Community groups working in Christchurch’s red zone are demanding a voice on the governance committee overseeing the 602-hectare corridor, after the City Council voted against grassroots representation.
The interim committee, tasked with managing the land until a charitable trust is established, will consist of three elected councillors, the mayor, the deputy mayor, and three iwi representatives—but no direct community representation.
Community advocate Hayley Guglietta described the decision as “heartbreaking”, saying it ignored more than a decade of work by local groups advocating for a strong community voice.
“Since the rezoning announcement in 2011, the community has fought for a seat at the table,” Guglietta said.
“To turn their backs on this now and shut the community out is simply heartbreaking.” She rejected the argument that elected councillors adequately represented grassroots voices.
“Through all the research we’ve done, there’s a clear distinction between what an elected member is and what community representation means,” she said.
“Councillors have to work for the whole city, but they don’t have the historical context or the stakeholder connections in this space.” Guglietta said iwi representation on the committee was important, but community groups held a different kind of historical knowledge—that of the post-earthquake red-zoning experience.
“After the earthquakes, 5,000 homes were red-zoned, and community groups have worked closely with those residents and the surrounding areas ever since,” she said.
“That’s the historical context we’re talking about.”
‘Political block voting’ behind decision
Guglietta believes the decision to exclude grassroots representation was driven by politics.
“In my opinion, this was a political block vote, and the two councillors who could have been appointed to the governance group were at risk of losing their seats to community representatives.”
“The third seat would have gone to Celeste Donovan, who actually supported community representation and presented an amendment to include it.”
She also criticised the staff report presented at the council meeting, which she described as confusing and unclear. “Councillors weren’t even sure what iwi wanted, and quite rightly they wanted to respect Ngāi Tūāhuriri’s position,” Guglietta said.
“But iwi were clear—they weren’t too concerned about the third seat. If that had been made clearer, I think the outcome would have been different.”
Guglietta said the issue wasn’t about co-governance, but rather a collaborative partnership between iwi, elected members, and the community.
“At the end of the day, all stakeholders should be working together for the best outcomes for the city and this project,” she said.
“People are too focused on what co-governance means, but in this context, it’s about collaboration. This should have been a moment of pride and celebration for Christchurch.”
She said the governance structure needed to reflect the full range of stakeholders, including the red-zoned residents, surrounding neighbourhoods, and regeneration projects already in motion.
“This is an intergenerational project, and more stakeholders will come on board over time,” she said.
“We need a structure that reflects that reality.”
For Guglietta, the council’s decision was deeply personal.
“I’ve spent over 10 years advocating for these communities—and many others have fought even longer,” she said.
She recalled a promise she made to Evan Smith, a well-known community advocate who passed away in 2021 after dedicating years to securing a long-term plan for the red zone land.
“When Evan Smith passed away, I promised him I would make sure we got an enduring entity in place,” she said.
“I promised that this land would remain intact and protected, that it wouldn’t be carved up and redeveloped, and that the people who had to leave their homes could finally have peace.”
