Canterbury earthquake

If you can't insure something, are you still responsible for the risk of owning it? And how sorry for you should we feel if that risk turns bad?

Back in 2011, I wrote this post about the Government’s offer to purchase the residential properties of Christchurch’s “Red Zone” inhabitants. In it I noted that behind the Government’s “offer” lay the power to compulsorily acquire property under the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011, meaning that:

Turns out King Gerry is not an absolute monarch. This is a good thing.

When Parliament passed emergency legislation that gave Ministers broad lawmaking powers in the wake of the first Canterbury earthquake back in September 2010, I said this

In which the author takes the opportunity to settle accounts in a petty and petulent fashion.

So the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill has passed through the House, and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority is set to take over the rebuild of Christchurch.

Until mother nature threw her fury at New Zealand three times in six months, wall-to-wall news was something for other countries. TV networks however are creating a new media world live on your screen, right now

My mother got an email last night from an old school friend reassuring Mum that she was safe, adding in lament, "our lovely city has gone forever". It seems we have lost what the New York Times has been calling "a graceful 19th-century city".

I know everything is political. But not every political decision is partisan.

I (and others) have had occasion to criticise the Government's (indeed, the entire Parliament's) response to natural disaster in the past.