English Bill: Appropriation (2010/11 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
English Bill: Appropriation (2010/11 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:673;Page:19566] 
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.