DOCSLIB.ORG

The New Zealand Initiative Deloitte New Zealand May 2016

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The New Zealand Initiative Deloitte New Zealand May 2016 RESEARCH NOTE DEADLY HERITAGE THE NEW ZEALAND INITIATIVE DELOITTE NEW ZEALAND MAY 2016 DR ERIC CRAMPTON LINDA MEADE www.nzinitiative.org.nz www.deloitte.co.nz 1 RESEARCH NOTE ABOUT THE AUTHORS Dr Eric Crampton is the Head of Research at The New Zealand Initiative and co- author of The Case for Economic Growth. Dr Crampton served as Lecturer and Senior Lecturer in Economics at the Department of Economics & Finance FOREWORD at the University of Canterbury from While most of the fatalities in Street, and Lichfield Lanes: blocks of November 2003 until July 2014. the February 2011 earthquake in older buildings with masonry facades He is also the creator and author Christchurch occurred in two relatively overlooking busy pedestrian areas. of the well-known blog “Offsetting modern buildings, collapsing facades History shows how it is important that Behaviour”. on heritage buildings also contributed these buildings can be made safe at substantially to the death toll. reasonable cost. Linda Meade is Partner at Deloitte The most prominent example was the The risks posed by the kinds of New Zealand. failure of a listed building at 605-613 unreinforced masonry facades typical Since joining Colombo Street, which fell on a transit of many heritage buildings were Deloitte twelve bus, resulting in the loss of twelve also acknowledged by Building and years ago, Linda lives and leaving one survivor. That Housing Minister Nick Smith in his has played a lead role in the delivery building’s owner had been served proposed remediation of the proposed of public sector and infrastructure with notice under the Building Act earthquake strengthening legislation. engagements, with particular that the building needed to be made Facades and parapets will now have emphasis on central government safe. The owner found that the priority over other strengthening departments, the transport sector, building could not be made safe at works.2 But remediating many of these education and housing. She also is a any reasonable cost and, in December dangerous features is made more trustee with Wellington Zoo. 2010, consequently proposed difficult by heritage listings. demolition. Despite Christchurch Council’s having been empowered by Wellington’s earthquake-prone stock ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Parliament to allow speedy demolition of heritage buildings is a microcosm of of unsafe buildings, Council insisted a problem facing New Zealand more The authors thank Boniface Molnar, on a resource consenting process generally. In short, too few public who interviewed many of Wellington’s that would take at least six months. resources are devoted to protecting owners of listed buildings as part of The earthquake of 22 February 2011 too many heritage-designated this research. We thank Angie Geor- intervened.1 buildings. While the public enjoys giou for her assistance in pointing us the benefits of a pleasant urban to building owners whose experiences Much of Wellington’s streetscape, environment featuring many older shaped our research. Finally, we also from the perspective of a recent buildings, those buildings’ owners are thank the many building owners and migrant from Christchurch, looks left to bear the cost of owning listed developers who generously provided like pre-quake Colombo Street, High buildings. their time. 1 See survivor Dr Ann Brower’s discussion in Harvey, Justine, 2012, “Colombo Street’s lone survivor discusses reasons behind the building collapse”, Architecture Now, March. Available at http://architecturenow.co.nz/articles/luck-played-no-part-in-this/ 2 Jenny Ruth, “Some critics of earthquake strengthening legislation win their arguments.” The National Business Review 3 September 2015. 2 DEADLY HERITAGE While heritage-listed buildings are risk where earthquake strengthening hardly the only buildings at risk during regulations can change and can Deloitte’s survey identified six earthquakes, their heritage designation disproportionately affect the cost of primary issues hindering the timely makes the problems common to many owning heritage buildings. remediation of earthquake-prone other buildings more intractable. heritage buildings. The result of this, both in Wellington Apart from anything else, listed and increasingly in the rest of the National Building Standard guidelines buildings are more expensive to country as new earthquake standards 1 seem fundamentally arbitrary. renovate or strengthen because works are promulgated, is a stock of buildings Competent engineers looking at must be respectful of the building’s of relatively low heritage value but high exactly the same data can come to heritage character. The nature of the earthquake risk that are difficult to different estimates of the building’s space and their location can limit the make safe given the constraints placed rating relative to the current building rentals that are able to be achieved on heritage buildings. And, even if code. This is especially true when after the work is done. Challenges also they are made safe, the economics of assessing older buildings. Surveyed arise when buildings are held under it can be quite difficult. While there are owners also had difficulty in finding unit title which require consensus many heritage buildings that are vital competent engineers to inspect their across multiple owners. Finally, where to save, available resources are spread buildings, and many did not know demolition is an available option to too thinly. their building’s current rating. building owners where available repair strategies are uneconomical, that Nowhere is this more clear than in 2 Building owners often have little option is often unavailable for listed Wellington, both because of the information about the rules buildings. earthquake risk facing the city and applying to their heritage buildings. because of the substantial stock of Interpreting the set of regulations can People buying heritage-listed heritage-listed buildings. be daunting. And while assistance is properties generally know, or ought available, few owners know about it. to know, the responsibility that they We worked with Deloitte to investigate Both initial investigations and are taking on with their purchase. If the barriers facing owners of heritage 3 subsequent remediation are the designation is costly for building buildings in making their properties exceptionally costly. Financial owners, it should be factored into earthquake-safe. Our investigation constraints loom large, as do barriers their purchase offer for the building. was primarily undertaken in late to loan financing for difficult-to-insure Anecdotally, that is more happening 2014 and early 2015; we have seen buildings or those held under unit now than happened before the little change since then. The report titles. devastation in Christchurch. points to substantial problems if the government wishes to make progress Earthquake repairs are unnecessarily But even where risks are suitably on remediating unreinforced masonry 4 expensive due to like-for-like factored in, owners face additional facades on heritage buildings. heritage replacement specifications. Many owners are unable to find economically feasible repair strategies. While commercial tenants avoid 5 hazardous buildings, residential tenants are often even less willing to pay a premium for strengthened premises. Consequently, more expensive repair options in that context can become unviable. Owners unable to find economically 6 viable repair strategies for heritage buildings are also forbidden from tearing them down. 3 RESEARCH NOTE Barring those more systematic changes, there are other measures Council could undertake that would mitigate the burden it imposes on the owners of heritage buildings. We detail these at the end of this report. The Final Report of the Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission argued that securing dangerous buildings “should not be impeded by the consent process and that life safety should be a paramount consideration for all buildings, regardless of heritage status.”3 Deloitte explored some potential Under such an approach the public They recommended specifically that policy responses in their submission benefit derived from the heritage where demolition or protective works on Wellington’s Long Term Plan (www. status is funded by the public. This are needed to prevent injury or death, deloitte.com/nz/wcc-ltp). ensures that rational decisions are no consenting should be required to made balancing heritage value effect such works regardless of the While heritage buildings are a vitally against costs where there may exist building’s listing under a council’s important part of the city’s landscape other heritage buildings that can be district plan, or protection under the and culture, they often impose a large improved more economically. Historic Places Act 1993. and uncompensated burden on their owners. Someone today buying a Switching heritage preservation to Where Council is unable to make the heritage building should understand an annual budget item would also changes necessary to the District Plan to the encumbrances posed by such encourage Council to weigh carefully remove the least valuable earthquake- ownership. But owners of newly listed which buildings really provide prone buildings from heritage buildings and long-time owners who the most heritage value, and how designation, and to better facilitate have seen strong escalation in the costs the city can provide the greatest the strengthening of particularly of owning a heritage building provide amount of heritage preservation
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Selwyn Board Fate Decided
    60 years P5 Central Canterbury happy Nadia’s vege spaghetti P14 NEWSWednesday, April 13, 2016 Selwyn boardfate decided MONIQUE STEELE [email protected] The Selwyn Central Community Board representing a population of almost 18,000 (2013 census) will be abolished following the elections in October. The Local Government Commission announced last week it upheld the Selwyn District Council decision to disestablish the Selwyn Central Community Board following an appeal hearing last month as part of the Representation Review. ‘‘I’m disappointed that the community board is going to finish. It is a bit of a bombshell.’’ Jeff Bland Chair Selwyn Central Community Board 2015 August 26 September 15-17 October 12 A total of 12 people appealed Submissions opened for SDC Public drop-in information Public hearings and deliberations against the council’s decision, all seeking retention of the board representation review initial proposal sessions on submissions were heard by the which represents residents from Council Halkett, Rolleston, Weedons and West Melton. October 28 November 11 December 14 The commission based its decision on the fact that the SDC considered the public SDC announced final proposal End date for appeals Selwyn Central ward was submissions to initial proposal for and appeals and objections and objections geographically compact and well the final proposal opened represented with four councillors; there was a duplication of roles between the councillors, com- munity committee members and 2016 community board members; and March 7 April 8 October 8 some submitters made strong Local Government Commission Local Government Commission's 2016 local elections arguments to disestablish the board.
    [Show full text]
  • Lincoln University Planning Review Volume 2 Issue 2
    IN THIS ISSUE: Coastline Controversy: Subdivision at Purau Bay, Banks Peninsula. by Emma Thomas Lincoln Planning Education and the Role of Theory in the New Millennium: A New Role for Habitat Theory? by Roy Montgomery Planning Community Commodified: The Pres- tons Road Residential Subdivision by Peter Chamberlain Review Volume 2, Issue 2 August 2010 ISSN 1175-0987 Lincoln Planning Review is prepared by Lincoln University students with staff assistance and the views expressed in this publication are those of the individual writers. While Lincoln University may or may not agree with the views expressed, the University is proud to support the work being done by LPR to raise, discuss and debate important planning issues. Lincoln Planning Review Volume 2, Issue 2 August 2010 Table of Contents Lincoln Planning Review Editorial .............................................................................................Hamish G. Rennie 3 ISSN 1175-0987 Editorial ....................................................................... Nick Williams and Kelly Fisher 3 Lincoln Planning Review is the journal of the Lincoln University Planning Association (LUPA) and is an online publication produced Peer Reviewed Articles twice each year and primarily edited by students. It is also a Land Coastline Controversy: Subdivision at Purau Bay, Banks Peninsula ............................ Environment and People Research Centre outreach publication and ................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • New Zealand Journal of Environmental Law
    New Zealand Journal of Environmental Law Volume 14 2010 EDITORIAL COMMITTEE General Editor: Dr Kenneth Palmer Members: Professor Klaus Bosselmann Associate Professor David Grinlinton Caroline Foster Prue Taylor Valmaine Toki FACULTY OF LAW THE UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND The New Zealand Journal of Environmental Law is published annually by the Faculty of Law, The University of Auckland. The Journal is available on direct subscription by writing to: The Subscription Manager, New Zealand Journal of Environmental Law, Faculty of Law, The University of Auckland, Private Bag 92-019, Auckland, 1142 NEW ZEALAND Telephone: 64-9-373 7599 ext. 81973 Facsimile: 64-9-373 7473 Email: (Lisa Wilks) [email protected] The following subscription prices apply for 2011 (postage, handling and GST included): New Zealand subscribers: $NZ70.00 per annum Overseas subscribers: $NZ75.00 per annum North American readers should obtain subscriptions direct from the sole North American agents: Gaunt, Inc., Gaunt Building, 3011 Gulf Drive, Holmes Beach, Telephone: 941-778 5211 (USA) Florida, 34217-2199, Fax: 941-778 5252 (USA) USA Email: [email protected] Information about advertising in the Journal, including circulation data and advertising rates, may be obtained by writing to the General Editor. Articles and other contributions submitted for publication in the Journal should be sent to: The General Editor, New Zealand Journal of Environmental Law, Faculty of Law, The University of Auckland, Private Bag 92-019, Auckland, 1142 NEW ZEALAND Email: [email protected] Articles and other contributions should comply with the “GUIDELINES FOR CONTRI- BUTORS” as set out on the inside back cover of this issue.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Download
    Volume 11 – Issue 3 – August 2015 TOPICS IN FOCUS Child Hardship Euthanasia Has Budget 2015 Solved Child Poverty? The Consequences of Euthanasia Legislation Russell Wills 3 for Disabled People Budget 2015: the government’s welfare Wendi Wicks 38 policy, a positive view Changes in Urban and Environmental Bryce Wilkinson 8 Governance in Canterbury from 2010 to 2015: What Effect Will the 2015 Budget comparing Environment Canterbury and Have on Housing? Christchurch City Council Philippa Howden-Chapman, Kim O’Sullivan, Ann Brower and Ike Kleynbos 41 Sarah Bierre, Elinor Chisholm, Anna Hamer-Adams, So Near Yet So Far: implications of the Organised Jenny Ombler and Kate Amore 13 Crime and Anti-corruption Legislation Bill Reflections on the Budget 2015 Michael Macaulay and Robert Gregory 48 Child Hardship Package The Role Universities Can Play in Supporting Susan St John 20 the State Sector Aid in Dying in the High Court: Chris Whelan 56 Seales v Attorney General The Policy Worker and the Professor: Andrew Geddis 27 understanding how New Zealand policy Physician-assisted Dying workers utilise academic research Jack Havill 30 Karl Löfgren and Dona Cavagnoli 64 Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide: Research Note: a revised set of good or bad public policy? New Zealand wealth estimates John Kleinsman 34 Geoff Bertram 73 Editorial Note Poor Policy? This issue of Policy Quarterly gives particular attention to credit, the position of low-income families (whether in two policy issues that have figured prominently in recent receipt of benefits or market incomes) will deteriorate: Volume 11 – Issue 3 – August 2015 public debate in New Zealand: first, the problem of child over time, many such families will become worse off, both Policy Quarterly (PQ) is targeted at readers poverty and the government’s announcement of measures in real terms and relative to those on much higher incomes in the public sector, including politicians and to address this problem via a Child Hardship Package in the or receiving New Zealand superannuation.
    [Show full text]
  • Monday, February 22, 2021 Home-Delivered $1.90, Retail $2.20
    TE NUPEPA O TE TAIRAWHITI MONDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2021 HOME-DELIVERED $1.90, RETAIL $2.20 PAGE 2 FEATURE INSIDE TODAY REMEMBERING PAGES 6-7, 10 DESPERATELY CHRISTCHURCH SEEKING GOLDEN QUAKE JUDY . YEARS 58 YEARS ON SURFING CLASSIC: Open men’s finalist Dylan Barnfield was among the many who converged on Midway’s Pipe break on Saturday for the 26th Makorori First Light Longboarding Surf Classic. The event — the oldest longboarding contest in the country — attracted its largest-ever field, including an excellent response from female surfers. It was changed from Makorori to Midway because of conditions. While it is a contest and there are winners, organisers have always stressed it is more like a festival and the communtity atmosphere underlined this. STORY ON PAGE 2 Picture by Paul Rickard Petition well short Only 722 sign up for referendum on Maori wards here by Alice Angeloni announced an urgent bill to change the Council internal partnerships director establish Maori wards for the 2022 local petition provision, which allows 5 percent James Baty said they had also been elections, five collected enough signatures A MAORI wards petition made of voters to force a public referendum waiting for the petition deadline. to trigger a poll, had the law not been in powerless this month by central with the power to veto a council’s decision. “It’s still a bill, it’s not the process of change. government was about 1000 signatures The Local Electoral (Maori Wards and law yet,” he said. According to Hobson’s short of sending Maori Constituencies) Amendment Bill “Whereas Monday ...today marks the Pledge, 6000 signatures Gisborne to a binding proposes that any demands for a poll will and that date for a valid were collected in poll.
    [Show full text]
  • THE NEW ZEALAND MEDICAL JOURNAL Journal of the New Zealand Medical Association
    THE NEW ZEALAND MEDICAL JOURNAL Journal of the New Zealand Medical Association Proceedings of the Rhise Group Symposium, Friday 22 November 2013 After the catastrophic earthquake in Christchurch, New Zealand, on 22 February 2011, the Rhise Group (researching the health implications of seismic events) was formed by Professor Michael Ardagh. The main objective of the group was to facilitate understanding of the health impacts of the Christchurch earthquakes and, specifically, to enable collaboration and sharing of resources where appropriate. This has been achieved through the occasional forum and a shared website, able to be accessed by the 219 members of the group. In addition, the group encouraged a dedicated funding round for earthquake research from the Health Research Council of New Zealand and the Canterbury Medical Research Foundation. This symposium is the most significant event hosted by the Rhise Group to date and allows the recipients of that funding round, and other researchers from within the Rhise Group, to present the current state of their research. Thanks go to the Emergency Care Foundation, Lane Neave Lawyers, University of Otago, Christchurch, Canterbury District Health Board, Canterbury Medical Research Foundation, and Emergency Care Co-ordinations Teams for sponsoring the symposium. Within the wider, loose collaborative of researchers making up the Rhise Group is a small ‘working group’ based in the Emergency Department of Christchurch Hospital, and the University of Otago, Christchurch. The working group coordinates the activities of the Rhise Group and includes Professor Ardagh, Dr Joanne Deely, Ms Alieke Dierckx, Dr Sandra Richardson and Dr Martin Than. Particular thanks go to Dr Deely and Ms Dierckx for putting this symposium together and Dr Deely and Professor Ardagh for editing the proceedings.
    [Show full text]
  • CHANGES in Urban and Environmental Governance in Canterbury from 2010 to 2015: Comparing Environment Canterbury and Christchurch City Council
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Analysis and Policy Observatory (APO) Ann Brower and Ike Kleynbos CHANGES in Urban and Environmental Governance in Canterbury from 2010 to 2015: comparing Environment Canterbury and Christchurch City Council This article compares the proximate but not parallel Background Between 2010 and 2012, Canterbury trajectories of Canterbury Regional Council’s (ECan) and the Regional Council and the Christchurch Christchurch City Council’s changing authority to manage City Council faced governance crises. The former was accused by Canterbury’s the urban and natural environment from 2010 to 2015. We Mayoral Forum of failing to produce a plan for resource use and of processing ask why the trajectories are so far from parallel, and speculate resource consents slowly. The latter as to why the central government interventions were so experienced an 18-month spate of earthquakes that left 80% of the buildings different. The apparent mismatch between the justifications in the central business district on the to- for the interventions and the interventions themselves reveals be-demolished list. In the February 2011 quake there were also 42 deaths in city important implications on the national and local levels. streets, and 133 deaths in city inspected buildings. Nationally, the mismatch speaks to the current debate over an In one case the government intervened overhaul of the Resource Management Act. Locally, it informs by suspending local elections indefinitely, replacing the councillors, suspending current discussions in Wellington, Nelson, Gisborne and some jurisdiction of the Environment Court and parts of national legislation elsewhere about amalgamating district and regional councils.
    [Show full text]
  • How Nature's Ecosystem Services Contribute to the Wellbeing of New
    Lin Roberts, Ann Brower, Geoff Kerr, Simon Lambert, Wendy McWilliam, Kevin Moore, John Quinn, David Simmons, Simon Thrush, Mike Townsend, Paul Blaschke, Robert Costanza, Ross Cullen, Ken Hughey and Steve Wratten This report was written by: Lin Roberts1, Ann Brower1, Geoff Kerr1, Simon Lambert1, Wendy McWilliam1, Kevin Moore1, John Quinn2, David Simmons1, Simon Thrush2,3, Mike Townsend2, Paul Blaschke4, Robert Costanza5, Ross Cullen1, Ken Hughey1, Steve Wratten1 1 Lincoln University, PO Box 85084, Lincoln 7647, Canterbury, New Zealand. Email: [email protected] 2 NIWA, PO Box 11115, Hillcrest, Hamilton 3251, New Zealand. 3 Current address: Institute of Marine Science, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand. 4 Blaschke & Rutherford Environmental Consultants, 34 Pearce Street, Vogeltown, Wellington 6021, New Zealand. 5 Australian National University, Canberra ACT 0200, Australia. It may be cited as: Roberts, L.; Brower, A.; Kerr, G.; Lambert, S.; McWilliam, W.; Moore, K.; Quinn, J.; Simmons, D.; Thrush, S.; Townsend, M.; Blaschke, P.; Costanza, R.; Cullen, R.; Hughey, K.; Wratten, S. 2015: The nature of wellbeing: how nature’s ecosystem services contribute to the wellbeing of New Zealand and New Zealanders. Department of Conservation, Wellington. 145 p. Cover photo: Herb Christophers. This report is available from the departmental website in pdf form. Titles are listed in our catalogue on the website, refer www.doc.govt.nz under Publications, then Science & technical. © Copyright March 2015, New Zealand Department of Conservation ISBN 978–0–478–15034–6 (web PDF) The nature of wellbeing How nature’s ecosystem services contribute to the wellbeing of New Zealand and New Zealanders Lin Roberts Ann Brower, Geoff Kerr, Simon Lambert, Wendy McWilliam, Kevin Moore, John Quinn, David Simmons, Simon Thrush, Mike Townsend, Paul Blaschke, Robert Costanza, Ross Cullen, Ken Hughey and Steve Wratten CONTENts Executive summary 1 Prologue: Ki uta ki tai—from the mountains to the sea 6 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Improving Earthquake Resilience Through Community Engagement
    Learning from Earthquakes Travel Study Tour 2019, New Zealand, 5 -12 May, 2019 Improving Earthquake Resilience through Community Engagement Report By: Shreya Thusoo Cristina Cordova-Arias Seokho Jeong Esther Aigwi Eddie Vega Tali Feinstein July 1 st , 2019 1 The Learning from Earthquakes (LFE) Travel Study Program took us to the earthquake affected sites of Christchurch, Kaikoura, Blenheim, and Wellington and provided us with some rare opportunities of interacting with prominent members of various organizations. Through these interactions, we realized that the community was at the core of all response efforts. This report summarizes our observations in the tour regarding community participation, communication, and engagement during search, rescue, and recovery phases of the Christchurch and Kaikoura earthquakes. The report is structured to provide actionable recommendations based directly on these observations for each of the 4 phases of disaster resiliency planning i.e., Reduction, Readiness, Response, and Recovery. General observations 2010-2011 Christchurch Earthquakes Christchurch experienced a series of damaging earthquakes in 2010 and 2011, including the M7.2 September 2010 Darfield earthquake and the M6.2 February 2011 Christchurch earthquake. The 2011 February earthquake was only 10 km south of Christchurch. 185 people were reported to have died in the 2011 February earthquake, mostly due to building collapse and falling debris. Significant liquefaction damage, landslides, and rockfalls caused numerous properties and areas being
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 RESEARCH REPORT | KIMIHIA TE MEA NGARO Produced by Research & Innovation and Student Services and Communications, University of Canterbury
    2018 RESEARCH REPORT | KIMIHIA TE MEA NGARO Produced by Research & Innovation and Student Services and Communications, University of Canterbury. Design by Student Services and Communications, University of Canterbury Key: when you see this symbol, read to find out Writers: Margaret Agnew, Aleisha Blake, Corrina Donaldson, the real world application Frances Harrison, Travis Lawson, Kim Newth, Kate Spence of this research – how this work Photos by Corey Blackburn (unless otherwise credited) will improve society. Publication printed by Caxton University of Canterbury E ngā muka tangata nō ngā hau e whā, nāia te owha o Te Whare Wānanga o Waitaha e rāhiri atu ki a koutou katoa. E mōhiotia whānuitia a UC mō āna mahi rangahau e puta ana i te ao. Ahakoa te hākari a te mahi kua hora e tēnei whare wānanga i te tau nei, kua tīpako noa mātou i ēnei kaupapa rangahau, hai paramanawa mā te hinengaro - arā, ko te rangahau e aro ana ki te oranga tonutanga o te kai. Nā reira, e ngā ringa whero o ēnei kaupapa rangahau o te whare wānanga nei, he kai kei ā tātou ringa! Tēnā koutou katoa. Greetings from the University of Canterbury (UC). UC is well known for its research reputation and although this is only a small selection, the excellence and quality of UC’s research can be seen through these stories from our activities during the 2018 year, with an emphasis on securing the future of food through food equity, food intelligence and food innovation. 2018 Research Report | Kimihia te mea ngaro 1 Research & Innovation Connecting UC’s research with the world The role of Research & Innovation is to provide services that facilitate and support all stages of research and innovation at the University of Canterbury, from initial funding of the research through to commercialisation of the outcomes, where appropriate.
    [Show full text]
  • In Step with 'Different World'
    press.co.nz WEDNESDAY, APRIL 13, 2011 Retail $1.40 Cera bill Survivor plans rescue party under fire in House John Hartevelt THEY SAY The Government is again ■ ‘‘Only those powers considered necessary have been provided raising questions about the for.’’ – Ilam MP and Earthquake Recovery Minister Gerry future of earthquake-hit Brownlee Christchurch suburbs as it ■ ‘‘Let’s be under no illusion – this authority will have enormous rushes recovery legislation power, and if that power is exercised appropriately and through Parliament. correctly, that is all for the good.’’ – Waimakariri MP and Parliamentary select com- Labour earthquake recovery spokesman Clayton Cosgrove mittee hearings on the Can- ■ ‘‘By focus, the Government seems to mean that power will be terbury Earthquake Recovery concentrated enormously in one person.’’ – Green Party MP Bill started in Wellington last Kennedy Graham night after the post-quake ■ ‘‘We simply did not have the capability to deal with a disaster political accord shattered and of this magnitude.’’ – Te Tai Tonga MP Rahui Katene the Greens voted against the ■ ‘‘For some reason, there is a view that public participation is bill’s first reading. in conflict with rapid decision-making.’’ – Wigram MP Jim Earthquake Recovery Min- Anderton ister Gerry Brownlee told Parliament that an effective recovery would be impossible under existing laws. The bill, which is expected to pass into law tomorrow, Council angry would give the new Canter- bury Earthquake Recovery Authority (Cera) the power it needed to ‘‘facilitate and at short notice direct’’ recovery work, he said. Giles Brown community, by doing things Back on track: Ann Brower leaves Burwood Hospital yesterday after five weeks rehabilitation for injuries suffered in the February 22 earthquake.
    [Show full text]