The Christchurch earthquakes were traumatic but it was the delay in resolving insurance claims that made people feel they couldn't get on with their lives. Those affected by the Auckland floods and Cyclone Gabrielle must feel the same with managed retreat.
Opinion: On Monday, September 4, it was the 13th anniversary of the day when at 4.35am Ōtautahi Christchurch was shaken awake by a 7.1 magnitude earthquake.
This began a sequence of events that changed our lives for ever.
READ MORE:
* How to move Christchurch away from a ‘colonial theme park’
* A decade on, a tale of two cities
* How much ACC has paid in Canterbury earthquake claims
I always go home to my place in Bexley, where I was living that day, and I think of all that it meant to me – all the people I knew and got to know, as well as the environment, especially the wetlands just down the road.
So many memories.
So many lessons learned.
And of course, I think about that moment of being shaken awake without warning. It was terrifying – I will never forget the roar that sounded like a freight train that accompanied the violent shaking.
I broke every rule, running downstairs in bare feet even though I could hear the sound of smashing glass. I knew that was a no-no from my days as Minister for ACC. A lot of injuries occur not because of the earthquake, but because of what we do in response. But ‘knowing what to do’ went straight out of the window when faced with the terror of the moment. Fortunately, the glass I could hear breaking was in the bedroom and not the large plate window by the stairs.
I was lucky. Our city was lucky too.
But as we now know, this was the beginning of an earthquake sequence that would devastate our city for years to come.
I was surprised when the National Party chose the anniversary of the first earthquake to announce a new Cyclone and Flood Recovery Ombudsman to make recommendations on retreat decisions and the amount offered for each buy-out
Even in 2010, rebuilding in an area that is now returning to its natural state, namely the wetlands it was before it was drained for housing, was going to be a long and arduous task.
The original plan would have seen the edges of the wetlands and waterways in the east reinforced by large underground stone columns that would offer protection from lateral spread in future events. This was a plan that would have allowed us to rebuild, but it would take years.
There were heroic assumptions made as to the availability of the equipment required for such a mammoth undertaking, let alone the workforce. In retrospect there were some heroic assumptions sitting behind the early decisions the government made.
But the February earthquake in 2011 put paid to all of that, and a lot of people have forgotten that this was the original plan.
Thousands of properties were ‘red-zoned’ over the following 18 months.
The government covered the costs on the flatland taking over the applicable EQC and insurance claims. On the Port Hills, the costs were divided 50-50 with the city council.
Thinking about the people affected by the Auckland floods and Cyclone Gabrielle, I know how they must feel waiting for a decision on retreat. It was the same here.
Until we have in place an agreed set of principles against which we determine when and how to retreat, it will take time. One size does not fit all.
For those who remain, it’s settling the insurance claim that could become part of the disaster. Down here it was front ended by EQC; now it’s the insurer who takes the lead. This is a big improvement. But there will be challenges.
One of the lessons learned from our experience is the importance of putting in place a dispute resolution mechanism at the earliest opportunity.
It was not until after there had been a change of government that the Greater Christchurch Claims Resolution Service was established to help settle claims for homeowners. It has now become the NZ Claims Resolution Service, which shows the benefit of having the model already in place.
The Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal, which was established to address the backlog of claims that had built up over the years, was a game changer when it was set up in 2019. Bearing that in mind, I would like the incoming government to keep the option open of extending the tribunal’s remit to ensure the “fair, speedy, flexible and cost-effective” resolution of insurance claims in the wake of these recent severe weather events. I can see that there are complexities that were not present in our case.
Having said this, I was surprised when the National Party chose the anniversary of the first earthquake to announce a new Cyclone and Flood Recovery Ombudsman to make recommendations on retreat decisions and the amount offered for each buy-out. This might sound like it’s offering more than it is. And without reference to any of the lessons learned here, it looks like they have been overlooked.
The problem in Ōtautahi Christchurch that affected thousands of residents was the delay in resolving the EQC and insurance claims. The earthquakes may have been traumatic, but this is what drained people of their confidence that they were ever going to be able to get on with their lives.
I would also hate for anyone to think the land damage cover offered by EQC, which is just for part of a residential property, is anywhere near the reinstatement challenges faced by many property owners. I think there will be bigger problems to resolve.
I am pleased the National Party has agreed to stand by commitments made by the present government. However, I would prefer to see a collaborative effort to agree a dispute resolution framework that will deliver the certainty I believe people will be looking for regardless of who wins the Treasury benches.
