One Voice Te Reo Kotahi
Sector
Forum:
“Questions regarding CERA transitioning out in 2016”
7.30pm, 10 March 2014
Netball Centre, Christchurch
“Questions regarding CERA transitioning out in 2016”
7.30pm, 10 March 2014
Netball Centre, Christchurch
Approximately 120 people attended to hear speakers from the six statutory
partners in the recovery talk about arrangements for recovery post-2016.
The meeting opened with a karakia given by Whare Tamanui,
before Rex Gibson welcomed the official guests and the audience.
The context of the event and outline of the programme was
given by Katherine Peet, who chaired the forum.
She referred to the previous OVTRK forum at which CERA representative
Benesia Smith had described the relationship between CERA and greater
Christchurch as like an arranged marriage – the cost-sharing agreement should
have been a pre-nuptial agreement yet it was decided afterwards. Katherine noted that five of the six
questions that tonight’s speakers were addressing had been raised by Benesia at
that forum.
Katherine also gave an overview of the
NGO sector – there are approximately 10,000 NGO’s in Canterbury, and only 10%
have any paid staff. The volunteer and
paid workers in the sector are 10% of the workforce and bring together a wealth
of experience and collective expertise. Treaty-based
development is widely practiced. The sector
contributes 5.3% of GDP, and receives 24% of its income from philanthropic
giving, 9% from government and generates the remaining 67% itself.
NGO speakers
The meeting was addressed by four NGO speakers, who were chosen to cover the four aspects of recovery (environmental, social, economic and cultural) that CERA must address and to give a flavour of the diversity of the sector.
There are around 10,000 NGOs in Canterbury, of which approx 10% have paid staff. Volunteer and paid workers in the non-profit sector are 10.6% of NZ's workforce, that’s about 54,000 paid and volunteer workers in Canterbury. The non-profit sector contributes 5.3% of NZ's GDP. 67% of the sector's income comes from fees, 9% from government and 24% from philanthropic giving.
Jane Quigley (The Viva
Project): In
the first year or so after the earthquakes we all believed that we had a great
opportunity to create a better city and make a difference. We don’t hear people saying that so much
now.
Viva has a focus on sustainable urban villages. It ran workshops for people who wanted to
create sustainable living spaces in Christchurch. An initial design was submitted to the
‘Breathe’ competition held by Future Christchurch, and made the finals but didn’t
submit a final plan. The land was too
expensive, and conditions that were imposed by regulatory authorities too
hard. No one group can create the vision
alone, we need to work together.
Surinder Tandon (Chch Multicultural Council): The Multicultural Council was formed
25 years ago (as Chch Ethnic Council) with the support of Christchurch
City Council. Its purposes are to
promote harmonious relations, support cultural diversity, and support migrants’
health and wellbeing. It is run purely
by volunteers, and doesn’t get much support in way of funding. Currently it is campaigning for government’s Office
of Ethnic Affairs to get Ministry status.
Christchurch is attractive to migrants and becoming increasingly ethnically
diverse. Migrants are still coming to
the city post quake. The city needs
better resources for existing and future migrants so they can contribute fully
to the city.
Tim Weir (Delta Community Support Trust): Delta is based in Richmond,
which was one of the harder hit suburbs with liquefaction and the recent
floods. Tim noted that ‘economic’ was at
the top of the graphic of aspects of recovery in the CERA Recovery
document. The NGO sector priority is not
economic, it is common good. We need to
be sure that an economic focus doesn’t drive our vision. Money should be invested behind our
vision. The community sector can make
money go a long way. For instance Delta collaborates
with other groups in the area to put on community events to maintain and enhance
community connections. The loss of community
venues is an issue. Tim would love to
see investment in the community sector as an anchor project.
Dallas Hibbs (He Waka Tapu): He Waka Tapu is 20 years old and
based on the east side of town. Before
the quakes people were talking about what they wanted to do, this hasn’t
stopped. How do we make families
stronger? Lots on east side want to
celebrate their Maoriness, others including Pacifika and Pakeha also want to
see their heritage recognised. We need
to look after people first, bricks and mortar can follow.
Speakers from the Panel of CERA statutory
partners:
An earlier forum with CERA had given rise to a number of questions that
had been sent to the panel speakers.
They were all asked to respond to those that were relevant to their
organisation. The questions were:
• How will CCC and the government continue to
relate beyond 2016, given that there is an agreement about
cost sharing between them?
• How will the five statutory partners, named in the CER
Act, continue to relate to one another, ECAN and the TLAs beyond
2016?
• Who will undertake the monitoring of the recovery beyond 2016?
• What will be the future use of the residential red zone lands?
• What challenges do you anticipate for the transition, with 2014 being a
parliamentary election year?
• How will recognition of Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu's
statutory role in the recovery under the CER Act be continued into
the future beyond 2016?
Roger Sutton (CEO, CERA):
The forum Chair read out the apology emailed
this evening from Roger Sutton, and his keenness to progress these
discussions. No replacement speaker was
provided.
Arihia Bennett (CEO, Te
Runanga o Ngai Tahu): Arihia bases the role on her passion for
family and communities. Ngai Tahu number
around 56,000, about 10,000 are based in the rohe (area of responsibility) which
stretches from Kaikoura to Murihiku.
At the time of the quakes the Kaiwhakahaere Mark Solomon said the role
of Ngai Tahu is manaakitanga and kaitaikitanga in relation to all of the people
of Christchurch. What is the role for Ngai
Tahu post-2016? Ten years ago Ngai Tahu
may not have been sitting on this panel, there have been big changes in 10
years. Ngai Tahu has increasing roles
with other governing bodies e.g. co-governing Waihora (Lake Ellesmere) in
partnership with ECan. It is also
engaged in many activities from commercial to social. We have started to pave the way, it is now
expected that we will have a lot more to do with each other.
Dame Margaret Bazley (Chair,
ECan): Dame
Margaret noted that ECan has a Canterbury-wide responsibility.
We
need to be realistic as to when we can expect all
the issues for people and land to be completed and when we can expect CCC to be
able to take over addressing these. This
can’t be achieved in 2 years, so it’s too early to be talking about
transition. We need to be planning
beyond 2016. Dame Margaret supports
returning responsibilities to the territorial authorities as soon as possible, but
we are dealing with things that are too big and hard and have never been dealt
with before. We need Brownlee and CERA
for some time yet, they make sure our voice is heard in Wellington. If we had a smaller presence there we
wouldn’t be heard.
The partners didn’t
relate well to each other prior to quakes, it was very difficult until CERA was
created. Now the parties get on
fine. ECan is most closely involved in
rebuilding the public transport system, which is a huge job.
Monitoring of the
recovery should be done by the community with overview by government because of
the money they have invested.
Dame Margaret is looking
forward to working with the other partners in the future use of the red zoned
land.
She did not feel it was
possible to comment what impact the forthcoming election could have on the
development of a transition process. A
change in government may bring about changes to how things are done.
ECan works closely with Ngai Tahu, who have a person nominated as an
ECan commissioner. This model should be
looked at going forward. Advisory units,
liaison groups and similar models don’t work as well as having somebody as part
of governance.
Kelvin Coe (Selwyn District
Council) represented by Councillor Malcolm Lyall: Selwyn was not affected as
severely by the earthquakes as the other authorities.
The statutory partners
have been working together since 2006, developing the Urban Development
Strategy (UDS) – the overarching strategic document for Canterbury. This has set the ground for learning to work
with each other, and developed relationships that are standing us in good
stead. Malcolm has faith that all can
work together, it needs communication, cooperation and consideration. Selwyn has become a feeder region for Christchurch
city, its residents want Christchurch to go ahead as they it as their city – many
were educated there, they go to the theatre and events, and take part in the
life of the city.
Monitoring of the recovery should continue to be informed by the CERA advisory
committee. The UDS has stood as a framework
for the recovery plans, Malcolm would like to see Health Board sitting on the
UDS board as well. Aspirations need to
be heard and supported by our partners. Selwyn
is more than willing to be there and help facilitate the conversations between
partners. It looks forward to continuing
to work with Ngai Tahu at the table.
David Ayers (Mayor, Waimakariri
District Council): David noted that the recovery is not about
Christchurch, it is about Canterbury.
Waimakariri was badly affected by quakes. Towns like Kaiapoi are as old as Christchurch,
with similar buildings. WDC are talking
about not only greater Christchurch recovery and revival but its own. There are two cost-sharing agreements, WDC has
one as well as Christchurch city. The
agreement is not with CERA but directly with the Crown. They are largely satisfied with the results
of the agreement. Beyond 2016, it is expected
that most of the money will be spent.
There is a history of
cooperation that goes back beyond the quakes.
There have been some tensions especially with ECan prior to 2010, but all
the local governments have worked well togetherat both governance and staff
level, including on LURP and the UDS.
WDC is monitoring its
own recovery now and will continue to do so.
The red zone is a major
issue for area – probably a higher proportion of houses in Kaiapoi (20%) have
been red-zoned than in Christchurch.
There is some evidence that there is progress towards an answer of what
will happen to the land, this is something they have been pressing for. Infrastructure repair is now getting to the
fringes of the red zones, and WDC needs clarity of what can or cannot be placed
there. Signals suggest some kind of
reserve for recreational use, but surety is needed. It is written into cost-sharing agreement
that community must be involved in the decision.
WDC has a good relationship with the local hapu of Ngai Tahu, Ngai
Tuahuriri. Their day to day relationship
is with them.
Lianne Dalziel (Mayor,
Christchurch City Council): As an example of how she approaches recovery,
Lianne explained how she gave a draft of her recent commemoration speech to the
bereaved families and also to the All Right campaign because wanted to be sure
that it addressed psychosocial issues.
This is important because it matters how we engage with communities, we
need to be working together to find solutions, not to find ourselves in
conflict. People respond and recover in
different ways, we need to be respectful of reality that not everyone is able
or ready to ‘move on’.
According to the advice
offered to government in 2011 by the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Officer,
Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, the most important ameliorating factors in psychosocial
recovery from a major disaster included: being explicit how governance arrangements
will facilitate local engagement and empowerment; recognition by the community
of the conflict inherent between the desire for rapid physical recovery and the
difficulties in planning - the key is to ask community openly how to resolve it;
and providing clarity of reconstruction and rehabilitation plans – it is better
for those in decision-making roles to say “we don’t know” than obfuscate. This confirmed that the statutory partners
can’t do it on their own without each other and the community. We have to combine all our resources and work
in a collaborative way.
The CERA Recovery Strategy approved by government specifically requires
the statutory partners to write a transition plan and this must be completed by
April 2015. It’s only the legislation
and statutory CERA powers that disappears in 2016, not the need to work
together. The spirit of CERA will
continue. We need to reinforce all of
the relationships in order to carry on beyond then.
Questions from the floor:
People involved with NGOs were invited to ask questions of any of the
panellists.
Q to Lianne Dalziel
– what is that working together that you spoke of going to look like?
A: The process
for developing the transition plan isn’t clear at present. It has become clearer to Christchurch City
Council that we need to be thinking more carefully what this means for the long
term. Eventually council will be re-established
in its role in the city, this is an amazing opportunity to find ways for more
community engagement including collaborative decision-making that would not
have been possible without the post-disaster response that was driven by the
community. In any environment that has
taken advantage of this energy and resolve you can get transformation on a
scale that you wouldn’t believe. I’m
seeing building community and restoring ability to make decisions for
themselves. That is the magic of what
can happen next.
Q to Lianne Dalziel: The disability sector is puzzled because we
are told that everything must be rebuilt as it was pre-quake but people talk
about how this is an opportunity to make things better than they were. For example, the centre islands in roads are not
suitable for some disabilities. This is
an opportunity to make things that were useless before useful now. Why must they be only restored to what they
were?
A: When
SCIRT was established CCC established a separate betterment fund for this
purpose. The applications for this fund
come from SCIRT, if they can get extra funds they can increase capacity. But SCIRT looks underground and at the road, and
not around it. They are not applying for
things like you describe because it’s off their radar. We need to find a way for them to look at the
neighbourhood and see what the betterment objectives could be.
David Ayers: In the
Waimakariri we have no SCIRT, and yes we are doing betterment work.
Q to entire panel: What’s the role of young people in the
transitional period, how would you ensure that the youth voice is heard?
A: Arihia: Ngai Tahu have young people involved in arts
and crafts and design of natural environment through educational institutions
or papatipu runanga. We have resurrected
through polytechs the trade training programme.
David: Waimakariri
Youth Council is being set up at the moment.
Youth have been involved in the recovery particularly in Kaiapoi but
also other towns.
Malcolm: Selwyn
does not have the same rebuild needs as further north. We just recently established the Selwyn Youth
Council and are actively involving them in decision-making. Issues are more to do with rapid community
growth.
Dame Margaret: There are a number of youth programmes in ECan’s
restoration programmes.
Lianne: Young
people have led all the edgy and different regeneration programmes such as
Gapfiller. We need to keep in mind that we
are rebuilding our city for future generations.
Q: Public transport will be an issue, the railway
line could be used for commuter transport.
Has this been discussed, if not why not?
David: This has
always been on the agenda. The first
priority has been trying to make the bus system work because of its flexibility. We need to get it working in the central city
first.
Malcolm: Selwyn
would like to see it work. It was looked
at pre-quake in work on the UDS, the passenger numbers needed to make it
efficient were quite high. The line to
Rolleston is heavily used by freight, it would be difficult to schedule
passenger transport.
Dame Margaret: We
have to get the basics of bus transport sorted first.
Comment from the floor: there
is some rolling stock available in Auckland, could we get it for a discount
rate for the future?
David: WDC
has been doing research on people who live in the Waimakariri and work in Christchurch. It was found that they work all over the
city. If a train ran from Rangiora to Christchurch
it would have to integrate with the bus services.
Comment from the floor: The arteries
of the city are what will allow us to develop new subdivisions. We need to protect the rail corridors now so
we can integrate heavy rail and light rail.
Q to all: I am encouraged by Lianne’s comment about
CERA continuing on in spirit. For me
this was significant. Could others also
commit to that spirit?
Arihia: Ngai
Tahu is very interested in progressing this, and is looking forward to further
participation.
David: The
relationships there now and will continue after 2016. We are happy to see government there in a
non-regulatory way.
Malcolm:
Yes.
Dame Margaret: the concept
of CERA continuing in spirit (ie without statutory powers) appeals to me.
Lianne: Building
partnerships is what is important, not the existence or otherwise of
legislation. The community at present
doesn’t feel that it’s engaged, this must change.
Q to Dame Margaret and Lianne: How will the plan for transition be
developed? How will the goals be
decided, how will the community be involved to secure our confidence that a
democratic future is assured?
Lianne: It is CERA’s responsibility to lead the
development process, we will need to refer to Roger.
Response: What
does each partner present think should be in the agreement?
Dame Margaret: It has to be seamless.
Lianne: It
has to have an overarching framework for investment, procurement and
delivery. At present investors present
ideas to CERA then to CCC, there is no sense of what’s being joined up between
what CCC is leading and what government is leading, e.g. new schools to be
built could have community facilities. I
would really like a model of joining up.
David: CERA
has treated WDC with a fairly light hand, and usually come to council.
From the floor: All of this re build must keep people in the
centre. Many people who are marginalised
anyway have become more marginalised.
Please keep holding people in front.
Q: The elephant in the room is the 30,000
workers that we need to bring in, how are they to be housed? We need 21st century tools to
allow people to take back building their own communities.
Lianne: This needs
to be addressed by CERA. WDC have been
honoured for their community engagement, has been exemplary and should
acknowledge that. Community engagement
doesn’t slow things down, it speeds them up.
People will accept the inevitable delays if they understand that
everyone is doing their best.
Malcolm:
perhaps it’s time to look at what we’re building – maybe temporary
structures for 10 years that can be moved later on.
Summary of questions and responses for action: The
night’s discussions were summed up by Organising Group member Evan Smith:
Holding up a rugby ball Evan noted that it has
been difficult with a key player missing, like the ball has been taken to the
far end of the paddock and nobody is able to play with it.
Before the earthquakes there were already
well-established relationships, although not without tensions. This may explain why ECan thinks 2016 is too
soon to say goodbye to CERA and others think it is not soon enough.
Concepts that we have noted: Selwyn’s three
‘c’s - communication, cooperation and consideration;
it is better to give timelines;
recovery is about people, not just buildings.
It is good to recognise WDCs good progress,
and the magnitude of what it is dealing with.
There is a variety of agencies involved in
monitoring. From the NGOs perspective,
recovery is only as successful as the most vulnerable person’s recovery. This is about community empowerment.
The upcoming election brings uncertainty. There is a real danger that government might
take its foot off the pedal, but we take Lianne’s point that not everyone is
ready to move on.
Recognition of Ngai Tahu and having it given a
statutory role in the recovery is a great highlight of the CER Act and an
example to the rest of the country. The
cultural and spiritual memory of the land has risen up with the shaking of the
quakes. It has not just been recognising
tangata whenua in law but in the hearts of the people, which is the only way it
will endure.
We have been using the analogy of an arranged
marriage when talking about the relationship between CERA and its statutory
partners, when this arranged marriage formally comes to an end, who is left
holding the baby? The baby is a product
of more than its parents, it is the product of its social, environmental,
economic, and cultural environment. It takes
a village to raise a child, and the NGO sector knows every nook and cranny of
the village extremely well. We have
between us a wealth of expertise to help raise the child.
Final thanks and
concluding remarks: Katherine invited all the panellists to keep
the dialogue going with the NGO sector.
Democracy exists when the people involved feel they are setting the
agenda. The agenda for transition must
belong to all of us. Rex reiterated that
NGOs know what we’re doing. All the
people putting questions to the speakers tonight came from NGOs – this means
that there are many other people standing behind the questioners. Tonight has been participatory democracy in
action.
Karakia whakamutunga: Dallas Hibbs
closed the meeting with a karakia.
