Knowing how to rapidly rebuild disaster-damaged infrastructure, while deciding appropriate recovery strategies and catering for future investment is a matter of core interest to government decision makers, utility providers, and business sectors. The purpose of this research is to explore the effects of decisions and outcomes for physical reconstruction on the overall recovery process of horizontal infrastructure in New Zealand using the Canterbury and Kaikoura earthquakes as cases. A mixed approach including a systematic review, questionnaire survey and semi-structured interviews is used to capture perspectives of those involved in reconstruction process and gain insights into the effect of critical elements on infrastructure downtime. Findings from this research will contribute towards advancements of a systems dynamics model considering critical decision-making variables across phases of the reconstruction process to assess how these variables affect the rebuild process and the corresponding downtime. This project will improve the ability to explore alternative resilience improvement pathways and test the efficacy of alternative means for facilitating a faster and better reconstruction process.
In the period between September 2010 and December 2011, Christchurch (New Zealand) and its surroundings were hit by a series of strong earthquakes including six significant events, all generated by local faults in proximity to the city: 4 September 2010 (Mw=7.1), 22 February 2011 (Mw=6.2), 13 June 2011 (Mw=5.3 and Mw=6.0) and 23 December 2011 (M=5.8 and (M=5.9) earthquakes. As shown in Figure 1, the causative faults of the earthquakes were very close to or within the city boundaries thus generating very strong ground motions and causing tremendous damage throughout the city. Christchurch is shown as a lighter colour area, and its Central Business District (CBD) is marked with a white square area in the figure. Note that the sequence of earthquakes started to the west of the city and then propagated to the south, south-east and east of the city through a set of separate but apparently interacting faults. Because of their strength and proximity to the city, the earthquakes caused tremendous physical damage and impacts on the people, natural and built environments of Christchurch. The 22 February 2011 earthquake was particularly devastating. The ground motions generated by this earthquake were intense and in many parts of Christchurch substantially above the ground motions used to design the buildings in Christchurch. The earthquake caused 182 fatalities, collapse of two multi-storey reinforced concrete buildings, collapse or partial collapse of many unreinforced masonry structures including the historic Christchurch Cathedral. The Central Business District (CBD) of Christchurch, which is the central heart of the city just east of Hagley Park, was practically lost with majority of its 3,000 buildings being damaged beyond repair. Widespread liquefaction in the suburbs of Christchurch, as well as rock falls and slope/cliff instabilities in the Port Hills affected tens of thousands of residential buildings and properties, and shattered the lifelines and infrastructure over approximately one third of the city area. The total economic loss caused by the 2010-2011 Christchurch earthquakes is currently estimated to be in the range between 25 and 30 billion NZ dollars (or 15% to 18% of New Zealand’s GDP). After each major earthquake, comprehensive field investigations and inspections were conducted to document the liquefaction-induced land damage, lateral spreading displacements and their impacts on buildings and infrastructure. In addition, the ground motions produced by the earthquakes were recorded by approximately 15 strong motion stations within (close to) the city boundaries providing and impressive wealth of data, records and observations of the performance of ground and various types of structures during this unusual sequence of strong local earthquakes affecting a city. This paper discusses the liquefaction in residential areas and focuses on its impacts on dwellings (residential houses) and potable water system in the Christchurch suburbs. The ground conditions of Christchurch including the depositional history of soils, their composition, age and groundwater regime are first discussed. Detailed liquefaction maps illustrating the extent and severity of liquefaction across Christchurch triggered by the sequence of earthquakes including multiple episodes of severe re-liquefaction are next presented. Characteristic liquefaction-induced damage to residential houses is then described focussing on the performance of typical house foundations in areas affected by liquefaction. Liquefaction impacts on the potable water system of Christchurch is also briefly summarized including correlation between the damage to the system, liquefaction severity, and the performance of different pipe materials. Finally, the characteristics of Christchurch liquefaction and its impacts on built environment are discussed in relation to the liquefaction-induced damage in Japan during the 11 March 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake.
Micro - electro - mechanical system (MEMS) based accelerometers are now frequently used in many different parts of our day - to - day lives. It is also increasingly being used for structural testing applications. Researchers have had res ervation of using these devices as they are relatively untested, but now with the wider adoption, it provides a much cheaper and more versatile tool for structural engineering researchers. A number of damaged buildings in the Christchurch Central Business District (CBD) were instrumented with a number of low - cost MEMS accelerometers after the major Christchurch earthquakes. The accelerometers captured extremely high quality building response data as the buildings experienced thousands of aftershocks. This d ata set was amongst one of only a handful of data set s available around the world which provides building response data subjected to real ground motion. Furthermore, due to technological advances, a much larger than usual number of accelerometers has been deployed making the data set one of the most comprehensive available. This data set is utilised to extract modal parameters of the buildings. This paper summarises the operating requirements and preference for using such accelerometers for experimental mod al analysis. The challenges for adapting MEMS based devices for successful modal parameters identification are also discussed.
Dr JIAN YANG to the Minister of Finance: What changes has the Government made in recent years to make the tax system fairer and to help families and businesses get ahead?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Minister of Internal Affairs: On what basis was the recall and cancellation of New Zealand Passport LN138690 undertaken?
Hon DAVID PARKER to the Associate Minister of Finance: Does he still believe that a 33 cent top marginal income tax rate is the reason for fewer departures to Australia in 2014?
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY to the Minister of Education: Did she write a new preference factor for Partnership School applicants on the 14 November education report "Confirming Round Two of Applications to Operate Partnership Schools"; if so, on what advice?
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE to the Minister of Conservation: What reports has he received on the extent of the damage to West Coast forests from Cyclone Ita and what estimates are there of the area affected and the volume of wood felled?
PHIL TWYFORD to the Minister of Housing: How many homes out of the 5,000 earthquake damaged Housing New Zealand homes have completed repairs as part of its Repair 5000 programme?
TIM MACINDOE to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made to celebrate and recognise highly effective and innovative practice happening across the education system?
Hon PHIL GOFF to the Minister of Defence: Has there been a reduction in the capacity of the Army in the last three years to sustain an overseas deployment; if so, why?
MELISSA LEE to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What support is the Ministry of Social Development providing to people in Christchurch still dealing with the impact of the earthquakes?
GARETH HUGHES to the Minister of Conservation: Does he agree with the statement given on behalf of the Minister of Energy and Resources that "there has not been a single observation of a Māui's dolphin in the block offer area"?
CAROL BEAUMONT to the Minister of Justice: Given the magnitude of the problem of family violence, is it acceptable to her that none of the Family Violence Death Review Committee's recommendations from their last annual report have been completed, and no action has been taken on a number of recommendations around funding family violence training for professionals, and addressing the need for better multi-agency practice addressing family violence?
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI to the Minister of Statistics: What is the Government doing to modernise the next census?
The increase of the world's population located near areas prone to natural disasters has given rise to new ‘mega risks’; the rebuild after disasters will test the governments’ capabilities to provide appropriate responses to protect the people and businesses. During the aftermath of the Christchurch earthquakes (2010-2012) that destroyed much of the inner city, the government of New Zealand set up a new partnership between the public and private sector to rebuild the city’s infrastructure. The new alliance, called SCIRT, used traditional risk management methods in the many construction projects. And, in hindsight, this was seen as one of the causes for some of the unanticipated problems. This study investigated the risk management practices in the post-disaster recovery to produce a specific risk management model that can be used effectively during future post-disaster situations. The aim was to develop a risk management guideline for more integrated risk management and fill the gap that arises when the traditional risk management framework is used in post-disaster situations. The study used the SCIRT alliance as a case study. The findings of the study are based on time and financial data from 100 rebuild projects, and from surveying and interviewing risk management professionals connected to the infrastructure recovery programme. The study focussed on post-disaster risk management in construction as a whole. It took into consideration the changes that happened to the people, the work and the environment due to the disaster. System thinking, and system dynamics techniques have been used due to the complexity of the recovery and to minimise the effect of unforeseen consequences. Based on an extensive literature review, the following methods were used to produce the model. The analytical hierarchical process and the relative importance index have been used to identify the critical risks inside the recovery project. System theory methods and quantitative graph theory have been used to investigate the dynamics of risks between the different management levels. Qualitative comparative analysis has been used to explore the critical success factors. And finally, causal loop diagrams combined with the grounded theory approach has been used to develop the model itself. The study identified that inexperienced staff, low management competency, poor communication, scope uncertainty, and non-alignment of the timing of strategic decisions with schedule demands, were the key risk factors in recovery projects. Among the critical risk groups, it was found that at a strategic management level, financial risks attracted the highest level of interest, as the client needs to secure funding. At both alliance-management and alliance-execution levels, the safety and environmental risks were given top priority due to a combination of high levels of emotional, reputational and media stresses. Risks arising from a lack of resources combined with the high volume of work and the concern that the cost could go out of control, alongside the aforementioned funding issues encouraged the client to create the recovery alliance model with large reputable construction organisations to lock in the recovery cost, at a time when the scope was still uncertain. This study found that building trust between all parties, clearer communication and a constant interactive flow of information, established a more working environment. Competent and clear allocation of risk management responsibilities, cultural shift, risk prioritisation, and staff training were crucial factors. Finally, the post-disaster risk management (PDRM) model can be described as an integrated risk management model that considers how the changes which happened to the environment, the people and their work, caused them to think differently to ease the complexity of the recovery projects. The model should be used as a guideline for recovery systems, especially after an earthquake, looking in detail at all the attributes and the concepts, which influence the risk management for more effective PDRM. The PDRM model is represented in Causal Loops Diagrams (CLD) in Figure 8.31 and based on 10 principles (Figure 8.32) and 26 concepts (Table 8.1) with its attributes.
An emerging water crisis is on the horizon and is poised to converge with several other impending problems in the 21st century. Future uncertainties such as climate change, peak oil and peak water are shifting the international focus from a business as usual approach to an emphasis on sustainable and resilient strategies that better meet these challenges. Cities are being reimagined in new ways that take a multidisciplinary approach, decompartmentalising functions and exploring ways in which urban systems can share resources and operate more like natural organisms. This study tested the landscape design implications of wastewater wetlands in the urban environment and evaluated their contribution to environmental sustainability, urban resilience and social development. Black and grey water streams were the central focus of this study and two types of wastewater wetlands, tidal flow (staged planning) and horizontal subsurface flow wetlands were tested through design investigations in the earthquake-affected city of Christchurch, New Zealand. These investigations found that the large area requirements of wastewater wetlands can be mitigated through landscape designs that enhance a matrix of open spaces and corridors in the city.
Wastewater wetlands when combined with other urban and rural services such as food production, energy generation and irrigation can aid in making communities more resilient. Landscape theory suggests that the design of wastewater wetlands must meet cultural thresholds of beauty and that the inclusion of waste and ecologies in creatively designed landscapes can deepen our emotional connection to nature and ourselves.
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"?
The use of post-earthquake cordons as a tool to support emergency managers after an event has been documented around the world. However, there is limited research that attempts to understand the use, effectiveness, inherent complexities, impacts and subsequent consequences of cordoning once applied. This research aims to fill that gap by providing a detailed understanding of first, the cordons and associated processes, and their implications in a post-earthquake scenario. We use a qualitative method to understand cordons through case studies of two cities where it was used in different temporal and spatial scales: Christchurch (2011) and Wellington (Kaikōura earthquake 2016), New Zealand. Data was collected through 21 expert interviews obtained through purposive and snowball sampling of key informants who were directly or indirectly involved in a decision-making role and/or had influence in relation to the cordoning process. The participants were from varying backgrounds and roles i.e. emergency managers, council members, business representatives, insurance representatives, police and communication managers. The data was transcribed, coded in Nvivo and then grouped based on underlying themes and concepts and then analyzed inductively. It is found that cordons are used primarily as a tool to control access for the purpose of life safety and security. But cordons can also be adapted to support recovery. Broadly, it can be synthesized and viewed based on two key aspects, ‘decision-making’ and ‘operations and management’, which overlap and interact as part of a complex system. The underlying complexity arises in large part due to the multitude of sectors it transcends such as housing, socio-cultural requirements, economics, law, governance, insurance, evacuation, available resources etc. The complexity further increases as the duration of cordon is extended.
The Covid-19 pandemic has brought to the foreground the importance of social connectedness for wellbeing, at the individual, community and societal level. Within the context of the local community, pro-connection facilities are fundamental to foster community development, resilience and public health. Through identifying the gap in social connectedness literature for Māori, this has created space for new opportunities and to reflect on what is already occurring in Ōtautahi. It is well documented that Māori experience unequal societal impacts across all health outcomes. Therefore, narrowing the inequities between Māori and non-Māori across a spectrum of dimensions is a priority. Evaluating the #WellconnectedNZ project, which explores the intersections between social connection and wellbeing is one way to trigger these conversations. This was achieved by curating a dissimilar set of community pro-connection facilities and organizing them into a Geographic Information System (GIS). Which firstly involved, the collecting and processing of raw data, followed by spatial analysis through creating maps, this highlighted the alignment between the distribution of places, population and social data. Secondly, statistical analysis focusing on the relationship between deprivation and accessibility. Finally, semi-structured interviews providing perceptions of community experience. This study describes findings following a kaupapa Māori research approach. Results demonstrated that, in general some meshblocks in Ōtautahi benefit from a high level of accessibility to pro-connection facilities; but with an urban-rural gradient (as is expected, further from the central business district (CBD) are less facilities). Additionally, more-deprived meshblocks in the Southern and Eastern suburbs of Christchurch have poorer accessibility, suggesting underlying social and spatial inequalities, likely exacerbated by Covid-19 and the Christchurch earthquakes. In this context, it is timely to (re)consider pro-connection places and their role in the development of social infrastructure for connected communities, in the community facility planning space. ‘We are all interwoven, we just need to make better connections’.
Farming and urban regions are impacted by earthquake disasters in different ways, and feature a range of often different recovery requirements. In New Zealand, and elsewhere, most earthquake impact and recovery research is urban focused. This creates a research deficit that can lead to the application of well-researched urban recovery strategies in rural areas to suboptimal effect. To begin to reduce this deficit, in-depth case studies of the earthquake impacts and recovery of three New Zealand farms severely impacted by the 14th November 2016, M7.8 Hurunui-Kaikōura earthquake were conducted. The initial earthquake, its aftershocks and coseismic hazards (e.g., landslides, liquefaction, surface rupture) affected much of North Canterbury, Marlborough and the Wellington area. The three case study farms were chosen to broadly represent the main types of farming and topography in the Hurunui District in North Canterbury. The farms were directly and indirectly impacted by earthquakes and related hazards. On-farm infrastructure (e.g., woolsheds, homesteads) and essential services (e.g., water, power), frequently sourced from distributed networks, were severely impacted. The earthquake occurred after two years of regional drought had already stressed farm systems and farmers to restructuring or breaking point. Cascading interlinked hazards stemming from the earthquakes and coseismic hazards continued to disrupt earthquake recovery over a year after the initial earthquake. Semi-structured interviews with the farmers were conducted nine and fourteen months after the initial earthquake to capture the timeline of on-going impacts and recovery. Analysis of both geological hazard data and interview data resulted in the identification of key factors influencing farm level earthquake impact and recovery. These include pre-existing conditions (e.g., drought); farm-specific variations in recovery timelines; and resilience strategies for farm recovery resources. The earthquake recovery process presented all three farms with opportunities to change their business plans and adapt to mitigate on-going and future risk.
This thesis describes the management process of innovation through construction infrastructure projects. This research focuses on the innovation management process at the project level from four views. These are categorised into the separate yet related areas of: “innovation definition”, “Project time”, “project team motivation” and “Project temporary organisation”. A practical knowledge is developed for each of these research areas that enables project practitioners to make the best decision for the right type of innovation at the right phase of projects, through a capable project organisation. The research developed a holistic view on both innovation and the construction infrastructure project as two complex phenomena. An infrastructure project is a long-term capital investment, highly risky and an uncertain. Infrastructure projects can play a key role in innovation and performance improvement throughout the construction industry. The delivery of an infrastructure project is affected in most cases by critical issues of budget constraint, programme delays and safety Where the business climate is characterized by uncertainty, risk and a high level of technological change, construction infrastructure projects are unable to cope with the requirement to develop innovation. Innovation in infrastructure projects, as one of the key performance indicators (KPI) has been identified as a critical capability for performance improvement through the industry. However, in spite of the importance of infrastructure projects in improving innovation, there are a few research efforts that have developed a comprehensive view on the project context and its drivers and inhibitors for innovation in the construction industry. Two main reasons are given as the inhibitors through the process of comprehensive research on innovation management in construction. The first reason is the absence of an understanding of innovation itself. The second is a bias towards research at a firm and individual level, so a comprehensive assessment of project-related factors and their effects on innovation in infrastructure projects has not been undertaken. This study overcomes these issues by adopting as a case study approach of a successful infrastructure project. This research examines more than 500 construction innovations generated by a unique infrastructure alliance. SCIRT (Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuild Team) is a temporary alliancing organisation that was created to rebuild and recover the damaged infrastructure after the Christchurch 2011 earthquake. Researchers were given full access to the innovation project information and innovation systems under a contract with SCIRT Learning Legacy, provided the research with material which is critical for understanding innovations in large, complex alliancing infrastructure organisation. In this research, an innovation classification model was first constructed. Clear definitions have been developed for six types of construction innovation with a variety of level of novelties and benefits. The innovation classification model was applied on the SCIRT innovation database and the resultant trends and behaviours of different types of innovation are presented. The trends and behaviours through different types of SCIRT innovations developed a unique opportunity to research the projectrelated factors and their effect on the behaviour of different classified types of innovation throughout the project’s lifecycle. The result was the identification of specific characteristics of an infrastructure project that affect the innovation management process at the project level. These were categorised in four separate chapters. The first study presents the relationship between six classified types of innovation, the level of novelty and the benefit they come up with, by applying the innovation classification model on SCIRT innovation database. The second study focused on the innovation potential and limitations in different project lifecycle phases by using a logic relationship between the six classified types of innovation and the three classified phases of the SCIRT project. The third study result develops a holistic view of different elements of the SCIRT motivation system and results in a relationship between the maturity level of definition developed for innovation as one of the KPIs and a desire though the SCIRT innovation incentive system to motivate more important innovations throughout the project. The fourth study is about the role of the project’s temporary organisation that finally results in a multiple-view innovation model being developed for project organisation capability assessment in the construction industry. The result of this thesis provides practical and instrumental knowledge to be used by a project practitioner. Benefits of the current thesis could be categorized in four groups. The first group is the innovation classification model that provides a clear definition for six classified types of innovation with four levels of novelty and specifically defined outcomes and the relationship between the innovation types, novelty and benefit. The second is the ability that is provided for the project practitioner to make the best decision for the right type of innovation at the right phases of a project’s lifecycle. The third is an optimisation that is applied on the SCIRT innovation motivation system that enables the project practitioner to incentivize the right type of innovation with the right level of financial gain. This drives the project teams to develop a more important innovation instead of a simple problemsolving one. Finally, the last and probably more important benefit is the recommended multiple-view innovation model. This is a tool that could be used by a project practitioner in order to empower the project team to support innovation throughout the project.
Questions to Ministers
1. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Finance: When he said recently "where the Government does have some influence, we are working hard to keep prices low", which prices was he referring to?
2. DAVID BENNETT to the Minister of Finance: What are some of the likely impacts on the Government's finances of the Christchurch earthquake?
3. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Acting Minister for Economic Development: Does he stand by all his statements on economic development?
4. Dr JACKIE BLUE to the Minister for ACC: How many claims has ACC received since the tragic earthquake on 22 February and what steps has the Government taken to facilitate prompt compensation for those seriously injured?
5. Hon MARYAN STREET to the Minister of Civil Defence: What is the basis for according priority to entry of the red zone in the Christchurch central business district?
6. NIKKI KAYE to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What support is the Government giving to non-government organisations in Christchurch affected by the earthquake?
7. Hon TREVOR MALLARD to the Prime Minister: What role did he or his department play in the decision to shift the Rugby World Cup quarter finals, from AMI Stadium to Eden Park?
8. JACQUI DEAN to the Minister of Corrections: What progress has been made toward the Government's commitment to encourage private sector investment in the New Zealand corrections system?
9. Hon DARREN HUGHES to the Minister for Tertiary Education: What specific policy changes has the Government made to increase the number of apprenticeships and other building-skills training programmes since the September Canterbury earthquake?
10. SUE KEDGLEY to the Minister of Commerce: Will he use his powers under Part 4 of the Commerce Act 1986 to call for an investigation into the dairy wholesale and retail milk market, following the release of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry's review of the domestic milk market in New Zealand; if not, why not?
11. CAROL BEAUMONT to the Minister of Women's Affairs: Does she support the retention of the stand-alone and independent Ministry of Women's Affairs?
12. JOHN HAYES to the Minister of Agriculture: What steps has the Government recently made to progress agricultural greenhouse gas research?
Six months after the 4 September 2010 Mw 7.1 Darfield (Canterbury) earthquake, a Mw 6.2 Christchurch (Lyttelton) aftershock struck Christchurch on the 22 February 2011. This earthquake was centred approximately 10km south-east of the Christchurch CBD at a shallow depth of 5km, resulting in intense seismic shaking within the Christchurch central business district (CBD). Unlike the 4 Sept earthquake when limited-to-moderate damage was observed in engineered reinforced concrete (RC) buildings [35], in the 22 February event a high number of RC Buildings in the Christchurch CBD (16.2 % out of 833) were severely damaged. There were 182 fatalities, 135 of which were the unfortunate consequences of the complete collapse of two mid-rise RC buildings. This paper describes immediate observations of damage to RC buildings in the 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquake. Some preliminary lessons are highlighted and discussed in light of the observed performance of the RC building stock. Damage statistics and typical damage patterns are presented for various configurations and lateral resisting systems. Data was collated predominantly from first-hand post-earthquake reconnaissance observations by the authors, complemented with detailed assessment of the structural drawings of critical buildings and the observed behaviour. Overall, the 22 February 2011 Mw 6.2 Christchurch earthquake was a particularly severe test for both modern seismically-designed and existing non-ductile RC buildings. The sequence of earthquakes since the 4 Sept 2010, particularly the 22 Feb event has confirmed old lessons and brought to life new critical ones, highlighting some urgent action required to remedy structural deficiencies in both existing and “modern” buildings. Given the major social and economic impact of the earthquakes to a country with strong seismic engineering tradition, no doubt some aspects of the seismic design will be improved based on the lessons from Christchurch. The bar needs to and can be raised, starting with a strong endorsement of new damage-resisting, whilst cost-efficient, technologies as well as the strict enforcement, including financial incentives, of active policies for the seismic retrofit of existing buildings at a national scale.
Questions to Ministers
1. JONATHAN YOUNG to the Minister of Finance: What advice has he received about factors that lie behind the current turmoil we are witnessing on world financial markets, and what are the implications for New Zealand?
2. KEVIN HAGUE to the Minister of Labour: Does she still agree, as she did on 13 July 2011, with the comment made by Rt Hon John Key on 22 November 2010 that "I have no reason to believe that New Zealand safety standards are any less than Australia's and in fact our safety record for the most part has been very good"?
3. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his answers to Oral Question No 1 yesterday when he said that the Leader of the Opposition is "just plain wrong" in relation to skills training?
4. KATRINA SHANKS to the Minister for the Environment: How have Government reforms to the Resource Management Act helped increase competition in the grocery business?
5. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE to the Attorney-General: Will he meet with earthquake victims' families to hear directly why they need independent legal representation; if not, why not?
6. Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that "I think the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research is referring to some longer-term issues around demographic change and healthcare costs, and we share the chief executive's concern"?
7. DARIEN FENTON to the Minister of Labour: What is the timeline of the ministerial inquiry into the treatment of foreign fishing crews in New Zealand waters?
8. CHRIS AUCHINVOLE to the Minister for Communications and Information Technology: What progress is being made on the Government's goal of delivering fast broadband to rural areas?
9. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Does he agree that an appropriate part of the "red zone" area along the Avon River through Christchurch should be transformed into a "green space" for memorial and recreational public purposes?
10. STUART NASH to the Minister of Finance: Does he believe the tax system is fair for all New Zealanders?
11. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What steps has the Government taken to manage gateways between benefits?
12. KELVIN DAVIS to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by all of her answers to Oral Question No 8 yesterday?
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?
The extent of liquefaction in the eastern suburbs of Christchurch (Aranui, Bexley, Avonside, Avonhead and Dallington) from the February 22 2011 Earthquake resulted in extensive damage to in-ground waste water pipe systems. This caused a huge demand for portable toilets (or port-a-loos) and companies were importing them from outside Canterbury and in some instances from Australia. However, because they were deemed “assets of importance” under legislation, their allocation had to be coordinated by Civil Defence and Emergency Management (CDEM). Consequently, companies supplying them had to ignore requests from residents, businesses and rest homes; and commitments to large events outside of the city such as the Hamilton 400 V8 Supercars and the Pasifika Festival in Auckland were impacted. Frustrations started to show as neighbourhoods questioned the equity of the port-a-loos distribution. The Prime Minister was reported as reassuring citizens in the eastern suburbs in the first week of March that1 “a report about the distribution of port-a-loos and chemical toilets shows allocation has been fair. Key said he has asked Civil Defence about the distribution process and where the toilets been sent. He said there aren’t enough for the scale of the event but that is quickly being rectified and the need for toilets is being reassessed all the time.” Nonetheless, there still remained a deep sense of frustration and exclusion over the equity of the port-a-loos distribution. This study took the simple approach of mapping where those port-a-loos were on 11-12 March for several areas in the eastern suburbs and this suggested that their distribution was not equitable and was not well done. It reviews the predictive tools available for estimating damage to waste water pipes and asks the question could this situation have been better planned so that pot-a-loo locations could have been better prioritised? And finally it reviews the integral roles of communication and monitoring as part of disaster management strategy. The impression from this study is that other New Zealand urban centres could or would also be at risk and that work is need to developed more rational management approaches for disaster planning.
TE URUROA FLAVELL to the Minister of Justice: Is she satisfied with the Electoral Commission's engagement with whanau, hapū, iwi and marae around the 2013 Māori Electoral Option; if so, what advice has she received that would explain why halfway through the process there are only 5,000 new enrolments?
DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: On what date was he, his office or the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet first informed that David Henry would not meet his deadline of the end of May as set out in the terms of reference for reporting back and what reason did Mr Henry provide for the delay?
KATRINA SHANKS to the Minister of Finance: What do recent indicators show about the economy's performance this year and its outlook for the next three to four years?
DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Has he received any information that shows foreign intelligence agencies are routinely collecting emails, other communication or location data on New Zealand citizens and residents while they are in New Zealand; if so, has the resulting information been passed on to the Government Communications Security Bureau?
ALFRED NGARO to the Minister of Education: What recent announcement has she made about achievement against National Standards?
METIRIA TUREI to the Minister for Economic Development: Will the Government sign the legal contract between it and SkyCity for the SkyCity Convention Centre this week; if not, when will it sign this agreement?
JAMI-LEE ROSS to the Minister of Housing: What policy conclusions, if any, does the Government draw from Priced Out – How New Zealand Lost its Housing Affordability and how consistent are its findings with those of the 2012 Productivity Commission Report on housing affordability?
Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his statements on health; if not, why not?
NICKY WAGNER to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: How will the Government support the redevelopment and repopulation of the Christchurch Central Business District following the Canterbury earthquakes?
CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of Education: Is she confident that the National Standards data being released today gives an accurate picture of student progress; if not, why not?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Did he discuss with David Henry the requirement for Mr Henry to see the full unedited electronic record connected with the Kitteridge report leak; if not, why not?
JOHN HAYES to the Minister of Customs: What information has he received regarding the success of automated passenger processing systems at the border?
In September 2010 and February 2011 the Canterbury region of New Zealand was struck by two powerful earthquakes, registering magnitude 7.1 and 6.3 respectively on the Richter scale. The second earthquake was centred 10 kilometres south-east of the centre of Christchurch (the region’s capital and New Zealand’s third most populous urban area, with approximately 360,000 residents) at a depth of five kilometres. 185 people were killed, making it the second deadliest natural disaster in New Zealand’s history. (66 people were killed in the collapse of one building alone, the six-storey Canterbury Television building.) The earthquake occurred during the lunch hour, increasing the number of people killed on footpaths and in buses and cars by falling debris. In addition to the loss of life, the earthquake caused catastrophic damage to both land and buildings in Christchurch, particularly in the central business district. Many commercial and residential buildings collapsed in the tremors; others were damaged through soil liquefaction and surface flooding. Over 1,000 buildings in the central business district were eventually demolished because of safety concerns, and an estimated 70,000 people had to leave the city after the earthquakes because their homes were uninhabitable. The New Zealand Government declared a state of national emergency, which stayed in force for ten weeks. In 2014 the Government estimated that the rebuild process would cost NZ$40 billion (approximately US$27.3 billion, a cost equivalent to 17% of New Zealand’s annual GDP). Economists now estimate it could take the New Zealand economy between 50 and 100 years to recover. The earthquakes generated tens of thousands of insurance claims, both against private home insurance companies and against the New Zealand Earthquake Commission, a government-owned statutory body which provides primary natural disaster insurance to residential property owners in New Zealand. These ranged from claims for hundreds of millions of dollars concerning the local port and university to much smaller claims in respect of the thousands of residential homes damaged. Many of these insurance claims resulted in civil proceedings, caused by disputes about policy cover, the extent of the damage and the cost and/or methodology of repairs, as well as failures in communication and delays caused by the overwhelming number of claims. Disputes were complicated by the fact that the Earthquake Commission provides primary insurance cover up to a monetary cap, with any additional costs to be met by the property owner’s private insurer. Litigation funders and non-lawyer claims advocates who took a percentage of any insurance proceeds also soon became involved. These two factors increased the number of parties involved in any given claim and introduced further obstacles to resolution. Resolving these disputes both efficiently and fairly was (and remains) central to the rebuild process. This created an unprecedented challenge for the justice system in Christchurch (and New Zealand), exacerbated by the fact that the Christchurch High Court building was itself damaged in the earthquakes, with the Court having to relocate to temporary premises. (The High Court hears civil claims exceeding NZ$200,000 in value (approximately US$140,000) or those involving particularly complex issues. Most of the claims fell into this category.) This paper will examine the response of the Christchurch High Court to this extraordinary situation as a case study in innovative judging practices and from a jurisprudential perspective. In 2011, following the earthquakes, the High Court made a commitment that earthquake-related civil claims would be dealt with as swiftly as the Court's resources permitted. In May 2012, it commenced a special “Earthquake List” to manage these cases. The list (which is ongoing) seeks to streamline the trial process, resolve quickly claims with precedent value or involving acute personal hardship or large numbers of people, facilitate settlement and generally work proactively and innovatively with local lawyers, technical experts and other stakeholders. For example, the Court maintains a public list (in spreadsheet format, available online) with details of all active cases before the Court, listing the parties and their lawyers, summarising the facts and identifying the legal issues raised. It identifies cases in which issues of general importance have been or will be decided, with the expressed purpose being to assist earthquake litigants and those contemplating litigation and to facilitate communication among parties and lawyers. This paper will posit the Earthquake List as an attempt to implement innovative judging techniques to provide efficient yet just legal processes, and which can be examined from a variety of jurisprudential perspectives. One of these is as a case study in the well-established debate about the dialogic relationship between public decisions and private settlement in the rule of law. Drawing on the work of scholars such as Hazel Genn, Owen Fiss, David Luban, Carrie Menkel-Meadow and Judith Resnik, it will explore the tension between the need to develop the law through the doctrine of precedent and the need to resolve civil disputes fairly, affordably and expeditiously. It will also be informed by the presenter’s personal experience of the interplay between reported decisions and private settlement in post-earthquake Christchurch through her work mediating insurance disputes. From a methodological perspective, this research project itself gives rise to issues suitable for discussion at the Law and Society Annual Meeting. These include the challenges in empirical study of judges, working with data collected by the courts and statistical analysis of the legal process in reference to settlement. September 2015 marked the five-year anniversary of the first Christchurch earthquake. There remains widespread dissatisfaction amongst Christchurch residents with the ongoing delays in resolving claims, particularly insurers, and the rebuild process. There will continue to be challenges in Christchurch for years to come, both from as-yet unresolved claims but also because of the possibility of a new wave of claims arising from poor quality repairs. Thus, a final purpose of presenting this paper at the 2016 Meeting is to gain the benefit of other scholarly perspectives and experiences of innovative judging best practice, with a view to strengthening and improving the judicial processes in Christchurch. This Annual Meeting of the Law and Society Association in New Orleans is a particularly appropriate forum for this paper, given the recent ten year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina and the plenary session theme of “Natural and Unnatural Disasters – human crises and law’s response.” The presenter has a personal connection with this theme, as she was a Fulbright scholar from New Zealand at New York University in 2005/2006 and participated in the student volunteer cleanup effort in New Orleans following Katrina. http://www.lawandsociety.org/NewOrleans2016/docs/2016_Program.pdf
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.
