The Canterbury earthquakes and the rebuild are generation-defining events for twenty-first century Aotearoa/ New Zealand. This article uses an actor network approach to explore 32 women’s narratives of being shaken into dangerous disaster situations and reconstituting themselves to cope in socially innovative ways. The women’s stories articulate on-going collective narratives of experiencing disaster and coping with loss in ‘resilient’ ways. In these women’s experiences, coping in disasters is not achieved by talking through the emotional trauma. Instead, coping comes from seeking solace through engagement with one’s own and others’ personal risk and resourcefulness in ways that feed into the emergence of socially innovative voluntary organisations. These stories offer conceptual insight into the multivalent interconnections between resilience and vulnerabilities and the contested nature of post-disaster recovery in Aotearoa/New Zealand. These women gave voice to living through disasters resiliently in ways that forged new networks of support across collective and personal narratives and broader social goals and aspirations for Aotearoa/New Zealand’s future.
A photograph of a temporary house in Rawhiti Domain.
A photograph of a sign for Rawhiti Village Grove.
A photograph of a street of temporary housing in Rawhiti Domain.
A photograph of a street of temporary housing in Rawhiti Domain.
A photograph of a street of temporary housing in Rawhiti Domain.
A photograph of a woman standing in the entrance of a temporary house in Rawhiti Domain.
The Earthquake Recovery Minister's released what he says is a how-to strategy for the rebuild following the Canterbury earthquakes. Gerry Brownlee says the strategy for improving investment, innovation and job creation will extend beyond economic recovery and into education, culture and social recovery.
A PDF copy of pages 280-281 of the book Christchurch: The Transitional City Pt IV. The pages document the transitional project 'Temporary Housing'. Photos: Tessa Peach
This research investigates creativity in a post-disaster setting. The data explore creativity at the intersection of the affected community of Christchurch, New Zealand and the social processes that followed the earthquakes of 2010 - 2012. Personal and contextual influences on creative ideas implemented for community or commercial benefit are also examined. Viewed as creative, unique approaches to post-disaster problem solving were celebrated locally, nationally and internationally (Bergman, 2014; Wesener, 2015; Cloke & Conradson, 2018). Much has been written about creativity, particularly creativity in organisations and in business. However, little is known with regards to who creates after a disaster, why individuals choose to do so and what impact the post-disaster context has on their creative activity. This exploratory study draws on the literature from the fields of creativity, disasters, psychology, sociology and entrepreneurship to interpret first-hand accounts of people who acted on creative ideas in a physically and socially altered environment. A mixed method - albeit predominantly qualitative - approach to data gathering was adopted that included interviews (n=45) with participants who had been the primary drivers of creative ideas implemented in Christchurch after September 2010 – the first major (7.1 magnitude) earthquake in a prolonged sequence of thousands of aftershocks. Key findings include that a specific type of creativity results from the ‘collision’ between individuals and social processes activated by a disaster situation. This type of creativity could be best categorised as ‘little c’ or socially adaptive and emerges through a prosocial filter. There is wide consensus amongst creativity researchers - principally social psychologists - that for output to be considered creative it must be both novel and useful (Runco & Jaegar, 2012). There is greater tolerance for the novelty component after a disaster as novelty itself has greater utility, either as a distraction or because alternatives are few. Existing creativity models show context as input – an additional component of the creative process – but after a disaster the event itself becomes the catalyst for social processes that result in the creativity seen. Most participants demonstrated characteristics commonly associated with creativity and could be categorised as either a ‘free thinker’ and/or an ‘opportunist’. Some appear preadapted to create and thrive in unstable circumstances. Findings from participants’ completion of a Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI) showed an apparent reduced need for extraversion in relation to implementing creative ventures in society. This factor, along with higher levels of agreeableness may indicate a potentially detrimental effect on the success of creative ideas established after a disaster, despite earnest intentions. Three new models are presented to illustrate the key findings of this study. The models imply that disasters enhance both the perceived value of creativity and the desire to act creatively for prosocial ends. The models also indicate that these disaster influenced changes are likely to be temporary.
INTRODUCTION: Connections between environmental factors and mental health issues have been postulated in many different countries around the world. Previously undertaken research has shown many possible connections between these fields, especially in relation to air quality and extreme weather events. However, research on this subject is lacking in New Zealand, which is difficult to analyse as an overall nation due to its many micro-climates and regional differences.OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study and subsequent analysis is to explore the associations between environmental factors and poor mental health outcomes in New Zealand by region and predict the number of people with mental health-related illnesses corresponding to the environmental influence.METHODS: Data are collected from various public-available sources, e.g., Stats NZ and Coronial services of New Zealand, which comprised four environmental factors of our interest and two mental health indicators data ranging from 2016 up until 2020. The four environmental factors are air pollution, earthquakes, rainfall and temperature. Two mental health indicators include the number of people seen by District Health Boards (DHBs) for mental health reasons and the statistics on suicide deaths. The initial analysis is carried out on which regions were most affected by the chosen environmental factors. Further analysis using Auto-Regressive Integrated Moving Average(ARIMA) creates a model based on time series of environmental data to generate estimation for the next two years and mental health projected from the ridge regression.RESULTS: In our initial analysis, the environmental data was graphed along with mental health outcomes in regional charts to identify possible associations. Different regions of New Zealand demonstrate quite different relationships between the environmental data and mental health outcomes. The result of later analysis predicts that the suicide rate and DHB mental health visits may increase in Wellington, drop-in Hawke's Bay and slightly increase in Canterbury for the year 2021 and 2022 with different environmental factors considered.CONCLUSION: It is evident that the relationship between environmental and mental health factors is regional and not national due to the many micro-climates that exist around the nation. However, it was observed that not all factors displayed a good relationship between the regions. We conclude that our hypotheses were partially correct, in that increased air pollution was found to correlate to increased mental health-related DHB visits. Rainfall was also highly correlated to some mental health outcomes. Higher levels of rainfall reduced DHB visits and suicide rates in some areas of the country.
Millions of urban residents around the world in the coming century will experience severe landscape change – including increased frequencies of flooding due to intensifying storm events and impacts from sea level rise. For cities, collisions of environmental change with mismatched cultural systems present a major threat to infrastructure systems that support urban living. Landscape architects who address these issues express a need to realign infrastructure with underlying natural systems, criticizing the lack of social and environmental considerations in engineering works. Our ability to manage both society and the landscapes we live in to better adapt to unpredictable events and landscape changes is essential if we are to sustain the health and safety of our families, neighbourhoods, and wider community networks. When extreme events like earthquakes or flooding occur in developed areas, the feasibility of returning the land to pre-disturbance use can be questioned. In Christchurch for example, a large expanse of land (630 hectares) within the city was severely damaged by the earthquakes and judged too impractical to repair in the short term. The central government now owns the land and is currently in the process of demolishing the mostly residential houses that formed the predominant land use. Furthermore, cascading impacts from the earthquakes have resulted in a general land subsidence of .5m over much of eastern Christchurch, causing disruptive and damaging flooding. Yet, although disasters can cause severe social and environmental distress, they also hold great potential as a catalyst to increasing adaption. But how might landscape architecture be better positioned to respond to the potential for transformation after disaster? This research asks two core questions: what roles can the discipline of landscape architecture play in improving the resilience of communities so they become more able to adapt to change? And what imaginative concepts could be designed for alternative forms of residential development that better empower residents to understand and adapt the infrastructure that supports them? Through design-directed inquiry, the research found landscape architecture theory to be well positioned to contribute to goals of social-ecological systems resilience. The discipline of landscape architecture could become influential in resilience-oriented multi disciplinary collaborations, with our particular strengths lying in six key areas: the integration of ecological and social processes, improving social capital, engaging with temporality, design-led innovation potential, increasing diversity and our ability to work across multiple scales. Furthermore, several innovative ideas were developed, through a site-based design exploration located within the residential red zone, that attempt to challenge conventional modes of urban living – concepts such as time-based land use, understanding roads as urban waterways, and landscape design and management strategies that increase community participation and awareness of the temporality in landscapes.
The aim of this study is to explore the main contributors and obstacles to employee learning in the context of an alliance using the framework of a complex embedded multiple-case study. The two participant alliance partner organisations (APOs) are natural competitors that have joined to respond to urgent community needs of the city of Christchurch following the major earthquakes in September 2010 and February 2011. At the moment of the in-depth interviews, it had been about four years since those events occurred. There are continuous, unexpected circumstances that still require attention. However, the alliance has an expiry date, thus reinforcing the uncertain work environment. The main enablers found were participative, collaborative learning encouraged by leaders who embraced the alliance’s “learning organisational culture”. Employees generated innovations mostly in social interaction with others, while taking on responsibility for their learning by learning from mistakes. The main obstacle found is competition, as inhibitor of collaboratively sharing their knowledge out of fear of losing their competitiveness.
DAVID BENNETT to the Minister of Finance: How is the Government's economic programme supporting stronger regional job growth? Hon SHANE JONES to the Minister of Commerce: Is he aware of demands being made by the Countdown supermarket group for retrospective payments from New Zealand suppliers, with threats Countdown will not stock their products? JULIE ANNE GENTER to the Minister for Economic Development: Why is the Government holding up economic development in Auckland's CBD, according to Auckland City officials, by delaying the opening of the City Rail Link until 2025? ALFRED NGARO to the Minister for Social Development: What reports has she received about the state of the nation in relation to social outcomes? DENIS O'ROURKE to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Is he aware of any proposals to transport asbestos-contaminated material from the Christchurch rebuild to sub-standard landfills? Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: Is he satisfied New Zealanders are receiving timely and affordable healthcare? MARK MITCHELL to the Minister of Housing: What reports has he received on positive progress being advanced on the Government's housing agenda? DARIEN FENTON to the Minister of Labour: Does he agree with the Prime Minister's statement on the minimum wage that "I think we've been pretty fair in what we've done in the past and we probably will be in the future"? CLAUDETTE HAUITI to the Minister of Science and Innovation: How are the National Science Challenges bringing together the best scientific talent across New Zealand? HONE HARAWIRA to the Minister for Economic Development: Will he commit to spending the $41m on reducing child poverty, after signalling that he might not now give that money to Team New Zealand to compete in the next America's Cup? Dr RAJEN PRASAD to the Minister of Immigration: When he said in response to an oral question on 29 January 2014 that it was "a pretty simple process…to alert immigration authorities", what was his understanding of the process a complainant would go through? CHRIS AUCHINVOLE to the Associate Minister of Transport: What progress is being made in improving road safety?
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?
JAMI-LEE ROSS to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the competitiveness of New Zealand's business sector? ANDREW WILLIAMS to the Minister of Trade: Does he stand by his statement on the Trans-Pacific Partnership that "It's going to be big. It's going to be significant and it's going to help New Zealanders find well-paid jobs"; if so, on what evidence does he base this claim? DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement "…You can trust us. If we say we're going to do something we do it. If we don't, we don't … that's why I've stuck to my guns and I haven't campaigned on one thing and done something different."? METIRIA TUREI to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement regarding investor state disputes procedures proposed in the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement that "An exclusion solely for Australia and not for everybody else is unlikely to be something we would support"; if so, why? SIMON O'CONNOR to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: What progress has the Government made to improve the viability of the Student Loan Scheme? JACINDA ARDERN to the Minister for Social Development: How many times, if any, has the Transition to Work Grant, or similar funds, been used by Work and Income New Zealand to purchase tickets to Australia for job seekers who have found work there? SHANE ARDERN to the Minister for Primary Industries: What announcements has he recently made on boosting innovation in the New Zealand primary sector? 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 people have left permanently for Australia since he took office in November 2008? TIM MACINDOE to the Minister for Social Development: What announcements has she made on the Expert Advisory Group on Information Security, who will oversee the development of the initiatives in the Government's White Paper for Vulnerable Children? CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of Education: Does she agree with all of the statements the Prime Minister has made regarding food in schools? MOJO MATHERS to the Associate Minister of Health: Other than the LD50 test, will he rule out other animal tests for the pending psychoactive substances testing regime? NICKY WAGNER to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: What progress is the Government making with rebuilding and repairing residential homes in Christchurch?
SHANE ARDERN to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the economy? DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he expect all his Ministers to comply with the responsibilities set out in the Cabinet Manual? JONATHAN YOUNG to the Minister of Justice: What steps is the Government taking to improve public services in law and order? GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Local Government: Will he take the same approach to compliance with the Cabinet Manual as Minister for Local Government as he did as Minister for ACC? DENIS O'ROURKE to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Does he stand by all his recent statements? EUGENIE SAGE to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement, “I am not going to do something silly with the Department of Conservation estate”? Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Minister for Economic Development: What, if any, are the capital costs, write-downs and redundancy costs expected from the merger of the Ministry of Economic Development with the Ministry of Science and Innovation, Department of Labour and Department of Building and Housing? Dr PAUL HUTCHISON to the Minister of Health: What progress is being made in relation to the Government’s key result of increasing infant immunisation rates and reducing the incidence of rheumatic fever? Hon MARYAN STREET to the Minister of Health: Does he support Pharmac’s provisional decision to engage Auckland company, Pharmaco, to be the sole supplier of new diabetic meters? PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA to the Minister for Social Development: Has she received any reports on the Future Focus welfare changes in 2010? Hon PHIL GOFF to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Have New Zealand heads of mission overseas been recalled to a meeting in Wellington on 2 April, and if so what is the cost of holding this meeting? Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Is he concerned by a recent report of an international team of scientists that, even with a two degree celsius rise in average global temperature, future generations could face sea levels of up to 12 to 22 metres higher than at present?
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?
Though generally considered “natural” disasters, cyclones and earthquakes are increasingly being associated with human activities, incubated through urban settlement patterns and the long-term redistribution of natural resources. As society is becoming more urbanized, the risk of human exposure to disasters is also rising. Architecture often reflects the state of society’s health: architectural damage is the first visible sign of emergency, and reconstruction is the final response in the process of recovery. An empirical assessment of architectural projects in post-disaster situations can lead to a deeper understanding of urban societies as they try to rebuild. This thesis offers an alternative perspective on urban disasters by looking at the actions and attitudes of disaster professionals through the lens of architecture, situated in recent events: the 2010 Christchurch earthquake, the 2010 Haiti earthquake, and the 2005 Hurricane Katrina. An empirical, multi-hazard, cross-sectional case study methodology was used, employing grounded theory method to build theory, and a critical constructivist strategy to inform the analysis. By taking an interdisciplinary approach to understanding disasters, this thesis positions architecture as a conduit between two divergent approaches to disaster research: the hazards approach, which studies the disaster cycles from a scientific perspective; and the sociological approach, which studies the socially constructed vulnerabilities that result from disasters, and the elements of social change that accompany such events. Few studies to date have attempted to integrate the multi-disciplinary perspectives that can advance our understanding of societal problems in urban disasters. To bridge this gap, this thesis develops what will be referred to as the “Rittelian framework”—based on the work of UC Berkeley’s architecture professor Horst Rittel (1930-1990). The Rittelian framework uses the language of design to transcend the multiple fields of human endeavor to address the “design problems” in disaster research. The processes by which societal problems are addressed following an urban disaster involve input by professionals from multiple fields—including economics, sociology, medicine, and engineering—but the contribution from architecture has been minimal to date. The main impetus for my doctoral thesis has been the assertion that most of the decisions related to reconstruction are made in the early emergency recovery stages where architects are not involved, but architects’ early contribution is vital to the long-term reconstruction of cities. This precipitated in the critical question: “How does the Rittelian framework contribute to the critical design decisions in modern urban disasters?” Comparative research was undertaken in three case studies of recent disasters in New Orleans (2005), Haiti (2010) and Christchurch (2010), by interviewing 51 individuals who were selected on the basis of employing the Rittelian framework in their humanitarian practice. Contextualizing natural disaster research within the robust methodological framework of architecture and the analytical processes of sociology is the basis for evaluating the research proposition that architectural problem solving is of value in addressing the ‘Wicked Problems’ of disasters. This thesis has found that (1) the nuances of the way disaster agents interpret the notion of “building back better” can influence the extent to which architectural professionals contribute in urban disaster recovery, (2) architectural design can be used to facilitate but also impede critical design decisions, and (3) framing disaster research in terms of design decisions can lead to innovation where least expected. This empirical research demonstrates how the Rittelian framework can inform a wider discussion about post-disaster human settlements, and improve our resilience through disaster research.
From 2010, Canterbury, a province of Aotearoa New Zealand, experienced three major disaster events. This study considers the socio-ecological impacts on cross-sectoral suicide prevention agencies and their service users of the 2010 – 2016 Canterbury earthquake sequence, the 2019 Christchurch mosque attacks and the COVID-19 pandemic in Canterbury. This study found the prolonged stress caused by these events contributed to a rise in suicide risk factors including anxiety, fear, trauma, distress, alcohol misuse, relationship breakdown, childhood adversity, economic loss and deprivation. The prolonged negative comment by the media on wellbeing in Canterbury was also unhelpful and affected morale. The legacy of these impacts was a rise in referrals to mental health services that has not diminished. This adversity in the socio-ecological system also produced post-traumatic growth, allowing Cantabrians to acquire resilience and help-seeking abilities to support them psychologically through the COVID-19 pandemic. Supporting parental and teacher responses, intergenerational support and targeted public health campaigns, as well as Māori family-centred programmes, strengthened wellbeing. The rise in suicide risk led to the question of what services were required and being delivered in Canterbury and how to enable effective cross-sectoral suicide prevention in Canterbury, deemed essential in all international and national suicide prevention strategies. Components from both the World Health Organisation Suicide Prevention Framework (WHO, 2012; WHO 2021) and the Collective Impact model (Hanleybrown et al., 2012) were considered by participants. The effectiveness of dynamic leadership and the essential conditions of resourcing a supporting agency were found as were the importance of processes that supported equity, lived experience and the partnership of Māori and non-Māori stakeholders. Cross-sectoral suicide prevention was found to enhance the wellbeing of participants, hastening learning, supporting innovation and raising awareness across sectors which might lower stigma. Effective communication was essential in all areas of cross-sectoral suicide prevention and clear action plans enabled measurement of progress. Identified components were combined to create a Collective Impact Suicide Prevention framework that strengthens suicide prevention implementation and can be applied at a local, regional and national level. This study contributes to cross-sectoral suicide prevention planning by considering the socio- ecological, policy and practice mitigations required to lower suicide risk and to increase wellbeing and post-traumatic growth, post-disaster. This study also adds to the growing awareness of the contribution that social work can provide to suicide prevention and conceptualises an alternative governance framework and practice and policy suggestions to support effective cross-sectoral suicide prevention.
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?