Thursday, 2 February 2012

GUEST POST: Christchurch people say “enough is enough!”

_hugh-pavletich-smlGuest Post by Hugh Pavletich

At noon yesterday some 4,000 local citizens gathered next to the Civic Building in Christchurch to express their anger at the poor performance of the Christchurch City Council. Many of these people had never attended a protest in their lives before—as New Zealand’s Television Close Up programme “Anger in Christchurch” (Video 3.45 min) explained last night.

Rev Mike Coleman (a leader who has emerged in the east of Christchurch and chairs  the Wider Communities Action Network representing the devastated people of the east) ably chaired the protest meeting, facilitated by Peter Lynch and his  team, who also spoke. Members of the public who wished to do so were asked by Rev Mike Coleman to express their views as well.

imageThe beloved Christchurch Wizard also spontaneously contributed his well-received views too.

This was very much a spontaneous outpouring by the wider Christchurch community. They left heartened and emboldened from this important gathering.

Within the Close Up programme, Andrea Cummings of North New Brighton is featured. Andrea and her husband, who run a small lawn mowing repair shop, spontaneously became the focal point of their community through the earthquake events – meeting the communities immediate needs and distributing food parcels where required.

As Andrea explains within the interview, this had to happen because the Authorities – and particularly the Christchurch City Council – were not set up to respond because of their centralised structure.

The Simmering Discontent Continues

While there had been deep concern in Christchurch for many years about the poor performance of the centralised Council structure, incapacitated by bureaucratic bloat [the writer has written extensively on these issues – latest October 2011 - Christchurch earthquake recovery: The political circus], the “final straw” was the Council’s decision on the advice of its consultants to award the Council Chief Executive Tony Marryatt a $68,000 14% pay rise mid December 2011.

The public fury was immediate.

Peter Lynch, a local resident with no prior involvement with politics, was so incensed, he set up a Facebook page  - No Pay Rise For Tony Marryatt - announcing publicly that there was to be a protest 1 February 2012.

The “blundering” Council decision announcing this extraordinary pay rise to a largely “invisible” Chief Executive of the Council Tony Marratt was followed soon after by an equally odd announcement by the Earthquake Recovery Minister Hon Gerry Brownlee, urging the local elected representatives and citizens to “settle down” and support the Council authorities. Brownlee “threatened” dissenting local representatives (those supporting clean local government) with dismissal, as reported by the local morning daily The Press soon after – “Quake Minister Gerry Brownlee Scolds Council.”

Normally, the summer Christmas breaks in New Zealand are when the country shuts down for a month and the media “goes to sleep” because there is so little news to report.

In Christchurch this year however, following the political blunders of both the local Council and the Recovery Minister Brownlee, the atmosphere was very different, with the public and the local media erupting with “enough is enough.”

South Islands major daily The Press led the extraordinary public conversation, with other print, radio and television media participating as well. The Press however had been covering these issues for a period of 17 months, since the time of the first earthquake event 4 September 2010.

In normal times, Local Government issues tend to attract little media or public interest. But with the earthquake events still persisting (in excess of 9,500 shakes to date), the performance of the political authorities at both the local and national levels, came under increasing scrutiny – as they failed to perform to an acceptable standard.

The Emerging Focus on Solutions

The critically important public conversation over this time has meant that the wider public has an increasingly better understanding of the problems and what the solutions need to be. While there is loose talk about the possibility of “rates revolts” and other approaches, the three major changes required are emerging –

(1) The need for a fresh mid term election as soon as possible – likely April / May.

(2) A replacement Council Chief Executive (realistically – only a newly elected Council can do this).

(3) Abolish the Councils centralised structure and replace it with a One City/Many Communities model – where the “control” is at the local level. This is clearly essential for both elementary reasons of risk management and because, as the TVNZ Close Up programme highlights, the importance of local communities being able to respond quickly and effectively to the needs of local people.

As the writer pointed out in a brief address to the people gathered at yesterday’s protest meeting, some 17 months following the first earthquake event 4 September 2010 the recovery has still not yet got underway in Christchurch  – simply because the “top down” approach, with bureaucracies incapacitated with bloat and weak political leadership, have not been able to respond to the community’s and businesses’ needs.

The atmosphere with respect to the Christchurch City Council bureaucracy is that it has long been At War with its communality and business.

In development and construction terms, Christchurch has long been considered a “disaster zone” well before the first earthquake struck September 2010. The writer has covered these issues extensively within earlier articles [see Performance Urban Planning].

The Christchurch Rebuild Disaster

The situation has only worsened since the time of the first earthquake – and is best illustrated by the new housing consent construction performance through 2011.

Christchurch, with a population of some 370,000 people, consented just 750 new conventional housing units over that period (with 150 relocatables deducted) – a miserable consent rate of just 2 units per 1000 population - well below replacement levels in a normal market, let alone through an earthquake recovery.

By contrast, to the south and west of Christchurch is the county of Selwyn with a population of about 40,000, which over the same period consentedwell  in excess of 400 new residential units through the year – a consent rate of about 10 units per 1000 population.

To the north of Christchurch is the county of Waimakariri, of (again) some 40,000 people, which consented around 500 new residential units in 2011 - a consent rate of about 12 units per 1000 population.

So the construction volumes in these two smaller and more responsive Local Government areas are some 5 and 6 times greater than Christchurch on a population basis.

Christchurch in essence is being “hollowed out” as people and businesses are departed for these adjoining counties and other centres throughout New Zealand and Australia.

New Zealand’s Woeful Home Building Performance

Statistics New Zealand announced recently building consents granted in 2011 represent the lowest level in 46 years.

The situation is even worse than these “bald figures” from Statistics NZ suggest – because taking account of the population changes over this 46-year period are not properly taken in to account. New Zealand’s current population is about 4.414 million, and with only 13,662 residential consents issued during 2011 this suggests a low consenting rate of 3.09 consents per 1,000 population. Some 46 years ago in 1966, New Zealand's population was 2.711 million. Adjusted for population, if the consenting rate per 1,000 population in 1966 was 3.09, that would mean that just 8,376 residential consents were issued in that year. It was likely substantially higher then.

The 2011 consenting rate per 1,000 population figure is therefore likely to be the lowest since the Great Depression, or in history. As noted above, the Christchurch situation is even worse still – throughout a supposed recovery.

Blundering Politicians Protecting Mates

To date, the political authorities have persisted with their “blundering responses” to the wishes of the earthquake ravaged city of Christchurch.

Within The Press today there is “Talk Of Rates Revolt as “serial political blunderer” Local Government and Environment Minister Hon Dr Nick Smith is reported to have said that a fresh new mid term election is “highly unlikely,” further compounding the political problems for his Government.

In essence, the current Government has just three options – first, do nothing; second appoint Commissioners; or third, allow a fresh mid-term election so that the locals can directly deal with the local political problems and inadequacies.

The current Council is clearly seriously dysfunctional, and the Smith “non-solution” of appointing Kerry Marshall as an “Observer” in a vain endeavour to dampen the protest down backfired by the Monday. When the Council’s Chief Executive Performance Review saw the light of day Monday, after it was “extracted” under the Official Information Act by the diligent media, Smith’s ham fisted plans were already in tatters. Contrary to earlier public statements by local politicians talking in glowing terms about his performance, justifying the $68,000 pay rise, the Review itself when it finally saw the light of day clearly illustrated otherwise.

The Government will not appoint Commissioners (contrary to the current public musings by Smith), because this would immediately collapse the local public support for the National Party, which did undeservedly well in Christchurch at the last General Election November 2011. The support for the National Party is in no small measure because the Opposition Labour Party is so internally conflicted and confused. As a political participant in local issues, it is currently “missing in action.”

Further to this, the appointment of Commissioners by the Government to the Canterbury Regional Council (Environment Canterbury), was not popular and has not been successful to date.

While Local Government Minister Smith is technically highly ranked in the Cabinet, in reality he is very much seen as “yesterday’s man” so far as political influence within Government is concerned.

Common Sense Must Prevail

It therefore seems likely, that as the local political pressure intensifies and Christchurch and citizens communicate directly with the politicians involved, that Prime Minister John Key and his Government, must see it as “desirable” to allow the local Christchurch people to sort out their own problems - with a fresh mid-term election.

Hugh Pavletich is a Christchurch entrepreneur, the owner of website Performance Urban Planning and the co-author of the Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey, 2011 .


  1. I think the media has focussed on your points (1) and (2) to the detriment of point (3), where there has been virtually nil discussion of what the actual impediments are. There has been some talk about insurance issues, but you can hardly place that on the council.

    It is somewhat ironic that all the RMA requirements and bloated bureaucracy that (lets face it) people 'called for' has now come back to bite those very same people. The RMA hasn't been touched politically because it was too easy for the opposition to appeal to the societal NIMBY factor that they wouldn't be 'consulted'.

    The same people were up and arms about the govt giving ECan the boot, now what the govt to give CCC the boot.

    Also I've noticed a serious case of crowd inflation going on. Initially crowd reports were 1000, then 2000 in the press, now it's 4000?

  2. Thank you for your article Hugh Pavletich, I can remember the days when the little Councillors and the land controllers, would easily say you did not know what you were on about, but you have persisted as a leader on housing and land issues, and guess what, now we find out you were right all of this time, and did you know Hugh that Sue Wells is the only person in NZ who has read the RMA legislation four times and understands it.


We welcome thoughtful disagreement.
Thanks to a few abusers however, we (ir)regularly moderate comments.
We *will* delete comments with insulting or abusive language, unless they're entertaining. We will also delete totally inane comments. Try to make some sense. We are much more likely to allow critical comments if you have the honesty and courage to use your real name.