John MacDonald: Do we have a moral obligation to help flooded homeowners?

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 "Mora

Episode Transcript

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

Speaker 2 (00:12):
Do you think the government and councils do you think
they would be morally bankrupt if they stopped paying people
out when their properties are so flood damaged that they
can't live there anymore. Would that be a morally bankrupt
thing not to do or to do? And would you
feel the same about people living in areas at risk
of flooding being forced to pay more for flood schemes

(00:36):
and sea walls and those sorts of things 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. I agree. What's more, I think
this approach would let counsels off the hook for allowing

(00:58):
places to be built and crazy at risk locations. So
a bit of background. What's happened is an independent Red
Prince group set up by the Ministry for the Environment
has come up with a list of recommendations and these
recommendations are designed to help the government work on some
climate adaptation legislation and adaptation being of course, what you

(01:21):
do when something like climate change and sea level rise
threatens to take out an area. And there's no shortage
of areas within Canterbury that are in the gun in
this regard. So this group, it's made up of made
up of economists and people from the banking, insurance sectors,

(01:43):
local government, EWE. The whole range. They come up with
these recommendations and if there's an overarching theme to their
advice to the government, it would be this, you're on
your own body and instead of looking to the councils
and governments for handouts and direction, they're saying people should

(02:03):
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. I mean talk about hardcore, talk about
morally bankrupt, That's how I say it. And in this

(02:23):
group of experts they're not stopping there either. They're 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 neighbors
should pay more for those things than the rest of us,
because you're the ones who benefit the most. How about that?
So if we apply that to some of the things

(02:44):
that have happened here locally, what would that mean? Well,
that would mean people in the flocked and basin area
in christ Church, for example, paying more for the privilege
of living somewhere that used to flood at the drop
of a hat. Remember flocked in basin and remember how
the council poured truckloads of money into a pumping system
that stopped the water overflowing in the Dudley Creek area

(03:05):
and flood the streets and houses. Remember that the closest
city council they spent forty nine million dollars forty nine
million on a flood mitigation scheme in the Flockton Basin
area their edgewhere, not just there though elsewhere in town.
The council also spent about seventy million to deal with
flooding issues along the Heathcot River. This included buying up

(03:27):
people's houses, and friends of mine were involved in that.
They had their place brought out as part of that scheme.
But under these recommendations, out today. The people in Flockton Basin,
they would be expected to pay more than the rest
of us because they're the ones who benefit directly from
the streets and houses not flooding. And also under these
recommendations out today, my mates, they wouldn't have their house

(03:50):
brought out by the council even though they can't live
there anymore because it keeps flooding.

Speaker 1 (03:56):
Now.

Speaker 2 (03:56):
I would hate to see us take this approach, which
is why I agree with climate policy expert Amri's Meritor's
professor Jonathan Boston, He's from Victoria University, saying today that
leaving people high and not necessarily dry like this would
be morally bankrupt. Brilliantly of putting it, he says, quote,
one of the core responsibilities of any government is to

(04:19):
protect its citizens and to deal with natural disasters and
so on. He says that is above almost anything else
the end of quote. And he's also criticizing the group's
recommendation that any changes be phased in within the next
twenty years. He says, you know, that might sound like
a long time, but he says the risks and impacts
of climate change and sea level rise, they are going

(04:40):
to continue evolving beyond this twenty year deadline, and he
says to put an end date on it, it's morally
bankrupt as well. And as I said before, this approach
would let councils off the hook, because, for me, if
a council gives consent for something to be built where
and then that same council needs to carry the can,

(05:02):
doesn't it is to carry the can if it turns
out that that's something is somewhere, shouldn't be It could
be a house, could be a school, could be a
business premise, could be anything, whatever it is. But what
this comes down to is this, So I don't want
you to consider if someone chooses to buy a house
or to build a house somewhere that ends up not

(05:23):
being livable because of climate change or sea level rise
or endless flooding, should they be left to deal with
it with no financial support from the local council or
the government. Or do you think councils and governments have
a moral obligation to help people who find themselves in
these situations and would it be morally bankrupt not to
help these people?

Speaker 1 (05:44):
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