Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 07 July 2011. Volume:673;Page:19895. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
5. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
 to the  
Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery 
: Does he consider the allocation of the value of the land within the rating valuation process to be robust when it has produced such variable outcomes leaving many in the red zone with insufficient funds to buy a section to take advantage of the replacement option in their insurance policy? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Associate Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery) 
 on behalf of the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: The Minister can only accept the valuation that was accepted by the Government of the day—that member was the Minister for Building and Construction at the time and his colleague David Parker was the Minister for Land Information—back in August 2007. The 23 June offer by the Government to purchase properties in the most damaged areas at the 2007 rating valuation is a fair and balanced one. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think the Minister may be confused. My question was about land value not property value per se—land value. There is a distinction. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well I believe that what the Minister said in his answer was that he did believe that it was robust because the Ministers of the day had accepted that it was robust. That was what I thought the Minister answered. If I am wrong on that the Minister had better indicate I am wrong but he is not doing that. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question talks about the value of the land within the rating valuation process— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What I understood the Minister to indicate was given this question I presume the Ministers of the day accepted that the land within the rating valuation process was a robust arrangement and the Minister is saying that he is not second-guessing the Ministers of the day—that he accepts their judgment. That would seem to be what the Minister was saying. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That might well have been what the Minister meant to say. I know that it is an unusual process but can I seek the indulgence of the House to ask the Minister to repeat his answer because I do not think that was what he did actually say. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I listened very carefully and I accept that the Minister could perhaps have been more precise in his answer. If the questioner indicates to me that the way land values are treated within the overall rating process has changed since 2007—that that process has changed—I will allow him to ask his question again. If it has not changed the answer is relevant because the Minister in answering said the Ministers of the day had accepted it was robust and he is not second-guessing that. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think he said the property valuation is robust but that is not the land. I think that is what he said. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We are not going to debate it by way of point of order. We have done that for long enough. There are further supplementary questions. I believe that the Minister answered it. It may not have been exactly the answer the member wanted but given the question asked it was an answer. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Will he be putting in place a formal appeal process to address any issues of inconsistency in the rating values of land recognising that the rating evaluation mechanism was never established for the purpose of paying out on land damaged by a natural disaster—referring here to land? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I understand that a whole lot of the technical specific details of the package are still to be worked through. I understand that the Minister has had brought to his attention some issues about land valuations with regard to cross-leased and unit title sections. And I understand that all of those will be addressed in great detail as the package is brought to the market. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was a relatively straightforward question that asked “Will he be putting in place a process?”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: And it was a good question I say to the honourable member if I may be so humble as to do so. But the Minister indicated in his answer that the details of the package to which appeals might relate are not yet finalised. He cannot indicate to the member whether there will be an appeal process because the package that relates to all of this is not yet finalised. That is what I believe the Minister said. That is an answer to the question. He cannot indicate whether there will be an appeal process if the package that might contain an appeal process has not yet been developed not yet been finalised. I believe that the Minister has given a genuine answer to that question. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Does the Minister now accept that his public commitment—which he repeated as late as 15 June and was detailed in yesterday’s questions to him—that the equity that earthquake victims have in their properties will be preserved has about as much value now as many of those damaged properties in Christchurch? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: No. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Does the Minister accept that the rating valuation process divides the total capital into two components—land and improvements—and does he now accept knowing that so many in the red zone have insufficient funds to buy a section that the land component is not fair and balanced? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: With regard to the first part yes I do. All I can say is that homeowners have their rating valuation from 2007. An analysis from the Institute of Valuers shows that sales prior to 4 September confirm that we have come up with a fair number. For example where the member lives I understand—in Bexley—just prior to the 4 September earthquake properties were selling for around 93.7 percent of their rating value. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Can he confirm that in certain situations the Earthquake Commission’s cash settlement for land within the red zone will be more than the land component of the 2007 rateable value; if so what steps is he taking to notify homeowners of this option before the Government offer is made on a formal basis? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: No I cannot confirm that. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Supplementary question Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call the member further I invite the member to repeat the question she just asked. It was a very reasonable question and I want to make sure I heard it correctly myself. The member may repeat her last question. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Can he confirm that in certain situations the Earthquake Commission’s cash settlement for land within the red zone will be more than the land component of the 2007 rateable value; if so what steps is he taking to notify homeowners of this option before the Government offer is made on a formal basis? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: My answer was that no I cannot confirm that. On a case by case basis that may be true but I cannot confirm that. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Can he advise whether the Earthquake Commission’s cash settlement for land includes the cost of repairing individual sections when the Government has ruled land repair in the red zone to be uneconomic; if so will he review that decision in light of his stated commitment to fairness and balance? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I am sorry but I cannot confirm some of the details the member keeps asking about. If they were put down in a primary question or a question for written answer we would be very happy to give specific details. All I will repeat is that the Government put a lot of work into this. The package is between $485 million and $635 million. We believe it to be a fair reasonable and balanced offer. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Does it meet his definition of fair and balanced that a couple in their late 80s living in the red zone who do not meet mortgage criteria and could not sustain a mortgage if they had one have a significant shortfall between the rateable value on their property and the purchase price of anything similar; if it does not meet the definition will he take some action to deliver fairness for them? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: As I have said on a number of occasions the Government put long thought into the process of coming up with a number that could be justified. The 2007 rating value seemed to be the right number to use. As I said in many cases property prices had dropped since that time. We think it is a fair and balanced package. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Does it meet that same definition of fairness that a couple in a brand new home that could be repaired—but they are living in the red zone so they have to move out—have been told by their insurance company that they will be paid only the cost of the repair; if that is not fair will he act to deliver fairness for them? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I will not be foolish enough to get involved in making a comment on any specific case other than to say I think the package is fair and balanced. It is also voluntary; people can choose to take it or not. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want to hear Brendon Burns’ question. These are serious questions. I must hear them. 
Brendon Burns 
: Does the Minister have any estimate or even an indication of what percentage of owners of properties in the red zone are likely to lose equity on their land or on their land and home under the Government’s two buy-out options? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: No I do not have that estimate but what I can say is that a very large number of emails and messages have been coming in from people saying to the Minister: “Thank you for the package you’ve put up. We look forward to being able to sign up and take advantage of it.” 
Brendon Burns 
: Given the Minister’s assurances about preserving equity made as recently as 2 days after the 13 June shakes what does he say to my Avonside constituents many of whom believe they will lose equity of between $50000 and $90000 under either of the Government’s buy-out options including David Hayward of Avonside Drive who says $90000 is the minimum amount he stands to lose? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I know that this is sounding like a cracked record but look the Government believes that the package we have put together is a fair and balanced package. I will not spend time in this House debating specific cases. There will always be circumstances unique to each case. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I seek leave to table an extract from an email that shows three separate rateable values for the land-only components of three 17-metre frontages on the river Avon in the suburb of Avondale— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Could the member indicate the source? Who prepared this document? 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: It is an extract from an email sent to me by a resident of Avondale. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is an email from a resident of Avondale. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
I call question No. 6 Dr Cam Calder. [ 
Interruption 
] On this occasion it is the Hon Trevor Mallard I ask to show some courtesy. I have called Dr Cam Calder. Once a question is dealt with I expect the House to show some courtesy to the next questioner.