The 2010–2011 Canterbury earthquakes and their aftermath have been described by the Human Rights Commission as one of New Zealand's greatest contemporary human rights challenges. This article documents the shortcomings in the realisation of the right to housing in post-quake Canterbury for homeowners, tenants and the homeless. The article then considers what these shortcomings tell us about New Zealand's overall human rights framework, suggesting that the ongoing and seemingly intractable nature of these issues and the apparent inability to resolve them indicate an underlying fragility implicit in New Zealand's framework for dealing with the consequences of a large-scale natural disaster. The article concludes that there is a need for a comprehensive human rights-based approach to disaster preparedness, response and recovery in New Zealand.
None
73 months after the earthquake that damaged it, the jetty at South New Brighton Domain is still not repaired. Seven years ago it was straight and level. Dull, flat and orrible (horrible) light meant this image was destined to become monochrome!
Today was the first time I have been to the earthquake memorial since it was completed and opened on 22nd February 2017, six years after the devastating quake that killed the 185 that are named on this wall. I knew two of the people on the list.
Only two of 20 houses left in the Rawhiti Earthquake Village. This from the sign on perimeter fence: "Since 2011, Rawhiti Domain has been used to provide temporary accommodation for those affected by the Canterbury earthquakes. Over 200 households have used the 20 houses while their own homes have been repaired or rebuilt. The demand for acco...
Six ½ years after the earthquakes there are still a few demolitions taking place. This one is a block of council owned flats. Whether the whole complex is being demolished or not I don't know., but here the centre block of three is being demolished. The green grass is what was sections and houses demolished in 2012-2015 as it is too close to t...
An impressive Cabbage Tree (Cordyline australis) that was in someone's back yard prior to the demolition of houses post the 2011 earthquake.
In what used to be sections with houses and yards. Between late 2011 and 2014 the houses (well 95% of them) were removed due to land dropping in the 2011 earthquakes and the proximity of the Avon River, tidal in this area.
A Phoenis Palm (Phoenix canariensis) that was in someone's back yard prior to the demolition of houses post the 2011 earthquake.
Earthquakes are insured only with public sector involvement in high-income countries where the risk of earthquakes is perceived to be high. The proto-typical examples of this public sector involvement are the public earthquake insurance schemes in California, Japan, and New Zealand (NZ). Each of these insurance programs is structured differently, and the purpose of this paper is to examine these differences using a concrete case-study, the sequence of earthquakes that occurred in the Christchurch, New Zealand, in 2011. This event turned out to have been the most heavily insured earthquake event in history. We examine what would have been the outcome of the earthquakes had the system of insurance in NZ been different. In particular, we focus on the public earthquake insurance programs in California (the California Earthquake Authority - CEA), and in Japan (Japanese Earthquake Reinsurance - JER). Overall, the aggregate cost to the public insurer in NZ was $NZ 11.1 billion in its response to the earthquakes. If a similar-sized disaster event had occurred in Japan and California, homeowners would have received $NZ 2.5 billion and $NZ 1.4 billion from the JER and CEA, respectively. We further describe the spatial and distributive patterns of these different scenarios.