The Canterbury earthquake sequence in New Zealand’s South Island induced widespread liquefaction phenomena across the Christchurch urban area on four occasions (4 Sept 2010; 22 Feb; 13 June; 23 Dec 2011), that resulted in widespread ejection of silt and fine sand. This impacted transport networks as well as infiltrated and contaminated the damaged storm water system, making rapid clean-up an immediate post-earthquake priority. In some places the ejecta was contaminated by raw sewage and was readily remobilised in dry windy conditions, creating a long-term health risk to the population. Thousands of residential properties were inundated with liquefaction ejecta, however residents typically lacked the capacity (time or resources) to clean-up without external assistance. The liquefaction silt clean-up response was co-ordinated by the Christchurch City Council and executed by a network of contractors and volunteer groups, including the ‘Farmy-Army’ and the ‘Student-Army’. The duration of clean-up time of residential properties and the road network was approximately 2 months for each of the 3 main liquefaction inducing earthquakes; despite each event producing different volumes of ejecta. Preliminary cost estimates indicate total clean-up costs will be over NZ$25 million. Over 500,000 tonnes of ejecta has been stockpiled at Burwood landfill since the beginning of the Canterbury earthquakes sequence. The liquefaction clean-up experience in Christchurch following the 2010-2011 earthquake sequence has emerged as a valuable case study to support further analysis and research on the coordination, management and costs of large volume deposition of fine grained sediment in urban areas.
It is reported that natural disasters such as earthquakes impact significantly upon survivors’ psychological wellbeing. Little is known however about the impact of disasters upon the professional performance of survivor employees such as teachers. Using a survey research design with an emphasis upon a qualitative data collection, 39 teachers from 6 schools in the eastern suburbs of Christchurch, New Zealand rated the impact of the 2010 and 2011 earthquakes upon their professional performance and 13 volunteered to participate in a follow up focus group interviews. The data collected was interpreted via three theoretical/policy frameworks: the New Zealand Teacher Council mandatory requirements for teachers, the basic psychological needs theory and the inclusive transactional model of stress. Contrary to expectations, relationships with learners, colleagues, learner's whanau (family) and the wider community were on the whole perceived to be positively impacted by the earthquakes, while participation in professional development was regarded in more negative terms. The results indicated that teachers were able to continue (despite some stress reactions) because the basic psychological needs of being a teacher were not disrupted and indeed in some cases were enhanced. A model of teacher performance following a natural disaster is presented. Recommendations and implications (including future research undertakings) arising from the study are indicated. It was noted that given the importance of the school in supporting community recovery following a disaster, support for them and consideration of the role of teachers and the preparation for this should be given some priority.
Post-earthquake cordons have been used after seismic events around the world. However, there is limited understanding of cordons and how contextual information of place such as geography, socio-cultural characteristics, economy, institutional and governance structure etc. affect decisions, operational procedures as well as spatial and temporal attributes of cordon establishment. This research aims to fill that gap through a qualitative comparative case study of two cities: Christchurch, New Zealand (Mw 6.2 earthquake, February 2011) and L’Aquila, Italy (Mw 6.3 earthquake, 2009). Both cities suffered comprehensive damage to its city centre and had cordons established for extended period. Data collection was done through purposive and snowball sampling methods whereby 23 key informants were interviewed in total. The interviewee varied in their roles and responsibilities i.e. council members, emergency managers, politicians, business/insurance representatives etc. We found that cordons were established to ensure safety of people and to maintain security of place in both the sites. In both cities, the extended cordon was met with resistance and protests. The extent and duration of establishment of cordon was affected by recovery approach taken in the two cities i.e. in Christchurch demolition was widely done to support recovery allowing for faster removal of cordons where as in L’Aquila, due to its historical importance, the approach to recovery was based on saving all the buildings which extended the duration of cordon. Thus, cordons are affected by site specific needs. It should be removed as soon as practicable which could be made easier with preplanning of cordons.
The Evaluating Maternity Units (EMU) study is a mixed method project involving a prospective cohort study, surveys (two postnatal questionnaires) and focus groups. It is an Australasian project funded by the Australian Health and Medical Research Council. Its primary aim was to compare the birth outcomes of two groups of well women – one group who planned to give birth at a primary maternity unit, and a second group who planned to give birth at a tertiary hospital. The secondary aim was to learn about women’s views and experiences regarding their birthplace decision-making, transfer, maternity care and experiences, and any other issues they raised. The New Zealand arm of the study was carried out in Christchurch, and was seriously affected by the earthquakes, halting recruitment at 702 participants. Comprehensive details were collected from both midwives and women regarding antenatal and early labour changes of birthplace plans and perinatal transfers from the primary units to the tertiary hospital. Women were asked about how they felt about plan changes and transfers in the first survey, and they were discussed in some focus groups. The transfer findings are still being analysed and will be presented. This study is set within the local maternity context, is recent, relevant and robust. It provides midwives with contemporary information about transfers from New Zealand primary maternity units and women’s views and experiences. It may help inform the conversations midwives have with each other, and with women and their families/whānau, regarding the choices of birthplace for well childbearing women.
On September the 4th 2010 and February 22nd 2011 the Canterbury region of New Zealand was shaken by two massive earthquakes. This paper is set broadly within the civil defence and emergency management literature and informed by recent work on community participation and social capital in the building of resilient cities. Work in this area indicates a need to recognise both the formal institutional response to the earthquakes as well as the substantive role communities play in their own recovery. The range of factors that facilitate or hinder community involvement also needs to be better understood. This paper interrogates the assumption that recovery agencies and officials are both willing and able to engage communities who are themselves willing and able to be engaged in accordance with recovery best practice. Case studies of three community groups – CanCERN, Greening the Rubble and Gap Filler – illustrate some of the difficulties associated with becoming a community during the disaster recovery phase. Based on my own observations and experiences, combined with data from approximately 50 in-depth interviews with Christchurch residents and representatives from community groups, the Christchurch City Council, the Earthquake Commission and so on, this paper outlines some practical strategies emerging communities may use in the early disaster recovery phase that then strengthens their ability to ‘participate’ in the recovery process.
"Prior to the devastating 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquakes, the city of Christchurch was already exhibiting signs of a housing affordability crisis. The causes and symptoms were similar to those being experienced in Auckland, but the substantial damage to the housing stock caused by the earthquakes added new dimensions and impetus to the problem. Large swathes of the most affordable housing stock in the east of the city were effectively destroyed by the earthquakes. In itself this would have pushed the mean house price upwards, but compounding problems exacerbated the situation. These include the price effects of reduced supply of both rented and owned housing and increased demand from both displaced residents and an influx of rebuild workers. The need for additional temporary housing while repairs were undertaken and the associated insurance pay-outs bidding up rents with improved rental returns leading to increased interest in property investment. Land supply constraints and consenting issues inhibiting the build of new housing and political infighting and uncertainty regarding the future of parts of the city leading to a flight of development activity to peripheral locations and adjoining local authorities. Concerns that the erosion of the city council rating base combined with inadequacy of insurance cover for infrastructure will lead to large rates increases, increased development costs and reduced amenities and services in future years. These and other issuers will be elaborated on in this paper with a view to exploring the way forward for affordable housing Christchurch City."
Many contemporary urban communities are challenged by increased flood risks and rising temperatures, declining water quality and biodiversity, and reduced mental, physical, cultural and social wellbeing. The development of urban blue-green infrastructure (BGI), defined as networks of natural and semi-natural blue-green spaces which enable healthy ecosystem processes, has been identified as one approach to mitigate these challenges and enable more liveable cities. Multiple benefits associated with urban BGI have been identified, including reduced flood risk and temperatures, improved water quality and biodiversity, enhanced mental and physical wellbeing, strengthened social cohesion and sense of place, and the facilitation of cultural connections and practices. However, socio-cultural benefits have tended to be neglected in BGI research and design, resulting in a lack of awareness of how they may be maximised in BGI design. As such, this research sought to understand how BGI can best be designed to enable liveable cities. Four questions were considered: (i) what benefits are associated with urban BGI, (ii) how does the design process influence the benefits achieved by BGI, (iii) what challenges are encountered during BGI design, and (iv) how might the incorporation of communities and Indigenous knowledge into BGI research and design enhance current understandings and applications of urban BGI? To address these questions, a mixed methods case study approach was employed in Ōtautahi Christchurch and Kaiapoi. The four selected case studies were Te Oranga Waikura, Wigram Basin, Te Kuru and the Kaiapoi Honda Forest. The cases are all council owned urban wetlands which were primarily designed or retrofitted to reduce urban flood risks following the Canterbury Earthquake Sequence. To investigate BGI design processes in each case, as well as how communities interact with, value and benefit from these spaces. BGI projects were found to be designed by interdisciplinary design teams driven by stormwater engineers, landscape architects and ecologists which prioritised bio-physical outcomes. Further, community and Indigenous engagement approaches closely resembled consultation, with the exception of Te Kuru which employed a co-design approach between councils and Indigenous and community groups. This co-design approach was found to enhance current understandings and applications of urban BGI, while uncovering multiple socio-cultural values to be incorporated into design, such as access to cultural healing resources, increased community connections to water, and facilitating cultural monitoring methodologies and citizen science initiatives. Communities frequently identified the opportunity to connect with natural environments and enhanced mental and physical wellbeing as key benefits of BGI. Conversely, strengthened social cohesion, sense of place and cultural connections were infrequently identified as benefits, if at all. This finding indicates a disconnect between the bio-physical benefits which drive BGI design and the outcomes which communities value. As such, there is a need for future BGI design to more fully consider and design for socio- cultural outcomes to better enable liveable cities. To better design BGI to enhance urban liveability, this research makes three key contributions. First, there is a need to advance current approaches to transdisciplinary design to better account for the full scope of perspectives and values associated with BGI. Second, there is a need to transition towards relational co-design with Indigenous and community groups and knowledge. Third, it is important to continue to monitor, reflect on and share both positive and negative BGI design experiences to continually improve outcomes. The incorporation of social and cultural researchers, knowledges and perspectives into open and collaborative transdisciplinary design teams is identified as a key method to achieve these opportunities.
METIRIA TUREI to the Minister of Education: In relation to the proposed school closures in Christchurch, does she agree with Manning Intermediate head Richard Chambers that "The Minister promised us that we would have two years no matter what. It was a guarantee she made to our community repeatedly, it was unequivocal"? MAGGIE BARRY to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the New Zealand economy? DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers? Dr CAM CALDER to the Minister of Education: In the context of the Government's Christchurch schools announcement, what is the process going forward? Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE to the Minister for Building and Construction: Does he believe that the contracting system currently used in the construction industry works appropriately and fairly in circumstances of insolvency; if so, why? NICKY WAGNER to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: What progress is being made on making the Christchurch city centre safe for rebuilding? IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements on withdrawing troops from Afghanistan? TIM MACINDOE to the Minister of Science and Innovation: How is the Government focussing New Zealand's science funding investment, and encouraging Kiwis to get involved in science? DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements? ALFRED NGARO to the Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector: What recent announcements has she made regarding government support for volunteering? EUGENIE SAGE to the Minister of Local Government: Does he have any concerns about the Hawkes Bay Regional Council's forecast of 530 percent increase in its debt by 2021/22? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he still have confidence in the Associate Minister of Health; if so, why?
In 2010 and 2011, Aotearoa New Zealand was hit by a number of major disasters involving loss of human life and severe disruption to social, ecological and economic wellbeing. The Pike River mine explosions were closely followed by a sequence of major earthquakes in Christchurch, seismic events that have permanently altered the lives of thousands of people in our third largest city, the closure of the central business district and the effective abandonment of whole residential areas. In early October 2011, the ship, Rena, grounded on a reef off the port of Tauranga and threatened a major oil spill throughout the Bay of Plenty, where local communities with spiritual and cultural connections to the land depend on sea food as well as thrive on tourism. The Council for Social Work Education Aotearoa New Zealand (CSWEANZ), representing all the Schools of Social Work in New Zealand, held a ‘Disaster Curriculum’ day in November 2011, at which social workers and Civil Defence leaders involved in the Christchurch earthquakes, the Rena Disaster, Fiji floods and the Boxing Day tsunami presented their narrative experience of disaster response and recovery. Workshops discussed and identified core elements that participants considered vital to a social work curriculum that would enable social work graduates in a range of community and cultural settings to respond in safe, creative and informed ways. We present our core ideas for a social work disaster curriculum and consider a wide range of educational content based on existing knowledge bases and new content within a disaster framework. http://www.swsd-stockholm-2012.org/
Since September 2010 Christchurch, New Zealand, has experienced a number of significant earthquakes. In addition to loss of life, this has resulted in significant destruction to infrastructure, including road corridors; and buildings, especially in the central city, where it has been estimated that 60% of buildings will need to be rebuilt. The rebuild and renewal of Christchurch has initially focused on the central city under the direction of the Christchurch City Council. This has seen the development of a draft Central City Plan that includes a number of initiatives that should encourage the use of the bicycle as a mode of transport. The rebuild and renewal of the remainder of the city is under the jurisdiction of a specially set up authority, the Christchurch Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA). CERA reports to an appointed Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery, who is responsible for coordinating the planning, spending, and actual rebuilding work needed for the recovery. Their plans for the renewal and rebuild of the remainder of the city are not yet known. This presentation will examine the potential role of the bicycle as a mode of transport in a rebuilt Christchurch. The presentation will start by describing the nature of damage to Christchurch as a result of the 2010 and 2011 earthquakes. It will then review the Central City Plan (the plan for the rebuild and renewal for central Christchurch) focusing particularly on those aspects that affect the role of the bicycle. The potential for the success of this plan will be assessed. It will specifically reflect on this in light of some recent research in Christchurch that examined the importance of getting infrastructure right if an aim of transport planning is to attract new people to cycle for utilitarian reasons.
This research attempts to understand whether community resilience and perceived livability are influenced by housing typologies in Christchurch, New Zealand. Using recent resident surveys undertaken by the Christchurch City Council, two indexes were created to reflect livability and community resilience. Indicators used to create both indexes included (1) enjoyment living in neighbourhood (2) satisfaction with local facilities (3) safety walking and (4) safety using public transport, (5) sense of community (6) neighbour interactions, (7) home ownership and (8) civic engagement. Scores were attributed to 72 neighbourhoods across Christchurch –and each neighbourhood was classified in one of the following housing typologies; (1) earthquake damaged, (2) relatively undamaged, (3) medium density and (4) greenfield developments. Spatial analysis of index scores and housing classifications suggest housing typologies do influence resident’s perceived livability and community bonds to an extent. It was found that deprivation also had a considerable influence on these indexes as well as residential stability. These additional influences help explain why neighbourhoods within the same housing classification differ in their index scores. Based on these results, several recommendations have been made to the CCC in relation to future research, urban development strategies and suburb specific renewal projects. Of chief importance, medium density neighbourhoods and deprived neighbourhoods require conscious efforts to foster community resilience. Results indicate that community resilience might be more important than livability in having a positive influence on the lived experience of residents. While thoughtful design and planning are important, this research suggests geospatial research tools could enable better community engagement outcomes and planning outcomes, and this could be interwoven into proactive and inclusive planning approaches like placemaking.
Under the framework of New Public Management, the government has decentralised the responsibility for Disaster Risk Management (DRM) to regional, local, and community levels in New Zealand. This decentralisation serves political agendas related to resource allocation and is supported by empirical evidence suggesting that involving communities in DRM during recovery decision-making enhances disaster resilience. Extensive evidence indicates that community participation in DRM, especially during recovery decision-making, can significantly improve recovery outcomes at the community level. However, there has been limited research into whether the legal framework in New Zealand effectively facilitates meaningful public engagement to empower the public in influencing disaster recovery decisions. To address this gap in the literature, this thesis aims to explore the extent to which legislative and governance arrangements transfer the responsibility, liability, and costs of managing disaster risks to local levels without enabling meaningful public contribution to and influence on recovery decisions affecting them. Situated within Public Law and Disaster Risk and Resilience disciplines and using a case study of Greater Christchurch, New Zealand, this interdisciplinary thesis examines both common law and statutory provisions in the legal framework impacting public engagement before and during recovery from the Canterbury Earthquake Sequence. In particular, this thesis assesses how legislative, and governance frameworks influenced communities’ ability to influence recovery decision-making following the 2010-2011 Canterbury Earthquake Sequence (CES). This thesis shows that before the CES, the New Zealand public engagement system closely adhered to the common law principle of the ‘duty to consult’, which remains the current legal standard. This principle required decision-makers to use the 'public notice and comment' approach as a minimum, limiting meaningful community participation in decision-making. After the earthquakes, reliance on this traditional approach caused growing frustration and division locally, as the public struggled to effectively engage in and influence recovery decisions, resulting in new community activism. The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act (CER Act), introduced following the Christchurch Earthquake, included innovative provisions on public engagement. However, for various reasons, this Act appeared to have minimal impact on meaningful public engagement in recovery decision-making, which continued to align with the broader, existing public engagement system and associated norms. The empirical findings indicate that despite the novel legislative language, the traditional public engagement framework in New Zealand constrained effective engagement, leading to a broader erosion of trust between the public and the government. This was largely attributed to the default ‘public notice and comment’ approach at the local government level, with inadequate mechanisms for community engagement in central government decision-making shaping the expectations of recovery decision-makers still operating within this framework. Notable departures from this traditional approach were evident in the practices of the Waimakariri District Council and Christchurch City Council. Particularly noteworthy was the ‘Share an Idea’ public engagement campaign. Unlike conventional processes, it did not commence with a near-final or draft document. Instead, it utilised participatory mechanisms that fostered meaningful dialogue, enabling the public to significantly shape the content of the draft Christchurch Central Recovery Plan. The initial success of such participatory engagement underscores its potential effectiveness throughout the entire recovery planning process, an option that was not exercised by the central government. In conclusion, this thesis argues that New Zealand should move beyond the entrenched ‘public notice and comment’ approach and adopt more open and inclusive public participation mechanisms. It contends that supplementing this approach with proactive participatory methods before disasters could yield favorable outcomes during disaster recovery, thereby ensuring meaningful public involvement in future decisions that affect communities.
Observations made in past earthquakes, in New Zealand and around the world, have highlighted the vulnerability of non-structural elements such as facades, ceilings, partitions and services. Damage to these elements can be life-threatening or jeopardise egress routes but typically, the main concern is the cost and time associated with repair works. The Insurance Council of New Zealand highlighted the substantial economic losses in recent earthquakes due to poor performance of non-structural elements. Previous inspections and research have attributed the damage to non-structural elements principally to poor coordination, inadequate or lack of seismic restraints and insufficient clearances to cater for seismic actions. Secondary issues of design responsibility, procurement and the need for better alignment of the various Standards have been identified. In addition to the compliance issues, researchers have also demonstrated that current code provisions for non-structural elements, both in New Zealand and abroad, may be inadequate. This paper first reviews the damage observed against the requirements of relevant Standards and the New Zealand Building Code, and it appears that, had the installations been compliant, the cost of repair and business interruption would have been substantially less. The second part of the paper highlights some of the apparent shortcomings with the current design process for non-structural elements, points towards possible alternative strategies and identifies areas where more research is deemed necessary. The challenge of improving the seismic performance of non-structural elements is a complex one across a diverse construction industry. Indications are that the New Zealand construction industry needs to completely rethink the delivery approach to ensure an integrated design, construction and certification process. The industry, QuakeCentre, QuakeCoRE and the University of Canterbury are presently working together to progress solutions. Indications are that if new processes can be initiated, better performance during earthquakes will be achieved while delivering enhanced building and business resilience.
Hon PAULA BENNETT to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers? WILLOW-JEAN PRIME to the Minister of Finance: Will this Government’s policies help transition the economy; if so, how? Hon AMY ADAMS to the Associate Minister of Finance: What is the purpose of the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill? Hon MARK MITCHELL to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by his statement in answer to Oral Question No 8 on Tuesday that “The member is alluding to the offender I referred to in a question last week, relating to the pinching of a prison officer’s bottom”? Dr DUNCAN WEBB to the Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration: What announcements has she made about learning the lessons from the Canterbury earthquake sequence to help New Zealanders prepare for the future? Hon PAULA BENNETT to the Minister for Women: Is it her responsibility to stand up for and improve the outcomes for women in New Zealand? PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN to the Minister for Social Development: Will low- and middle-income families be better off because of the Families Package; if so, how? JAMI-LEE ROSS to the Minister of Transport: Does he stand by all his statements, actions, and legislative drafting instructions on matters to do with fuel taxes? ANGIE WARREN-CLARK to the Minister for the Environment: Is the Government assisting the primary sector and regional councils in measuring nutrient use and greenhouse gas emissions; if so, how? Hon ALFRED NGARO to the Minister for Children: Does she stand by her Ministry’s policies and actions in finding caregivers for children in care? Hon Dr NICK SMITH to the Minister for Ethnic Communities: Are the statements in the Onehunga Community News that “The Office of Ethnic Communities is moving into premises in Onehunga, which will be shared with list MP Priyanca Radhakrishnan” and the quote by her parliamentary under-secretary saying, “We’ve boosted support that we’re providing in terms of connecting with ethnic communities, so we have more staff members working in our ethnic communities’ outreach teams” correct? MARK PATTERSON to the Minister for Trade and Export Growth: What announcements has the Government made regarding trade with the European Union?
DAVID SHEARER to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: Has the Government met the five criteria the Prime Minister laid out for proceeding with asset sales? Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Minister of Finance: Will New Zealanders have money taken from their bank accounts to fund a bank bailout under his proposed Open Bank Resolution scheme? TODD McCLAY to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on New Zealand's balance of payments? Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his statements regarding "Better, Sooner, More Convenient" health care; if not, why not? MARK MITCHELL to the Minister of Police: What reports has she received from Police on the success of pre-charge warnings? PHIL TWYFORD to the Minister of Housing: Why did he tell the House that, even if the Auckland plan took effect in September, new subdivisions would not be available until 2016-17, when the advice he tabled from Roger Blakely of Auckland Council shows that if the unitary plan takes effect in September new land would be available two years earlier? ALFRED NGARO to the Minister for Social Development: How will the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill back people off welfare and into work? GRANT ROBERTSON to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements on the actions and involvement of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Government Communications and Security Bureau in Operation Debut? SCOTT SIMPSON to the Minister of Health: What is the Government doing to extend access to free flu vaccines? METIRIA TUREI to the Minister for Social Development: Does she have an obligation, as Social Development Minister, to ensure all policy she is responsible for will be good for children and their families? Hon KATE WILKINSON to the Minister for Primary Industries: What announcement has he made on the drought in New Zealand? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Have allegations of fraud and corruption involving Canterbury earthquake recovery and rebuild contracts been raised with him as Minister; if so, what specific steps has he taken to address them?
Questions to Ministers 1. GARETH HUGHES to the Minister for Primary Industries: Will he extend the Taranaki set net ban after the recent death of a Maui's dolphin in a fishing net? 2. DAVID BENNETT to the Minister for Economic Development: What actions is the Government taking to boost economic linkages with China? 3. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that his hour-long show on Radio Live on 30 September 2011 was an "election free zone"? 4. Dr PAUL HUTCHISON to the Minister of Health: What improvements, if any, have been made to the Government's national health targets? 5. Hon LIANNE DALZIEL to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Did he discuss with the Christchurch City Mayor reported claims that there had been overtures from within The Treasury that there was scope for the city's rates to be increased or for assets to be sold to pay for the quake recovery, and that this could be done under the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act before he called him a clown; if not, why not? 6. JACQUI DEAN to the Minister of Local Government: What reports has he received on increases in local government council debt since the Local Government Act 2002 was enacted? 7. DARIEN FENTON to the Minister of Labour: Does she stand by her statement that the new minimum wage announced yesterday "strikes the right balance between protecting low paid workers and ensuring that jobs are not lost."? 8. PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA to the Minister of Consumer Affairs: What recent announcements has the Government made on protecting consumers from loan sharks? 9. CLARE CURRAN to the Minister of Broadcasting: Is he aware that Stephen McElrea is part of a working group within NZ On Air, which includes a representative of MediaWorks, and which is determining details of a documentary about Whānau Ora? 10. TIM MACINDOE to the Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector: What recent announcement has she made in her portfolio that will benefit communities? 11. HOLLY WALKER to the Minister for Social Development: Does she consider low family incomes to be a major contributor to childhood vulnerability? 12. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he still have confidence in all his Ministers?
BRENDAN HORAN to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: Is he satisfied with all aspects of the KiwiRail Turnaround Plan? GRANT ROBERTSON to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement in relation to Hon John Banks, “The law may be very loose as I’ve said before, and the law may well need reforming and that’s something we’ll consider in due course but I’m comfortable with what he’s done”? JOHN HAYES to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the international economic situation and its impact on New Zealand? Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement regarding migration to Australia “What’s the point of standing in the airport crying about it?”; if so, are the numbers of people leaving New Zealand from the regions being replaced by people moving into the regions from elsewhere in New Zealand or overseas? Hon TARIANA TURIA to the Minister of Finance: Did the Minister of Māori Affairs discuss with him how the Crown would meet its Treaty obligation with respect to the Mixed Ownership Model? EUGENIE SAGE to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: What advice, if any, has he received on the potential sale of Christchurch City Council assets to help pay for the rebuild of Christchurch? JONATHAN YOUNG to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What reports has he received on renewable electricity generation in New Zealand? JACINDA ARDERN to the Minister for Social Development: What was discussed at the three meetings she has had with Australian company Taylor Fry, known for its actuary services to the insurance industry? Dr PAUL HUTCHISON to the Minister of Health: What investments are planned for improving health facilities in Wairoa? Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: Does he agree with the Minister of Finance that “The asset sales programme remains on track”? LOUISE UPSTON to the Minister of Labour: What advice has she received regarding the implementation of the new adventure activities regulations? Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Housing: What recent reports has he received on housing in the Aranui area of Christchurch?
Following the 2010 and 2011 earthquakes Christchurch is undergoing extensive development on the periphery of the city. This has been driven in part by the large numbers of people who have lost their homes. Prior to the earthquakes, Christchurch was already experiencing placeless subdivisions and now these are being rolled out rapidly thanks to the efficiency of a formula that has been embraced by the Council, developers and the public alike. However, sprawling subdivisions have a number of issues including inefficient land use, limited housing types, high dependence on motor vehicles and low levels of resilience and no sense of place. Sense of place is of particular interest due to its glaring absence from new subdivisions and its growing importance in the literature. Research shows that sense of place has benefits to our feeling of belonging, well-being, and self-identity, particularly following a disaster. It improves the resilience and sustainability of our living environment and fosters a connection to the landscape thereby making us better placed to respond to future changes. Despite these benefits, current planning models such as new urbanism and transit-oriented design tend to give sense of place a low priority and as a result it can get lost. Given these issues, the focus of this research is “can landscape driven sense of place drive subdivision design without compromising on other urban planning criteria to produce subdivisions that address the issues of sprawl, as well as achieving the benefits associated with a strong sense of place that can improve our overall quality of life?” Answering this question required a thorough review of current urban planning and sense of place literature. This was used to critique existing subdivisions to gain a thorough understanding of the issues. The outcomes of this led to extensive design exploration which showed that, not only is it possible to design a subdivision with sense of place as the key driver but by doing this, the other urban planning criteria become easier to achieve.
The Canterbury earthquake sequence (2010-2011) was the most devastating catastrophe in New Zealand‘s modern history. Fortunately, in 2011 New Zealand had a high insurance penetration ratio, with more than 95% of residences being insured for these earthquakes. This dissertation sheds light on the functions of disaster insurance schemes and their role in economic recovery post-earthquakes. The first chapter describes the demand and supply for earthquake insurance and provides insights about different public-private partnership earthquake insurance schemes around the world. In the second chapter, we concentrate on three public earthquake insurance schemes in California, Japan, and New Zealand. The chapter examines what would have been the outcome had the system of insurance in Christchurch been different in the aftermath of the Canterbury earthquake sequence (CES). We focus on the California Earthquake Authority insurance program, and the Japanese Earthquake Reinsurance scheme. Overall, the aggregate cost of the earthquake to the New Zealand public insurer (the Earthquake Commission) was USD 6.2 billion. If a similar-sized disaster event had occurred in Japan and California, homeowners would have received only around USD 1.6 billion and USD 0.7 billion from the Japanese and Californian schemes, respectively. We further describe the spatial and distributive aspects of these scenarios and discuss some of the policy questions that emerge from this comparison. The third chapter measures the longer-term effect of the CES on the local economy, using night-time light intensity measured from space, and focus on the role of insurance payments for damaged residential property during the local recovery process. Uniquely for this event, more than 95% of residential housing units were covered by insurance and almost all incurred some damage. However, insurance payments were staggered over 5 years, enabling us to identify their local impact. We find that night-time luminosity can capture the process of recovery; and that insurance payments contributed significantly to the process of local economic recovery after the earthquake. Yet, delayed payments were less affective in assisting recovery and cash settlement of claims were more effective than insurance-managed repairs. After the Christchurch earthquakes, the government declared about 8000 houses as Red Zoned, prohibiting further developments in these properties, and offering the owners to buy them out. The government provided two options for owners: the first was full payment for both land and dwelling at the 2007 property evaluation, the second was payment for land, and the rest to be paid by the owner‘s insurance. Most people chose the second option. Using data from LINZ combined with data from Stats NZ, the fourth chapter empirically investigates what led people to choose this second option, and how peer effect influenced the homeowners‘ choices. Due to climate change, public disclosure of coastal hazard information through maps and property reports have been used more frequently by local government. This is expected to raise awareness about disaster risks in local community and help potential property owners to make informed locational decision. However, media outlets and business sector argue that public hazard disclosure will cause a negative effect on property value. Despite this opposition, some district councils in New Zealand have attempted to implement improved disclosure. Kapiti Coast district in the Wellington region serves as a case study for this research. In the fifth chapter, we utilize the residential property sale data and coastal hazard maps from the local district council. This study employs a difference-in-difference hedonic property price approach to examine the effect of hazard disclosure on coastal property values. We also apply spatial hedonic regression methods, controlling for coastal amenities, as our robustness check. Our findings suggest that hazard designation has a statistically and economically insignificant impact on property values. Overall, the risk perception about coastal hazards should be more emphasized in communities.
Hon RUTH DYSON to the Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration: What progress has been made on the Crown’s Global Settlement with the Christchurch City Council for costs flowing from the Canterbury earthquake sequence? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all of his policies, statements, and actions? Hon JUDITH COLLINS to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Does he stand by his statement in response to a question on if he would meet his commitment to be a keynote speaker at the KiwiBuild summit on 24 June, “No, because I have two papers at Cabinet”, and did he take two papers to Cabinet on 24 June? GARETH HUGHES to the Minister of State Services: Does he support measuring and improving the energy efficiency of Government buildings, both leased and owned? Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement yesterday that “Yes, that will mean that we will have deficits that we wouldn’t want to see. That member and his Government under-invested in health for nine long years, and we will be investing ourselves for quite a period to set that right”; if so, when will he “set that right”? Dr DUNCAN WEBB to the Minister of Justice: What recent announcements has he made regarding community law centres? CHRIS BISHOP to the Minister of Transport: What will the percentage increase in the fuel excise duty and accompanying road-user charges be on Monday, 1 July, and what will be the total revenue raised from this increase? Hon TIM MACINDOE to the Minister for ACC: Does he stand by all of his answers during the Vote Labour Market Estimates hearing at the Education and Workforce Committee meeting on 12 June? Dr LIZ CRAIG to the Minister of Health: What, if anything, is the Government doing to better support the wellbeing of parents with mental health and addiction needs? Hon LOUISE UPSTON to the Minister for Women: How can she be responsible for eliminating the gender pay gap when the Ministry for Women’s gender pay gap has gone from 5.6 percent in favour of women to 6 percent in favour of men? JONATHAN YOUNG to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Does she stand by all her statements, policies, and actions? ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI to the Minister for Pacific Peoples: How does Budget 2019 support Pacific peoples in Aotearoa New Zealand?
1. Hon PHIL GOFF to the Prime Minister: Has the tax switch which he promised would leave no-one worse off fully compensated all New Zealanders for the rise in the cost of living over the last year; if not, which groups are worse off? 2. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree that due to inflation, no new spending in the upcoming Budget is the equivalent of a cut in real terms? 3. DAVID BENNETT to the Minister of Finance: What tax changes take effect on or around 1 April? 4. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Minister of Finance: Why did he announce on 17 March 2011 that the Government would carry all the costs of earthquake reconstruction on its balance sheet with no reduction in operating spending, when the Prime Minister said just three days later that new operating spending would be reduced to zero? 5. AARON GILMORE to the Minister of Education: What progress has been made re-opening schools and early childhood education centres in Christchurch following the 22 February earthquake? 6. CHARLES CHAUVEL to the Minister of Civil Defence: To date, how many buildings have been demolished in Canterbury without notifications to the building or business owners? 7. HONE HARAWIRA to the Attorney-General: Is he satisfied that he has the support required for the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill to pass into law? 8. DARIEN FENTON to the Minister of Labour: What impact, if any, will the Christchurch earthquake have on the Government's employment law changes due to be implemented on 1 April? 9. JONATHAN YOUNG to the Minister of Corrections: What progress has been made toward the implementation of the smoking ban in New Zealand prisons? 10. CLARE CURRAN to the Minister for Communications and Information Technology: By what date will the 75 percent of urban New Zealanders receive ultra-fast broadband under his current proposal? 11. METIRIA TUREI to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that the "Government will build the effectiveness of New Zealand's public transport networks" and "will be working closely with the Auckland Council as they develop their strategic vision for the City through the Auckland Spatial Plan"? 12. TODD McCLAY to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What counselling support is available for Cantabrians impacted by the earthquake?
Questions to Ministers 1. PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA to the Minister of Finance: What are some of the issues the Government will consider to meet the expected fiscal cost of the Christchurch earthquake? 2. Hon PHIL GOFF to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that, in Christchurch, "up to 10,000 houses will need to be demolished and over 100,000 more could be damaged? 3. Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN to the Attorney-General: What changes, if any, is he proposing to the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill, and why? 4. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Minister of Finance: How much of the cumulative $15 billion drop in GDP over the next 4 years, as identified in the Treasury's February Monthly Economic Indicators report, is a result of the "weaker [economic] outlook we were seeing prior to the February earthquake" in Christchurch? 5. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Is he satisfied that there is enough coordination between central government agencies, local council, and non-government organisations in the response to the earthquake? 6. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Attorney-General: Is it his intention to further progress the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill this week? 7. NICKY WAGNER to the Minister for the Environment: What changes has the Government made under the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Act to facilitate recovery and the processing of resource consents to enable Christchurch to rebuild as quickly as possible? 8. Hon JIM ANDERTON to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Does he stand by his comment in the House yesterday that "there is a period in which insurance companies will not provide cover", and if so, what will the Government do to assist people who have already signed purchase contracts and are seeking insurance cover? 9. JACQUI DEAN to the Minister of Police: What has been the response of the New Zealand Police and their counterparts in other countries to the Christchurch earthquake? 10. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Health: Is he satisfied with the cost of after-hours medical treatment? 11. TIM MACINDOE to the Minister of Housing: What assistance is available for people who require emergency housing following the earthquake on 22 February? 12. Hon TREVOR MALLARD to the Minister for Communications and Information Technology: Who made the decision to defer MediaWorks' payment of $43 million to the Crown?
DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement “My expectations are that this will be a busy, hard three years’ work and we will need to deliver results for New Zealanders”? Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “we don’t favour one group over another”? PAUL GOLDSMITH to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on housing affordability? GRANT ROBERTSON to the Prime Minister: When his office had a “quick look at the matters involved” with regard to the funding of the Mackenzie Sustainable Futures Trust, whom did they speak to and what documents did they look at to arrive at their conclusion that “we did not find anything that raised concerns to us”? MELISSA LEE to the Minister for Social Development: What initiatives has the Government put in place to better protect children? ANDREW WILLIAMS to the Minister of Finance: Does the Government still intend to achieve a budget surplus by 2014/15; if so, how? GARETH HUGHES to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Does he stand by his statement on the Campbell Live 9 February programme on fracking that, “In Taranaki, it’s actually been done very, very well. There’s been no effect on the environment whatsoever”? Dr JIAN YANG to the Minister of Health: What progress has been made in providing improved child health services? Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement regarding migration to Australia “What’s the point of standing in the airport crying about it?”; if so, how many of the 158,167 people that have migrated to Australia since November 2008, as reported by Statistics NZ, are from 18 to 30 years of age in number and percentage terms? COLIN KING to the Minister of Science and Innovation: How will the Advanced Technology Institute boost business-led research and development? Hon LIANNE DALZIEL to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Why did he use section 27 of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 to amend the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement instead of using the Order in Council provisions of the Act or developing the recovery strategy or a recovery plan? SHANE ARDERN to the Minister for Primary Industries: What recent announcements has he made to further improve New Zealand’s biosecurity system?
Whole document is available to authenticated members of The University of Auckland until Feb. 2014. The increasing scale of losses from earthquake disasters has reinforced the need for property owners to become proactive in seismic risk reduction programs. However, despite advancement in seismic design methods and legislative frameworks, building owners are often reluctant to adopt mitigation measures required to reduce earthquake losses. The magnitude of building collapses from the recent Christchurch earthquakes in New Zealand shows that owners of earthquake prone buildings (EPBs) are not adopting appropriate risk mitigation measures in their buildings. Owners of EPBs are found unwilling or lack motivation to adopt adequate mitigation measures that will reduce their vulnerability to seismic risks. This research investigates how to increase the likelihood of building owners undertaking appropriate mitigation actions that will reduce their vulnerability to earthquake disaster. A sequential two-phase mixed methods approach was adopted for the research investigation. Multiple case studies approach was adopted in the first qualitative phase, followed by the second quantitative research phase that includes the development and testing of a framework. The research findings reveal four categories of critical obstacles to building owners‘ decision to adopt earthquake loss prevention measures. These obstacles include perception, sociological, economic and institutional impediments. Intrinsic and extrinsic interventions are proposed as incentives for overcoming these barriers. The intrinsic motivators include using information communication networks such as mass media, policy entrepreneurs and community engagement in risk mitigation. Extrinsic motivators comprise the use of four groups of incentives namely; financial, regulatory, technological and property market incentives. These intrinsic and extrinsic interventions are essential for enhancing property owners‘ decisions to voluntarily adopt appropriate earthquake mitigation measures. The study concludes by providing specific recommendations that earthquake risk mitigation managers, city councils and stakeholders involved in risk mitigation in New Zealand and other seismic risk vulnerable countries could consider in earthquake risk management. Local authorities could adopt the framework developed in this study to demonstrate a combination of incentives and motivators that yield best-valued outcomes. Consequently, actions can be more specific and outcomes more effective. The implementation of these recommendations could offer greater reasons for the stakeholders and public to invest in building New Zealand‘s built environment resilience to earthquake disasters.
For the people of Christchurch and its wider environs of Canterbury in New Zealand, the 4th of September 2010 earthquake and the subsequent aftershocks were daunting. To then experience a more deadly earthquake five months later on the 22nd of February 2011 was, for the majority, overwhelming. A total of 185 people were killed and the earthquake and continuing aftershocks caused widespread damage to properties, especially in the central city and eastern suburbs. A growing body of literature consistently documents the negative impact of experiencing natural disasters on existing psychological disorders. As well, several studies have identified positive coping strategies which can be used in response to adversities, including reliance on spiritual and cultural beliefs as well as developing resilience and social support. The lifetime prevalence of severe mental health disorders such as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) occurring as a result of experiencing natural disasters in the general population is low. However, members of refugee communities who were among those affected by these earthquakes, as well as having a past history of experiencing traumatic events, were likely to have an increased vulnerability. The current study was undertaken to investigate the relevance to Canterbury refugee communities of the recent Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) draft recovery strategy for Christchurch post-earthquakes. This was accomplished by interviewing key informants who worked closely with refugee communities. These participants were drawn from different agencies in Christchurch including Refugee Resettlement Services, the Canterbury Refugee Council, CERA, and health promotion and primary healthcare organisations, in order to obtain the views of people who have comprehensive knowledge of refugee communities as well as expertise in local mainstream services. The findings from the semi-structured interviews were analysed using qualitative thematic analysis to identify common themes raised by the participants. The key informants described CERA’s draft recovery strategy as a significant document which highlighted the key aspects of recovery post disaster. Many key informants identified concerns regarding the practicality of the draft recovery strategy. For the refugee communities, some of those concerns included the short consultation period for the implementation phase of the draft recovery strategy, and issues surrounding communication and collaboration between refugee agencies involved in the recovery. This study draws attention to the importance of communication and collaboration during recovery, especially in the social reconstruction phase following a disaster, for all citizens but most especially for refugee communities.
This thesis examines the opportunities for young citizens in Christchurch to be engaged in city planning post-disaster. This qualitative study was conducted eight years after the 2010-2011 earthquakes and employed interviews with 18 young people aged between 12-24 years old, 14 of whom were already actively engaged in volunteering or participating in a youth council. It finds that despite having sought out opportunities for youth leadership and advocacy roles post-disaster, young people report frustration that they are excluded from decision-making and public life. These feelings of exclusion were described by young people as political, physical and social. Young people felt politically excluded from decision-making in the city, with some youth reporting that they did not feel listened to by decision-makers or able to make a difference. Physical exclusion was also experienced by the young people I interviewed, who reported that they felt excluded from their city and neighbourhood. This ranged from feeling unwelcome in certain parts of the city due to perceived social stratification, to actual exclusion from newly privatised areas in a post-quake recovery city. Social exclusion was reported by young people in the study in regard to their sense of marginalisation from the wider community, due to structural and social barriers. Among these, they observed a sense of prejudice towards them and other youth due to their age, class and/or ethnicity. The barriers to their participation and inclusion, and their aspirations for Christchurch post-disaster are discussed, as well as the implications of exclusion for young people’s wellbeing and sense of belonging. Results of this study contribute to the literature that challenges the sole focus on children and young peoples’ vulnerability post-disaster, reinforcing their capacity and desire to contribute to the recovery of their city and community (Peek, 2008). This research also challenges the narrative that young people are politically apathetic (Norris, 2004; Nissen, 2017), and adds to our understandings of the way that disasters can concentrate power amongst certain groups, in this case excluding young people generally from decision-making and public life. I conclude with some recommendations for a more robust post-disaster recovery in Christchurch, in ways that are more inclusive of young people and supportive of their wellbeing.
Prognostic modelling provides an efficient means to analyse the coastal environment and provide effective knowledge for long term urban planning. This paper outlines how the use of SWAN and Xbeach numerical models within the ESRI ArcGIS interface can simulate geomorphological evolution through hydrodynamic forcing for the Greater Christchurch coastal environment. This research followed the data integration techniques of Silva and Taborda (2012) and utilises their beach morphological modelling tool (BeachMM tool). The statutory requirements outlined in the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 were examined to determine whether these requirements are currently being complied with when applying the recent sea level rise predictions by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2013), and it would appear that it does not meet those requirements. This is because coastal hazard risk has not been thoroughly quantified by the installation of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) residential red zone. However, the Christchurch City Council’s (CCC) flood management area does provide an extent to which managed coastal retreat is a real option. This research assessed the effectiveness of the prognostic models, forecasted a coastline for 100 years from now, and simulated the physical effects of extreme events such as storm surge given these future predictions. The results of this research suggest that progradation will continue to occur along the Christchurch foreshore due to the net sediment flux retaining an onshore direction and the current hydrodynamic activity not being strong enough to move sediment offshore. However, inundation during periods of storm surge poses a risk to human habitation on low lying areas around the Avon-Heathcote Estuary and the Brooklands lagoon similar to the CCC’s flood management area. There are complex interactions at the Waimakariri River mouth with very high rates of accretion and erosion within a small spatial scale due to the river discharge. There is domination of the marine environment over the river system determined by the lack of generation of a distinct river delta, and river channel has not formed within the intertidal zone clearly. The Avon-Heathcote ebb tidal delta aggrades on the innner fan and erodes on the outer fan due to wave domination. The BeachMM tool facilitates the role of spatial and temporal analysis effectively and the efficiency of that performance is determined by the computational operating system.
Questions to Ministers 1. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: What was the combined increase in the value of the Crown's equity in Meridian, Mighty River Power, Solid Energy, Genesis and Air New Zealand for each of the last five years? 2. SIMON BRIDGES to the Minister of Finance: How did Budget 2011 continue the Government's programme to build faster growth, higher incomes and more jobs? 3. Hon MARYAN STREET to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Have all recent actions of New Zealand's diplomats been consistent with Government policy? 4. Hon TAU HENARE to the Minister of Health: What reports has he received about improved access to dialysis for patients in Auckland and Waitemata? 5. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Minister of Finance: Will the Government have to borrow further to pay for the latest Christchurch earthquakes? 6. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Health: Does he agree with the statement of the Auditor-General, "Despite the encouraging improvements made in the last 10 years, we do not yet have a system for scheduled services that can demonstrate national consistency and equitable treatment for all"? 7. AMY ADAMS to the Minister for the Environment: What steps has the Government taken to facilitate resource consents for work required at the Lyttelton Port to ensure it is able to recover quickly from earthquake damage? 8. JACINDA ARDERN to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by the statement made on his behalf that "this Government is focused on improvements within the economy in order to create the platform on which business and New Zealanders can invest and grow jobs"? 9. TE URUROA FLAVELL to the Minister of Health: Does he agree that under section 118 of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003, the Medical Council has a responsibility to ensure the cultural competence of doctors, and what support has the Government provided to the health sector to ensure cultural competence is achieved across the health sector? 10. DAVID SHEARER to the Minister of Science and Innovation: Does he agree with Professor Sir Paul Callaghan's statement on science and innovation "it's clear that the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister have not really seen this as a top priority"? 11. CHESTER BORROWS to the Minister of Justice: What progress is being made on preparations for the referendum on the electoral system to be held in conjunction with this year's general election? 12. Hon RICK BARKER to the Minister of Veterans' Affairs: When can veterans expect to have a full response from the Government in response to the Law Commission's report "A New Support Scheme for Veterans"?
Questions to Ministers 1. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Does he agree with the Canterbury Employers' Chamber of Commerce chief executive Peter Townsend that the reconstruction of Canterbury following the earthquake requires someone "to co-ordinate and oversee" reconstruction? 2. COLIN KING to the Minister of Finance: What steps is the Government taking to ensure the Earthquake Commission can meet claims arising from the Canterbury earthquake? 3. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Minister of Finance: What was the earliest date that Treasury formed the conclusion that South Canterbury Finance could fail, and when and by whom was that first raised with him? 4. DAVID GARRETT to the Attorney-General: Does he agree that "tikanga" as it is described in the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill will differ in meaning from iwi to iwi and hapū to hapū? 5. Hon RUTH DYSON to the Minister of Health: Are doctors and nurses having more say in how the health system is run? 6. NICKY WAGNER to the Minister for the Environment: What reports has he received on responses to the Canterbury earthquake, particularly with respect to the region's flood and waste management systems? 7. TE URUROA FLAVELL to the Attorney-General: What is the burden of proof under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill in relation to applications for customary interests, and what type of evidence would the Crown be required to produce to prove that a customary interest had been extinguished? 8. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Attorney-General: When he answered yesterday that "hopefully" the new foreshore and seabed bill "will settle the protracted controversy around the issues of the foreshore and seabed", was he aware that the Government's confidence and supply partner Hon Pita Sharples told TV3 that he was "not entirely happy" with the new bill? 9. JO GOODHEW to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: How have Government social services been supporting the people of Canterbury? 10. PHIL TWYFORD to the Minister of Local Government: Why did the Auckland Transition Agency award the $53.8 million contract for the Auckland Council's Enterprise Resource Planning computer system without a competitive tender? 11. Dr JACKIE BLUE to the Minister of Women's Affairs: Why is the Ministry of Women's Affairs celebrating Suffrage Day? 12. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY to the Minister of Women's Affairs: How will New Zealand's forthcoming report to the UN under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women explain the Government's decision to axe the Pay and Employment Equity Unit?
1. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Has he had time to read and digest the judgement of Justice Miller regarding the Crafar farm deal; if so, does he stand by his comments made in the House yesterday? 2. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister for Land Information: Does he believe he and the Government have conducted themselves competently and appropriately in relation to the decision to approve the purchase of the Crafar farms by a foreign buyer; if not, what did they do wrong? 3. JONATHAN YOUNG to the Minister of Finance: What reports has the Government issued on the economy? 4. JACINDA ARDERN to the Minister for Social Development: Does she have confidence that Work and Income meets their own "case management approach" expectations? 5. JAN LOGIE to the Minister for Social Development: Does she have concerns that changes to the eligibility for the Training Incentive Allowance are causing single parent beneficiaries to consider working in the sex industry? 6. Dr CAM CALDER to the Minister of Health: What improvements have there been to services for patients as a result of greater collaboration between District Health Boards? 7. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: Does he still intend to sell 49 per cent of the four State-owned energy companies? 8. JAMI-LEE ROSS to the Minister of Local Government: What analysis has he received on rate increases across New Zealand's 78 councils following the enactment of new local government legislation in 2002? 9. Hon LIANNE DALZIEL to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Does he stand by the part of his statement of 27 January, announcing the extension of the red zone offer to retirement villages, that letters of offer would be sent to each resident and CERA would work with village owners as quickly as possible to ensure the residents are assisted; if not, why not? 10. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Minister for Land Information: Did Overseas Investment Office officials meet with Chinese political consul Cheng Lei late last year; if so, did they discuss Shanghai Pengxin's bid for the Crafar farms? 11. CLARE CURRAN to the Minister of Broadcasting: What is the name of the documentary which was withheld in the papers released publicly by NZ On Air titled "Records of decisions made at working group meeting"? 12. Hon TAU HENARE to the Minister for Economic Development: What progress has he made declaring the Volvo Ocean Race Stopover a major event under the Major Events Management Act 2007?