Dalziel Lianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Dalziel Lianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Advance Copy - Subject to minor change before inclusion in Bound Volume.] 
5. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
 to the  
Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery 
: Did he discuss with the Christchurch City Mayor reported claims that there had been overtures from within The Treasury that there was scope for the city’s rates to be increased or for assets to be sold to pay for the quake recovery and that this could be done under the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act before he called him a clown; if not why not? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery) 
: 
 No. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Has he been briefed about what Treasury officials said to the mayor; if not why did he describe the mayor’s quoted statements as an outrageous abdication of his responsibilities and call him a clown when he does not know what was said? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: In the days leading up to that particular injudicious comment from me there were numerous discussions going on with the council—between the senior executives the mayor me and the senior executives of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority—over a number of issues that we want the council to take some responsibility alongside us for. Although Treasury officials will have talked to the council I am unaware of exactly what that discussion would have been about. But let me tell you that when the Government is spending $5.5 billion anywhere we expect the recipients of that to have some plan for how they will participate in what will be a very very expensive recovery and that plan has to be a lot better than saying “We’re just going to put up the rates and we’re going to borrow a lot more money.” 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: When he told the media that section 48(3) of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act said that the Minister “must not direct any council to (a) set a rate under section 23 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002;” was he acknowledging that the Act could be used to force the council and its holding company to sell all or any of its assets and explaining why the Government voted against our amendment to the legislation when it was going through the House? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: No and any analysis that would suggest that that is possible is extremely bodgie. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Can he give a guarantee that the Government will not require Christchurch City Council to sell any of its assets to help pay for the recovery? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I cannot bind the Christchurch City Council to what it may decide to do. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was very clear which was “… that the Government will not require Christchurch City …”. It was a question of whether the Government would not require it and he has not dealt with that question at all. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept that was exactly what the member’s question was. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The member herself has pointed out that capacity for that does not exist under the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act and therefore it would have to be a decision by the Christchurch City Council. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was: “Can he give a guarantee that the Government will not require”— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: On this occasion I think the Minister did answer because in his answer he claimed that the legislation does not give the Government power to do that. So he is basically saying no. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Can he give a guarantee as Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery that neither he nor any member of the Cabinet committee on Canterbury earthquake recovery which he chairs has sought or is seeking any external advice on Christchurch’s assets to assess the potential for their sale to help pay for the recovery? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Speaking to the very specifics of that question we have asked Treasury obviously to give us advice about what the capacity is for Christchurch’s rating base to take on some of the extraordinary expense they have to face in the future. The list is long: a convention centre a town hall a new stadium Centennial Pool in the centre of the city the QEII complex the central city library parking buildings throughout the city and many service centres which are all destroyed. That is before you even start talking about some of the parks and other recreational facilities that the council has. It is a billion dollar - plus bill that it has to face and we are very interested given that we are putting up $5.5 billion as to how it might meet that cost.