Street Maryan: Appropriation (2010/11 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Street Maryan: Appropriation (2010/11 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:673;Page:19561] 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I thank the Minister in the chair the Minister of Finance for his clarification of the process because it is an unusual one and we are grateful for that clarification. We on this side of the Chamber absolutely understand the need for these measures and the exigencies of the events in Christchurch that have led to the process that is outlined in clause 5(1) on Supplementary Order Paper 246. 
Clearly the Government has been confronted with an extraordinary set of circumstances and mother Nature has no regard for the timing of processes of Parliament and Budget appropriations but there is one further question I would like to ask about clause 5(1) on the Supplementary Order Paper and I wonder whether the Minister could answer this question as well. I do not wish to be pedantic and I absolutely understand the need for additional supplementary estimates in these circumstances so I am not contesting that need at all but I wonder whether the paragraphs of the amendment are numbered correctly. This question goes to the haste with which we make laws and the question of whether they are sufficiently scrutinised. Of course Supplementary Order Papers generally do not get the chance for any other scrutiny except on the floor of this Chamber in the course of this kind of Committee stage. 
This first part of Supplementary Order Paper 246 seeks to omit the definition of “Supplementary Estimates” that is stated in clause 5 of the Appropriation (2011/12 Supplementary Estimates) Bill. I am seeking clarification because the existing clause 5(1) already has paragraphs (a) (b) and (c). It also includes without a number a definition of “Supplementary Estimates” that this Supplementary Order Paper is seeking to replace by the addition of a further sentence. My question concerns the numbering of those provisions. When we already have paragraphs (a) (b) and (c) should not these new paragraphs be paragraphs (d) and (e) of clause 5(1)? That would make it clearer that the provisions are still part of clause 5(1) in the bill that is under discussion at the moment. I am not sure whether that is an error or whether it is obvious to everybody else but it would seem to me that instead of the new paragraphs being (a) and (b) as they are currently on the Supplementary Order Paper they ought to be (d) and (e) in order to fit with the bill that is currently under discussion. 
Paragraph (a) as it reads on the Supplementary Order Paper is already in the bill so that is not being altered at all. The words are the same except for the addition of “and”. Paragraph (b) concerns the addition to the supplementary estimates which is the money that is wanted to go towards some part of the repair in Christchurch.  
So I ask the Minister whether that is deliberate—or ask the officials advising the Minister whether that is deliberate—and accurate or whether it is simply something that has been done in haste and would result in there being a clause 5(1)(a) (b) and (c) then further paragraphs (a) and (b). I think in order to get it right it would be good if the Supplementary Order Paper were amended to read paragraphs (d) and (e). 
Having said that I also tell the Committee that I have not furnished a handwritten or hastily scrawled amendment to the Supplementary Order Paper because I am seeking the Minister’s advice on this matter. If that clause can be aligned without further complication in this Committee of the whole House stage and aligned with the original bill that is under discussion then I think that it would help everybody’s understanding of this matter. Thank you. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 246 in the name of the Hon Bill English to clause 5(1) be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Clause 5(1) as amended agreed to.