The Recovery Phase in Post-Earthquake Christchurch, New Zealand
This brief paper looks at the progress of Canterbury, New Zealand as that province continues to recover from a series of disastrous earthquakes. It touches on land recovery, namely the powers of the Crown and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (
- PDF / 108,875 Bytes
- 8 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 39 Downloads / 153 Views
The Recovery Phase in Post-Earthquake Christchurch, New Zealand Elizabeth Toomey
Abstract This brief paper looks at the progress of Canterbury, New Zealand as that province continues to recover from a series of disastrous earthquakes. It touches on land recovery, namely the powers of the Crown and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA), to both zone and acquire land under the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 (CER Act) and the impetus of the overarching first insurer, the Earthquake Commission (EQC). It also provides a snapshot of Canterbury’s general recovery amid residents’ continuing frustrations over rebuilding and building repair. Although the complexities of EQC and private insurance litigation belong to a much larger article, this paper looks at one of the more significant cases. And…amid some weariness and irritation, the rebuild is in full swing and the economy is booming. Keywords Earthquake
4.1
Recovery Insurance Land acquisition
Insurance and the Earthquake Commission
For any New Zealander who insures his or her buildings, insurance premiums include a low-level premium for earthquake damage. The earthquake premium is collected by the Earthquake Commission (EQC), a government-owned entity that was originally established in 1945 to provide earthquake and war damage cover for purchasers of fire insurance. Subsequently cover for natural disasters was included and later still, cover for war damage ceased. This Natural Disaster Fund, called upon for isolated small disasters, faced its first major challenge when the Canterbury earthquakes hit. EQC’s responsibility involves the building’s replace-
E. Toomey (&) School of Law, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2017 A. Hokugo and Y. Kaneko (eds.), Community-Based Reconstruction of Society, Kobe University Social Science Research Series, DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-5463-1_4
23
24
E. Toomey
ment value to the amount as specified in the insurance policy, or $100,000, whichever is the lesser.1 Any balance is the responsibility of the homeowner’s private insurer. A whole region of dwelling owners lodged claims against it. In an attempt to limit its exposure, EQC adopted the stance that it was only responsible for one single big event, not a series of earthquakes. This was challenged successfully by the insurance industry in extensive litigation proceedings: Re Earthquake Commission.2 The Court, after a careful analysis of the relevant legislation,3 concluded that EQC was responsible for every significant earthquake or aftershock. This led to significant delays in property settlements.
4.2
The Government’s Decision to Zone Christchurch Properties
Very soon after the 2 February 2011 earthquake, officials from Treasury, EQC and CERA began considering the impact of land and property damage in the Christchurch areas and the identification of the worst affected areas. Cabinet delegated power to act to eight Cabinet Ministers (the Cabinet Committee), of whom one was the Minist
Data Loading...
