��һ�ǿ�����

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.