Sage Eugenie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Sage Eugenie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 02 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4234. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
2. 
EUGENIE SAGE (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery 
: Did the advice he has received on Christchurch City Council assets contemplate a sell off or sell down of shares in companies supervised by Christchurch City Holdings Ltd or of other council assets; if so which ones? 
Hon AMY ADAMS (Associate Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery) 
 on behalf of the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: I think it is important to be clear that the advice the Minister has received on the Christchurch City Council’s assets from Treasury and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority is not advice of any specificity; it is simply advice on the financial position of the Christchurch City Council and its ability to contribute to the recovery. There is no list of assets compiled for the purpose of considering sales and the Minister has had no discussions with either Government officials or the council around the particular sales of any assets. 
Eugenie Sage 
: Given that the running costs for the Wellington electricity network have increased by 296 percent since 1990 attributed to the privatisation of electricity distributors is the Minister concerned that selling off or selling down Orion would risk increasing electricity prices for people in Christchurch who are already facing high energy costs in damaged homes? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am a little uncertain. Is Orion an asset owned by the Christchurch City Council? 
Eugenie Sage 
: Yes. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well the Minister has no responsibility whatsoever for assets owned by the Christchurch City Council. But in the interest of fairness I will allow the member to rephrase her question to try to bring it within the Minister’s responsibility. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think we have already had tabled in this House—and if not I am prepared to offer it for tabling—two things: a Cabinet paper and also a list of assets of the Christchurch City Council— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Can I finish sir? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. I have allowed the member some time to make clear what the issue of order is and I do not hear what the issue of order is. Disputing by way of a point of order—even if cleverly done—a Minister’s answer is not acceptable. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was not in any way disputing the Minister’s answer; I was disputing your ruling. Your ruling indicated that there was no responsibility. The point I was making was that the Minister asked for and received a list of the Christchurch City Council’s assets— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! That is not an issue of order. I cannot for the life of me see how that has anything to do with the proceedings of this House. It may have something to do with whether the member judges the Minister’s answer to have been a good answer but that is not a matter to do with the proceedings of the House. The questioner has the opportunity to dig into the Minister’s answer if the questioner finds the answer surprising but what the member cannot do is ask the Minister about matters for which the Minister is not responsible. The Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery has no responsibility for former sales of assets owned by any city council. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The matter that the member was bringing up was not the former sale; it was a possibility of a sale of an asset the list of which was asked for by the current Minister— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member continues to seek to question the Minister’s answer. The Minister gave the House a certain answer. The member seems to disagree with that answer. He has the chance to ask supplementary questions; that is the way to deal with answers that surprise the member not points of order. My ruling stays. But I am not dismissing the question and saying the member loses the question; I am just asking her to rephrase the question in a way that clearly brings it within the responsibility of the Minister. I stress in doing that that the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery has no responsibility whatsoever for the assets of the Christchurch City Council. The Minister has responsibility for advice he receives—or he is answerable for advice he receives—but he is not responsible for those assets. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just dealing with that point as to whether the Minister does have responsibility. The legislation this House passed gave the Minister the authority to by regulation pass regulations that can take over the Christchurch City Council—very wide-ranging powers—which I would suggest mean that this is a question that even in its present form is within order because the Minister could do that and take control of Orion and sell it if he thought it was a wise thing to do. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think that is a pretty long bow. I have invited Eugenie Sage to rephrase her supplementary question. 
Eugenie Sage 
: In the event of advice from Treasury about selling down shares in Orion would the Minister have a concern that that would potentially risk increasing electricity prices for Christchurch residents given the experience in Wellington where the privatisation of the electricity distribution network has increased prices by 296 percent? 
Hon AMY ADAMS 
: The matter is entirely hypothetical. The Minister has received no such advice. 
Eugenie Sage 
: Does the Minister believe it is fairer for Christchurch people to pay what is effectively an earthquake levy through their rates or to spread this across all New Zealanders through a temporary earthquake levy? 
Hon AMY ADAMS 
: My view is that the approach the Government has taken is the appropriate way to fund the response. 
Eugenie Sage 
: Given that a majority of respondents in a nationwide poll supported a temporary earthquake levy to look after Christchurch why will the Minister not support this levy instead of encouraging further increases in rates council borrowing or selling down productive assets? 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If you look at the primary question this is the second supplementary question now that has wavered quite widely of the primary question which is about advice that the Minister has received about the sell-off or sell-down of shares on behalf of the Christchurch City Council. There is nothing in there about a rate an earthquake levy—nothing. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not think I need to hear further on this. In my view the question was in order. The question related those other matters that the honourable Minister has mentioned to the issue of sales of assets and the primary question asks about fundraising through the sales—advice on the sales of assets. I think the question does relate to the primary question sufficiently to be in order. Does the Minister still recollect the question or shall I ask the member to repeat it? 
Hon AMY ADAMS 
: I would point out to that member that all taxpayers of New Zealand are contributing to the recovery of Christchurch through the $5.5 billion of taxpayers’ funds that the Government has collected from all the citizens of New Zealand and is contributing to the rebuild in Christchurch. The important issue is that we also expect the Christchurch City Council to play its part in the rebuilding of Christchurch and we expect it to consider all the funding options available to it to do so. 
Eugenie Sage 
: Will the Minister give an assurance that the Government will not use the Minister’s powers under section 48 of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act to direct the Christchurch City Council or Christchurch City Holdings Ltd to sell down or sell off their assets? 
Hon AMY ADAMS 
: The Government has sought no advice in that regard it has had no discussions with the council in that regard and it is unhelpful for that member to continue to speculate and raise fear in that respect. 
Kevin Hague 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question sought an assurance from the Minister that that power would not be used. The Minister’s answer relates to the advice that has been received about that matter but does not address the issue of whether or not the power will be used. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hear the member’s point but in fairness where assurances are sought over hypothetical matters Ministers cannot see into the future. It is not reasonable to expect the Minister to be able to give an absolute assurance of yes or no when circumstances—we do not know; there might be another earthquake for example. No one knows what the future holds and that is why traditionally in this House while it is fair to ask a Minister in case a Minister is prepared to answer such a question it is not reasonable to expect an absolutely precise answer on a hypothetical question like that. 
Eugenie Sage 
: Given that the Christchurch long-term plan provides for the council to fund its share of the earthquake rebuild through rates and borrowing without selling assets will the Minister give an assurance that the decision will be Christchurch City Council’s as to how it funds its share of the rebuild cost? 
Hon AMY ADAMS 
: We have made it very clear that we expect the Christchurch City Council to play its part in the rebuilding of Christchurch and that we expect the Christchurch City Council to consider all of the relevant options in doing so. How the council makes its decision is not a matter of my responsibility. 
Eugenie Sage 
: If the Government is expecting Christchurch City Council to consider all relevant options will the Minister give an assurance that the Government will not put any pressure on Christchurch City Council or Christchurch City Holdings Ltd to sell Christchurch’s assets? 
Hon AMY ADAMS 
: The member keeps asking the same question with respect and with respect my answer remains the same. It is a matter for the Christchurch City Council. We expect it to consider all of its options and we expect it to play its part in the rebuilding of Christchurch. 
Gareth Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With all respect the Minister is talking about the council which is outside the Minister’s responsibility. It is a clear question around the Minister’s responsibility: will the Minister put any pressure on the council to sell down the assets of the holdings? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think in fairness that I understand why the member has raised his point of order but the Minister has said in relation to that question that the Government expects the Christchurch City Council to consider all its options but then the decision is theirs not the Government’s. OK the member came back with a further question about it but the Minister has not changed her answer in that matter. I think it is a reasonable answer to the question. You cannot always expect to get exactly the answer the member might be wanting but then further questions can be asked. There is a further question available. 
Eugenie Sage 
: I seek leave to table an article from the Public Service Association journal  
Working Life 
 from March 2012 that finds that Wellington’s electricity network’s running costs increased by 296 percent in 20 years due to privatisation. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Can he confirm that he specifically asked for the list of the council’s strategic assets in the context of discussions with the council about cost-sharing; if so what other implication than the potential for inputting the funds from selling those assets could one take from that request? 
Hon AMY ADAMS 
: No. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I seek leave to table the response from the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority to the Minister’s office setting out “The Minister requested that we advise what the CCC identified as their strategic assets.” and listing all those strategic assets. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 









Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.