Seismic isolation is an effective technology for significantly reducing damage to buildings and building contents. However, its application to light-frame wood buildings has so far been unable to overcome cost and technical barriers such as susceptibility to movement during high-wind loading. The precursor to research in the field of isolation of residential buildings was the 1994 Northridge Earthquake (6.7 MW) in the United States and the 1995 Kobe Earthquake (6.9 MW) in Japan. While only a small number of lives were lost in residential buildings in these events, the economic impact was significant with over half of earthquake recovery costs given to repair and reconstruction of residential building damage. A value case has been explored to highlight the benefits of seismically isolated residential buildings compared to a standard fixed-base dwellings for the Wellington region. Loss data generated by insurance claim information from the 2011 Christchurch Earthquake has been used by researchers to determine vulnerability functions for the current light-frame wood building stock. By further considering the loss attributed to drift and acceleration sensitive components, and a simplified single degree of freedom (SDOF) building model, a method for determining vulnerability functions for seismic isolated buildings was developed. Vulnerability functions were then applied directly in a loss assessment using the GNS developed software, RiskScape. Vulnerability was shown to dramatically reduce for isolated buildings compared to an equivalent fixed-base building and as a result, the monetary savings in a given earthquake scenario were significant. This work is expected to drive further interest for development of solutions for the seismic isolation of residential dwellings, of which one option is further considered and presented herein.
Questions to Ministers
1. DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement in the House yesterday, in answer to Oral Question No 2, that his Government is selling assets because "New Zealanders want less debt, more productive assets, and an economy that is going to function, not a load more debt"?
2. PAUL GOLDSMITH to the Minister for Economic Development: What progress is the Government making in implementing its economic growth agenda?
3. PHIL TWYFORD to the Minister of Transport: Does the Government consider it important for its transport spending to be cost-effective and provide a good return on investment?
4. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: What, according to the Crown Ownership Monitoring Unit, was the average total shareholder return of Genesis, Meridian, Mighty River Power and Solid Energy over the last five years and how does that compare to the average cost of borrowing to the Government right now?
5. NICKY WAGNER to the Minister of Local Government: What reports has he received on how much rates increased nationally in the decade since the Local Government Act 2002 and how does this compare to the previous decade?
6. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister for the Environment: Does he stand by his statement made in the House yesterday in relation to the grounding of the Rena that "the statute sets down very clearly that I as Minister for the Environment should not be encouraging or discouraging a proper, independent decision by Environment Bay of Plenty as to whether they should or should not take a prosecution"?
7. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI to the Minister of Broadcasting: What recent announcements has the Government made on progress towards digital switchover?
8. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he still have confidence in all his Ministers?
9. Hon LIANNE DALZIEL to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: How many written comments were received on the draft Recovery Plan for the Christchurch CBD and is it his intention to consider them all before making a decision on the draft Recovery Plan for the CBD, in accordance with the process set out on the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority's website?
10. MELISSA LEE to the Minister of Internal Affairs: What recent steps have there been to promote New Zealand citizenship as a successful settlement pathway for migrants?
11. CLARE CURRAN to the Minister of Broadcasting: Does he stand by the Prime Minister's statement in relation to the appointment of the Prime Minister's electorate chairman Stephen McElrea to the NZ On Air board that "if you look at the vast array of appointments we make, I think the balance is about right"?
12. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY to the Minister of Education: Will she rule out implementing Treasury's advice to increase class sizes in schools?
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers?
DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
MAGGIE BARRY to the Minister of Finance: What measures is the Government taking to help increase national savings?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: What reports has he received about the extent of fraud allegations in the Christchurch rebuild?
Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: Is he confident that the Government's initiative to provide "Better, Sooner, More Convenient" health care, is meeting his expectations; if not, why not?
MARK MITCHELL to the Minister for Economic Development: What progress is being made in encouraging firms to invest in New Zealand through the Business Growth Agenda?
PHIL TWYFORD to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
DAVID BENNETT to the Associate Minister of Transport: What recent announcements has he made on transport safety?
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Will he extend the deadline for residential red zone property owners who have been offered only 50 percent of rating valuation for their land?
SCOTT SIMPSON to the Minister of Justice: What recent report has she received showing that crime is falling under this Government?
METIRIA TUREI to the Minister of Education: Will she wait until the Chief Ombudsman's investigation of the Ministry of Education's processes on school closures is complete before making a final decision on the Salisbury and Christchurch school closures?
GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister responsible for the GCSB: Did GCSB Director Ian Fletcher attend the three briefings he received from GCSB in February 2012; if not, which, if any, of the briefings did Ian Fletcher attend?
The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 finds that, despite progress in disaster risk reduction over the last decade “evidence indicates that exposure of persons and assets in all countries has increased faster than vulnerability has decreased, thus generating new risk and a steady rise in disaster losses” (p.4, UNISDR 2015). Fostering cooperation among relevant stakeholders and policy makers to “facilitate a science-policy interface for effective decisionmaking in disaster risk management” is required to achieve two priority areas for action, understanding disaster risk and enhancing disaster preparedness (p. 13, p. 23, UNISDR 2015). In other topic areas, the term science-policy interface is used interchangeably with the term boundary organisation. Both terms are usually used refer to systematic collaborative arrangements used to manage the intersection, or boundary, between science and policy domains, with the aim of facilitating the joint construction of knowledge to inform decision-making. Informed by complexity theory, and a constructivist focus on the functions and processes that minimize inevitable tensions between domains, this conceptual framework has become well established in fields where large complex issues have significant economic and political consequences, including environmental management, biodiversity, sustainable development, climate change and public health. To date, however, there has been little application of this framework in the disaster risk reduction field. In this doctoral project the boundary management framework informs an analysis of the research response to the 2010-2011 Canterbury Earthquake Sequence, focusing on the coordination role of New Zealand’s national Natural Hazards Research Platform. The project has two aims. It uses this framework to tell the nuanced story of the way this research coordination role evolved in response to both the complexity of the unfolding post-disaster environment, and to national policy and research developments. Lessons are drawn from this analysis for those planning and implementing arrangements across the science-policy boundary to manage research support for disaster risk reduction decision-making, particularly after disasters. The second aim is to use this case study to test the utility of the boundary management framework in the disaster risk reduction context. This requires that terminology and concepts are explained and translated in terms that make this analysis as accessible as possible across the disciplines, domains and sectors involved in disaster risk reduction. Key findings are that the focus on balance, both within organisations, and between organisations and domains, and the emphasis on systemic effects, patterns and trends, offer an effective and productive alternative to the more traditional focus on individual or organisational performance. Lessons are drawn concerning the application of this framework when planning and implementing boundary organisations in the hazard and disaster risk management context.
At the conclusion of the 2010 and 2011 Canterbury earthquakes more than 5100 homes had been deemed unsafe for habitation. The land and buildings of these were labelled “red zoned” and are too badly damaged for remediation. These homes have been demolished or are destined for demolition. To assist the red zone population to relocate, central government have offered to ‘buy out’ home owners at the Governmental Value (GV) that was last reviewed in 2007. While generous in the economic context at the time, the area affected was the lowest value land and housing in Christchurch and so there is a capital shortfall between the 2007 property value and the cost of relocating to more expensive properties. This shortfall is made worse by increasing present day values since the earthquakes. Red zone residents have had to relocate to the far North and Western extremities of Christchurch, and some chose to move even further to neighbouring towns or cities. The eastern areas and commercial centres close to the red zone are affected as well. They have lost critical mass which has negatively impacted businesses in the catchments of the Red Zone. This thesis aims to repopulate the suburbs most affected by the abandonment of the red zone houses. Because of the relative scarcity of sound building sites in the East and to introduce affordability to these houses, an alternative method of development is required than the existing low density suburban model. Smart medium density design will be tested as an affordable and appropriate means of living. Existing knowledge in this field will be reviewed, an analysis of what East Christchurch’s key characteristics are will occur, and an examination of built works and site investigations will also be conducted. The research finds that at housing densities of 40 units per hectare, the spatial, vehicle, aesthetic needs of East Christchurch can be accommodated. Centralising development is also found to offer better lifestyle choices than the isolated suburbs at the edges of Christchurch, to be more efficient using existing infrastructure, and to place less reliance on cars. Stronger communities are formed from the outset and for a full range of demographics. Eastern affordable housing options are realised and Christchurch’s ever expanding suburban tendencies are addressed. East Christchurch presently displays a gaping scar of devastated houses that ‘The New Eastside’ provides a bandage and a cure for. Displaced and dispossessed Christchurch residents can be re-housed within a new heart for East Christchurch.
RON MARK to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements; if so, how?
ANDREW LITTLE to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “if you see house prices rising, you might say the Government needs to do more” and “we take responsibility, we need to do a better job of it”?
SARAH DOWIE to the Minister of Finance: What international reports has he received showing New Zealand’s economic growth remains robust?
Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: On what date was the Ministry of Health first made aware of data manipulation of the six-hour Emergency Department target by district health boards?
CHRIS BISHOP to the Minister for Economic Development: What recent announcements has the Government made regarding support for earthquake-affected businesses?
METIRIA TUREI to the Minister for Building and Housing: Ka tū a ia i runga i te mana o tana kōrero, “The proportion of New Zealanders living in rental homes is not changing dramatically and owner-occupiers will remain the dominant living arrangement for most Kiwi families into the future” i te mea, ā, e ai ki ngā tatauranga hou, nō mai anō i te tau Kotahi mano, iwa rau, rima tekau mā tahi, i taka ai te hunga whiwhi i tōna ake whare, ki raro rā nō? Translation: Does he stand by his statement that “The proportion of New Zealanders living in rental homes is not changing dramatically and owner-occupiers will remain the dominant living arrangement for most Kiwi families into the future” given that home ownership is at its lowest level since 1951, according to the latest census?
STUART SMITH to the Minister for Primary Industries: What recent announcements has he made regarding support for earthquake-affected primary sectors?
GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the Prime Minister’s statement that Treasury forecasts are “a load of nonsense, because they can’t get predications in 44 days right, let alone 44 years”?
ALFRED NGARO to the Minister for Building and Housing: What additional Auckland housing projects did he announce during last week’s recess, and what are the latest reports on the growth in construction across Auckland showing?
Dr MEGAN WOODS to the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission: Is he confident EQC will be employing the necessary resource to process and settle claims, from both the Canterbury earthquake sequence and the earthquake sequence of a fortnight ago, after 16 December; if so, why?
DAVID SEYMOUR to the Minister of Police: What reassurance can she give to Epsom residents concerned that their Community Policing Centre will cease to operate after 24 years?
IAN McKELVIE to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What announcements has he made recently that support the continued growth of the New Zealand wine export market?
TODD McCLAY to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he received on the Government’s financial position?
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “if you go and have a look at the tax cuts, they literally were neutral” and, if so, what is the projected net cost of the first four years of the 2010 tax package?
DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers?
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON to the Associate Minister of Health: How will young New Zealanders receive better mental health services under the new Government package announced by the Prime Minister today?
Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister for Land Information: Has he or any other Minister this week sought further information on Shanghai Pengxin’s application for his approval to buy the Crafar farms, and if so, is it coincidence or purpose that this will further delay his decision on the application?
NIKKI KAYE to the Minister of Education: What initiatives is she introducing to help schools tackle youth mental health?
JULIE ANNE GENTER to the Minister of Transport: Has the Government reviewed its highway building programme in light of the warning in the briefing to the incoming Minister that there will be a $4.9 billion funding shortfall if oil prices remain high and economic growth remains low; if not, why not?
CHARLES CHAUVEL to the Minister of Justice: Does she stand by all the answers she has given to questions asked of her to date?
NICKY WAGNER to the Minister for Economic Development: What action has the Government taken to contribute to the recovery of high-tech businesses in Christchurch?
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: When will he approve a Recovery Plan for Christchurch’s CBD in light of the Christchurch City Council’s announcement that it will commence its Annual Plan processes next week?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in the Overseas Investment Office and his Ministers, Hon Jonathan Coleman and Hon Maurice Williamson over the issue of the latest Crafar farms deal; if so, why?
CLARE CURRAN to the Prime Minister: What did he mean when he told the NZ Herald and other media last week that “We are comfortable with the current arrangements we have” with regards to Chinese telco Huawei’s involvement in our national broadband infrastructure, given that Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard also said last week that “We’ve taken a decision in the national interest” to ban Huawei from even tendering for its broadband network?
Questions to Members
Hon DAVID PARKER to the Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee: Is it his intention to call the Treasury to appear before the committee to comment on the Report from the Controller and Auditor-General on The Treasury: Implementing and managing the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme; if not, why not?
A video of a presentation by Richard Conlin during the Community Resilience Stream of the 2016 People in Disasters Conference. The presentation is titled, "Resilience, Poverty, and Seismic Culture".The abstract for this presentation reads as follows: A strategy of resilience is built around the recognition that effective emergency response requires community involvement and mobilization. It further recognizes that many of the characteristics that equip communities to respond most effectively to short term emergencies are also characteristics that build strong communities over the long term. Building resilient communities means integrating our approaches to poverty, community engagement, economic development, and housing into a coherent strategy that empowers community members to engage with each other and with other communities. In this way, resilience becomes a complementary concept to sustainability. This requires an asset-based change strategy where external agencies meet communities where they are, in their own space, and use collective impact approaches to work in partnership. This also requires understanding and assessing poverty, including physical, financial, and social capital in their myriad manifestations. Poverty is not exclusively a matter of class. It is a complex subject, and different communities manifest multiple versions of poverty, which must be respected and understood through the asset-based lens. Resilience is a quality of a community and a system, and develops over time as a result of careful analysis of strengths and vulnerabilities and taking actions to increase competencies and reduce risk situations. Resilience requires maintenance and must be developed in a way that includes practicing continuous improvement and adaptation. The characteristics of a resilient community include both physical qualities and 'soft infrastructure', such as community knowledge, resourcefulness, and overall health. This presentation reviews the experience of some earlier disasters, outlines a working model of how emergency response, resilience, and poverty interact and can be addressed in concert, and concludes with a summary of what the 2010 Chilean earthquake tells us about how a 'seismic culture' can function effectively in communities even when government suffers from unexpected shortcomings.
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA to the Minister of Education: Is it still her strategy in education to "focus on teaching and learning quality" and "transparent accountabilities"?
MAGGIE BARRY to the Minister of Finance: What progress is the Government making in supporting jobs and economic growth?
EUGENIE SAGE to the Minister for the Environment: Does she stand by her statement that, "My preference will always be for all our sites to be safe for swimming"?
CHARLES CHAUVEL to the Attorney-General: Who, other than himself and the Prime Minister, was present at the discussion on the Government Communications Security Bureau's unlawful surveillance of Mr Dotcom?
NICKY WAGNER to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: What reports has he received on the outlook for increased employment opportunities in the rebuilding of Greater Christchurch?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he think it is important that his Ministers, including himself, come to the House prepared to give honest answers?
DARIEN FENTON to the Minister of Labour: How will employers know whether a job applicant aged 18 or 19 has been receiving a benefit for 6 months or more in order to pay the Government's starting-out wage?
TIM MACINDOE to the Minister for Social Development: What announcements has she made on the new Children's Teams which form part of the Government's White Paper for Vulnerable Children?
Dr DAVID CLARK to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his comment that Government computer systems "can't actually support radical changes from Government"?
Hon TAU HENARE to the Minister of Customs: How successful has SmartGate technology been at processing passengers at the border?
CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of Education: How long will boards of trustees of the schools she proposes to close or merge in Christchurch have to consult with their local communities before they are required to provide feedback to her ahead of a final decision?
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by her statement to schools, about their obligation under the Official Information Act 1982, that, "New Zealand is an open and transparent democracy. They [schools] are required to release this information. You are public entities."?
NUK KORAKO to the Minister of Finance: How does New Zealand’s growing economy and the Government’s commitment to responsible fiscal management mean New Zealand is well-placed to respond to the Kaikōura earthquake?
ANDREW LITTLE to the Prime Minister: Has he spoken to relevant Ministers about the lessons learned from the Canterbury earthquakes to ensure people affected by the recent earthquakes have an easier and faster recovery?
STUART SMITH to the Minister of Civil Defence: What update can he provide about the Government’s response to the Kaikōura earthquake?
RON MARK to the Prime Minister: Can he update the House on the situation in quake-affected areas in the South Island?
JAMES SHAW to the Prime Minister: Is he committed to all his Government’s policies?
Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement that following the Valentine’s Day earthquake this year in Canterbury, “it was timely to review whether any additional mental health and wellbeing support was needed”; if so, will he consider reviewing whether any additional support is needed for Canterbury and Nelson-Marlborough district health boards as a result of the recent earthquakes?
JACQUI DEAN to the Minister of Transport: What updates has he received on damage to transport infrastructure following the Kaikōura earthquake?
JAN LOGIE to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: What is his response to yesterday’s call from members of the Joint Working Group on Pay Equity Principles for the Government to “immediately right this historic wrong and implement the JWG principles”?
JACINDA ARDERN to the Minister for Economic Development: When is he likely to announce a recovery or support package for small businesses in earthquake-affected areas?
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI to the Minister of Police: What are New Zealand Police doing to support the Kaikōura community?
CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of Education: When did she first discuss the potential impact of Monday’s 7.5 earthquake on NCEA and Scholarship exams with the New Zealand Qualifications Authority?
IAN McKELVIE to the Minister for Primary Industries: What recent reports has he received on the impact of the recent earthquakes on the primary sector?
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?
The quality of multi-owned residential buildings and the capability to maintain that quality into the future is important in preserving not only the monetary value of such housing (Lujanen, 2010) but also the quality of life for its residents. The aim of this paper is to examine the governance and decision-making rules and regulations as they relate to the undertaking of major repairs in multi-owned residential buildings in Finland and New Zealand with particular regard to the Finnish Limited Liability Housing Companies Act 2010 (LLHCA 2010) and the New Zealand Unit Titles Act 2010 (UTA 2010). Currently, major building repairs are topical issues in both countries; in Finland as a result of ageing buildings requiring major re-fitting of pipes and other infrastructure, and in New Zealand as a result of earthquake damage in Christchurch and Leaky Building Syndrome nationwide. Major repairs can be a significant financial burden to unit owners and collective decisions can be difficult to achieve. Interestingly, new legislation that governs multi-owned housing was enacted in both countries in 2010. The recent enactment of this legislation provides an opportunity to examine the UTA 2010 and LLHCA 2010 with regard to how they address major repairs, improvements in housing stock and the financing possibilities associated with these undertakings. More specifically this paper explores housing intensification (i.e. building up, out or alongside existing multi-owned residential buildings on commonly owned land) as a means of financing major repairs. The comparison of governance and decision-making in two different shared ownership systems with different histories and cultural contexts provides a chance to explore the possibilities and challenges that each country faces, and the potential to learn from each other’s practices and develop these further. In this regard the findings from this paper contribute to the academic literature (Bugden 2005; Easthope & Randolph 2009; Dupuis & Dixon 2010; Lujanen 2010; Easthope, Hudson & Randolph 2013) concerning to the governance of multi-owned housing as it relates to intensive housing development and its wider social and economic implications.
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.
DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement "I am deeply concerned about every child in New Zealand who is in poverty"; if so, why has the number of children living in material hardship grown under his watch?
TODD McCLAY to the Minister of Finance: What measures has the Government taken to support vulnerable New Zealanders through the aftermath of the domestic recession and global financial crisis?
METIRIA TUREI to the Prime Minister: When he said "we don't want to see any New Zealand child suffer … children don't get to make choices, they're often the victim of circumstance" does that mean he will take tangible steps to ensure children don't suffer because of circumstances beyond their control?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in the Minister of Immigration?
Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: Compared to 2012, does the Reserve Bank forecast the New Zealand dollar (as measured by the Trade Weighted Index) to strengthen or weaken in the next two years, and does he believe this will make New Zealand exporters more competitive or less competitive?
DAVID BENNETT to the Minister for Economic Development: How is the Government encouraging the sustainable use of natural resources to support jobs and grow the economy?
Hon MARYAN STREET to the Minister of Health: Is he satisfied with the state of children's health in New Zealand; if not, why not?
COLIN KING to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What recent announcement has he made about Block Offer 2012?
EUGENIE SAGE to the Minister for the Environment: Does she agree with the New Zealand Freshwater Sciences Society in relation to freshwater that "failure to act with decisiveness and urgency risks further environmental degradation and erosion of our international environmental reputation"; if not, why not?
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL to the Minister for Building and Construction: How quickly will he respond to the building performance, assessment and construction recommendations of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Building Failure caused by the Canterbury Earthquakes?
NICKY WAGNER to the Minister for Building and Construction: What is the Government doing in response to the Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission's full report?
CLARE CURRAN to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
TODD McCLAY to the Minister of Finance: What progress has the Government made with its economic programme in 2012?
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his promise to New Zealanders that "I expect high standards from my Ministers … if they don't meet the standards I set then obviously I will take action if necessary"?
DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements and have confidence in the statements of all his Ministers?
NICKY WAGNER to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: How is the Government delivering a strong and effective recovery for greater Christchurch following the earthquakes?
CHARLES CHAUVEL to the Minister of Justice: What are the specific "assumptions" based on "incorrect facts" demonstrating some "misunderstanding of New Zealand law" that she alleges are contained in the report of Justice Binnie concerning the application by Mr Bain for compensation for wrongful conviction and imprisonment?
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON to the Minister of Health: What progress has the Government made on its national preventive health targets this year?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Why does he have confidence in the Minister for Whānau Ora?
KRIS FAAFOI to the Minister of Police: Is she committed to all of her promises in regards to the New Zealand Police?
TIM MACINDOE to the Minister of Justice: What progress has been made towards achieving Better Public Services across the justice sector?
HONE HARAWIRA to the Minister of Education: Does she accept the finding of the Children's Commissioner's Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty that a government funded food programme in low-decile schools is a simple, do-able, and low-cost solution to help children in poverty learn and achieve at school, and the recommendation that Government design and implement such a programme; if not, why not?
CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of Education: Does she believe that her consultation process around the possible closure of residential special schools provided all those affected with an opportunity to have a meaningful say and have that say properly considered; if so, why?
MELISSA LEE to the Minister for Social Development: What progress has the Government made in 2012 to shift the focus of our welfare system to one that is active, work focused and delivers better outcomes for New Zealanders?
TODD McCLAY to the Minister of Finance: What progress has the Government made with its economic programme in 2012?
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his promise to New Zealanders that "I expect high standards from my Ministers … if they don't meet the standards I set then obviously I will take action if necessary"?
DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements and have confidence in the statements of all his Ministers?
NICKY WAGNER to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: How is the Government delivering a strong and effective recovery for greater Christchurch following the earthquakes?
CHARLES CHAUVEL to the Minister of Justice: What are the specific "assumptions" based on "incorrect facts" demonstrating some "misunderstanding of New Zealand law" that she alleges are contained in the report of Justice Binnie concerning the application by Mr Bain for compensation for wrongful conviction and imprisonment?
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON to the Minister of Health: What progress has the Government made on its national preventive health targets this year?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Why does he have confidence in the Minister for Whānau Ora?
KRIS FAAFOI to the Minister of Police: Is she committed to all of her promises in regards to the New Zealand Police?
TIM MACINDOE to the Minister of Justice: What progress has been made towards achieving Better Public Services across the justice sector?
HONE HARAWIRA to the Minister of Education: Does she accept the finding of the Children's Commissioner's Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty that a government funded food programme in low-decile schools is a simple, do-able, and low-cost solution to help children in poverty learn and achieve at school, and the recommendation that Government design and implement such a programme; if not, why not?
CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of Education: Does she believe that her consultation process around the possible closure of residential special schools provided all those affected with an opportunity to have a meaningful say and have that say properly considered; if so, why?
MELISSA LEE to the Minister for Social Development: What progress has the Government made in 2012 to shift the focus of our welfare system to one that is active, work focused and delivers better outcomes for New Zealanders?
Questions to Ministers
1. AARON GILMORE to the Minister of Finance: What steps are the Government and the Earthquake Commission taking to streamline the Canterbury earthquake claims process?
2. Hon PHIL GOFF to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that "the vast majority" of people will be "better off" as a result of his tax switch on 1 October 2010?
3. KEVIN HAGUE to the Minister of Conservation: Does she agree with Forest and Bird that "many endangered species will meet a watery death, or be rudely shunted from their homes", if the Mōkihinui dam is given the green light?
4. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister for ACC: Is he satisfied with the performance of ACC?
5. NICKY WAGNER to the Minister for Economic Development: What steps will the Government take to aid the recovery of the Canterbury region from the recent major earthquake?
6. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Minister of Finance: What advice, if any, did Treasury receive from KordaMentha in relation to South Canterbury Finance's financial condition prior to approving the extension of the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme, and did this advice question whether such an extension was appropriate?
7. COLIN KING to the Minister of Transport: What is the Government doing to address challenges in delivering supplies into the area affected by the Canterbury earthquake?
8. Hon RUTH DYSON to the Minister of Health: When will all the District Health Board Annual Plans for 2010/11 be publicly available?
9. JO GOODHEW to the Minister of Education: How were Canterbury schools affected by last Saturday's earthquake, and what is the current situation for schools in the region?
10. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Attorney-General: Is his objective under the new foreshore and seabed bill to settle the protracted controversy around foreshore and seabed?
11. AMY ADAMS to the Minister of Agriculture: What is the Government doing to support the rural Canterbury community through the earthquake recovery?
12. DARIEN FENTON to the Minister of Labour: Does she stand by all of the statements made on her behalf in response to question for oral answer No. 11 on 9 September 2010?
Questions to Members
1. DARIEN FENTON to the Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee: How many submissions were received on the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No. 2) as at 5pm Monday, 13 September 2010?
Questions to Ministers
1. JONATHAN YOUNG to the Minister of Finance: What advice has he received about factors that lie behind the current turmoil we are witnessing on world financial markets, and what are the implications for New Zealand?
2. KEVIN HAGUE to the Minister of Labour: Does she still agree, as she did on 13 July 2011, with the comment made by Rt Hon John Key on 22 November 2010 that "I have no reason to believe that New Zealand safety standards are any less than Australia's and in fact our safety record for the most part has been very good"?
3. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his answers to Oral Question No 1 yesterday when he said that the Leader of the Opposition is "just plain wrong" in relation to skills training?
4. KATRINA SHANKS to the Minister for the Environment: How have Government reforms to the Resource Management Act helped increase competition in the grocery business?
5. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE to the Attorney-General: Will he meet with earthquake victims' families to hear directly why they need independent legal representation; if not, why not?
6. Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that "I think the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research is referring to some longer-term issues around demographic change and healthcare costs, and we share the chief executive's concern"?
7. DARIEN FENTON to the Minister of Labour: What is the timeline of the ministerial inquiry into the treatment of foreign fishing crews in New Zealand waters?
8. CHRIS AUCHINVOLE to the Minister for Communications and Information Technology: What progress is being made on the Government's goal of delivering fast broadband to rural areas?
9. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Does he agree that an appropriate part of the "red zone" area along the Avon River through Christchurch should be transformed into a "green space" for memorial and recreational public purposes?
10. STUART NASH to the Minister of Finance: Does he believe the tax system is fair for all New Zealanders?
11. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What steps has the Government taken to manage gateways between benefits?
12. KELVIN DAVIS to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by all of her answers to Oral Question No 8 yesterday?
Depending on their nature and severity, disasters can create large volumes of debris and waste. Waste volumes from a single event can be the equivalent of many times the annual waste generation rate of the affected community. These volumes can overwhelm existing solid waste management facilities and personnel. Mismanagement of disaster waste can affect both the response and long term recovery of a disaster affected area. Previous research into disaster waste management has been either context specific or event specific, making it difficult to transfer lessons from one disaster event to another. The aim of this research is to develop a systems understanding of disaster waste management and in turn develop context- and disaster-transferrable decision-making guidance for emergency and waste managers. To research this complex and multi-disciplinary problem, a multi-hazard, multi-context, multi-case study approach was adopted. The research focussed on five major disaster events: 2011 Christchurch earthquake, 2009 Victorian Bushfires, 2009 Samoan tsunami, 2009 L’Aquila earthquake and 2005 Hurricane Katrina. The first stage of the analysis involved the development of a set of ‘disaster & disaster waste’ impact indicators. The indicators demonstrate a method by which disaster managers, planners and researchers can simplify the very large spectra of possible disaster impacts, into some key decision-drivers which will likely influence post-disaster management requirements. The second stage of the research was to develop a set of criteria to represent the desirable environmental, economic, social and recovery effects of a successful disaster waste management system. These criteria were used to assess the effectiveness of the disaster waste management approaches for the case studies. The third stage of the research was the cross-case analysis. Six main elements of disaster waste management systems were identified and analysed. These were: strategic management, funding mechanisms, operational management, environmental and human health risk management, and legislation and regulation. Within each of these system elements, key decision-making guidance (linked to the ‘disaster & disaster waste’ indicators) and management principles were developed. The ‘disaster & disaster waste’ impact indicators, the effects assessment criteria and management principles have all been developed so that they can be practically applied to disaster waste management planning and response in the future.
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.
Natural hazards continue to have adverse effects on communities and households worldwide, accelerating research on proactively identifying and enhancing characteristics associated with resilience. Although resilience is often characterized as a return to normal, recent studies of postdisaster recovery have highlighted the ways in which new opportunities can emerge following disruption, challenging the status quo. Conversely, recovery and reconstruction may serve to reinforce preexisting social, institutional, and development pathways. Our understanding of these dynamics is limited however by the small number of practice examples, particularly for rural communities in developed nations. This study uses a social–ecological inventory to document the drivers, pathways, and mechanisms of resilience following a large-magnitude earthquake in Kaikōura, a coastal community in Aotearoa New Zealand. As part of the planning and implementation phase of a multiyear project, we used the tool as the basis for indepth and contextually sensitive analysis of rural resilience. Moreover, the deliberate application of social–ecological inventory was the first step in the research team reengaging with the community following the event. The inventory process provided an opportunity for research partners to share their stories and experiences and develop a shared understanding of changes that had taken place in the community. Results provide empirical insight into reactions to disruptive change associated with disasters. The inventory also informed the design of targeted research collaborations, established a platform for longer-term community engagement, and provides a baseline for assessing longitudinal changes in key resilience-related characteristics and community capacities. Findings suggest the utility of social–ecological inventory goes beyond natural resource management, and that it may be appropriate in a range of contexts where institutional, social, and economic restructuring have developed out of necessity in response to felt or anticipated external stressors.
Sewerage systems convey sewage, or wastewater, from residential or commercial buildings through complex reticulation networks to treatment plants. During seismic events both transient ground motion and permanent ground deformation can induce physical damage to sewerage system components, limiting or impeding the operability of the whole system. The malfunction of municipal sewerage systems can result in the pollution of nearby waterways through discharge of untreated sewage, pose a public health threat by preventing the use of appropriate sanitation facilities, and cause serious inconvenience for rescuers and residents. Christchurch, the second largest city in New Zealand, was seriously affected by the Canterbury Earthquake Sequence (CES) in 2010-2011. The CES imposed widespread damage to the Christchurch sewerage system (CSS), causing a significant loss of functionality and serviceability to the system. The Christchurch City Council (CCC) relied heavily on temporary sewerage services for several months following the CES. The temporary services were supported by use of chemical and portable toilets to supplement the damaged wastewater system. The rebuild delivery agency -Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuild Team (SCIRT) was created to be responsible for repair of 85 % of the damaged horizontal infrastructure (i.e., water, wastewater, stormwater systems, and roads) in Christchurch. Numerous initiatives to create platforms/tools aiming to, on the one hand, support the understanding, management and mitigation of seismic risk for infrastructure prior to disasters, and on the other hand, to support the decision-making for post-disaster reconstruction and recovery, have been promoted worldwide. Despite this, the CES in New Zealand highlighted that none of the existing platforms/tools are either accessible and/or readable or usable by emergency managers and decision makers for restoring the CSS. Furthermore, the majority of existing tools have a sole focus on the engineering perspective, while the holistic process of formulating recovery decisions is based on system-wide approach, where a variety of factors in addition to technical considerations are involved. Lastly, there is a paucity of studies focused on the tools and frameworks for supporting decision-making specifically on sewerage system restoration after earthquakes. This thesis develops a decision support framework for sewerage pipe and system restoration after earthquakes, building on the experience and learning of the organisations involved in recovering the CSS following the CES in 2010-2011. The proposed decision support framework includes three modules: 1) Physical Damage Module (PDM); 2) Functional Impact Module (FIM); 3) Pipeline Restoration Module (PRM). The PDM provides seismic fragility matrices and functions for sewer gravity and pressure pipelines for predicting earthquake-induced physical damage, categorised by pipe materials and liquefaction zones. The FIM demonstrates a set of performance indicators that are categorised in five domains: structural, hydraulic, environmental, social and economic domains. These performance indicators are used to assess loss of wastewater system service and the induced functional impacts in three different phases: emergency response, short-term recovery and long-term restoration. Based on the knowledge of the physical and functional status-quo of the sewerage systems post-earthquake captured through the PDM and FIM, the PRM estimates restoration time of sewer networks by use of restoration models developed using a Random Forest technique and graphically represented in terms of restoration curves. The development of a decision support framework for sewer recovery after earthquakes enables decision makers to assess physical damage, evaluate functional impacts relating to hydraulic, environmental, structural, economic and social contexts, and to predict restoration time of sewerage systems. Furthermore, the decision support framework can be potentially employed to underpin system maintenance and upgrade by guiding system rehabilitation and to monitor system behaviours during business-as-usual time. In conjunction with expert judgement and best practices, this framework can be moreover applied to assist asset managers in targeting the inclusion of system resilience as part of asset maintenance programmes.
TE URUROA FLAVELL to the Minister of Justice: Is she satisfied with the Electoral Commission's engagement with whanau, hapū, iwi and marae around the 2013 Māori Electoral Option; if so, what advice has she received that would explain why halfway through the process there are only 5,000 new enrolments?
DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: On what date was he, his office or the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet first informed that David Henry would not meet his deadline of the end of May as set out in the terms of reference for reporting back and what reason did Mr Henry provide for the delay?
KATRINA SHANKS to the Minister of Finance: What do recent indicators show about the economy's performance this year and its outlook for the next three to four years?
DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Has he received any information that shows foreign intelligence agencies are routinely collecting emails, other communication or location data on New Zealand citizens and residents while they are in New Zealand; if so, has the resulting information been passed on to the Government Communications Security Bureau?
ALFRED NGARO to the Minister of Education: What recent announcement has she made about achievement against National Standards?
METIRIA TUREI to the Minister for Economic Development: Will the Government sign the legal contract between it and SkyCity for the SkyCity Convention Centre this week; if not, when will it sign this agreement?
JAMI-LEE ROSS to the Minister of Housing: What policy conclusions, if any, does the Government draw from Priced Out – How New Zealand Lost its Housing Affordability and how consistent are its findings with those of the 2012 Productivity Commission Report on housing affordability?
Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his statements on health; if not, why not?
NICKY WAGNER to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: How will the Government support the redevelopment and repopulation of the Christchurch Central Business District following the Canterbury earthquakes?
CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of Education: Is she confident that the National Standards data being released today gives an accurate picture of student progress; if not, why not?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Did he discuss with David Henry the requirement for Mr Henry to see the full unedited electronic record connected with the Kitteridge report leak; if not, why not?
JOHN HAYES to the Minister of Customs: What information has he received regarding the success of automated passenger processing systems at the border?
Questions to Ministers
1. Hon PHIL GOFF to the Prime Minister: In stating that "this Government introduced a balanced package of tax cuts" was he saying that his tax changes and the tax system are fair to all New Zealanders?
2. LOUISE UPSTON to the Minister of Finance: What will be the main objectives of Budget 2011 tomorrow?
3. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Prime Minister: When he said "in most cases the tax switch more than compensated people for the increase in GST", in which cases hadn't people been fully compensated?
4. JOHN BOSCAWEN to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by the statement he made in his post-Cabinet press conference on Monday that "Everyone needs to understand that what Don Brash is talking about is hardcore"; if so why?
5. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Minister of Finance: What is the total impact on the operating balance, over the forecast period, of the fiscal impact of the tax changes in Budget 2010 according to page 70 of the 2010 Budget and Economic Fiscal Update, and how does he reconcile that with the Prime Minister's statement in the House yesterday that "National's tax plan 2010…was fiscally neutral"?
6. ALLAN PEACHEY to the Minister of Corrections: What reports has she received about the first year of container units being used in New Zealand prisons?
7. RAHUI KATENE to the Minister for Communications and Information Technology: What was the motivation behind the decision to remove regulatory forbearance from the Telecommunications (TSO, Broadband, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill?
8. JACINDA ARDERN to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Does he stand by the Prime Minister's statement in relation to Christchurch that "it looks like the residential rebuild alone will require up to 12,500 full-time workers", if not, how many full-time workers does he believe will now be needed?
9. Hon TAU HENARE to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What recent announcements has she made to support community social services?
10. CLARE CURRAN to the Minister for Communications and Information Technology: What is the best estimate of the additional cost to the Crown of the change he announced to the ultrafast broadband network this morning?
11. TIM MACINDOE to the Minister of Housing: What recent announcements has he made regarding the Government's Housing Innovation Fund?
12. GARETH HUGHES to the Acting Minister of Energy and Resources: What is her response to the statement of leading scientist and NASA director Dr James Hansen, currently touring New Zealand, that "coal is the single greatest threat to civilisation and all life on our planet" and we should leave it in the ground?
1. TODD McCLAY to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the economy?
2. KEVIN HAGUE to the Minister of Labour: Does she agree that the test of practicability in the Health and Safety in Employment (Mining-Underground) Regulations 1999 is likely to result in different mines having different safety standards, in contrast to the regulations in place until 1992?
3. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Prime Minister: In light of his comment that "New Zealand is to be congratulated because, at least in terms of the gender pay gap, ours is the third lowest in the OECD", does that mean he is satisfied with the 10.6 percent gap between men's and women's pay in our country?
4. LOUISE UPSTON to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What reports has she received on the latest benefit numbers?
5. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Does he consider the allocation of the value of the land within the rating valuation process to be robust, when it has produced such variable outcomes, leaving many in the red zone with insufficient funds to buy a section to take advantage of the replacement option in their insurance policy?
6. Dr CAM CALDER to the Minister for the Environment: What work is his Ministry doing to help New Zealand take up the opportunity from green growth following the OECD May 2011 report on the high expected global demand for such products and services?
7. Hon MARYAN STREET to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: How many human resources contracts, if any, were let by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade without tenders being invited in 2010/2011, and what criteria were used to assess non-tendered contractors?
8. PAUL QUINN to the Minister of Transport: What is the Government doing to improve Wellington's commuter rail network?
9. METIRIA TUREI to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement "there is no question in my mind - someone would be better off in paid employment than on welfare. If they were not, that is a real indictment on the welfare system"?
10. Hon TREVOR MALLARD to the Minister of Finance: When he said that "I did visit the Chinese Investment Corporation … They are very pleased with New Zealand's economic policy", was one of the policies he discussed with this foreign sovereign wealth fund his plan for privatising state assets?
11. JAMI-LEE ROSS to the Minister of Broadcasting: What recent announcements has the Government made on progress towards digital switchover?
12. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement to the Cabinet Expenditure Control Committee that "we may need to take some tough choices regarding the scope and range of services the public health system can provide to New Zealanders"?
Questions to Ministers
1. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with 57 percent of New Zealanders who, according to a recent UMR poll, support the introduction of a temporary earthquake levy to pay for the rebuilding of Christchurch?
2. Hon PHIL GOFF to the Prime Minister: What, according to the 2010 Investment Statement of the Government of New Zealand, was the average total shareholder return over the last five years from State-owned Enterprises and the average bond rate, and is that consistent with his statement that "it is the Government's intention to use the proceeds of those initial public offerings to actually invest in other assets that the Government would have to fund through the Government bond rate"?
3. DAVID BENNETT to the Minister for Infrastructure: What progress has the Government made on its infrastructure programme?
4. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement "this Government is not prepared to turn its back on our most vulnerable citizens when they most need our help"?
5. Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN to the Acting Minister of Energy and Resources: Is it government policy for New Zealand to become a "highly attractive global destination" for oil exploration, with expansion of the oil and coal sectors leading to a "step change" in the country's economic growth as set out in the document Developing Our Energy Potential; if not, why not?
6. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Is the Government considering extending the business assistance package for employers and employees beyond the 14-week period currently signalled; if not, why not?
7. JACQUI DEAN to the Minister of Police: What reports has she received on the latest trends in the level of crime in New Zealand?
8. Hon TREVOR MALLARD to the Prime Minister: Did he tell a meeting in Timaru last week "The entire time I've been Prime Minister I've had Treasury in my office week after week, month after month, telling me South Canterbury Finance was going bankrupt"?
9. CHRIS AUCHINVOLE to the Minister for the Environment: What advice has he received on major resource consents being considered under the Government's new national consenting policy?
10. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Acting Minister of Energy and Resources: Does she agree that the joint scheme initiated by the Green Party and the Government, Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart, is the best initiative in the Draft New Zealand Energy Strategy because it is providing hundreds of thousands of New Zealand households with warm, dry, energy efficient homes, and creating thousands of clean green jobs?
11. Hon SHANE JONES to the Minister of Fisheries: Does he still have no major concerns about the way foreign boats were used by New Zealand companies as the Nelson Mail reports he said last year?
12. TIM MACINDOE to the Minister of Housing: What recent announcements has he made regarding the Government's Housing Innovation Fund?
During 2010 and 2011, major earthquakes caused widespread damage and the deaths of 185 people in the city of Christchurch. Damaged school buildings resulted in state intervention which required amendment of the Education Act of 1989, and the development of ‘site sharing agreements’ in undamaged schools to cater for the needs of students whose schools had closed. An effective plan was also developed for student assessment through establishing an earthquake impaired derived grade process. Previous research into traditional explanations of educational inequalities in the United Kingdom, the United States of America, and New Zealand were reviewed through various processes within three educational inputs: the student, the school and the state. Research into the impacts of urban natural disasters on education and education inequalities found literature on post disaster education systems but nothing could be found that included performance data. The impacts of the Canterbury earthquakes on educational inequalities and achievement were analysed over 2009-2012. The baseline year was 2009, the year before the first earthquake, while 2012 is seen as the recovery year as no schools closed due to seismic events and there was no state intervention into the education of the region. National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) results levels 1-3 from thirty-four secondary schools in the greater Christchurch region were graphed and analysed. Regression analysis indicates; in 2009, educational inequalities existed with a strong positive relationship between a school’s decile rating and NCEA achievement. When schools were grouped into decile rankings (1-10) and their 2010 NCEA levels 1-3 results were compared with the previous year, the percentage of change indicates an overall lower NCEA achievement in 2010 across all deciles, but particularly in lower decile schools. By contrast, when 2011 NCEA results were compared with those of 2009, as a percentage of change, lower decile schools fared better. Non site sharing schools also achieved higher results than site sharing schools. State interventions, had however contributed towards student’s achieving national examinations and entry to university in 2011. When NCEA results for 2012 were compared to 2009 educational inequalities still exist, however in 2012 the positive relationship between decile rating and achievement is marginally weaker than in 2009. Human ethics approval was required to survey one Christchurch secondary school community of students (aged between 12 and 18), teachers and staff, parents and caregivers during October 2011. Participation was voluntary and without incentives, 154 completed questionnaires were received. The Canterbury earthquakes and aftershocks changed the lives of the research participants. This school community was displaced to another school due to the Christchurch earthquake on 22 February 2011. Research results are grouped under four geographical perspectives; spatial impacts, socio-economic impacts, displacement, and health and wellbeing. Further research possibilities include researching the lag effects from the Canterbury earthquakes on school age children.
The major earthquakes of 2010 and 2011 brought to an abrupt end a process of adaptive reuse, revitalisation and gentrification that was underway in the early 20th century laneways and buildings located in the south eastern corner of the Christchurch Central Business District. Up until then, this location was seen as an exemplar of how mixed use could contribute to making the central city an attractive and viable alternative to the suburban living experience predominant in New Zealand.
This thesis is the result of a comprehensive case study of this “Lichfield Lanes” area, which involved in depth interviews with business owners, observation of public meetings and examination of documents and the revitalisation research literature. Findings were that many of the factors seen to make this location successful pre-earthquakes mirror the results of similar research in other cities. These factors include: the importance of building upon historic architecture and the eclectic spaces this creates; a wide variety of uses generating street life; affordable rental levels; plus the dangers of uniformity of use brought about by focussing on business types that pay the most rent. Also critical is co-operation between businesses to create and effectively market and manage an identifiable precinct that has a coherent style and ambience that differentiates the location from competing suburban malls. In relation to the latter, a significant finding of this project was that the hospitality and retail businesses key to the success of Lichfield Lanes were not typical and could be described as quirky, bohemian, chaotic, relatively low rent, owner operated and appealing to the economically important “Creative Class” identified by Richard Florida (2002) and others. In turn, success for many of these businesses can be characterised as including psychological and social returns rather than simply conventional economic benefits. This has important implications for inner city revitalisation, as it contrasts with the traditional focus of local authorities and property developers on physical aspects and tenant profitability as measures of success. This leads on to an important conclusion from this research, which is that an almost completely inverted strategy from that applied to suburban mall development, may be most appropriate for successful inner city revitalisation. It also highlights a disconnection between the focus and processes of regulatory authorities and the outcomes and processes most acceptable to the people likely to frequent the central city. Developers are often caught in the middle of this conflicted situation. Another finding was early commitment by businesses to rebuild the case study area in the same style, but over time this waned as delay, demolition, insurance problems, political and planning uncertainty plus other issues made participation by the original owners and tenants impossible or uneconomic. In conclusion, the focus of inner city revitalisation is too often on buildings rather than the people that use them and what they now desire from the central city.
Gravelly soils’ liquefaction has been documented since early 19th century with however the focus being sand-silts mixture – coarse documentation of this topic, that gravels do in fact liquefy was only acknowledged as an observation. With time, we have been impacted by earthquakes, EQ causing more damage to our property: life and environment-natural and built. In this realm of EQ related-damage the ground or soils in general act as buffer between the epicentre and the structures at a concerned site. Further, in this area, upon the eventual acknowledgement of liquefaction of soils as a problem, massive efforts were undertaken to understand its mechanics, what causes and thereby how to mitigate its ill-effects. Down that lane, gravelly soils’ liquefaction was another milestone covered in early 20th century, and thus regarded as a problematic subject. This being a fairly recent acknowledgement, efforts have initiated in this direction (or area of particle size under consideration-gravels>2mm), with this research outputs intended to complement that research for the betterment of our understanding of what’s happening and how shall we best address it, given the circumstances: socio (life) - environment (structures) - economic (cost or cost-“effectiveness’) and of course political (our “willingness” to want to address the problem). Case histories from at least 29 earthquakes worldwide have indicated that liquefaction can occur in gravelly soils (both in natural deposits and manmade reclamations) inducing large ground deformation and causing severe damage to civil infrastructures. However, the evaluation of the liquefaction resistance of gravelly soils remains to be a major challenge in geotechnical earthquake engineering. To date, laboratory tests aimed at evaluating the liquefaction resistance of gravelly soils are still very limited, as compared to the large body of investigations carried out on assessing the liquefaction resistance of sandy soils. While there is a general agreement that the liquefaction resistance of gravelly soils can be as low as that of clean sands, previous studies suggested that the liquefaction behaviour of gravelly soils is significantly affected by two key factors, namely relative density (Dr) and gravel content (Gc). While it is clear that the liquefaction resistance of gravels increases with the increasing Dr, there are inconclusive and/or contradictory results regarding the effect of Gc on the liquefaction resistance of gravelly soils. Aimed at addressing this important topic, an investigation is being currently carried out by researchers at the University of Canterbury, UC. As a first step, a series of undrained cyclic triaxial tests were conducted on selected sand-gravel mixtures (SGMs), and inter-grain state framework concepts such as the equivalent and skeleton void ratios were used to describe the joint effects of Gc and Dr on the liquefaction resistance of SGMs. Following such experimental effort, this study is aimed at providing new and useful insights, by developing a critical state-based method combined with the inter-grain state framework to uniquely describe the liquefaction resistance of gravelly soils. To do so, a series of monotonic drained triaxial tests will be carried out on selected SGMs. The outcomes of this study, combined with those obtained to date by UC researchers, will greatly contribute to the expansion of a worldwide assessment database, and also towards the development of a reliable liquefaction triggering procedure for characterising the liquefaction potential of gravelly soils, which is of paramount importance not only for the New Zealand context, but worldwide. This will make it possible for practising engineers to identify liquefiable gravelly soils in advance and make sound recommendations to minimise the impact of such hazards on land, and civil infrastructures.
The recent Canterbury earthquake sequence in 2010-2011 highlighted a uniquely severe level of structural damage to modern buildings, while confirming the high vulnerability and life threatening of unreinforced masonry and inadequately detailed reinforced concrete buildings. Although the level of damage of most buildings met the expected life-safety and collapse prevention criteria, the structural damage to those building was beyond economic repair. The difficulty in the post-event assessment of a concrete or steel structure and the uneconomical repairing costs are the big drivers of the adoption of low damage design. Among several low-damage technologies, post-tensioned rocking systems were developed in the 1990s with applications to precast concrete members and later extended to structural steel members. More recently the technology was extended to timber buildings (Pres-Lam system). This doctoral dissertation focuses on the experimental investigation and analytical and numerical prediction of the lateral load response of dissipative post-tensioned rocking timber wall systems. The first experimental stages of this research consisted of component testing on both external replaceable devices and internal bars. The component testing was aimed to further investigate the response of these devices and to provide significant design parameters. Post-tensioned wall subassembly testing was then carried out. Firstly, quasi-static cyclic testing of two-thirds scale post-tensioned single wall specimens with several reinforcement layouts was carried out. Then, an alternative wall configuration to limit displacement incompatibilities in the diaphragm was developed and tested. The system consisted of a Column-Wall-Column configuration, where the boundary columns can provide the support to the diaphragm with minimal uplifting and also provide dissipation through the coupling to the post-tensioned wall panel with dissipation devices. Both single wall and column-wall-column specimens were subjected to drifts up to 2% showing excellent performance, limiting the damage to the dissipating devices. One of the objectives of the experimental program was to assess the influence of construction detailing, and the dissipater connection in particular proved to have a significant influence on the wall’s response. The experimental programs on dissipaters and wall subassemblies provided exhaustive data for the validation and refinement of current analytical and numerical models. The current moment-rotation iterative procedure was refined accounting for detailed response parameters identified in the initial experimental stage. The refined analytical model proved capable of fitting the experimental result with good accuracy. A further stage in this research was the validation and refinement of numerical modelling approaches, which consisted in rotational spring and multi-spring models. Both the modelling approaches were calibrated versus the experimental results on post-tensioned walls subassemblies. In particular, the multi-spring model was further refined and implemented in OpenSEES to account for the full range of behavioural aspects of the systems. The multi-spring model was used in the final part of the dissertation to validate and refine current lateral force design procedures. Firstly, seismic performance factors in accordance to a Force-Based Design procedure were developed in accordance to the FEMA P-695 procedure through extensive numerical analyses. This procedure aims to determine the seismic reduction factor and over-strength factor accounting for the collapse probability of the building. The outcomes of this numerical analysis were also extended to other significant design codes. Alternatively, Displacement-Based Design can be used for the determination of the lateral load demand on a post-tensioned multi-storey timber building. The current DBD procedure was used for the development of a further numerical analysis which aimed to validate the procedure and identify the necessary refinements. It was concluded that the analytical and numerical models developed throughout this dissertation provided comprehensive and accurate tools for the determination of the lateral load response of post-tensioned wall systems, also allowing the provision of design parameters in accordance to the current standards and lateral force design procedures.
