Natural Hazards Commission

Following several destructive earthquakes between 1929 and 1942,^[3] the government decided to set up a statutory scheme of disaster insurance, resulting in the Earthquake and War Damage Act 1945 and the creation of the Earthquake and War Damage Commission. The act provided for the establishment of an Earthquake and War Damage Fund and the scheme was financed by a compulsory levy imposed on all fire insurance policies. Responsibility for collecting the levies was placed on the insurance companies. The act was administered by the State Insurance Office, which provided staff and accounting services; Treasury determined the fund's investment policy. The levy was set at 5 cents per $100 of value and cover was limited to indemnity value. Over time, cover was extended to other natural disasters and to cover damage to land as well as to buildings.^[4][5] The need to cover land damage was identified in a report that followed the 1979 Abbotsford landslip in Dunedin when 69 homes were lost.

The Earthquake Commission Act 1993 renamed the commission and introduced new changes to the system.^[6] The insurance was known as EQCover. It was now limited to residential buildings; cover for buildings was confirmed as being for replacement (new), not indemnity, value; and war damage cover was removed. These changes reduced the government's exposure to a very large potential liability and brought the EQC system more in line with current insurance industry practices.^[6] In 2001 the commission founded GeoNet along with GNS Science and Land Information New Zealand.^[7][8]

In its first 65 years, the commission was called on to settle only relatively minor claims and the disaster fund continued to grow, reaching $6.1 billion by August 2010.^[9] The most notable natural disaster during this period was the 1979 Abbotsford landslip, near Dunedin, that caused the destruction of 69 houses.^[10][11] A subsequent commission of enquiry led, in 1984, to land damage being covered. Another noteworthy event was the 2007 Gisborne earthquake after which the EQC received over 3,100 claims and paid out over $16 million.^[12] A more significant series of payouts was required after the 2010–2011 Canterbury and Christchurch earthquakes (see § Canterbury earthquake sequence).

A bill proposing to update the legislation governing the Earthquake Commission was introduced into Parliament in March 2022. The overarching objectives of its changes were "to enable better community recovery from natural hazards, to clarify the role of the Commission and the cover provided by the Bill, and to enhance the durability and flexibility of the legislation."^[13] The bill passed and came into effect on 1 July 2024, changing the commission's name to the Natural Hazards Commission.^[14]

EQC's preferred method of settling claims till this point had been to make payment rather than to repair the damage. However, soon after the 4 September 2010 earthquake, EQC's then chairman, Michael Wintringham, confirmed in the commission's 2010–11 Annual Report that it had been asked by the government to settle claims by repairing buildings, (if the cost was not above cap, in which case EQC would cash settle and pass the claim to the owner's private insurance company).

This preference to repair was both to prevent the predicted upward spiral in building costs if repair money flooded the market, and to reduce the inevitable stress on home owners having to manage their own repairs.^[28] The then Chief Executive, Ian Simpson, prefaced these comments by stating: "It is important that we are accurate with our claims settlement process. Not just for our customers in a very difficult and uncertain time but also for the continued confidence of the global insurance market and the protection of the EQC funds for all New Zealanders".^[29] The protection of the Disaster Fund is a core responsibility of the commission. EQC's later response was to engage Fletcher Building, the country's largest construction company, as its agent to undertake the necessary repair work. The result was The Canterbury Home Repair Programme. In doing this, EQC indemnified Fletcher Building against any future liability.^[30][31] In June 2013, the Auditor-General reported on EQC's performance in managing the Canterbury Home Repair Programme. She found it had been "mixed".^[32]

For building claims, EQC chose first to assess properties to determine the extent and cost of repairing any damage. This was usually carried out by a two-person team comprising an assessor and an estimator.^[33] Assessors had no specific qualification other than to be seen as persons of good character with the ability to spot any unjustified or fraudulent claims. Retired police officers were often used.^[34][35] Estimators had building industry experience.

During this period, EQC pointed out the magnitude of the task it faced, its relative success, and the external factors that hindered it from providing an even better service. In 2013, commenting on a report it had commissioned, EQC said: "(the) earthquakes involved the kind of damage you would expect in wartime". It continued: "much has been achieved by EQC throughout the process of responding to Canterbury events as assessments have been completed, contents claims settled, emergency work undertaken and managed repairs underway in Christchurch".^[36]

Aside from settling claims, the commission had to deal with many litigation issues.

In 2011, the High Court decided to establish an Earthquake List to handle the expected large number of earthquake related cases. By February 2018, 1,048 claims had been filed, many of them involving EQC.^[37]

In March 2013, EQC was criticised after an employee accidentally sent a file containing details on more than 80,000 claims to a contractor.^[38] EQC obtained a High Court injunction preventing publication, which a disgruntled ex-employee and blogger breached by publishing an online link to the list. The blogger was found to be in contempt and fined.^[39]

In 2015, an earlier finding of "incompetence" against an engineer working for EQC was dismissed by the Chartered Professional Engineers Council (CPEC).^[40]

In 2015, a group of around 100 home owners launched proceedings against the EQC for not settling claims according to the standard required by the EQC Act. In April 2016, both parties agreed in a public statement that EQC's standard did comply with the act. The group then discontinued its claim. Both sides claimed success. The High Court awarded costs against the group.^[41][42][43]

Throughout the process, EQC received unwavering public support from the minister responsible, Gerry Brownlee.^[44] This support was contrasted by complaints of EQC mismanagement.^[45][46]

In October 2017, a new government was sworn in and the minister responsible changed. In February 2018, Megan Woods, the new minister, expressed her frustration with the EQC board and the pace of claims settlement. After seven years there were more than 2,600 claims still unresolved. She said she would appoint an independent ministerial advisor to work with the board and management who would report directly to her. The minister said: "I've made it clear I am not satisfied with where EQC is in respect of the Canterbury earthquake work seven years on from the 22 February event".

In response Maarten Wevers, the chairman and a lifelong public servant, resigned. He stated: "It is clear that the minister has no confidence in the board and staff of the commission. As chair, I take responsibility for that, and have stepped aside so that the minister can appoint someone whom she assesses will be able to do a better job."^[47] A few days later, the minister announced the appointment of Annette King as an interim chairperson, and said: "I'm keen to see a broadening of skills to include people who have been at the coalface and understand the reality faced by those people at the coalface".^[48]

An editorial in the Otago Daily Times, on the same day, read:^[49]

It beggars belief that more than seven years on from the most damaging event – Christchurch's deadly 22 February magnitude-6.3 quake – there are still residents waiting for their claims to be completed. It is a disgraceful state of affairs, particularly when EQC was established to provide a rapid, comprehensive recovery from disaster. These quakes were its first really big test – and it failed. There are still more than 2600 claims outstanding out of more than 470,000".

In November 2018, then Minister Megan Woods announced an independent public inquiry into EQC's handling of the Canterbury earthquake claims chaired by Silvia Cartwright.^[50] Cartwright's report, released in April 2020, found that EQC was poorly prepared for the Canterbury earthquakes. She made a number of recommendations about clarifying EQC's role and improving its processes for claims handling and communicating with claimants.^[51][52] Cartwright said:^[51]

I fully accept that staff, managers and the board of EQC faced an overwhelming task from September 2010, made significantly worse by the ongoing major earthquakes that ensued, an absence of clear prior direction from government, added responsibilities and inadequate internal systems. In the circumstances, EQC's commitment and aspects of its response are commendable. It is necessary, however, to emphasise that its advance planning had many inadequacies, as did the undertaking of its functions after the major events began. The affected public has borne the burden of this.

In addition Cartwright noted the significant impact on the EQC reputation given their appalling mismanagement of the Canterbury earthquakes.^[53]

Unquestionably, there has been serious damage to EQC’s reputation; some deserved but much because it was simply unprepared for the role assigned to it. Prior to 2010, EQC was a trusted Crown entity, left to its own devices by the Government and not given much support for its attempts to secure and build its funds or to plan for the future. It was and continues to be successful in securing reinsurance in spite of New Zealand’s seismic risks and the recent catastrophic events, in part because of its commitment to research in understanding future hazards. EQC is derided by many, predominantly in Canterbury. A similar reaction to private insurers is also apparent, although more muted. But a body such as EQC—seen as the face of government—that had always been helpful and supportive prior to the Canterbury earthquakes was seen to be uncaring, miserly and inefficient. This reputation gathered pace and EQC is now frequently mentioned with distaste and even expletives.