Information about Canterbury's regional council and the services it provides, including plans, policies, reports, and resource consent information. Earthquake related information can be found in the archived instances from September 2010-
Christchurch and Canterbury suffered significant housing losses due to the earthquakes. Estimates from the Earthquake Commission (EQC) (2011) suggest that over 150,000 homes (around three quarters of Christchurch housing stock) sustained damage from the earthquakes. Some areas of Christchurch have been declared not suitable for rebuilding, affecting more than 7,500 residential properties.
There are many things that organisations of any size can do to prepare for a disaster or crisis. Traditionally, the advice given to business has focused on identifying risks, reducing their likely occurrence, and planning in advance how to respond. More recently, there is growing interest in the broader concept of organisational resilience which includes planning for crisis but also considers traits that lead to organisational adaptability and ability to thrive despite adverse circumstances. In this paper we examine the policy frameworks1 within New Zealand that influence the resilience of small and medium sized businesses (SMEs). The first part of the paper focuses on the New Zealand context, including the prevailing political and economic ideologies, the general nature of New Zealand SMEs and the nature of New Zealand’s hazard environment. The paper then goes on to outline the key policy frameworks in place relevant to SMEs and hazards. The final part of the paper examines the way the preexisting policy environment influenced the response of SMEs and Government following the Canterbury earthquakes.
Group case study report prepared for lecturers Ton Buhrs and Roy Montgomery by students of ERST 635 at Lincoln University, 2013.The New Zealand Government’s decision to establish a unitary authority in the Auckland Region has provided much of the context and impetus for this review of current governance arrangements in the Canterbury region, to determine whether or not they are optimal for taking the communities of greater Christchurch into the future. A number of local governance academics, as well as several respected political pundits, have prophesised that the Auckland ‘Super City’ reforms of 2009 will have serious implications and ramifications for local governance arrangements in other major cities, particularly Wellington and Christchurch. Wellington councils have already responded to the possibility of change by undertaking a series of reports on local governance arrangements, as well as a major review led by Sir Geoffrey Palmer, to investigate options for governance reform. Alongside these developments, the Christchurch earthquakes beginning in September 2010 have raised a myriad of new and complex governance issues, which may or may not be able to be addressed under the status quo, while the replacement of Regional Councillors’ with centrally-appointed Commissioners is suggestive of government dissatisfaction with current arrangements. With these things in mind, the research group has considered local government in Canterbury and the greater Christchurch area in the wider governance context. It does not limit discussion to only the structure of local government in Canterbury but rather, as the brief (Appendix 1) indicates, considers more broadly the relationship between central, regional, and local tiers of government, as well as the relationship between local government and local communities.
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.
The city of Ōtautahi/Christchurch experienced a series of earthquakes that began on September 4th, 2010. The most damaging event occurred on February 22nd, 2011 but significant earthquakes also occurred on June 13th and December 23rd with aftershocks still occurring well into 2012. The resulting disaster is the second deadliest natural disaster in New Zealand’s history with 185 deaths. During 2011 the Canterbury earthquakes were one of the costliest disasters worldwide with an expected cost of up to $NZ30 billion. Hundreds of commercial buildings and thousands of houses have been destroyed or are to be demolished and extensive repairs are needed for infrastructure to over 100,000 homes. As many as 8,900 people simply abandoned their homes and left the city in the first few months after the February event (Newell, 2012), and as many as 50,000 may leave during 2012. In particular, young whānau and single young women comprised a disproportionate number of these migrants, with evidence of a general movement to the North Island. Te Puni Kōkiri sought a mix of quantitative and qualitative research to examine the social and economic impacts of the Christchurch earthquakes on Māori and their whānau. The result of this work will be a collection of evidence to inform policy to support and assist Māori and their whānau during the recovery/rebuild phases. To that end, this report triangulates available statistical and geographical information with qualitative data gathered over 2010 and 2011 by a series of interviews conducted with Māori who experienced the dramatic events associated with the earthquakes. A Māori research team at Lincoln University was commissioned to undertake the research as they were already engaged in transdisciplinary research (began in the May 2010), that focused on quickly gathering data from a range of Māori who experienced the disaster, including relevant economic, environmental, social and cultural factors in the response and recovery of Māori to these events. Participants for the qualitative research were drawn from Māori whānau who both stayed and left the city. Further data was available from ongoing projects and networks that the Lincoln research team was already involved in, including interviews with Māori first responders and managers operating in the CBD on the day of the February event. Some limited data is also available from younger members of affected whānau. Māori in Ōtautahi/Christchurch City have exhibited their own culturally-attuned collective responses to the disaster. However, it is difficult to ascertain Māori demographic changes due to a lack of robust statistical frameworks but Māori outward migration from the city is estimated to range between 560 and 1,100 people. The mobility displayed by Māori demonstrates an important but unquantified response by whānau to this disaster, with emigration to Australia presenting an attractive option for young Māori, an entrenched phenomenon that correlates to cyclical downturns and the long-term decline of the New Zealand economy. It is estimated that at least 315 Māori have emigrated from the Canterbury region to Australia post-quake, although the disaster itself may be only one of a series of events that has prompted such a decision. Māori children made up more than one in four of the net loss of children aged 6 to 15 years enrolled in schools in Greater Christchurch over the year to June 2011. Research literature identifies depression affecting a small but significant number of children one to two years post-disaster and points to increasing clinical and organisational demands for Māori and other residents of the city. For those residents in the eastern or coastal suburbs – home to many of the city’s Māori population - severe damage to housing, schools, shops, infrastructure, and streets has meant disruption to their lives, children’s schooling, employment, and community functioning. Ongoing abandonment of homes by many has meant a growing sense of unease and loss of security, exacerbated by arson, burglaries, increased drinking, a stalled local and national economy, and general confusion about the city’s future. Māori cultural resilience has enabled a considerable network of people, institutions, and resources being available to Māori , most noticeably through marae and their integral roles of housing, as a coordinating hub, and their arguing for the wider affected communities of Christchurch. Relevant disaster responses need to be discussed within whānau, kōhanga, kura, businesses, communities, and wider neighbourhoods. Comprehensive disaster management plans need to be drafted for all iwi in collaboration with central government, regional, and city or town councils. Overall, Māori are remarkably philosophical about the effects of the disaster, with many proudly relishing their roles in what is clearly a historic event of great significance to the city and country. Most believe that ‘being Māori’ has helped cope with the disaster, although for some this draws on a collective history of poverty and marginalisation, features that contribute to the vulnerability of Māori to such events. While the recovery and rebuild phases offer considerable options for Māori and iwi, with Ngāi Tahu set to play an important stakeholder in infrastructural, residential, and commercial developments, some risk and considerable unknowns are evident. Considerable numbers of Māori may migrate into the Canterbury region for employment in the rebuild, and trades training strategies have already been established. With many iwi now increasingly investing in property, the risks from significant earthquakes are now more transparent, not least to insurers and the reinsurance sector. Iwi authorities need to be appraised of insurance issues and ensure sufficient coverage exists and investments and developments are undertaken with a clear understanding of the risks from natural hazards and exposure to future disasters.
Advocates for Compact City, Smart Growth and New Urbanism claim intensification of land use as a means to achieve sustainability imperatives, manage urbanisation and curb peripheral sprawl. It appears policy makers and planners have taken this perspective into consideration over the last two decades as intensification appears more prevalent in policy and planning. Literature points to residential infill as a method of providing for housing development within city limits. While residential infill is recognised in literature, little is known about what it consists of and the different stakeholders involved. This study will document different types of infill, identify various stakeholders associated with the different types and how their roles align and conflict.
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.
The world is constantly changing. Christchurch, New Zealand, has recently experienced drastic changes after earthquakes struck the city. The earthquakes caused the city to physically shake, and the land to sink in some places and rise in others. Now further change is forcast and parts of Christchurch could be under water by 2115 according to experts. Climate change induced sea level rise is recognised as a international issue with potential impacts for coastal communities all over the world. The Chrischtchurch City Council is required to have a 100-year planning horizon for sea level rise and this means planning for at least one meter, and possibly up to two meters, of sea level rise by 2115. This dissertation investigates the planning response to slow onset disasters, change, and uncertainty, using the example of sea-level rise in Christchurch, and it examines the role of public participation in this. To achieve this, the ways in which planning theory and practice acknowledge uncertainty, and cope with change, were critically analysed along with the Christchurch City Council’s response to the Tonkin and Taylor predictions and modelling. Semi-structured interviews with professionals in natural hazards risk reduction, policy, and planning were conducted, and the previous and proposed Christchurch City District Plans were compared. Planning for sea level rise in Christchurch provides an example of how planners may cope with slow onset change. The results of this dissertation suggests that the favoured risk reduction strategy for coastal communities in Christchurch is an adaptation strategy, and at present there is no sign of managed retreat being employed. The results also suggests using a planning approach that involves public participation for best results when planning for change, uncertainty or slow onset disasters.
When the devastating 6.3 magnitude earthquake hit Christchurch, Aotearoa New Zealand, at 12.51pm on 22nd February 2011, the psychological and physical landscape was irrevocably changed. In the days and weeks following the disaster communities were isolated due to failed infrastructure, continuing aftershocks and the extensive search and rescue effort which focussed resources on the central business district. In such moments the resilience of a community is truly tested. This research discusses the role of grassroots community groups in facilitating community resilience during the Christchurch 2010/11 earthquakes and the role of place in doing so. I argue that place specific strategies for urban resilience need to be enacted from a grassroots level while being supported by broader policies and agencies. Using a case study of Project Lyttelton – a group aspiring towards a resilient sustainable future who were caught at the epicentre of the February earthquake – I demonstrate the role of a community group in creating resilience through self-organised place specific action during a disaster. The group provided emotional care, basic facilities and rebuilding assistance to the residents of Lyttelton, proving to be an invaluable asset. These actions are closely linked to the characteristics of social support and social learning that have been identified as important to socio-ecological resilience. In addition this research will seek to understand and explore the nuances of place and identity and its role in shaping resilience to such dis-placing events. Drawing on community narratives of the displacement of place identity, the potential for a progressive sense of place as instigated by local groups will be investigated as an avenue for adaptation by communities at risk of disaster and place destabilisation.
After a disaster, cities experience profound social and environmental upheaval. Current research on disasters describes this social disruption along with collective community action to provide support. Pre-existing social capital is recognised as fundamental to this observed support. This research examines the relationship between sense of place for neighbourhood, social connectedness and resilience. Canterbury residents experienced considerable and continued disruption following a large and protracted sequence of earthquakes starting in September 2010. A major aftershock on 22 February 2011 caused significant loss of life, destruction of buildings and infrastructure. Following this earthquake some suburbs of Christchurch showed strong collective action. This research examines the features of the built environment that helped to form this cooperative support. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with 20 key informants followed by 38 participants from four case study suburbs. The objectives were to describe the community response of suburbs, to identify the key features of the built environment and the role of social infrastructure in fostering social connectedness. The last objective was to contribute to future planning for community resilience. The findings from this research indicated that social capital and community competence are significant resources to be called upon after a disaster. Features of the local environment facilitated the formation of neighbourhood connections that enabled participants to cope, manage and to collectively solve problems. These features also strengthened a sense of belonging and attachment to the home territory. Propinquity was important; the bumping and gathering places such as schools, small local shops and parks provided the common ground for meaningful pre-existing local interaction. Well-defined geography, intimate street typology, access to quality natural space and social infrastructure helped to build the local social connections and develop a sense of place. Resourceful individuals and groups were also a factor, and many are drawn to live near the inner city or more natural places. The features are the same well understood attributes that contribute to health and wellbeing. The policy and planning framework needs to consider broader social outcomes, including resilience in new and existing urban developments. The socio-political structures that provide access to secure and stable housing and local education should also be recognised and incorporated into local planning for resilience and the everyday.
Hon PAULA BENNETT to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her statements? Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL to the Minister of Finance: What does the Treasury’s 2018 Investment Statement show about the state of the Government’s balance sheet? Hon AMY ADAMS to the Minister of Finance: How much capital expenditure is this Government forecast to spend in the period 2018-2022 compared to the previous Government over these same years, and how much of the difference is funded by an increase in debt? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH to the Minister for Economic Development: Does this Government have a broad economic development strategy; if so, what is it? Dr DUNCAN WEBB to the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission: What announcements has the Government made about changes to how the Earthquake Commission operates? Hon DAVID BENNETT to the Minister of Corrections: Does he stand by his statement on the Marae programme that “the problem right now is that corrections doesn’t have any flexibility…we’re in a real bind”? Hon SCOTT SIMPSON to the Associate Minister for the Environment: Does she agree with the statements in the Annual Report of the Environmental Protection Authority, “we have our share of science deniers, who oppose fluoride, 1080, vaccinations, glyphosate, genetic modification, and much more” and “our Chief Scientist is prominent in emphasising the evidence, data, and science that underpins EPA decision making”; if so, why? JENNY MARCROFT to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: What recent announcements has he made pertaining to the Provincial Growth Fund? SIMEON BROWN to the Minister of Justice: Should maximum legislated sentences reflect the seriousness of the crime committed? Hon NICKY WAGNER to the Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration: Does she stand by all her answers to written questions? ANGIE WARREN-CLARK to the Minister for the Environment: What does he think New Zealanders have to celebrate on World Water Day? MELISSA LEE to the Minister of Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media: Does she stand by all her Government’s policies and actions in the Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media portfolio?
MAGGIE BARRY to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the economy? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Minister of Māori Affairs: Is he satisfied with the financial management of the Whānau Integration, Innovation and Engagement Fund, administered by Te Puni Kōkiri? Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: What is the projected growth, if any, of New Zealand’s international liabilities under this Government’s policies, and what are the components of those liabilities? EUGENIE SAGE to the Minister for the Environment: Is water quality in New Zealand being negatively affected by livestock in rivers and lakes? Dr CAM CALDER to the Minister of Corrections: What progress has been made on the proposal to build a public-private prison at Wiri? Hon PHIL GOFF to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Will proposed changes to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade undermine its ability to carry out its role in promoting New Zealand’s trade, security and consular interests? LOUISE UPSTON to the Minister of Women's Affairs: What commitment is the Government willing to make to increase the number of women on State sector boards? DENIS O'ROURKE to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Is he satisfied with the rate of progress of the Christchurch earthquake recovery? Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Did New Zealand meet the 28 February deadline for its submission to the United Nations on increasing the level of ambition in global greenhouse gas mitigation, as agreed by parties in the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action; if not, why not? DARIEN FENTON to the Minister of Labour: Does she stand by her answer to Written Question No 00916 (2012) that “the Government is focused on building a more competitive economy, which will lead to more jobs and higher wages”? JOHN HAYES to the Minister of Defence: What updates can he give on new Defence Force capability? CLARE CURRAN to the Minister of Broadcasting: Is he confident that current Government broadcasting policy upholds the standards of an independent and free press; if so, why?
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.
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"?
The Canterbury region of New Zealand was shaken by major earthquakes on the 4th September 2010 and 22nd February 2011. The quakes caused 185 fatalities and extensive land, infrastructure and building damage, particularly in the Eastern suburbs of Christchurch city. Almost 450 ha of residential and public land was designated as a ‘Red Zone’ unsuitable for residential redevelopment because land damage was so significant, engineering solutions were uncertain, and repairs would be protracted. Subsequent demolition of all housing and infrastructure in the area has left a blank canvas of land stretching along the Avon River corridor from the CBD to the sea. Initially the Government’s official – but enormously controversial – position was that this land would be cleared and lie fallow until engineering solutions could be found that enabled residential redevelopment. This paper presents an application of a choice experiment (CE) that identified and assessed Christchurch residents’ preferences for different land use options of this Red Zone. Results demonstrated strong public support for the development of a recreational reserve comprising a unique natural environment with native fauna and flora, healthy wetlands and rivers, and recreational opportunities that align with this vision. By highlighting the value of a range of alternatives, the CE provided a platform for public participation and expanded the conversational terrain upon which redevelopment policy took place. We conclude the method has value for land use decision-making beyond the disaster recovery context.
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?
Christchurch City Council (Council) is undertaking the Land Drainage Recovery Programme in order to assess the effects of the earthquakes on flood risk to Christchurch. In the course of these investigations it has become better understood that floodplain management should be considered in a multi natural hazards context. Council have therefore engaged the Jacobs, Beca, University of Canterbury, and HR Wallingford project team to investigate the multihazards in eastern areas of Christchurch and develop flood management options which also consider other natural hazards in that context (i.e. how other hazards contribute to flooding both through temporal and spatial coincidence). The study has three stages: Stage 1 Gap Analysis – assessment of information known, identification of gaps and studies required to fill the gaps. Stage 2 Hazard Studies – a gap filling stage with the studies identified in Stage 1. Stage 3 Collating, Optioneering and Reporting – development of options to manage flood risk. This present report is to document findings of Stage 1 and recommends the studies that should be completed for Stage 2. It has also been important to consider how Stage 3 would be delivered and the gaps are prioritised to provide for this. The level of information available and hazards to consider is extensive; requiring this report to be made up of five parts each identifying individual gaps. A process of identifying information for individual hazards in Christchurch has been undertaken and documented (Part 1) followed by assessing the spatial co-location (Part 2) and probabilistic presence of multi hazards using available information. Part 3 considers multi hazard presence both as a temporal coincidence (e.g. an earthquake and flood occurring at one time) and as a cascade sequence (e.g. earthquake followed by a flood at some point in the future). Council have already undertaken a number of options studies for managing flood risk and these are documented in Part 4. Finally Part 5 provides the Gap Analysis Summary and Recommendations to Council. The key findings of Stage 1 gap analysis are: - The spatial analysis showed eastern Christchurch has a large number of hazards present with only 20% of the study area not being affected by any of the hazards mapped. Over 20% of the study area is exposed to four or more hazards at the frequencies and data available. - The majority of the Residential Red Zone is strongly exposed to multiple hazards, with 86% of the area being exposed to 4 or more hazards, and 24% being exposed to 6 or more hazards. - A wide number of gaps are present; however, prioritisation needs to consider the level of benefit and risks associated with not undertaking the studies. In light of this 10 studies ranging in scale are recommended to be done for the project team to complete the present scope of Stage 3. - Stage 3 will need to consider a number of engineering options to address hazards and compare with policy options; however, Council have not established a consistent policy on managed retreat that can be applied for equal comparison; without which substantial assumptions are required. We recommend Council undertake a study to define a managed retreat framework as an option for the city. - In undertaking Stage 1 with floodplain management as the focal point in a multi hazards context we have identified that Stage 3 requires consideration of options in the context of economics, implementation and residual risk. Presently the scope of work will provide a level of definition for floodplain options; however, this will not be at equal levels of detail for other hazard management options. Therefore, we recommend Council considers undertaking other studies with those key hazards (e.g. Coastal Hazards) as a focal point and identifies the engineering options to address such hazards. Doing so will provide equal levels of information for Council to make an informed and defendable decision on which options are progressed following Stage 3.
Christchurch Ōtautahi, New Zealand, is a city of myriad waterways and springs. Māori, the indigenous people of New Zealand, have water quality at the core of their cultural values. The city’s rivers include the Avon/Ōtākaro, central to the city centre’s aesthetic appeal since early settlement, and the Heathcote/Ōpāwaho. Both have been degraded with increasing urbanisation. The destructive earthquake sequence that occurred during 2010/11 presented an opportunity to rebuild significant areas of the city. Public consultation identified enthusiasm to rebuild a sustainable city. A sustainable water sensitive city is one where development is constructed with the water environment in mind. Water sensitive urban design applies at all scales and is a holistic concept. In Christchurch larger-scale multi-value stormwater management solutions were incorporated into rapidly developed greenfield sites on the city’s outskirts and in satellite towns, as they had been pre-earthquake. Individual properties on greenfield sites and within the city, however, continued to be constructed without water sensitive features such as rainwater tanks or living roofs. This research uses semi-structured interviews, policy analysis, and findings from local and international studies to investigate the benefits of building-scale WSUD and the barriers that have resulted in their absence. Although several inter-related barriers became apparent, cost, commonly cited as a barrier to sustainable development in general, was strongly represented. However, it is argued that the issue is one of mindset rather than cost. Solutions are proposed, based on international and national experience, that will demonstrate the benefits of adopting water sensitive urban design principles including at the building scale, and thereby build public and political support. The research is timely - there is still much development to occur, and increasing pressures from urban densification, population growth and climate change to mitigate.
Brooklands Lagoon / Te Riu o Te Aika Kawa (‘Brooklands’) is an important wetland and estuarine ecosystem in Canterbury. It is a site of cultural significance to Ngāi Tūāhuriri, and is also valued by the wider community. Home to an array of life, it is connected to the Pūharakekenui/Styx and Waimakariri rivers, and is part of a wetland landscape complex that includes the Avon-Heathcote / Ihutai estuary to the south and the Ashley / Rakahuri estuary to the north. Notionally situated within the territorial boundary of Christchurch City Council and jurisdictionally encompassed by the regional council Environment Canterbury, it has been legally determined to be part of the coastal marine area. The complicated administrative arrangements for the lagoon mirror the biophysical and human challenges to this surprisingly young ecosystem since its formation in 1940. Here we present a synthesis of the historical events and environmental influences that have shaped Brooklands Lagoon. Before existing as an intertidal ecosystem, the Waimakariri river mouth was situated in what is now the southern end of the lagoon. A summary timeline of key events is set out in the table below. These included the diversion of the Waimakariri River mouth via the construction of Wrights Cut in the 1930s, which influenced the way that the lower reaches of the river interacted with the land and sea. A large flood in 1940 shifted the river mouth ~2 to 3 kilometres north, that created the landscape that we see today. However, this has not remained stable, as the earthquake sequence in 2010 and 2011 subsided the bed of the estuary. The changes are ongoing, as sea level rise and coastal inundation will place ongoing pressure on the aquatic ecosystem and surrounding land. How to provide accommodation space for Brooklands as an estuary will be a key planning and community challenge, as Environment Canterbury begins the engagement for the review of its Regional Coastal Plan. There is also a requirement to safeguard its ecological health under the 2020 National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management. This will necessitate an integrated mountains to sea (ki uta ki tai) management approach as the lagoon is affected by wider catchment activities. We hope that this report will contribute to, and inform these processes by providing a comprehensive historical synthesis, and by identifying considerations for the future collaborative management of Brooklands Lagoon, and protection of its values. In essence, we suggest that Te Riu o Te Aika Kawa deserves some sustained aroha.
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?
JAN TINETTI to the Minister of Education: What actions has the Government taken to increase the number of New Zealanders participating in vocational education? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH to the Minister of Finance: What measures, if any, does he have in place to ensure New Zealanders receive good value for money from the Government’s major spending initiatives? Hon JUDITH COLLINS to the Minister of Housing: Will there be any further delays to the conclusion of the KiwiBuild reset, including due to the resignation of the KiwiBuild head of delivery? Dr DUNCAN WEBB to the Minister for Courts: What recent reports has he seen regarding the Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal? Hon NIKKI KAYE to the Associate Minister of Education: Does she stand by her statement regarding learning support coordinator allocations, “I’m pleased, I’m really pleased. I know there are people complaining, and that’s OK. We seem to live in a world where somebody’s got to complain about everything”? Hon MARK MITCHELL to the Minister responsible for Pike River Re-entry: Does he stand by all his statements, policies, and actions on the Pike River Mine? ANGIE WARREN-CLARK to the Minister for the Environment: What action is the Government taking to enhance urban development and protect elite soils? TODD MULLER to the Minister of Agriculture: Does he have confidence in New Zealand’s agricultural sector? Hon DAVID BENNETT to the Minister of Corrections: Does he stand by his statement, “We have never had to manage a prisoner like this before”, in relation to the alleged Christchurch gunman? JENNY MARCROFT to the Minister for Infrastructure: What recent announcements has he made regarding the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission-Te Waihanga? BRETT HUDSON to the Minister of Transport: Can he rule out any further increases in transport taxes or charges under this Government? DENISE LEE to the Minister for Women: Why did she say yesterday that the equal pay legislation was in select committee when it was reported back on 13 May, and has been sitting on the Order Paper for three months?
Questions to Ministers 1. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with Reserve Bank Governor Alan Bollard's assessment that the economic recovery is proving to be "slow and fragile"? 2. CRAIG FOSS to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the economy? 3. Hon TREVOR MALLARD to the Minister for Economic Development: What specific actions has he taken since becoming Minister of Economic Development to secure the New Zealand film industry? 4. KATRINA SHANKS to the Minister of Housing: What reports has he received about the stakeholder engagement carried out by the Housing Shareholders' Advisory Group? 5. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Will he support my recommendation to set up an advocacy support service to provide earthquake-affected residents with help in dealing with their private insurers to prevent them being shunted between these insurers and the Earthquake Commission? 6. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Minister of Conservation: What steps, if any, is she taking to protect the unique, rare and threatened Nevis "Gollum galaxiid", a native fish species found only in the Nevis River in Central Otago? 7. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister for Tertiary Education: How does removing $55 million from industry training help the growth of the productive economy? 8. CHRIS AUCHINVOLE to the Minister for the Environment: What progress is the Government making in improving New Zealand's freshwater management? 9. SUE MORONEY to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by all her statements about subsidies and fee controls in early childhood education? 10. Hon RODNEY HIDE to the Attorney-General: Is it Government policy to exempt the holders of customary marine title from the application of the Resource Management Act 1991 and provide the holders with the sole right to give, or deny, a Resource Management Act permission right with no right of appeal or objection against the decision, as described in Bell Gully's Newsletter Update October 2010 on the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill? 11. Hon NANAIA MAHUTA to the Minister responsible for Whānau Ora: Is she satisfied with the process to shortlist Whānau Ora providers? 12. PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Why is the Government funding the Energy Spot advertising campaign?
Questions to Ministers 1. Hon PHIL GOFF to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements on the privatisation of New Zealand State-owned power companies? 2. MICHAEL WOODHOUSE to the Minister of Finance: What progress has the Government made in making the tax system fairer? 3. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Prime Minister: At recent meetings he has had with Grey Power, have they raised with him their concerns about the sell-off of state assets? 4. Dr CAM CALDER to the Minister of Corrections: Has she received any reports on the rate of escape from New Zealand prisons? 5. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Minister of Finance: Why doesn't his Budget's net debt track take into account lost dividends from SOEs and sales costs arising from his policy of privatising state assets? 6. KEVIN HAGUE to the Minister of Labour: Is underground mining safe in New Zealand? 7. COLIN KING to the Minister of Transport: What progress has been made on the Christchurch Southern Motorway Road of National Significance following the earthquakes in the city? 8. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: How many of the 5,100 properties in the red zone have been deemed to be uneconomic to repair by the insurer and how many of those, approximately, had unimproved land valuations of less than $150,000? 9. JOHN BOSCAWEN to the Minister of Māori Affairs: Does he stand by all of his recent statements? 10. Hon TREVOR MALLARD to the Prime Minister: Further to his answers to Oral Question No 1 yesterday on the purchase of state assets by foreigners, what percentage of Contact shares are currently held by foreigners or corporations? 11. RAHUI KATENE to the Minister for the Environment: Does he agree with the statement in Ko Aotearoa Tēnei, that "direct infusion of indigenous values into mainstream environmental regulation may well be unique in the world"; if so, how will he advance the opportunities for Māori to take more positive and proactive roles in environmental decision-making? 12. NICKY WAGNER to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What reports has she seen on the Canterbury unemployment figures?
DENIS O'ROURKE to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Is he satisfied with progress on all aspects of the Canterbury earthquake recovery? JACINDA ARDERN to the Minister of Police: Does she have confidence in the Police investigation of alleged sexual violation against young women and underage girls in West Auckland? PAUL GOLDSMITH to the Minister of Finance: What progress has the National-led Government made in building a more productive and competitive economy capable of supporting more jobs and higher incomes for New Zealanders? METIRIA TUREI to the Minister of Police: When was she first advised that Police had received a complaint from a girl who alleged she had been raped by members of a group calling themselves the Roast Busters? Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister for Communications and Information Technology: Will the Government enforce its broadband contract with Chorus? CLAUDETTE HAUITI to the Minister for the Environment: What announcements has the Government made in relation to the national policy statement for freshwater? PHIL TWYFORD to the Minister of Housing: What reports has he received on the effect of loan-to-value restrictions on the housing market? Hon PHIL HEATLEY to the Minister for Social Development: What reports has she received about the number of people receiving benefits? CAROL BEAUMONT to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: How does women's participation rate of 1 percent in building and construction industry training assist with the Christchurch rebuild? Dr CAM CALDER to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made to strengthen the status of the teaching profession? EUGENIE SAGE to the Associate Minister of Health: Does she agree with the Canterbury Medical Officer of Health that increasing nitrate levels in Canterbury groundwater are a health risk, particularly for pregnant women and babies; if not, why not? HONE HARAWIRA to the Minister of Finance: What is his budget plan, if any, to immediately address growing poverty in New Zealand, which has got so bad that charitable organisations have today said they are expecting an influx of more than 40,000 struggling families for Christmas dinner because they can't afford to put food on the table?
Interagency Emergency Response Teams (IERTs) play acrucial role in times of disasters. Therefore it is crucial to understand more thoroughly the communication roles and responsibilities of interagency team members and to examine how individual members communicate within a complex, evolving, and unstable environment. It is also important to understand how different organisational identities and their spatial geographies contribute to the interactional dynamics. Earthquakes hit the Canterbury region on September, 2010 and then on February 2011 a more devastating shallow earthquake struck resulting in severe damage to the Aged Residential Care (ARC) sector. Over 600 ARC beds were lost and 500 elderly and disabled people were displaced. Canterbury District Health Board (CDHB) set up an interagency emergency response team to address the issues of vulnerable people with significant health and disability needs who were unable to access their normal supports due to the effects of the earthquake. The purpose of this qualitative interpretive study is to focus on the case study of the response and evacuation of vulnerable people by interagencies responding to the event. Staff within these agencies were interviewed with a focus on the critical incidents that either stabilised or negatively influenced the outcome of the response. The findings included the complexity of navigating multiple agencies communication channels; understanding the different hierarchies and communication methods within each agency; data communication challenges when infrastructures were severely damaged; the importance of having the right skills, personal attributes and understanding of the organisations in the response; and the significance of having a liaison in situ representing and communicating through to agencies geographically dispersed from Canterbury. It is hoped that this research will assist in determining a future framework for interagency communication best practice and policy.
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
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?
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"?
ANDREW LITTLE to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in the Minister for Building and Housing given the falling rate of homeownership, especially among young people? RON MARK to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements? MATT DOOCEY to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that “There are more jobs, and people are being better paid”; if so, why? Dr MEGAN WOODS to the Minister supporting Greater Christchurch Regeneration: Does he agree with the Prime Minister, who said with regard to the Canterbury earthquakes, “on behalf of the Government, let me be clear that no one will be left to walk this journey alone”; if so, does he think all relevant information prepared by his Government has been made available to Cantabrians to assist them in navigating post-earthquake decisions? METIRIA TUREI to the Prime Minister: Ka tū a ia i runga i te mana o āna kaupapa here Kāwanatanga katoa, nē? Translation: Does he stand by all his Government’s policies? Dr JIAN YANG to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made about expanding 21st century learning options for parents and whanau? CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of Education: How will her Communities of Online Learning (CoOL) proposal differ from online charter schools in the United States, given a study partially funded by a private pro-charter foundation found students attending those schools lost an average of about 72 days of learning in reading, and 180 days of learning in maths during the course of a 180-day school year? CATHERINE DELAHUNTY to the Minister for the Environment: Will he commit to a regulatory regime that includes swimmable rivers in light of the comment from a Havelock North café owner who said that, “we’d trade all the compensation in the world if it would spur the Government into tidying up or cleaning up the waterways”? IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY to the Minister of Immigration: How many of the 209,000 work visas issued last year were for occupations on one of the Essential Skills in Demand lists? JONO NAYLOR to the Minister of Police: What is the Police doing to assist potential victims of family violence? STUART NASH to the Minister of Police: Does she believe that the Police have enough resources to implement their part of the Prime Minister’s 2009 promise to use the full force of the Government’s arsenal to “confront the P problem” given that P is cheaper, and as easy as it was to get in 2008? PAUL FOSTER-BELL to the Minister for Primary Industries: What recent reports has he received on growth in wine exports?