Red Cross defends slow disbursement of $21 million Gabrielle fund

Red Cross defends slow disbursement of $21 million Gabrielle fund | Insurance Business New Zealand

Insurance News

Red Cross defends slow disbursement of $21 million Gabrielle fund

Portion of fund has gone to emergency response and early recovery work, secretary general says

Insurance News

By
Kenneth Araullo

The Red Cross is defending the slow disbursal of its $21 million relief fund collected from various donations following Cyclone Gabrielle.

Red Cross secretary general Sarah Stuart Black addressed local and business sentiment on where the funds are going, saying that the organization has spent $3.98 million of the fund on various things. The Red Cross fund for Cyclone Gabrielle has been supported by donors from New Zealanders as well as businesses across all industries, including the insurance industry, with AA Insurance recently pledging $13,000 to the cause.

In an interview, Black said that a proportion of the money went to the emergency response and early recovery work, including generators, SAT phones, and other equipment brought into the area.

“The second part is about our partnerships program and that’s about working on the needs that communities have right now and that’s our biggest kind of financial contribution and where we expect to spend the most money,” Black said. As for the final part, Black said that building resilience is the priority to help communities that are likely to be isolated in the case of future weather events.

When pressed on the lack of speed, Black said that the Red Cross is part of a multi-agency effort, one that not only includes the organisation but also the local government and insurers who are covering the payouts for those extremely affected by the weather event. Black also said that the Red Cross wanted to learn from the Christchurch earthquake in 2011, which saw the organisation criticised for spending the fund too quickly.

“There was criticism that New Zealand Red Cross moved too fast and the money didn’t make the biggest difference or have the greatest impact,” she said. “There was criticism that in fact, we didn’t engage with iwi or we duplicated funding or support that was already available. We’ve taken the appropriate time we think to be able to talk with those people, to understand what the needs are on the ground.”

What are your thoughts on this story? Please feel free to share your comments below.