Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I make the point that I do not think it matters
how much independent expert advice one gets; if one is in a traumatised
state, one will have limited capacity to take the information
on board. We have tried over the last few weeks to simplify the
whole situation. We have had very thorough geotechnical examination
of the ground that has been damaged. The result of that examination
is that, apart from 16 sections where there will need to be a
bigger discussion about how to rebuild, if at all, in every case
there can be a rebuild. That means that the people contacted
last week should engage with their insurers—I have had discussions
this morning with insurers and with the Earthquake Commission
to make sure everyone is clear on this—and the insurers should
then work out a work programme for either the demolition or the
repair of that property. As the properties become available,
through either demolition or repair, they can be remediated.
In most cases that will mean simply compaction of the existing
earth—filling and rolling. We are hoping the Christchurch City
Council, along with the Waimakariri District Council, which has
already done so, will support the major civil works being done
in the public space in conjunction with the rest of that rebuild.
Posting to Parliament Wire of Scoop
Article: Office of the Clerk
Date: Tuesday, 26 October 2010
Time: 5:04 pm NZT
Link: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1010/S00429.htm
(uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing)
TUESDAY, 26 OCTOBER 2010
QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER
QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Monday, October 25, 2010
Friday, October 22, 2010
An open letter to John Key
I would like to ask that the Prime Minister John Key please stay true to his promise that "no Cantabrian will be worse off financially" in the recovery process after the earthquake and aftershocks. I am asking that he and his government, govern for the people with compassion and a respect for people's dignity. People are not statistics and when treated as such, in order to find the most cost effective solution to a problem - in this case land remediation, decisions can be made which are disastrous for individual people, whanau and communities.
I understand that EQC is 'required under legislation' to remediate the land if possible, and so cannot give residents a choice about whether to cash out or wait up to three years for remediation and rebuilding of homes. At the same time, I know that the Minister in charge of earthquake recovery has been given enormous powers to override legislation in order to speed up the recovery process for Christchurch. I had presumed that this meant recovery for both the place and the people. If this is indeed the case, then can Mr Brownlee not use some compassion and realise that to ask over 1200 families to put their lives on hold for two to three years is not speedy recovery in any sense of the words. Some may want this option, but for others it will create untold problems.
What if someone is offered a job elsewhere in New Zealand? Unable to sell their 'home and land' they may well be forced to turn down a great opportunity. What happens when the insurance money for alternative accomdation runs out one to two years before the process is finished? At the very least full payouts could be made by EQC and insurers to make mortgage balances zero and then the money returned to insurers and the mortgage balance returned once the land is remediated and the homes rebuilt. I fail to understand why our Prime Minister John Key feels that his promise that "no Cantabrian will be worse off financially", is at odds with families having to pay rent for alternative accomodation plus mortgages (or if on a mortgage holiday racking up huge interest debt) whilst insurers can make interest on the money they will eventually pay out.
On the 12th of this month John Key acknowledged there may be some problems for householders on remediated land getting insurance cover. "The concern would be if the land was repaired, and the building was able to be rebuilt, but then the insurers would say `look, we are not going to insure that property' then that would essentially make that property worthless for most New Zealanders who need to carry insurance for good reason."(http://www.stuff.co.
The government could even buy the land for public use or onsell to private companies. Yes, remediated land may well be worth more than unremediated land long term, but in the meantime many people will edge or slide into poverty waiting for their homes to become their homes once again.
Please stay true to your word and look at the financial implication from people's points of views, not as numbers on balance sheets.
I understand that EQC is 'required under legislation' to remediate the land if possible, and so cannot give residents a choice about whether to cash out or wait up to three years for remediation and rebuilding of homes. At the same time, I know that the Minister in charge of earthquake recovery has been given enormous powers to override legislation in order to speed up the recovery process for Christchurch. I had presumed that this meant recovery for both the place and the people. If this is indeed the case, then can Mr Brownlee not use some compassion and realise that to ask over 1200 families to put their lives on hold for two to three years is not speedy recovery in any sense of the words. Some may want this option, but for others it will create untold problems.
What if someone is offered a job elsewhere in New Zealand? Unable to sell their 'home and land' they may well be forced to turn down a great opportunity. What happens when the insurance money for alternative accomdation runs out one to two years before the process is finished? At the very least full payouts could be made by EQC and insurers to make mortgage balances zero and then the money returned to insurers and the mortgage balance returned once the land is remediated and the homes rebuilt. I fail to understand why our Prime Minister John Key feels that his promise that "no Cantabrian will be worse off financially", is at odds with families having to pay rent for alternative accomodation plus mortgages (or if on a mortgage holiday racking up huge interest debt) whilst insurers can make interest on the money they will eventually pay out.
On the 12th of this month John Key acknowledged there may be some problems for householders on remediated land getting insurance cover. "The concern would be if the land was repaired, and the building was able to be rebuilt, but then the insurers would say `look, we are not going to insure that property' then that would essentially make that property worthless for most New Zealanders who need to carry insurance for good reason."(http://www.stuff.co.
The government could even buy the land for public use or onsell to private companies. Yes, remediated land may well be worth more than unremediated land long term, but in the meantime many people will edge or slide into poverty waiting for their homes to become their homes once again.
Please stay true to your word and look at the financial implication from people's points of views, not as numbers on balance sheets.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)