Group case study report prepared for lecturers Ton Buhrs and Roy Montgomery by students of ERST 635 at Lincoln University, 2013.The New Zealand Government’s decision to establish a unitary authority in the Auckland Region has provided much of the context and impetus for this review of current governance arrangements in the Canterbury region, to determine whether or not they are optimal for taking the communities of greater Christchurch into the future. A number of local governance academics, as well as several respected political pundits, have prophesised that the Auckland ‘Super City’ reforms of 2009 will have serious implications and ramifications for local governance arrangements in other major cities, particularly Wellington and Christchurch. Wellington councils have already responded to the possibility of change by undertaking a series of reports on local governance arrangements, as well as a major review led by Sir Geoffrey Palmer, to investigate options for governance reform. Alongside these developments, the Christchurch earthquakes beginning in September 2010 have raised a myriad of new and complex governance issues, which may or may not be able to be addressed under the status quo, while the replacement of Regional Councillors’ with centrally-appointed Commissioners is suggestive of government dissatisfaction with current arrangements. With these things in mind, the research group has considered local government in Canterbury and the greater Christchurch area in the wider governance context. It does not limit discussion to only the structure of local government in Canterbury but rather, as the brief (Appendix 1) indicates, considers more broadly the relationship between central, regional, and local tiers of government, as well as the relationship between local government and local communities.
The city of Ōtautahi/Christchurch experienced a series of earthquakes that began on September 4th, 2010. The most damaging event occurred on February 22nd, 2011 but significant earthquakes also occurred on June 13th and December 23rd with aftershocks still occurring well into 2012. The resulting disaster is the second deadliest natural disaster in New Zealand’s history with 185 deaths. During 2011 the Canterbury earthquakes were one of the costliest disasters worldwide with an expected cost of up to $NZ30 billion.
Hundreds of commercial buildings and thousands of houses have been destroyed or are to be demolished and extensive repairs are needed for infrastructure to over 100,000 homes. As many as 8,900 people simply abandoned their homes and left the city in the first few months after the February event (Newell, 2012), and as many as 50,000 may leave during 2012. In particular, young whānau and single young women comprised a disproportionate number of these migrants, with evidence of a general movement to the North Island.
Te Puni Kōkiri sought a mix of quantitative and qualitative research to examine the social and economic impacts of the Christchurch earthquakes on Māori and their whānau. The result of this work will be a collection of evidence to inform policy to support and assist Māori and their whānau during the recovery/rebuild phases. To that end, this report triangulates available statistical and geographical information with qualitative data gathered over 2010 and 2011 by a series of interviews conducted with Māori who experienced the dramatic events associated with the earthquakes.
A Māori research team at Lincoln University was commissioned to undertake the research as they were already engaged in transdisciplinary research (began in the May 2010), that focused on quickly gathering data from a range of Māori who experienced the disaster, including relevant economic, environmental, social and cultural factors in the response and recovery of Māori to these events.
Participants for the qualitative research were drawn from Māori whānau who both stayed and left the city. Further data was available from ongoing projects and networks that the Lincoln research team was already involved in, including interviews with Māori first responders and managers operating in the CBD on the day of the February event. Some limited data is also available from younger members of affected whānau.
Māori in Ōtautahi/Christchurch City have exhibited their own culturally-attuned collective responses to the disaster. However, it is difficult to ascertain Māori demographic changes due to a lack of robust statistical frameworks but Māori outward migration from the city is estimated to range between 560 and 1,100 people.
The mobility displayed by Māori demonstrates an important but unquantified response by whānau to this disaster, with emigration to Australia presenting an attractive option for young Māori, an entrenched phenomenon that correlates to cyclical downturns and the long-term decline of the New Zealand economy. It is estimated that at least 315 Māori have emigrated from the Canterbury region to Australia post-quake, although the disaster itself may be only one of a series of events that has prompted such a decision.
Māori children made up more than one in four of the net loss of children aged 6 to 15 years enrolled in schools in Greater Christchurch over the year to June 2011. Research literature identifies depression affecting a small but significant number of children one to two years post-disaster and points to increasing clinical and organisational demands for Māori and other residents of the city.
For those residents in the eastern or coastal suburbs – home to many of the city’s Māori population - severe damage to housing, schools, shops, infrastructure, and streets has meant disruption to their lives, children’s schooling, employment, and community functioning. Ongoing abandonment of homes by many has meant a growing sense of unease and loss of security, exacerbated by arson, burglaries, increased drinking, a stalled local and national economy, and general confusion about the city’s future.
Māori cultural resilience has enabled a considerable network of people, institutions, and resources being available to Māori , most noticeably through marae and their integral roles of housing, as a coordinating hub, and their arguing for the wider affected communities of Christchurch.
Relevant disaster responses need to be discussed within whānau, kōhanga, kura, businesses, communities, and wider neighbourhoods. Comprehensive disaster management plans need to be drafted for all iwi in collaboration with central government, regional, and city or town councils.
Overall, Māori are remarkably philosophical about the effects of the disaster, with many proudly relishing their roles in what is clearly a historic event of great significance to the city and country. Most believe that ‘being Māori’ has helped cope with the disaster, although for some this draws on a collective history of poverty and marginalisation, features that contribute to the vulnerability of Māori to such events.
While the recovery and rebuild phases offer considerable options for Māori and iwi, with Ngāi Tahu set to play an important stakeholder in infrastructural, residential, and commercial developments, some risk and considerable unknowns are evident. Considerable numbers of Māori may migrate into the Canterbury region for employment in the rebuild, and trades training strategies have already been established.
With many iwi now increasingly investing in property, the risks from significant earthquakes are now more transparent, not least to insurers and the reinsurance sector. Iwi authorities need to be appraised of insurance issues and ensure sufficient coverage exists and investments and developments are undertaken with a clear understanding of the risks from natural hazards and exposure to future disasters.
METIRIA TUREI to the Minister of Education: In relation to the proposed school closures in Christchurch, does she agree with Manning Intermediate head Richard Chambers that "The Minister promised us that we would have two years no matter what. It was a guarantee she made to our community repeatedly, it was unequivocal"?
MAGGIE BARRY to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the New Zealand economy?
DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers?
Dr CAM CALDER to the Minister of Education: In the context of the Government's Christchurch schools announcement, what is the process going forward?
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE to the Minister for Building and Construction: Does he believe that the contracting system currently used in the construction industry works appropriately and fairly in circumstances of insolvency; if so, why?
NICKY WAGNER to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: What progress is being made on making the Christchurch city centre safe for rebuilding?
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements on withdrawing troops from Afghanistan?
TIM MACINDOE to the Minister of Science and Innovation: How is the Government focussing New Zealand's science funding investment, and encouraging Kiwis to get involved in science?
DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
ALFRED NGARO to the Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector: What recent announcements has she made regarding government support for volunteering?
EUGENIE SAGE to the Minister of Local Government: Does he have any concerns about the Hawkes Bay Regional Council's forecast of 530 percent increase in its debt by 2021/22?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he still have confidence in the Associate Minister of Health; if so, why?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
PAUL GOLDSMITH to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on business and economic conditions in New Zealand?
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his answer to written question 07314 (2013) when he said: "The inquiry team, itself, did not seek permission from Peter Dunne before it obtained his email logs" and does he think it should have?
SIMON O'CONNOR to the Minister of Transport: How will the Government progress the delivery of the next generation of transport projects for Auckland?
Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: Are the proceeds from selling power companies and other assets being used to pay down debt, to build schools and hospitals, to fund irrigation projects, to rebuild Christchurch, or to fund Auckland transport projects?
IAN McKELVIE to the Minister of Police: What updates has she received on how Police are using technology to prevent crime?
JACINDA ARDERN to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with The Economist that "inequality is one of the biggest social, economic and political challenges of our time"; if so, what is his Government doing to address the fact that New Zealand now has the widest income gap since detailed records began?
PAUL FOSTER-BELL to the Minister of Justice: How is the Government improving its justice and other services to local communities?
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: When was he first made aware of the September IANZ report which warned the Christchurch City Council that "Continued accreditation beyond May 2013 will depend on a satisfactory outcome of that assessment" and was he advised by CERA or a Ministerial colleague?
JONATHAN YOUNG to the Minister of Broadcasting: What progress has been made on the regional rollout of the digital switchover for New Zealand television viewers?
GARETH HUGHES to the Minister of Conservation: Will he implement the recommendations to protect Maui's dolphins contained in the report of this year's meeting of the International Whaling Commission Scientific Committee; if not, why not
Questions to Members
JACINDA ARDERN to the Chairperson of the Social Services Committee: On which date and time, if any, did he receive the Minister for Social Development's written responses to the pre-hearing questions for the 2013/14 Estimates review for Vote Social Development?
JACINDA ARDERN to the Chairperson of the Social Services Committee: On what date did the Minister for Social Development appear before the Committee to answer questions regarding the 2013/14 Estimates review for Vote Social Development?
Dr MEGAN WOODS to the Chairperson of the Education and Science Committee: Did he consider inviting the Minister to appear again to answer questions around responses to questions on the 2013/14 Estimates for Vote Education, if so, did he receive any advice about the Minister's willingness to appear again?
