from the Government beyond just land purchases to ensure that that plan gets implemented? Those are the sorts of issues that we do not hear about from the Government and are not provided for in the Budget. We in New Zealand First do not think that is a good enough commitment whatsoever. Much more needs to be done and there needs to be more investment in the Christchurch recovery than we have heard so far. 
Finally I want to repeat this: any expectation that the Christchurch City Council can borrow its way out of these difficulties is a myth and any expectation that Christchurch people will commit their valuable strategic assets is also a myth.