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:19555] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I rise in this Committee stage to address the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 246 in the context of the broader bill. The debate that preceded the dinner hour continued the themes in part of the Budget debate that preceded this Appropriation (2010/11 Supplementary Estimates) Bill. The broad themes of that debate were that the country is in a difficult situation. Most New Zealanders understand that total debt is too high although only some realise that it is nearly all private debt not public debt. This is an important context to the debate and to these amendments.  
Most people are worried about the security of their jobs and the rising cost of living. What is important for us as a Labour Opposition to get across— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but can I just point out that the debate needs to be to clause 5(1)(a). It specifically states “ 
The Supplementary Estimates of Appropriations 
” and goes on to state “ 
Addition to the Supplementary Estimates 
” as well. The member needs to speak directly to these in order to facilitate the debate. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The definitional issue that is contained in Supplementary Order Paper 246 is around replacing part of the definition of “Supplementary Estimates” to substitute the following: firstly “(a)  
The Supplementary Estimates of Appropriations for the Government of New Zealand and Supporting Information 
 …” which is document B.7. In addition there is “(b)  
Addition to the Supplementary Estimates of Appropriations for the Government of New Zealand and Supporting Information for the year ending 30 June 2011 
”; B.7 Volume 2. There is the consequent insertion of an item schedule 1 in respect of Vote Canterbury Earthquake Recovery which is a matter that the Finance and Expenditure Committee will be discussing tomorrow at its hearings. That covers some non-departmental output expenses of—I assume this is in thousands—$27 million for Canterbury earthquake property demolitions and another $3 million for non-departmental capital expenditure.  
Mr Chairperson this brings me back to where I was before you inserted your ruling which is that the country recognises it is in a difficult state. One of the reasons for that but by no means the only reason is the series of tragic earthquakes in Canterbury. They have taken their toll of human life tragically. They have taken their toll of material and financial resources to the tune of some $15 billion and the departmental output expense that we see before us is a small proportion of the total cost to New Zealand. But those Canterbury earthquakes have more than that taken their toll of our spirit of New Zealanders’ spirit. It is funny the conversations one has on an aeroplane. I was sitting next to a gentleman recently who said: “You know it almost feels like the country is in a wartime situation.” I thought there was great wisdom in that remark. It presents both challenge and opportunity—challenge because in wartime people tend to hunker down and opportunity because they think in the end about what it means to be a citizen of their country to be a New Zealander. We learn to pull together to rise to face the challenge before us.  
The Canterbury earthquake reflection in this Supplementary Order Paper is part of that but it goes deeper and broader. In order to get out of the rut we are in which only partially is created by the cost of the earthquake New Zealanders are hungering and thirsting to see a plan—a responsible non-partisan fair data-driven plan that will get people back to work and get our economy moving. Mr Chairperson I see your signals and I submit to you that this is absolutely within scope. We cannot discuss the addition to the supplementary estimates from the Canterbury earthquake unless we understand the context— 
Chris Tremain 
: $27000 for demolitions and related costs. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I assume that that is in thousands and it would be $27 million. That would be the normal convention. The chief Government whip would know that I have already covered that in these remarks. If we are in a wartime circumstance if New Zealanders are to move together out of this rut if we are to cover the expenses of the Canterbury earthquake represented in this Supplementary Order Paper then we will have to have a plan for growth and for jobs; not a plan to sell off assets. Selling off assets is the antithesis of rebuilding. It is stripping down.  
New Zealanders do not want a response to the tragedies of Canterbury to be simply more retrenchment and more hardship. They are looking if I turn a little more specifically to the situation facing Christchurch for leadership from this Government which since September last year has created not one new position of trade training in Christchurch and which has not yet brought forward to the people of Christchurch a clear plan for those whose streets need to be bulldozed and whose streets will be rebuilt. We all know of because we have seen the pictures and many of us have visited the area families living with silt and liquefaction up to their ankles broken floorboards and houses that are whistling cold in the Canterbury winter and that is not good enough. People also want to know not only whether their streets can be rebuilt or where and when they might be assisted to move but whether the insurance policy will cover the loss of their in many cases only asset—their family home. Of course if they are insured the Earthquake Commission will cover a portion and private insurance will cover a portion but it will not cover the lot and for that gap there is huge anxiety. Every day that now passes is a day closer to the public of Christchurch saying that Mr Brownlee is not serving them well as the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery. 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Oh don’t undermine him. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I say to Mr Coleman that it is taking just too long. People’s patience is wearing thin. With every passing day they get aftershocks— 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: It’s not something to play politics on. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I am not playing politics. I am reflecting the sentiments expressed to me and my colleagues by the people of Christchurch. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: This is about process. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: This Supplementary Order Paper is a supplementary appropriation for additional funds for the Canterbury earthquake recovery demolitions and associated costs and non-departmental expenditure in relation to the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority. That is germane because the process in Canterbury is taking too long. Labour will be voting against the broad supplementary estimates of course but we would not stand in the way of additional funding for needed demolitions in Christchurch.  
Canterbury has been suffering. Canterbury wants to rebuild but I guess the broader point is that is an emblem for the whole of our country. New Zealand wants to rebuild. New Zealand did not elect the current Government just to cut costs on the Government Budget. Cost cutting has its uses but it is nobody’s idea of a real plan. It is not a vision for the future not a way of making New Zealand great not a statement of the values that bind us together and not a statement of how we will progress out of this rut and to a better place. But if the Minister in the chair the Minister of Finance thinks it is perhaps he could take a call and explain to us how cost cutting takes New Zealand forward why the Government does not currently appear to have a plan for jobs and growth and why it is planning to sell off State assets as a substitute for a plan that creates value and creates jobs getting people back into work and off benefits thereby helping the fiscal balance. Why are we selling assets if instead we could have a real plan that created growth? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just say to the member that the first part of the debate is about the definition of “Supplementary Estimates”. What the member is getting into is the second part schedule 1 where those things can be debated. But here it is more about process about definition. It is a very narrow debate. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. My understanding was that in the introduction to this part of the Committee stage you were referring to both the clause 5(1) and the schedule 1 amendments which are both contained on the Supplementary Order Paper. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No just clause 5(1). 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: All right. That would explain the disjuncture in our views. 
Chris Tremain 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I would like to bring your attention to Standing Order 107(2) which points to the fact that if the Chair brings the member speaking to account on more than one occasion—or in this case on three or four occasions—with regard to relevance the Chair may terminate the member’s speech. That is something that this side of the Committee would be pleased to see. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The Chair will make that decision thank you Mr Tremain. 
Stuart Nash 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson.  
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Have I dealt with the issue? 
Stuart Nash 
: No no; it is different. Are we dealing with Supplementary Order Paper 246 or just clause 5(1) on that Supplementary Order Paper? In that case are we not allowed to talk about schedule 1 on Supplementary Order Paper 246? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Schedule 1 is the next question. The amendment we are debating here is purely clause 5(1). There are two questions. We are just debating clause 5(1) which is about process and definition. Then we will get into schedule 1. 
Stuart Nash 
: Of Supplementary Order Paper 246? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Of Supplementary Order Paper 246 yes. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Mr Chairperson I gratefully accept your ruling but I venture to say that if you reflect on the  
Hansard 
 I think you will find that you appeared to introduce the two questions not just the two sub-questions of the first question—hence the approach that the Opposition has taken in this Committee stage.  
If we are therefore not to talk about the substantive schedule which relates to Canterbury and if we are limited to clause 5(1) then that clause is obviously a simple procedural swap of certain documents in relation to the supplementary estimates. Key to that is that there is a great lack of transparency in some of the Budget documents that relate to the supplementary estimates. Our spokespeople have found when trawling through the Budget that it is sometimes very difficult and very opaque to find where the money has gone with reference to the previous year’s spending and current output classes. The Government seems to have a habit of aggregating to a level where it is difficult for the public to follow what is being done. That has been made worse by several—I think grossly unprecedented—acts in this Budget such as having a $980 million unspecified Budget reduction.