I am heartened by your response to my email while at the same time I feel grave concern that the measures you suggest will be too little too late. What is to happen to Cantabrians in the event that this current National Government were to be re-elected?
As I see it what needs to change is the current Government focus of furthering the interests of the corporate sector at the expense of the people, as evidenced by the ‘leave it to the market’ statements by Hon. Gerry Brownlee. If major corporates such as IAG are required under law, and do meet their liabilities in Australia within 10 days (set out in the General Insurance Code of Practice), why is it not the case in New Zealand?
We are dealing almost exclusively with contractual issues when we deal with the insurance industry. Why is the cost of justice in New Zealand in respect of breach of contract so expensive that it is out of the reach of the ordinary person, to the gross advantage of the insurance corporates. Even a cursory examination of the Christchurch situation will show the huge extent to which the corporates have benefited at the expense of the people. I do not recall Labour having asked a single question about this in Parliament.
The unavoidable conclusion is that the Government is complicit in this situation and seems inexplicable unless there is some covert reason for their actions. It is difficult to find accurate figures concerning the numbers of people who have actually left Christchurch, however my investigations to date suggest that this figure is much higher than the Government is prepared to admit.
The red zone issue – the burden has fallen on two innocent but affected citizens ( See https://thechristchurchfiasco.wordpress.com/2013/03/01/valerie-and-matt-go-to-court/) to take a case against an insurance company (Tower Insurance) concerning payouts in the red zone. This should never have happened. This action should in fact have been between the insurers and CERA (or the Government) to resolve the issue for all affected parties (some 7500 property owners). The Government has conveniently kept its head down on this issue.
I could go on David – but if Labour were just to address the points above at least it would be a start. What is very clearly evident in Christchurch is the fact that this so-called ‘recovery’ is highly abnormal both in the performance of CERA, EQC, and the private insurance industry.
In conclusion I would again draw your attention to Chapter 7. of my book where I propose an affordable, efficient public system which would rid New Zealand once and for all of these parasitic corporate entities. I cannot see the point of continuing to permit foreign corporates to repatriate enormous profits whilst tangibly contributing to the suffering of our population. I think you would have to agree that something is seriously wrong!
One of the major problems as I see it is the apparent disinterest or awareness of much of the rest of the population of New Zealand who do not realize that at the next major event, unless there is significant change they will suffer the same fate. I see it as part of Labour’s brief to publicize the situation and bring it to the attention of the general population. Without such an action I doubt that change is possible. After all we are a seismic nation and it is only a matter of time before we have another repeat of the Christchurch Fiasco.
I thank you for your response and I hope that this is the beginning of a meaningful conversation.
~Future Proofing for a sustainable, participatory, democratic society.
If you would like to contribute a post on this topic then see Guest Archives.