This study analyses the success and limitations of the recovery process following the 2010–11 earthquake sequence in Christchurch, New Zealand. Data were obtained from in-depth interviews with 32 relocated households in Christchurch, and from a review of recovery policies implemented by the government. A top-down approach to disaster recovery was evident, with the creation of multiple government agencies and processes that made grassroots input into decision-making difficult. Although insurance proceeds enabled the repair and rebuilding of many dwellings, the complexity and adversarial nature of the claim procedures also impaired recovery. Householders’ perceptions of recovery reflected key aspects of their post-earthquake experiences (e.g. the housing offer they received, and the negotiations involved), and the outcomes of their relocation (including the value of the new home, their subjective well-being, and lifestyle after relocation). Protracted insurance negotiations, unfair offers and hardships in post-earthquake life were major challenges to recovery. Less-thanfavourable recovery experiences also transformed patterns of trust in local communities, as relocated householders came to doubt both the government and private insurance companies’ ability to successfully manage a disaster. At the same time, many relocated households expressed trust in their neighbours and communities. This study illuminates how government policies influence disaster recovery while also suggesting a need to reconsider centralised, top-down approaches to managing recovery.
A Christchurch couple in a long running dispute over the insurance payout for their earthquake damaged home have reached an out-of-court settlement with Southern Response.
The class action was brought on behalf of former AMI Insurance/Southern Response policyholders who believe the company misled them into settling their claims for less than their policies entitled them to.
The lawyer for Brendan and Colleen Ross, Grant Cameron, talks to Max Towle about the settlement.
In response to the February 2011 earthquake, Parliament enacted the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act. This emergency legislation provided the executive with extreme powers that extended well beyond the initial emergency response and into the recovery phase. Although New Zealand has the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002, it was unable to cope with the scale and intensity of the Canterbury earthquake sequence. Considering the well-known geological risk facing the Wellington region, this paper will consider whether a standalone “Disaster Recovery Act” should be established to separate an emergency and its response from the recovery phase. Currently, Government policy is to respond reactively to a disaster rather than proactively. In a major event, this typically involves the executive being given the ability to make rules, regulations and policy without the delay or oversight of normal legislative process. In the first part of this paper, I will canvas what a “Disaster Recovery Act” could prescribe and why there is a need to separate recovery from emergency. Secondly, I will consider the shortfalls in the current civil defence recovery framework which necessitates this kind of heavy governmental response after a disaster. In the final section, I will examine how
New Zealanders are paying too much for house and contents insurance, according to a new survey. Consumer NZ's price comparison survey shows climate and natural hazard risk is being factored in, and is more expensive than ever. Quotes for a large house differed by more than $3,000 across Auckland, Hamilton, Wellington, Christchurch, and Dunedin, and there's a more than $2,000 difference between the cheapest and most expensive policies on offer for a standard-sized house. If you live somewhere with a higher chance of earthquakes - such as Wellington or Christchurch - you'll be charged more for insurance. The cost of house and contents insurance has risen by 5.6% this year, over the past ten years it's gone up 150%. Kathryn is joined by Consumer NZ's Gemma Rasmussen and Katrina Shanks Chief Executive of Financial Advice New Zealand, which represents independent and professional financial advisors.
As damage and loss caused by natural hazards have increased worldwide over the past several decades, it is important for governments and aid agencies to have tools that enable effective post-disaster livelihood recovery to create self-sufficiency for the affected population. This study introduces a framework of critical components that constitute livelihood recovery and the critical factors that lead to people’s livelihood recovery. A comparative case study is employed in this research, combined with questionnaire surveys and interviews with those communities affected by large earthquakes in Lushan, China and in Christchurch and Kaikōura, New Zealand. In Lushan, China, a framework with four livelihood components was established, namely, housing, employment, wellbeing and external assistance. Respondents considered recovery of their housing to be the most essential element for livelihood diversification. External assistance was also rated highly in assisting with their livelihood recovery. Family ties and social connections seemed to have played a larger role than that of government agencies and NGOs. However, the recovery of livelihood cannot be fully achieved without wellbeing aspects being taken into account, and people believed that quality of life and their physical and mental health were essential for livelihood restoration. In Christchurch, New Zealand, the identified livelihood components were validated through in-depth interviews. The results showed that the above framework presenting what constitutes successful livelihood recovery could also be applied in Christchurch. This study also identified the critical factors to affect livelihood recovery following the Lushan and Kaikōura earthquakes, and these include community safety, availability of family support, level of community cohesion, long-term livelihood support, external housing recovery support, level of housing recovery and availability of health and wellbeing support. The framework developed will provide guidance for policy makers and aid agencies to prioritise their strategies and initiatives in assisting people to reinstate their livelihood in a timely manner post-disaster. It will also assist the policy makers and practitioners in China and New Zealand by setting an agenda for preparing for livelihood recovery in non-urgent times so the economic impact and livelihood disruption of those affected can be effectively mitigated.
Hon JUDITH COLLINS to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government’s statements and actions?
HELEN WHITE to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by all his statements and policies on education?
GINNY ANDERSEN to the Minister of Housing: What recent announcements has she made about the Government’s transitional housing programme?
NICOLA WILLIS to the Minister of Housing: Has the Government kept the commitment made in the 2017 Speech from the Throne to develop a ‘Rent to Own’ scheme; if so, how many families has the scheme helped into houses since then?
ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What support has the Ministry of Social Development provided to people and families affected by recent COVID-19 restrictions?
NICOLE McKEE to the Minister of Police: Will Government actions reduce gang crime and gang numbers this year?
IBRAHIM OMER to the Lead Coordination Minister for the Government's Response to the Royal Commission's Report into the Terrorist Attack on the Christchurch Mosques: What recent engagement has there been with the Muslim and other ethnic communities on the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the terrorist attack on Christchurch masjidain?
SIMEON BROWN to the Minister of Police: Does she stand by her commitment to achieve the Striving Towards 1800 New Police initiative; if so, when will she achieve this initiative?
TEANAU TUIONO to the Minister for Economic and Regional Development: What advice, if any, has he received about the upcoming launch in New Zealand of a satellite that includes the “Gunsmoke-J” payload from the United States Army’s Space and Missile Defense Command?
MARJA LUBECK to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: What recent announcements has he made about improving the Holidays Act 2003?
TIM VAN DE MOLEN to the Minister for Building and Construction: How many applications has the Residential Earthquake-Prone Building Financial Assistance Scheme had since its inception in September last year, and how much has been appropriated for the scheme?
Brooklands Lagoon / Te Riu o Te Aika Kawa (‘Brooklands’) is an important wetland and estuarine ecosystem in Canterbury. It is a site of cultural significance to Ngāi Tūāhuriri, and is also valued by the wider community. Home to an array of life, it is connected to the Pūharakekenui/Styx and Waimakariri rivers, and is part of a wetland landscape complex that includes the Avon-Heathcote / Ihutai estuary to the south and the Ashley / Rakahuri estuary to the north. Notionally situated within the territorial boundary of Christchurch City Council and jurisdictionally encompassed by the regional council Environment Canterbury, it has been legally determined to be part of the coastal marine area. The complicated administrative arrangements for the lagoon mirror the biophysical and human challenges to this surprisingly young ecosystem since its formation in 1940.
Here we present a synthesis of the historical events and environmental influences that have shaped Brooklands Lagoon. Before existing as an intertidal ecosystem, the Waimakariri river mouth was situated in what is now the southern end of the lagoon. A summary timeline of key events is set out in the table below. These included the diversion of the Waimakariri River mouth via the construction of Wrights Cut in the 1930s, which influenced the way that the lower reaches of the river interacted with the land and sea. A large flood in 1940 shifted the river mouth ~2 to 3 kilometres north, that created the landscape that we see today. However, this has not remained stable, as the earthquake sequence in 2010 and 2011 subsided the bed of the estuary.
The changes are ongoing, as sea level rise and coastal inundation will place ongoing pressure on the aquatic ecosystem and surrounding land. How to provide accommodation space for Brooklands as an estuary will be a key planning and community challenge, as Environment Canterbury begins the engagement for the review of its Regional Coastal Plan. There is also a requirement to safeguard its ecological health under the 2020 National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management. This will necessitate an integrated mountains to sea (ki uta ki tai) management approach as the lagoon is affected by wider catchment activities. We hope that this report will contribute to, and inform these processes by providing a comprehensive historical synthesis, and by identifying considerations for the future collaborative management of Brooklands Lagoon, and protection of its values. In essence, we suggest that Te Riu o Te Aika Kawa deserves some sustained aroha.
