Dyson Ruth: Estimates Debate — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDyson Ruth: Estimates Debate — In Committee[Sitting date: 01 July 2014. Volume:700;Page:19056. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills):Thanks very much for the opportunity to take a call in the estimates debate for Vote Canterbury Earthquake Recovery. Nowhere in New Zealand in my view is it more needed than in Canterbury for people to have a bit of support a bit of a vision and something positive to look forward to. We have been through a lot and where that vision that support and that hope for the future could have been provided there is a big empty space. People are looking for local jobs for local people. They want to have training opportunities for young people in our city so that they can go on with a passion and stay in our communities.We want homes that are affordable. I have watched the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery wash his hands of any concern at all about the situation that people are finding themselves in. I have said to the Minister that I do not care what he calls it. He argues about whether or not it is a crisis. I do not care about the description. The fact is that people in our communities cannot find an affordable home to rent. From my perspective that is a crisis and the Government has done nothing.I see that the Hon Dr Nick Smith is about to make a major housing announcement in Canterbury over the coming week. I look forward to something positive. Do you think anyone will be a little bit suspicious that 3½ years since the February quake after constant denials from the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery suddenly—what a coincidence we are 80 days from an election—we have the Minister of Housing giving a toss about our housing situation? I think that would be greeted with the cynicism that it deserves.The National Government has walked away from the hardest part of the Canterbury earthquake recovery. That is what I have previously found so frustrating but that frustration has now been trumped because what we learnt during the estimates was that Minister Brownlee and Minister English have used the Canterbury earthquake recovery as a way of fiddling the books and putting on the table a Budget surplus. It is not a true surplus. We will not know the true figures involved in the central government contribution to the earthquake recovery until—when? Ah the end of the year. It is a deliberate decision by the Hon Gerry Brownlee that there would be no auditing of the costs until after the election. This is a cheap and nasty way of producing a Budget surplus on the back of tragedy. On behalf of my constituents I resent that.The Minister debated this—not very strongly admittedly—at the select committee with my colleague David Parker my other colleague Clayton Cosgrove and me during the estimates consideration. But we produced a document that is a minute of a meeting between Tony Marryatt and Bob Parker—the former chief executive and the former mayor—and the current Minister. It said this: “Following discussions with the Minister it was felt that due to the possible negative impact on the cost of borrowing for the Government following an audit opinion that highlighted the uncertainty of the Government’s share of the response and recovery cost a long-term plan process should not be undertaken by the council.” The Hon Gerry Brownlee said to the Christchurch City Council: “Do not get your books audited before the end of 2014.” and Bob Parker and Tony Marryatt went along with that direction from Minister Brownlee. No wonder Minister Brownlee got so upset when the current council commissioned the KordaMentha report which gave robust figures about the council’s need and the ratepayers’ need for contribution towards our recovery.We know that it is not all good news in Canterbury—we do not expect it to be—but we deserve the truth. We do not deserve having Ministers poncing around our city going to the opening of an envelope and misleading us about the costs that our contribution will require let alone using shonky figures to put on the table a Budget surplus that is made up. I think that people all over the country should resent that happening. The estimates on the Canterbury earthquake recovery show a shallow Minister and a shallow department with huge expenses—nearly $100 million to run the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority to produce well-being surveys—and on the back of the recovery costs it was denied a robust audit having shonky Budget figures. I do not think that is good enough.