Notice is hereby given that a Meeting of the Community and Strategy Committee will be held on:

 

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Wednesday, 10 June 2020

1pm

Council Chamber
15 Forth Street
Invercargill

 

Community and Strategy Committee Agenda

OPEN

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Julie Keast

 

 

Mayor Gary Tong

 

Councillors

Don Byars

 

 

John Douglas

 

 

Paul Duffy

 

 

Bruce Ford

 

 

Darren Frazer

 

 

George Harpur

 

 

Ebel Kremer

 

 

Christine Menzies

 

 

Karyn Owen

 

 

Margie Ruddenklau

 

 

Rob Scott

 

 

IN ATTENDANCE

 

Group Manager - Community and Futures

Rex Capil

Committee Advisor

Alyson Hamilton

 

 

Contact Telephone: 0800 732 732

Postal Address: PO Box 903, Invercargill 9840

Email: emailsdc@southlanddc.govt.nz

Website: www.southlanddc.govt.nz

 

Full agendas are available on Council’s Website

www.southlanddc.govt.nz

 

 


Terms of Reference – Community and Strategy Committee

 

TYPE OF COMMITTEE

Council committee

RESPONSIBLE TO

Council

SUBCOMMITTEES

None

LEGISLATIVE BASIS

Committee constituted by Council as per schedule 7, clause 30 (1)(a), LGA 2002.

Committee delegated powers by Council as per schedule 7, clause 32, LGA 2002.

MEMBERSHIP

The Community and Strategy Committee is a committee of the whole Council.  The mayor and all councillors will be members of the Community and Strategy Committee. 

FREQUENCY OF MEETINGS

Six weekly or as required

QUORUM

Seven

SCOPE OF ACTIVITIES

The Community and Strategy Committee is responsible for:

       providing advice to Council on the approaches that it should take to promote the social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being of the District and its communities and in so-doing contribute to the realisation of Council’s vision of one District offering endless opportunities

       to provide leadership to District communities on the strategic issues and opportunities that they face

       to develop relationships and communicate with stakeholders including community organisations, special interest groups and businesses that are of importance to the District as a whole.

•      assessing and providing advice to Council on:

-    key strategic issues affecting the District and Council

-    community development issues affecting the District and Council

-    the service needs of the District’s communities and how these needs might best be met

-    resource allocation and prioritisation processes and decisions. 

•      developing and recommending strategies, plans and policies to the Council that advance Council’s vision and goals, and comply with the purpose of local government as specified in the Local Government Act 2002

•      monitoring the implementation and effectiveness of strategies, plans and policies

•      developing and approving submissions to government, local authorities and other organisations

•      advocating Council’s position on particular policy issues to other organisations, as appropriate

•      considering recommendations from community boards and Council committees and make decisions where it has authority from Council to do so, or recommendations to Council where a Council decision is required.

It is also responsible for community partnerships and engagement.  This includes:

•      monitoring the progress, implementation and effectiveness of the work undertaken by Great South in line with the Joint Shareholders Agreement and Constitution.

•      allocations of grants, loans, scholarships and bursaries in accordance with Council policy

•      international relations 

•      developing and overseeing the implementation of Council’s community engagement and consultation policies and processes. 

The Community and Strategy Committee is responsible for overseeing the following Council activities:

•      community services

•      district leadership.

DELEGATIONS

Power to Act

The Community and Strategy Committee shall have the following delegated powers and be accountable to Council for the exercising of these powers:

a)        approve submissions made by Council to other councils, central government and other bodies

b)        approve scholarships, bursaries, grants and loans within Council policy and annual budgets

c)        approve and/or assign all contracts for work, services or supplies where those contracts relate to work within approved estimates.  

d)        monitor the performance of Great South.. 

Power to Recommend

The Community and Strategy Committee«name of entity» has authority to consider and make recommendations to Council regarding strategies, policies and plans.

FINANCIAL DELEGATIONS

Council authorises the following delegated authority of financial powers to Council committees in regard to matters within each committee’s jurisdiction.

Contract Acceptance:

            accept or decline any contract for the purchase of goods, services, capital works or other assets where the total value of the lump sum contract does not exceed the sum allocated in the Long Term Plan/Annual Plan and the contract relates to an activity that is within the scope of activities relating to the work of the Community and Strategy committee

            accept or decline any contract for the disposal of goods, plant or other assets other than property or land subject to the disposal being provided for in the Long Term Plan

Budget Reallocation

The committee is authorised to reallocate funds from one existing budget item to another. Reallocation of this kind must not impact on current or future levels of service and must be:

            funded by way of savings on existing budget items

            within the jurisdiction of the committee

            consistent with the Revenue and Financing Policy

LIMITS TO DELEGATIONS

Matters that must be processed by way of recommendation to Council include:

•      amendment to fees and charges relating to all activities

•      powers that cannot be delegated to committees as per the Local Government Act 2002 and sections 2.4 and 2.5 of this manual.

Delegated authority is within the financial limits in section 9 of this manual.

STAKEHOLDER RELATIONSHIPS

This committee will maintain and develop relationships with:

            Community Boards

            Great South

•      Milford Community Trust

•      Destination Fiordland.

The committee will also hear and receive updates to Council from these organisations as required.

CONTACT WITH MEDIA

The committee chairperson is the authorised spokesperson for the committee in all matters where the committee has authority or a particular interest.

Committee members do not have delegated authority to speak to the media and/or outside agencies on behalf of Council on matters outside of the board’s delegations.

The group manager, community and futures will manage the formal communications between the committee and the people of the Southland District and for the committee in the exercise of its business.   Correspondence with central government, other local government agencies or official agencies will only take place through Council staff and will be undertaken under the name of Southland District Council.

 


Community and Strategy Committee

10 June 2020

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM                                                                                                                                                                                  PAGE

Procedural

1             Apologies                                                                                                                                                                7

2             Leave of absence                                                                                                                                                7

3             Conflict of Interest                                                                                                                                             7

4             Public Forum                                                                                                                                                         7

5             Extraordinary/Urgent Items                                                                                                                        7

6             Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                                                               7

Reports

7.1         Stewart Island/Rakiura Future Opportunities Project Update                                            19

7.2         Chairperson's Report                                                                                                                                    27

7.3         Community Initiatives Fund Application Summary and Financial Report                    29

7.4         Sport NZ Rural Travel Fund Application Summary and Financial Report                      39

7.5         Sport NZ Community Resilience Fund                                                                                                45

7.6         Research and Analysis - COVID-19 Projects Presentation                                                      53

7.7         Southland District COVID-19 Community Recovery Taskforce                                         177

7.8         Caring for Communities                                                                                                                            189

7.9         Welcoming Communities - Options Moving Forward                                                             193

7.10       Community Wellbeings and Strategic Issues Overview - May 2020                               237


1             Apologies

 

At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.

 

2             Leave of absence

 

At the close of the agenda no requests for leave of absence had been received.

 

3             Conflict of Interest

 

Committee Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision-making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have.

 

4             Public Forum

Notification to speak is required by 5pm at least two days before the meeting. Further information is available on www.southlanddc.govt.nz or phoning 0800 732 732.

 

5             Extraordinary/Urgent Items

To consider, and if thought fit, to pass a resolution to permit the committee to consider any further items which do not appear on the Agenda of this meeting and/or the meeting to be held with the public excluded.

Such resolution is required to be made pursuant to Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, and the Chairperson must advise:

(i)            the reason why the item was not on the Agenda, and

(ii)          the reason why the discussion of this item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.

Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

“Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,-

(a)           that item may be discussed at that meeting if-

(i)        that item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority; and

(ii)       the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but

(b)          no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further discussion.”

 

6             Confirmation of Minutes

6.1             Meeting minutes of Community and Strategy Committee, 06 May 2020


 

Community and Strategy Committee

 

OPEN MINUTES

 

 

 

Minutes of a meeting of Community and Strategy Committee held via Zoom (digital technology) on Wednesday, 6 May 2020 at on Wednesday, 6 May 2020 at 1pm. (1pm-2.41pm, 2.46pm-3.31pm).

 

present

 

Chairperson

Julie Keast

 

 

Mayor Gary Tong

1,42pm - 1.50pm.

Councillors

Don Byars

 

 

John Douglas

 

 

Paul Duffy

 

 

Bruce Ford

 

 

Darren Frazer

 

 

George Harpur

 

 

Ebel Kremer

 

 

Christine Menzies

 

 

Karyn Owen

 

 

Rob Scott

 

 

 

APOLOGIES

 

Cr Margie Ruddenklau

 

 

 

IN ATTENDANCE

 

Group Manager - Community and Futures

Rex Capil

Committee Advisor

Alyson Hamilton

 


1             Apologies

 

There was an apology from Cr Margie Ruddenklau

 

Resolution

Moved Cr Scott, seconded Cr Ford  and resolved:

That the Community and Strategy Committee accept the apology.

 

 

2             Leave of absence

 

There were no requests for leave of absence.

 

 

3             Conflict of Interest

 

There were no conflicts of interest declared.

 

 

4             Public Forum

 

There was no public forum.

 

 

5             Extraordinary/Urgent Items

 

There were no Extraordinary/Urgent items.

 

 

6             Confirmation of Minutes

 

Resolution

Moved Cr Kremer, seconded Cr Duffy  and resolved:

That the minutes of the Community and Strategy Committee meeting held on 11 February 2020 be confirmed as a true and correct record of that meeting.

 

Reports

 

 

7.1

Chairperson's Report

Record No: R/20/4/9414

 

Chairperson Keast presented this report.

 

 

Resolution

Moved Cr Kremer, seconded Cr Frazer  and resolved:

That the Community and Strategy Committee:

a)            Receives the report titled “Chairperson's Report” dated 29 April 2020.

 

 

 

7.2

SDC Holiday Programme - January 2020

Record No: R/20/4/9554

 

Community Liaison Officer - Kathryn Cowie was in attendance for this item.

 

Luciana Garcia and Michelle Greenwood Sport Southland were in attendance via Zoom for this item.

 

Mrs Cowie advised the purpose of the report is to provide the Community and Strategy Committee with an update on the SDC holiday programme that was delivered by Sport Southland in January 2020.

The committee requested further information relating to the possibility of expansion, analysis and allocation of funding toward the SDC holiday programme.

 

 

 

Resolution

Moved Cr Ford, seconded Mayor Tong  and resolved:

That the Community and Strategy Committee:

a)            Receives the report titled “SDC Holiday Programme - January 2020” dated 23 April 2020

 

 

 

7.3

Customer Satisfaction Survey Report November 2019 - January 2020

Record No: R/20/4/9552

 

Group Manager Customer Delivery - Trudie Hurst was in attendance for this item.

Ms Hurst advised the purpose of the report is to provide the Community and Strategy Committee with the results of the Customer Satisfaction Survey and Net Promoter Score for November 2019 - January 2020.

 

 

 

Resolution

Moved Cr Kremer, seconded Cr Douglas  and resolved:

That the Community and Strategy Committee:

a)            Receives the report titled “Customer Satisfaction Survey Report November 2019 - January 2020” dated 20 April 2020.

 

7.4

District Heritage Fund Application Summary and Financial Report

Record No: R/20/4/9642

 

Communications Manager - Louise Pagan was in attendance for this item.

Mrs Pagan advised the purpose of this report is to give the committee a summary of the applications to the Southland District Council Heritage Fund from the March round.

The committee noted these applications seek grants to assist with the day-to-day running of local museums, heritage centres or similar type organisations within the Southland District Council boundaries.

 

 

 

Resolution

Moved Cr Scott, seconded Cr Douglas  and resolved:

That the Community and Strategy Committee:

a)            Receives the report titled “District Heritage Fund Application Summary and Financial Report” dated 21 April 2020.

 

b)           Determines that this matter or decision be recognised as not significant in terms of Section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002.

 

c)            Determines that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and in accordance with Section 79 of the act determines that it does not require further information, further assessment of options or further analysis of costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision on this matter.

 

d)           Approves the allocation of funds from the District Heritage Fund as follows:

 

1

Central Southland Vintage Machinery Club

$6,000

2

Fiordland Vintage Machinery Club

$6,000

3

Otautau Museum

$7,000

4

Rakiura Heritage Trust

$10,500

 

e)            Approves the financial summary for the District Heritage Fund to 30 March 2020.

 

 


 

7.5

5G Rollout in Southland

Record No: R/20/4/9464

 

Community Partnership Leader - Karen Purdue was in attendance for this item.

Mrs Purdue advised the purpose of the report is to inform the Community and Strategy committee of details involved around the rollout of 5G in Southland.

 

 

Resolution

Moved Cr Kremer, seconded Cr Ford  and resolved:

That the Community and Strategy Committee:

a)            Receives the report titled “5G Rollout in Southland” dated 28 April 2020.

 

 

 

7.6

Community Board Plans Update

Record No: R/20/4/9501

 

Community Partnership Leader - Kelly Tagg was in attendance for this item.

 

Mrs Tagg advised the purpose of the report is to provide a further update on the community board plan project process and to share the vision and outcomes agreed by each of Council’s nine community boards.

 

 

 

 

Resolution

Moved Cr Duffy, seconded Cr Harpur  and resolved:

That the Community and Strategy Committee:

a)            Receives the report titled “Community Board Plans Update” dated 21 April 2020.

 

b)           Determines that this matter or decision be recognised as not significant in terms of Section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002.

 

c)            Determines that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and in accordance with Section 79 of the act determines that it does not require further information, further assessment of options or further analysis of costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision on this matter.

 

 

 

7.7

Strategy Development Work Programme Update

Record No: R/20/4/9413

 

Strategy and Policy Manager - Michelle Stevenson was in attendance for this item.

 

Ms Stevenson advised the purpose of this report is to provide the Community and Strategy Committee with an update on strategy development and work programme that will assist Council with the further integration of the strategic framework and alignment to the activities Council delivers to its communities.

 

 

 

Resolution

Moved Cr Kremer, seconded Cr Duffy  and resolved:

That the Community and Strategy Committee:

a)            Receives the report titled “Strategy Development Work Programme Update” dated 21 April 2020.

 

b)           Determines that this matter or decision be recognised as not significant in terms of Section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002.

 

c)            Determines that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and in accordance with Section 79 of the act determines that it does not require further information, further assessment of options or further analysis of costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision on this matter.

 

d)           Notes that a report for discussion and endorsement of a strategy development work programme will be provided to the Community and Strategy Committee at its 8 July meeting.

 

 

 

The meeting adjourned at 2.41pm and reconvened at 2.46pm.

 

 

7.8

Research and Analysis – COVID-19 Projects Update

Record No: R/20/4/9643

 

Strategy and Policy Manager - Michelle Stevenson was in attendance for this item.

 

Ms Stevenson advised the purpose of the report is to inform the Community and Strategy Committee of COVID-19 specific projects currently being undertaken by Council’s strategy and policy team.

 

 

 

Resolution

Moved Cr Duffy, seconded Cr Kremer  and resolved:

That the Community and Strategy Committee:

a)            Receives the report titled “Research and Analysis – COVID-19 Projects Update” dated 24 April 2020.

 

b)           Determines that this matter or decision be recognised as not significant in terms of Section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002.

 

c)            Determines that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and in accordance with Section 79 of the act determines that it does not require further information, further assessment of options or further analysis of costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision on this matter.

 

d)           Endorses the projects that are underway to inform discussions on the COVID-19 impacts for Southland and Council and maintain a watching brief as global, national, regional and local implications emerge.

 

 

 

7.9

Big Picture Workshop and Strategic Workshop Summary

Record No: R/20/4/9566

 

Group Manager, Rex Capil was in attendance for the item.

Mr Capil advised the purpose of this report is to confirm the Big Picture Workshop and Strategic Workshop findings and to then give consideration to these when reviewing and updating the draft strategic framework as part of the Long Term Plan 2021-2031 development.

 

 

 

Resolution

Moved Mayor Tong, seconded Cr Kremer  and resolved:

That the Community and Strategy Committee:

a)        Receives the report titled “Big Picture Workshop and Strategic Workshop Summary” dated 24 April 2020.

 

b)        Determines that this matter or decision be recognised as not significant in terms of Section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002.

 

c)         Determines that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and in accordance with Section 79 of the act determines that it does not require further information, further assessment of options or further analysis of costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision on this matter.

 

d)        Endorses the key outcomes, big issues and future planning priorities identified at the Big Picture Workshop on 31 January 2020 – being:

 

Key Outcomes

-      happy, healthy Southlanders

-      resilient, engaged communities

-      thriving, sustainable economy

The Big Issues

-      climate change

-      infrastructure investment

-      funding constraints and options

-      Council’s economic and social remit

-      iwi and partner relationships

-      service delivery structures

Future Planning Priorities

-      show leadership through infrastructure spend

-      boost local economy and support industry

-      support managed retreat for declining communities

-      foster community self sufficiency

-      invest in strategic partnerships

-      long term funding and investment strategy

-      central government relationship strategy

-      approach iwi to consider new ways to build relationships

 

e)        Endorses the principles from the Strategic Workshop on 19-21 February 2020 – being:

-      community well-being – understanding Council (the organisation) needs to change how it thinks, operates and makes decisions and move toward the implementation of the four well-beings in our decisionmaking approach and what we do

-      environment – understanding and recognising the increasing community and generational awareness of kaitiakitanga - that the guardianship and protection of the environment – regeneration ideals surpass sustainability

-      future generations – taria te wa and manaakitanga – recognising and acknowledging that Council has to advance long term thinking with the communities it serves, the concept of caring for others and that it is ok for conversations to be about the next 50-100 years

-      Tikanga Maori and cultural authenticity – recognising the responsibility to embrace tikanga or cultural beliefs and value set of tangata whenua – drawing on the traditional principles of stewardship and guardianship for others.

 

f)         Notes that staff will integrate the themes and principles as part of the next stages of the LTP 2021-2031 including reviewing and revising the draft strategic framework.

 

g)        Note that staff will give consideration to the findings and direction provided when developing the strategy development work programme required to be undertaken to support the next stages of the longer term integrated strategic planning approach for the District.

 

h)        Note that staff will report back to the Committee on the COVID-19 research work being undertaken and how this might be best incorporated into Council’s short to medium term approach to pursuing its strategy once this research work has been completed in the next two months.

 

i)          Recommend to Council that it endorse and adopt the key outcomes, big issues and future planning priorities identified at the Big Picture Workshop on 31 January 2020 and the principles from the Strategic Workshop on 19-21 February 2020.

 

j)          Recommend to Council that it support the integration and incorporation of the themes and principles into the next stages of the LTP 2021-2031 process including reviewing and revising the draft strategic framework.

 

k)        Recommend to Council that it support the integration and incorporation of the themes and principles into the strategy development work programme required to be undertaken to support the next stages of the longer term integrated strategic planning approach for the District.

 

 

 

7.10

Community Well-beings and Strategic Issues Overview - March - April 2020

Record No: R/20/4/9565

 

Group Manager, Rex Capil was in attendance for the item.

Mr Capil advised the purpose of the report is to inform the Community and Services committee of recent developments, points of interest and points for consideration as part of the overall strategic context and community well-beings (social, economic, environmental, and cultural) discussions that Council is part of – nationally, regionally and locally.

 

 

Resolution

Moved Mayor Tong, seconded Cr Harpur  and resolved:

That the Community and Strategy Committee:

a)            Receives the report titled “Community Well-beings and Strategic Issues Overview - March - April 2020” dated 24 April 2020.

 

 


 

 

 

 

The meeting concluded at 3.31pm.                      CONFIRMED AS A TRUE AND CORRECT RECORD AT A MEETING OF THE Community and Strategy Committee HELD ON WEDNESDAY, 6 MAY 2020

 

 

 

DATE:............................................................................................

 

 

 

CHAIRPERSON:........................................................................

 


Community and Strategy Committee

10 June 2020

 

Stewart Island/Rakiura Future Opportunities Project Update

Record No:             R/20/5/11838

Author:                      Karen Purdue, Community Partnership Leader

Approved by:         Rex Capil, Group Manager Community and Futures

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

Purpose

1        This is an update on the Rakiura Future Opportunities Project. A future focused strategic development and planning project for Stewart Island/Rakiura so that the island in partnership with local, regional and central government, iwi and other strategic partners, can proactively plan its future.

Executive Summary

2        A funding application was originally made to MBIE to engage a project manager to lead future focused strategic development and planning on Stewart Island/Rakiura. The application was for $835,000.

3        MBIE offered a one off allocation of $100,000 with a requirement for co-funding by Council of 10% ($10,000) and a revised scope.

4        Southland District Council engaged Sandra James (Connecting People Ltd) to deliver the outcomes as agreed with MBIE.

5        A community meeting was held on the island on 11 September 2019 to launch the project. Several stakeholders (DOC, Great South, SDC, Stewart Island Promotions, Commerce South, Environment Southland and Predator Free Rakiura) presented on what they are doing on the island and what is planned in the future. The meeting, attended by over 70 residents gave an opportunity to ask questions, and give feedback.

6        The Future Leaders Development Programme was designed to build leadership capacity and capability on the island.  This was co-created in collaboration with Commerce South, who facilitated the program.

7        In November 2019, eleven of the sixteen graduates formed a group, Future Rakiura, who are collaborating with other groups and organisations on the island to develop the plan. The group also includes five “community champions” (identified and respected leaders on the island).

8        Future Rakiura developed a six-month programme of work to move the group towards having a robust structure, good engagement with the community and a future opportunities plan.

9        The original strategic plan had five goals, however this has now been modified to three to ensure a strategic focus is kept and the groups are manageable and sustainable with a small and busy population, and the logistical reality of getting strategic partners to the island.

10      A Hangi was held on Waitangi Day as the ‘official’ launch event for Future Rakiura.  Very good feedback was received from the wider community about the event with wide support for Future Rakiura’s kaupapa.   The event met Future Rakiura’s goal of bringing the community together to connect and build stronger relationships.

11      A community meeting to promote better communication and connectedness on the island was planned for March 26.  This was an opportunity to update the community on progress and plans and other key stakeholders had been invited to do the same. 

12      Unfortunately the meeting was cancelled due to the Covid-19 lockdown.

13      While Future Rakiura has made very good progress since it formed in November, it would have still been ‘forming’ when the MBIE contract was due to finish at the end of June. This would leave the group vulnerable to ‘finding their way’ and perhaps failing.  

14      It was therefore agreed with MBIE that, due to Covid-19, the timeframe for delivery would be extended to August (or possibly September). This will be dependent on when “gatherings” are able to start again. MBIE also agreed with our recommendation that the plan may look different to what was originally agreed as outcomes.

15      Sandra James continued to work with Future Rakiura during lockdown (by Zoom) and a “Road Map” for going forward was developed. The road map sets out the strategic priorities and an action plan for Future Rakiura.

 

Recommendation

That the Community and Strategy Committee:

a)            Receives the report titled “Stewart Island/Rakiura Future Opportunities Project Update” dated 25 May 2020.

 

b)           Determines that this matter or decision be recognised as not significant in terms of Section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002.

 

c)            Determines that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and in accordance with Section 79 of the act determines that it does not require further information, further assessment of options or further analysis of costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision on this matter.

 

 

Background

16      The Stewart Island/Rakiura Community Planning Report, completed by Sandra James in March 2018 identified four key priorities for the island: Sustainable affordable electricity, Predator Free Rakiura and wharves and strategic leadership. These priorities were discussed with the community, community board, jetties subcommittee, Predator Free Rakiura representatives and were endorsed by Council.

17      An application was subsequently made to Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) to engage a project manager to lead future focused strategic development and planning for Stewart Island/Rakiura. The application was for $835,000.

18      In December 2018, MBIE advised that the original application had been unsuccessful, for the total funding applied for, however has approved a one off allocation of $100,000 with a requirement of co-funding by Council of $10,000 which resulted in a revised project scope.

19      Southland District Council engaged Sandra James (Connecting People Ltd) to deliver the outcomes as agreed with MBIE.

20      A community meeting was held on the island on 11 September 2019 to launch the project. The meeting involved stakeholders (DOC, Great South, SDC, Stewart Island Promotions, Commerce South, Environment Southland and Predator Free Rakiura) giving an update on what they are doing on the island and what is planned in the future. The meeting was attended by over 70 residents and they had an opportunity to ask questions. It was noted that the community were supportive and positive about the project.

21      The Future Leaders Development Program was designed to build leadership capacity and capability on the island.  This was co-created in collaboration with Commerce South, who facilitated the program. There were 25 applications received for the 16 available places.

22      In November 2019, 11 of the 16 graduates formed a group, Future Rakiura, who are collaborating with other groups and organisations on the island to develop the plan.

23      Future Rakiura also includes five “community champions” (identified and respected leaders on the island).

24      Future Rakiura developed a six-month programme of work to move the group towards having a robust structure, good engagement with the community and a Future Opportunities plan.

25      Since November they have

·     developed a vision – ensuring a bright, sustainable future

·     and their purpose – to connect and support the Stewart Idland/Rakiura community to navigate towards our sustainable future

·     identified their values

–     kaitiakitanga -guardianship and protection

–     manaakitanga – leading with moral purpose

–     humility, resilience, self-determination, integrity

–     honesty, openness, transparency, inclusiveness

26  The original strategic plan had five goals, however as with any new community project/group initial plans and aspirations change as the group develops. The goals have now been modified to three to ensure a strategic focus is kept and the groups are manageable and sustainable with a small and busy population, and the logistical reality of getting strategic partners to the island.

27  The three goals are:

Development

Working together for managed growth and a sustainable future

Community

Strengthening community connectedness, cohesion and communication

Governance

Continuing to develop Future Rakiura as an effective organisation

28  Sub-groups were formed from the stewardship group to form the three working parties.  

29  A Hangi was held on Waitangi Day as the ‘official’ launch event for Future Rakiura.  They prepared approximately 280 meals and had a very large turnout despite bad weather.  The group outlined Future Rakiura’s purpose and objectives for the future.  Very good feedback was received from the wider community about the event with wide support for Future Rakiura’s kaupapa.   The event met Future Rakiura’s goal of bringing the community together to connect and build stronger relationships.

30  A Community meeting to promote better communication and connectedness on the island was planned for March 26.  This was an opportunity to update the community on progress and plans and other key stakeholders had been invited to do the same.  The speakers invited were:

·     Future Rakiura

·     Stewart Island Community Board

·     Rakiura Maori Lands Trust

·     Rakiura Marine Guardians

·     Great South

·     Ngai Tahu Fisheries Ltd

31      Unfortunately the meeting was cancelled due to the Covid-19 lockdown.

32      While Future Rakiura has made very good progress since it formed in November, it would have still been ‘forming’ when the MBIE contract was due to finish at the end of June. This would leave the group vulnerable to ‘finding their way’ and perhaps failing.  Lack of support and resources have been a contributing factor on two past occasions with work like this on Stewart Island/Rakiura. 

33      This type of work requires recognition and a commitment that these types of processes take time and ongoing support. This is a major risk for the long-term success of the project.

34      Subsequently, it became obvious that the timeframe for delivery of this project would not be achievable.

35      It was agreed with MBIE that, due to Covid-19 that the timeframe for delivery would be extended to August (or possibly September). This will be dependent on when “gatherings” are able to start again. MBIE also agreed with our recommendation that the plan may look different to what was originally agreed as outcomes.

36      Sandra James continued to work with Future Rakiura during lockdown (by Zoom) and a “Road Map” for going forward was developed. The road map sets out the Strategic priorities and an action plan for Future Rakiura.

 

 

Attachments

a             Future Rakiura Roadmap March - July 2020    

 


Community and Strategy Committee

10 June 2020

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Community and Strategy Committee

10 June 2020

 

Chairperson's Report

Record No:             R/20/6/12992

Author:                      Alyson Hamilton, Committee Advisor

Approved by:         Rex Capil, Group Manager Community and Futures

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

 

Purpose of Report

The purpose of the report is to provide an update to the Community and Strategy Committee on activities of the chairperson for April through May 2020.

 

Kia ora and welcome to the Community and Strategy Committee meeting.

Items of interest that I have been involved are as follows:

·    viewing of webinar “Immigration New Zealand / Ethnic Affairs” discussion was held on immigration status of various visa holders and migrants

·    weekly catch-up held via Zoom with Councillor Duffy and community partnership leader Karen Purdue, community liaison officer Tina Harvey and Pam Yorke Chairperson, Waihopai Toetoe Community Board

·    attended the recent Waihopai Toetoe Community Board workshop held in Wyndham where staff from the Services and Assets department were in attendance to discuss the Activity Management Plan development for that board

·    attended Citizens Advice Bureau Southland meeting via Zoom.

 

 

Recommendation

That the Community and Strategy Committee:

a)            Receives the report titled “Chairperson's Report” dated 3 June 2020.

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.  

 


Community and Strategy Committee

10 June 2020

 

Community Initiatives Fund Application Summary and Financial Report

Record No:             R/20/5/12477

Author:                      Louise Pagan, Communications Manager

Approved by:         Rex Capil, Group Manager Community and Futures

 

  Decision                                       Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

 

Purpose

1        The purpose of this report is to give the committee a summary of the applications received for the Community Initiatives Fund, and staff recommendations for the amounts to be given, based on the criteria and amount available to be granted. Decisions on these applications are sought from the committee.

Executive Summary

2        The Southland District Council Community Initiatives Fund is available to groups and organisations to assist with a broad range of projects and initiatives in Southland. Each year there are two grant rounds – one that closes on 30 September and one on 31 March. However, the closing date was extended from March to May because of the Covid-19 pandemic lockdown.

3        This is the final round for the initiatives fund, with the change to the Community Partnership Fund happening on 1 July 2020.

4        Twenty four applications have been received for the current funding round and funding available for distribution is $80,966. Staff have recommended amounts totalling $74,122 for 23 of the applications, and are asking for discussion on one application.

5        A financial report to 30 April 2020 is also contained in the report for review and approval.


 

Community Initiatives Fund Application Summary - May 2020

Total amount requested:     $100,732

Total to distribute:               $80,996 (TBC)

 

1

Central Southland Senior Citizens

 

Request assistance towards replacing the zip at the Senior Citizens rooms in Winton.

 

Total Project Cost         $1,456

 

 

 

Amount Requested        $1,200

Recommendation

$1,200

 

2

Mossburn Community Pool Inc.

 

Request assistance towards costs associated with resurfacing and painting of the pool, installation of anti-slip surface around the pool, installation of timing switches in the showers and painting of the storeroom.

 

Total Project Cost         $72,889

 

 

 

Amount Requested        $7,500

Recommendation

$5,500

 

3

Marakura Yacht Club Inc.

 

Request assistance towards costs associated with improving the water heating facilities at the Yacht Club in the kitchen and changing rooms. The current water heaters are old and outdated, new ones will be more efficient, will reduce power costs, and will improve the user experience.

 

Total Project Cost         $7,031

 

 

 

Amount Requested        $5,531

Recommendation

$3,500

 

4

Thornbury Vintage Tractor & Implement Club Inc.

 

Request assistance towards the costs associated with replacing smoke tubes and certification of a historic 1910 Garret Steam Engine. This will allow the club to have the engine as a working operational part of their display rather than just a static piece, which is always attractive to visitors.

 

Total Project Cost         $4,969

 

 

 

Amount Requested        $2,500

Recommendation

$2,500

 

5

Mossburn Golf Club Inc.

 

Request assistance towards the cost of a new fairway mower. Their current one is no longer usable.

 

Total Project Cost         $35,000

 

 

 

Amount Requested        $10,000

Recommendation

$5,000

 

 

6

Northern Southland Community Resource Centre Charitable Trust

 

Request funding assistance towards various community programmes, activities and events such as a holiday programme, babysitting courses for youth, parenting courses, guest speakers, Cycle & Celebrate event, Seniors Café and the Community Garden.

 

Total Project Cost         $8,519

 

 

 

Amount Requested        $2,605

Recommendation

$2,605

 

 

7

 Stewart Island Pavilion Trust

 

Request assistance with costs to purchase and install a dishwasher at the Pavilion which is used frequently for meetings and functions.

 

Total Project Cost         $2,000

 

 

 

Amount Requested        $1,000

Recommendation

$1,000

 

 

8

Catlins Coast Inc.

 

Request assistance with costs to replace information panels at the Stirling Hill Kiosk. Due to extreme weather and vandalism they require replacing (originally installed 2013). The new panels will be more robust than originals.

 

Total Project Cost         $973

 

 

 

Amount Requested        $850

Recommendation

$850

 

 

9

 Stewart Island Lions Inc.

 

Request funding assistance towards a BBQ facility (coin operated) at Butterfields Beach development, which is proposed to also include a shelter and playground items. The total project cost below is for the BBQ and installation only.

 

Total Project Cost         $11,447

 

 

 

Amount Requested        $5,000

Recommendation

$5,000

 

 

10

 Dipton Community Baths Trust

 

Request funding assistance towards a robotic pool cleaner. Their current equipment no longer functions properly and it is essential for cleaning debris from the bottom of the pool.

 

Total Project Cost         $2,589

 

 

 

Amount Requested        $750

Recommendation

$750

 

 

 

11

 Southern Reap Inc.

 

Request funding support for delivering community mentoring driver licensing programme “Drive My Life” to vulnerable members of the Fiordland community. A pilot programme for 10 learners in Te Anau is planned for September 2020.

Not having a driver’s licence is often a barrier to education and employment for vulnerable members of the community.

 

Total Project Cost         $5,298

 

 

 

Amount Requested        $3,000

Recommendation

$3,000

 

12

 Central Southland Gun Club

 

Request funding assistance towards a new floor in the clubrooms. The current flooring is 36 years old, is cracked and stained and needs replacing.

 

Total Project Cost         $5,596

 

 

 

Amount Requested        $2,500

Recommendation

$2,500

 

13

 Toi Rakiura Arts Trust

 

Request assistance towards costs to put on a play for Stewart Island – The Daylight Atheist by Roger Hall. These costs are for hall hire, liquor license, platters, accommodation and AOTNZ fees.

 

Total Project Cost         $2,263

 

 

 

Amount Requested        $1,263

Recommendation

$1,263

 

14

 Hedgehope-Glencoe Community Centre

 

Request assistance towards the purchase and installation of two heat pumps for the community centre. The current system is a diesel burner which is creating a lot of fumes. The centre is the Civil Defence hub for the area.

 

Total Project Cost         $9,338

 

 

 

Amount Requested        $1,500

Recommendation

$1,500

 

15

 Wyndham & Districts Historical Society

 

Request assistance towards the cost of a conservators report. They are in the process of applying for funding to build a new museum. This report is required for funding applications and will detail our collection in terms of scope and value to future generations. It will also compare the present museum with the future modern museum we hope to build. It will complement the feasibility study also being done and will aid in explaining why the museum is beneficial to the Southland Story and our unique local collection.

 

Total Project Cost         $2,875

 

 

 

Amount Requested        $2,875

Recommendation

$2,500

 

16

 Waihopai Toetoe Community Board

 

Request assistance towards restoration work to the Menzies Memorial Archway in Wyndham. A condition assessment and structural assessment have already been completed. The archway is structurally sound and is significant from a heritage perspective as it is one of only three types of this particular archway in New Zealand.

Restoration work includes cleaning, repointing, fixing cracks and plasterwork etc.

 

Total Project Cost         $24,974

 

 

 

Amount Requested        $4,000

Recommendation

$4,000

 

17

 The Stewart Island Promotion Association Inc.

 

Request assistance with costs associated with the Rakiura Challenge Event (3 October 2020). This grant will assist with the hire costs of the Stewart Island Community Centre which is used as a race headquarters for the event, for competitor check in, briefing and meals and also the hire costs for the Stewart Island Pavilion which is used for marshal and communication briefings and the main control room on the day.

 

Total Project Cost         $101,755

 

 

 

Amount Requested        $3,285

Recommendation

$3,285

(subject to event going ahead)

 

18

 Waiau Rivercare Group Inc.

 

Request assistance towards signage in the Tuatapere and Waiau River lower catchment area. This signage will showcase the arts and local community stories and designs about our river. We hope to engage with our whakapapa by visually sharing what is special about our river and to showcase the proud kaitiakitanga of our river to the wider community.

 

Total Project Cost         $4,000

 

 

 

Amount Requested        $4,000

Recommendation

$2,500

 

19

 Fiordland Community Garden Charitable Trust

 

Request assistance towards costs associated with establishing a community garden in Te Anau. This includes costs for raised beds, a tunnel house and landscape design. We aim to also provide education/workshops about growing produce, sustainable living, spray free gardening methods, and preserving etc.

 

Total Project Cost         $5,500

 

 

 

Amount Requested        $5,000

Recommendation

$4,500

 

 

20

 Fiordland Community  Event Centre Trust (FCECT) and Fiordland Endurance and Adventure Racing Society (FEAR)

 

Request assistance towards costs associated with adding an indoor rock climbing gym to the Real Journeys Events Centre. Once completed, the facility will be the biggest in the Otago/Southland region and will be suitable for climbing competitions for secondary schools and also competitions at a national level. It will provide educational opportunities for LSAR groups and a training base for local and visiting climbers.

The number of people interested in climbing is continuing to grow in our area, particularly from Fiordland College with at least 30 students regularly climbing.

 

Total Project Cost         $415,805

 

 

 

Amount Requested        $15,000

Recommendation

$10,000

 

21

 Edendale Rugby Club

 

Request assistance towards a new archgola structure to be erected above their new deck at the clubrooms.

 

Total Project Cost         $12,069

 

 

 

Amount Requested        $2,069

Recommendation

$2,069

 

22

 South Catlins Charitable Trust 

 

Request assistance towards costs associated with the extension of the Smith’s Bush (The Living Forest) Walking Track. The track is to be extended 1.5km, and will greatly improve the visitor experience at Curio Bay. The track is well used and with the extension will increase the walk from approximately 15 to 30 minutes.

 

Total Project Cost         $60,000

 

 

 

Amount Requested        $8,000

Recommendation

$8,000

 

23

Central Southland Community Swimming Pool Inc.

 

Request assistance towards the cost of a temporary boiler installed in November 2019.

 

Total Project Cost         $6,796

 

 

 

Amount Requested        $6,796

Recommendation

to discuss

 

24

Tuurama Trust

 

Request assistance towards the cost of art workshops to celebrate and educate the community about Matariki. There will be workshops in Wyndham, Otautau, Te Anau, Invercargill and Bluff.

 

Total Project Cost         $66,528

 

 

 

Amount Requested        $4,508

Recommendation

$1,100

 

The financial summary until 30 April 2020 is as follows:

 

Recommendation

That the Community and Strategy Committee:

a)            Receives the report titled “Community Initiatives Fund Application Summary and Financial Report” dated 3 June 2020.

 

b)           Determines that this matter or decision be recognised as not significant in terms of Section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002.

 

c)            Determines that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and in accordance with Section 79 of the act determines that it does not require further information, further assessment of options or further analysis of costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision on this matter.

 

d)           Approves the allocation of funds from the Community Initiatives Fund as follows:

 

1

Central Southland Senior Citizens

$1,200

2

Mossburn Community Pool Inc.

$5,500

3

Marakura Yacht Club Inc.

$3,500

4

Thornbury Vintage Tractor & Implement Club Inc.

$2,500

5

Mossburn Golf Club Inc.

$5,000

6

Northern Southland Community Resource Centre Charitable Trust

$2,605

7

Stewart Island Pavilion Trust

$1,000

8

Catlins Coast Inc.

$850

9

Stewart Island Lions Inc.

$5,000

10

Dipton Community Baths Trust

$750

11

Southern Reap Inc.

$3,000

12

Central Southland Gun Club

$2,500

13

Toi Rakiura Arts Trust

$1,263

14

Hedgehope-Glencoe Community Centre

$1,500

15

Wyndham & Districts Historical Society

$2,500

16

Waihopai Toetoe Community Board

$4,000

17

The Stewart Island Promotion Association Inc.

$3,285

18

Waiau Rivercare Group Inc.

$2,500

19

Fiordland Community Garden Charitable Trust

$4,500

20

Fiordland Community Event Centre Trust (FCECT) and Fiordland Endurance & Adventure Racing Society (FEAR)

$10,000

21

Edendale Rugby Club

$2,069

22

South Catlins Charitable Trust

$8,000

23

Central Southland Community Pool Inc.

Committee to discuss – asking for $6,796

24

Tuurama Trust

$1,100

 

e)            Approves the financial report to 30 April 2020 for the Community Initiatives Fund.

 

Background

6        The Communities Initiatives Fund supports:

-     the development of community facilities or amenities including community centres/halls, war memorials, local reserves and picnic areas, playgrounds, walkways and tracks, sports fields, swimming pools, changing room facilities,

-     sport and recreational opportunities;

-     community programmes, activities or events.

7        Assistance for other initiatives outside the above broad categories may be provided at the discretion of the committee.

8        The amount of funds available for distribution each year is $108,800.

Issues

9        All applicants have to meet the requirements of the fund criteria.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

10      The granting of this fund aligns with Council’s Community Assistance Policy.

Community Views

11      The amount of the fund is decided during the Long Term Plan/Annual Plan process and the community is consulted on any change. Advertising of fund application deadlines is carried out well in advance of those dates to enable people to apply.

Costs and Funding

12      The fund comes from rates every year.

Policy Implications

13      The application criteria and recommendations to this committee meets the requirements of Council’s Community Assistance Policy. This policy is due for review, which will happen in the next calendar year.

Analysis

Options Considered

14      The options are to either review and award grants to the applicants to assist with their various projects or to decline the applications.

Analysis of Options

Option 1 – Award grants

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        this would fulfil Council’s commitment to offer and award grants to groups and organisations to assist with various community projects and initiatives

·        Council is enabling community-led development by helping community groups and organisations do their own projects, rather than Council doing it for them.

·        Council will not fulfil its commitment to offer and award grants to eligible groups and organisations to assist with various community projects and initiatives.

 

Option 2 – Decline applications

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        there will be more money in the Community Initiatives Fund.

·        eligible groups and organisations may not be able to carry out their projects

·        Council is not meeting its commitment to help fund community projects and initiatives.

 

Assessment of Significance

15      Under Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy, this is not considered to be significant.

Recommended Option

16      Option 1 – to award grants to the applicants.

Next Steps

17      The applicants will be contacted to be advised of the outcome of their applications and payment of grants awarded will be arranged.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.  

 


Community and Strategy Committee

10 June 2020

 

Sport NZ Rural Travel Fund Application Summary and Financial Report

Record No:             R/20/5/12478

Author:                      Louise Pagan, Communications Manager

Approved by:         Rex Capil, Group Manager Community and Futures

 

  Decision                                       Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

 

Purpose

1        Southland District Council administers funding on behalf of the Sport New Zealand Rural Travel Fund. The purpose of this fund is to assist with transport expenses associated with participating in regular local competitions. Sports clubs and school-based clubs with young people between five and 19 years are eligible to apply.

Executive Summary

2        Six applications have been received for this round of funding, which closed on 15 May 2020 (the deadline was extended from 31 March due to the nationwide lockdown from Covid-19). The amount for distribution is $14,043. The total amount for distribution for the 2019/2020 year is $17,043 and $3,000 was given out in December.

3        This funding is provided with the proviso that competitions actually take place.

4        A summary of the six applications with recommendations for funding are as follows:

4    11

Fiordland Swimming Club

 

To help with the cost of getting club members to Invercargill for swim meets.

 

Km travelled: 1,800

Recommendation as per travel formula

$800

 

 

4    12

Aparima College

 

To assist with the cost of students travelling around the District for various sports competitions.

 

Km travelled: 10,000

Recommendation as per travel formula

$1,500

 

 

4    13

Northern Southland College

 

To assist with the cost of students travelling for regular competitions in football, volleyball, basketball and hockey.

 

Km travelled: 6,357

Recommendation as per travel formula

$1,200

 

4    14

Winton Football Club

 

To assist with the cost of club members travelling to Invercargill and Gore for regular competitions.

 

Km travelled: 5,912

Recommendation as per travel formula

$1,200

 

4    15

Winton Cricket Club

 

To assist with the cost of club members travelling around the District for regular competition.

 

Km travelled: 20,000

Recommendation as per travel formula

$1,500

 

4    16

Menzies Netball Club

 

To assist with the cost of getting students from the Wyndham and surrounding areas to Gore for competition.

 

Km travelled: 32,000

Recommendation as per travel formula

$1,500

 


 

5        The financial report for the fund up to 30 April 2020 is as follows:

 

Recommendation

That the Community and Strategy Committee:

a)            Receives the report titled “Sport NZ Rural Travel Fund Application Summary and Financial Report” dated 3 June 2020.

 

b)           Determines that this matter or decision be recognised as not significant in terms of Section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002.

 

c)            Determines that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and in accordance with Section 79 of the act determines that it does not require further information, further assessment of options or further analysis of costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision on this matter.

 

d)           Approves the allocation of funds for the Sport NZ Rural Travel Fund as follows:

 

1

Fiordland Swimming Club

$800

2

Aparima College

$1,500

3

Northern Southland College

$1,200

4

Winton Football Club

$1,200

5

Winton Cricket Club

$1,500

6

Menzies Netball Club

$1,500

 

e)            Approves the financial report up to 30 April 2020.

 

Background

6        Southland District Council has administered the rural travel fund on behalf of Sport New Zealand since 2012. The fund was launched by Sport NZ in response to concerns raised by councils about the lack of participations in sport by young people living in rural communities.

Issues

7        The applicants have met the requirements of the fund.

8        A travel formula based on the number of kilometres travelled has been applied to the applications.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

9        The fund is administered in accordance with the Sport NZ/Southland District Council investment schedule, including terms and conditions, for 2019/2020.

Community Views

10      The fund subsidies are appreciated by sports and school-based clubs within the District.

Costs and Funding

11      Grants are covered by the funding provided by Sport NZ.

Policy Implications

12      The process meets Sport NZ requirements.

Analysis

Options Considered

13      The options for consideration are to either award grants to the applicants to assist with travel costs or decline the applications.

Analysis of Options

Option 1 – Award grants to applicants

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        fulfil Southland District Council’s agreement to administer the Sport NZ rural travel fund on behalf of Sport NZ.

·        Southland District Council will not fulfil its obligation to administer the Sport NZ rural travel fund as per the investment schedule.

 

Option 2 – Not award grants to applicants

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        there are no advantages.

·        Southland District Council would not fulfil its obligation to administer the Sport NZ rural travel fund as per the investment schedule.

 

Assessment of Significance

14      Under Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy, this is not considered to be significant.

Recommended Option

15      Option 1 – award grants to applicants.

Next Steps

16      Applicants will be advised of the outcome of their application and payment of grants arranged.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.  

 


Community and Strategy Committee

10 June 2020

 

Sport NZ Community Resilience Fund

Record No:             R/20/5/12087

Author:                      Kathryn Cowie, Community Liaison Officer

Approved by:         Rex Capil, Group Manager Community and Futures

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

 

Purpose

1        The purpose of this report is to provide the Community and Strategy Committee with information regarding the Sport NZ Community Resilience Fund.

Executive Summary

2        The global Covid-19 pandemic has had an immediate and significant impact on the sport and recreation sector. In order to support local and regional sports organisations throughout the country to be able to continue to function in this difficult time, Sport NZ has recently announced the Community Resilience Fund, which is part of their overall financial support package to the sport and recreation sector as a result of Covid-19. The fund is aimed at providing immediate financial assistance to local sports clubs and regional organisations to allow them to remain financially viable during this immediate period of disruption (April – June).

3        The fund is administered by Regional Sports Trusts, Sport Southland being the administrator for Southland. To date Sport Southland have received 37 applications from both local clubs and regional organisations, with a total of $134,398.17 allocated.

4        All organisations have been extremely grateful for this support.

 

Recommendation

That the Community and Strategy Committee:

a)            Receives the report titled “Sport NZ Community Resilience Fund” dated 25 May 2020.

 

 

Overview of the Sport NZ Community Resilience Fund

5        Covid-19 and the subsequent nationwide lockdown has had a significant impact on the sport and recreation sector. With no competitions and no class 4 gaming funding revenue this has had an immediate and significant impact on the financial viability of sporting clubs and organisations throughout New Zealand. It is well documented that play, active recreation and sport, play a vital role in individual and community wellbeing, and it is important our local and regional sports organisations continue to be in a position to support the community as alert levels allow.

6        As part of their financial commitment in response to Covid-19, Sport NZ has implemented the Community Resilience Fund. This fund is aimed at immediately assisting local and regional sporting organisations to remain financially viable through the immediate period of disruption (April – June 2020) caused by the pandemic.

7        It is specifically targeted at organisations affiliated to Sport NZ partners and Māori organisations whose main purpose is the delivery of sport and recreation, which are experiencing short term financial hardship due to the impact of Covid-19.

8        Financial hardship means unable to pay bills for fixed administration costs incurred in the period April to June 2020, regardless of whether programmes are being delivered. These costs include utilities (phones, power), insurance, rates or rent, and audit fees.

9        The fund is not intended for organisations that already receive investment directly from Sport NZ, but for the regional and local organisations that form their networks. This is to help ensure that those organisations are able to continue delivering critical functions during the period of Covid-19 alert levels.

10      This fund provides additional financial help on top of other relief such as the Government Wage Subsidy, other sources of funding, and support from national bodies, for example:

11      The total amount of the Fund is $15,000,000. This has been allocated on a regional basis, and maximum application amounts have been set. The maximum amount that any one organisation can apply for depends on whether the organisation is local or regional. Each organisation may only submit one application.

12      For the purposes of this fund:

•    a local organisation is one whose members are individuals. It has no member organisations. It may itself be a direct member of the organisation listed on the National Partner List (attached), or of another organisation that is affiliated to an organisation listed there. Organisations at this level are generally known as clubs or associations

•    regional organisations are affiliates that sit between the national partner and local organisations. For NSOs, these are primarily RSOs and responsible for delivering regional competition structure, but may be known as zones, divisions, etc.

13      The limits that each type of organisation can apply for are:

•    maximum of $1,000 per local club / association

•    maximum of $40,000 per regional organisation.

How to apply

14      Regional Sports Trusts are administering the fund in their areas on behalf of Sport NZ – Sport Southland being the administrator for this region.

15      All information and application forms are on the Sport Southland website where they have a page dedicated specifically to the Community Resilience Fund (https://www.sportsouthland.co.nz/covid19-information-for-sports-1/sport-nz-community-resilience-fund).

16      Attached to this report is a copy of the FAQ document which should answer any questions organisations may have, and Sport Southland also encourage anyone to contact them directly with queries.

Southland response

So far Sport Southland have received 37 applications:

-     14 from Regional Sport Organisations

-     23 form local clubs (wide spread of codes, including Scouts, and from all over Southland)

 

At the time of writing this report:

-     35 applications have been approved = $134,398.17 allocated (this is 41% of the total CRF Sport Southland have been allocated as a region)

-     1 application is on hold waiting for more info

-     1 application has been declined

 

Organisation 

 Amount

 Albion Rugby Club Incorporated

 $1,000.00

 Bluff Rugby Club 

 $1,000.00

 Central Southland Gun Club 

 $336.77

 Central Southland Netball Centre

 $2,718.74

 Collegiate Rugby Football Club 

 $1,000.00

 Cycling Southland

 $11,287.00

 Eastern Southland Basketball Association

 $9,557.09

 Gore Croquet Club

 $585.00

 Gore Golf Club Inc

 $1,000.00

 Hockey Southland 

 $3,180.96

 Ice Sports Southland

 $1,000.00

 Invercargill Netball Centre

 $4,199.32

 Jellicoe Sea Scout Group 

 $1,000.00

 Marist Brothers Old Boys Rugby Football Club Invercargill (Incorporated)

 $1,000.00

 Mataura Rugby Football Club Inc

 $1,000.00

 Mataura Scout Group 

 $547.19

 Midland's Rugby Club

 $1,000.00

 Old Boys Association Football Club Incorporated 

 $1,000.00

 Pirates Old Boys Rugby club 

 $1,000.00

 Queens Park Association Football Club Inc 

 $1,000.00

 Rugby Southland

 $36,806.00

 Southland Basketball

 $2,371.49

 Southland Football Inc

 $16,591.00

 Southland Power Boat Club

 $1,000.00

 Southland Softball Association

 $3,621.23

 Star Rugby Football Club (Inc).

 $1,000.00

 Table Tennis Southland Inc 

 $3,087.00

 Tennis Southland 

 $2,248.00

 Waiau Squash Racquets club

 $870.00

 Waihopai Association Football Club

 $1,000.00

 Waikaka Squash Rackets Club Incorporated 

 $1,000.00

 Waverley Scout Group

 $1,000.00

 Woodlands Scout Group 

 $200.00

 

17      As an organisation, Sport Southland were under a lot of pressure to get the fund up and running at their end in less than a week, but have commented that they are lucky to have a great team and that everyone made an effort to ensure the information went out to the community as soon as Sport NZ made the official announcement.

18      They have received, processed and supported 37 applications in less than two weeks, which is a major undertaking but one that they believe is for a great cause. Most applicants have received their payment within two days of submitting their application.

19      They have also advised that the community response has been great. They have been working with RSOs and local councils to promote the information to local clubs and have dedicated staff available to support organisations with their applications. They have also facilitated two drop in Zoom sessions to answer any questions organisations have had, and are planning on running one more, as well as exploring different channels to reach more local organisations.

20      Sport Southland also commented that all funding recipients have been very appreciative and grateful to receive support over this tough times. They are also pleased that Southland District Council are engaged and interested in what is happening in this sector.

 

Attachments

a             CRF - FAQ sheet

b             National partner list    

 


Community and Strategy Committee

10 June 2020

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Community and Strategy Committee

10 June 2020

 


Community and Strategy Committee

10 June 2020

 

Research and Analysis - COVID-19 Projects Presentation

Record No:             R/20/5/11616

Author:                      Michelle Stevenson, Strategy and Policy Manager

Approved by:         Rex Capil, Group Manager Community and Futures

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                 Information

 

 

 

Purpose

1        This report presents to the Community and Strategy Committee (the committee) the COVID-19 projects undertaken throughout April and May 2020 by Council’s strategy and policy team.

Executive Summary

2        COVID-19 is a global pandemic, and while some short-term impacts are becoming apparent, the medium-long term global, national, regional and local impacts of COVID-19 are largely still unknown and evolving as time passes.

3        At 11.59pm on Wednesday 25 March New Zealand entered a level 4 lockdown period, whereby only essential and critical to life services remained operational.  Prior to this, New Zealand closed its borders to all non-residents.  The intention, to eliminate COVID-19 from New Zealand and to avoid the devastating repercussions seen across the globe.  At the time of writing, New Zealand is in alert level two.

4        As a result, there is expected significant and long term social, health and economic impacts for the country.  Southland, with widespread enterprise in tourism, agriculture and farming, reliance on international visitors, workers and markets, will not be immune to these impacts.  This will include, but not be limited to, an increase in unemployment and widespread economic and social disruption anticipated for some time. 

5        Throughout the period of Level four and three lockdowns, staff have completed a number of work streams to better understand the likely impacts of COVID-19 on Southland communities, and what Council’s role may be in varying scenarios. This ranges from consideration of Council’s best role being to do nothing, enable, facilitate, influence and/or lead.

6        There are three projects to be presented to the Committee and include:

·    lessons learned from previous significant events

·    reassessment of the draft significant forecasting assumptions to inform the long term plan 2021-2031

·    a district wellbeing scan

7        At the meeting 6 May 2020, the committee endorsed the projects presented in this report, to inform discussions on the COVID-19 impacts for Southland and Council and requested that staff maintain a watching brief as global, national, regional and local implications emerge.

8        Staff recommend that the committee receive the information attached to this report and provide any feedback.  

 

Recommendation

That the Community and Strategy Committee:

a)            Receives the report titled “Research and Analysis - COVID-19 Projects Presentation” dated 3 June 2020.

 

b)           Determines that this matter or decision be recognised as not significant in terms of Section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002.

 

c)            Determines that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and in accordance with Section 79 of the act determines that it does not require further information, further assessment of options or further analysis of costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision on this matter.

 

d)           Recommends to Council the amended draft significant forecasting assumptions that inform planning for the long term plan 2021-2031 be endorsed.

 

 

Background

9        On 11 March 2020, the World Health Organisation (WHO) declared COVID-19 as a global pandemic. On Monday 23 March the New Zealand alert level was raised to level 3 and it was declared that the alert level would rise to level 4 by 11.59pm on Wednesday 25 March.  Prior to this, New Zealand closed its borders to all non-residents.  This meant that the nation went into lockdown for at least four weeks with only essential services running and the majority of New Zealanders staying inside their houses to help reduce the spread of COVID-19

10      New Zealand, as at the time of writing this report, is at level 2 with lessening restrictions as the country continues to have little to no active COVID-19 cases.  

11      As a result of this global pandemic the flow-on social, health and economic effects of the pandemic will be significant and of some duration, and many of these medium to long term impacts still largely unknown.  Southland has extensive enterprise in tourism, agriculture and farming, and with a reliance on international visitors, workers and markets, will not be immune.  There will be widespread impacts within our communities, including but not limited to, an increase in unemployment and widespread economic and social disruption anticipated for some time. 

12      Council has an important role to play in leading and facilitating discussions around social, community and economic recovery/restart, and ensuring that services under the purpose of Local Government are maintained.  This will require analysis and discussion of the services and levels of service that Council provides, how we prioritise existing and future work streams to ensure the needs of communities are met, now and into the future. 

13      To this end, the Group Manager Community and Futures reprioritised the work of the strategy and policy team during the level 4 lockdown period to immediately focus on projects to better understand the impacts of COVID-19 for Southland and for Council.

Issues

14      This is a global pandemic and the medium-long term global, national, regional and local impacts of COVID-19 are largely still unknown and in a constant state of change.  

15      Strategy and policy staff refocused their work to undertake COVID-19 specific priority work. The project briefs for this work were developed by the Group Manager Community and Futures and included a focus on preparing a district wellbeing scan, re-analysis of the draft significant forecasting assumptions, and what lessons can be learned from previous crises.

16      Staff have based their work on a significant amount of literature sourced from around the globe, and have also taken local and district context and information into consideration.  Work undertaken is a snapshot in time, and undertaken by staff throughout lockdown, and in a short timeframe that may have otherwise not been considered in ‘usual’ working circumstances.

17      There are three presentations that will be made to the committee as part of this report.  They include:

·    lessons from previous events

·    draft significant forecasting assumptions – review

·    district wellbeing scan

Lessons from previous events

18      The outbreak of the current coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic is resulting in significant and evolving socioeconomic change to the environment Council is operating in.

19      The report focuses on the learnings that can be made from previous events that have impacted globally and nationally, and identifies trends that may help Council better prepare for the recovery/restart phase for COVID-19 impacts.  It is intended that the trends identified will help shape the principles used to drive the recovery/restart process, recognizing Council’s key role in providing leadership and promoting the social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being for the community in what will be a changed environment.

20      Over the last century the world has had to contend with many global challenges – pandemics, recession, natural disasters and war. In addition to global events, New Zealand, since 2008 alone, has experienced a city-levelling earthquake in Christchurch, major drought, and a further earthquake which severed New Zealand’s major transport route and caused widespread damage to the township of Kaikoura. 

21      While the world has faced challenge before, none has led to the long-term disruption that COVID-19 has already, and is anticipated will continue for a number of years to come. The speed and potential depth of economic decline caused by such an unpredictable health crisis has created unprecedented scientific and socioeconomic uncertainty about how people and governments will behave in the coming months.

 

Draft significant forecasting assumptions - reviews

22      This report focuses on the draft significant forecasting assumptions endorsed by Council in December 2019 and how those assumptions may or may not have changed due to the ongoing impacts of COVID-19 on our District based on available literature and information.

23      The review considers the impact of COVID-19 on the short-term response as part of the recovery and restart phases. As Council continues to assess impacts in the short term, and options on how best to navigate the next 3-4 year period in particular, it is important to recognise the draft significant forecasting assumptions work is developed as part of the long term plan process and how these assumptions may impact the District over the next 10 years.

Wellbeing scan

24      The wellbeing scan looks at what changes to expect in the future internal and external operating environment for Council. There is a specific focus on what the District will be like during and after the COVID-19 pandemic, and how Council could lead, facilitate and support its communities at this time.

25      The purpose of local government, as set out in the Local Government Act 2002, includes reference to the role of local authorities in promoting the social, economic, environmental and cultural wellbeing of their communities. Therefore, the wellbeing scan has been grouped under each of the wellbeing’s - social, cultural, economic and environmental.

26      The scan has assisted in informing the assumptions work for Council’s long term plan 2021-2031. This work may also lead to discussions on the tools Council has available to influence the direction the community is taking, to promote social, economic, environmental and cultural wellbeing.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

27      There are no legal or statutory requirements to be considered in this report.

28      It is important to note that the research and analysis work being undertaken may be used to inform future discussions and decision making around the long term plan 2021-2031 and 2024-2034, which is a statutory requirement of Council. 

Community Views

29      No specific community views have been sought in relation to this report.

30      The strategy and policy team staff have researched widely articles and literature from around the globe to inform their thinking in relation to COVID-19 and the possible implications for Southland in these early stages.  The literature views sourced have been extensive to ensure that a balanced view point is provided, and from as many key themes and topics as possible in the short space of time.

31      Where appropriate the authors have spoken with relevant staff to incorporate Southland specific context.

Costs and Funding

32      All costs associated with this work are met within existing budgets.  There are no additional costs expected.

Policy Implications

33      There are no specific policy implications with this work.

34      As noted above, this work may be used to inform future discussions and decision making relating to the long term planning process, and could therefore have influence around future policy decisions.

Analysis

Options Considered

35      There are two options to consider in this report:

Option 1 – receive the information provided and confirm staff maintain a watching brief of any significant emerging issues

Option 2 – request staff undertake further work on any or all of the workstreams presented with this report

Analysis of Options

Option 1 – receive the information provided and confirm staff maintain a watching brief of any significant emerging issues

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        the research and analysis undertaken to date is a snap shot in time and can be used to inform discussions around the current significant forecasting assumptions for the long term plan.  These assumptions provide guidance for the development of activity management plans

·        the analysis will help guide conversations around work prioritisation and the rationale for reconsidering levels of service and currently scheduled work plans

·        work can get underway to inform discussions around Councils options to act, in light of likely and already evident COVID-19 impacts

·        Council can utilise the analysis to share with stakeholders and neighbouring councils to better inform a District and regional response as required

·        the analysis is a snap shot in time and in a rapidly changing environment may be outdated or ill-informed without in-depth and on-going analysis being undertaken

·        Council may not be positioned to respond quickly to changing situations if analysis of likely COVID-19 impacts changes significantly

·        acknowledges that BAU work for the strategy and policy team will be compromised as and when further COVID-19 analysis work is required

 


 

Option 2 – request staff undertake further work on any or all of the workstreams presented with this report

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        greater understanding of any COVID-19 specific impacts may be realised

·        Council may be positioned to respond with haste where able, if more in-depth analysis and understanding is undertaken

·        Council would maintain a heightened understanding of COVID-19 specific impacts for the District and be well positioned to inform and influence stakeholders

·        global, national, regional and local impacts of COVID-19 are largely still unknown and in a constant state of flux.  On-going work at this early stage could be a poor use of resource in the larger picture

·        business as usual (BAU) work will be compromised if current resource is utilised to further this work

 

 

Assessment of Significance

36      The work at this stage is not considered significant in relation to Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

37      If actions as a result of the analysis progresses however, the significance of this will increase.  The cumulative impact of matters relating to COVID-19 will mean that there is a greater degree of importance and likely consequences for the following, as determined in Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy (2017):

·     the current and future social, economic, environmental or cultural wellbeing of the District or region;

·     people who are likely to be particularly affected by or interested in, the issue, proposal decision or matter; and

·     the capacity of Council to performs its role, and the financial and other costs of doing so.

 

38      Staff view that the project work presented is not of a current nature or significance that requires consultation.

Recommended Option

39      Staff recommend option 1, to receive the information provided and confirm staff maintain a watching brief of any significant emerging issues

Next Steps

40      If the committee supports the recommended option, staff will return in full capacity to their scheduled work programme and maintain a watching brief of any significant issues arising as a result of the global pandemic, and potential implications for the District.  Staff will take guidance from the chief executive for any further work identified in this space.

41      If option two is preferred, staff will work with the group manager community and futures to reprioritise existing work plans.

42      If the committee recommends that Council endorse the amended significant forecasting assumptions, a report will be presented to Council at the 22 July meeting.

 

Attachments

a             Recovery - lessons from previous crises

b             Wellbeing scan 2020

c             Significant Forecasting Assumptions Review - Covid-19

d            Draft Significant Forecasting Assumptions. 27.01.2020    

 


Community and Strategy Committee

10 June 2020

 

Recovery – lessons from previous crises

 Author: Jane Edwards

Purpose

The purpose of this report is to critically review literature on past crises in order to better identify and understand trends that can be used to prepare for the recovery phase as a result of the current coronavirus pandemic

Executive summary

[This report has involved a rapid assessment of the information and analytics available through to 6 May 2020 as the coronavirus pandemic continues to unfold.]

 

The outbreak of the current coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic is resulting in significant and evolving socioeconomic change to the environment Southland District Council (Council) is operating in. It is vital that Council develops an understanding of what these changes will entail for the District currently and going forward.

 

This report focuses on the learnings that can be made from previous events that have impacted globally and nationally, and identifies trends that may help Council better prepare for the recovery phase for COVID-19 impacts.  It is proposed that the trends identified will help shape the principles used to drive the recovery/restart process, recognizing Council’s key role in providing leadership and promoting the social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being for the community in what will be a changed environment.

 

Over the last century the world has had to contend with many global challenges – pandemics, recession, natural disasters and war. In addition to global events, New Zealand, since 2008 alone, has experienced a city-levelling earthquake in Christchurch, major drought, and a further earthquake which severed New Zealand’s major transport route and caused widespread damage to the township of Kaikoura[1]

 

While the world has faced challenge before, none has led to the long-term disruption that COVID-19 has already, and will continue to inflict. The crisis currently faced has happened so quickly and with such breadth that its impact has been likened to an asteroid hitting earth[2]. The speed and potential depth of economic decline caused by such an unpredictable medical crisis has created unprecedented scientific and socioeconomic uncertainty about how people and governments will behave in the coming months[3].

 

While there are many unknowns ahead - what will happen to the economy, and what this all means for jobs, businesses and people - what is clear is that the world is heading for recession, or worse, depression[4].  The challenge now is to make it short-lived.

 

At the time of writing, the focus locally, nationally and globally is on response and mitigation as the world remains in some form of lockdown to contain the spread of the virus. In time, however, there will be a gradual shift in focus to a recovery and restart/reactivation phase.

 

In preparing for this next phase, there is value in analyzing historic events in comparison to this pandemic. By reexamining past crises that have had effect on a national and global level, and providing historic context, there is the potential to both learn from past mistakes and also to try and replicate measures that have succeeded.

 

Analysis has been given to both how other recovery efforts from crisis have been managed and also the repercussions, both immediate and long term, in social, economic, and political terms. This report examines the pandemic response to the Spanish flu, SARS and Swine flu, plus the economic effects of the Great Depression and the global financial crisis. The impacts of other ‘meteor’ events such as the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the United States and the Canterbury earthquakes are also examined.

 

In summary, key lessons learned from these past crises are that:

 

·    there is no one ‘rule book’ to follow for any one crisis and what has worked in the past will not have the necessary agility or flexibility for the dynamic adaptation that will be required for COVID-19. 

·    recovery will be a long-term and potentially painful process. In order for this to take place successfully, the community must be on board – this will require effective communication and governance in order to gain trust and the willingness to comply with whatever measures are required.

·    the impact of the pandemic has been broad and all-encompassing and consequently the recovery must be viewed as broad and all-encompassing also. To keep the community at the heart of recovery planning, the social and economic contexts will be equally, if not more, important as the financial context going forward. Therefore, it will require a collaborative effort to draw upon the combined strengths of the District in order to be successful.

Background

In December 2019, an outbreak of a new coronavirus disease now called COVID-19 (sometimes called novel coronavirus or 2019-nCoV) was discovered[5]. Coronaviruses are a large and diverse family of viruses which cause illnesses such as the common cold. The most recent diseases caused by coronaviruses include severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)[6]. COVID-19 was first reported in Wuhan City, Hubei Province, China.  A live animal market in Wuhan City is suspected as the original source of the outbreak[7].

 

Like the flu, COVID-19 can be transmitted from person to person, usually because of contact with people with the virus who have symptoms. Covid-19 is not as contagious as measles and not as likely to kill an infected person as Ebola, but people can start shedding the virus several days in advance of symptoms. As a result, asymptomatic people can transmit the infection before they know to self-isolate or take other measures. For most people, infection will cause mild illness however, it can make some people very ill and, in some people, it can be fatal. Older people, and those with pre-existing medical conditions are at risk for severe disease[8].

 

On 11 March 2020, the World Health Organisation (WHO) declared COVID-19 as a global pandemic[9]. New Zealand implemented an alert system with levels increasing from one to four. On 23 March 2020, the alert level was raised to three and it was declared that the alert level would rise to four at 11.59pm on 25 March 2020. This resulted in the nation going into lockdown for four weeks with only essential services operating and the majority of New Zealanders staying inside their houses to help reduce the spread of Covid-19.

 

Level four ended at 11.59pm on 27 April 2020 and New Zealand continued lockdown under level three for a further two weeks ending on 13 May 2020. The country will continue at level two for the foreseeable future[10]. While the lockdown phases so far appear to have succeeded in containing the spread of the virus within New Zealand’s borders, containment in many other countries has failed.  The virus has spread, invisibly and uncontrolled in many developed countries as well as in developing countries with little public-health infrastructure[11]. This has long term implications for New Zealand as the threat of reinfection will continue until other countries also manage to get the virus under control.

 

At the time of writing (12 May 2020), 212 countries and territories around the world have reported a total of over 4.26 million cases of COVID-19, and over 208,000 deaths[12]. While New Zealand’s overall infection numbers and fatalities have been low in comparison to many other countries, the Southern District Health Board (SDHB) has fared disproportionately compared the rest of New Zealand.  The SDHB (which includes Southland, Queenstown Lakes, Clutha, Waitaki and Otago) has recorded the second highest number of cases in New Zealand (216 cases and 2 deaths[13]) with a cluster from a Southland wedding (which at time of writing, remains the country’s largest cluster) contributing to the high figure[14].

 

In economic terms, COVID-19 has done to the global economy in a month what the global financial crisis (GFC) took two years to do[15]. Not one nation or another, not one economy or another, the coronavirus has hit households, businesses, financial institutions, and markets all at the same time—first in China and now globally. Italy, the Eurozone’s third biggest economy, become the first Western developed nation to idle most of its economy, stating “we are entering a war economy”[16]. The rest of world has largely followed suit with most of the globe currently in stages of lockdown to contain the spread of the virus.

 

While information and analytics are changing constantly as the pandemic evolves, the United Nations (UN) estimates that as many as 25 million jobs could be lost in the economic upheaval[17]. As more countries fall ill to the effects of the virus, the UN estimates global economic losses of up to US$2 trillion[18]. Here in New Zealand, the Treasury has warned that unemployment could hit ‘double digits[19]’; economic activity is forecast to have declined by a third during the four-week level four lockdown[20]; and the gross domestic product (GDP) is estimated to drop by up to 10%[21].

 

Like a war, there is continued uncertainty about the duration and intensity of the crisis. Consumer confidence has fallen in New Zealand and while a short rebound may occur as the lockdown eases, it is likely to be some time before the economy readjusts to a ‘new normal’[22]. Despite this, there is a sense of nervous calm in financial markets that the unprecedented policy support from central government will stave off more serious outcomes for the New Zealand economy.

PANDEMIC

Outbreaks of disease are not new; in the twentieth century four global outbreaks occurred (Spanish flu 1917, Asian flu 1957, Hong Kong flu 1968, and HIV 1981+). The twenty first century has already brought four outbreaks in its first two decades (SARS 2002, Swine flu 2009, MERS 2012 and Ebola 2013 +).  While each experience helps prepare for the next, each major outbreak is different and experts can have difficulty anticipating the response preparations required for future outbreaks.

 

This report looks at three pandemics: the Spanish flu which caused the highest number of known influenza deaths in one global event; SARS, which was the world’s first experience of a coronavirus; and Swine flu, which was New Zealand’s most recent experience of a pandemic within its borders. Ebola is also considered briefly – it has not figured prominently within New Zealand however has factors worth considering in terms of COVID-19 impact. 

Spanish flu

Summary globally and locally

The 1918 influenza pandemic was the most lethal pandemic in recent history. It was caused by an H1N1 virus with genes of avian origin[23] and although there is not universal consensus regarding where the virus originated, it spread worldwide during 1918-1919. It is estimated that about 500 million people, or one-third of the world’s population, became infected with the virus[24]. The number of deaths was estimated to be at least 50 million worldwide[25]. No other event has claimed so many lives in such a short time.

 

New Zealand’s remoteness, as now, meant that the Spanish flu arrived later here than it had elsewhere in the world. By keeping minor cases separate and limiting peoples’ movement, New Zealand hoped that the disease would burn itself out quickly. Basic social distancing measures and travel restrictions helped to contain the outbreak in some isolated areas, while in more urban areas, many towns and cities closed or restricted opening hours for public facilities and businesses, and cancelled or postponed public events or gatherings. Despite these efforts, in a six week period between October and December 1918, the Spanish flu killed 9000 New Zealanders[26].

 

There were uneven rates of death throughout the New Zealand. Māori suffered acutely with an overall death rate of 50 per thousand people (overall death rate for Pākehā was 5.8 per thousand[27]). Some communities, including here in Southland, were also hit particularly hard. Nightcaps and Wairio had an overall death rate of 45.9 deaths per thousand which was five times that of Southland as a whole[28]. Influenza historian, Geoffrey Rice, suggests that the high death rate in these isolated towns, as in many Māori communities, may have been the result of a combination of high morbidity and lack of anyone spared to organize relief efforts[29].  The high death rate amongst Māori was also a result of lowered immunity to European diseases such as previous strains of influenza. Poverty and lower standards of housing, clothing and nourishment added to the susceptibility of Māori to the disease[30].

SARS       

Summary globally and locally

Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) first appeared in China in late 2002. Over the next few months it spread to 26 countries in North America, South America, Europe and Asia before the outbreak was contained. By that time, there had been more than 8000 cases globally and over 900 deaths[31]. The SARS outbreak was defined by the WHO as an epidemic rather than a pandemic, but it was still a significant event in terms of both public health and the global economy.

 

The disease was the world’s first experience of coronavirus and the virus was transmitted from animals to humans in live animal markets. Although most cases were found in China and Hong Kong, a relatively prolonged incubation period allowed asymptomatic air travelers to spread the disease globally in a short space of time leading to smaller clusters of cases being found elsewhere[32].

 

Medical knowledge on SARS was very limited in the initial stages of the outbreak and there were no diagnostic tests or specific treatment available. This lack of knowledge hindered action to isolate and contain the virus leading to its spread in Asia. This necessitated non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) being put into place to try and control the spread. These included implementing a disease surveillance system, expanding testing capacity, contact tracing with continued medical surveillance, quarantining of close contacts, collaboration between investigation and response teams, and public education and communication. While China, Singapore and Hong Kong were at the forefront of instigating these infection control measures, they were replicated by many other countries during the outbreak and helped to contain the virus and bring the global outbreak to an end by July 2003[33].

 

While the overall economic impact for the Asian countries most affected by SARS was not as severe as had been expected due to its swift containment, travel, tourism and retail were substantially affected as a result of the short-term decline in visitors. Vietnam and China’s loss to GDP by tourism was 15% and 25% respectively in 2003; Hong Kong and Singapore suffered losses of 41% and 42% respectively[34]. Even with the relatively rapid recovery of the Chinese economy, it took nearly two years for the global economy to return to previous levels. SARS had an overall estimated global economic cost of US$100 billion and US$48 billion in China alone.

 

No cases of SARS have been diagnosed in New Zealand[35] and New Zealand’s economy suffered only short term and minor effects.

Swine flu

Summary globally and locally

The 2009 Swine flu pandemic was the second H1N1 pandemic the world had seen.  Swine flu was first detected in the United States (US) in 2009 and went on to infect more than 1.6 million and killed over 280,000 people across 214 countries[36]. Typical seasonal influenza causes most of its deaths amongst the elderly, or those with underlying health issues. In contrast, like the first H1N1 pandemic in 1917 (the Spanish flu), the majority of severe illness and death occurred in the younger age groups - 80% of global deaths from Swine flu were estimated to occur in those under 65 years old, both those with chronic conditions as well as healthy individuals[37].

 

The WHO declared a global pandemic and put the world on the highest pandemic alert[38], however the first cases of Swine flu arrived in New Zealand in April 2009 with Auckland students returning from a trip to Mexico[39]. New Zealand put into effect the procedures outlined in its influenza pandemic plan which sets outs the all-of-government strategy and framework for action[40]. The government implemented containment measures at New Zealand’s borders and requested that people suspected of having the virus stay in isolation. Despite this, in the months that followed, the Ministry of Health reported more than 3500 cases of Swine flu infection, and it was recorded as being responsible for 20 deaths, although a dozen more may have resulted from infection[41].

 

According to a study coordinated by the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Research Centre, up to 20% of intensive care unit (ICU) beds overall were occupied by Swine flu patients at the height of the pandemic in July 2009. In New Zealand hospitals, about 25% of all ICU activity was pandemic-related and about 12% of patients hospitalised with swine flu were admitted to ICU[42]. The surge of patients with H1N1 influenza placed substantial strain on staff and resources with hospitals stretched to the very limit of their resources.  The impact in New Zealand was monitored by health authorities and resulted in school closures throughout the country. There had been multiple instances of community transmission, and threats to close the nation's borders.

 

Subsequent seroprevalence (the level of a pathogen in a population) studies found that the Swine flu virus had been highly infectious and had reached a far larger proportion of the population over a very short time frame[43] than had originally been reported. The large number of symptomatic and asymptomatic infections subsequently resulted in higher than expected levels of immunity. An estimated 18% of the New Zealand population (800,000) were infected with the virus during the first wave including one child in every three[44]. Older people had a high prevalence of pre-existing immunity which protected them against infection as it had during the Spanish flu[45]. Pasifika and Māori had the highest seroprevalence in comparison to other ethnic groups[46].

Ebola

Ebola (also known as Ebola hemorrhagic fever) first appeared in Southern Sudan in 1976[47]. The virus is transmitted to people from wild animals and spreads in the human population through human-to-human transmission. Ebola is a severe disease with a fatality rate of 50%[48]. It is deadlier than COVID-19 but like SARS, Ebola is not easily transmittable. Severe symptoms make it easier to identify and isolate infected individuals, and to protect health care workers to limit the spread, which is what occurred in the 2014-2016 outbreak.

COVID-19 in context of past pandemic crises

Mortality and contagion

 

 

Spanish flu

sars

Swine flu

Ebola

Covid-19

*Estimated

fatality rate

2.5%

11%

0.1%

50%

3.4%*

contagion (r-0)

1.5

4

1.46

2

2.5*

Total infection

500,000,000

8000

1.6 billion

28,600

3,260,000

As at 1 May 2020

total death (approx)

50,000,000

900

280,000

11,325

233,000

As at 1 May 2020

Source: World Health Organisation https://www.who.int/ - accessed 1 May 2020

 

The main difference currently is that SARS and Swine flu ended up being much less deadly infections. There are a range of estimated case fatality rates for Swine flu, but even the highest, less than 0.1 percent[49], is much lower than the current estimates for COVID-19 which is approximately 3.4 percent[50]. While this does not sound like a big difference, when extrapolated could mean millions more deaths. SARS had a high case fatality rate of 11 percent[51]. However, although the SARS death rate is higher than COVID-19, the current pandemic has proved far more contagious and subsequently claimed more lives.

 

The H1N1 virus is less contagious than Covid-19. The basic reproduction number, called the R-nought value (R-0), is the expected number of individuals who can catch the virus from a single infected person. The R-0 for the Swine flu virus was 1.46, according to a review published in the journal BNC Infectious Diseases[52].

 

For COVID-19, the R-0 value is estimated to currently be 2.5[53]. SARS R-0 value of 4 [54] is higher than that currently estimated of COVID-19 however the SARS outbreak was contained more easily by the severity of the symptoms first exhibited. Effective tracing and quarantining of contacts meant that the SARS virus was contained before it could spread as far and wide as the current pandemic has.

 

Public Health response

Pandemics have been the catalyst for major change in public health policy in the past and there is no reason to expect otherwise now. While no pandemic has been identical to a preceding one, each gives valuable insight into how best to prepare for inevitable next one.

 

In the case of Spanish flu, the world had just come out of a global war and the idea of a public health system was still in its infancy. With the arrival of influenza in New Zealand, the government needed to mobilise resources as if they were at war again, this time in an urban setting. Centralized public health planning was seen as the best defence against the pandemic. The Health Minister, George Russell, issued all borough councils and town boards a practical and comprehensive plan for relief organization and gave full initiative to the local authorities[55]. Post pandemic, the development of the public health system evolved still further with the Health Act 1920[56] which was widely recognized at the time as a model piece of health legislation on the global stage.

 

SARS too was a catalyst for change in Asian medical systems, with health spending rising. This resulted in major hospital upgrades and strengthened epidemiological, laboratory and research capacity. This improved medical response enabled earlier detection of other infectious disease outbreaks and the promotion of research and development[57].

 

The Swine flu pandemic in New Zealand had important implications for public health policy in this country. The high proportion of asymptomatic infections was a frightening indication of the silent spread of the disease. An estimated 45.2% of seropositive individuals had no symptoms at all[58]. The New Zealand Influenza Pandemic Action Plan underwent revision after the Swine flu pandemic, as did action plans for all civil defence emergencies[59]. Measures instigated at ports of entry and education institutions were also reevaluated to underscore the need for increased vigilance both at community and individual levels to reduce the future spread of disease[60]. Public health measures such as vaccinations became available quickly in order to minimize the impact of the pandemic.

 

In the US, the lessons learned from previous pandemics were not put to use - the US public health system is reported to have been better prepared for a pandemic in 2009 than they were as COVID-19 arrived on its shores[61].  While the genetic sequence for both H1N1 and COVID-19 were released in the same time frames and the US declared a public health emergency in the same time frame, the similarities stop there. In 2009, health supplies from the national stockpile were released quickly[62]. This time around, faulty testing kits were released meaning that the virus could continue spreading undetected for weeks. This was further exacerbated by laboratories running out of supplies quickly which has prompted desperate measures to acquire them from other states[63].

 

Central government response

Quarantine

During a severe pandemic, there are different approaches to limiting the spread of the disease. At this current time, the reality is that there is no vaccine or treatment available to eradicate COVID-19. All that are available are the same NPI methods such as quarantines and social distancing that were used to control epidemics in the early 20th century such as Spanish flu.

 

Most successful approaches to containing Spanish flu included the early, sustained and layered application of social distancing in the form of lockdown. While key to its effectiveness was its timing, in order to be successful, lockdowns also need to be sustained. In the case of Spanish flu here in New Zealand, when the trend in cases began to decline, lockdown and social distancing were unofficially relaxed until a second, deadlier, wave of influenza hit[64].

 

A recent study in the US took a city-by-city look at the effects of the Spanish flu on the American economy and found that the longer and more intensively a city worked to contain the outbreak, the better its subsequent economic performance[65]. The reanalyzed data found that the benefits of multiple interventions are greatest if introduced early (before 1% of population is infected) and maintained. In cities with similar virulence and similar mitigations (i.e. quarantine, travel restrictions), social distancing measures were able to reduce death rates by 50% and, if maintained, the overall mortality was significantly reduced[66].

 

The SARS outbreak saw countries throughout Asia ‘ring fencing’ against the new global threat[67]. Open borders became a problem and informal travel bans and visa freezes were implemented to limit travel to and from SARS-affected countries. Quarantines were enforced throughout Asia and Toronto (approximately 30,000 Beijing residents[68], 20,000 in Toronto[69], were quarantined in their homes or quarantine sites) with varying levels of success. Studies since the SARS outbreak have indicated that quarantine played little or no role in controlling SARS[70]. Furthermore, mass quarantine potentially did considerable harm by fueling public anxiety. In the case of the SARS outbreak, case identification and contact tracing, social distancing and isolation of infection played a more fundamental role in controlling and eradicating the virus.

 

 

Compliance

Not everyone will accept the reduction of individual autonomy and privacy in exchange for a collective benefit. However, in the instance of disease outbreak, in order for NPIs to work, people have to understand and accept the need to comply and they then have to sustain that compliance.

 

The need for early intervention measures was known about in 1918 but studies have shown that ultimately there was no difference in morbidity and mortality between the New Zealand military camps that did and did not follow orders[71]. Over time, people became complacent and when restrictions were relaxed, the return of the virus led to public doubt as to the effectiveness of the NPIs. If army camps in wartime (1918) failed to sustain compliance, it is questionable whether civilian communities in peacetime will be able to meet the challenge of potential sustained or cyclical restrictions that containing COVID-19 might entail.

 

Compliance with the Toronto SARS quarantine was poor. Only 57% of people quarantined were ‘compliant’ according to Toronto officials[72]. Taiwan implemented quarantine orders on hospitals with the result that medical staff, unhappy with their confinement, ended up abandoning the hospitals. China too, reported instances of rioting against the setting up of quarantine centres in two provinces.

 

However, while there was resentment amongst some Singaporeans who complained that their right to privacy had been invaded by the surveillance methods used to trace the virus, there was fairly widespread support for measures that other countries will unwilling to adopt.

 

The SARS outbreak showed that compliance is both effective and necessary for the containment of infectious diseases. The limited amount of questioning, the rapid rate of adoption and the smooth implementation of many of the policies came down to two things in Singapore: strong social discipline and the crisis mentality of the people.

 

Communication

Past experience has emphasized the crucial role of communication in successful pandemic planning and recovery. If the public is going to be required to comply over time, they will have to be led, inspired or compelled and the vehicle for that is communication[73].

 

In 1918, trust in authority disintegrated. No one knew who or what to believe. Decision makers were always on the back foot, making policy to fight fires rather than prevent them from starting. Pressured to maintain wartime morale, neither national nor local government officials told the truth. The disease was called ‘Spanish’ flu, and one national public-health leader said “This is ordinary influenza by another name[74].” Most local health commissioners followed that lead and newspapers echoed them. In the US, as Philadelphia began digging mass graves; closed schools, saloons and theatres; and banned public gatherings, one newspaper even wrote: “This is not a public health measure. There is no cause for alarm[75].” Rumours circulated widely. People lost trust in one another, became alienated and isolated[76].

The SARS outbreak emphasized the importance of open and transparent communication with the public. Then, as currently, the public were facing an unknown deadly disease.  Public fear is understandable and should not be viewed as irrational - countries such as Singapore and Hong Kong, who had successful compliance with public health measures, helped to alleviate public anxiety by ensuring frequent, open and honest information was available. Channels of public communication used during the outbreak included daily press briefings, TV and radio announcements, internet SARS bulletins, setting specific prevention guidelines and above all a telephone hotline for public enquiry[77].

 

Economy

There are parallels between SARS and COVID-19, however the world today is a different arena. The SARS outbreak had minimal impact on the New Zealand economy which is in part due to the limited role of China in the global economy in 2003. China now accounts for 21.4% of world GDP compared to around 4.5% during the SARS outbreak[78]. While it is still too early to quantify the economic impact of the current crisis, it will be on a scale far greater than previous disease outbreaks.

 

While there were concerns for the tourism industry during the SARS epidemic, the lower numbers of visitors from Asian countries were countered by increased numbers from elsewhere. The impact to the industry was likened to that after the 9/11 attacks and the Bali bombings – the global situation meant that New Zealand was seen as a safe destination and Australians in particular were keen to travel more closely to home[79]. Although the current pandemic will have a longer term impact than that of SARS, when New Zealand’s borders begin to open again, it is likely that the country’s reputation as a safe holiday destination will again play in its favour.

 

Social consequences

The combination of invisibility, indeterminacy, and contagion understandably increases anxiety and encourages behaviour that reduces risk of exposure. In the US, false rumours of SARS infection spread faster than the microbe itself. Notions of transmission are highly susceptible to any information available. In 2003, the media was saturated with images of Asians wearing masks and the association of airborne SARS contagion and Asians generated a surge in racial discrimination in the community at large[80].

FINANCIAL CRISES

Like disease outbreak, New Zealand has experienced its share of financial crisis. Global events such as the Great Depression (1930s), Black Monday (1987) and the Global Financial Crisis (2007-09) have had significant economic repercussions for New Zealand. On a national level, the economy has also been through events such as the wool price collapse (1978) and the Rogernomics recession (1984-94). 

In the context of this current COVID-19 crisis, this report looks at two financial crises, the Great Depression and the Global Financial Crisis. In terms of length, depth and severity, economists globally are looking to these two events to help prepare for and recover from the global financial contraction that the current pandemic may cause.

Great Depression

Summary globally and locally

The Great Depression (the depression) was a period of worldwide economic depression that lasted from 1929 until approximately 1939. While economists debate the causes of the depression, consensus is that it began internationally with the Wall Street stock market collapse in 29 October 1929, commonly called Black Tuesday, when the stock market fell 12.8%.  Black Tuesday followed two previous stock market collapses on October 24 and 28, 1929. The Dow Jones Industrial Average would eventually bottom out by July 1932 with a loss of approximately 89% of its value[81].

 

Over the next years, consumer spending and investment dropped, causing steep declines in industrial output and employment as failing companies laid off workers. Furthermore, a severe drought across the US meant that agricultural jobs were substantially reduced. By 1933, when the depression reached its lowest point, 15 million Americans were unemployed and nearly half the country’s banks had failed[82]. Countries across the globe were affected as protectionist policies were created thus exacerbating the problems on a global scale.

 

For New Zealand, the depression remains the most devastating economic experience to date. The country was particularly vulnerable because it depended on Britain buying its agricultural exports. When the British market collapsed, New Zealand was hit by being unable to borrow offshore and by a collapse in the price for its exports. As export earnings plummeted, farmers stopped spending with drastic effects. Jobs and wages disappeared and soon most of the population were experiencing severe hardship. At the lowest point of the depression, the unemployment rate is estimated to have exceeded 20% (this figure excludes women and Māori and is believed to have been much higher[83]). Exports fell by 45% in two years, national income by 40% in three years. The sharpest price fall was that of wool which declined by 60%[84]. Meat and dairy prices fell less but continued to decline until 1934. 

 

The depression was made worse by New Zealand’s extreme unpreparedness to meet it. Even before the market crash New Zealand was suffering economically, as it had though much of the 1920s when many farmers had borrowed and invested heavily. A prolonged slump in international commodity markets in the early twenties meant many farmers were already struggling to repay their debts even before the Wall St crash of 1929[85]. Despite New Zealand’s early reputation as a ‘social laboratory’, social services had fallen behind those of many other countries and New Zealand entered the depression without any form of unemployment relief. Work relief schemes were the only government offered support though even these had to be rationed because such large numbers of people applied to work at schemes often dubbed ‘slave camps’[86].

 

In 1932, riots erupted in Dunedin, Auckland, and Wellington, reflecting the growing frustration of the unemployed[87]. Police, armed sailors, and volunteer ‘special constables’ responded with force, injuring or arresting many rioters. The government reacted by introducing tougher ‘public safety’ laws, and sending unemployed men to remote labour camps.

 

The economic policy of New Zealand’s Coalition Government during the depression was largely seen as ineffective[88]. The government was unable to prime the economy through deficit financing because its monetary conditions were determined offshore. The government devalued the currency,  restricted government spending, cut nominal wages and reduced interest rates and the value of mortgages[89] – all of these were necessary measures, however the austerity measures were not evenly shared and served to make the government extremely unpopular[90].  Michael Joseph Savage’s Labour Party (1935–49) won the general election in 1935 and introduced the social welfare system, aiming to provide everyone with a reasonable state of living[91].

Just as there is no general agreement about the causes of the depression, there is no consensus about the sources of recovery. In general, countries that abandoned the gold standard or devalued their currencies recovered first. Fiscal expansion, such as the ‘New Deal’ in the US, social welfare reforms and increased defence spending in the build up to World War II helped to strengthen economic growth and speed up the domestic and world recovery.

Global Financial Crisis

Summary globally and locally

The global financial crisis (GFC) took place between mid-2007 and early 2009. In brief, credit in the United States (US) had become too easy to access; consumers became unable to repay loans (which had associated skyrocketing rates) and began to default on repayments. This left the banks overwhelmed by an excess of property and increasing debt.  The collapse of the US housing market, followed by one of the US’s biggest banks (Lehman Brothers) fuelled a financial crisis that spread from the US to the rest of the world through linkages in the global financial system[92]. Banks around the world were reliant on government support to bail them out, global output contracted and millions of jobs were lost, further damaging global consumer spending. The recession was not felt equally around the world; whereas most of the world’s developed economies, particularly US and Europe experienced their deepest recession since the depression in the 1930s, more recently developed economies suffered far less impact.

 

Key aspects of the GFC included excessive and poorly assessed risk taking in a favorable global economic environment and the increased borrowing by banks and investors[93]. At its core, the market participants before the crisis all believed, without question, in the premise of infinite bank capital or liquidity. With stresses in the financial system, that unrealistic assumption was tested and the result was widespread and simultaneous panicked decisions to sell similar assets. Liquidity evaporated and financial crisis followed, spreading over into financial markets worldwide[94]

 

The New Zealand Treasury defines recession as ‘consecutive falls in real GDP’[95]. The Treasury department reported that New Zealand’s GDP fell 3.3% between the December 2007 quarter and the March 2008 quarter[96]. This start, before any other OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) nation, was the result of domestic factors that preceded the global depression[97] and which had already contributed to a slump in the New Zealand economy. 

 

New Zealand’s recession lasted approximately 18 months. During this period, there was decreased construction (decrease of 20%[98]), and economic growth slowed, house sales fell (decrease of 42%[99]), and the unemployment rate rose to 6.7%[100]. The New Zealand labour market was affected in many ways. People worked fewer hours, the number of jobs available fell, unemployment rose, more people went into study, there were fewer, and smaller, pay rises and the labour market turnover slowed[101]. The economy emerged from recession in mid-2009, with the second-quarter GDP report showing the economy grew by 0.1 per cent in the March quarter[102].

 

Given the magnitude of the shock to the global economy and to confidence more broadly, central government put in place a large policy response to ensure that the New Zealand economy did not suffer a major downturn. This included fiscal policy and monetary policy initiatives to stimulate the economy and reduce financial system risks. Since 2008, the banks have continued to strengthen liquidity standards to offset the banking system’s dependence on offshore wholesale funding[103]. The New Zealand banks also put in measures to curtail their exposure and generally took on a more prudent and conservative stance[104]. Elsewhere in the world, robust regulations and oversight agencies were put in place to regulate the big global banks, though these restrictions have begun to loosen in recent years[105].

 

In global terms, New Zealand escaped the worst of the GFC and did not experience a large economic downturn. While the unemployment rate rose over the recession, New Zealand fared better than many other countries. OECD research means it is possible to provide comparisons to New Zealand’s unemployment rate. Over the recession, New Zealand’s unemployment rate rose 1.2%. During the same period, the unemployment rate rose 3.3% in the US, 2.0% in the UK, and 1.2% in Australia[106]. New Zealand’s performance reflected both its limited exposure to the US housing market and US banks[107] and also that its economy was buoyed by its exports to China whose economy had rebounded quickly after the initial GFC shock.

 

Although the general consensus is that New Zealand is safer now than a decade ago, the country’s financial systems are still subject to the risk of financial crisis if funding conditions in the Northern Hemisphere turn adverse very suddenly[108]. There is also the compounded risk that with Australia being New Zealand’s largest trading partner, if the Chinese economy is impacted in a major way, New Zealand will be hit by Australia being hit[109].

 

COVID-19 in context of past financial crisis

Financial

A range of models has been used to outline economic recovery cycles. The GFC had a typical V-shaped recovery, where the economy fell sharply but rebounded quickly. The economic impact of COVID-19 appears most likely to lead to a slow and protracted recovery. The worst case scenario would be an L-shaped recovery cycle similar to that of the depression where the pandemic ends up permanently impacting GDP. A more recent example of this type of recovery cycle is Japan, with the nation’s economy going sideways since the 1990’s and yet to return to the growth it saw before it crashed[110]. Analysis of previous economic downturns have highlighted that the difference in factors that both caused the crisis plus the methods put in place to help, will each impact on the speed at which the economy recovers. 

 

While there is continued debate on the range and relative importance of factors to explain the severity of both the depression and the GFC, they are generally recognized as arising from similar endogenous or internal origins. Both events were triggered by initial stock market crashes that set off a ‘panic sell-off’ of assets. This was then followed by a deflation in asset and commodity prices, dramatic drops in demand and credit, and the disruption of trade resulting in widespread unemployment.

 

Both the depression and GFC were typical endogenous risk crises - they arose from inherent weaknesses within the financial system. COVID-19 is totally exogenous to the global financial system[111]. It is like a natural disaster in that there was no warning, very little that could be done to prepare for it and it has the possibility to create enormous damage to lives and the economy. There is the potential that the virus might expose existing vulnerabilities that result in a systemic financial crisis however the recent experience of the GFC has meant that global financial systems should be in better shape to withstand a shock. Caution is higher and the regulators more powerful and better informed. Learning from the GFC, banks are presently better able to absorb defaults and give the authorities more room to use forbearance to forestall widespread bankruptcies[112]. Furthermore, because the highest-risk lending is now increasingly done by non-bank institutions, if large COVID-induced losses do eventuate, they will not trigger the same feedback loops as would the same losses taken by a bank because most employ much less leverage[113].

 

Having experienced the consequences of banks refusing to provide liquidity in the depression, central banks reacted appropriately in 2008 by increasing liquidity, and they are doing so again in this present crisis.  However, while it may seem a sensible precautionary measure, central banks must bear in mind that COVD-19 is a crisis of a different type. Just as two crises are not the same, neither should the rescues be. The vulnerability in this present crisis is not so much the financial sector, but within the huge number of over-indebted companies that will see their revenues collapse beyond any level they could ever have anticipated[114]. This time, mitigations cannot just be limited to reducing interest rates and providing liquidity. In order to contain and mitigate the potential for escalating bankruptcies, financial policy makers at a national and global level will need to look at actions that encompass forbearance, targeted help and other similar policies[115].

 

While the current crisis could cost the global economy up to $2 trillion this year, according to UN estimates[116], there is still the possibility that it will not push the world into a contraction.   While the world is in lockdown, money not spent today is likely to still be spent later. Looking at past virus outbreaks or natural disasters has shown that typical discretionary spending returns at a later point[117]. The COVID-19 crisis is more an ‘interruption of production structures, which in principle are fundamentally sound,’ Stefan Kooths, Kiel Institute for the World Economy[118]. This means that even if there is a crisis in terms of production, the chances of getting out of this recession sooner than later are much better than in the depression or the GFC.

 

A report from the New Zealand Treasury states that consumer confidence fell 21 points in April 2020 to 84.8 which is approximately the depth the index reached during the GFC[119]. During the GFC, annual consumption growth reached a low of 3.6% about six months later[120]. The most recent drop in consumer confidence suggests a similar fall in private consumption over the second half of 2020. Confidence may fall further in coming months as reduced incomes, business failures and unemployment being to impact.

 

In 2008, the strength of China’s national economy was able to pull other economies through the GFC, including New Zealand who exported to it. However, in this current crisis, China can’t carry the global economy. The COVID-19 crisis has forced the shutdown of a large part of the Chinese economy, and given that it is more tightly integrated in global supply chains than it was during the SARS outbreak, it could have the potential to cause a contraction in global trade[121]. Since 2008, Chinese financial activities abroad have expanded dramatically, and like other emerging market businesses, they borrow heavily in American currency[122]. Any significant Chinese market decline is likely to be felt immediately around the world.

 

New Zealand, however, could suffer more than other countries due to the COVID-19 lockdown, according to a new report on the impact of the pandemic. Evaluating the initial impact of COVID-19 containment measures on activity, the OECD ranks New Zealand fifth among 47 economies in terms of outbreak’s drag on economic output[123]. The report said the slump in tourism and retail spending would have the most effect on GDP due to the COVID-19 lockdowns. “Changes of this magnitude would far outweigh anything experienced during the global financial crisis in 2008-09,” the OECD report stated.

 

New Zealand has weathered slumps in the tourism industry as a result of previous crises. Like many tourism dominated areas, Rotorua’s population declined as a result of the GFC’s negative impact on the tourism, hospitality and retail related industries[124]. With a large portion of Rotorua’s employment related to these industries, the GFC resulted in a decline in employment in these areas, which in turn led to people leaving Rotorua district to look for employment elsewhere in the region such as Hamilton or Auckland.

However, the impact of COVID-19 on the areas most reliant on tourism are likely to be unprecendented: Jim Boult, mayor of Queenstown Lakes district council, predicted that district wide economy would shrink by 40% and employment would be likely to reach between 25 and 30%[125].

 

 

 

Moral hazard

A moral hazard is where one party is responsible for the interests of another, but has an incentive to put their own interests first.

 

During the depression more than 600 American banks went bankrupt between 1930 and 1933[126] and caused significant levels of unemployment. Learning from this event, authorities believed that in future, banks should be bailed out and this eventuated after the financial crisis in 2008.

 

As stated previously, the GFC was, in part, due to unrealistic expectations of financial institutions. These institutions engaged in behaviour where they assumed the outcome had no downside for them. Because the banks were taking on the risk, the mortgage brokers who sold the mortgages to the banks, didn’t adequately check whether the person taking on the mortgage could actually pay it back. This was compounded by the assumption that some central banks that they were so vital to the economy that they were ‘too big to fail’[127]; and that the government would opt as a backstop.  The risk taking of the banks and other financial establishments during the GFC, are a good example of moral hazard in action and of the behaviour of people and institutions who thought they would not have to bear the costs of the risks they were taking. 

 

Many opinions in the current COVID-19 literature state that the current situation is free from moral hazard – the current crisis is an exogenous one and therefore no blame can be assigned. For example, the Wall Street Journal stated that ‘clearly no moral-hazard issues arise from this virus outbreak,[128]’ and so encouraged the governments to be even more aggressive in their efforts to save the economy. However, while the COVID-19 crisis arises from different origins, similar dynamics are at work.

 

Just as in 2008, the government’s current bailouts are aimed at helping large, interconnected financial institutions avoid failure because of the havoc such failures can wreak on the financial system. As well as government bailouts, the central banks around the world have also engaged in the purchase of bonds and risky high-yielding debt[129]. This is to ensure liquidity in the market, however, this intervention could shape how people perceive risk in the future and reward those businesses that behaved recklessly before the pandemic. In recent years, New Zealanders generally have lived beyond their long-term ability pay, leaving New Zealand exposed to consequent liabilities in the international financial market.[130]

 

However, given the speed at which the world has been impacted by COVID-19, the time taken to identify and minimise potential moral hazard could have meant greater economic harm to the economy as a whole. Some degree of moral hazard will be inevitable from any government effort to provide widespread support in the face of a shock such as the pandemic.  Acknowledging and recognising this could help ensure that the government does not unnecessarily encourage companies and creditors to act without caution in the months ahead[131].

‘METEOR’ EVENTS

There are huge differences between the current coronavirus and the tragedies of September 11 (2001) and the Canterbury earthquakes (2010, 2011, 2016) however consideration is worthwhile in view of the similarities they do share.

 

Each of the previous events struck without warning nor the chance to prepare, and each had effects that impacted on local, national and global terms with consequences that are still being felt today. While New Zealand is not suffering the damage to physical infrastructure that these two events endured, the resultant significant damage to the economic and social systems created by such ‘meteor’ events is on a parallel. Each has created widespread fear, uncertainty in an atypical environment, and the inability to look beyond the immediate future.

9/11

The September 11 attacks were a series of four coordinated terrorist attacks by the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda against the US on September 11, 2001. The attacks resulted in 2977 fatalities, over 25,000 injuries, and at least US$10 billion in infrastructure and property damage[132].

 

The attacks had an immediate negative effect on the US economy. Many Wall Street institutions, including the New York Stock Exchange, were evacuated during the attacks. On the first day of trading after the attacks, the market fell 7.1 percent[133]. New York City’s economy alone lost 143,000 jobs a month and US$2.8 billion in wages in the first three months[134]. The heaviest losses were in finance and air transportation, which accounted for 60 percent of lost jobs[135].

 

In economic terms, 9/11 had an immediate effect on airline industry that was already experiencing financial trouble before the attacks. Share prices of airlines and airplane manufacturers plummeted after the attacks. Midway Airlines already on the brink of bankruptcy, shut down operations almost immediately afterwards. Other airlines were threatened with bankruptcy, and tens of thousands of redundancies were announced in the week following the attacks. To help the industry, the federal government provided an aid package to the industry, including US$10 billion in loan guarantees, along with US$5 billion for short-term assistance[136].

 

Tourism in New York City plummeted, causing massive losses in a sector which generated US$25 billion per year[137]. In the week following the attack, hotel occupancy fell below 40%, and 3,000 employees were laid off. Tourism, hotel occupancy and air travel also fell drastically across the US[138].

 

The US economy was already on the verge of a mild decline before 9/11. The falling stock market was reducing wealth and by early September, consumer attitudes had dropped sharply[139]. There was no precedent from which to judge the effects of the attack on consumer and business spending. The following fiscal and monetary policy was expansionary from the start, with special fiscal measures coming on top of a defence buildup[140].

Canterbury earthquakes

The Canterbury earthquakes of 2010 and 2011 have had a major economic and fiscal impact on the region itself and on New Zealand as a whole. There were nearly 200 deaths from the February 2011 earthquake, and more than 150,000 homes damaged, with roughly 30,000 experiencing significant damage[141]. This amounts to around three quarters of the Christchurch housing stock damaged in an area accounting for 8% of the whole New Zealand GDP, causing immediate financial impact and considerable outflow of residents from the Canterbury region[142].

 

Total employment in the Canterbury region decreased by 8% in the year to the September 2011 quarter[143]. Sectors including accommodation, food services and retail were hit hardest, with a fall in employment of 22.4% during the year[144]. Tourism was also severely impacted. International guest nights were down 32% in the Canterbury region in September 2011 (compared with September 2010) and domestic visitors down 23%[145].

 

While the earthquakes reduced population, employment, and business output, including total closure of some businesses, business activities recovered, people returned, and the overall employment rate increased within three years of the 2011 earthquake[146]. Overall, impacts were largely localized to Canterbury, and the region's economy was relatively resilient.

 

In the longer-term recovery phase post-earthquakes, billions of dollars in central government funding was allocated to the Christchurch city rebuild, to social services and the unveiling in 2012 of a blueprint anchored by a number of ambitious ‘anchor projects’[147].

COVID-19 in context of past ‘meteor’ events

Social consequences

The Canterbury earthquakes have many parallels with the crisis faced now. While the impacts were on a local scale, they also were unprecedented, a challenge in terms of scale and complexity, and as in this crisis, there was no instruction manual or model for recovery.

 

The earthquake recovery process shows that there is no linear recovery process ahead – it is not a matter of response finishing and recovery starting. It is likely that the process will work through different stages, at different times, with differing agencies, or different stakeholders, or different communities[148].

 

Even the earthquake events themselves show linkages to what is likely ahead today. Continued aftershocks repeatedly threw people back into response mode. Looking ahead, New Zealand may also be faced with the continued mindset of ‘crisis mentality’ while there remains the potential of repeated retreats back into lockdown levels to contain the virus. As with every crisis, just as the range in experiences will vary between people and communities, the rate of recovery will also vary between people and communities. 

 

A direct consequence to the 9/11 terrorist attacks was the heightened fear and suspicion of what, prior to the attacks, would have been viewed innocently. Various government agencies and police forces in the US asked people to watch people around them and to report ‘unusual’ behaviour. Since the attacks, Arab, Muslim, Sikh and South-Asian Americans – a well as those perceived to be members of these groups – have been victims of discriminatory backlash[149]

 

The present situation too has also heightened levels of racism and xenophobia. Reports of racism have increased in New Zealand with the Human Rights Commission receiving 252 reports relating to COVID-19[150]. Race Relations Commissioner Meng Foon has said that there has been a particular rise in bullying and harassment of people from Chinese and Asian descent[151]. This increase in marginalisation and discrimination is not restricted to New Zealand but has been evident in racist rhetoric and actions globally[152].

 

In this crisis event, there has also been the typical emotional response of increased fear and uncertainty. The virus is unknown, deadly and most frighteningly, invisible. While there is currently a sense of camaraderie, a unified banding together to defeat the ‘enemy’, that ‘enemy’ potentially could be the asymptomatic neighbour, friend, colleague. In the same way that the events of 9/11 have had long term consequences in the form of a fear of the unknown ‘terrorist’, it is likely that social interactions going forward will be influenced by the fear of the unknown ‘contagion spreader’. Research on the impacts of fear on decision-making post 9/11 found that fear causes a higher perception of risk everywhere, greater precautionary behaviour and ‘the greater favourability of action policy that prioritizes safety over personal liberty’[153].

 

At an operational level, the Canterbury earthquakes also highlights the issue to those involved in the social recovery work itself. Practitioners were exposed firstly to working with colleagues in stressful and unpredictable circumstances combined with the direct stress of the disaster and recovery in their own lives PLUS the exposure to the stress of the community members they engaged with. Burn-out was recognized as a professional risk[154].

 

Economic

Tourism and hospitality suffered both short term and long term damage after each ‘meteor’ event described.

 

The hospitality industry in both epicentres of the disasters, New York and Christchurch, were exposed to both the immediate emergency shutdown of the cities and the longer term, broader hit to both travel and tourism.  Both instances were short term ‘black holes’ followed by a long struggle to recover[155]. In comparison, COVID-19 is likely to be an extremely large black hole with the tourism industry likely to be impacted for years as people cut discretionary spending. 

 

Collaboration

The earthquakes heightened the need for councils in the Greater Christchurch area to work alongside central government, iwi and community to coordinate and facilitate recovery activity[156]. Strategic planning and engagement helped to provide the foundation for recovery plans and programmes to quickly respond to these new circumstances.

SUMMARY

Local government

Collaboration

Interconnectedness and cooperation between existing groups and networks as well as assisting emerging groups has been shown to increase community capital and to build on existing strengths following a disaster[157]. Collaboration provides the opportunity to build on the District’s wealth of skills and experience, and resources of local people and community groups, organisations and networks.

 

As the lockdowns begin to ease, Council will need to take a leading role in providing oversight and strategic direction in coordinating for social recovery at the local level. This should involve collaboration across a number of agencies for collective information gathering, management and sharing. This in consequence reduces the inefficiencies of multiple organisations working separately to the same end. Information sharing may also help to identify areas of community dynamics, including local leadership, community strengths, and vulnerabilities, that may impact the District’s capability to respond to the COVID-19 crisis.

 

Council will also have a lead role in collaborating with the Ministry of Health, District Health Board and community providers to identify and anticipate social needs, and to ensure appropriate social support and services are resourced and in place at the right time. It is important that Council focuses on the wellbeing of the whole district while also recognising and being responsive to the unique needs of population groups such as the elderly and Māori. Ensuring the appropriate provision of social support and resources will require a localised understanding.

 

Social Services Waimakariri was fundamental in bringing organisations together and guiding the local response moving forward into recovery after the Canterbury quakes[158]. The issues the department found in 2011, are likely to mirror that of Southland where the traditionally tightknit communities, especially the elderly and the rural farming communities, are likely to be suffering from the social isolation lockdown has forced upon them. Mental health issues, particularly with regard to increased levels of stress and anxiety across all age groups are also likely to be evident as is the possibility of an increase in domestic violence and abuse. It has been widely recognised that some members of the farming community can be  vulnerable to mental health issues[159], so this too may be an area of particular concern. To build on the momentum of effort that has already been made in the District, it is also important that Council values and encourages the ongoing localised community action that has taken place during lockdown period to support local wellbeing.

 

It is likely that Council will need to work with a range of regional, national and district stakeholders to assist connecting impacted businesses to relevant support and advice, and rapidly putting further business support services in place. A number of businesses in the District, such as those in tourism and hospitality, will need help working out what the changed economic landscape will look like for their particular business. Council, alongside its partner agencies, will need to prioritize offering practical business support services for these industries.

 

Communication

Good communication and authentic community engagement have been shown to be fundamental to the overall recovery of communities where every bit of information is vital to help people make sense of their altered lives.

 

Council will need to ensure it is proactive, considered, transparent and honest in its approach to communications with the District. Being explicit about what Council does and does not know, can and cannot do, will ensure that the community knows what is happening on their behalf and also understands the reasons why.

 

Trust

Trust and respect for decision makers in times of crisis has been proved to have a major positive impact on community recovery outcomes. Public confidence and trust in local government will be more fragile than ever now. Local government is often seen as an unnecessary barrier and overly restrictive. There is often also a negative general attitude toward all government agencies with people not differentiating between local, regional and national government and who see the combined three levels simply as ‘the government’.

It is crucial that Council try as much as possible to be open to scrutiny and democratic accountability - proactively building trust now will ensure that available energy and resources are directed towards recovery rather than repairing damaged relationships.

BAU

Local government nationwide has had to be swift and adaptable since the lockdowns started. In the same way that the dynamic adaptive pathway system is used for climate change response, Council will need to remain agile and flexible in its approach to ensure it can respond quickly to the further changes that will occur as the impacts of the virus continue to unfold. The pressures on day-to-day work will not be eased by the lockdown being eased – a lot of it will still be intact and new challenges still emerging. Council will need to realign its work programme to support the new external environment including new stakeholder needs and priorities. It will also need to rethink existing and/or develop new processes and tools to support delivery of the new priorities.

 

Council will also need to give consideration as to how the risk of infectious disease is incorporated into its strategic thinking. Despite the continuum of global disease outbreaks over the last century alone, when the 2020 Global Risk Report (World Economic Forum) was released in January this year, infectious disease ranked third last in likelihood (behind only weapons of mass destruction and unimaginable inflation) and tenth in potential impact[160]. It was also considered as one of the least interconnected risks. While this was assessed at global level and beyond our influence, the current event demonstrates the need to more thoroughly examine how the risk may affect Council’s strategic objectives at a local level.

Central government

Economy

As previously stated, New Zealand has suffered economic downturns caused by financial system collapse (the depression/GFC), oil supply shocks (1970s) and natural disasters that have destroyed parts of the capital stock (the Canterbury earthquakes). However, all previous crises could be mitigated by central government providing additional funds to households to support demand across the economy and put a floor under consumer confidence[161].

 

However, this current pandemic and lockdown means that people aren’t working, people aren’t buying and so there is significantly less economic demand and output. In essence, there has been nothing but food, housing and utilities for people to spend on over the past weeks. The New Zealand Treasury has stated that consumer confidence has fallen to levels not seen since the GFC and commodity prices are continuing to slip[162]. The New Zealand government, however, is among the most well prepared in the world for this crisis with a strong balance sheet giving it the ability to borrow significantly to support the economy[163]. Even so, the measures the government has taken to sustain businesses and incomes during the lockdown has been compared to the sort of wartime economy western countries have not experienced for decades[164].

 

According to finance minister, Grant Robertson, it is likely that a huge nation-building programme of infrastructure and public works will be used to try and keep New Zealand out of recession, much like the recovery efforts after the depression and World War II [165]. He stated that “the economy is more like an oven than a light switch, when you switch it off, it takes a while to warm back up again[166].” When New Zealand emerges from lockdown restrictions, the search will be on for infrastructure projects that could be pulled forward to help boost economic activity and employment. Worth noting is that the infrastructure blueprint to boost Canterbury’s recovery post-earthquakes. While well-intentioned, the infrastructure spend-up didn’t quite go to plan. There were cost blowouts and major delays to the extent that key projects such as a new stadium and the convention centre still haven’t been completed nearly a decade later[167].

 

Elsewhere, economic activity data continues to paint a grim picture with large GDP declines in the Europe and in a number of Asian countries[168] . However, global financial markets have started to stabilize and while commodity prices have declined, food products prices have proved much more resilient[169]. This potentially could provide an export opportunity for New Zealand to take advantage of as it has done in past pandemics. China, post-Swine flu, had no pork stock[170]; Thailand had massive economic losses after the 2012 H5N1 outbreak which decimated their poultry stock[171]; and the US continues to battle seasonal outbreaks of H1N1 in its meat industry[172]. The worldwide loss of confidence in poultry and pork products in the past has benefited New Zealand’s export industry. While China’s economic growth is likely to be slower than after SARS[173], New Zealand’s exporters should be able to meet what demand there is for protein products. New Zealand’s reputation as an exporter of quality food products gives opportunity for continued trade even in a situation where global economic activity remains depressed for an extended time.

 

Financial

The Treasury is leading work across the whole of government to cushion New Zealand against the impacts of COVID-19, to position the country for recovery and to reset and rebuild the economy to support long-term recovery[174]The rescues put in place this time will not the same as in past crises. Help at a citizen level will be more of a priority than rescue at an institutional level. The expansion of unemployment insurance and direct payments to citizens will also be a priority. The government will need to consider that the measures they put in place will minimize any moral hazard in order to reduce excessive risk-taking; measures that create or exacerbate moral hazard (such as massive bailouts) could potentially lead to excessive risk-taking and should be avoided[175].

 

Trust

Lack of trust and respect for decision makers has been proved to have a major obstacle in ensuring compliance in past crises[176]. Countries with deep and historic division or distrust of government have always faced difficulties ensuring public health measures are observed which has led to long and slow recovery from crisis[177].

 

In contrast, New Zealanders tend to be moderate in their beliefs and are generally compliant as they trust that central government is acting in their best interest. Clear, concise and timely communication, along with the openness to discuss difficult choices, has helped the public trust what the political leaders are asking of them. The public have to continue to trust what central government is doing in the next months ahead as the country, along with the world, faces potential continued public health restrictions and the certainty of financial recession.

 

Social

As with each crisis before, the COVID-19 pandemic is a fundamentally social and societal event.  Its consequences impacts individuals, households and communities but hits the vulnerable particularly hard, thus exacerbating the problems of inequality.

 

The reality is, now as in 1918, New Zealand still has many of the factors that led to the high death rate of Māori from the Spanish flu. The impacts of the Swine flu outbreak too were felt particularly hard by Māori and Pasifika. During the GFC, while the Pākehā unemployment rate rose from 2.4% to 5% between 2008 and 2012 the Māori unemployment rate went from 7.4% to 14.6%[178].

 

New Zealand’s mental health issues and suicide figures are some of the highest in the world[179]. Based on other disasters, in this current situation it is anticipated that approximately 10% of the population are likely to develop depression and, of those, there would be some who will be suicidal[180]. University of Otago researchers examining the impacts of the Canterbury earthquakes found adverse effects in the provision of support after disaster. The researchers noted that while support services such as free counselling exist, New Zealand’s public health services are already under strain and even small increases in demand may result in a considerable extra burden for health workers[181].

 

New Zealand will need to ensure there is more inclusive discourse about the path to social recovery.  Until the country addresses racism, the under-provision of health services, and material poverty, New Zealand will not be equipped to deliver sufficient protection to the vulnerable in society against the inevitability of future crisis.

 

Any response, at a local, national and global level must be guided by social data and expertise as much as by medical data and expertise[182]. Identifying and addressing the social impacts of the pandemic will ensure that a functional and resilient society emerges rather than one in which the differences in equality makes society more vulnerable than before.

 

Politics

 While trust in the government appears to have increased significantly as a result of its actions during the first weeks of the pandemic, the need for foresight, agility and responsiveness will underpin what is ahead for both the majority political parties. The leaders who won World War II did not wait for victory to plan for what would follow: Roosevelt and Churchill issued the Atlantic Charter setting the course for the United Nations, in 1941[183]. The United Kingdom published the Beveridge Report, with its commitment to a universal welfare state in 1942[184]. That same kind of foresight is needed today.

 

Historically, crisis response has been linked to civil service and state reform. In New Zealand, income tax, nationalization and the welfare state all grew out of conflict and crisis[185]. The 1920 Health Act came out of the Spanish flu pandemic; the Reserve Bank of New Zealand was established in 1934 to make more independent monetary policy after the offshore impacts of the depression; the 1938 Social Security Act brought in the comprehensive ‘cradle to grave’ welfare state; and the Family Benefit was established in 1946 post-World War II. 

 

State services minister Chris Hipkins stated in late 2019 the desire for “a public service sector that is more fleet-footed and can shift its focus to where it will make the most difference”[186]. Now more than ever, this will need to be a central focus for government direction. Central government may choose to focus on a citizen-centric public service and on boosting capability[187].

 

The Labour-led government has undertaken fast and decisive action in dealing with the immediate effects of the crisis to date, however the public will have the expectation that they will also deliver a compelling and workable plan for the next recovery/restart phase. History has shown that victory against an enemy is not always enough[188]; having fought against the ‘enemy’ the public will want to know how to get on with their lives, to make up for lost time and to feel justified that the sacrifices were worth it. The September 2020 elections will decide which political party offers the most convincing plan for a better future.

 

A further lesson from past crises, is that after crisis the state often does not give up all its power, leading to perhaps a bigger state with more powers, responsibilities and taxes.[189] Both nationally and globally, the pandemic has seen a massive increase in state power that was unimaginable prior to the virus. The use of intrusive surveillance, for example, may become more widespread just as it did in Asia post-SARS. It offers a huge advantage in managing disease outbreaks but the temptation may be to continue to use surveillance after the pandemic much as anti-terror legislation was extended after the 9/11 attacks[190]. It will be important for the public to remember that the measures a government puts in place in time of crisis are not appropriate for everyday life.

 

Public Health

Historically, New Zealand has benefitted from its isolation and has largely escaped unscathed from recent outbreaks (SARS, MERS, Ebola, HIV, and Zika) that have ravaged other nations. However, with that has come a level of complacency. Thanks to the Health Act 1920, ushered in by the Spanish flu disaster, New Zealand has built a public health system that is relatively robust, and has many dedicated healthcare professionals at the ready[191].  However, it could justifiably be perceived as ‘luck’ as opposed to ‘preparedness’ which has enabled New Zealand to escape the infection and mortality rates seen elsewhere. It was only the country’s mild encounter, on global terms, with the Swine flu virus in 2009 that tested the effectiveness of the central pandemic plan.  The pandemic plan, though having the narrow focus of influenza, gave central government at least a starting point in order to deal with the current virus.  New Zealand has also had the benefit of witnessing the strategies that have worked elsewhere in the world during previous outbreaks, along with what has worked currently as the disease began to spread within Asia and Europe. 

 

Countries such as Hong Kong, Taiwan and China had pandemic strategies that were formed after previous fights against infectious disease.  While Hong Kong suffered the second highest death toll from SARS worldwide[192], its officials used what they learned during the previous outbreak about the need for early testing and social distancing to limit the impact of COVID-19. Shaped by its 2015 battle against MERS, another type of coronavirus, South Korea started quarantining and screening Wuhan arrivals as early as January 3 and started early on an ambitious and accessible testing regime[193]. South Africa too, drew on the past experience of medical professionals and NGOs (non-governmental organisations) who have been fighting the ongoing outbreak of HIV[194].

 

Many western nations, however, with little or no recent experience of pandemic, were caught unprepared. Here in New Zealand, the government has had to balance numerous factors when assessing a containment strategy, with the impact on the healthcare system being traded off against long term damage to the economy. By replicating the response of those countries with past containment success, New Zealand’s experience to-date shows that the decisive and aggressive action taken by the government has, so far, paid off.

Global

Economy

In 2008, the US Federal Reserve and China helped the global economy emerge after the GFC, however currently there has not been as much international coordination between central banks as there was in 2008. At present, the US is not in the position to prop up other countries and COVID-19 has significantly damaged China’s capacity to manufacture for global markets[195]. Under President Trump, the US has been pursuing a policy of nationalist protectionism but a turn to global central bank cooperation with countries working together would see a faster recovery than if each country acted alone[196].

 

Compliance

Analysis of public compliance during past events has shown that there are many cultural factors that will influence the effectiveness of public health measures. Factors that hinder successful public compliance are a dissatisfaction with the healthcare system, higher expectations of medical intervention, and less confidence in medical experts[197]. Compliance is also shaped by the public’s level of confidence in its government which can lead, compel or inspire its citizens to abide by collective health measures.

 

China’s rulers govern a population of 1.4 billion people[198]. The extraordinary levels of compliance they achieve under pandemic conditions is shaped by the authoritative dynamics of the country’s political system. Despite the government’s attempts to adopt a more open stance, Chinese legal scholars expressed concerns after the SARS outbreak that the government, in order to block information about pandemics, may turn to more human right’s violations[199]. China’s Law on Prevention and Treatment of Infectious Disease gives authority to local governments to take emergency measures that may compromise personal freedom. China is able to exert stricter controls on movement and more intrusive means of surveillance such as house-to-house fever checks, tracing and enforcement of quarantines. It is also less vulnerable to pressure from businesses and popular opinion. During the SARS outbreak, the same day that the Chinese Premier released the new regulations to promote openness, the Beijing Morning News published an article on how people spread ‘rumours’ about SARS could be jailed for up to 5 years[200].

 

Sharing knowledge and raising issues related to risk and responsibility, Singapore has encouraged its citizens to work, both independently and as a group, towards the same goal. During the height of the SARS outbreak, political leaders talked about the ‘war’ against SARS and fighting at the ‘battlefront’ in an attempt to rally Singaporeans to work cooperatively with the state[201]. Working towards a shared understanding of social responsibility has meant that compliance in Singapore is more progressive, involving voluntary action and not just state legislation and regulation alone. While there is predominantly support for the state, there has also been some resentment among some Singaporeans who complain that their right to privacy has been invaded and that over surveillance may have occurred during the SARS outbreak[202].

 

Social

Times of economic crisis highlight inequalities that were previously ignored and present an opportunity to redress these inequalities[203]. For example, the US responded to the depression with the New Deal, post-war Europe responded with the Marshall Plan.

 

Times of crisis can also lead to significant and widespread changes in foreign policy. After the 9/11 attacks, both major political parties in the US rallied around new or strengthened anti-terrorism legislation. The 9/11 attacks also indirectly led to the resumption of hostilities in Afghanistan which in light of the attacks was seen by Americans as a ‘just war’[204].

 

Collaboration

Historic analysis highlights the lack of global strategies, goals and coordination that are necessary to combat the challenges that are an inevitable part of the future. The world does not know which virus will cause the next pandemic; there is no way to rapidly develop and deploy an effective vaccine; the huge difference in quality of health systems slows effective response and there are major gaps in global virus surveillance data.

 

Ebola caught the world unprepared in 2014, with little or no coordination and communication. Subsequently there has been greater regional effort with joint health partnerships, more joint initiatives in preparedness for pandemic and emerging infections. This has led to stronger interconnectedness and cohesiveness between healthcare providers and the community resulting in a better position in which to fight the continued outbreaks of Ebola[205].

 

Given that the world is only  ‘a plane ride away from a major threat[206]’ now is the time to learn from past experience and to support and engage in coordinated, universally applied public health measures and response to achieve global health security.

 

Politics
A major fallout of the pandemic is its politicization[207]. The suspicion and hostility seen during this pandemic is not new. [208]. Fear is a normal human reaction but it can be abused by politicians hoping to make political gains[209]. There is a distinct potential that a global depression ahead may create profound political uncertainty around the world as people judge how political leaders have behaved both during the crisis and its aftermath. Given that the 2008 GFC produced deep political paralysis and nurtured a crop of anti-technocratic populist leaders, it can be expected the COVID-19 crisis will lead to even more extreme disruptions[210].

 

The SARS outbreak highlighted the problem with Asia’s open borders becoming problematic as perceptions of an ‘enemy’ infiltrating across borders. In the case of Taiwan, research attributes excessive politicisation, e.g. laying blame on China and on the political opposition as the main problem for the ineffective management of the SARS outbreak.

 

In this current instance, there has been a huge difference in the global response to COVID-19 originating from China and the response to the Swine flu pandemic which originated in the US.  Global reactions were far less intense and critical during the Swine flu pandemic which infected 1.6 million and killed 280,000 in over 214 countries[211]. China is likely to remember how it was viewed and treated during the COVID-19 outbreak.

CONCLUSION

Moving forward, the role of local government will be just as critical as that of central government.  The world is different and will require different thinking, different behaviours and different models but fundamentally, the focus must remain on the four wellbeings and keeping the community at the heart of any future planning for recovery.

 

This analysis of past crises has endeavoured to provide an overview of how the ongoing crisis compares with earlier crises. With the scale of the COVID-19 pandemic still unfolding, there is an urgent need to not try and return to business as usual as quickly as possible. Instead, locally, nationally and globally, consideration will have to be given to the efficiency and effectiveness of any social recovery response. Lessons learned from previous events have shown that uncoordinated, ill-informed, and short-term panicked decision making has led to poor recovery outcomes.

 

Instead, Council must ultimately prepare to be unprepared. At this present time, with the long term impacts of the pandemic still unknown, there is no established procedure or framework to fall back on. Rather, Council’s immediate and forward planning will require the ability to be flexible, adaptive and agile in order to be responsive to the changed and changing needs of the whole community.

 

However much desired, there will not be a fast return to business as usual. Recovery will be a long and potentially difficult process and Council must ensure to bring the community on the journey alongside. Not everyone will accept the impact on autonomy and privacy that ongoing mitigation measures may require. Therefore, this is a time for over-communication – where Council’s effective communication, engagement and governance will be central to the District’s compliance with whatever measures will be required for collective recovery.

 

Recovery in the short, medium and long term will require a comprehensive and coordinated policy response. It will need to encompass broad social, economic, and financial dimensions and have the community as its central focus.  In consequence, it is essential that Council resolves to continue to work in partnership across government and non-government organisations, key stakeholders and community. This will not only allow each to build on the strength of others’, but will also give Council the opportunity to envision a more holistic view of what the future might look like for the District.

 

Looking ahead, New Zealand will continue to experience financial, health and environmental crises, on both a local scale and globally. While it is impossible to predict what these future ‘black swan’ events might look like and when they might occur, it will be essential that the District has the foresight and the capacity to prepare and withstand them. By engaging in transparent and honest communication, being open and supportive of the combined strength of collaboration, and by being dynamic in its strategic direction, Council will be able to support and enable an informed community with the strength and ability to prepare for its own resilience.

 

 

 


Community and Strategy Committee

10 June 2020

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Community and Strategy Committee

10 June 2020

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Community and Strategy Committee

10 June 2020

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Community and Strategy Committee

10 June 2020

 

Southland District COVID-19 Community Recovery Taskforce

Record No:             R/20/5/12073

Author:                      Kelly Tagg, Community Partnership Leader

Approved by:         Rex Capil, Group Manager Community and Futures

 

  Decision                                       Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

Purpose

1        The purpose of this report is to seek the committee’s endorsement for the establishment of a Southland District COVID-19 Community Recovery Taskforce and the associated draft terms of reference for the taskforce.

Background

2        The COVID-19 pandemic event will continue to have far-reaching social, cultural, economic and environmental impacts on our communities in the foreseeable future.  

3        As New Zealand (and the world) have had to deal with the implications of the pandemic over the past six months, it is still difficult to understand what life in a post COVID-19 world will look like, many commentators talk of the concept of the ‘new normal’.  Discussions include aspects of recovery, restart, rebuild, reset and resilience as we start to look towards what the future may hold. 

4        When considering the implications and understanding of the impacts of COVID-19 there is still a lot evolving and changing at a reasonably rapid rate – nationally and internationally and closer to home at a local, District and regional level. 

5        The community leadership team has been following with interest some of the “recovery” approaches that are being developed at a regional and national level. As a District, it’s also important to develop an approach that has a focus on future challenges and opportunities for our Southland District communities. 

6        To this end, this report seeks an endorsement from the Community and Strategy Committee to progress with the establishment of a community recovery taskforce, which, in addition to the information provided through our community boards, will assist in expanding the link between Council and its communities and providing information about the issues at the local community level impacting on services delivered by local community organisations, clubs and societies as well as regional agencies.

7        Council has adopted a twofold approach to community governance. The representative leadership pillar involves Council, committees and community boards and provides elected members with the representative leadership opportunity. The other pillar of community governance involves the community led development approach. It is proposed the development of the Southland District COVID-19 Community Recovery Taskforce supports this community led approach and provides an opportunity for a community voice into Council with a specific focus on impacts of COVID-19 at the local community level in the District.

What’s happening in other areas?

8        Below is a snapshot of some examples supporting the concept of community led recovery and recognising that Council is one piece of the COVID-19 recovery puzzle. 

Fremantle Council, Perth, Western Australia - https://www.fremantle.wa.gov.au/news-and-media/fremantle-looks-towards-covid-19-recovery

9        Fremantle Council has agreed to form three special internal working groups dedicated to driving the city’s approach to economic and community recovery over the next 12-18 months. One working group will be focused on the local economy, another on community services and the third on infrastructure delivery.

10      Each working group will be comprised of a number of councillors and relevant senior staff, along with the mayor and chief executive officer.

11      The primary role of the working groups will be to work with local businesses and community groups on a plan to guide Fremantle’s recovery from COVID-19.

12      A key task of the Economic Recovery Working Group will be to host four external workshops focusing on key streams of Fremantle’s business community - retail, hospitality and tourism; property development and construction; technical, professional and industrial services; and arts and culture.

13      The feedback from those workshops will be used to create an economic recovery plan for the next 12 months.

14      The Community Recovery Working Group will also hold workshops with service providers, sporting clubs and other community groups to understand the extent of impacts being faced by different groups in the community and what support may be needed.

15      The Infrastructure Recovery Working Group will provide the council with advice and recommendations on infrastructure priorities and identify opportunities to capitalise on any stimulus funding on offer through the state and federal governments.

Hamilton City Council - https://www.hamilton.govt.nz/our-city/covid-19/recovery-package/Documents/HCC%20Fact%20Sheet%20P3.pdf

16      ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Hamilton City Council announced a 12-point recovery plan to help the city withstand the economic and social ravages expected from COVID-19.

17      Their focus is on the short and long-term well-being of Hamiltonians and it is intended that the plan will provide help where it is most needed.  

Western Bay of Plenty District Council - https://www.westernbay.govt.nz/council/economic-recovery-plan

18      This council has put together an economic recovery plan and sees itself as having an important role to play in an all-of-government effort to assist its communities to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic.  Fundamental to this is a recovery plan that focuses on working collaboratively to rebuild the Western Bay of Plenty economy as fast as possible, through immediate relief and medium to long term support. 

19      Their plan also illustrates the varying levels at which council can operate in order to provide help and support now and in the medium to longer term in order to deal with the impacts of COVID-19.  This includes partnership and collaboration opportunities from grass roots level through to central government and highlights the many levels with which councils can operate in order to support its communities. 

Taupo District Council - https://www.taupodc.govt.nz/council/news?item=id:29zff0gr61cxbypff7gm#:~:text=A%20new%20sector%2Dled%20working,cultural%2C%20social%20and%20environmental%20interests.

20      A new sector-led working group has been brought together to address the effects of COVID-19 and develop a recovery plan for the Taupo District.

21      The recovery framework will cover the four wellbeing areas with participation on the working group representing economic, cultural, social and environmental interests.

22      The group chair is Taupo district mayor, David Trewavas, who recognised that Taupo, as a tourist destination, will be strongly affected by COVID-19 and stated that it was going to be a long road ahead for their economy and that the effects would be wide-spread across the community – not just in terms of businesses but also in terms of the wellbeing of the people.

23      The working group recognises the need to understand what the effects are and how to address them and they think the best way to do that is to ensure a local, sector-led response that has the ability and insight to identify opportunities for the district, that can then be supported at a regional and national level.

24      Mayor Trewavas was quoted as saying “In essence, it’s about taking a collaborative approach and making decisions that are united and clearly focused on how we will not only recover, but ideally flourish, in a post-COVID context.”

25      A ‘state of the district’ report is now being developed to clearly identify the effects of COVID-19 across the Taupo district and when it is complete it will be used as a first step towards developing a wider recovery plan that will provide clear direction for restoring and reimagining the Taupo district. 

26      This work is also being carried out in partnership with other local agencies such as Enterprise Great Lake Taupo and Destination Great Lake Taupo, recognising the importance of council being part of the solution – not the only solution.

27      Next steps will include a series of stakeholder engagement activities to ensure they are hearing from as many people as possible, including wider ideas and voices to feed into the plan. 

28      Mayor Trewavas also said. “We know there are people hurting from this and it is up to us as a community to take the lead in developing what our new normal will be.”

29      Waitaki District Council Taskforce - https://www.odt.co.nz/regions/north-otago/wdc-plan-taskforce-structure-recovery

30      A draft taskforce structure has been prepared by the Waitaki District Council to help guide the district’s recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. 

31      The draft plan includes the establishment of two taskforces – economic and social – whose purpose would be to provide a responsive and coordinated mechanism to work with the community and business groups and individuals across the Waitaki to help build a stronger and more resilient community. 

32      An “advisory waka” would give direction, mobilise local action groups and give them advice, co-ordinate and integrate potential projects and make sure there was no duplication or gaps in the framework.

33      Action groups (the paddlers) would be responsible for coming up with ideas, proposals and project delivery and also offer targeted support. 

34      The action groups would also have links to businesses and organisations such as the primary sector, manufacturing, construction, hospitality, tourism, and retail, chamber of commerce, Safer Waitaki and Federated Farmers.  Community groups and individuals will also be included in the action group.

35      The draft structure said the groups would present policy changes and funding and investment requests to the economic and social task forces before they recommend policy and investment initiatives to council and government for approval.  The council would then decide how best to incorporate any initiatives into the likes of its annual, long term and district plans. 

36      Queenstown Lakes District Councilhttps://www.qldc.govt.nz/20-04-06-mayor-boult-begins-what-next-conversation and  https://www.qldc.govt.nz/20-05-07-recovery-taskforces-taking-shape

37      Queenstown Lakes District Council identified that in looking to the future there was a need to involve various individuals and groups to enable and empower conversations which gives locals, community groups, businesses and investors the opportunity to be involved in collectively rebuilding the district.

38      It has been identified this process falls under two spate but inter linked areas – community recovery and economic recovery. Currently the council and community are developing the process to establish both of the recovery taskforces. It is intended once the taskforces are established they will be supported by the council but led by the community and will reflect the holistic wellbeing of the district’s communities including social, economic, environmental and cultural aspects.

Great South

39      Southland District Council at its meeting of 22 April 2020 agreed to revise its allocation of investment as per the Great South Statement of Intent 2020-2021 so as to reallocate the SDC resource to the regional development agency to provide greater level of support to the “business support services” function.  This work includes advisory and network connection opportunities such as;

·   expand and build on the NZTE funded Regional Business Partner Programme and other central government programmes and packages that are created and available in response to COVID-19

·   work with national, regional and local business advisory networks to establish a current/live inventory of business support packages, support agencies, advisory services available to SMEs

·   directly focus resource on aligning and linking SMEs in the Southland District area to appropriate agencies and programmes to offer targeted support

·   foster and promote business support programmes tailored to support and assist businesses in accommodation, hospitality, service sector support industries and rural communities

·   establish, in conjunction with Iwi, ICC, SDC, GDC, Chamber of Commerce et al a Southland SME Business Recovery Taskforce.

40      In addition, the scope of work for regional tourism development has been amended to refocus on destination management, particularly;

·   refocus resource and support to existing product and product development opportunities (as identified in the SMDS) to support industry and operator resilience, viability and long term sustainability

·   align with central government and national industry led initiatives that support a nationally coordinated and industry led domestic marketing and NZ pride in place initiative  

·   establish in conjunction with Iwi, ICC, SDC, GDC, DF, ILT et al a Southland Tourism Sector Recovery Taskforce.

41      Council also resolved at its meeting on 22 April 2020 that it notes it will support District and local community recovery initiatives alongside other external agencies as part of Council’s community leadership function and based on the community led development approach.”

Around the District

42      There are a number of locally led initiatives and recovery conversations being had across the District at the local community level. As an example the Future Rakiura Group has been looking at setting up a restart group for the island. 

43      In Fiordland, Cr Kremer is working to establish an ideas forum to explore strategic ideas that will generate more tourism income and employment for the area. It is intended that the forum will be about sharing ideas that attract visitors to Fiordland and the wider Southland region as well as keeping employed in Te Anau and the wider basin.  This project is still in its infancy with Cr Kremer currently calling for expressions of interest to be a part of the ideas forum.

44      It is noted these are examples and it is recognised other locally led initiatives will continue to develop and evolve.

Linking it all together

45      A lot is happening in the community recovery space at both a national and regional level with a number of the work streams emerging from either central government or its associated regional support agencies or involving larger stakeholder working groups at a regional level. 

46      Observations and learnings realised during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown period have reinforced the importance of engaging with, supporting local involvement and respecting local knowledge to inform decision making for our communities. While SDC has the opportunity to partner and collaborate with other agencies involved in the recovery aspect of COVID-19 at a regional and national level, the importance of utilising a community recovery taskforce to be a voice for the communities at a local and District level is also important. 

47      It is recommended the committee endorse the approach to establish a community recovery taskforce consisting of a maximum of 10 individuals, with strong ties to their communities, a strong cross section of community interests and from a reasonable geographic spread within the Southland District. 

48      The purpose of the Southland District COVID-19 Community Recovery Taskforce will be to understand the effects of COVID-19 at a local community level with a focus on the four community wellbeing areas – economic, social, cultural and environmental.

49      The taskforce will consider information about the impacts of COVID-19 as they are being felt and experienced in the Southland District communities including any issues, support requirements or locally developed solutions.

50      A strong focus will be on understanding and developing opportunities and solutions for services that are traditionally delivered at a local community (non-profit) level by community organisations, clubs and societies.

51      The taskforce will also have the opportunity to feed into Council ideas and suggestions for aiding and assisting recovery in our communities by directly reporting to the Community and Strategy Committee as required, through submissions to the long term plan process or in the shorter term, by supporting the development of projects or initiatives that will aid local communities in their recovery efforts and ensure the not for profit sector is supporting the future requirements of the community.

52      The attached draft terms of reference set out the purpose and membership of the Southland District COVID-19 Community Recovery Taskforce.

 

Recommendation

That the Community and Strategy Committee:

a)           Receives the report titled “Southland District COVID-19 Community Recovery Taskforce” dated 3 June 2020.

b)          Determines that this matter or decision be recognised as not significant in terms of Section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002.

c)           Determines that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and in accordance with Section 79 of the act determines that it does not require further information, further assessment of options or further analysis of costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision on this matter.

d)           Endorses the establishment of a Southland District COVID-19 Community Recovery Taskforce.

e)           Endorses the Southland District COVID-19 Community Recovery Taskforce terms of reference.

f)            Delegates to the mayor, deputy mayor and chair of Community and Strategy Committee the responsibility to determine the membership of up to a maximum of 10 individuals of the Southland District COVID-19 Community Recovery Taskforce

g)           Notes the mayor, deputy mayor and chair of the Community and Strategy Committee are required to present to the Community and Strategy Committee July 2020 meeting a report detailing the membership of the Southland District COVID-19 Community Recovery Taskforce for the Committee’s endorsement.

h)           Notes the Southland District COVID-19 Community Recovery Taskforce will be established for a fixed term period of 12 months from July 2020 to June 2021.

i)             Endorses the approach that the community leadership team facilitate and provide advice, assistance and administrative support for the Southland District COVID-19 Community Recovery Taskforce.

j)             Recognises that Council is one of many organisations that has a role in supporting a multi-agency approach in supporting the Southland District local community recovery as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic situation.

 

Attachments

a             Community recovery taskforce - terms of reference - May 2020    

 


Community and Strategy Committee

10 June 2020

 

Community Recovery Taskforce

Terms of Reference

Author: Kelly Tagg 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                                                         

 


Table of Contents

Introduction. 3

Purpose. 3

Local Input 3

Relationships and Engagement 3

Taskforce structure and protocols. 4

Taskforce membership. 4

 

 

Document Revision

Date

Amendment

Amended by

Approved by

Approval date

21/05/2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Introduction

Community-led recovery or community-focussed recovery is increasingly seen globally as an effective means of dealing with emergency events and impacts of such. It is an approach in contrast to the traditional top down government-led recovery methods.  Similar to the community-led development approach endorsed by Council in 2018, this community centric approach is recognised by Council and its communities as being core to the development of successful and sustainable outcomes for the long-term recovery of our communities as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic event.

Purpose

The purpose of the Southland District COVID-19 Community Recovery Taskforce will be to understand the effects of COVID-19 at a local community level with a focus on the four community wellbeing areas – economic, social, cultural and environmental.

The taskforce will consider information about the impacts of COVID-19 as they are being felt and experienced in the Southland District communities including any issues, support requirements or locally developed solutions.

A strong focus will be on understanding and developing opportunities and solutions for services that are traditionally delivered at a local community (non-profit) level by community organisations, clubs and societies.

This working group will also have the opportunity to feed into Council, ideas and suggestions for aiding and assisting recovery in our communities by directly reporting to the Community and Strategy Committee as required, through submissions to the long term plan process or in the shorter term, by supporting the development of projects or initiatives that will aid local communities in their recovery efforts and ensure the not for profit sector is supporting the future requirements of the community.

The community recovery taskforce is to focus on the following key principles:

Local Input

·      provide support and guidance at a local level on wider community of interest issues, initiatives and projects relating to COVID-19 recovery

·      support and champion the community-led recovery approach across the District with a focus on outcomes related to the social, cultural, economic and environmental wellbeings

·      provide advocacy support for priority areas of focus and matters of common interest relating to COVID-19 recovery in our communities.

Relationships and Engagement

·      using new and existing networks by members, promote community cohesion and networking opportunities across the many stakeholders and organisations who deliver services in the community

·      co-ordinate the effective use and sharing of information and resource between the taskforce, Council, its community boards and other stakeholder agencies

·      participate in local community forums and workshops with local service providers , local (and regional) community organisations, clubs and societies to understand the extent of the impacts of COVID-19 on local non-profit service delivery models and to understand what support is needed for the future provision requirements.

Taskforce Structure and Protocols

·      this community recovery taskforce is established for an initial fixed term period of 12 months from 1 July 2020 to 30 June 2021

·      this taskforce is not a committee or sub-committee of Council. 

·      the taskforce will have the opportunity to feed into Council, ideas and suggestions for aiding and assisting recovery in our communities by directly reporting to the Community and Strategy Committee as required, through submissions to the long term plan process or in the shorter term, by supporting the development of projects or initiatives that will aid local communities in their recovery efforts and ensure the not for profit sector is supporting the future requirements of the community

·      the first meeting shall be held in July 2020 at a central location

·      the taskforce shall decide the frequency and format of meetings for the 12 month term it is in existence

·      the meetings are to be interactive; open, honest and respectful and structured with a prepared agenda and order paper distributed prior to the meeting

·      the Southland District Council community leadership team will provide administrative support to the community recovery taskforce including:

◦   provide meeting planning, organisation and preparation support

◦   collate and distribute meeting notes

◦        in conjunction with the taskforce chairperson, prepare meeting order papers and agendas

◦   co-ordinate any external agency invitations

·      the community recovery taskforce will have working relationships with; 

◦   individual community boards

◦   Southland District Council

◦   local community organisations

◦   local businesses

◦   stakeholder agencies

Taskforce Membership

The community recovery taskforce consisting of a maximum of 10 individuals, with strong ties to their communities, a strong cross section of community interests and from a good geographic spread within the Southland District. 

The mayor, deputy mayor and chair of Community and Strategy Committee have the responsibility to determine the membership of the Southland District COVID-19 Community Recovery Taskforce.


Community and Strategy Committee

10 June 2020

 

Caring for Communities

Record No:             R/20/5/12072

Author:                      Kelly Tagg, Community Partnership Leader

Approved by:         Rex Capil, Group Manager Community and Futures

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

Purpose

1        The purpose of this report is to advise the Community and Strategy Committee of the “Caring for Communities” work stream which was launched by the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) recently.

 

Background

2        NEMA provides leadership on reducing risk, being ready for, responding to and recovering from emergencies.  It also provides national leadership to create an emergency management system that reduces the impact of emergencies and it works with central and local government, communities, iwi, and businesses to make sure responses to and recoveries from emergencies are effective and integrated.

3        Depending on the emergency, NEMA either leads or supports the response and recovery.  NEMA also works to build the capability and capacity of the emergency management system to reduce risk, to be ready for emergencies, and to respond and recover from them.

4        As the covid-19 pandemic has evolved, it has become clear that the welfare response to support New Zealand’s communities will require a unique and long-term approach.

5        There is a new model being rolled out by NEMA called ‘Caring for Communities’ that recognises the need for long-term recovery planning and action after the initial emergency passes.  This model seeks to transition from the current Civil Defence emergency management model to an expanded social sector services framework.  The overall objective of the new model is to provide information and support for the immediate and continued wellbeing of those most affected by the pandemic.

6        For this reason, the ‘welfare pillar’ of the nationally led pandemic plan has been renamed as the Caring for Communities work stream.

7        The overarching objective of the Caring for Communities work stream is to ensure all those individuals, whānau and communities at greater risk of experiencing adverse health, social or economic outcomes as a result of Covid-19 and associated restrictions (priority communities) have information and support to provide for their immediate and continued wellbeing.

8        An operating model is needed to support this which will see a transition from (in Southland’s case) Emergency Management Southland (EMS) to an expanded social sector services framework with clear roles and responsibilities, resources, relationships, systems, processes and intelligence/reporting.

 

What this means for Southland

9        The impacts of Covid-19 have been felt right across Southland District and will no doubt have implications on the wellbeing of our communities.  It is important to note that due to the scale of the impacts, this recovery will be different to that of a usual emergency response and will focus largely around a social and economic recovery in the regions.  

10      The national Caring for Communities operating model has been developed during the national response to Covid-19.  The new national operating model recognises that the social and economic impacts on people from this response will be far-reaching and ongoing.  To meet the ongoing welfare needs for communities a national governance group has been set up, a new operating model has been developed and a network of networks has been created. 

11      The national network of networks identified three priority groups being;

·    people at higher risk of contracting Covid-19

·    people requiring continuity of social services

·    people who are vulnerable due to language, culture or geographic

This national network of networks also identified network owners and priority communities within the priority groups.

12      The Southland model for operating Caring for the Communities needs to meet the needs of the local community which will require local leadership and direction.   

13      EMS has advised that working in partnership with a network of agencies who are able to respond to needs in the community is their preferred operating model going forward.  Engaging with these key networks, which have been identified and developed during emergency planning, should continue as the preferred operating model throughout the response and into recovery.  As we transition through alert levels however, there is a recognition that this model will need to adapt and evolve to meet the needs of the community and the increasing demand on resources for agencies who deliver the services.

14      Southland is unique in that it has limited government department representation compared to some other regions and is reliant on a network of non-government agencies to provide effective social service delivery.

15      It is also important to recognise that many of these organisations have limited staffing capacity and others have volunteers and staff who may be included in a priority community and unable to undertake work as usual. These organisations may be overwhelmed during lower alert levels and the recovery phase as demand on their service increases to meet increasing needs.  This may provide an opportunity to develop new models of operation, streamline service delivery and lead to the development of a more effective social sector coordination model.

16      EMS has been working to develop its own network of networks that reflect Southland’s unique position.  This includes; Māori leaders network, community response network, food security network, foreign national support network, improved health outcomes network and welfare coordination group network.   

17      To date, working with existing priority agencies and priority networks to deliver services has ensured an effective community focused response. 

18      Southland social sector agencies already support and engage with people in their service and have been able to respond effectively and quickly to meet needs as they have arisen.  Throughout the Covid-19 response, EMS has been able to connect with these agencies and support their work through advice, guidance and additional financial support for the provision of welfare service delivery.  This has also meant that when the EMS welfare team have had a need to refer people for additional support, they have been confident of which agency to connect with.

19      EMS advise they have engaged with a range of networks to co-ordinate this response. Some of these networks may need to be expanded to meet the increased need and support during recovery however, the priority networks as outlined above are ideally placed to work with their existing networks in recovery. 

20      From a Council perspective, SDC staff have also been assisting EMS with their welfare response to date which has included twice-weekly meetings to share information about what has been happening around the region during the response. 

21      Going forward it is anticipated that, as we move into recovery, Council will have the opportunity to partner alongside other agencies and “sit around the table” at several of the Southland network of networks in order to keep abreast of the needs and impacts arising from the Covid-19 pandemic in our communities. 

22      At the time of writing this report, EMS were awaiting confirmation on who the lead agency will be for regional social recovery.

 

Recommendation

That the Community and Strategy Committee:

a)            Receives the report titled “Caring for Communities ” dated 27 May 2020.

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report. 

 


Community and Strategy Committee

10 June 2020

 

Welcoming Communities - Options Moving Forward

Record No:             R/20/5/12153

Author:                      Megan Seator, Community Liaison Officer

Approved by:         Rex Capil, Group Manager Community and Futures

 

  Decision                                       Recommendation                                 Information

 

 

 

Purpose

1        The purpose of this report is to provide the Community and Strategy Committee with options for the transition of the Welcoming Communities Programme as per the resolutions from the Committee at its 11 February 2020 meeting. 

Executive Summary

2        This report follows on from information provided at the Community and Strategy Committee meeting on 11 February 2020 which outlined the transition of the Welcoming Communities programme from Great South to each of Southland’s councils. The Committee resolved:

-     That Southland District Council representatives work with MBIE to consider the options available to transition the Welcoming Communities programme delivery by Council.

-     That Southland District Council staff provide a detailed options paper following undertaking the work with MBIE relating to transitioning the Welcoming Communities programme to Council. This options paper is to include an assessment of resource requirements – financial and human – and detail how these will be provided for on an ongoing basis prior to making a final decision on this matter.

3        Four options have been identified in this report for consideration of the Welcoming Communities programme delivery in the Southland district moving forward.

4        Option 1 is the preferred option in recommending to Council that Southland District Council joins the Welcoming Communities Programme and uplifts the $10,000 in funding available.

 

Recommendation

That the Community and Strategy Committee:

a)            Receives the report titled “Welcoming Communities - Options Moving Forward” dated 26 May 2020.

 

b)           Determines that this matter or decision be recognised as not significant in terms of Section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002.

 

c)            Determines that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and in accordance with Section 79 of the act determines that it does not require further information, further assessment of options or further analysis of costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision on this matter.

 

d)           Recommends to Council that option 1 is the preferred approach supporting Council committing to the Welcoming Communities programme and uplifting the $10,000 in funding; with responsibility for delivery the programme being the Community Leadership Team and resourced as part of its existing team business plan.

 

 

Background

5        Welcoming Communities is a programme led by Immigration New Zealand working in partnership with the Office of Ethnic Communities and the New Zealand Human Rights Commission.

6        It was developed in recognition that communities are healthier, happier and more productive when newcomers are welcomed, and participate fully in society and the local economy.

7        The Welcoming Communities programme officially defines newcomers as being either (i) former refugees, (ii) working migrants, or (ii) international students.

8        The point of difference for this programme is that where previous settlement initiatives focused primarily on supporting newcomers, Welcoming Communities focuses on the receiving community to ensure they are well equipped and supported to welcome and interact with newcomers. Councils are recognised as having a community leadership role in supporting their communities to advance inclusion and diversity.

9        During 2017 to 2019, 10 councils across five regions were a part of a Welcoming Communities two-year pilot working with their communities to implement the Welcoming Communities Programme. The Southland region was selected as one of these pilot areas.

10      Following the national success of the pilot programme, in October 2019 Immigration Minister Iain Lees-Galloway announced that the programme would become permanent.  Funding of $6.6 million has been allocated over the next four years to fund the expansion of Welcoming Communities throughout the country.

11      Great South (previously Venture Southland) was co-ordinating the Welcoming Communities pilot within Southland under the guidance of the Southland Welcoming Communities Advisory Group. The advisory group consists of representatives from Invercargill City Council, Southland District Council, Gore District Council, Environment Southland, and iwi.

12      Great South advised the advisory group that they would be withdrawing their co-ordination role from the February 2020 programme having delivered the pilot and achieving accreditation for Southland’s councils.

13      As a part of the transition of Welcoming Communities from Great South to the councils, each council is entitled to receive $10,000 to deliver the programme which came from MBIE as seed funding and is currently being held by Great South. This money is to be spent on current or new initiatives listed in the Southland Murihiku Welcoming Plan. No new agreements or contracts would be required to be signed in order to uplift this money as Great South had previously done it on behalf of the councils. It would merely be a transfer of money and a transfer of the reporting line.

14      It has been noted that Invercargill City Council has formally joined the Welcoming Communities Programme and uplifted the $10,000 in funding available to them. Invercargill City Council has shown interest in partnering with Southland District Council on implementing welcoming initiatives.

15      Since the Covid-19 outbreak there have been discussions around the future of New Zealand’s migrant workforce. Whilst there has been no official statement from the government regarding the future of migrants working in New Zealand, informal comments made by politicians and rumours by the media have suggested a re-prioritisation of the workforce to ensure that New Zealanders are kept in jobs. This has caused a sense of panic and concern in some newcomer and migrant communities around their ability to continue to reside and work in New Zealand.

16      Southland District Council has been informed by Immigration NZ that despite Covid-19, the Welcoming Communities Programme is still intending to continue.

 

Issues

17      Delivery of programme and human resourcing requirements – it is proposed that the Welcoming Communities programme is delivered by the Community Leadership Team. Staff in the Community Leadership Team have been working in the Welcoming Communities space since its inception by sitting on the advisory group, delivering initiatives internally at SDC, and supporting Great South on its delivery. Welcoming Communities is already included as part of the Community Leadership Team’s business plan and by joining the official Welcoming Communities programme, it is anticipated it will be incorporated into the existing resource commitments of the team.

18      At this stage, there is no further central government funding allocated for the delivery of Welcoming Plan initiatives following the $10,000 seed funding being expended. Any further investment requiring external funding will be considered as part of the next stages of implementation and how the Welcoming Plan Initiatives may be delivered in the future. 

Option 1

19      The first option is for Southland District Council to formally join the Welcoming Communities Programme and subsequently uplift the $10,000 being held at Great South (provided by MBIE) for Southland District Council to use on implementing Welcoming Communities initiatives.

20      Delivery of the Welcoming Communities programme will sit within the Community Leadership Team and their existing business plan.

21      There are some conditions on how the $10,000 funding can be used. These are:

·    actual costs incurred to implement current welcoming plan activities – for example, this may include material or printing costs, and bus/venue hire

·    actual costs incurred to implement new welcoming plan activities – these will be activities determined in consultation with the Southland District community during 2020/2021.

22      The funding must be spent by December 2021 and cannot be used for salary or ongoing operational costs or contestable funding. Additionally, Southland District Council may not give the money to a community group to deliver on Council’s behalf, but it may partner with other councils and community groups to deliver welcoming communities initiatives.

23      A requirement for uplifting the $10,000 is six monthly reporting to MBIE which involves informing what Southland District Council has been doing to promote Welcoming Communities and deliver the Southland Murihiku Welcoming Plan, what has funding been spent on and how much, and what activities are anticipated in the next six months.

Option 2

24      The second option is for Southland District Council to join the Welcoming Communities Programme but to not uplift the $10,000 currently held by Great South, which will result in it being returned to MBIE.

25      Delivery of the Welcoming Communities programme will sit within the Community Leadership Team and their existing business plan.

Option 3

26      The third option is that Southland District Council does not join the Welcoming Communities Programme but put in place our own welcoming initiatives as Southland District Council sees fit.

27      Delivery of welcoming initiatives will sit within the Community Leadership Team and their existing business plan.

Option 4

28      The fourth option is that Southland District Council does not join the Welcoming Communities Programme, or engage in any welcoming initiatives.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

29      There are no legal or statutory requirements.

Community Views

30      Community views have not been considered.

Costs and Funding

31      There is $10,000 available to Southland District Council to implement Welcoming Communities. This funding is to be used on initiatives outlined in the Southland Murihiku Welcoming Plan. This money must be spent by December 2021 and some accountability reporting is required (see paragraph 20).

Policy Implications

32      There are no policy implications

Analysis

Options Considered

33      There are four options for consideration by the Community and Strategy Committee.

Analysis of Options

Option 1 – Join the Welcoming Communities programme and uplift the $10,000 available in funding

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        continue on with the work that Great South has achieved in the migrant and newcomer space over the past few years including maintaining status as an “accredited welcoming community”

·        aligns with the Southland Regional Development Strategy’s goal of bringing 10,000 more people to Southland by 2025

·        utilises funding available which means Council won’t have to source funding from elsewhere

·        opportunities to partner with ICC on delivering Welcoming Communities initiatives to get more “bang for buck”

·        enhanced national image and community perception from being a formally recognised welcoming District

·        delivery of the programme is already aligned with the Community Leadership Team’s business plan and workload

·        human resource requirement to deliver the Welcoming Communities initiatives outlined in the Southland Murihiku Welcoming Plan (Note: not all are expected to be delivered, we can selected specific ones)

·        human resource requirement for the reporting on funding to MBIE

·        human resource requirement for having regular communication with MBIE and engaging in the network of Welcoming Communities councils throughout New Zealand

 


 

Option 2 – Join the Welcoming Communities Programme and do not uplift the $10,000 available in funding

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        continue on with the work that Great South has achieved in the migrant and newcomer space over the past few years including maintaining status as an “accredited welcoming community”

·        aligns with the Southland Regional Development Strategy’s goal of bringing 10,000 more people to Southland by 2025

·        enhanced national image and community perception from being a formally recognised welcoming District

·        reduced human resource required for the reporting on funding to MBIE

·        delivery of the programme is already aligned with the Community Leadership Team’s business plan and workload

·        human resource requirement to deliver the Welcoming Communities initiatives outlined in the Southland Murihiku Welcoming Plan (Note: not all are expected to be delivered, we can selected specific ones)

·        human resource requirement for having regular communication with MBIE and engaging in the network of Welcoming Communities councils throughout New Zealand

·        no access to funding to implement initiatives in the Southland Murihiku Welcoming Plan and money will have to be sourced elsewhere

 

Option 3 – Do not join the Welcoming Communities Programme but continue involvement in welcoming initiatives as Council sees fit

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        freedom to engage in welcoming initiatives if and when appropriate, there is no imposed requirement to do so

·        reduced human resource requirement given no imposed requirement to implement welcoming initiatives, or communicate with MBIE and other councils in the official programme

·        Southland District Council will lose accreditation which Great South had worked to achieve

·        missed opportunity for partnership between Southland District Council, Invercargill City Council, and other councils involved in the Welcoming Communities Programme

·        no access to funding to implement initiatives in the Southland Murihiku Welcoming Plan and money will have to be sourced elsewhere

 

 


 

Option 4 - Do not join the Welcoming Communities Programme or engage in welcoming initiatives

 

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        freedom to engage in welcoming initiatives if and when appropriate. There is no imposed requirement to do so

·        reduced human resource requirement given no imposed requirement to implement welcoming initiatives, or communicate with MBIE and other councils in the official programme

·        focus on new priorities in the District particularly in light of the impacts of Covid-19

·        Southland District Council will lose accreditation which Great South had worked to achieve

·        missed opportunity for partnership between Southland District Council, Invercargill City Council, and other councils involved in the Welcoming Communities Programme

 

Assessment of Significance

34      This is not considered significant.

Recommended Option

35      Option 1 is deemed to be the recommended option. However, the Community and Strategy Committee should consider this carefully in light of Covid-19.

Next Steps

36      Following the recommendation made by the Community and Strategy Committee, a report will go to council to approve this recommendation of Southland District Council’s involvement in the Welcoming Communities programme.

 

Attachments

a             Welcoming Communities - Welcoming Plan - A4 Booklet PAGES    

 


Community and Strategy Committee

10 June 2020

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Community and Strategy Committee

10 June 2020

 

Community Wellbeings and Strategic Issues Overview - May 2020

Record No:             R/20/5/10995

Author:                      Rex Capil, Group Manager Community and Futures

Approved by:         Steve Ruru, Chief Executive

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

 

Report Purpose

1        This community well-beings and strategic issues overview report is prepared and presented to the Community and Strategy Committee as part of its standard order paper each meeting, as far as is practicable.

2        This report is intended to inform the committee of recent developments, points of interest and points for consideration as part of the overall strategic context and community well-beings (social, economic, environmental, and cultural) discussions that Council is part of – nationally, regionally and locally.

3        This report recognises the purpose of local government as per section 10 (1) (b) of the Local Government Act 2002 is to promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

4        The report is also used to provide insight of ‘happenings’ from other regions that maybe of interest and relevance to the District. This provides a wider strategic context on a national and regional scale to assist in Council’s understanding of issues and areas of impact occurring elsewhere.

5        Importantly, the report aims to initiate discussion and conversation amongst councillors and communities to support the opportunity to participate and contribute to Council’s direction setting and positioning with regards to the multi stakeholder environment it operates in.

6        It is intended the format and content of the report is divided into five headings – reflecting the four well-beings plus other regional happenings. The topics covered under each of the headings are a selection of recent articles and publications and are summarised with the associated link attached from where the information is sourced and/or the full document attached when relevant.

7        It is noted this report provides information related to the community wellbeings in the current context of the COVID-19 situation.

 

Social Well-being

8        For the purpose of this report we consider social well-being to reflect topics related to how people and communities engage in work, study and social activities.

9        The following is a summary of a selection of recent articles and publications relating to the social well-being topic.

 

 

No room for a too-hard basket

10        Sir Peter Gluckman, the International Network of Government Science Advice chairman contends that if NZ is to take advantage of the COVID-19 crisis then the long-standing issues related to the agriculture and rural sector must be addressed once and for all.

11        He contends the rural economy will be so much more important for many years to come and collaborative solutions need to ensure now that these long-standing issues are more sustainable and environment focused.

12        He goes on to suggest that recovery will not happen until people feel back in control of their lives. A lot of people are affected and it could take a long time to see the social effects on the more vulnerable and farmers, already facing compounded problems with debt, drought and lower commodity prices, are among the vulnerable.

https://farmersweekly.co.nz/section/agribusiness/view/no-room-for-a-too-hard-basket?utm_source=GlobalHQ&utm_campaign=df0b1d5f82-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_05_01_CMS&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_4f497899e6-df0b1d5f82-193644923

Point to note:

13        Of particular interest for Southland District Council is to recognise a lot of the messaging is consistent with the broader community recovery conversations being progressed as part of the wider community leadership approach being progressed with its communities.

Dairy sector wants New Zealanders to consider farm work as labour shortage looms

14      An article dealing with the issues related with COVID-19 and the migrant workforce not being available, it is predicted the sector will need to fill 1000 jobs in time for Moving Day on 1 June - the first day of the new dairy season.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/country/415766/dairy-sector-wants-new-zealanders-to-consider-farm-work-as-labour-shortage-looms

Point to note:

15      Of particular interest for Southland District Council is the need to remain abreast of what can continue to be done to assist rural Southland industries and employers in bridging the gap in labour demand and supply. Council can have a supporting role in advocacy, futures planning and strategy development and a community leadership role in supporting communities in dealing with the implications of the societal pressures and changes facing the District.

16      It is important to note that this matter is continued to be supported by investing in the services from Great South to support Southlanders in the rural workforce and related industries.

 

Economic Well-being

17      For the purpose of this report we consider economic well-being to reflect topics related to how financial and human made physical assets impact on how people live, deliver services and work together as a society.

18      The following is a summary of a recent publication relating to the economic well-being topic.

 

Westpac – Economic Overview. COVID-19 special edition

19      Westpac recently produced an economic overview publication related specifically to COVID-19. This provides an effective and succinct overview with a variety of topics covered in one document

20      The publication identifies that COVID-19 will cast a shadow over the economy for years after the virus has passed. Consumers and businesses will go into their shells amid high unemployment, falling house prices, and damaged balance sheets. The farm sector will suffer an income hit due to a global recession. And the dearth of international tourists will be keenly felt. Scarring from the COVID-19 recession will permanently damage New Zealand’s long-run productivity, meaning GDP and wellbeing may never fully return to their pre-COVID-19 trends.

21      It goes on to mention that disruptive events tend to accelerate trends that are already in place, and COVID-19 will be no exception. One example is that there has been an obvious leap forward in the digitisation of the economy, and there will be no going back. That may be the last straw for some firms and a huge opportunity for others, but digitisation is a positive for the economy overall.

22      Despite the gloom, it is worth pointing out that Westpac is actually forecasting a more rapid economic recovery than after the GFC. For example, we anticipate four years of above 5% unemployment, whereas after the GFC there were eight.

https://westpaciq.westpac.com.au/wibiqauthoring/_uploads/file/New_Zealand/2020/May_2020/Westpac_QEO_May_2020_Final_Web.pdf

Point to note:

23      Council recognises the impacts of COVID-19 are still being understood and will remain fluid and subject to change. Updates and overviews as provided by Westpac will assist Council in keeping abreast of changes and an understanding of impacts on its communities as well as council’s business also. 

 

Environmental Well-being

24      For the purpose of this report we consider environmental well-being to reflect topics related to how the natural environment impacts on how communities align resources and support resource allocation and usage required to live a sustainable life.

25      The following is a summary of a recent article relating to the environmental well-being topic.

COVID-19's wake-up call: put nature at heart of recovery

26      A think piece article considering questions related to - do we go forward in the same direction as we have been travelling so far: living beyond our means environmentally? Or do we consider COVID-19 a wake-up call and take a different route? Can we reset our economy, indeed our lives, to co-exist with our natural world?

https://i.stuff.co.nz/environment/121353070/covid19s-wakeup-call-put-nature-at-heart-of-recovery

 

Points to note:

27      Southland District Council recognises the environmental well-being issues related to the recovery opportunities associated with COVID-19. This supports previous conversations had by Council with regards to sustainability and regeneration principles. These conversations were at the forefront of points raised by Dr Ganesh Nana and Kristin Dunne at the February 2020 strategic workshop and the associated awareness of kaitiakitanga and manaakitanga principles.

 

Cultural Well-being

28      For the purpose of this report we consider cultural well-being to reflect topics related to how people live and work together and includes cultural and community identity, traditions and customs and common values and interests.

29      The following is a recent article relating to the cultural well-being topic.

Arise from your slumber: coronavirus and the modern State

30      A discussion piece considering and discussing the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic regards globalisation and role of governments.

https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2020/05/07/1158552/coronavirus-and-the-modern-state

Points to note:

31      Southland District Council recognise the potential impact of COVID-19 on globalisation and possible implications on migration and community demographics in the future.

 

Regional Happenings – Domestic Marketing Campaigns

32      This section aims to provide information recently highlighted relating to an area/region elsewhere in New Zealand.

33      The content for this report is providing an overview of regional domestic marketing campaigns from various regions that have been developed as a result of the travel restrictions imposed by the alert level systems.

34      Specifically, in early May, Great South provided the following statement advocating for interregional travel as soon as possible.

 

Support for domestic travel at Alert Level 2

As your regional tourism organisation, we are supporting calls for the Government to allow interregional travel from Alert Level 2. Please find below our statement to the media and tourism industry representatives outlining this support. 

Great South Chief Executive Graham Budd said, like all of New Zealand, Southland’s visitor industry had been significantly impacted by the outbreak of COVID-19 and he was deeply concerned that further delaying the lifting of travel restrictions would pose significant risks for the viability of local business and the economic re-start of the Southland region.

“Already we know that our tourism industry is hurting, and the reality is that if travel restrictions continue, many of our local businesses will no longer be viable,”

Southland’s geographic location and low-resident population meant that the region was significantly disadvantaged compared to many other places when it came to locally supporting its tourism industry.

“While Southland shows tremendous community spirit, we will need interregional support to get our tourism industry through the impacts of COVID-19, as will our neighbouring regions. With approximately 60% of tourism spend across the region attributed to our domestic market, we need to ensure we can re-start visitor flows again as soon as possible to benefit from the economic opportunities that visitation can achieve,”

Great South’s call for interregional travel is made in full support of national tourism bodies such as Regional Tourism New Zealand and Tourism Industry Aotearoa. Like their industry counterparts, Great South is confident that travel, hospitality and most tourism activities can operate safely under Alert Level 2.

Mr Budd said that naturally, as well as leisure travel, the call also includes supporting the ability to travel for business, a critical part of the visitor economy, as well as enabling people to visit their friends and family.

Great South GM for Tourism and Events, Bobbi Brown, said as the regional tourism organisation, Great South was committed to supporting the local tourism sector to operate in a safe and responsible way.

“We are working to ensure that Southland is best placed to respond when travel restrictions are lifted. This means connecting our local businesses and operators with essential resources, outlining the importance of tracking and tracing processes, and driving awareness for locals and those further away on the activities and experiences will be on offer across the Southland region,”

Mrs Brown said that between the February floods, the outbreak of COVID-19 and the consequent travel restrictions, it had been a very challenging time for the industry.

“Allowing interregional travel is essential, not only for the economic relief it will provide after the last couple of months but also for the social element which is proving to be just as important for us all. We are planning for when travel restrictions are lifted and urge the Government to help make this happen sooner rather than later,”

35      The following are examples of marketing campaigns developed by regions to promote domestic tourism and economic activity.


 

36      Southland:

 

https://southlandnz.com/together-southland?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Tourism%20Snapshot%20-%20April%202020&utm_content=Tourism%20Snapshot%20-%20April%202020+CID_430fe7a075bb2e545264b4e36ccbde22&utm_source=Campaign%20Monitor&utm_term=Together%20Southland

37      Waitaki:

https://www.waitaki.govt.nz/our-council/news-and-public-notices/news/Documents/We%20are%20missing%20you%20campaign%202020.pdf

38      Waikato:

https://mightylocal.co.nz/

39      Wanaka:

https://www.lakewanaka.co.nz/lovewanaka-supporting-local/


 

40      Mackenzie Country

 

41      Finally – below is an article from 5 May providing some research results around possible destinations New Zealanders maybe interested in visiting following lockdown.

 

Queenstown top destination for Kiwis following lockdown

5 May 2020  By Staff Reporter | news@tourismticker.com | @tourismticker

Queenstown has been named the destination most New Zealanders would like to visit once travel restrictions due to Covid-19 are lifted, according to new research from Opinion Compare.

The research found 47% of New Zealanders would choose to visit Queenstown, followed by Milford Sound, 41%, Bay of Islands, 40%, and the Coromandel Peninsula, 39%.

“We know how important it will be for the economy that domestic tourism thrives so it’s going to be critical for these destinations to not only deliver to past visitors, but attract new ones,” said Gavin Male, chief executive of Opinion Compare.

The survey involved 754 New Zealanders aged 18+ and was conducted in late April.

https://www.tourismticker.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/image001.jpg

Source: Opinion Compare

 

 

Recommendation

That the Community and Strategy Committee:

a)            Receives the report titled “Community Wellbeings and Strategic Issues Overview - May 2020” dated 4 June 2020.

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.



[1] https://thestandard.org.nz/the-global-financial-crisis-10-years-on/

[2] https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/120815679/heres-how-coronavirus-will-change-us-judith-collins?fbclid=IwAR3-edC-j9brlixK1oyR9c01CVAcyveZH0-XHNMwgrT21j2Nu59O-x-3tEI

[3] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/apr/08/the-2008-financial-crisis-will-be-seen-as-a-dry-run-for-covid-19-cataclysm

[4] https://www.forbes.com/sites/panel-of-economic-commentators/2020/03/23/economic-recovery-from-covid-19-and-geopolitical-ramifications/#8df1158596eb

[5] https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/diseases-and-conditions/covid-19-novel-coronavirus/covid-19-novel-coronavirus-health-advice-general-public/covid-19-novel-coronavirus-questions-and-answers

[6] https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/diseases-and-conditions/covid-19-novel-coronavirus/covid-19-novel-coronavirus-health-advice-general-public/covid-19-novel-coronavirus-questions-and-answers

[7] https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/diseases-and-conditions/covid-19-novel-coronavirus/covid-19-novel-coronavirus-health-advice-general-public/covid-19-novel-coronavirus-questions-and-answers

[8] www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200319-sitrep-59-covid-19.pdf?sfvrsn=c3dcdef9_2

[9] https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/events-as-they-happen

[10] https://covid19.govt.nz/

[11] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/17/opinion/coronavirus-1918-spanish-flu.html

[12] https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/?utm_campaign=homeAdvegas1?%22 Accessed 12 May 2020

[13] https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/diseases-and-conditions/covid-19-novel-coronavirus/covid-19-current-situation/covid-19-current-cases#dhbs

[14] https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/diseases-and-conditions/covid-19-novel-coronavirus/covid-19-current-situation/covid-19-current-cases/covid-19-significant-clusters

[15] https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/120815679/heres-how-coronavirus-will-change-us-judith-collins?fbclid=IwAR3-edC-j9brlixK1oyR9c01CVAcyveZH0-XHNMwgrT21j2Nu59O-x-3tEI

[16] https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/120611797/coronavirus-halfmillion-infected-worldwide-as-economic-toll-rises?cid=app-iPhone

[17] https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/120611797/coronavirus-halfmillion-infected-worldwide-as-economic-toll-rises?cid=app-iPhone

[18] https://www.visualcapitalist.com/covid-19-economic-impact

[19] https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-shock-vs-global-financial-crisis-the-worse-economic-disaster/a-52802211

[20] https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/120613593/westpac-forecasts-unemployment-will-climb-by-200000?cid=app-iPhone

[21] https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/120613593/westpac-forecasts-unemployment-will-climb-by-200000?cid=app-iPhone

[22] https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/120613593/westpac-forecasts-unemployment-will-climb-by-200000?cid=app-iPhone

[23] https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1918-pandemic-h1n1.html

[24] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-did-the-world-shut-down-for-covid-19-but-not-ebola-sars-or-swine-flu/

[25] https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1918-pandemic-h1n1.html

[26] https://www.livescience.com/spanish-flu.html

[27] https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/04-04-2020/the-lessons-new-zealand-learned-from-spanish-flu/

[28] https://nzhistory.govt.nz/culture/1918-influenza-pandemic/death-rates

[29] https://nzhistory.govt.nz/culture/1918-influenza-pandemic/death-rates

[30] https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/04-04-2020/the-lessons-new-zealand-learned-from-spanish-flu/

[31] https://monitor.icef.com/2020/04/looking-ahead-scenario-planning-and-recovery-forecasts-for-international-education/

[32] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15018127

[33] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168851004002428

[34] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168851004002428

[35] https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/diseases-and-conditions/communicable-disease-control-manual/severe-acute-respiratory-syndrome-sars

[36] https://www.forbes.com/sites/panel-of-economic-commentators/2020/03/23/economic-recovery-from-covid-19-and-geopolitical-ramifications/#8df1158596eb

[37] https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/covid-19-deaths-compared-with-swine-flu/

[38] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_pandemic

[39] https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10815658

[40] https://www.health.govt.nz/your-health/healthy-living/emergency-management/pandemic-planning-and-response/influenza-pandemic-plan

[41] https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10815658

[42] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_pandemic_in_New_Zealand

[43] https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/publications/seroprevalence-flu-2009.pdf

[44] https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/publications/seroprevalence-flu-2009.pdf

[45] https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/publications/seroprevalence-flu-2009.pdf

[46] https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/publications/seroprevalence-flu-2009.pdf

[47] https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ebola-virus-disease

[48] https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ebola-virus-disease

[49] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-03-10/how-coronavirus-compares-with-2009-s-h1n1-in-spread-and-reaction

[50] https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid

[51] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15018127

[52] https://www.livescience.com/covid-19-pandemic-vs-swine-flu.html

[53] https://www.livescience.com/covid-19-pandemic-vs-swine-flu.html

[54] https://www.businessinsider.com.au/coronavirus-contagious-r-naught-average-patient-spread-2020-3?r=US&IR=T

[55] 'Response to the influenza pandemic', URL: https://nzhistory.govt.nz/culture/1918-influenza-pandemic/response, (Ministry for Culture and Heritage), updated 13-Jan-2016

[56] 'Aftermath', URL: https://nzhistory.govt.nz/culture/1918-influenza-pandemic/aftermath, (Ministry for Culture and Heritage), updated 20-Dec-2012

[57] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK92479/

[58] https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/publications/seroprevalence-flu-2009.pdf

[59] http:// www.health.govt.nz/.../new-Zealand-influenza-pandemic-plan-frame

[60] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_pandemic_in_New_Zealand

[61] https://www.livescience.com/covid-19-pandemic-vs-swine-flu.html

[62] https://www.livescience.com/covid-19-pandemic-vs-swine-flu.html

[63] https://www.livescience.com/covid-19-pandemic-vs-swine-flu.html

[64] https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2020/03/what-the-spanish-flu-taught-us-about-social-distancing.html

[65] http://www.economist.com/briefing/2020/04/04/the-hard-choices-covid-policymaders-fgace

[66] http://www.economist.com/briefing/2020/04/04/the-hard-choices-covid-policymaders-fgace

[67] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168851004002428

[68] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK92479/

[69] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2094974/

[70] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2094974/

[71] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/17/opinion/coronavirus-1918-spanish-flu.html

[72] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2094974/

[73] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/17/opinion/coronavirus-1918-spanish-flu.html

[74] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/17/opinion/coronavirus-1918-spanish-flu.html

[75] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/17/opinion/coronavirus-1918-spanish-flu.html

[76] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/17/opinion/coronavirus-1918-spanish-flu.html

[77] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1046/j.1440-1843.2003.00524.x

[78] https://archipro.co.nz/articles/architecture/coronavirus-the-impact-on-the-new-zealand-construction-industry-archipro

[79] https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=3503162

[80] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1125856/

[81] https://www.thoughtco.com/what-was-the-great-depression-104684

[82] https://www.history.com/topics/great-depression/great-depression-history

[83] http://sites.tepapa.govt.nz/sliceofheaven/web/html/greatdepression-2.html

[84] http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/1966/history-economic/page-7 (accessed 21 Apr 2020)

[85] https://eh.net/encyclopedia/an-economic-history-of-new-zealand-in-the-nineteenth-and-twentieth-centuries/

[86] http://sites.tepapa.govt.nz/sliceofheaven/web/html/greatdepression-2.html

[87] http://sites.tepapa.govt.nz/sliceofheaven/web/html/greatdepression-2.html

[88] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United%E2%80%93Reform_coalition_Government_of_New_Zealand

[89] https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/-/media/reservebank/files/publications/factsheets%20and%20guides/factsheet-the-reserve-bank-and-nzs-economic-history.pdf

[90] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United%E2%80%93Reform_coalition_Government_of_New_Zealand

[91]  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United%E2%80%93Reform_coalition_Government_of_New_Zealand

[92] http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/better-business/invest-in-dairy/10089967/What-did-we-learn-from-the-GFC

[93] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/the-coronavirus-crisis-is-no-2008/

[94] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/the-coronavirus-crisis-is-no-2008/

[95] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Recession_in_Oceania

[96] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Recession_in_Oceania

[97] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Recession_in_Oceania

[98] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Recession_in_Oceania

[99] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Recession_in_Oceania

[100] https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/120733582/coronavirus-government-says-economic-hit-will-be-much-worse-than-gfc-with-unemployment-possibly-hitting-double-digits

[101] http://archive.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/income-and-work/employment_and_unemployment/nz-labour-market-during-recession.aspx

[102] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Recession_in_Oceania

[103] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/the-coronavirus-crisis-is-no-2008/

[104] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/the-coronavirus-crisis-is-no-2008/

[105] https://www.investopedia.com/news/10-years-later-lessons-financial-crisis/

[106] http://archive.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/income-and-work/employment_and_unemployment/nz-labour-market-during-recession.aspx

[107] https://www.rba.gov.au/education/resources/explainers/the-global-financial-crisis.html

[108] https://www.investopedia.com/news/10-years-later-lessons-financial-crisis/

[109] https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/106451285/reasons-to-worry-about-another-gfc-and-where-nz-stands-this-time-around

[110] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/05/z-u-or-nike-swoosh-what-shape-will-our-covid-19-recovery-take/

[111] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/the-coronavirus-crisis-is-no-2008/

[112] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/the-coronavirus-crisis-is-no-2008/

[113] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/the-coronavirus-crisis-is-no-2008/

[114] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/the-coronavirus-crisis-is-no-2008/

[115] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/03/14/recession-economy-coronavirus-jobs/

[116] https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-shock-vs-global-financial-crisis-the-worse-economic-disaster/a-52802211

[117] https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-shock-vs-global-financial-crisis-the-worse-economic-disaster/a-52802211

[118] https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-shock-vs-global-financial-crisis-the-worse-economic-disaster/a-52802211

[119] https://treasury.govt.nz/publications/weu/weekly-economic-update-8-may-2020-html

[120] https://treasury.govt.nz/publications/weu/weekly-economic-update-8-may-2020-html

[121] https://monitor.icef.com/2020/04/looking-ahead-scenario-planning-and-recovery-forecasts-for-international-education/

[122] https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/03/18/coronavirus-economic-crash-2008-financial-crisis-worse/

[123] https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/120606332/the-economy-is-on-life-support-but-its-not-dead--economist?rm=a

[124] https://www.boprc.govt.nz/media/374074/economic-settlements-and-agglomeration-impacts_final-2-.pdf

[125] https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12327345

[126] https://blog.elearneconomics.com/moral-hazard-and-covid-19/

[127] https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/050515/how-did-moral-hazard-contribute-financial-crisis-2008.asp

[128] https://www.forbes.com/sites/kathrynjudge/2020/04/15/the-covid-19-bailouts/#907d5853b778

[129] https://blog.elearneconomics.com/moral-hazard-and-covid-19/

[130]

[131] https://www.forbes.com/sites/kathrynjudge/2020/04/15/the-covid-19-bailouts/#907d5853b778

[132] https://www.history.com/topics/21st-century/9-11-attacks

[133] https://www.history.com/topics/21st-century/9-11-attacks

[134] https://www.history.com/topics/21st-century/9-11-attacks

[135] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_effects_of_the_September_11_attacks

[136] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_effects_of_the_September_11_attacks

[137] https://www.history.com/topics/21st-century/9-11-attacks

[138] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_effects_of_the_September_11_attacks

[139] https://www.brookings.edu/research/forecasting-the-economy-and-policy-after-911

[140] https://www.brookings.edu/research/forecasting-the-economy-and-policy-after-911

[141] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284052565_The_economic_impact_of_the_Canterbury_earthquakes

[142] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284052565_The_economic_impact_of_the_Canterbury_earthquakes

[143] https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/research-papers/document/00PlibCIP051/economic-effects-of-the-canterbury-earthquakes

[144] https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/research-papers/document/00PlibCIP051/economic-effects-of-the-canterbury-earthquakes

[145] https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/research-papers/document/00PlibCIP051/economic-effects-of-the-canterbury-earthquakes

[146] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284052565_The_economic_impact_of_the_Canterbury_earthquakes

[147] https://www.rnz.co.nz/programmes/two-cents-worth/story/2018742884/coronavirus-recovery-lessons-from-the-christchurch-quakes

[148] https://www.eqrecoverylearning.org/assets/downloads/res101-understanding-social-recovery.pdf

[149] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-9/11

[150] https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12329199

[151] https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12329199

[152] https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/05/12/covid-19-fueling-anti-asian-racism-and-xenophobia-worldwide

[153] https://www.vox.com/2016/9/10/12861036/terrorist-psychology-fear-9-11-anniversary

[154] https://www.eqrecoverylearning.org/assets/downloads/res101-understanding-social-recovery.pdf

[155] https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/120581892/coronavirus-lockdown-will-leave-almost-no-part-of-the-economy-untouched?cid=app-iPhone

[156] http://greaterchristchurch.org.nz/background/recovery-and-regeneration

[157] https://www.waimakariri.govt.nz/services/emergencies-and-recovery/recovery/social-recovery-101

[158] https://www.waimakariri.govt.nz/services/emergencies-and-recovery/recovery/social-recovery-101

[159] https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/99964077/farmer-suicides-highlight-vulnerability-as-official-figures-rise-for-past-year - accessed 27/4/20

[160] https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-global-risks-report-2020

[161] https://architecturenow.co.nz/articles/economy-poised-to-shut-down-to-save-lives/

[162] https://treasury.govt.nz/publications/weu/weekly-economic-update-8-may-2020-html

[163] https://architecturenow.co.nz/articles/economy-poised-to-shut-down-to-save-lives/

[164] http://amp.ft.com/content/7eff769a-74dd-11ea-95fe-fcd274e920ca

[165] https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/120642585/coronavirus-government-starts-economic-planning-for-postlockdown-new-zealand?cid=facebook.post

[166] https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/120642585/coronavirus-government-starts-economic-planning-for-postlockdown-new-zealand?cid=facebook.post

[167] https://www.rnz.co.nz/programmes/two-cents-worth/story/2018742884/coronavirus-recovery-lessons-from-the-christchurch-quakes

[168] https://www.eib.org/en/readonline-publications/covid-econ-weekly-briefing-03-april.htm

[169] https://architecturenow.co.nz/articles/economy-poised-to-shut-down-to-save-lives/

[170] https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/120619698/coronavirus-can-the-economy-recover?cid=app-iPhone

[171] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avian_influenza

[172] https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/2009-h1n1-pandemic.html

[173] https://www.forbes.com/sites/panel-of-economic-commentators/2020/03/25/chinas-economic-recovery-from-covid-19-will-be-slower-than-it-was-for-sars/#c7a19e255c93

[174] https://treasury.govt.nz/information-and-services/nz-economy/covid-19-economic-response

[175] https://www.forbes.com/sites/kathrynjudge/2020/04/15/the-covid-19-bailouts/#907d5853b778

[176] https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2020/04/19/1133096/dont-leave-home-but-then-go-and-see-your-country?utm_source=Friends+of+the+Newsroom&utm_campaign=dbf979c99b-Daily+Briefing+19.4.20&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_71de5c4b35-dbf979c99b-97842367

[177] https://lgiu.org/what-next-for-the-new-normal/

[178] https://thespinoff.co.nz/atea/08-04-2020/the-effects-of-the-covid-19-recession-will-hit-maori-hardest/

[179] https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2020/04/27/1146091/remembering-our-pandemic-past?utm_source=Friends+of+the+Newsroom&utm_campaign=cef358c253-Week+in+Review+25.04.20_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_71de5c4b35-cef