Full impact of draconian CERA legislation

“The full impact of the draconian CERA legislation on communities is quite visible now”, says Cr. Glenn Livingstone, following a tense discussion of the proposal to locate a temporary yard site at the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board meeting (April 15) between residents, the Community Board and SCIRT staff.

The outrage expressed at the meeting, the largest in the whole term of the Community Board, reflects what happens when communities are not taken with organisations such as SCIRT in the decision-making process, Livingstone says.

The report, contained in the proposal to the Board asking the Council to make the final decision, says under the heading ‘Consultation Fulfilment,’ “In addition, the Canterbury Earthquake (Local Government Act 2002) Order 2010 exempts the Council from compliance with some of the decision-making processes set out in the Local Government ACT 2002. These include the requirement that the Council considers community views and preferences.”

Livingstone says that there is a disconnection between the legislation and those communities directly affected by the Canterbury earthquakes. “While organisations such as SCIRT are not legally required to engage with communities, the fact is that when they do not, this sort of outrage can be expected.” At a recent conference on disaster communication, Livingstone says that a circular rather than a top-down communication model was proposed for communicating with communities in a post-disaster time.

“SCIRT has, on the whole, been doing a good job in Burwood/Pegasus and other parts of the city”, Livingstone says. “But the CERA legislation is serving to pit good organisations such as SCIRT and communities against each other. There are staff in SCIRT, themselves affected, who are working for the good of the city and, while they are tasked with getting on and repairing the city’s infra-structure, the CERA legislation is at times hindering more than helping them.”

The Community Board decided to reject the report’s proposal to locate the temporary yard in Rothesay Road and has recommended to the Council that it consider an alternative option, such as the QE2 site, an option which Cr. Livingstone will be arguing for the Council to accept at its meeting on April the 24th.

ENDS

© Scoop Media