Chris Hipkins boards a helicopter for a flight from Napier to Wairoa on February 22 to witness the devastation of Cyclone Gabrielle. Photo / RNZ
Chris Hipkins boards a helicopter for a flight from Napier to Wairoa on February 22 to witness the devastation of Cyclone Gabrielle. Photo / RNZ
Opinion
EDITORIAL
Something old, something new, something borrowed, and something blew. Cyclone Gabrielle, in the latter respect.
Prime Minister Chris Hipkins this week announced a special fundraising appeal and Lotto draw for March 18, among a raft of recovery measures after the cyclone devastated large parts of the North Island, particularlyHawke’s Bay and Tairāwhiti Gisborne.
Commentators wasted little time in pointing out that the concept is borrowed from a National Government initiative that raised about $100 million after the September 2010 and February 2011 Christchurch earthquakes.
How much should we borrow from Christchurch? A 2018 report by NZ Initiative chief economist Dr Eric Crampton, with Dr Bryce Wilkinson and Jason Krupp, found several flaws in the recovery that bear remembering.
One major weakness of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 was that it enabled restoration plans to be developed without sufficient regard for cost or commercial reality, including the need for certainty for households and businesses. “Recovery depends on decisions by multitudinous firms and individuals on where to live, work and rebuild,” the report authors pointed out. “Undue uncertainty impairs those decisions.”
Illustration / Rod Emmerson
In Christchurch, red zones swiftly and resolutely notified homeowners whether they could rebuild or not. However, the plans for the CBD were vague, granting all-encompassing powers to the Government to rebuild the inner city. Subsequently, it was found the Government did not possess the competence. Reconstruction was faster on the fringes of downtown Christchurch where the private sector took the lead.
The NZ Initiative report noted the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) started well but lost sight of its oversight role.
One of the biggest flashpoints in the Christchurch rebuild was the uncertainty around repairing or writing off damaged houses. Property owners were told they could move back in, only to later discover damning structural issues. Poor decisions appeared to be reinforced by bureaucratic blame-shifting or denials rather than seeking resolutions.
Four years after the Christchurch earthquakes, 5900 at-risk or vulnerable claimants were still waiting for the rebuild or repair of their damaged properties.
Liquefaction in the Burwood area of Christchurch. Photo / Geoff Sloan, File
A 2016 paper by Greg Simons surveyed Christchurch residents on their recovery experience and found 278 of the 613 respondents gave it the worst rating of “very unsatisfied”.
In the event of another disaster, Crampton, Wilkinson and Krupp recommend a recovery agency should again be set up expeditiously but its structure should allow competent local authorities to take a full role while providing support where needed. Taking complete control and handing it to an agency unable to deliver heaps misery on disaster.
This time the Prime Minister has said no consideration has been given to setting up a special recovery authority. Given what occurred in Christchurch that would appear a good first step.
As Herald political editor Claire Trevett has pointed out, this is the first big test for Hipkins as leader. The recovery effort is also likely to loom large during the countdown to polling day on October 14.
Hipkins has 227 days to show the Cyclone Gabrielle recovery has not only borrowed fundraising ideas but also retained the lessons from Christchurch.
