John MacDonald: More ludicrous council spending in Christchurch

The Christchurch City Council has learned nothing from the cathedral debacle. 

Because it’s now going to spend $19.5 million over the next four years, so that work can start on repairing and restoring the old provincial chambers building in the centre of town.  

$19.5 million. Nearly twice as much ratepayer money as what was going to go into the cathedral. To get things started on a repair job which is expected to cost around $200 million.  

I get it. It's got history. It's very relevant in terms of the history of Canterbury. It’s a beautiful building. No arguments from me on those fronts. 

But, as far as I’m concerned, the council shouldn't be pouring money into what could turn out to be a rinse and repeat of the cathedral debacle.  

The building itself dates back to 1858 and is the only purpose-built provincial government building that still exists in New Zealand.  

It was originally built to be the headquarters of what was known back then as the Canterbury Provincial Government. But when the provincial government was disestablished in 1876, it was used as offices for various government departments.  

Eventually, the Christchurch City Council became responsible for it. Pre-earthquakes, it was a popular spot for weddings and functions. But that all came to a stop and it’s just sat there since 2011. 

But in the Council’s new 10-year plan, it’s going to spend $500,000 in the next 12 months; $4.5 million the year after that; another $4.5 million the year after that; and $10 million the year after that. 

So, over four years, that’s $19.5 million. And the purpose of that spend is so that work can start. So that work can start on something that’s expected to cost 10-times that. 

When is the council going to learn not to throw millions of dollars at something that has next to zero certainty of getting finished? 

Because $19.5 million is a drop in the bucket compared to the rest of the money that’s going to be needed. Somewhere in the ballpark of another $180 million is going to be needed. 

But, just like happened with the cathedral, money’s going to be chipped-in here and chipped-in there on some sort of wing and a prayer that the rest of it will come from somewhere. 

Now, to be fair, there’s possibly a greater likelihood of the Government helping out on this one. But it won’t be to the tune of $180 million. 

Finance Minister Nicola Willis justified the Government’s decision not to bail-out the cathedral reinstatement because it considered the cathedral not to be owned by the public and that its public use was limited because it is a private, religious space. 

You might also recall her saying a few weeks back that the Canterbury Museum redevelopment - which is also underway and also short of all the money needed - might be more likely to get government support because it is a place used by the general public. 

Nevertheless, here we go again, with the city council pouring ratepayer money into a project that could very well end up lingering. Just like the cathedral. 

It's especially bad when you consider how tight it was with funding for the Arts Centre. Which is actually up and running and open for business. And is actually making a contribution to the city economically. 

The Arts Centre wanted $20 million in council support over the next 10 years. But it only got $6 million. 

And instead, the Council’s going to pour $19.5 million into getting repairs underway on the old provincial chambers building with what, seems to be, no idea where the rest of the money is going to come from. 

It is a ludicrous and irresponsible way to spend ratepayer money. 

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Canterbury Mornings podcast with John McDonald
from News Talk ZB.

Speaker 2 (00:12):
Now this might be news to you, it is certainly
news to me, and it tells me that the christi
At City Council has learned nothing from the cathedral debacle
because it's now going to spend nineteen point five million
dollars over the next four years so that work can

(00:34):
start on repairing and restoring the old Provincial Chambers building
in the center of town nineteen and a half a
million bucks, nearly twice as much right payer money as
was what was going to go into the cathedral to
get things started on a repair job which is expected
to cost around two hundred million. So this is the

(00:54):
big stone building on the Durham Street North one way,
you know, the one it's been out of action since
the earthquakes, and I get it. It's got history, very
relevant in terms of the history of Canterbury beautiful building.
I mean no arguments for me on those fronts. As

(01:15):
far as I'm concerned, the council shouldn't be pouring money
into what could turn out to be another rints and
repeat of the cathedral debarcle. That's how I see it.
So this building dates back to eighteen fifty eight, and
another historical strength I suppose is that it is the
only purpose built provincial government building that still exists in

(01:35):
New Zealand. And it was originally built to be the
headquarters of what was known back then in eighteen fifty
eight is the Canterbury Provincial Government. But when the provincial
government was disestablished in eighteen seventy six, it was used
for all sorts of things. From that point, various government
departments had offices there, all that sort of thing. Eventually

(01:56):
the city Council became responsible for it. And you might
remember how pre earthquakes it was a popular spot for
weddings and functions and those sorts of things. But all
that aim to a stop in febru twenty eleven and
it's been sitting there ever since. But in the council's
new ten year plan, which it signed off at the

(02:17):
end of junees A, two and a half months ago,
and there spend nothing about this. In the plan, the
council says it's going to spend five hundred thousand dollars
in the next twelve months four and a half million
dollars a year after that, another four and a half
million dollars a year after that, and ten million bucks
a year after that, So over four years, that's nineteen

(02:38):
point five million dollars. And the purpose of that spend
is so that work can start sounds familiar, So that
work can start on something that's expected to cost ten
times that. When is the council and others, But let's
focus on the council for now. When is the council

(03:00):
going to learn not to throw millions of dollars at
something that has you could say, next to zero certainty
of getting finished. Because nineteen point five million bucks is
a drop in the bucket compared to the rest of
the money that's going to be needed. Some are in
the ballpark of another one hundred and eighty million dollars
is going to be needed. But just like happened with

(03:22):
the cathedral, money is going to be chipped in here
and chipped in there, and four and a half million
dollars there and ten million dollars there on some sort
of or on the basis of some sort of wing
and a prayer that the rest of it will come
from somewhere. Now, I reckon to be fair this possibly
I was going to say, probably possibly a greater likelihood
of the government helping out on this one, but it

(03:42):
won't be to the tune of one hundred and eighty million.
You'll remember how Finance Minister Nikola Willis justified the government's
decision not to bail out the Cathedral Instatement because the
government considered the cathedral not to be owned by the
public and that its public use was limited because it
is a private religious space. You might also recall how
she said when she dropped in a few weeks back

(04:03):
here that the Canterbury Museum development, which is all so
underway and also short of all the money needed. You
might recall how she said that the museum might be
more likely to get government support because it is a
place used by the general public. A lot of might say,
and despite all that, here we go again with the

(04:24):
City Council pouring rate payer money into a project that
could very well end up lingering, just like the cathedral.
And I just don't get where the council is coming
from thinking that that can be justified, especially when you
consider what about this, when you consider how tight the
council was with funding for the Art Center, which is
actually up and running and open for business and is

(04:45):
actually making a contribution to the city economically and socially.
The Art Center wanted twenty million bucks in council support
over the next ten years and he got six million.
And instead the council is going to pour nineteen point
five million dollars over the next four years into getting
repairs underway on the old Provincial Chambers building, with what

(05:08):
seems to be no idea where the rest of the
money is going to come from. It is a ludicrous
and irresponsible way to spend rate payer money. Well I
say it as anyway.

Speaker 1 (05:22):
For more from Caterbory Mornings with John McDonald, listen live
to news talks It'd be christ Church from nine am weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.