1. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) Link to this
to the Minister of Finance
What is the cost impact for the Earthquake Commission following Friday’s High Court decision, and what now is the total cost to the Crown of the Canterbury earthquakes?
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) Link to this
We do not yet know the impact of the High Court decision, but the judgment would be likely to shift some of the costs from private insurers towards the Earthquake Commission, so there are likely to be extra costs for the Government. The important thing is that the judgment does not affect Canterbury residents, as their claims will still be met. The total cost to the Crown of the earthquakes, including the increased Earthquake Commission liability estimate issued last week, is currently around $12.9 billion. That excludes any impact from the court decision.
Does he recall telling this House on 16 June this year that had the costs of the earthquake been larger, raising an earthquake levy was something he could have looked at, and, given that the costs are now in the order of $13 billion or possibly $14 billion, will he now look at it?
I would distinguish between two sorts of costs to the Government. One is the general Government contribution, for instance to the purchase of homes in the red zone. Those costs are over and above any insurance claims, and they are being financed by borrowing, because that spreads the cost across all taxpayers. The insurance-related costs, which are the costs that are now looking significantly larger, have always been financed by the Earthquake Commission levy. It is, of course, possible that in the future those levies will increase, because any increase in insurance costs should fall on those who benefit from it, and that means the insured party.
Does he accept that his decision not to raise an earthquake levy will, overall, lead to greater levels of Government debt?
Any Government at any time has the opportunity to put up taxes, which is what the earthquake levy would be. The Government made the decision, which it stands by, that an increase in taxes at the time of a significant earthquake and a recession would not have been helpful for the economy.
Does he agree with the AA Insurance head of corporate affairs, Suzanne Walton, who recently said that in light of the earthquake cost blowout, the Government might have to seriously look at the Green Party’s proposal to restock the emergency fund through a levy?
I go back to distinguishing between different costs. The general contribution of the Government to the earthquake recovery is funded through debt. That cost is therefore spread across all New Zealanders. Costs related to insurance, in the Government’s view, should fall on those who are insured. Now that the Earthquake Commission fund is likely to be cleaned out, of course it is quite possible that Earthquake Commission levies will be considerably higher, and those would be borne by homeowners.
Is he aware that the Christchurch City Council is raising a 1.76 percent earthquake levy on ratepayers, and is it not a cruel paradox that the very people least able to pay a levy—the ratepayers of Christchurch—will have to pay one when the rest of us will not?
The rest of us are contributing. There is a Government fund of $5.5 billion, and all of that $5.5 billion will ultimately be met by the taxpayer. The Government is working closely with the Christchurch City Council to look at how to achieve fair sharing of the costs between the council and the Government. We will continue those discussions, because decisions have not been made, but, certainly, part of our consideration is the ability of Christchurch ratepayers to pay.
Hon John Boscawen Link to this
Would the Government be more or less able to fund the earthquake recovery if Government spending as a proportion of GDP had been reduced to 29 percent—2005 levels—over the last three Budgets, as ACT proposed last month?
Hon John Boscawen Link to this
How many more billion-dollar increases in the cost of rebuilding Christchurch will it take for this Government to realise the need to reduce Government spending as a proportion of GDP to avoid New Zealand becoming the next Greece, Ireland, or Portugal?
We would hope there are not too many more multibillion-dollar additional costs of the earthquake. The Government has been working to strike a balance between getting New Zealand in shape to deal with external shocks on the one hand, which means controlling our debt and getting our deficits down, and on the other hand meeting the very real costs of the earthquake and the recession and, to the extent it is possible, protecting the most vulnerable through that period.