Ten years on
Rebuilding Christchurch
Gerry Brownlee, MP for Ilam and a Cabinet minister in the National government, was put in charge of the rebuild of Christchurch, taking on the newly created role of Canterbury earthquake recovery minister.
A controversial and straighttalking figure, Brownlee was hailed for his no-nonsense decision-making but also criticised for seemingly riding roughshod over local views and feelings. To mark the earthquake’s anniversary, Brownlee agreed to an interview with the makers of Munted ,a new Stuff video series.
Now National’s deputy leader, Brownlee was also Greater Christchurch regeneration minister from 2016 to 2017 and Earthquake Commission minister from 2011 to 2017. He appears in all episodes of
Munted.
What comes to mind when you think of the earthquake period now?
The first thing is how well so many people who were very affected coped. There’s no doubt that when people are sitting in a home they’ve invested a lot in, not only financially, but they brought up their family in it, and they lose it, that’s a big trauma. You had pockets of people who didn’t want it to have happened and wanted everything to go back the way it was, and wanted the Government to get them there as quickly as possible. In some cases that clouded their decision-making. But by and large, overwhelming numbers of people recognised the size of the problem and participated in the recovery.
What would you have done differently?
I would have taken advice about how you give clear messages to people without being offensive. There were occasions when a lot of offence was taken but, when you’re dealing with 167,000 damaged residential properties, another group of residential properties that was beyond repair, sometimes on very long days, it was difficult to keep your head at all times.
Is that a regret?
Not too much of a regret. If I was in that situation again, I’d want to take more time between finishing what you’re doing and then facing the media pack, because your head’s not in the right space. But everything was at a whirl. There was huge pressure to get everything done very quickly.
One thing I do regret is using the term ‘‘zone’’ for the red, green, white and orange zones. Zone implies a lot more than just saying ‘‘area’’. Zone implies there are all sorts of other restrictions and various encumbrances about to go on people.
The only area that was seriously restricted was the red zone, for good reason.
The 50 per cent offer to owners of uninsured red zone land was very contentious.
It was, but it was for a very small number of people. You try to do your best for the majority. If you were making a precipitous decision to pay out regardless of insurance, then why would insurers pay?
What did you make of the court’s decision that the offer was unlawful?
I have no view on it. I’m not going to argue with the court. I would simply say that in hindsight, it’s easy to make those decisions. When you’re there at the time, and you’re worried about the position of the overwhelming majority of people in those areas, you have a different mindset.
Did you feel that criticism of the Government was personalised and focused on you?
I’ve lived in the city my whole life and I didn’t stop going places. I think three or four people said something to me publicly. That wasn’t unusual for a politician.
You had one man [John Howland] pour something on you at an event in 2016?
That was five years after, and he was from Greymouth, and had other issues.
He lost his son in the earthquake, didn’t he?
No, I don’t think so. [Pause] Look, I don’t know.
I think people were pretty passionate about everything. You’re never going to get everything 100 per cent right. But what is interesting is that through two elections, we increased our party vote and my vote personally was certainly not affected.
Did you see the survey that said just 29 per cent of people think the city is better now? It was in in June.
The Press
I wouldn’t know because I’m participating in your interview but I never read The Press.
Let’s say hypothetically, then, only 29 per cent think it’s better than before the quakes. Would you agree?
I think it’s got a long way to go. It was always going to take a long time. When you lose so much, you don’t replicate it overnight or even in a decade. You could never say that at the time, because that would have been incredibly demoralising for people.
The 2012 blueprint came with short timeframes for projects that would have been finished by now. Was it a promise that couldn’t be delivered on?
I think it was OK to be quite optimistic. The predictions for Christchurch weren’t good. You had people predicting 40 per cent depopulation.
So as well as being a programme for building, the blueprint was also a morale
boosting exercise for the public, saying ‘‘Stick around. This is going to happen quickly. And it’s going to look really good.’’
The way you put that sounds cynical, and it was never meant to be. And the blueprint hasn’t changed. It’s just the delivery of some anchor projects has been slower than expected.
Former National leader Todd Muller said in July that ‘‘Gerry rebuilt the city’’, and was criticised.
I don’t like that talk. There were thousands of people doing things. If I’d known it was being said [by Muller], I would have stopped it.
In response to Muller, urban designer James Lunday said, ‘‘The legacy is failed anchor projects, few new jobs, poor housing stock in the inner suburbs, 40 per cent vacant sites [and] sterile precincts with little life after 6pm’’.
It would be interesting if you did a piece on James and his involvement.
He was involved, but he can criticise the outcome of it.
I can critique myself as well. You think about the risks some people have taken. Antony Gough with his buildings along the Strip. Nick Hunt. The Guthrey family. Richard Peebles with Riverside and many other buildings. Stephen Collins. Philip Carter.
They could have taken massive insurance payments and left. They stuck around and put significant amounts of money back into the city.
You were supportive of demolishing the Town Hall and Anglican Cathedral, two much-loved buildings.
Starting with the cathedral, I took a view it was for the Anglican Church to decide and no-one else. So they did get a Section 38 [demolition] notice because that’s what their engineering profile showed they were entitled to.
What’s your personal view about it as a Cantabrian?
I don’t have a view.
You don’t have a personal view?
If it’s rebuilt and it looks great, and we don’t get that constant reminder of how horrible things were for so long, that will be good. No question about that.
Have you been back in the Town Hall since it reopened in 2019?
I’ve been back in once. I said I’d never go back in but I had to because the National Party decided to have a conference there. I had to open that conference, which was even more challenging. Look, they’ve done a good job of it, there’s no question.
The government’s relationship with the mayor and the council became fractious. Bob Parker felt vilified.
He shouldn’t have because I’ve got a lot of respect for Bob. I think he did a good job, but he had a difficult council. He and I are friends these days, and we always were. I made one very unfortunate statement because a reporter rung me and said Bob had said something that was fairly outrageous, and I said, ‘‘What a clown’’. As soon as I said it, I thought to myself, ‘‘You idiot’’. One of those bad moments.
Let’s talk about the use of spies by Southern Response.
I think the word ‘‘spies’’ is wrong.
You can see why it hit a raw nerve. People saw the government paying people to spy on those seeking redress from the same government.
You can put a construct around that if you want to.
What word would you use instead of ‘‘spies’’?
You have to know where people are coming from. It wasn’t unreasonable to have people at a meeting, which you assume was reasonably public, given that the company was owned by the taxpayer of New Zealand. You had to find out what was going on.