Many lessons from quake recovery effort
"We didn't always get it right.'' Greater Christchurch Regeneration Minister Nicky Wagner
A new Government report says authorities made mistakes and missed opportunities that led to inefficiencies and bad public perception of the post-earthquake Canterbury recovery.
The Whole of Government Report: Lessons from the Canterbury earthquake sequence was released on Sunday, outlining a timeline of Government actions taken during and following the 2010 and 2011 Canterbury earthquakes. The report says the Government knew before the September 2010 earthquake that existing legislation would not be adequate to deal with recovering from a large-scale disaster.
Within days of that earthquake, the Government appointed Gerry Brownlee as Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Minister and set up the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Commission to lead the recovery. ‘‘There were concerns that the organisation of the recovery was struggling to make progress, and that local Canterbury civil defence emergency management structures remained as dysfunctional as they had been prior to the September 4, 2010, earthquake.
‘‘The creation of the commission led to confusion about who was responsible for leading the recovery and the commission itself was seen as ineffective.
‘‘During this period, the Christchurch City Council was not seen as taking an effective leadership role in the recovery and it had not produced a recovery plan by the time of the February 22, 2011, earthquake.’’
After the February earthquake, the Government created the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (Cera). The Government considered alternatives, including a Crown agent structurally similar to ACC, a business unit in an existing department, or replacing locally-elected authorities with government-appointed commissioners. ‘‘As the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority’s role evolved over time, uncertainty and confusion amongst the recovery community grew.
‘‘As it took on more delivery roles and released overarching strategic plans ... recovery partners and the public began to see the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority as ‘owning’ the recovery and being responsible for solving all problems.
The report said some tensions arose because the Government took responsibilities from local authorities that did not have enough powers, to effectively create the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan.
The city council used the widely-commended ‘‘Share an Idea’’ public consultation campaign to create a draft central city plan but the Government believed it was not specific enough on details and established a new unit within Cera to finalise and implement the plan.
The report said the council ‘‘did not have the resources and the statutory powers necessary to lead the recovery of the central city’’.
‘‘This was perceived by some as central government ‘taking over’ a local government-led initiative.
The report said the complexity of the ‘‘recovery community’’ and the evolution of Cera’s role caused confusion about who was responsible for what.
Cera staff referred to a complex map of relationships between the organisations involved in the recovery as the ‘‘horrendogram’’.
‘‘[Cera] was always intended to be temporary, but its culture of fixing problems meant that it missed opportunities to empower other, more permanent, entities to take responsibility and build capability.’’ Cera had six staff when it began and was expected to grow to 50. By 2014, it had over 300 staff and 150 contractors involved in 24 major programmes and more than 130 projects. It shut down in April 2016. Greater Christchurch Regeneration Minister Nicky Wagner said: ‘‘We didn’t always get it right, but we made the best decisions possible with the information we had at the time.
‘‘[Cera] was up and running quickly, and provided leadership and co-ordination during an incredibly difficult time.’’