Sage Eugenie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is subject to correction 
Sage Eugenie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 01 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4152. Text is subject to correction.] 
6. 
EUGENIE SAGE (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery 
: What advice if any has he received on the potential sale of Christchurch City Council assets to help pay for the rebuild of Christchurch? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery) 
: 
 I received advice from Treasury and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority on a range of funding options for the rebuild of Greater Christchurch to which the Government has committed $5.5 billion to date. Alongside the Christchurch City Council I support the regeneration of our city which will be enhanced by the central city development plan released on Monday. I publicly acknowledge the funding challenges for both the Christchurch City Council and the Government. Councillors and I have agreed to discuss alongside our respective organisations a sensible and achievable time line and funding programme for the delivery of the blueprint. I approach these discussions in good faith as the thousands of city residents would expect us to do so. 
Eugenie Sage 
: Supplementary— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Just before I call the member did the answer actually say yes the Minister had received advice on the potential sale of such assets or did it not? Because that is what the primary question asked. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: That is what the answer gave. I will repeat the answer. If the Speaker did not hear I will repeat the answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The Minister will resume his seat for the moment. This was a very specific question about advice on a particular matter—the potential sale of Christchurch City Council assets. Although the Minister has no responsibility for those assets he does have responsibility for any advice he may have received. The Minister if I heard him correctly said he had received advice from both Treasury and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority but what he did not say in his answer was whether that advice covered the issue that the question asked about. If the Minister could clarify that that would be helpful. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I have given an answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Speaker did not hear the answer to the question asked. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I have received advice from Treasury and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority on a range of funding options for the rebuilding of Greater Christchurch to which the Government has committed $5.5 billion to date. Alongside the Christchurch City Council I support the regeneration of our city which will be enhanced by the development of the central city plan released on Monday. I have publicly acknowledged the funding challenges for both the city council and the Government. Councillors and I have agreed to discuss alongside our respective organisations a sensible and achievable time line and funding programme for the delivery of the blueprint. I approach these discussions in good faith as the thousands of city residents would expect us to do so. I intend to say no further on this matter. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The relevant phrase was “a range of funding options” in the Minister’s answer but what he has not made clear is whether that range of funding options included the potential sale of certain assets which is the question in the primary question—it is written down. Unless he is claiming a public interest defence which I did not hear him say then he needs to answer the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the Minister is asserting that it is not in the public interest to answer the question that is absolutely the Minister’s prerogative to do that but the question is a primary question and if it is— 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have ministerial responsibility for the recovery; I have no responsibility for the Christchurch City Council and its finances. [ 
Interruption 
]  
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The Minister is absolutely correct in that matter and I pointed that out previously. But what the Minister does have responsibility for is any advice he has received especially advice from officials. In the Minister’s answer he has indicated he has received advice from Treasury. The question asked whether that advice covered the potential sale of Christchurch City Council assets. Now that is a primary question on notice. If it is not in the public interest to provide the answer to the question that is absolutely the Minister’s prerogative. The Speaker is not going to second-guess that. But so far I just have not heard an answer to the question. If it is not in the public interest I absolutely respect that. That is the Minister’s sole judgment not the Speaker’s. But just to ignore the question—a primary question—is not on. This is Parliament. The House deserves an answer to a clear question—if it is in the public interest for an answer to be provided. The Minister has so far said he has received advice on a range of funding options. The question did not ask that; the question asked what advice if any he had received on the potential sale of Christchurch City Council assets to help pay for the rebuild of Christchurch. He may have received some on that; he may not have. But at the moment the House is none the wiser and that is what is not acceptable in this Parliament. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Yes.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the Minister. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just for clarity because it was a very brief— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no. Order! I am on my feet. The Minister gave a perfectly clear answer.  
Eugenie Sage 
: When will the Minister be revealing that advice and the discussions that he has had with the Christchurch City Council about the possible sale of council assets? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I have not said that there are discussions with the Christchurch City Council about the sale of the assets. This is a particular concern for the Green Party. It is something that has been ramped up hard by the Green Party. The people who live in Christchurch know that there is a huge amount of work to be done down there for us to get back and they have a $5.5 billion commitment from the Government a plan that will revitalise the city a number of other problems that the Government is trying to work through at the present time. Sitting around angsting over what may or may not be sold or where the money is going to come from is of no use until there has been a proper discussion between the two parties. That will now take place. 
Eugenie Sage 
: Is the comment attributed to the Minister in today’s Christchurch  
Press 
 that “the council would have to find a lot of funds but it had options to deal with that.” correct; if so was he referring to selling assets? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I was referring to the fact that the Christchurch City Council has indicated in its annual plan that it is prepared to find I think a figure of around about $600 million with perhaps a further $155 million towards the regeneration of city assets. By anyone’s measure that is a lot of money. I admit you could barely buy a broken-down railway company for it but none the less it is a lot of money. When it comes to the second part of the question I cannot recall what the second part of the question was. 
Eugenie Sage 
: If I could help the Minister when he said that it did have options to deal with that was he referring to the sale of assets to deal with the shortfall? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: There are a range of options. I note that the council has so far opted for very high rate increases for Christchurch residents. 
Eugenie Sage 
: Does the Minister agree that the $30 million to $40 million in dividends that the Christchurch City Council receives annually from the trading companies in Christchurch City Holdings Ltd is a useful revenue stream that would be lost or reduced if those council assets were sold off or sold down? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I am sure a revenue stream of that amount is useful and no one would suggest it is not. But in the environment where you have got a provision on your balance sheet that means the city is very financially strong you do that largely I suspect over a number of years to provide for the rainy day. If anyone wants to suggest that Christchurch has not had a rainy day I think they would have a very hard battle to win. 
Eugenie Sage 
: Does the Minister accept that several of the facilities proposed in the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority’s blueprint for central Christchurch are bigger and more expensive than those planned by the Christchurch City Council and that this creates a funding problem for the council? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I think there are two things that are important here. Firstly the Christchurch City Council made some provisions in its annual plan as it was required to do. I did not think it was appropriate to use the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority powers to suspend that annual plan process because there is a whole lot more that the council is doing and has to do outside the central business district and as a result of earthquake damage. So the place holder positions that it took I think were perfectly appropriate. It could not run ahead of the release of the plan. But there is a plan. It is a very good plan. It has been well accepted and embraced by the people of Canterbury. The member knows full well that there are around each of those proposals a range of funding opportunities that do need to be explored and will be discussed. 
Eugenie Sage 
: Will the Government reconsider introducing a temporary earthquake levy as proposed by the Green Party given that the city council’s equity in Christchurch City Holdings Ltd is about $1.3 billion and the levy would raise almost this amount in 1 year? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: It is not a levy; it is a tax. It is a tax that is going to be applied to all New Zealanders to look after Christchurch if you believe the hype that the Greens say. The reality is that the Government is doing that. The Government has put up $5.5 billion. If the Green Party wants to say that it would support the $5.5 billion plus the extra money that might come from the increased tax that is an interesting proposition. How you would fill up the gap between what is planned and the revenue stream that is proposed is beyond me.