Government can't be the de facto insurer of property after weather events
Buyouts of properties most affected by Cyclone Gabrielle and the Auckland Anniversary flooding cost central and local government billions of dollars. The future liability of the reactive approach from these weather events is large and growing, as development continues to happen in places that will be affected by the physical impacts of climate change.
It is not sustainable for the Government and local government to be the de facto subsidised insurer of property values after significant weather events. This approach is effectively a subsidy encouraging people to stay in harm's way.
We all need to be thinking about the impacts of climate change as we make decisions about how and where we live. We need clear and consistent information regarding the hazards and risk scenarios our properties face.
We also need to know what plans are being made to address the hazards and risks. This is where clarity of roles and responsibilities comes in: local and regional authorities must be able to prepare adaptation plans, and many already are. To do this, they will use the Para framework – examining options under the different headings protect, accommodate, retreat and avoid. The relevant authorities will need to prioritise the proposed adaptation activities and determine how they will be funded.
The question of how to fund preventive risk reduction is particularly challenging. This will require a mix of central and local government and property and infrastructure owners. We are proposing that contributions to funding investments in risk reduction broadly reflect those who get the most benefit from it.
This must be subject always to consideration of ability to pay, so that those who can't contribute aren't simply left to their own devices.
The Government's historical approach to property owners affected by a significant event should change. After a long transition period (20 years), hardship should be alleviated with reference to need rather than to property values. That is, there would be no buyouts following an extreme weather event that has damaged property.
The Government would retain its role in alleviating hardship. The point is that this can be achieved in different ways than underwriting pre-event property values. One option, for example, would see a beachfront mansion owner and an owner of a small house in a flood-prone area be assisted according to need. If that need is established then they would receive the same capped amount rather than a payment based on the respective value of their properties.
This has no impact on the role of central and local government during and immediately after an event, in terms of the emergency response. This proposal also doesn't represent an abrupt shift in policy today – it goes hand-in-hand with a long transition. This period enables the creation and ongoing update of hazard and risk information, and a timeframe over which people can make decisions in the knowledge of the future state that will apply.
Banks and insurers are already starting to take these hazards and risks into account. Banks have the bigger challenge – typical mortgages are 20-25 years, while insurance contracts are annual. Insurers can decide each year the level of risk they are willing to take on and the price at which they will provide the insurance, whereas banks make a lending decision for a much longer period.
Changes in lending and insurance practices will likely be the first way that people will experience the impact of climate change on property markets. A bank may require a much larger deposit or decline to lend at all on a particular property; or your insurance premium skyrockets; or the most significant hazard facing your property, flood risk, is excluded from your policy following a significant event.
The numbers involved are large. A recent assessment of climate change and flooding problems in South Dunedin illustrates the scale of the potential problem. Seven potential adaptation futures were reviewed in detail, ranging from continuing as is to large-scale retreat. The different plans affect some 5800 properties and estimated costs of the different scenarios ranged from $2 billion to $7.1b – that's $345,000 to $1.2 million per house. For context, the current Dunedin City Council capital delivery budget is $200m annually for the entire city.
Climate change adaptation involves hard questions for which there are no easy answers. That we are now having this conversation is a great start. The water lapping at the door doesn't care what we believe, and transparency of information regarding hazards and risks does not change those hazards and risks – events will occur and losses will be felt whether we understand that information or not.
The fact that some who receive that information will have difficulty responding to it is not a good reason for not providing it.
The approach we take needs to be enduring beyond election cycles. We have limited resources as a nation; we need to make sure we are using those resources effectively and not wasting them on short-term measures when we are dealing with a long-term problem.
It is inevitable that people will have different views of the level of risk, and some may choose to buy, or stay, at a place despite the knowledge of the hazards and estimates of the risk. That's entirely up to them, but that shouldn't require the country to underwrite that decision.
The reflexive response from those unhappy with this approach essentially says: a person buying, or choosing to stay in, a property today with the knowledge that it is at a higher risk of the physical impacts of climate change should expect to be made whole by the Government (ie the whole community) in 20 years' time, if those risks come to pass.
To which it's worth asking: why?
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
18 minutes ago
- NZ Herald
Letters: Political interference in commodity prices is never a good look
Trump-like economic interventions such as tariffs will eventually end badly for domestic consumers. Bruce Eliott, St Heliers. NCEA concerns The recent Government briefing highlighting significant concerns about the credibility of NCEA is yet another damning indictment of our education system. However, just as disturbing is Erica Stanford's comment about the confusion among parents about how NCEA works and that 'parents struggle to guide their children on the right pathways'. Taking a quick look at some of the subjects' explanatory notes on the NCEA website, one is confronted with what amounts to a word salad that would confound a lawyer. No wonder parents are confused. This should not be the case. Students and parents should be able to understand what is going on with their children's education. This would ensure parents have consistent lines of communication with teachers and are aware of their child's progress, challenges and needs. Parents and teachers need to work together to achieve this. A strong partnership between both parties benefits everyone but this will not be achieved if parents don't know what is going on. Bernard Walker, Mt Maunganui. Auckland's troubles Your correspondent Gary Hollis (letters, July 24) sees a glimmer of hope from Chris Luxon and Simeon Brown as Auckland MPs, regarding the preservation of what's left of Auckland's once-pristine suburbs. Unfortunately, the destruction of these suburbs is being driven by their colleague Chris Bishop (from Lower Hutt), and Luxon and Brown, together with the Government's other Auckland MPs, have been noticeably silent about it. Perhaps it is time they stood up for Auckland and restrained him? John Burns, Mt Eden. Transgender sport How very sensible that the Government has told Sport NZ to abandon its transgender guidelines even for community sport. Where males identifying as females competed in female sports, this not only compromised fair competition, but was at times very dangerous. Fair and equal competition in New Zealand must always be the accepted benchmark. Dr Hylton Le Grice, Remuera.
NZ Herald
18 minutes ago
- NZ Herald
Signs of a brewing building crisis cannot be ignored
OneRoof reported this week that building inspectors are warning they are seeing more low-quality and non-compliant work. More than a third of residential new builds in greater Auckland failed their final inspection in the year to May. The OneRoof investigation also found fears about 'cowboy' builders, consent-free granny flats becoming future 'slums', a string of apartment projects failures and home owners' lives ruined by defective dwellings. It comes amid an ambitious Government reform programme aiming to make building easier and more affordable. Changes include removing the building consent requirement for dwellings up to 70sq m, allowing 'trusted professionals' to sign off their own work, axing 'overly rigid' insulation rules and making it easier to use thousands of foreign building products. The cowboys are also in the reform crosshairs, with plans for stronger disciplinary powers, new waterproofing licences and an improved complaints process. The Government will review liability rules for bad builds that have often left ratepayers footing the bill, penalties for practitioners responsible for poor workmanship and company rules that enable directors to shut up one failed shop and start over with barely a trace. Building sector leaders emphasise that the vast majority of practitioners in New Zealand are skilled, trustworthy and unfairly tarred by a few shoddy brushes. That's of little comfort, however, for people whose lives have been ruined by a tricky tradie or dodgy development. Tens of thousands of Kiwis embark on new builds each year. They deserve a trustworthy system that arms them with the information they need to protect their biggest asset, and the confidence that if something goes wrong, those responsible will be held to account. Like moisture trapped in a wall, the scale of a construction disaster may not initially be outwardly obvious, but could lead to an enormous fallout. New Zealand is still recovering from the financial, emotional and reputational devastation of the leaky homes saga. Signs suggesting issues of similar scale could be developing again must be addressed before the rot sets in. Sign up to the Daily H, a free newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
NZ Herald
18 minutes ago
- NZ Herald
‘He really miscalculated the reaction' - new curbs on anti-corruption watchdogs have alarmed Ukrainians
The protesters arrived with their children and dogs, on prosthetic legs and in wheelchairs, carrying blue-and-yellow Ukrainian flags and shouting for the Government to revoke the law, which has stoked immense public outrage, alarmed former officials and raised consternation among Ukraine's European allies who are becoming the country's main lifeline for weapons and economic aid amid uncertain support from the United States. A woman stands wrapped in a Ukrainian flag during Wednesday's protests. Photo / Ed Ram, for the Washington Post 'This is how democracy should look,' said Anton Avrynskyi, 41, a tech entrepreneur who joined the crowds with his wife, Vitaliia, and their 9-year-old son, Ivan. During wartime, the country must stay united behind the president, he said - but should also not fear correcting his mistakes. 'We are here to help him not make wrong decisions,' Avrynskyi said. The law has put a spotlight on Ukraine's history of endemic corruption, which has long been used by the country's detractors to criticise it. It could also affect Ukraine's candidacy to join the European Union. As crowds gathered for a second night in a row, Zelenskyy showed signs of imminent backtracking. The President said he had 'heard what people are saying these days' and would propose 'a plan of concrete steps that could strengthen the rule of law in Ukraine'. He suggested a draft law that would ensure the independence of all of the country's anti-corruption institutions. The masses appeared unsatisfied with his response, and many said they were appalled by how quickly the Government rammed through the law without assessing public opinion, which some saw as a signal it was veering towards unchecked autocracy. Mariia Golota, 35, who is nearly nine months pregnant, carried a sign that read 'I want to give birth in a fair Ukraine'. 'We choose to live here and if you live here you have to fight for fair laws and transparency,' Golota said. The law seemed to be rushed through parliament so 'that maybe no one will notice', said her husband, Danylo Golota, who serves in Ukraine's Third Assault Brigade. 'Most people are ready to stand up and go protest and fight. We lost too much so we are not ready to just swallow something we don't like.' The demonstrators gathered in front of a theatre on Ivan Franko Square, near the presidential administration, in far greater numbers than the estimated 2000 people who protested on Wednesday, shouting, 'Shame!' The presidential headquarters now sit behind several checkpoints and are surrounded by small mountains of sandbags to protect against Russian airstrikes. The crowds sang the national anthem, chanted 'Glory to Ukraine's Armed Forces' and resurrected popular chants from revolutions past, including 'Together we are many - we cannot be defeated!' Some young people climbed onto the theatre's balconies, waving Ukrainian flags and leading the cheers. Others perched on fountains and statues or put out lawn chairs and picnic blankets. Oleh, 39, a Ukrainian soldier, lost his left leg in battle late last year. He said he joined the crowds because he fears the law will risk Ukraine's future in the European Union - the same future he fought for in the country's east until he stepped on a Russian antipersonnel mine near the city of Toretsk. 'It's just offensive even as a civilian,' Oleh said. 'From a military standpoint, it's also offensive that those boys are standing there fighting, and in-house this is what's happening.' Barbara Varvara, 18, walked with her dog, Manya, who was put up for adoption after she was wounded in the eastern Donetsk region several months ago. A sign around Manya's neck read: 'Soon, even dogs won't want to live here'. 'We have so much corruption in our country and we can't do anything,' Varvara said. 'I'm here to show we are against that.' The law, which was adopted by the parliament and signed by Zelenskyy, places Nabu and Sapo under the control of the general prosecutor's office, which critics say effectively abolishes their independence. The two institutions were the main anti-corruption bodies created as part of an aggressive campaign against public graft and other malfeasance since Ukraine's 2014 Maidan Revolution, when hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians took to the streets in part because they were fed up with rampant corruption under President Viktor Yanukovych. The two bodies functioned free of outside control. Yesterday, Zelenskyy, who had tried to frame the law as a way of strengthening the anti-corruption effort, met the heads of the country's law enforcement and anti-corruption bodies, including Nabu and Sapo. After the meeting, however, Nabu and Sapo issued a joint statement, saying that the 'legislative changes adopted yesterday significantly limit' their independence. 'To restore full and independent work, clear and unambiguous steps are needed at the legislative level to restore the guarantees that were abolished by parliament,' the statement said. Kyiv Mayor Vitali Klitschko, who attended the first protest on Wednesday, posted on social media that those responsible for the law were 'dragging Ukraine faster into authoritarianism'. Ukrainian lawmakers who voted against the bill said Zelenskyy severely underestimated both the domestic and international reaction to the move, which is seen as an effort to rein in officials tasked with independently investigating corruption cases - including those that may reach close to the President's inner circle. The move appeared to reflect Zelenskyy's growing distance from the generation that ushered in a new democratic era after the 2014 revolution - many of whom are now among those fighting on the front lines for the same democratic values they championed on the streets more than a decade ago. 'The scariest thing is that it will be used by our foes,' said Ivanna Klympush-Tsintsadze, a lawmaker from Ukraine's European Solidarity Party, who fears outsiders will use the debacle to try to paint Ukraine as a nation that remains mired in corruption. Klympush-Tsintsadze, who worked extensively on Ukraine's bid to join the EU, voted against the law. Protesters gather on a road leading to the Ukrainian president's office. Photo / Ed Ram, for the Washington Post Russia, which has long amplified the narrative of corruption in Ukraine, was quick to leap on the development, with Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov saying yesterday that American and European tax dollars have 'been plundered'. Russia has long been criticized by the West for having one of the world's worst records on corruption. Zelenskyy's signing of the law tested the unwritten agreement between Ukrainian society and government that there will not be a political uprising during wartime because of the shared understanding that Russia is the enemy, said Volodymyr Ariev, a lawmaker who belongs to the same party as Klympush-Tsintsadze. 'He really miscalculated the reaction of the society,' he said of Zelenskyy. 'We are fighting against Russia not only as a country but as a model.' European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen called Zelenskyy to convey 'her strong concerns about the consequences of the amendments' and 'requested the Ukrainian Government for explanations', a spokesperson for the European Commission said. 'The respect for the rule of law and the fight against corruption are core elements of the European Union,' the spokesperson said. 'As a candidate country, Ukraine is expected to uphold these standards fully. There cannot be a compromise.' On Tuesday, agents from Ukraine's security service, the SBU, the general prosecutor's office, and the State Bureau of Investigation raided Nabu offices, claiming the existence of a 'Russian 'mole' in one of the bureau's elite units,' SBU head Vasyl Maliuk said. Many Ukrainians flatly rejected the Government's justifications for the law, however. The move against the agencies also comes a month after Nabu opened a criminal case against Deputy Prime Minister Oleksiy Chernyshov on charges of 'abuse of office and receiving undue benefits in substantial amounts for himself and third parties'. It was one of the highest-level corruption cases since Zelenskyy became president six years ago, targeting one of the closest allies of his powerful chief of staff, Andriy Yermak. Chernyshov denied the charges, but he lost his position in last week's government reshuffle.
