Appropriation (2010/11 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Appropriation (2010/11 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:673;Page:19555] 
Appropriation (2010/11 Supplementary Estimates) Bill 
In Committee 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: We are to consider at this stage two amendments only set out on Supplementary Order Paper 246. The question is that the amendment to clause 5(1) set out on Supplementary Order Paper 246 be agreed to. 
Clause 5(1) 
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. 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 I will take just a brief call on the first question on Supplementary Order Paper 246 to come back to my understanding of this aspect and where we have come to on this matter. Clause 5(1) of the Appropriation (2010/11 Supplementary Estimates) Bill is amended as we see in the Supplementary Order Paper. That amendment in a substantive sense adds paragraph (b) as it appears on the Supplementary Order Paper. It makes it very clear that the supplementary estimates include not only the usual realm of information which is that in the supplementary estimates documents but also the addition to the supplementary estimates.  
We accept—and it was very clearly set out in the Finance and Expenditure Committee review of this issue—that that is an unusual situation. Normally of course all the supplementary estimates have to be presented to the House at the same time. But the point that is worth getting on record very early in this debate is simply to say that obviously an exceptional set of circumstances led to the need for this Supplementary Order Paper and therefore the need for this debate. It goes without saying of course that that was not only the Canterbury earthquakes in general but the specific earthquake of 22 February. The earthquake of 22 February was—and my maths is not exact—about only 6 weeks before the cut-off date for the completion and presentation of the supplementary estimates. In that time it was simply impossible to have any sense of the fiscal implications and what supplementary estimates would be required as a consequence of that event.  
When we get to the second question we obviously can debate where those numbers have got to but I thought it was worth just getting on record that process point—that the need for this Supplementary Order Paper the need for the insertion of paragraph (b) in clause 5(1) simply reflects the time frame and the very small and insufficient window between the date of that deadly earthquake and the final cut-off date for the completion of the supplementary estimates. That is all I wanted to say on this clause. I just thought it was worth getting it on record so that it was very clear from the outset why this unusual process was adopted in this case. 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 It was good to have clarification from Amy Adams but as a first-term MP I would like to seek clarification from the Minister in the chair the Minister of Finance on this matter. As Ms Adams highlighted— 
Aaron Gilmore 
: Mrs Adams. 
STUART NASH 
: —Mrs Adams—it was 6 weeks between the February earthquake and the presentation of the estimates to Parliament. When we look at the figures in schedule 1 of the Appropriation (2010/11 Supplementary Estimates) Bill which we will talk about soon we see that they are very general. I was wondering whether in fact there is precedent for this. Did the Minister simply not have enough time? Or did he have an idea of how much money would be needed but had determined that it was not ballpark enough or was not robust enough to actually put in the initial estimates? We are talking about a significant amount of money. We are talking about $28 million. We are talking about one specific event. Is there precedent around this process? What sort of decision-making process did the Minister Cabinet or the officials go through when they made the decision that they would hold back from putting those costs into the supplementary estimates?  
It is not proper process. The whole of the supplementary estimates as we know has to go through a very good very robust very transparent process. But at some point there has to be a line in the sand that says we have to put that estimate in because at some point we will be debating it next year whether it is in or out.  
Although it is a lot of money in the scheme of things it is not a huge amount. I think potentially the Minister could have given an indication that it would cost us $20 million or maybe $30 million. He could have put a figure in there and tightened it up a little bit later. Or did the amount range between $3 million and $300 million? I suppose I am asking the Minister of Finance whether the figure was so unknown or so wide that he really felt justified in taking it out and then bringing a Supplementary Order Paper to Parliament for further debate.  
I know that when a lot of my colleagues who are Christchurch MPs were reading through the supplementary estimates they would have liked to know that this amendment would be here. I do not think it was signalled even though we are talking about a natural disaster that occurred 6 weeks or 2 months before these estimates were presented to the House. It had actually occurred; it is not as if we are dealing with something that occurred after the estimates went to the printing press.  
Amy Adams 
: We were still in a rescue phase. There were still people being pulled out of buildings at that stage. 
STUART NASH 
: I understand that. We are not talking about search and rescue here.  
Amy Adams 
: No I’m talking about the time frame. 
STUART NASH 
: Yes and I understand that. I am not making a judgment at all. 
Amy Adams 
: Just as well because you weren’t there. 
STUART NASH 
: I am not making a judgment I tell Ms Adams. I am asking questions in relation to how this process arose. I am not drawing any judgment on the Minister; I am not saying this is right or this is wrong. But I think it is important for the Minister to stand up and explain the sort of process that he and the officials went through when they determined that this was the best route to travel.  
As I mentioned I am not making any judgment whatsoever but Mrs Adams stood up and said: “Obviously this is what happened.” There is no “obviously” from Amy Adams because she was not sitting around the Cabinet table. I could be wrong here but I doubt that Mr English said that before he made a decision he had better go and check with Amy Adams because she knows. He might have done that—he might have done that.  
I am just curious as I am sure some of my colleagues are to know how this process arose just so that if future precedent arises we can say that back in 2011 this is how the Minister did it these are the tests he put in place these are the people he consulted and this is how it arose. That is all. It is just a simple process. As I mentioned I am not making any judgments. I know that the Minister has been in the House for a long time and as a consequence he will understand that it is often good to take a call just to clarify for a new member like me. I have not sat around the Cabinet table so I do not know how this process works.  
In a way I suppose this is a selfish call because I am just keen to know the process that the Minister used. That is all it is. Like I said I am not passing judgment in any way shape or form but ask whether the Minister could just stand up and explain it to the Committee to the new members and perhaps to a new member such as Amy Adams. She said it was obvious but it is not obvious to me. Maybe Ms Adams is a lot more intelligent than I am so it is obvious to her. I have no doubt that the Minister consulted Aaron Gilmore. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I thank the member who has just resumed his seat Stuart Nash for his kind invitation to help clarify these matters. I think the first question he raised was about who had been consulted before decisions were made by the Minister of Finance and Cabinet. Of course we do consult Mrs Adams and the other knowledgable members of the caucus which means all of them. It is a very democratic caucus and a very democratic process. I have to admit that not every member of the Government or Cabinet will have their head around just how the supplementary estimates or changes to them work so I will explain it. Mrs Adams and the chief Government whip made a good point which was that these matters were all dealt with while we were in recovery mode following the earthquake.  
The sequence as I recall it was that there was a strong push to set up the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority and the House including the Opposition was notably cooperative in getting that entity set up. Because it was a new Government department the focus at the time was particularly on its powers rather than on some extensively thought-through budgeting process about exactly what activities it would have. Certainly it was not a process that we would replicate in Government; we would not usually set up a new entity without a lot more clarity about exactly what funding it would require at least for the next 12 months.  
In this case the authority was set up and there was a big focus on making sure it could pick up civil defence emergency management powers so that it could get on with the job of getting the recovery under way. At the time it was set up with a budget of about $4 million which was intended to be an administrative budget and enough to put in place the authority’s people and its capacity to work with the council and exercise some of those powers.  
Within a fairly short time it became apparent that it had to get on quite quickly with some practical tasks particularly to do with demolition. It has been surprising to those of us who have spent a bit of time on it just how complicated these issues can get quite quickly. So the authority was set up but the deadline for finalising the details of the supplementary estimates passed in early April. The authority was set up on 29 March and within about 10 days the supplementary estimates deadline of 10 or 14 days had passed. At the same time a discussion was going on about what the authority could or could not do bearing in mind that at this time it had no chief executive staff or premises. But because of the urgency of the situation the Government was already aware particularly under the decisive supervision of the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery my colleague the Hon Gerry Brownlee that there was work to be done.  
The money that was then required to allow the authority to get on with the demolitions could not be obtained through the supplementary estimates. In other circumstances and with other departments we might have been able to shift money around perhaps but even then it would have been after the supplementary estimates deadline. We did not really have the choice of waiting around to be able to appropriate the money later on in the process that necessarily has to go on between Parliament and the executive. The ideal choice would have been that we would know enough about the activities of the authority within a week of its being set up—and I have to say that that would have been a bit difficult. On the other hand we could not really have waited around for the next phase because a big part of the commitment that I think we have all made to the rebuilding of Canterbury is that we should make those decisions that can practicably be made as quickly as possible in order to build confidence in the face of what are fairly difficult circumstances.  
So that is how we have ended up here with this Supplementary Order Paper which covers about $27 million for property demolition and related costs and compensation allowing some money for demolition-related property purchases. That all applies to the central business district where significant progress has been made with the latest estimate I saw showing that several hundred buildings have been demolished. That progress is not visible to many people but part of recent progress has been the capacity of the authority to exercise the powers that this Parliament has given it to encourage and occasionally compel building owners to get on with the job. At the same time it has needed the funds to exercise those powers.  
I know that the Committee is approaching this particular issue with goodwill and it is really the demanding circumstances of getting the authority up and running that have put us in an unusual set of circumstances. The member asked whether there is some kind of precedent. In a procedural sense there is no particular difficulty with carrying out this procedure but I do not think it has been done for some time. I would expect that in the normal process of good Government it would happen very rarely.  
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I thank the Minister in the chair the Minister of Finance for his clarification of the process because it is an unusual one and we are grateful for that clarification. We on this side of the Chamber absolutely understand the need for these measures and the exigencies of the events in Christchurch that have led to the process that is outlined in clause 5(1) on Supplementary Order Paper 246. 
Clearly the Government has been confronted with an extraordinary set of circumstances and mother Nature has no regard for the timing of processes of Parliament and Budget appropriations but there is one further question I would like to ask about clause 5(1) on the Supplementary Order Paper and I wonder whether the Minister could answer this question as well. I do not wish to be pedantic and I absolutely understand the need for additional supplementary estimates in these circumstances so I am not contesting that need at all but I wonder whether the paragraphs of the amendment are numbered correctly. This question goes to the haste with which we make laws and the question of whether they are sufficiently scrutinised. Of course Supplementary Order Papers generally do not get the chance for any other scrutiny except on the floor of this Chamber in the course of this kind of Committee stage. 
This first part of Supplementary Order Paper 246 seeks to omit the definition of “Supplementary Estimates” that is stated in clause 5 of the Appropriation (2011/12 Supplementary Estimates) Bill. I am seeking clarification because the existing clause 5(1) already has paragraphs (a) (b) and (c). It also includes without a number a definition of “Supplementary Estimates” that this Supplementary Order Paper is seeking to replace by the addition of a further sentence. My question concerns the numbering of those provisions. When we already have paragraphs (a) (b) and (c) should not these new paragraphs be paragraphs (d) and (e) of clause 5(1)? That would make it clearer that the provisions are still part of clause 5(1) in the bill that is under discussion at the moment. I am not sure whether that is an error or whether it is obvious to everybody else but it would seem to me that instead of the new paragraphs being (a) and (b) as they are currently on the Supplementary Order Paper they ought to be (d) and (e) in order to fit with the bill that is currently under discussion. 
Paragraph (a) as it reads on the Supplementary Order Paper is already in the bill so that is not being altered at all. The words are the same except for the addition of “and”. Paragraph (b) concerns the addition to the supplementary estimates which is the money that is wanted to go towards some part of the repair in Christchurch.  
So I ask the Minister whether that is deliberate—or ask the officials advising the Minister whether that is deliberate—and accurate or whether it is simply something that has been done in haste and would result in there being a clause 5(1)(a) (b) and (c) then further paragraphs (a) and (b). I think in order to get it right it would be good if the Supplementary Order Paper were amended to read paragraphs (d) and (e). 
Having said that I also tell the Committee that I have not furnished a handwritten or hastily scrawled amendment to the Supplementary Order Paper because I am seeking the Minister’s advice on this matter. If that clause can be aligned without further complication in this Committee of the whole House stage and aligned with the original bill that is under discussion then I think that it would help everybody’s understanding of this matter. Thank you. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 246 in the name of the Hon Bill English to clause 5(1) be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Clause 5(1) as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 1 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: We now move to the amendment to schedule 1. The question is that the amendment to schedule 1 to the item relating to Vote Canterbury Earthquake Recovery set out on Supplementary Order Paper 246 be agreed to. 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 Again I have just a few questions. As the Minister in the chair the Minister of Finance alluded to we are all acting in good faith with regard to the Canterbury earthquakes and there is no query around the process. I want to take a few seconds to say that it is very good to see the Minister in the chair standing up and taking a call when there are genuine questions. I mentioned this earlier. I was talking to an older since retired MP about the process in the Chamber. He said he was a little dismayed that Ministers did not take the call during the Committee stage when genuine questions were put up by the Opposition. Old hands like Peter Dunne often stand up and it was good to see the Minister Bill English who has been in this House for a long time and obviously respects tradition stand up and answer some of the questions that the Opposition put his way. I thank the Minister for that. 
I have a couple of questions. As I said I am not passing judgment at all but I would like to talk about the non-departmental capital expenditure of $3 million for Canterbury earthquake demolition-related property purchases. Where does this come from? In terms of property purchases what is the process for—I assume it relates to the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority or the Government— purchasing a property? Is this perhaps the process if the property is not insured or cannot ever be built on again? How will these properties be identified? As we well know a significant portion of the central business district—and again we are not even necessarily talking about the central business district here—and residential properties have been demolished and can never be built ever again. 
Amy Adams 
: We’re talking about the central business district. 
STUART NASH 
: OK we are talking about the central business district here and $3 million is not a lot of money at all. In fact it barely buys a decent piece of commercial real estate now. So I wonder what that $3 million is about and why it is there. How will the property be identified? Will they be identified by Gerry— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member referred to an honourable member by his first name. 
STUART NASH 
: I apologise. Will the properties be identified by the Hon Gerry Brownlee or by the insurance companies? Again it is a question of process but $3 million is not a lot of money at all.  
I could be wrong here but I understand that about 95 percent of buildings in the central business district are covered by insurance anyway. I am assuming—and again correct me if I am wrong here—that insurance companies will pay out whether a building is demolished it is rebuilt or the land can never be built on again or whatever the circumstances. I could be wrong. Maybe this $3 million is to just top up insurance costs or maybe it is to buy buildings that are owned by the Government. Maybe the Government owns a building in Christchurch and this is part of that. Again I have absolutely no idea so it would be great if the Minister could clarify that. 
In terms of page 929 we are talking about $27 million worth of Canterbury earthquake property demolitions related costs and compensation. I think the Minister alluded to this. I do not think anyone really knows what the cost of demolishing a significant part of the Christchurch central business district will be. It would take a very brave person to stand up and say that it will cost X million dollars. It could be $37 million or it may be $17 million. Again I am just curious to know how this figure was arrived at. The Minister outlined the process for bringing this to the House which was hugely appreciated. But I know that when one is estimating work even for a refurbishment of a standard commercial building one has to bring in a quantity surveyor and one goes through that whole process let alone assessing the cost of demolishing the central business district of one of New Zealand’s largest cities. So I just wonder whether for example Fletcher Challenge came up with this or a firm of quantity surveyors—maybe Quotable Value which is online—or experts came to the Minister and said: “Look Minister we have absolutely no idea whatsoever. We think it could be $30 million. We don’t know but we know you have to put a figure in here so it is recognised.” 
The classic case is Rolls-Royce which never valued its brand but put a dollar on the books just to show that it did have a value because it had absolutely no idea. But a sign of value meant it was worth something. Is this the case where the Minister has said that we need to have something in the estimates because we have no idea how much it will cost so we put in $27 million? As the Minister said we all agree. We are not going to quibble about this. Hell if it ends up being $37 million that is tough but I do not think there will be any New Zealand demolition company that will rip off the Government or the taxpayers of Canterbury. So this will be done—I am assuming and I know—in a good sound commercial way but I ask whether there was a process around that $27 million. Thank you very much. 
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. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 I will make just a few comments about schedule 1 of the Appropriation (2010/11 Supplementary Estimates) Bill. I will pick up on one or two of the points that have been made earlier and perhaps explore them a little further. We understand well that the intent of Supplementary Order Paper 246 is to provide supplementary money to the tune of $27 million for property output expenses and demolition and $3 million essentially for demolition-related property purchases. We understand that the reason for the Supplementary Order Paper is that the Budget moratorium period from 11 April to 19 May covered the period of Cabinet decision-making that spanned 22 February. I make it clear from the beginning that the Green Party has no difficulty in voting for this Supplementary Order Paper.  
Perhaps the Committee could advise with respect the Hon David Cunliffe to resist the temptation to speak on behalf of the Committee when he is in full knowledge of the fact that the Green Party opposed the original Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill at the time and that we did so for good reason. I will not rehearse the reasons; we conveyed them at the time. We supported the recovery purpose of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority but we judged the powers granted under the bill to be excessive for that purpose. That said it is history and we do not oppose—we never did—an appropriate amount of funding for the rebuilding of Christchurch.  
I believe that we are all cooperating across party lines to that end. I for one have held three public forums entitled Vision Christchurch since April through to June with the aim of engaging experts and the public together to embrace a vision of a future eco-city that would reflect 21st century values and technology. There was one forum in central Christchurch at the end of April one in New Brighton a few weeks ago and one just 2 days ago in Lyttelton. They have been very well attended with about 100 to 200 people at each meeting and there have been superb presentations and animated discussion. Geotechnical consultants landscape planners architects civil engineers transport specialists community sociologists and iwi leaders have attended. I plan to get all that information from those meetings and before very long channel it into the cross-party forum under the chairmanship of the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery. We are all collectively combining our strengths to rebuild the city in good faith but I point out that it would be presumptuous to assume on behalf of the whole Committee that we are all in favour of everything that has gone before.  
I will make a couple of specific points about schedule 1 and also just touch on an issue that attends it: mainly that the psychology has changed. I think Mr Cunliffe was correct when he said that after 13 June the psychology in Christchurch has changed—indeed it has. The psychology has changed from 4 September to 13 June with all the trauma of 22 February. In the first two meetings I spoke about there was an upbeat mood about rebuilding Christchurch. After 13 June at the most recent meeting I convened in Lyttelton there was this new psychology. I would not call it a malaise but a deep trauma on the part of the residents. It has bifurcated the city into those who basically are making a definitive decision to leave—anything up to perhaps one-fifth of the city; we will find out—and those who will remain.  
I was apprehensive about that mood as we went into this forum on Sunday but I found that from those 60 to 80 percent of the residents who are still resolved to remain in Christchurch the determination to rebuild the city after 13 June came through. Just last Sunday afternoon in this meeting with about 115 people present the determination came through loud and clear. It was arguably the most inspiring experience I have had in the whole of the earthquake experience to date. I think we can take consolation from that determination and a certain amount of confidence that we are actually going to get there.  
I will pick up on the figures from where Mr Nash left off and address these questions to the Minister in the chair the Minister of Finance. I want a bit more specificity. We are talking about $27 million for demolition; I have no query of that. I just query whether $3 million for property purchases will prove to be enough in the fullness of time.  
I have been down to the central business district. I come and go from Christchurch. I live there most of the time. I left at 8 o’clock this morning. I went in for a Radio New Zealand interview in downtown Christchurch this morning at 7.15. I have been into the red zone a couple of times. Mr Cunliffe’s description is correct: it is an eerie experience. Most likely now 1000 buildings will come down. A couple of months ago it was 242 then it was 300 and then it was 900. Over 1000 buildings will come down. Anything from 50 to 60 percent of the buildings are coming down. There will be $3 million for property purchase.  
As I understand it we are talking about $3 million for just the central business district. With a broad operating assumption of 1000 buildings coming down I ask the Minister what percentage of those buildings that $3 million pertains to. Under the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority powers the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery has the powers of requisition. What percentage of those buildings—if it is possible to answer this question—does that $3 million pertain to and does it pertain in any way to requisition? Mr Nash talked about purchasing private property if it is being sold and about insured property. 
My question is—and in all three meetings I have found this the most excruciating challenge of all I think for the rebuild—about the relationship and the cooperation between the private sector and the public sector. I sat through a business meeting last night in Christchurch of about 30 business people and people interested in heritage. I know the agony that those business owners are going through and there is a risk of capital flight out of Christchurch sooner rather than later. They are on the verge of moving.  
On the other hand there will also be private owners who will refuse necessarily to act in the public interest. With my three meetings I am trying to generate a public mood where the public interest in a re-envisaged city becomes palpable and the public interest can be expressed by the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery and Roger Sutton. Even with the 40 percent or 50 percent of buildings left standing there may be intransigent private owners.  
I think the single biggest challenge to the Government—and it is a challenge to all of us as a society—whether or not there is a cross-party forum is how we deal with that situation. If we have a vision and I have seen architects’ PowerPoint presentations with a vision of a new eco-city some buildings could be in the road. Does the $3 million pertain to requisition? I would not necessarily critique it. I was critical of excessive powers but I understand the powers exist and they can be used in the public interest. I would be intrigued to hear the answer on that point. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I acknowledge the perceptive and considered approach of the previous speaker Dr Kennedy Graham to the earthquake issues. I have listened to his media comments and I have found them to be helpful. When I think of the non-Government parties in relation to Christchurch I say that the Greens are again marking out a more considered approach to the issues than perhaps some other parties are.  
To deal with the member’s question which was raised initially by Stuart Nash with regard to the dollar amounts the numbers are basically a guess. We needed to get some cash to enable the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority to get on with the job but in acknowledgment of the process of getting supply from Parliament we did not want to exploit that opportunity by trying to appropriate a large amount of money for which we could not provide a strong rationale. The number is a guess at the amount that might be required simply to tide over the operation until the full budget process is completed.  
Dr Graham has put his finger on an absolutely central issue in the progress of the rebuild. On the one hand it is trying to get the right balance between the need to build confidence by getting things going—which is a role that initially has fallen largely to the Government working alongside the council—and on the other hand it is ensuring that taxpayers do not take on all the responsibilities. So it is conceivable that some owners of buildings in the middle of Christchurch with a complex situation may prefer the Government to pay for the demolition of their building either because they are just not in a psychological state to make decisions or because they cannot get their bank their insurer their tenants and their next-door neighbours all lined up because it is a bit of a complicated process. There is a risk that owners will simply hand over all those responsibilities to the Government and that would not be appropriate. They have to take the risks that go with the ownership of property including what happens when events that they are insured against actually occur.  
There is an easy and obvious answer to it but I think that we will work out in the pragmatic Kiwi way through the planning process just what that balance might be. In the end I think the member is quite right that the purpose of getting on with the demolition that is financed by these appropriations is to build the kind of confidence that will encourage and enable private investors to put in their capital because ultimately that is what will decide the fate of Christchurch. The vision of the community is a necessary step the competence of the council is another necessary step and then someone has to actually put up the capital to build the buildings according to both their objectives and the objectives that are set out by the plan. Will this appropriation be enough? I would be very surprised if it is but it is certainly enough to tide us over. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 246 in the name of the Hon Bill English to schedule 1 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Schedule 1 as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Third Reading 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2010/11 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a third time 
.  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Appropriation (2010/11 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Bill read a third time.