A petition calling on Christchurch City Council to revoke its decision to contribute an extra $15 million to the Christ Church Cathedral rebuild had gathered 18,650 signatures as of Wednesday morning RNZ.

The petition was organised by local resident James Pawson. It calls for the council to reverse its decision to contribute the additional $15m of ratepayer money to the cathedral reinstatement project, and for the 2025 rates rise of 7.35% to be revisited RNZ.

The petition's text argues that allocating $15m of ratepayer money to the cathedral "sends the wrong message to the people of Christchurch" RNZ. A Change.org petition titled "Stop Using Rate Payers' Money for Christ Church Cathedral Rebuild," hosted at the URL path '/stop-using-rate-payers-money-for-christ-church-cathedral-rebuild', states in its description: "We must ensure that no more rate payers' money goes into rebuilding the Christ Church Cathedral unless there is clear public support for such" Change.org.

Christchurch City Council declined to comment, saying it had not formally received the petition RNZ.

Christ Church Cathedral Reinstatement Ltd chair Steve Wakefield acknowledged a range of views on the cathedral's future. He said the council's decision to contribute the extra funding is contingent on central government support RNZ.

The signature count, approaching 19,000, is substantial for a local-government petition in Aotearoa. Council-led petition processes under the Local Government Act 2002 require signatures from 5% of enrolled electors in the council area to trigger a poll, though this petition appears to be a community-organised effort rather than a formal poll petition. Either way, the volume of signatories gives Pawson a visible mandate to press the council publicly, and the specific demand that the 7.35% rates rise be revisited broadens the petition's reach beyond cathedral stakeholders to ratepayers more broadly.

The council's refusal to comment on the basis that it has not formally received the petition is a standard procedural response, but it leaves open the question of what happens once the petition is formally tabled. Councillors will then need to decide whether to debate the $15m contribution in a public meeting, refer it to staff for a report, or simply receive it and move on.

Wakefield's framing is the more consequential thread for those watching the project closely. By confirming that the council's contribution is contingent on central government support, he has placed the ball in the Crown's court. If central government does not commit, the council's $15m decision may be revisited regardless of the petition's demands. The dependency on Cabinet-level decisions also means the petition's audience is effectively wider than Christchurch City Council: any minister or official assessing whether to back the project will see a near-19,000-signature objection on the public record.

The tension between heritage reinstatement and ratepayer cost is not new in post-quake Christchurch, but the petition's coupling of the cathedral funding with the 7.35% rates rise sharpens the political stakes. Councillors who voted for the extra contribution may face pressure to justify that decision not just on heritage or tourism grounds, but against the backdrop of a rates increase that is well above inflation.

For now, the petition has momentum and a clear set of demands. The council has not formally engaged. The reinstatement company is pointing to central government. And the Crown's position on additional support for the cathedral rebuild remains the pivotal unknown.