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.

Labour leader and former Covid-19 Minister Chris Hipkins thinks phase two of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Covid-19 response is a platform for conspiracy theorists, and he is non-committal about turning-up to give evidence.

The most committed I’ve heard him so far is saying that he’s working on some written responses. But if that turns out to be the extent of his involvement, then he can forget about being prime minister again.

Because let me remind you of a couple of things.

While it was the Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern who, generally, fronted the Government’s Covid response. It was Hipkins —as Covid Minister— who drove it behind the scenes.

Secondly, if it was good enough for former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson to front up in person to the UK’s Covid inquiry, then it is more than good enough for Chris Hipkins to front up in person to our inquiry.

In December 2023, Boris Johnson spent two days being grilled by the committee of MPs, which had the job of looking into how his government handled the pandemic.

This is the guy who told people they had to isolate at home and then had parties at 10 Downing Street.

This is the guy who disappeared to his country house when Covid was running rampant.

This is the guy who, somehow, lost 5,000 WhatsApp messages from his phone, which couldn’t be used as evidence at the inquiry.

This is the same guy who told the UK inquiry that he was the victim of not being properly informed about the seriousness of Covid.

Boris Johnson is the guy who is widely considered to have cocked-up the response in Britain but who, despite all that, fronted-up to take questions and take the heat over two days.

And it wasn’t pleasant for him. He was grilled. But say what you like about Boris Johnson, at least he fronted up.

From what I’ve seen, at no point did Boris Johnson dismiss the inquiry in Britain as a platform for conspiracy theorists.

At no point did Boris Johnson bang-on about the Covid inquiry in Britain creating an opportunity for theatrics from conspiracy theorists.

And, at no point, did Boris Johnson hide behind written responses and weasel words.

But that is exactly what Chris Hipkins is doing.

He says he wants to be “cooperative” but “I don’t want to see a whole lot of theatrics. I’m very interested in engaging with them on how we can capture the lessons”.

To be fair, Hipkins probably does have a point about the time period covered by phase two of the inquiry and how it, conveniently, leaves out the time NZ First was in coalition with Labour, but he needs to get over that.

Just like he needs to get over the fact that, yes, there will be no shortage of conspiracy theorists turning up at the inquiry.

But so what? It’s a free world. And we can decide for ourselves how much credence we want to give them.

But Chris Hipkins shouldn’t be free to decide for himself whether he fronts up in person at the Covid inquiry, or not.

He was Covid Minister and he has to front.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Chris Hipkins is doubling down on saying the Covid Response Inquiry's terms seems to provide a platform for conspiracy views.

The Labour leader also said the second phase —that began this week— excludes looking at any decisions made when NZ First was in Government.

Hipkins told John MacDonald opinions from the likes of Brian Tamaki and Liz Gunn deserve to be heard but shouldn't overshadow submission on other experiences.

He says if the Government's genuine in wanting all voices heard, it's important for it not to be dominated by a few people.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.