Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Mr Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to the discussion about local government and I'd like to do so in a number of different areas. But perhaps starting with its relationship to the cyclone recovery I acknowledge that there is a separate Minister for Cyclone Recovery but the matters that I'd like to raise with the Minister relate to that very important relationship between central and local government. Noticing that the Government—by which I mean central government—has touted a locally led centrally supported recovery and of course noting that the Minister himself also has a particular role as a ministerial lead within a particular region—and I reiterate for the committee that National will be supportive of any efforts that the Government makes that we think are positive changes for those who have been displaced by Cyclone Gabrielle—I note that the six-month mark from the time of that disaster has recently passed and I acknowledge all those who have found themselves in difficult circumstances and indeed those who lost their life in some cases and certainly were endangered and lost much property and personal possessions that are dear to them and so forth in the events of 14 February and around that time.My questions for the Minister will revolve around seeking to understand from him—and I acknowledge he has limited time available to deliver a response but the question is whether the model of a locally led and centrally supported response or recovery has been effective. It has been effective it seems to me in some ways but in other ways not so much. And while at the theoretical level we in the National Party agree that local input is hugely important indeed vital nevertheless it is the case that central support must be provided in order for that to be delivered meaningfully. And I think it's fair to say that in certain key respects we haven't had meaningful delivery. Certainly visiting Muriwai within my own electorate of Kaipara ki Mahurangi yesterday morning I was taken to view a number of badly damaged homes. In fact it's probably an exaggeration now to call them homes except that's where the lives were being made of these people who have been displaced. They are certainly not habitable now. In some cases there were large trees and mudslides through them; the cliff had come down on that fateful night. It's obvious to anyone with a civil engineering degree or not—and certainly I'm no expert in these matters from a technical perspective—to see that these houses are not habitable now in some cases. I'm not referring to all obviously but the ones that are not are very obviously not and those should have been designated for the buy-out regime much sooner than the six-month mark; they still don't have that. So I put it to the Minister that the locally led centrally supported notion was a valuable one and a worthwhile one but it's only been as successful as the extent to which central support has been provided; in too many ways it has not.One of the problems that we've seen in the relationship between Wellington and these respective local governments is that the mayors and the councillors and indeed even those who live within these regions appear reticent to criticise or to ask for more even from the Government because to do so would be to bite the hand that feeds them. They are crucially dependent on the largesse of the Beehive. Noting the disparity between ratepayer versus taxpayer bases you know the large scale of assets at play and differing revenue streams mean that actually there's a power imbalance between local and central government. Now that's historic. That's not something that's occurred only recently in relation to cyclone recovery. It's been the case for many years; it's not a particular thing that's arisen over the course of the last two terms for example. I don't make any political partisan point in relation to that but I do point it out because it's relevant background to understanding that because local government is so dependent on central government playing a part in a situation such as this we do need to acknowledge the assistance that local government needs the support indeed that it needs in order to achieve things in relation to cyclone recovery.The cost-sharing arrangements that the Government announced it would reach with local councils in affected areas is a major topic of contention and if I'm allowed additional time Mr Chair then I'll point out that it is only in the case of one region namely Hawke's Bay area councils that a cost-sharing arrangement has been agreed. So Wellington is yet to reach equivalent agreements with others. My current understanding—and if there's an update in this then I'll thank the Minister; I'll be grateful to hear from him that others have been concluded—is that while we have heard for some time now that it is close to hearing an agreement between itself and the Tairāwhiti region nevertheless such an arrangement has not yet been made. Likewise with Auckland Council jurisdiction with large areas of West Auckland and the north-west that remain totally in limbo in the absence of a cost-sharing agreement.Also lacking for the benefit of the Minister is an understanding—whether from local government or central government or between them—as to when buy-outs of irreparably damaged homes category three homes as we say will actually take place. We've heard good intentions in this regard from the Minister and we support those intentions but unless and until those become reality that's not much consolation to those who have been displaced. We don't know when we will know we don't know when the buy-outs will take effect. I think it's a reasonable hope and expectation that these might take place before Christmas. There's an emotional attachment I suppose and an impetus for people to feel as though by Christmas-time—that special time of the year in many ways—people will know better what life will lie ahead for them in the following year. But nevertheless they don't now and we face the prospect of regardless of who is in Government following mid-October and regardless of the shape of that that whoever is responsible for implementing such a buy-out regime will be left with too little time to achieve that before Christmas and that would be a real shame. To think that the country's Civil Service and private sector too for that matter will close down for a month or so as is customary over the summer break and what a fine tradition it is too nevertheless that will be bittersweet for those who have more time cooling their heels outside the suburb in which they have lived outside the communities in which they have connections and without the emotional and financial certainty of their situation.And an example of the problem is that there are people who are living away from their homes at the moment they've been displaced they've entered into rental agreements for a certain period of time because at the point that they were displaced they've tried to find anywhere that they can to keep a roof over their head. They don't know how long to enter into those—they don't know how much of a renewal they should seek. They're in precarious financial circumstances. Now I will acknowledge—and I give credit to the Government for this—recently there was an announcement that there would be some accommodation support that would allow those who are in that situation to gain some support from central government. So again just to emphasise we welcome that as far as it goes. However the bigger picture is that people need the certainty of what's happening with their situation more substantively so that they're not relying on the Government to prop them up on a temporary basis month by month or six month by six month or year by year in the case of tenancy agreements.While we're talking about it it's also the case that the scheme took some weeks to come into effect. So for people who were left in that limbo who were really already struggling and didn't have good circumstances in terms of their living situation they had to actually wait for quite some time until they could be eligible for that. And even then there were all kinds of complications that have been the result of central government rules as to be applied either through central government departments or in conjunction with local government. And one of them it seems to be and we're trying to unpick this puzzle now is actually that it appears that if you own your home—your family home—in a trust that you won't actually be eligible to gain such accommodation assistance. That seems to be extraordinary because there are many reasons that a person might own a home in a trust. For example to protect against creditors relevant to a professional situation. It might be some legitimate family reason that's not for avoiding or let alone evading tax and yet these people are disqualified and that seems to me quite wrong. It's a theme I might be able to pick up in a future contribution.