Sage Eugenie: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSage Eugenie: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 07 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11690. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]7.EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to the Minister of Finance: Does he still believe that the fiscal risk associated with sea level rise is “a bit speculative” given the damage surging seas inflicted on coastal properties in Australia this weekend?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes.Eugenie Sage: Does he disagree with the head of climate monitoring at Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology who said: “We know that [coastal erosion from storm surges] is progressively becoming more damaging because the sea level is rising.”?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have not seen those comments. I am sure they were made on the basis of considerable expertise. The Government tends to see this issue as a matter of getting in place the tools for managing the risk. So for instance we will be issuing a document in the next few months that looks at how risks of natural disaster are shared between central government and local government because local governments make the relevant regulatory decisions but when a large or persistent natural disaster turns up there is a 60:40 basis for sharing the costs. I think we all agree that could probably be changed so that the risks such as this one are better managed.Eugenie Sage: Can he tell the House what the estimated cost is of replacing the 160 kilometres of rail lines 222 kilometres of State highway and more than 2000 kilometres of local roads at risk from sea level rise and storm surges according to the New Zealand Transport Agency?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No.Eugenie Sage: I seek leave to table a Ministry of Transport report obtained under the Official Information Act showing the cost of replacing this infrastructure is close to a billion dollars.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular report. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Eugenie Sage: Will he reconsider his decision to ignore the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s recommendation for him to examine the fiscal and economic risks associated with sea level rise?Hon BILL ENGLISH: There has been no such decision. I mean as the member has just pointed out someone has done an assessment that says that over the next hundred years it might cost a billion dollars to replace those assets. There are probably cheaper ways of dealing with that kind of risk. The Government is proceeding with some pretty significant work in respect of managing natural disaster risk both through the review of the Earthquake Commission and the review of local government insurance arrangements. Over the next couple of years as the new arrangements are put in place both central and local government will have clearer understandings and incentives about how to manage that kind of risk which I must say in New Zealand is only one of a whole lot of other risks such as earthquakes and floods on which we are paying out fairly large amounts of money more regularly. In Christchurch we have just tipped over $17 billion.Eugenie Sage: Does that work in relation to the Earthquake Commission or other agencies include looking at whether homeowners should be compensated for loss of property resulting from climate-induced sea level rise; if so when will a decision be made on that?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do not think it addresses that issue specifically at this stage. It may arise in the future.