Podcasts about Christchurch City Council

Do you think the Government and councils would be “morally bankrupt” if they stopped paying people out when their properties are so flood-damaged that they can't live there anymore? And would you feel the same about people living in areas at risk of flooding being forced to pay more for flood schemes and sea walls because they're the ones who benefit most? That's what a panel of experts is recommending to the Government. But a climate policy expert is saying that would be, you guessed it, “morally bankrupt”. And I agree. What's more, I think this approach would let councils off the hook for allowing places to be built in crazy, at-risk locations. What's happened, is an independent reference group set up by the Ministry for the Environment has come up with a list of recommendations to help the Government work on some climate adaptation legislation. Adaptation being what you do when something like climate change and sea-level rise threatens to take-out an area. This group is made up of economists, people from the banking and insurance sectors, local government and iwi. So a wide range of people. And if I there's an overarching theme to their advice, it would be this: “You're on your own buddy.” And instead of looking to the councils and governments for hand-outs and direction, people should have to decide for themselves if they're going to stay living where they are. And if their properties get flooded and there's no way they can keep on living there, then they shouldn't expect their local council or Wellington to buy them out. Talk about hardcore. Talk about morally bankrupt. This group of experts isn't stopping there, either. It's also saying that, if you live in an area where there is a risk of flooding and things like sea walls and flood schemes are needed, then you and your neighbours should pay more for those things because you're the ones who benefit the most. So, if we apply that to some of the things that have happened here in Canterbury, that would mean people in the Flockton Basin area in Christchurch, paying more for the privilege of living somewhere that used to flood at the drop of a hat. Remember that? And how the council poured truckloads of money into a pumping system that stopped the water overflowing in the Dudley Creek area and flooding the streets and houses? The Christchurch City Council spent $49 million on a flood mitigation scheme in Flockton Basin. Elsewhere in town, it spent about $70 million to deal with flooding issues along the Heathcote River. That included buying-out people's houses. Some friends of mine had their place bought out as part of that scheme. But under these recommendations to the Government, the people in Flockton Basin would be expected to pay more than the rest of us because they're the ones who are benefiting directly from their streets and houses not flooding anymore. Also under these recommendations, my mates wouldn't have their house bought out by the council – even though they can't live there anymore because it keeps flooding I would hate to see us take this approach. Which is why agree with climate policy expert, Emeritus Professor Jonathan Boston from Victoria University, who is saying today that leaving people high and not necessarily dry like this would be “morally bankrupt”. He says: "One of the core responsibilities of any government is to protect its citizens and to deal with natural disasters and so on. That is above almost anything else." He's also criticising this group's recommendation that any changes be phased-in within the next 20 years, saying that the risks and impacts of climate change are going to continue evolving beyond this 20-year deadline. He says to put an end-date on it is "Morally bankrupt and highly undesirable". And, as I say, it would let councils off-the-hook. Because for me, if a council gives consent for something to built somewhere, then that same council needs to carry the can if it turns out that that something is somewhere it shouldn't be. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Questions over Christchurch City Council planning to spend $200 thousand on a shuttle bus study. Environment Canterbury wants to stop the proposed resurrection of a free inner-city shuttle, saying 1800 bus movements each weekday is enough. A 2023 law change means ECan will get the final say. Mayor Phil Mauger admits he voted for the costly study. But he told John MacDonald ECan didn't mention anything until it was included in the annual plan. He says there's no use spending the money if it doesn't get the green light, so council should re-think the idea. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Government's been making it increasingly clear over time that it doesn't really give two-hoots about local democracy. But, in the last 24 hours, it's gone next level. First up, we've got housing minister Chris Bishop, who announced yesterday that he's going to be given special powers to ride roughshod over council plans if he doesn't like them. Essentially, if he thinks a council has a district plan that doesn't support economic growth and development, or won't do anything to create jobs, then he can come in over the top and say “nah nah nah, you're not doing that.” In fact, from what I've been reading, it seems any government minister is going to be able to modify or remove aspects of council plans that they don't agree with. Talk about big brother. But that's not all. Chris Bishop also got himself involved in a spat with the Christchurch City Council, saying that the council's failed attempt to push back on the Government's housing intensification rules was “nuts”. He's saying: “It is an inarguable, and sometimes uncomfortable, fact that local government has been one of the largest barriers to housing growth in New Zealand." Going on to say: “Christchurch City Council just outright defied its legal obligations.”Signing off with the accusation that the council was “nuts” if it thought it could get away with not doing what the Government wanted it to do. Now, even though I didn't have a problem with Chris Bishop declining the council's request for Christchurch to be treated as a special case and not have to go along with the Government's housing intensification policy, I think he needs to rein it in a bit. But this attack on local democracy doesn't stop with Chris Bishop. Shane Jones is at it, as well. Saying in a speech to local government leaders that regional councils have had their day and he wants to get rid of them. “What is the point of regional government?” That's what he said when he stood up at the lectern in Wellington last night. He seems to think that, with all the changes the Government is making to the Resource Management Act, we won't need regional councils anymore. Saying: “There is less and less of a justifiable purpose for maintaining regional government.” Which I do kind of get. Because I know a few people in local government and I have asked them recently where they see the likes of Environment Canterbury going if the Government is going to give the resource management act the heave-ho. Because that's what regional councils were set up to do in the first place. To implement the Resource Management Act. There have been a few add ons since then - like running bus services. And I've long been a fan of local government amalgamation. But for a government minister like Shane Jones to stand up and give a speech to local government people and tell them that he wants to ditrch regional councils - that is arrogant. Just like this plan to let ministers interfere in council plans if they don't like what they see. That's arrogant too. But it's more than just arrogance. It's an attack on local democracy. Which, apparently, is something the government values. When it suits, it would seem. Because, when he was announcing these new powers - which are going to be in force until all the changes to the Resource Management Act have gone through - he admitted it was a significant step. "But the RMA's devolution of ultimate power to local authorities just has not worked.” Which is code for saying: "Even though we say we're all into local decision-making, we're only into it when it suits Wellington". LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Christchurch City Council is looking to raise city noise limits from 60 to 65 decibels, making their CBD the loudest in the country. Central ward councillor Jake McLellan spoke to Ingrid Hipkiss.

It would be very easy for me to say that the organisers of those ridiculous Run it Straight combat sport events have blood on their hands after the tragic death of 19-year-old Ryan Satterthwaite. And I would be saying that if Ryan had been involved in an official event. The thing is, he wasn't. That's not stopping other people from piling in though. There are experts saying today that we need to ban the whole thing. But I don't think that's realistic. Because for starters, banning officially organised events wouldn't stop the likes of what happened in Palmerston North on Sunday when Ryan was hanging out with mates and when they decided to give it a go. So this thing's gone nuts on social media. It involves two people running directly at each other and slamming into one another. The people behind it are touting it as the world's fiercest combat sport, which is all about mirroring the extreme collisions you sometimes see happen during the likes of rugby and rugby league matches. You're bound to have seen the pictures from a couple of official events held up north in the last couple of weeks. I've seen it reported that there might have been a couple of concussions and anyone who's had a concussion will know that they're not a walk in the park. I saw one of the organisers banging-on about having medical people on-hand and how all the competitors are checked before and afterwards. Nevertheless, there's no way you'd get me involved. But what it all comes down to for me is those two words you hear trotted out quite often about all sorts of things: personal responsibility. Or personal choice. There was Ryan with his mates on a Sunday afternoon, and they thought they'd give Run it Straight a go – just for a laugh. Just like any other bunch of young guys, they'd seen the stuff on social media and would've seen the news coverage of the recent events held up north and decided to give it a go. A ban of any type wouldn't stop that kind of thing happening. Tragically. But even though I think we're dreaming if we think a ban is needed, there are a couple of things we could do. I agree with Stacey Mowbray from Headway —which is a concussion support organisation— who is saying that education could be key to trying to do something about this situation. She says parents need to sit down with their kids and talk to them about the dangers of all this. The other thing that I think we should be doing is to do what we can to take away some of the glamour around this so-called sport. For example, I think the likes of the Christchurch City Council should decline any requests to hold Run it Straight events at any of its facilities. That wouldn't stop people like Ryan Satterthwaite and his mates giving it a go, but it would send a very clear message that Run it Straight doesn't have the support of the local community. But I think that's about as far as we can go. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Banks Peninsula is still under a State of Emergency almost a week after heavy rain triggered widespread flooding and slips including an active slip on Lighthouse Road in Akaroa. Christchurch City Council controller Anne Colombus spoke to Ingrid Hipkiss.

We were all standing up and cheering the Christchurch City Council three years ago, when it flipped the bird at the Government over housing intensification. Because there was no way we were going to agree to three, three-story houses being built on one section. But I've changed my thinking. Eventually, the city council kind-of pulled its head in. But it's still dragging the chain a bit and wants more time before agreeing to what the Government wants. But one city councillor, at least, thinks we should stop dragging the chain, that we should get with the programme and allow this intensification to happen. And I agree with him. I think he's making a very good point. Maybe it's because my stance on intensification has eased since 2022, when the council told the Government in no uncertain terms that it wasn't interested in having three, three-story houses on one section. And I think Christchurch city councillor Andrei Moore is making a very good argument in favour of greater housing density. Saying that, if we don't let it happen, more and more houses will be built in places like Rolleston and Prebbleton. Which are not in Christchurch, they're in the Selwyn District, and that will mean more and more people travelling into the city every day, using Christchurch's roading infrastructure and not paying a bean towards it. Because they don't live in Christchurch city - they live in Selwyn. And he's saying we should stop kicking the can down the road and just get on with it. Instead of spending another year resisting it, we need to accept that greater housing density is here whether we like it or not. He says: “It's high time we wake up and deal with the reality of city growth.” And I couldn't agree more. And yes, that does mean that my stance on intensification has changed, and there's nothing wrong with that. The plan originally was to let developments with three, three-storey properties to be built on one section pretty much anywhere. But it was modified a bit. Modified to restrict this level of intensification to the central city, around shopping centres and what's described as "walkable distances" from core public transport routes. Which is still pretty carte blanche when you think about shopping malls and areas on core public transport routes. As far as shopping malls go, we've got the likes of the Hub Hornby, Riccarton Mall, Bush Inn, the Tannery, Barrington Mall, Tower Junction, Eastgate Mall, Merivale Mall, Northlands Mall, Fendalton Mall, the Palms, Homebase, and the Colombo. Which means intensification getting the green light in Hornby, Riccarton, Opawa, Barrington, Linwood, Merivale all the way up to Northlands, Fendalton, Shirley, Sydenham and Beckenham. And, if that's how it has to be, then I'm with Andrei Moore and I agree with him that we need to bite the bullet and get on with it. Because A: we've got a housing affordability problem in this country, and the quarter-acre section is a thing of the past. So, if you want your kids to be able to afford to buy their own place, it's not going to be somewhere with a big backyard. So we need more apartments and townhouses - the places you get with greater housing density. And B: population growth is real. The numbers aren't massive, but they're real and expected to continue in the upwards direction. The city's population is around 396,000. Last year it was 1.2% up on the year before. Over the last five years, population growth in Christchurch has averaged 1.3% annually. Before the quakes, it was declining. There was an especially large jump in 2023, when the population in Christchurch city increased by 2.7%. And city councillors pushing back on greater housing density in Christchurch are ignoring the obvious. That, yes, backyards are great. Yes, Christchurch is supposed to be the garden city. And yes, the people against intensification are most likely to be the people who can be bothered to vote. But, if they put all that aside, they'd see that their colleague Andrei Moore is being realistic. And I agree with him that it's time for Christchurch to stop pushing back on greater housing intensification. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode of the Marketing 4 Business Podcast, Scott sits down with Brenden Winder – Navy veteran, leadership expert, and Emergency Management Team Leader at Christchurch City Council – to explore what it takes to lead under pressure, build resilient systems, and stay prepared for the unexpected. Brenden shares powerful lessons from his time in the military, the Christchurch earthquakes, and international recovery efforts in Nepal, highlighting how crisis-tested leadership principles can apply to everyday business challenges.From simplifying complex problems with checklists to leveraging AI for scalable decision-making, Brenden unpacks how business owners can stay calm in chaos, support their teams effectively, and plan for long-term sustainability. Whether you're leading through uncertainty, managing stress, or simply wanting to build a stronger, more adaptable business, this episode is packed with wisdom, practical strategies, and inspiration to help you lead with clarity and confidence.If you find our content valuable and informative, please help us reach more business owners by sharing it with a friend who might benefit. Additionally, please ensure that you're following our podcast on your preferred platform, and if you enjoyed the latest episode, consider leaving us a five-star review. Your support is highly appreciated.See below for ways to get in touch with us…Connect with Brenden on LinkedIn hereFollow the Marketing 4 Business podcast on Instagram hereFollow Digital Influence on Instagram hereConnect with Scott on LinkedIn hereEager to enhance your marketing strategy? Book in for a complimentary strategy chat with our team to discuss your marketing here.Have Fun & Take Action

Even though I live in Christchurch and pay rates in Christchurch, you're not going to hear me saying that I should pay less to get into the new One NZ Stadium when it opens next year. But I bet there'll be no shortage of Christchurch people thinking that's a brilliant idea, but I don't. It's something that the council-owned company that will run the stadium says could happen. People who live in Christchurch city could pay less than people from anywhere else. The reason being —or the theory being— that those of us who live in the Christchurch city area have put money into the stadium through our rates and maybe that could or should be recognised by charging us Christchurch lot less for tickets. On average, every Christchurch city ratepayer pays $144 a year to go towards the cost of building the stadium. All up —at this stage— the cost to build it is $683 million, and it's expected to be open by April next year. There's already a precedent for locals paying less with the hot pools at New Brighton. Locals get cheapie deals there. And locals in Hurunui pay less to get into the hot pools in Hanmer Springs. But I don't think we should go down that track with the stadium. One reason being that we will all benefit once the thing is up-and-running. The money coming into town will be brilliant, which is enough of a pay-off for me. The forecasts say it'll put $21 million into the local economy every year. That's enough of a return for my investment. I don't want cheaper tickets, as well. What's more, it would be extremely hypocritical of people who are anti-stadium and have been banging-on for years that it's just a nice-to-have and their rates money shouldn't be going into it, to put their hand out for cheaper tickets. The reason the levy for out-of-towners is being talked about is because it's the promoters and the people behind the concerts and the sporting matches who set the ticket prices. So the stadium operator couldn't give Christchurch people a discount because they don't set the prices, but they could put an out-of-towner levy on tickets bought by people outside Christchurch city. Which would, effectively, mean Christchurch locals paying less and people elsewhere paying more. But I don't think that would be fair. Because what about people living right on the doorstep of Christchurch city? How fair would it be to make people in Selwyn and Waimakariri, for example, pay more? It wouldn't be fair at all. Because what we would be doing is punishing them because Christchurch City Council couldn't get its act together on the stadium funding in the first place. It didn't even bother —right at the outset— to try and negotiate a deal where those areas did have some skin in the game, where they did make some sort of financial contribution towards the stadium. It would also be punishing people in Selwyn and Waimakariri for their councils not being proactive. For not picking up the phone and calling Christchurch and saying they wanted to do some of the heavy lifting. Fifty percent of people in Selwyn travel into Christchurch every day for work and school. And I've said all along that people in Selwyn and people in Waimakariri should be contributing to the stadium through their rates. But that horse has bolted. The people who could have made that happen —the councils— didn't. And so I'm not going to turn around now and say that us Christchurch locals should get preferential treatment.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today on Politics Friday, John MacDonald was joined by National's Matt Doocey and Labour's Reuben Davidson. Christchurch City Council is considering allowing unleashed dogs to run free in two central city parks – neither were fond of the idea. With the Investment Summit underway in Auckland, is Davidson disagreeing with his own party on the future of public-private partnerships? And Doocey believes there's no reason to change the voting system for local body elections – do we just have too many councils? LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I am so glad that I'm not a member of the local rainbow community. Because if I was, I would be despairing at the weasel words the Christchurch mayor and the city council are trotting out about the Destiny Church's despicable disruption of the pride month opening event in Christchurch on Saturday. And it just tells me that people are either scared of taking on the Destiny Church or they somehow think their hatred is okay. So what happened at the weekend is the annual “walk for support” for LGBTQIA+ people wound up at the Bridge of Remembrance, and these muppets from the Destiny Church were there protesting against them. They were carrying signs saying things about puberty blockers and child abuse and telling the people there to “repent”. They also had a speaker system there, which they shouldn't have. But no one did anything about it. Which is why a local rainbow campaigner is saying that the city council should apologise for not shutting down this illegal protest driven by nothing more than hatred. And I agree. But I don't think that's going to be coming anytime soon, considering the weasel words being trotted out by mayor Phil Mauger and the council's chief executive. Phil Mauger is saying that everyone has the right to protest but it was “not polite” of the Destiny Church to set up their loudspeakers right beside the event. He says it was “quite disappointing”, but he's pleased things didn't get out of control like they did when the Destiny Church went awol at that pride event in Auckland the other week. So that's the mayor. But it gets even worse with what the council's chief executive is saying. Mary Richardson says: “We have to respect other people's democratic right to protest, even if we don't agree with their views.” And the strongest action the council took was to send out a noise control officer - who found that there weren't any noise limit breaches. Do me a favour. That's not all. There's some classic passing-of-the-buck going on, with the council saying that it's the job of the police to deal with public disturbances and the police saying permission to set-up loudspeakers is the job of the council and so the council has to deal with it, which is why the noise control officer was sent out. But could you get a more lame response if you tried? But remember that this isn't the first time that the Christchurch City Council has turned a blind eye to the Destiny Church. You'll remember how it waived $50,000 in fines that it had sent the church for the disruption caused by its anti-vax mandate protests during covid. That was all to do with Destiny Church not following the rules, not working with the council so it could make sure that traffic management was sorted. But the council ripped those tickets up. Derek Tait from Destiny had a cup of tea with former mayor Lianne Dalziell and all was forgiven. And it's doing the exact same thing with these weasel words about the Destiny crew's behaviour on Saturday. This is the council, let me remind you, that was all in favour of putting a rainbow crossing somewhere in town. Which, when it comes down to it, doesn't take much fortitude. Yes, paint the crossing. I'm all for it. But, when it comes down to it, painting a road crossing is nothing like staring down those clowns from the Destiny Church and telling them that their messages of hatred are not welcome. And telling them that we've had a gutsful of them not giving a damn about the rules. Rules that you and I would be expected to follow. And, if we didn't, there'd be consequences. Not if you're the Destiny Church, though, it seems. So I'm with the pride campaigners who are saying today that the council could've and should've done a lot more on Saturday when the Destiny muppets turned up at this event. But the council didn't - and, for that, it should apologise. But that's not all. The mayor and his council need to condemn Destiny Church for their messages of hatred. If the strongest thing Phil Mauger can say is that “wasn't polite” of them to do what they did, then don't expect them to pull their heads in anytime soon. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Don't you get it? I'm not saying this to you – I'm saying it to the Christchurch City Council, which thinks there is no need to have locals on this new committee its setting up to oversee the red zone on the east side of Christchurch. This is the 600-hectare Ōtākaro/Avon River Corridor which has attracted all sorts of controversy since the government took it over after the earthquakes. Tens of thousands of people used to live in the area before 2011. Not anymore. There is a plan to do something with it. It's a long-term plan, but this committee is being set-up to look after things for the time being. And the council is demonstrating classic council arrogance, thinking it doesn't need to include any of the people who have put their hearts and souls into the area. And instead, it's setting up a committee involving people from the local iwi and the council itself. People who will sit around the table, make decisions, and it will all be very convenient because they won't have to deal with those pesky locals. Pesky locals who used to live in the area, went through the trauma of being turfed out after the quakes, but didn't turn their back on it. They stayed involved. Stayed committed to the future of this 11-kilometre stretch of land that goes from pretty much the centre of town out to the east. But they don't need to be involved in any of the official stuff – that's what the council thinks. And I completely disagree with what it's doing. And I know exactly why the council is doing this. It's excluding the locals from this new committee because people who aren't part of the local government machine are a pain in the backside. Again, I'm not saying that, but that's how councils and government agencies see it. They like to keep people at arm's reach. Fobbing us off with the old line about consultation and having an opportunity to have our say at some point. But what these outfits miss is that we are over being fobbed off in that way. In fact, most people are over being consulted. So why wouldn't you let the people who are actually passionate about the area get involved in a more official capacity? It makes absolutely no sense to me. So what's happened is 32 people representing most groups working in the river corridor have written an open letter to the mayor, the deputy mayor, and local iwi, telling them that there needs to be a local on this committee. And the really important thing to note here, is that no one knows how long this committee is going to be in place. The regeneration plan for the red zone will take decades and this committee could be around for yonks. Which is why there has to be more than just council and iwi reps on it. Surely we know by now that, when it comes to anything to do with post-earthquake recovery, nothing happens on time. Things take years and we often look up and realise that some short-term temporary thing is going on for ever. Which this committee could end up doing. Let's face it, it probably will. And, let's face it, anything that has been happening in the area so far has been led by the community. For them to be shut out by the council at this point is a slap in the face and the council must confirm that a member of the local community will be on this committee from day one. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Let me give a shout out to Christchurch City Councillor Melanie Coker, who has told her council colleagues that what they are doing by not paying-off debt to keep the rates rise this year lower and then stinging us with an even bigger increase next year, is misleading. That's how she's describing this smoke and mirrors way councillors are trimming-back this year's rates increase with one thing in mind - getting votes. She says the council is showing “poor leadership, poor financial management and is misleading the public”. And she's bang on. They're being short-sighted. Reckless. And if any of the ones who voted for this try to tell you over the next few months that you should vote for them because they've done everything they can to keep rates and down and they'll do everything they can to keep them down again if you vote for them, call them out on these shenanigans. Because that's what it is. Which is being generous. Councillor Coker puts it better, when she says it's misleading. In fact, that's being generous too, because what it really is, is a sham. I'm not going to get bogged down in numbers because that's not what this is primarily about. When it comes down to it, this is about councillors trying to protect their backsides and get re-elected when the local body elections happen later in the year. But we need a few numbers for context. So the council was proposing a 9.93% increase. It was going to put that out for public consultation yesterday. But, at the last minute, councillor Sam Macdonald cooked up this idea that they could pay-off less debt and get the increase down to 7.5%. And what do you think happened? Enough of them around that council table thought “ooh, that's a good idea. That's a much easier sell when I'm out trying to get re-elected later in the year.” So when it went to the vote, that's what they decided. It was close, though. Nine voted in favour of it —including mayor Phil Mauger— and eight were against it. Which is going to mean several things. The increase this year will be lower but, at this point it looks like next year's increase will be over 10 percent%. What's more, it's going to contribute to the council's books being in worse shape than they were going to be by $12 million. Before yesterday, the budget was going to be unbalanced by $48 million. This smoke and mirrors stuff is part of the reason why the council's books will be unbalanced by $60 million. Going by the report I've read, councillor Kelly Barber takes the cake - saying this yesterday: "At the moment, our ratepayers are suffering. Next year is another year. Let's deal with the problem of next year, next year.” In that one statement, councillor Barber demonstrated perfectly the problem with politicians in this country. Central government. Local government. They're all the same. All they care about is the next election. And by saying “let's deal with the problem of next year, next year”, Kelly Barber has shown us that all he cares about is getting another three years around the council table. And when it comes to dealing with “next year, next year” and that rates increase is looking like being more than 10 percent, and the council's books are even more out of whack, it won't matter, because the election will be history. Deputy Mayor Pauline Cotter's another one. She says reducing rates artificially instead of paying off debt makes her uncomfortable, but "this is a good year to be easing financial pressure on people”. And she's hopeful the economy will improve next year. But is that really the approach to take when you're overseeing a $1.5 billion annual budget? Hoping things will get better. Of course it's not. It seems that in an election year, it's perfectly fine to not cut costs. It's perfectly fine to pay-off less debt. It's perfectly fine to kick high rates increases for touch and worry about them next year. It's also perfectly fine to put the books $12 million more in the red than they would have been. It's perfectly fine - if you're trying to win votes. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

If you thought Three Waters was a dog, how are you feeling now, with the news out today that the Christchurch City Council is looking at going all user pays on it when it comes to water? And this isn't strictly a conversation about Christchurch. It's a conversation about your philosophical position when it comes to water – something essential to all of us. And I'd be dead against charging people on the basis of how many litres of water they use. So the council is considering changing the way it charges those of us who live in Christchurch for water from being part of our rates bill to it being completely user pays. The more water you use, the more you pay. And I'm not a fan because, when it comes to something as basic as water, I think it's unfair to go completely user pays. Just because you might use a lot of water, it doesn't mean you can afford to pay more for it. And you might be thinking ‘well, what about electricity? What you pay for power is based on how much you use?' And I'd say fair point, but the horse has already bolted when it comes to electricity. It doesn't mean we should do the same with water. So the council's thinking about making this change as a result of the Government's water reforms – which it calls “Local Water Done Well”. And is its alternative to Labour's ill-fated three waters reforms, which were all about taking responsibility for water off the councils. It wanted to take the water assets off council hands too. So the Government's told councils that it's not taking over but it's still going to tell them what to do. Which means Christchurch is grappling with how it's going to deliver what the government wants. Which is essentially deciding whether it's going to keep running water services in-house, or whether it's going to set up a whole new entity to run water. The other question facing the council is how it charges for water. And it's a simple decision the council has to make. Does it keep doing it the way its always done it? Where water is part of your rates bill. Or does it go all user-pays on it and charge people for water depending on how much they use. Now before we go any further, let's forget about the fact that not every property in Christchurch has its own water meter. Because what we're talking about here is the philosophical debate as to whether water should be an outright transaction, where we pay for what we use, or whether we should all be sharing the load a bit more. Sure, if you live on your own in an expensive part of town, then you're going to effectively pay more for your water than someone in another part of town who's property might not be worth as much as yours. But that seems fair to me. Because why should someone who doesn't live in an expensive part of town but has, say, three or four kids and, because of that, uses a truckload more water than the person living on their own in Fendalton, be forced to pay more? The answer is, they shouldn't. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

After all his talk about asset sales, David Seymour has obviously been scratching his head like the rest of us, wondering what we've actually got left to sell. And he's got Christchurch Airport in his sights. The Government —or the Crown— owns a 25% stake in the airport (which is the second largest in the country) and the ACT Party leader is saying today that he doesn't think it should. And I agree. Remember, 75% is owned by the Christchurch City Council, and it's the other 25% that Seymour thinks should be sold because he doesn't think owning an airport is core business for the Government. I think it's a great idea, but not for exactly the same reason as David Seymour. He thinks an airport shouldn't be a government activity. I don't care too much about that side of it, because the Government —or the Crown— has its fingers in all sorts of pies, doesn't it? My support for this comes down to numbers. And whether you and I would be better off if the Government stayed involved in the airport company or not. So David Seymour is saying today: “ACT believes that owning an airport isn't part of the Government's core business and would support selling its share so the money can better be used elsewhere.” He says: “Whether that means better infrastructure, better healthcare, better education services or homes for the next generation.” And the reason I think this idea is a winner has nothing to do with me saying “yeah open the doors to anyone with money”. It's not me agreeing with Seymour that governments shouldn't be involved in things like airports. It's got nothing to do with those things. And if you're familiar with my views on assets, you might think it's a bit weird that I'm supporting Seymour on this one. Because, generally, I don't consider anything to be an asset unless it's making money - and the airport is making money. It's making money for the Crown and it's making money for its majority owner, the city council. But if you dig a little deeper into the numbers - that's where the argument in favour of the crown selling its 25% share lies. In the 12 months until June last year, the airport company reported an underlying net profit after tax of $41.8 million. That was from revenue in the 12-month period of $233.1 million - a 15% increase on the year before. And, once they'd done things like taking into account changes to depreciation rules, the actual result for the year was $22.7 million. Here are some more numbers: All up, the airport company is worth more than $2.3 billion. So, if we do some really raw mathematics, let's say the crown's 25% share is worth $575 million. And if we take the crown's 25% share of last year's actual profit, that comes to about $5.7 million. So, what would you prefer? $5.7 million in a year or $575 million in a one-off transaction? The Crown could sign a deal and get $575 million. Or, based on last year's profit level, it could wait 100 years to get the same sort of return. Based on those numbers, I think it's a no-brainer. And I don't expect to be the only one thinking this is a good idea. Just a few days ago, Mark Lister from Craigs Investment Partners said Christchurch City Council missed a trick when it decided against asset sales. He reckons Christchurch Airport is an attractive asset, which is all the more reason for the Crown to sell-off its 25% share. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Generally speaking, when something isn't making you any money, you try to get rid of it. That's in business, especially. And it looks like that's the approach National might want to take with state assets too. Christopher Luxon says he's open to it, and I am too. To a point. And maybe not in the way Christopher Luxon is thinking. The Prime Minister is saying that state asset sales are not on the agenda this term - but he's willing to take it to the next election. But let's be honest, he's more than just open to it. Especially when you hear him saying things about “recycling” assets making good sense if you're not getting an adequate return on your capital. But when I say I'm open to the Government selling-off some of its assets —or our assets— the approach I would want to see taken is a bit different from what most people think of when they hear talk about governments selling assets. Anyone who opposes selling public assets —and these can be assets that are owned by the government but also owned by other outfits like local councils— argue that once something is sold you can't get it back. Which I get. It's like finding yourself in a bit of financial strife and selling an old heirloom or something precious to you because you need the money. And then, down the track, you really regret it. Once something's gone, it's gone. Which is how some people will be feeling about the PM saying that state asset sales are not on the agenda this term - but he's open to it and willing to take it to the next election. And he seems to be up for asset sale - like his predecessor, Sir John Key, who said on Newstalk ZB this morning that, if he needed urgent health care today, he wouldn't give two hoots about who owned the bricks and mortar. And maybe that's an easy thing for someone with plenty of money behind them to say. But if you put that aside, he's actually spot on. If something happened to you today, all you would care about is getting the treatment you needed. And, if the government is going to down the track of selling assets, this is what it should focus on. It should be trying to find buyers for all of our hospital buildings. It should be trying to find buyers for all of our state school buildings. It should be selling all of the things that actually suck money away from the key public services that are provided inside those buildings. Because the challenge when it comes to selling anything, is finding buyers. The Christchurch City Council discovered that a few years back when it wanted to sell City Care because it wasn't making it any money. But I bet that if we put all of our hospitals and schools up for sale —I'm talking here about the bricks and mortar— I reckon the Government would have no problem finding buyers. As former Labour and ACT party politician Richard Prebble puts it in the NZ Herald today: "If we want to be a first world country, then are we making the best use of the Government's half a trillion dollars plus worth of assets?” And I would argue that owning the bricks and mortar that Sir John Key talked about isn't the best use of government capital. Owning hospital buildings isn't, nor is owning school buildings. Because who cares who owns the buildings?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Christchurch City Council is defending its decision to press ahead with long awaited sewage plant upgrades for the Banks Peninsula township of Akaroa. Adam Burns has more.

Here's how I would sum up the Government's changes to the free speech rules for universities. It wants more Posie Parkers and less posey political statements. Which I've got no problem with - but I don't think it should stop at universities. I think the Government also needs to look at other public entities, such as local councils, which actually seem to be making more posey political statements than universities. Because, if the Government doesn't want universities taking positions on things like the war in Gaza because - whatever position they take - won't reflect the views of all staff and students, then the same could apply to local councils, couldn't it? If a council boycotts Israel, for example, there's no way everyone who works for these councils or who pays rates to these councils will agree, is there? Let me come back to that. But the gist of all this is that the Government wants two changes to the way universities deal with free speech. For starters: It wants them to stop being so antsy about having guest speakers coming onto campus who might upset a few people with their views. Which has seen some universities pull the plug on certain events. Massey University, for example, stopped Don Brash from giving a speech there once because of what one person described as his "separatist and supremacist rhetoric". A more recent example is Victoria University cancelling a freedom of speech debate this year because of concerns it would turn into a cesspit of hate speech. So the Government wants no more of that. Because it thinks universities are places where all sorts of ideas and thoughts should be shared and debated. And I agree with that. So that's what I mean when I say it wants more Posie Parker. The other change it's making to the regulations that universities operate under, is to stop them taking positions on matters that don'tdirectly relate to their core business of research and teaching. Now this is not something that is going to impact academics who enjoy what's known as academic freedom - which pretty much means they can think and say what they want. Although some academics have questioned that in recent years, saying that they don't feel as free to think and say what they want as they used to. But, essentially, what the Government wants to stop is universities - as institutions - taking a view or a stance on international issues, for example. Some of our universities have been under pressure to condemn Israel for what's going on in Gaza and the Occupied Territories. But, as far as I'm aware, none of them have given-in to that pressure. The closest example I could find here in New Zealand is an announcement three months ago by Victoria University's fundraising arm - the Victoria University Foundation - that it would be getting rid of its Israeli government bonds and its shares in companies listed in Israel. So maybe this is a pre-emptive move by the Government, as much as anything. And it says the reason it's doing this, is that if a university takes a stand on something - it doesn't reflect the views of all staff and students, and that is unfair. So, if that's the motivation, then I reckon the Government needs to come down just as hard on other public entities. Public entities which, at the moment, seem to be going harder on this thing than any of our universities. And I'm thinking, specifically, about local councils around the country which have been more than happy to pile-in on Israel this year, with decisions to boycott companies which operate in Israeli settlements on Palestinian land. Christchurch City Council has done it. Environment Canterbury regional council has done it. And Nelson City Council's done it. They're the ones I'm aware of. There might be others. But, if we apply the argument the Government's using to stop universities taking positions on global issues - because they won't necessarily represent the views of all staff and students - then the same can be said of these local councils, can't it? In Nelson, for example, after the council there voted to go with a boycott - there were some pretty fired-up locals. The mayor Nick Smith, who voted against it, got a whole lot of abuse too. And who says everyone working at these councils agrees with the position their employers have taken? They won't. And who says everyone paying rates to these councils agrees with their anti-Israel positions? They don't. Which is why I think the Government should be telling councils not to take political positions on issues outside their core business, just like it's telling the universities.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Let me paint you a picture. A picture of over-the-top traffic management. So you're heading up Riccarton Road in Christchurch, and you get to the traffic lights near Hanson's Lane where the Athol McCully garden shop used to be back in the day – just before the Woolworths supermarket. You get to that intersection and the lights are red. So you stop, of course. And then, when they change to green, you keep going up Riccarton Rd towards the church on the corner. And you get to that intersection where traffic coming from Sockburn and Main South Rd has to give way to you, if you're heading west and veering to the right to go up Yaldhurst Rd. At the moment, you can just cruise straight through because there's a Give Way sign controlling the drivers coming from Main South Road who want to turn right to get onto Riccarton Rd to, maybe, head all the way into town and head over to Ilam. But after a decision by the Christchurch City Council yesterday, instead of drivers heading westbound having the automatic right of way and being able to head up Yaldhurst Rd without stopping, they'll come to a set of traffic lights at that intersection. So, if you're heading west up Riccarton Rd, you'll stop at the lights at Hansen's Lane and then, potentially, have to stop again a little bit further up the road. If you're veering to the left to go down Main South Road there'll be no change, but if you're heading up Yaldhurst from Church Corner, there'll be another set of lights to deal with. Over the top. It's over the top because traffic at Church Corner is going to become way more congested than it is now. It's over the top because, even though the numbers say it's one of the most dangerous intersections in the city, does it mean that we need traffic flights at all the spots around town where muppets are just incapable of the simple requirement to give way? As someone who got in touch about this this morning said, roads in Christchurch seem to be designed to accommodate the 1% who probably shouldn't be behind the wheel in the first place. And that's what we're seeing here with this Church Corner decision. In some respects, I should be congratulating the council for finally making an actual decision on what to do at Church Corner, because it's been a debacle. The local community board met three times and couldn't reach agreement. They'd been mulling this one over for about a year. There were accusations of the board being dysfunctional – which I couldn't argue with because, from what was reported, it was very dysfunctional. In fact, the way that particular community board dealt with this Church Corner thing was a great advertisement for doing away with these boards altogether. So they met three times and it seemed to turn into a bunfight every time. So the community board members threw their hands in the air and said ‘let's get the council to decide'. And the council, being the council, did the old consultation thing. Then, the council, being the council, threw the idea of traffic lights into the mix. And, because that hadn't been an option in the first round of consultation, the council, being the council, did another round asking people what they thought. 42% of people said they wanted the current right hand turn from Main South Road onto Riccarton Road gone, and a pedestrian crossing put in. 59% of people said they wanted traffic lights and some form of pedestrian crossing. 9% said they didn't have a preference – why you would actively take part in a consultation process and not state a preference, I'll never know. If I'd put a submission in, I wouldn't have voted for any of the options put forward by the council. Instead, I would have told them they'd forgotten about Option D - which was to do nothing. Because that's what I honestly think. If you're going to put-in traffic lights just because a few people can't be bothered giving way, then you may as well put them everywhere. And turning Church Corner into more of a traffic shambles isn't the answer. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Christchurch has developed over 75km of separated cycle facilities retrofitted across the road network. The Major Cycleway Programme has enabled Christchurch to become the leader for cycle infrastructure in New Zealand. The 2011 earthquakes experienced in Canterbury, New Zealand caused significant devastation and destruction across the city. This disaster was a catalyst for change and provided Christchurch an opportunity to rebuild new and create a new identity. This webinar, presented by Emily Cambridge from Activate Urban and Jacob Bradbury from Christchurch City Council, takes you on the Christchurch journey towards becoming a cycle friendly city. This includes discussing The Share an Idea campaign which empowered the Christchurch community to share their dreams for the future of the city. The campaign attracted more than 100,000 ideas. The Major Cycleway network emerged as part of the city rebuild blueprint. This programme planned a network with over 100km of separated cycleways along 13 major routes across the city. In 2016, two consultant led consortia were established to complete the route designs. Now with 11 of the 13 routes nearing completion there has been exponential growth of people riding bikes over the past 5 years. One of the completed routes has seen an average 30% growth in cyclists between 2019 and 2020. Recent surveys with users and residents also show strong support for the facility with 82% of cycle users surveyed stated that the new cycleway has encouraged them to make more trips by bike. The webinar shares how the design team has progressed through route planning, design team consortia collaboration, construction and will touch on some lessons learnt along the journey.

Councils and waste industry experts are calling for increased regulations for the disposal of used batteries following an escalation in fires. WasteMINZ, the Waste & Recycling Industry Forum, Auckland Council and Christchurch City Council have come together to request direct action to prevent batteries from being thrown out or included in kerbside recycling. WasteMINZ chief executive Nic Quilty says the organisation's website has a map of safe locations where people can dispose of their batteries and battery-powered products. "Most of the facilities are free of charge, some of them cost a little bit of money - but not much - and that's the best thing to do." LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

It's hoped today's Cup Day in Christchurch will be bigger —and better-behaved— than in years before. Addington Raceway is reporting higher ticket sales after slashing general admission ticket prices from $40 to just $25. Christchurch City Councillor Jake McLellan says the event is huge for Canterbury's economy. He told Ryan Bridge he hopes everyone will keep their behaviour in check. McLellan says misbehaviour been in an issue in the past, but Police have made progress in improving the situation in recent years. Gates open at Addington at 11am. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

You'll have your own way of describing this crazy situation where we've got KiwiRail telling the Christchurch City Council that it has to close a 1.5 kilometre stretch of cycleway for two years, because the cycleway needs some safety improvements. KiwiRail reckons the Heathcote Express cycleway, which is near a railway crossing, is so dangerous that a death or serious injury could happen there once every 1,000 years. Yep, once every 1,000 years. Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that any death or injury —no matter how infrequent— is acceptable in any way. And KiwiRail says the section of railway that the cycleway crosses is the busiest section of the South Island rail network, with about 35 trains using it each day. The cycleway opened less than a year ago and the locals seem to love it. In fact, some local school kids turned up at the city council this week to tell councillors how important it is and how worried they are about this section of the cycleway being closed for two years while the safety upgrades are made to the railway crossing. Here's an idea of why they're so worried about not being able to use the cycleway for two years and being forced onto a road busy with trucks going to and from the port at Lyttelton. “We would need to bike on the highway. Port Hills Road is 60km. Lots of trucks, underpasses, and it's scary and dodgy. It's very dangerous crossing the Lyttleton offramp.” And you've got to say, the possibility of something bad happening once every 1,000 years surely has to put it at the lower end of things. And certainly not a priority. And this is the key thing here. I certainly don't think it's worth forcing cyclists off a safe cycleway for two years and onto a stretch of road that these school kids and other people who use the cycleway everyday say is a way more dangerous way for them to get to school and work. Now I'm not saying get rid of health and safety, because that old Kiwi “she'll be right approach” is not something I'm in favour of. But surely this type of crazy directive from KiwiRail shows how all the brilliant changes that have been made to keep people safer can be tarnished by another consequence of the health and safety laws. Whether it's an unintended consequence, who knows, but the layperson's term for this consequence is “backside covering”. That's all KiwiRail is doing here, because it knows that, whenever this once in 1,000 years death or injury might happen, it will be in the firing line. That's the only conclusion you can come to. But that's what health and safety has become. Backside covering. The other thing about this too is the safety upgrade being forced by KiwiRail is going to cost ratepayers $6.5 million. I remember the last time I was in a managerial job, and I had to make my team go to a health and safety briefing. And the so-called expert started banging on about a “cable strategy”. And I couldn't help myself - because the old BS detector was going off left, right and centre. So I put my hand up and asked what this “cable strategy” was that they were going on about. Turns out it was a documented plan on how to handle things like computer cables and other cords, so that they didn't create a risk of people falling over. That was the point when I realised that health and safety was becoming an industry. And that's how I'm feeling about KiwiRail's plan to force the Christchurch City Council this 1.5 kilometre section of the Heathcote Express cycleway for two years. It's also another example of how health and safety is out of control in this country.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Christchurch City Council is continuing to push back against KiwiRail's multimillion dollar safety improvement requirement, which has forced the closure of a cycleway. The freight transport company says a crossing on the Heathcote Expressway needs $6.5 million in safety upgrades because of the cycleway That could take two years. Councillor Aaron Keown told Mike Hosking he assumes they're referring to the gate systems. He says it's odd given the path doesn't cross there but runs beside the rail line. Keown says Mayor Phil Mauger has written to the appropriate ministers. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A community leader in Christchurch is calling for the city to follow Auckland's lead in bringing in a ban of supermarket and bottle store alcohol sales after 9pm.Auckland's local alcohol policy was approved earlier this month by the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority, edging it a step closer to implementation, Anna Sargent reports.

A Christchurch city councillor says there could be options to come to a deal regarding the rebuild of Christ Church Cathedral.   Its future's in doubt as the Government refuses to step in to plug a $114 million funding gap for the restoration.   Asked if the Church could be sold rather than rebuilt, Tim Scandrett told Heather du Plessis Allan there are possibilities, but none have been presented to council.   He says the church owns property and could come to council with some options —which may be considered if they were in ratepayers' interests— but that hasn't happened.  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this Disaster Zone Podcast we will be talking about the significant challenges New Zealand and Christchurch faced in the aftermath of their 2010-2011 Earthquakes. The podcast guest is Brent Winder is a native New Zealander. He has had multiple roles in leadership ranging from ten years in the New Zealand Navy, to positions with Queens Town Lakes District Council and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA). He was a founding staff member responsible for operations in the Christchurch Central Business District (CBD) red zone and supporting the largest and most complex demolition project in New Zealand's history. Additionally, he successfully managed widespread and large-scale demolition and land management – in a disaster recovery context. He has also led an expert recovery team to Kathmandu, Nepal post-2015 earthquakes, and he is a member of the deployable New Zealand Emergency Management Assistance Team (EMAT). Like many of us, he Played a regional role inthe Whole of Government emergency response in the COVID-19 Pandemic. In his current role he is lead emergency management for Christchurch City Council. You can contact him at Brenden.Winder@ccc.govt.nzCheck out more episodes and the Disaster Zone Blog: www.thereadinesslab.com/disaster-zoneBecome an insider with the The Readiness Lab Insider Subscription: https://www.thereadinesslab.com/the-eoc

Jean looks at Antarctica New Zealand's reworked plans for the Scott Base redevelopment and what it could mean for Timaru. 

The Christchurch City Council is considering options, including a bylaw, to address aggressive begging in the central city. Auckland and Wellington City Councils have bylaws in place that don't ban begging, but prohibit the aggression that sometimes goes with it Anna Sargent reports.

The Christchurch City Council had resurrected its fight for tougher alcohol controls in the city after bailing out of its previous almost million dollar attempt in 2017. 

A decade after the Christchurch City Council embarked on a failed million-dollar attempt to introduce a Local Alcohol Policy in the city, councillors have voted to give it another go. But the hospitality sector is already bristling at the idea before work even begins. Timothy Brown reports.

A series of dams to capture stormwater as it runs off the Port Hills are being constructed on farmland near Christchurch. It's the brainchild of Brent and Shirley Rawstron from Rossendale Wines, who are working with the Christchurch City Council to prevent flooding Early Valley.

Victoria Young looks at why The Warehouse chief executive Nick Grayston has quit effective immediately. New research shows just how much a company crisis can impact share prices. And, a fraying relationship between Christchurch City Council and CCHL, a company which controls more than $5b of its assets. Victoria Young is editor of BusinessDesk.

Christchurch City Councillors say they are listening to the public and have every intention of funding the cash-strapped Arts Centre, despite it being left out of the draft Long-Term Plan. Niva Chittock reports.

The Christchurch Council has confirmed a multimillion-dollar deal to save the future of its famous agriculture event, the A & P Show. Christchurch Councillor Sam MacDonald spoke to Morning Report.

A Christchurch City Councillor says their lifeline to the A&P Association isn't a grant.   The board canned this year's A&P Show, saying it would be unwise under its current finances and business model.  The association's now breaking the 100-year lease on its Wigram Road site, with the council paying about a million dollars a hectare to buy the remaining 95 years.   Christchurch City Councillor Sam MacDonald told Mike Hosking the council is putting money into a capital protected fund.  He says the association won't have to come back for handouts due to the interest, adding it's a win-win as council can also use the land.  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Christchurch City Council has not included any funding for the trust that owns the collection of heritage buildings on the edge of the city's CBD in its draft long-term plan. Anna Sargent reports.

The Christ Church Cathedral rebuild is at risk of being mothballed if an extra $30 million isn't found by August.  The total cost of the project is estimated to be at almost a quarter of a billion dollars, according to the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research. Christ Church Cathedral Reinstatement Limited chair Mark Stewart says they've turned to multiple sources to fill the financial gap. "We're looking for support from central Government, from the Christchurch City Council, obviously the Anglican Church itself, in terms of hopefully getting some money." LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The final year of former Christchurch City Council Chief Executive Dawn Baxendale's turbulent reign has come at a cost. 

Christchurch City Council is divided on the viability of hosting the 2030 Commonwealth Games. Despite ratepayers' financial and environmental fears, the proposal to consider throwing the city's name in the ring narrowly passed on Wednesday in a 10-to-seven majority vote. Councillor for Riccarton Ward Tyla Harrison-Hunt voted against the proposal - he says hosting the event is not feasible while ratepayers are facing an estimated 15 percent rise in costs. But Harewood Ward Councillor Aaron Keown is in favour and sees the Games as an opportunity to strengthen bonds with Commonwealth partner countries. Harrison-Hunt and Keown spoke to Corin Dann.

Christchurch City Council has agreed to look into the viability of hosting the 2030 Commonwealth Games- but not everyone is on board. Mayor Phil Mauger is keen on bringing the Games to the region, with events spread out to the wider South Island. Councillor Andrei Moore says without a major overhaul, the cost of hosting the event is unsustainable. "Yesterday, councillors were briefed on a potential 15.8 percent rates rise- for us to turn around today and explore a Commonwealth Games bid is just not responsible." LISTEN ABOVE  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

David reviews what the international catamaran race series SailGP meant for Christchurch this year against a backdrop of the The city's economic development agency paying millions of dollars for the hosting rights. And last week, the biodiversity and biosecurity committee of Canterbury's regional council, aka ECan, considered a recommendation to spend an extra $200,000 on the Canterbury Biodiversity Strategy. David backgrounds the issue and also looks at partial asset sales that could boost the Christchurch City Council coffers. David Williams is Newsroom's Te Waipounamu South Island Correspondent.

Newsroom South Island reporter David Williams unpacks the situation at Christchurch City Council, amid high-profile resignations and successive staff surveys revealing gripes about pay and toxic behaviour. And, a review revealing 26 roles were created either without a budget, without documentation, or without approval between 2019 and 2023.

Cuts to public services like libraries and swimming pools could be on the cards for Christchurch, as the council scrambles to avoid an 18 percent rates rise next year. The Christchurch Mayor Phil Mauger says the council is $2 billion in debt and is looking at every way to save money. Anna Sargent reports.

A leaked independent report has painted a grim picture of Christchurch City Council and how it handled the Bromley stench. A fire at a wastewater treatment plant in November 2021 caused a terrible smell, which made people in the surrounding suburbs sick, stained their homes black and corroded the metal on their cars. But the council refused to acknowledge the extent of it for five months. Niva Chittock reports.

A report leaked to RNZ shows Christchurch City Council lagged in its response as residents of eastern suburbs suffered from a nauseating stench from a broken down wastewater plant. A fire in November 2021 damaged the plant's two trickling filters, causing blackened paint on houses and health issues for residents in Bromley. The independent report, commissioned by the council, found a pre-existing strained relationship between the council and eastern suburbs contributed to the slow and initially downplayed response. Christchurch councillor for the Linwood Ward Yani Johanson spoke to Corin Dann.

Hundreds of thousands of people in the South Island are potentially being exposed to bacteria and parasites in their drinking water. Regulator Taumata Arowai has singled out 27 councils without protozoa barriers on their supplies. Christchurch City Council, Queenstown Lakes District Council, Waimakiriri District Council and Grey District Council are the worst offenders on a population basis. Almost 170,000 people are at risk in the Garden City alone. Samantha Gee has more.

Twenty-seven councils have been given until June 30th, 2024 to produce funded plans for installing protozoa barriers on water supplies. Without them, hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders could be at risk of bugs such as cryptosporidium. Christchurch City Council has the biggest potential impact - with more than 168,000 residents relying on two non-compliant supplies. The Council declined RNZ's interview requests, as did Waimakariri and Taupō councils, which could affect 29,000 and 8000 people respectively. Taumata Arowai head of regulatory Steve Taylor spoke to Guyon Espiner.

A mystery meat dumper is plaguing Christchurch, offloading hundreds of kilos raw off cuts and carcasses in public bins. The dodgy dumper struck again last night discarding fourteen bags of meat waste, weighing about 250 kilograms. It's the biggest incident yet. And it seems the west of the city is the target area . Christchurch City Council says illegal road side dumping cost rate payer more than $800,000 in the past six years. Hornby Councillor, Mark Peters speaks to Lisa Owen. [embed] https://players.brightcove.net/6093072280001/default_default/index.html?videoId=6337410182112

Christchurch residents are being asked to decide what they want to do with their green waste over the next couple of years while a new compost plant is being built. Options include sending it straight to the dump or shipping it off to the North Island. After years of complaints about the putrid smell from its existing plant, Christchurch City Council has agreed to relocate it, but that could take up to five years. So now it's looking at the best short term option to clear the air. Rachel Graham has more.