General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. The South Canterbury Finance collapse under the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme is the largest corporate bail-out in New Zealand history. It raises serious questions that the Government must answer today. The public is entitled to know what went wrong, why, and through whom. New Zealanders are footing the bill, and they deserve clarity and transparency about how the Government and its regulators handled this important matter.

Why did the Government roll over South Canterbury Finance in the guarantee scheme when it must have known before that time that South Canterbury Finance was in significant distress? Having decided to roll it over, why did the Government not tighten the terms of the conditions to prevent the scheme from mushrooming and the public’s liability being extended further? Why did the Minister of Commerce, at a similar time, then agree to place the Hubbards and Aorangi Securities into statutory management, notwithstanding the negative impact that that must ultimately have on South Canterbury Finance? Why, when distress deepened, did the Government choose receivership rather than statutory management or recapitalisation of South Canterbury Finance to allow it to trade its way through its difficulties without a fire sale or value destruction under receivership? Why were senior debt holders, like Torchlight Fund, thus handed a gold-plated deal—discounted debt purchased, paid back at full sticker price, plus fees, plus interest—something Fran O’Sullivan has called “usurious”? Why were some New Zealanders and some foreigners given a gold-plated payback and other New Zealanders, equity holders, were wiped out? Why was no moral hazard prevented in this case?

Let us examine some of the initial responses of the Minister of Finance to the questions New Zealanders are asking. He said it would be unacceptable for the Crown to favour some investors and not others, but, as we have just noted, that is exactly what the Crown did, by default, thanks to its perhaps slavish adherence to the ideology of the market that receivership was the only way out. It favoured senior debt holders and wiped out equity. That is exactly what has happened. Some people have made a handsome profit at the expense of taxpayers, and some others have been bankrupted. That may be why Fran O’Sullivan said in today’s New Zealand Herald that the Government has effectively been “gamed”: gamed in the name of blind ideology. Or was it to avoid an untidy result in an election year?

Mr English is guilty of manipulating the numbers around the financial liability to the taxpayer. In earlier statements, the Government said $600 million. But it has chosen, for the purposes of debate, again today, to reduce it to $300 million, deducting from it the interest paid across the whole scheme—mainly from other people, like the banks—which is completely irrelevant to this deal, because it had nothing to do with South Canterbury Finance at all. That is what Fran O’Sullivan has called “specious”, and what others would call “slippery”.

The third issue that has been raised by Mr English today is that this all occurred under the original 2008 scheme. That is a complete red herring, because we all know South Canterbury Finance would have failed before 1 April 2010 had the decision not been taken and announced by the Government to extend it under the scheme. The fact that South Canterbury Finance was covered for the future meant that it continued to take deposits and, apparently, to proceed with the recapitalisation plan. Well, that brings us to the next crucial issue: why was the recapitalisation process kneecapped at the last moment? The chief executive has said publicly that they were negotiating until 4 o’clock in the morning. What was on the table? New Zealanders deserve to know, because they are paying the bill. What was the term of that deal? Is it true that hundreds of millions of dollars of external equity were available that would have reduced the taxpayers’ liability—that South Canterbury Finance could have traded on under either statutory management or a new deal without the value loss of receivership?

Finally, were there any conflicts of interest involved in this process by Ministers, officials, or other players in this saga? Were they declared? On what dates? Under what terms? There is much, much more to come.

I want to talk about the greatest natural disaster that this House and this country have experienced in over 80 years, and that is the Canterbury earthquake. I start by saying thank you to all the people who have been involved—the three mayors, the civil defence people, the police, and all the people who have been involved in the recovery work down in Canterbury. I also acknowledge the civil defence staff at the national headquarters in our bunker in Wellington—John Hamilton and the team—and all the work they have done. It has been an outstanding job. I am pleased to say that it shows that we have a first-class structure in this country. It does and can respond when it is needed, and it has in this instance. Our biggest thanks need to go to all the people right across the region who have stepped up, helped, and given assistance to anybody and everybody who has needed it. I must say that that has been one of the features of the whole event. People in Canterbury have stepped up and worked to make sure that everybody else is safe and secure. All the other New Zealanders who have offered help have also been extraordinary. It makes one proud to be a New Zealander.

I also compliment and thank all our colleagues across this Parliament. There have been numerous offers of help from right across every sector, and I thank them all for the offers of support and help. I particularly commend the Canterbury members of Parliament. All of them have been out with the people in Canterbury, helping and giving assistance, guidance, and support. That has been a great feature. To that end, I am having a conference call at 4.30 this afternoon and I have invited all of the Canterbury members of Parliament to be on it so that I can give them a full brief and answer any questions, in case there are issues they need to know about to pass on to their constituents. That is the sort of thing this country would expect. We have a common interest in this issue and in getting it resolved.

I said earlier in answer to a question that there are two issues that we need to be concerned about. The first is the welfare of the people. Although we have welfare centres occupied by a number of people, nevertheless we can expect that that number will swell over the next few weeks, and possibly months, as we grapple with the enormity of this issue before us. Unless people have actually been down there on the ground, they do not comprehend how massive this event has been. Quite honestly, it is staggering when one gets to see it. There is some good news. We are starting to get some reports that the effect on housing may not be quite as severe as we first thought, but it is a bit early for us to say that.

The second ongoing problem—one I spoke of earlier, as well—is that a house, school, or building that was OK yesterday is not OK today because of aftershocks. So if we think we have this event summed up and understand the impact of it, quite honestly we have not. Most important, people need to understand that it may be some time before we understand the issues that we are addressing. The Government has stepped forward and done all it can on behalf of this Parliament and on behalf of the rest of New Zealand to provide all the support that one would have expected. There are whole numbers of funds and welfare offers for people to accept. I am spending all the time that would be expected down in Christchurch itself, as well as working back here in Wellington.

Finally, I conclude my thanks by thanking the Prime Minister for the leadership he has shown in this event. On behalf of Parliament and on behalf of the people of this country, I say that we are lucky to have John Key leading us at this time and in this place. It was needed, and his presence down in Canterbury has given the people down there huge confidence. We place on record our thanks to him on behalf of the nation for the work he is doing in this regard. We have huge challenges ahead of us, but by working together we will get through and resolve them. Thank you very much.

Saturday 4 September was a day all the kura around Ōtautahi were looking forward to in order to support their rangatahi in the Ranga Ihi kapa haka competitions, which were to be held at the Aurora Centre at Burnside High School. Instead Burnside High School became transformed into a welfare centre, along with centres at Brooklyn Community Centre, Addington Raceway, and Linwood College.

Saturday 4 September was a day that will be forever etched in our collective history. I am talking of a city dismantled, swept under the tide of mass destruction that damaged some 100,000 of the 160,000 homes in the course of the 7.1 magnitude shake. I want to mihi to my colleague Amy Adams for the loss she has had to bear during that time.

The cordoned off areas of the central business district have all the appearance of a war zone: soldiers manning cordons, falling debris, and a bustling metropolitan area reduced to rubble. I have been out on the streets and I have to say it is heartbreaking. Some homes are still without power and water; mounds of sand and mud cover the front lawns and pathways of properties. I listened to the frustration of a business owner after a person buying his business revised the offer to $100,000 less than the agreed price.

I wept at the devastation in Kaiapoi: the roading disrupted, the water tanker in place at the school and other areas, and so many chimneys strewn all over the town. One entire street of homes—no more than 5 years old—now faces demolition, taking in its midst the hopes and pride of families who had worked so hard for their own home. I sat with a tāua who was gripped by fear as she contemplated starting over again. I have seen the terror in the eyes of our babies as they suffered the staggering amount of 300 aftershocks since early Saturday morning. I have spent time with people in Hornby as they emptied out their freezers and cupboards to feed their tāua and pōua.

I am told that the Facebook page that Ngāi Tahu set up has entries from New Zealanders as far as away as London asking what they can do. There is compassion from those who have endured floods, Cyclone Bola, the Napier earthquake, and other natural disasters. I am so grateful for all the kindness that has been expressed by the Government and the people of New Zealand to support the people of Ōtautahi as they struggle through such devastation, coping with the constant aftershocks, the fear, and the exhaustion.

This disaster will not be fixed in a week. Some business owners have lost their entire livelihood; some families have seen their homes reduced to a pile of bricks. Everyone is on edge, unnerved, and waiting for the next tremors to shatter their temporary peace. There will be many who relive the trauma of their walls literally tumbling down. We think particularly of those with mental illnesses, and some of the more vulnerable members of our community. We think of our elderly, our children, and families who have lost the only home they knew, and who are mourning for the memories that cannot be rebuilt. We think, too, of the local heroes who left their own damaged properties to set up welfare centres, to assess the safety of buildings, to drain sewerage pumps, to guard the inner city, to restore power and water to residents, and to bring news to the nation.

The Mayor of Christchurch demonstrated his leadership when it was needed most; but so, too, an incredible infrastructure of support has emerged during this crisis. The people of Ngāi Tūahuriri opened up Tuahiwi Marae to provide a place of comfort to welcome those who are feeling unsafe. Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu has set up vital links for the community to access. All of our local MPs have increased staff and have been out on the roads.

I have to mihi also to Aaron, who on Saturday was out digging holes to help his constituents, and who held a meeting on Sunday morning—he managed to get 200 people along to a meeting on a Sunday morning to tell them what was happening and to get from them what their needs were. We are all out there. We are all doing everything that we can to make sure that our people are receiving the information they need and that their needs are passed on to those in authority.

There is the staff of the city councils, civil defence, hospital and health centres, the Fire Service, search and rescue, the Māori Women’s Welfare League, the Salvation Army, Ministers of the Crown, the media, and the hundreds of volunteers who have kept the city afloat. We thank them all for the incredible commitment at a time of such need.

I went into the Linwood centre last night. I was followed in by people with boxes of toys and boxes of clothes; people were just coming in off the street to see what they could do to help—they were amazing. We know that even though eventually the state of emergency will be scaled down, the state of health for all our whānau throughout Ōtautahi will take a long time to be restored. That will be when the generosity and strength of the nation will be tested even more.

Before I speak about the South Canterbury Finance situation, I add my thoughts to those of others about the people in Christchurch. I certainly agree with the comments of previous speakers on that issue.

I want to address the issue of South Canterbury Finance and a couple of the things that need to be looked at further. First of all, we need to think about why there was a need for a Crown guarantee. We needed a Crown guarantee in respect of deposits to financial intermediaries like banks and finance companies because without the wheels of finance turning, the economy quickly grinds to a halt. The potential damage to the operation of the wider economy from the wheels of credit completely seizing up were perceived to be such a risk not just in New Zealand but in many countries around the Western World that Governments saw a need to intervene and to give some confidence to those who were investing in those institutions, so that the institutions themselves could keep lending. The Government of the day—and I was part of it, and am happy to take responsibility for this—thought the same as Governments overseas: that it was a necessary step to take. We did not want to do it. We saw that distortions would be caused and we saw that moral hazard was being created, but none the less we thought that it was a necessary step to take. I agree with the Deputy Prime Minister, Bill English, when he says that overall it was necessary and, even with the benefit of hindsight, it had to be done.

People could ask why we did not stop at banks, but why should we have stopped at banks? Why should we have preferred the interests of banks over those of finance companies? No financial institution can sustain a run on the fund, whether it is a bank or a finance company, so I do not think a valid criticism is made there. But we should think about what we were trying to do. We were not trying to guarantee what was already lost. The terms relating to the grant of those guarantees meant that we would not prop up things that were already broke.

I think one of the questions that needs to be answered here arises out of what the Deputy Prime Minister said today. He said that as 2009 evolved, it became clear that the lending of South Canterbury Finance prior to the date of the guarantee was not of high quality. The firm had doubled the size of its book, the Minister said, to about $2 billion by the time of the guarantee, and he essentially says a lot of that lending was shonky. Well, there are some questions that need to be answered about that. Who knew that and when did they know, and who should have known? We need to look at what the directors knew. What did the trustee company know? There is a statutory trustee for a finance company, and in this case I think it was Trustees, Executors, and Agency Co. of New Zealand (Ltd). What did that company know? What should it have known, had it been acting prudently? What did the auditors know? These organisations have auditors—what did they know? What responsibility did some of the valuers have? Were there cosy relationships with some of the valuers acting here? A lot of questions need to be answered. I think one of the reasons why I am perturbed is that some of these questions have not been answered already.

There is a question for me as to whether the guarantee was enforceable in the first place. If the guarantee was obtained by misrepresentation on the part of the finance company, maybe Fran O’Sullivan is right and things should have been reopened. Maybe there should have been a look at whether the depositors—who had effectively, if what Bill English said is correct, already lost their money by the time that the guarantee came in—should have been forced to share in the pain. And maybe the firm should have been put into statutory management in order to try to find a fair outcome that saw depositors recapitalising, in part, the institution. Maybe there should also have been a look at whether some of the preferential transactions that had been entered into since the date of the Crown guarantee were appropriate.

I think there are some very real questions to be answered, and I would hope that in the fullness of time the Government sees fit to agree that there should be a full and independent inquiry here. I think there is a need to look at what has gone wrong and what blame should be apportioned. I certainly think the auditors, the trustees, and the directors will all be ducking for cover. If I were in their situation, I would probably be ducking for cover too. But someone needs to look at whether responsibility should be allocated to them, rather than all the costs of meeting the guarantee to deposit holders falling on the taxpayer. Maybe the taxpayer should be seeking some recompense from other parties that have some legal responsibility for some of the things that have gone wrong here. We will not know whether that should be the case unless there is a proper inquiry into what has gone down.

In terms of Mr Hubbard’s role, I am not ready to absolve him from all responsibility. But I would say he did put a lot of his own assets into the company to try to prop it up, in a way that he probably was not legally obliged to do.

There is a feeling at the moment in Canterbury that anyone who is not living through what has been going on is not able to grasp what it is like for us in Canterbury. I think, too, that there is a sense that the earthquake in Canterbury is something that happened for about a minute and half early on Saturday morning. The reality is that it is very much still happening. Today we heard the Minister of Civil Defence speak of the nearly 300 aftershocks we have had. That sounds simple enough when we say it, but I can tell this House that it means that everyone in Canterbury, every man, woman, and child, is feeling frazzled, frayed, and terrified. They are short of sleep. They are wandering around wondering whether the next shock is the big one. A truck will roll by and people do not know whether they should dive under a desk, or grab their kids and head to a shelter. It is like living in a permanent state of fear.

That fear over the last 5 days has done more to damage the psyche of Canterbury than, probably, the short shock on Saturday morning. Until we can feel that we are actually through this and we know what the damage is, it will be really hard for the people of Canterbury to start to rebuild and move forward. Every day—in fact, every hour—we are getting updates saying things like: “Following the last aftershock, this is now closed. Lyttelton Tunnel has developed cracks and is not available. The airport is down again. The airport is back up again. This building has been evacuated. Cracks have now opened up in these roads.” This is not something that has finished. Every single day the situation is changing. I spoke to a chap this morning whose house was “green-stickered”—a phrase we have all become very familiar with—on Monday only for it to be condemned earlier this morning. Every time Canterbury shakes, the picture changes for us.

This morning I was with the Prime Minister, right on the fault line, at the epicentre, near my house, and we spoke to a team of visiting seismologists—I think that is the term. They told us—and I not sure it is something I wanted to hear—that following the earthquake in Haiti, which was the same size as the Canterbury quake, the major aftershock was about 8 days after the quake. We are only at about day 5. In Mexico, which had a similar-sized quake, the main aftershock was 2 months after the main quake. So for us in Canterbury it will be a long time before we know that we are even through the worst of the aftershocks. Many of us are living in houses right now, as I am, that we do not know when we go to bed at night whether they will be standing in the morning when we get up. I am not allowed in parts of my house, and that is fine. At least it is still standing. We can rebuild that and everyone is fine, but there is a fear that is difficult to explain. Those moments on Saturday morning are being relived by us every time we go to bed. We are reliving the physical violence of houses being thrown around.

It is hard to believe that houses can withstand the sorts of forces that were being imposed on them. I had absolute certainty that my house would collapse around me, and I can tell members that at that moment there was only one thing on my mind—and it was not Parliament and it was not the debates we have here and the contention. It was the family, and where they were, and whether I could get to them. My daughter was in the next room. We were screaming for her. She could not hear us and we could not get to her, but when we did get to her we found that the fish tank, which had flown across the room and smashed on her bed, had missed her head by inches. That is the sort of story we are hearing all the time. It is incredibly hard, it is incredibly challenging, and it will take Canterbury a huge amount of time to recover.

The physical impact is the least of it. I think that is the thing we are all starting to understand. The emotional trauma is massive, and it is getting worse, and the financial trauma is only adding to it. Everyday I hear of people who do not know whether they will have a job to go back to. The owners of factories are saying they are not sure they can reopen. The owners of businesses whose buildings have been shut down until they can be inspected are saying they will not survive if they cannot trade for the next few weeks. It may seem like a few broken buildings on the TV but it is so much more than that to a huge number of people. When we think about the fact that 100,000 homes will need to be repaired, we look at our houses and wonder how long we will be living in damaged houses and how long it will be before they are fixed. It really is a sobering thought. I know we are all incredibly lucky that nobody was killed, and we are incredibly grateful for that. The euphoria at being alive got us through the weekend, but now the reality of what it will take to turn this round is really hitting home. I thought it was important to speak to this House and try to give a bit of that sense of what the situation is like in the streets of Canterbury right now. I want to touch on the resilience of our communities. They have been fantastic, and they make me proud to be a Cantabrian.

That was an amazing speech. I would like to acknowledge, as I am sure all members in the House would, the bravery of Amy Adams, the member who has just spoken. We know the ordeal that she and others around her have gone through in recent days. That cry from the heart for understanding, for some space, and, I guess, for recognition of the huge stress that the member and the people of Canterbury are under is, I think, one of the most powerful contributions I have been privileged to hear in this House in a very long time. I acknowledge the member for that. I congratulate her and assure her that every single member of this Chamber will be behind her, her family, and the people of Canterbury during this ordeal.

I will use my time this afternoon to talk about some of the tax measures that have been put in place in the wake of the earthquake in Christchurch. As the member alluded to, it may be difficult at this time, but the threads of life have to be picked up. One of the immediate concerns people will have is all those day-to-day things like their tax bills and their Working for Families tax credits, and whether they will be paid as usual. They may well be part of the more substantial income coming into the house in these trying times. I assure Cantabrians that all payments they are expecting from the Inland Revenue Department, such as their Working for Families tax credits, will be made as usual.

We have, as I said in the House yesterday, established a special Inland Revenue Department disaster response line. The number is 0800 473566. It is for individuals and businesses to make contact with the department if they think they face difficulties that require attention. I know that in the vast scheme of things, sorting out tax matters will not be a huge priority for Canterbury people and businesses at this stage. That is perfectly understandable; there are far more pressing things for them to get on with worrying about. But we are saying from the Inland Revenue Department’s perspective that we will be prepared to work alongside individuals and businesses in this very stressful time to make sure that they are not doubly disadvantaged by some of these systemic interventions. We will be providing full information to people on the remission of late payment and late filing penalties, and interest payments that are due. We are also working on a number of technical tax issues that arise from property that has been damaged or destroyed, and the tax consequences that inevitably arise from any associated insurance claims.

It has been gratifying to know that many people have contributed to the relief funds that have been established. I am pleased to announce this afternoon that cash donations of more than $5 made by individuals towards earthquake relief will be eligible for tax credits, and they will be tax deductible if they are made by companies.

I simply say to people in Christchurch that they should not be concerned about these matters at the moment. They have more pressing things on their minds. But from a tax point of view we are prepared to work alongside them, both to make sure that they get in a timely way the entitlements they are due and also to ensure that the adverse impacts upon them at this particular time are minimised. I do not want to say too much more about the Christchurch situation, because in the wake of the comments of the member who preceded me, any comments from me about it would be superfluous. She did it so much more powerfully.

I will talk about one other issue in the time that remains to me, and that is the issue of child support. Last week I released a discussion document, Supporting children, about changes to our child support law. It is worth putting on record that 140,000 families and some 210,000 children in New Zealand are affected by the child support system. Although in an ideal world those arrangements would be made voluntarily between parents at the time of relationship breakups, the reality is that in a number of cases that does not happen. Sadly, what was designed to be a back-up, backstop solution has become the default. We need to change that and make a number of other changes that recognise the reality of circumstances today and ensure that the focus—which everyone proclaims but, sadly, often ignores in the emotion of the circumstance—on the welfare of the children is given pre-eminence. I invite people who want to make a submission to go online to www.supportingchildren.ird.govt.nz and make their comments accordingly.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Along with the Hon Peter Dunne, I acknowledge the contribution made by Amy Adams. As our leader articulated yesterday, everyone in the House is conscious of the stress and concern that families in Canterbury feel, especially where the elderly or children are concerned.

I want to follow on from my senior colleagues in relation to South Canterbury Finance. Today we have seen yet another example of corporate failure turning to the taxpayer to be bailed out, and this measure is from a party that has, for a long time, accused members on this side of the House of being too socialist.

Let it not go unnoticed that there was an opportunity for the Minister of Finance, the Reserve Bank, and indeed the Prime Minister, during his secret meeting with “Mother Hubbard”, to have alerted the regulators and alerted themselves that to continue the opportunity, in an indiscriminate fashion, for South Canterbury Finance to continue lending in dangerous, speculative ways and to free depositors—fresh ones—from the obligation of due diligence meant that this was a train wreck waiting to happen.

Every time members on this side of the House are warned that there is no money, I will take great relish in reminding Government members about the chance they squandered. They had an opportunity to pursue other options to shore up the position, or to minimise the exposure of the taxpayer to this huge, catastrophic bail-out, but that opportunity was not taken. Fortunately, the people who put their money in South Canterbury Finance can sleep a little easier tonight, because no doubt they are living close to where there has been a natural earthquake.

The deposit guarantee scheme started in response to the global financial crisis. It started as a consequence of Ireland, Australia, and a variety of other international jurisdictions deciding to shore up their banks in a fairly unfettered fashion. Then our Reserve Bank, along with the Government of the day, adopted a similar course of action. But members opposite enabled fringe operators such as South Canterbury Finance to hop on board. When South Canterbury Finance hopped on board, inadequate conditions were placed upon that organisation. I suspect that the auditors, the valuers, the managers, and the relevant regulators were asleep or were told to look the other way.

The reality is that there were always other options rather than the New Zealand taxpayer being expected to continually bail out these companies where we find egregious examples of wrongdoing. I am told that the former chief executive officer of that organisation—and I do not refer to the redoubtable Sandy Maier, but to his predecessor—is in distant climes. The name Mexico comes to mind, although I have just come back from the Pacific and I could recommend that he be sent to clean the sewerage in Tarawa in Kiribati.

The key point is that the organisations that offer mezzanine finance perform a valuable function in the economy, but not when we, the taxpayers, are expected to bail them out in the face of existing irregularities and, no doubt, mounting evidence that people were either delinquent or chose to take a political route. The political route—and I am sure that the facts will eventually bear this out—was that the current Government did not want to see a commercial option pursued. It did not want to deal with people who were having to deal with the consequences of their own poor judgment. This is a case where political triumphalism has overridden corporate discipline.

This is a massive bail-out. It is very important—and we are insistent—that the real masters, and not just the receivers, act with haste to minimise our losses.

The address from the previous speaker, the Hon Shane Jones, does not need answering because, quite frankly, it bordered on the ridiculous. Instead, I will talk about the earthquake in the Canterbury region, the effects it is having on people, and the Government’s response to date from a welfare perspective. I acknowledge, as other members of Parliament have done, those people who are affected, who are in distress, and who are trying to live their lives as best they can. The earth is still moving, they are still frightened, and they are still very much in an unknown place. Not knowing what is coming next is, I think, one of the worst places to be.

I have spent the last 24 hours in the Canterbury area and I have seen people who are living with the effects of the earthquake. I am so incredibly proud of the workers within Work and Income and the response they have given. On Saturday afternoon, they were working at the welfare centres, and they were ready to step up and give that level of support to people. Some people whom I met today left their own children behind at home—children who were distressed and upset—but they recognised they wanted to go into work and help other people. That is a true measure of the job they do. They have been working shift work in welfare centres, in some cases from 6 o’clock in the morning until 11 o’clock at night. They have extended their hours. Some Work and Income offices have closed so that workers could go into other offices to try to meet the most urgent needs of people who are dealing with this emergency.

Yesterday, as the House has already identified at question time, we announced the earthquake support subsidy. As of 11 o’clock this morning, 65 employers, with 20 staff or fewer, have already stepped up to say that they want to take advantage of a payment to their employees of $350 per week. That money goes into the employers’ bank accounts. Employers can then pay their employees, and top up that amount if they can—and we certainly hope they can—to give them a living wage while those employers have to close their businesses. We have also given some flexibility around that payment, recognising that some employees are part-time, and that in some cases, as in a business with 10 employees, there will be two employees still working on the phones but the other eight will effectively be out of a job in the short term while the business is closed and has only that administration going on. So those eight employees can get this assistance, as well.

Today we have announced a $2.5 million appropriation for counselling, which will mean working closely with Victim Support, the Salvation Army, and Relationship Services to get qualified staff from other areas to supplement the people who are working there already and doing such a fine job. Some of those staff will be based within the welfare centres; others will be visiting homes.

From day two, Work and Income staff recognised that many elderly people were at home alone, and that we did not know what they were doing and whether they were OK. We know who is living alone in Canterbury because of superannuation payment data. Our staff have made to date over 20,000 outbound phone calls. Staff have now made contact with 12,000 people, but we are not quite sure where 6,000 others are, or how they are, so staff have been visiting homes, working in conjunction with the Salvation Army to check that those people are OK.

I have heard stories of elderly people who will not get out of bed, and have not done so for the last 3 or 4 days, because they are frightened. They are not sure of their agility to move quickly if they need to when aftershocks happen, because they are so frightened. Reaching out to a neighbour now is vitally important, but it is equally important that we put that sort of support in around them. The 0800 779997 hotline has had well over 6,000 phone calls coming into it. The queries have asked whether a street is closed, when schools might open, and how people can get financial help. But a record number of people have called the hotline to ask about how they can help and what they can do to make a difference and to support our community. People want to get in there and make a difference. We have had offers of payments to people, and referrals to other agencies. It has been quite outstanding. Builders have asked how they can get in touch with people so they can help.

Today I visited the student work gangs, and I suppose members can see a little bit of a smile on my face because it was one of those lighter moments. The fire truck operated by engineering students turned up with 80 pizzas on it. The students started handing them out—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Oh, Gerry was there.

Ha, ha! It was very commendable and something to look at.

I rise on behalf of the Green Party to send our love and our thoughts to the people of Canterbury and the people of Ōtautahi. The Green Party has just recently managed to reopen our office down there, which was originally inside the zone. We were down there yesterday and the building is still in one piece, so we were able to start work again, which was great. The Green Party, of course, will be playing our role. My colleague Kennedy Graham, who is down there currently, has been playing his role, along with our staff, in trying to help the people of Canterbury during this time. I totally agree with Amy Adams; I think she hit the nail on the head when she told us that it was not just about the earthquake—the one earthquake—it was about the ongoing tremors that have continued since that time. Certainly, the people I talked to last night found those ongoing tremors extremely unnerving. The experience overseas is that those tremors will continue for some months.

None the less it became very clear, in talking to people in Canterbury, that people are also looking ahead. People’s minds are very much on the rebuilding phase. Their minds are on both getting through the current crisis and looking forward to getting on with the building. A number of issues have come up that we as a Parliament need to start thinking about and the Government needs to start thinking about. One of those issues is how we are going to deal with the suburbs hard hit by the earthquake because they were built on wet sand. Some of the eastern suburbs have been particularly hard hit. The mayor, Bob Parker, quite rightly has raised some difficult questions that we need to address about whether we rebuild in those areas that performed particularly poorly during the earthquake, or we make the decision that because those areas are clearly earthquake-prone, we need to look at them differently—for example, paying out the people who currently have land there. It is a bit unclear at this stage whether we should have a green zone in those areas, but we do need to put on the table the question of what we do about them. The people of Christchurch are already having that discussion.

The other discussion that is going on in Christchurch at the moment that I think is quite interesting is the discussion in relation to sustainability and rebuilding. There was a letter in this morning’s Press, for example, from Ray Genet, who said that rebuilding Christchurch must not involve cutting corners, and that new buildings should be warm, light, and energy-efficient. I think that as we enter the discussion about the rebuilding, those questions are going to come to the fore. The modernisation of buildings when we are rebuilding needs to be something that we put in the centre of the discussion. I also think the protection of heritage is a real concern for many people in Christchurch. Christchurch has previously lost quite a lot of its heritage buildings. Many people are concerned about the potential loss of further heritage buildings. There is a desperate need to protect whatever heritage can be protected in order to protect the unique character of Christchurch, so that we do not get tilt-slab buildings going up all over the show but protect as much of the heritage as we possibly can.

The next step is about pulling together a plan for how Christchurch will be rebuilt—the missing pieces of Christchurch. The community needs to be involved in the discussion. I think many people in Christchurch, although they are concerned about the current situation, are looking forward, and want to participate in the planning and decision-making process about how Christchurch will be rebuilt, particularly the major buildings. There is clearly a key role there for the community and the councils, but also for those who have expertise—whether in architecture, planning, heritage, or sustainable building. They will play a key role in that process.

The other issue that repeatedly came up in my discussions with people in Christchurch was the role of regulation. People were very grateful, when comparing their experiences with those of Haiti and other countries that have had similar earthquakes, for the role of regulations—particularly those established after the Napier earthquake, but also those established since then—in making sure our buildings perform well under earthquake conditions. That is one of the issues I think we can learn from this experience.

Although it is important that we address the issues of the day, it is also critical that we look forward to how we are going to rebuild Christchurch.

I first want to pay tribute to Amy Adams, the MP for Selwyn, who did a really difficult thing this afternoon. She brought a very human face to this House, and a human face to the Canterbury earthquake and to the life that people in Canterbury are living now. I also pay tribute to all of the other MPs, from all sides of the House, who are spending a lot of time both trying to recover their own lives but also helping their constituents. I know that in some cases National MPs’ offices have been badly damaged, and I understand that this has happened to a number of Labour members as well. I know they are working in difficult circumstances, and that in doing so they are entirely in the same place as so many of their constituents.

My electorate of Rangitata was a little removed from the earthquake, but nevertheless we are still feeling it. We are still being woken each night as the tremors, the aftershocks, continue to come through. When my husband and I woke on the night of the earthquake, my first instinct was just as Amy’s. It was to run to get my daughter from her bedroom—she was home on mid-semester break—only to pause shakily in the hallway when I remembered that she was not there; she was in Christchurch. I thought that we were at the epicentre of the earthquake; it was so harsh. It was only a quarter of an hour later that I discovered my daughter was very close to the epicentre, and then my worry truly began.

In my short speech this afternoon I will talk a little bit about what is happening in my electorate, and a little bit about what I hope will be happening in the weeks and months ahead. There have already been 180 claims to the Earthquake Commission from mid-Canterbury and 215 claims from South Canterbury. They are largely, though not all, of a minor nature. Some of the buildings in mid-Canterbury have been damaged and will need major renovations. I suspect some buildings will have to be pulled down, so we have not escaped completely. Very few of our residents have been evacuated from their homes, but I can tell members that I have yet to find anyone in mid-Canterbury and South Canterbury who does not have relatives or close friends living the nightmare—certainly not the dream—further north in Canterbury.

To add insult to injury, we then had power outages on Sunday night and gale-force winds that damaged buildings and plantations, etc., so it has been a rocky time all around. Some of my constituents’ businesses have been affected. The St Ita’s Guesthouse in Rākaia is a very old building and I was told that the very shape of the building has changed. The same applies to the South Rākaia Hotel. One of the iconic structures in Methven, the Canterbury Draught hotel—the Brown Pub, as it is known to the locals—has also been damaged and part of the business is unable to be used.

This Government—in fact, not just the Government—and civil defence, emergency services, and all of the MPs in this House have gathered together and rallied around to find ways to help people. One of the businesses in Methven was damaged, but very quickly the local builders got together and planned a way to get the business back into operation. But it does not change the fact that this business will be out of action for 3 weeks. At least one of its full-time employees is relying on their income from the business, so the very quick response from the Government has certainly been welcomed. Although people feel very fortunate, the Government has to pick up on the need for assistance. People are repeatedly saying that their neighbours are so much worse off, but nevertheless some of them do need assistance to buy groceries, to pay rent, etc.

Although the Hon Peter Dunne said that tax matters may not be at the top of one’s mind right now, it is entirely necessary, as has been the case, for the Government to step in to look at all of the pressures on individuals, on families, and on businesses, and to look for ways to allay those pressures in order to help people through this very, very difficult time, which has been so very well described by our colleague Amy Adams. It is this very comprehensive package that is making the difference. Regrettably, concerted effort will be needed for months and months to come as people recover from this very severe earthquake.

I would like to join colleagues in the House in acknowledging the very hard work that is being done by all MPs based in Canterbury. I have spent some time talking to colleagues. I especially want to place on record my appreciation for the contribution given today by Amy Adams. I think she expressed to the House the intense feeling that all of us are getting from relatives who live in the area and from most people in the House with family members who are currently unable to live in their houses in Christchurch. I know the intense pressure that people are under and that it means a lot to them to know that we are uniting in a way that we do not very often do in order to be supportive of them.

I, like my colleagues, will make some comments on the South Canterbury Finance situation. I think that members who have been following the views of Labour members on this will know that they have not always been consistent with one another, and Mr Power and I have exchanged some views that have been closer to each other’s on occasions in this one. I would like to do the unusual thing now of acknowledging the work that has been done by Bernard Hickey, by Cactus Kate, and by Fran O’Sullivan in their analysis of this particular issue. They are people with whom I do not always agree but their ability as bloggers and as journalists to get in underneath and behind some of the fronts that are being put up, I think, is valuable.

I thank them for drawing my attention to the John Campbell interview, which was very informative, where Mr Sandy Maier effectively admitted that the company had violated a lot of prudent lending criteria. In doing that he made it clear that the company was in breach of the Crown deeds of guarantee, which I have copies of here and will seek to table in the House at the end of my time, because there is an obligation to conduct affairs in a proper, businesslike, efficient, and prudent manner. Sandy has made it clear that that did not occur. Analysis has shown that it was in breach of its trust deed and that audited accounts were not available at the time when it was appropriate for them to be available. In fact, there had to be a waiver from the stock exchange in order for the late accounts to be filed, and it is now obvious they were being held back in order to get a better rating from the rating company. After the rating came in, the new accounts were audited and were made available. So the company was in breach both of the trust deed and the stock exchange regulations as well as the Crown deed of guarantee.

I think what we will get to at some stage is finding out effectively who knew what, when. In this case there are four deeds of guarantee and, notwithstanding the comments from the Prime Minister, all of these were entered into in the time when he was Prime Minister—every single one of them. There was no deed of guarantee for South Canterbury Finance under the Labour Government; it came into the scheme at the time Mr English was the Minister of Finance. Most importantly, the deed of guarantee that was entered into in April this year, at a time when South Canterbury Finance was very, very clearly in breach of its requirements, leaves open the question as to why Mr English allowed it to be part of the continuation. Why did he allow it to continue to take deposits, with a very clear Government subsidy? With those amounts people probably could have got 4 percent if they were lucky. They were getting 8.5 percent with a Government guarantee, as a result of Mr English’s decision to let them stay in, and at the same time there was a lot of lending going on to shonky people, not in South Canterbury but in Auckland.

I seek leave to table the set of four Crown deeds of guarantee dated November 2008, December 2009, April 2010, and June 2010 between Her Majesty the Queen in Right of New Zealand and South Canterbury Finance.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? Leave is not granted.

The Government’s reaction to the terrible earthquake in Canterbury was swift and entirely appropriate, and it showed the depth of concern and care that every member of the Government benches—and, indeed, those across the House—has for the events that have unfolded in Canterbury. I do not need to rehearse to the House the impact it has had on all of those people in Canterbury. The MP for Selwyn, Amy Adams, has done that, and I do not think any other contribution can express to the House what it is like for those people living in Christchurch.

Today there was another aftershock. It was one of some 260 aftershocks, and I understand they are to be expected for another couple of weeks. The shock this morning was over 5.1 on the Richter scale. Taken in isolation, that event would be enough to cause damage and terror amongst people, but this is day 5 of this event. As Amy Adams expressed, the ongoing sense of fear, anxiety, and terror, particularly amongst children and older folk, is of great concern to this Government.

The Prime Minister went down to Canterbury just as fast as he was able. It was noted and appreciated by the people of Canterbury, as was the response by Mayor Bob Parker. There has been extensive news coverage about the earthquake in Canterbury. Most of that coverage seems to have included footage of Mayor Bob Parker with his sleeves rolled up, getting stuck in and doing what he can to help. I pay tribute to other members of Parliament from across the House who have also rolled up their sleeves and got stuck in to help the people of Canterbury and Christchurch, because that help will need to continue.

With today’s announcement that the state of emergency—[Interruption] I am sorry that the member across the House Darren Hughes is choosing to make light of this debate. Those of us on the Government benches take this issue very seriously, and it is regrettable that the Labour Party does not seem to share our sense of ongoing responsibilities in our reaction to this earthquake. I think it is regrettable, but it is notable that people will not see that response on the Government’s side.

It was announced today that the state of emergency in Christchurch will be extended for another 7 days. That is a very telling decision that speaks to the sheer breadth and depth of damage that has happened in Christchurch, and to the degree of fear for the safety of civilians that exists in the city.

Our civil defence emergency management system has worked exactly as it should have. All the people on the ground in Canterbury are doing an amazing job. Many people in civil defence, the police, and the military, as well as volunteers and the council, have literally dropped everything, left the crises they have in their own homes, and put their concerns aside, and they are continuing to do that to help out.

The response from my own electorate of Waitaki is that, yes, we felt the earthquake and, yes, it woke up a number of people and a number of people were fearful. The damage in my own electorate has been minimal, but I extend my concern and condolences to the Acland family of Mount Peel Station, whose lovely old stone church, the Church of the Holy Innocents, sustained considerable damage. The sense of loss they feel at many, many generations of family history being destroyed must be terrible. I extend my condolences to them and to other families who have lost mementoes of past family experiences.

In the time I have remaining I ask members to spare a thought for the young people, because a lot of them come from my electorate. They go to Christchurch to study or to earn a living. They might, as I did many years ago, work in the centre of Christchurch. I worked in a takeaway bar and a sandwich bar. I literally lived from one pay to the next—maybe not even that. I applaud the Government for bringing in initiatives that will support businesses and their employees. Thank you.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.