Labour’s Christchurch policy
Adam Bennett in the NZ Herald reports:
Labour would actively “intervene” to kick-start the Christchurch recovery, including entering the land development and insurance markets if it felt that was necessary, leader Phil Goff says.
Mr Goff this morning launched his party’s quake recovery policy package.
“The next Labour Government will intervene to give Cantabrians affordable choices to help rebuild their homes, businesses and lives after the devastating earthquakes”, he said at the launch in quake stricken Kaiapoi just north of Christchurch.
“These are extraordinary times for Canterbury and the Government must respond accordingly. Business as usual won’t cut it.”
Mr Goff said the government needed to take a more active role in the rebuild.
Goodness, you would think the Government had done nothing, rather than actually commit billions of dollars from taxpayers towards rebuilding Christchurch.
Ring-fence a maximum of $100 million from the Canterbury Earthquake Fund to ensure home improvements to houses in the Red Zone are reimbursed up to a maximum of $50,000
As someone said on Twitter, this is a repeat of their 1957 policy of “Do you want 100 pounds or not”? I’m surprised Labour haven’t made the same offer to everyone in New Zealand who has sold a house for less than they think it is worth.
September 19th, 2011 at 3:34 pm
Im certain labour will have thought of a way to stop those people who buy land under this program on selling that land to speculators. Because they would think of that wouldnt they.
And sorry, enter the insurance market for a while? Really? Get a little bit pregnant anyone?
September 19th, 2011 at 3:34 pm
Yes, because waiting years and years for private re-insurers to decide its financially viable to re-enter the Christchurch market while the CBD sits half-vacant, and people and capital flood out of the region is the way to kick-start the economy
September 19th, 2011 at 3:38 pm
So if a private company with a profit motive only sees a way to lose a ton of shareholders money in the christchurch insurance market so stays away, thats a good reason for govt to step in and lose a ton of tax payers money (but way more inefficiently)?
September 19th, 2011 at 3:46 pm
Cynical and opportunistic and, worst of all, trying to cash in on crushed spirits. How low will this crowd sink?
It is a pity none of them lined up with Brownlee and Sutton as a united group in a time of national catastrophe. But that would require a heart and soul, not the chill of political ambition. Goff has missed the chance to show genuine leadership.
September 19th, 2011 at 3:46 pm
Such an exciting launch it was that on stuff.co.nz it never made it to the top headlines and I can’t even see it on the heralds front page.
Go Labour!!! Keep up the great work!!!
September 19th, 2011 at 3:54 pm
Well I did wonder how they were going to top the Student Loan bribe.
September 19th, 2011 at 4:00 pm
$100 million max total with a limit on $50,000 per household? That equals 2000 munted homes in the red zone. The government’s already condemned 5000 homes with another 5000 or so to come! National standards are clearly needed in the Labour Party.
September 19th, 2011 at 4:02 pm
The most popular at stuff. Kiwi’s want to read more about Lisa Lewis that what Phil has to say.
Sonny Bill Williams’ love interest revealed
Three arrests after fake pilot scare at Auckland Airport
Tindall CCTV drama: Bouncer turns lens on media
Irish upset creates headache for All Blacks
Former Christchurch CEO murdered
Haka losing respect – Springboks coach
Lisa Lewis loses two teeth in assault
Daily trivia quiz: September 19
Dead teenage driver ‘a lost soul’
Christchurch recovery threatened
September 19th, 2011 at 4:04 pm
Another nice regressive policy from Labour. Blatant vote bribes for property owners nice.
50k a household seems like some expensive votes I have to say. Guess they know they will never have to cash up on this policy.
September 19th, 2011 at 4:10 pm
It is a typical NZ ‘me too, but more’ policy. DPF talks about 1957 – both parties then were offering rebates – I think it was somethnig to do with introducing PAYE. But think 2008 (or any other election year) – National offers everythnig Labour does, plus some tax cuts.
If anything, Labour could be bolder – double or treble the commitment to Canterbury reconstruction.
September 19th, 2011 at 4:13 pm
mike – who did you vote for in 57?
September 19th, 2011 at 4:17 pm
dime
It was a secret ballot.
September 19th, 2011 at 4:33 pm
Look forward to Labour’s definition of “home improvements” that they are promising to make extra payments for.
Cosgrove has said in the past that they will make allowances for “repainting” – most would just consider that to be part of the regular maintanence of a building.
September 19th, 2011 at 4:34 pm
‘And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.’ (Mathew 7.25).
This is getting more and more ridiculous; New Zealand is now being asked to fund, and underwrite, reconstruction that is probably unwise but certainly foolish. There is no guarantee that there will not be repeated earthquakes in Canterbury and there is clear evidence that the sand base foundation is unstable. Nostalgia is one thing but stupidity is another. If there is to be a city surely there is a case for rebuilding in a more stable location. As it is developers are being faced with seriously expensive structural modifications (are they to be subsidized as well?) and no insurance (and who is to say the insurers and actuaries have not got it sorted).
As a footnote, Italian government officials have accused the country’s top seismologist of manslaughter, after failing to predict a natural disaster that struck Italy in 2009, a massive devastating earthquake that killed 308 people. It seems that his error was to predict that there would NOT be an earthquake.
September 19th, 2011 at 4:43 pm
Apparently it worked in 1957! Labour was elected.
September 19th, 2011 at 4:46 pm
Well, in defence of the fuckwit Goff, this is the cheapest bribe they’ve come up with for some time.
Michaels
I’m waiting for the stuff headline that screams: “Mad Butcher backs Key”.
I nearly drove off the road when I heard him, somewhat out of left field during a discussion about Christchurch on Radio Pinko with Mora, suddenly exhort the populace to vote for Key. The stunned mullet silence was palpable and it was easy to imagine the look of horror on Pinko Jim’s face as his jaw hit the floor. However, ever the “consummate professional” (read: “alert pinko”) he hastily drew the Butcher’s attention to the fact that Labour MPs were doing sterling work over Christchurch.
Very funny.
September 19th, 2011 at 4:49 pm
God, the end result of Christchurch is going to be… government insurance. Again. Starts with Christchurch. Expands to NZ. Becomes entrenched, like ACC. Squeezes out private competitors. Becomes a legislated monopoly. And then loses $5 billion. Hopefully not but insurance is an obvious place for government to go into permanently. Key has already signalled interest in making NZ a financial hub. Scary times.
September 19th, 2011 at 4:53 pm
OK so someone gets an extra 5k for re painting their bathroom, do we take 5k off the person who hasn’t maintained their house.
There are more people delighted atbthe government offer but it’s the couple of hundred who haven’t done so well who Goff is aiming at and get huge media attention. The guy is an idiot and as a cantab I am hugely grateful to my fellow taxpayers for their incredibly generous support.
September 19th, 2011 at 4:55 pm
Pongo
Well said.
September 19th, 2011 at 4:56 pm
Local government need a huge kick in the ass for not re zoning, Christchurch has huge tracts of bare land with the odd horse on it that could be built on. Once again the idiots in local government stuffing things up, if they would understand the urgency because of the long lead in times there could quite easily be 15000 sections coming on the market in the next couple of years.
September 19th, 2011 at 4:57 pm
Goodness, you would think the Government had done nothing, rather than actually commit billions of dollars from taxpayers towards rebuilding Christchurch.
Care to quantify these “billions of dollars”? Last time I looked at the figures, after EQC and insurance payouts the government is looking at a few hundred million,not billions.
But never let spin get in the way of truth.
[DPF: Nope it is billions on top of EQC]
September 19th, 2011 at 5:35 pm
I think this is potentially a problem for the Government – although I doubt they will worry unless the polls start to sag.
The situation in Christchurch (as I understand it) is that there is a massive reconstruction effort needed, but local builders are actually leaving or laying off staff because they can’t start work. The hold up at present is insurance, or rather the lack thereof. There is no solution in sight, either from the private sector or the Government. So it is stalemate.
Labour’s offer – however cynical – could fall on fertile ground here. They have been clever about this sort of thing before – remember the interest free student loans.
September 19th, 2011 at 5:46 pm
MNIJ. The government has been pretty incredible consideringnwhat has hit us here. The last thing we need is Labour trying to leverage the dozen or so people the media have found who are not happy and tar all of us withnthe same brush.
Labour have been appalling here and have done nothing but look for political advantage, I would take an educated guess that their vote will be lower in Christchurch than the general decline they have suffered since theybwere last turfed out.
The vast majority of us are touched by the support we have received and we don’t want to lose that goodwill and are hugely embarrassed by the few who are ungrateful of the generous amount we have received.
September 19th, 2011 at 5:50 pm
NickR. The insurance is there for most, I have managed it a couple of times buying uninsured houses. The problem is lack of land available which is a local government issue that CERA should be all over. The CBD is out of bounds until next year when re insurance should be available so won’t be an issue. the problem for the CBD is the council think everyone should get on the bus and is not allowing building owners to have more than one parking space per floor and as any developer knows you won’t lease out a building unless you can provide parking.
September 19th, 2011 at 5:54 pm
MNIJ has a degree in socialist numeracy.
1 rich prick plus 1 socialist trougher = 1
1 labour voter minus 1 rich prick = 1.
1 socialist plus 1 greenie minus 1 rich prick = 2.
September 19th, 2011 at 6:02 pm
Nothing much can be done about the whole re-insurance thing until the ground stops shaking. Can Phil have a word to the Greens to have a word to Gaia to hang fire for a while.
September 19th, 2011 at 6:05 pm
All they are doing is moving closer to the compensation promised by Key and Brownlee when National firstly announced the compulsory purchase of land in parts of Christchurch
September 19th, 2011 at 6:21 pm
Improvements.
I wonder if he has undertaken any assessment of the likely cost? I assume that this particular provision is intended to compensate those people who have improved the value of their properties following the benchmark government valuation to the extent that the current offer is unfair. If they have undertaken improvements, would they not have increased their insurance cover? As I understand it, they do have the option of negotiating with the insurance company. How will the improvements be assessed? Property does not go up in value one dollar for every dollar spent. I question whether this particular provision is simply a sop to those who did undertake improvements during the two years or so prior to the earthquake but failed to take any steps to increase insurance cover. Is there a point at which people who have not adequately looked after their own interests should be expected to start bearing some loss?
Insurance company stand-off.
The government is going to resolve the insurance stand-off. How is it going to do that? Is it going to order overseas companies to reinsure against earthquake risk in Christchurch? Labour seems to think that it might be a better negotiator than the current government. To my way of thinking, a government that says to an overseas insurer that unless the overseas insurer picks up the risk, the government will do so itself (leaving the overseas insurer to reinsure the non-risky areas) is not a particularly good negotiator. It is downright stupid. It is a bit like saying to the car dealer, I will give you $10,000 for the car but if that is not acceptable I will give you $15,000.
Insurance policies do have dispute resolution processes. Does the government have in mind establishing a specialised tribunal such as the Residential Tenancies Tribunal? This does not seem to me to be necessary. While there are problems over the interpretation of some policies, it is open to the parties to agree on their own dispute resolution process. They can go to mediation (ideal if there is a factual issue), private arbitration or the court (preferable if there is some need for interpretation of a contract if that interpretation is industrywide). There is no need for a specialised tribunal. The biggest problem seems to be the willingness of insurance companies to continue doing business in a high risk area. Surely the government was not considering making that compulsory?
I quite like the idea of converting dole payments to apprenticeships. Conceptually however there is very little difference between that approach and requesting anybody on the unemployment benefit to work. Labour has traditionally regarded such a proposition as beneficiary bashing.
Most of the commenters are rhetoric. Labour says it will become actively involved. There is very little information on what it proposes to do that is not already being done.
September 19th, 2011 at 6:58 pm
In one foul swoop Goofy has automatically increased a rebuild of two hundred thousand to two hundred and fifty thousand. It’s a bit like raising the minimum age, inflation soon deals to that. Socialist gits should not be let within a thousand miles of the Treasury benches, they are RETARDS.
September 19th, 2011 at 6:59 pm
What compulsory purchase inky you liar?
The govt made it very clear you could not take the deal and could deal directly with the insurer. however out of generosity to allow people to move on they offered other tax payers money to buy peoples land.
September 19th, 2011 at 7:05 pm
To put Goff’s offer in perspective re offering a top up on the Govt’s decision to pay out on 2007 RV’s, he is saying they will pay up to $50,000 for improvements made SINCE the 2007 revaluation (on red zone houses) on production of receipts and there will be an excess of $5000 (or was it $8000?, I find it hard to stay listening to his drone). So considering half the work was cash jobs (the NZ average) there may not be such a big commitment. The insurance guarantee is a much larger issue.
September 19th, 2011 at 7:10 pm
[DPF: Nope it is billions on top of EQC]
Saying it is so doesn’t make it so.
Where’s the evidence?
September 19th, 2011 at 7:59 pm
Labour cannot change, It is in their DNA.
1. LIE to voters = win some votes
2, BRIBE voters = win some votes
3 CON voters =win some votes
4. SCARE voters =win some votes
5 use ENVY FEAR and JEALOUSY
The trouble is that their desperation still smells….
September 19th, 2011 at 8:06 pm
Vote bribes again.
And how can Labour make sections cheaper by being a middle man? They have to buy them off a developer and then sell them to the poor downtrodden, for cheaper than they could just buy them straight from the developer? Doesn’t make sense to me.
This is the problem when you’ve been an academic or a politician for your whole life. You have no idea where the money comes from. Or how to make money via some sort of commercial enterprise. In the public service, if you want more money, then you just take it.
So in this case they are wanting to take money from some people who might have gotten off their arses and done something and give it to some people who will vote for them. Margaret Thatcher once said “The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money”
September 19th, 2011 at 9:10 pm
Nothing but a fucking attempt to bribe the poor folks in Christchurch. Does he think we are dumb.
September 19th, 2011 at 9:40 pm
Large parts of Christchurch is uninsurable and will not be rebuilt for perhaps decades perhaps ever. And that includes the present CBD. There is not the financial capacity for the Government to take over this risk. That hard fact will become known after the election. There is a real limit for the tolerance for the North Island taxpayer for the cost of rebuilding Christchurch. The time is coming to simply write off large parts of the city and go elsewhere.
September 19th, 2011 at 9:46 pm
@ Pongo “the problem for the CBD is the council think everyone should get on the bus and is not allowing building owners to have more than one parking space per floor and as any developer knows you won’t lease out a building unless you can provide parking.”
Really? Up until now, minimum parking standards in the district plan have applied to christchurch, which is the exact opposite of what you suggest. I agree the council should let developers decide exactly how many carparks they should build on their site, mainly so that the general public dont subsidise drivers, as is the case throughout NZ.
September 19th, 2011 at 9:47 pm
We had two earthquake events tonight. If the insurance companies will not insure Christchurch, the banks will not lend, the Government cannot be expected to provide a Government guarantee surely. Time to pack up and leave for many thousands of people. Time to think the unthinkable regarding Christchurch but after the election.
September 19th, 2011 at 10:29 pm
The Land is compulsory Purchased. Negotiating with Insurance only applies to the building
September 20th, 2011 at 12:03 pm
But Labour is fully committed to the use of significant adjectives in the rebuild of Christchurch. Prats.
September 20th, 2011 at 12:52 pm
Could somebody ask Phil who sold off State Insurance to the Poms- let me think was it Muldoon or Lange – UMMMM ?