Dyson Ruth: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDyson Ruth: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 24 June 2014. Volume:699;Page:18782. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]10.Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills)to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: How much has the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority spent on legal fees in the last 3 years?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery):The legal fees spent by the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority are in two parts: departmental and non-departmental. They include the costs of settlement of 7157 residential properties and 255 commercial properties as well as defence of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act and a number of other contractual matters that it has had to engage legal services for. The two amounts are for departmental $3.382 million over 4 years and for non-departmental $11.335 million over 4 years. A simple calculation about conveyancing costs of the purchase of 7100 properties alone would tell you that that is reasonable. It is less than 1 percent of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority’s total expenditure.Hon Ruth Dyson: Was he correctly quoted in the Press this morning in saying: “Labour’s policy of paying the same amount to people who didn’t purchase insurance as those who did is simply reckless.”; if so can he name one insurance company that offers insurance cover for bare land—just one?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I do stand by my statements and further can I say that not even the Earthquake Commission offers full cover for land.Hon Ruth Dyson: Did he promise John Key when he came to Canterbury that “no one would be worse off as a result of the quakes” that bare land owners who cannot buy insurance rather than choose not to were going to be offered only 50 percent of the 2007 rateable value of their land when they were red-zoned and that actually they were going to be a lot worse off?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: At the time the statement was made by the Prime Minister we were in fact looking at very substantial devastation of residential property across what are now the red zones of Christchurch. It was some months later when it became clear that there was a difficulty around some properties that may be uninsured. Can I say that the experience so far has been that less than 1.5 percent of those who were affected did not have insurance. The point would be that in a country that has such a heavy commitment to insurance the Government stepping in to say you no longer need that insurance would be reckless.Hon Ruth Dyson: If committing less than $25 million to fairly compensate red zone property owners is reckless as he described our policy pledge yesterday what adjective would he use to describe the Government’s use of $30 million of taxpayers’ money to build a playground in the central business district?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: It is very easy to conflate two entirely different things to try to create an impression that suits a political view. The reality is that for a Government to say to people in New Zealand: “Do not bother about covering yourselves for natural disaster because the Government will be there to help you.” would be plain reckless.Hon Ruth Dyson: If the Quake Outcasts case to the Supreme Court is successful will he offer the residents a fair payout offer of 100 percent of the 2007 RV; if so will he do it promptly?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: As the House will be aware that is a case before the court at the present time. It will be heard beginning on 29 July and I am unable to make a comment about it while it is a live case before the court.