Questions to Ministers 1. DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement in the House yesterday, in answer to Oral Question No 2, that his Government is selling assets because "New Zealanders want less debt, more productive assets, and an economy that is going to function, not a load more debt"? 2. PAUL GOLDSMITH to the Minister for Economic Development: What progress is the Government making in implementing its economic growth agenda? 3. PHIL TWYFORD to the Minister of Transport: Does the Government consider it important for its transport spending to be cost-effective and provide a good return on investment? 4. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: What, according to the Crown Ownership Monitoring Unit, was the average total shareholder return of Genesis, Meridian, Mighty River Power and Solid Energy over the last five years and how does that compare to the average cost of borrowing to the Government right now? 5. NICKY WAGNER to the Minister of Local Government: What reports has he received on how much rates increased nationally in the decade since the Local Government Act 2002 and how does this compare to the previous decade? 6. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister for the Environment: Does he stand by his statement made in the House yesterday in relation to the grounding of the Rena that "the statute sets down very clearly that I as Minister for the Environment should not be encouraging or discouraging a proper, independent decision by Environment Bay of Plenty as to whether they should or should not take a prosecution"? 7. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI to the Minister of Broadcasting: What recent announcements has the Government made on progress towards digital switchover? 8. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he still have confidence in all his Ministers? 9. Hon LIANNE DALZIEL to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: How many written comments were received on the draft Recovery Plan for the Christchurch CBD and is it his intention to consider them all before making a decision on the draft Recovery Plan for the CBD, in accordance with the process set out on the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority's website? 10. MELISSA LEE to the Minister of Internal Affairs: What recent steps have there been to promote New Zealand citizenship as a successful settlement pathway for migrants? 11. CLARE CURRAN to the Minister of Broadcasting: Does he stand by the Prime Minister's statement in relation to the appointment of the Prime Minister's electorate chairman Stephen McElrea to the NZ On Air board that "if you look at the vast array of appointments we make, I think the balance is about right"? 12. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY to the Minister of Education: Will she rule out implementing Treasury's advice to increase class sizes in schools?
This thesis explores the discussions and perspectives of Christchurch secondary school students in regards to their particular experiences and engagement with Anzac. In this thesis I seek to rigorously and robustly examine these viewpoints through semi-structured focus group interviews and thematic analysis. I seek to situate these youth perspectives within wider debates around Anzac mythology and Anzac resurgence in New Zealand which often do not represent the youth outlook. These debates are seen, on the one hand, to present a resurgence of youth engagement with Anzac and, on the other hand, to present the idea that Anzac has become an exclusionary myth which distorts Australians’ and New Zealanders’ understanding of wider Anzac experiences and educates them in a narrow, militarised way. Youth engagement with Anzac was not something which could be solely situated under either of these debates and, instead, it was seen to be multifaceted and made up of unique ideas and elements. The youth in my study acknowledged that their Anzac education did have mythic elements which made it hard for them to engage with Anzac despite the fact that they were actually interested in learning and understanding it. These mythic elements were the idea that Anzac is taught as a ‘simple narrative’ which does not allow room for critique, that it emphasises a link between Anzac and national identity, that it disregards many alternative Anzac experiences and that it presents a particular New Zealand identity to internalise. These students responded to their mythic Anzac education in a very active way, and instead of accepting it as truth, they were able to have constructive and critical conversations about their education and push against parts of it which they found to be too narrow or skewed in particular directions based on gender, ethnicity and national identity. The students were not passive vessels which internalised their Anzac education as fact; instead, they were able to acknowledge the mythic elements of their education and its negative influence in the classroom. This thesis went further in exploring what factors were seen to enhance this active process of critique and provide students with alternative knowledge and perspectives about Anzac. These factors were ancestral ties to Anzac, research into personal Anzac stories and experiences, unassessed educational units, centenary discussions, an understanding of hardship through the earthquakes and alternative perspectives of the Anzac experience through access to the internet. These factors presented a broader understanding of Anzac perspectives and experiences and students believed that if the mythic elements of their education could be revised and these elements encouraged then their engagement with Anzac would continue long into the future.
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.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements? DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements? PAUL GOLDSMITH to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on business and economic conditions in New Zealand? Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his answer to written question 07314 (2013) when he said: "The inquiry team, itself, did not seek permission from Peter Dunne before it obtained his email logs" and does he think it should have? SIMON O'CONNOR to the Minister of Transport: How will the Government progress the delivery of the next generation of transport projects for Auckland? Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: Are the proceeds from selling power companies and other assets being used to pay down debt, to build schools and hospitals, to fund irrigation projects, to rebuild Christchurch, or to fund Auckland transport projects? IAN McKELVIE to the Minister of Police: What updates has she received on how Police are using technology to prevent crime? JACINDA ARDERN to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with The Economist that "inequality is one of the biggest social, economic and political challenges of our time"; if so, what is his Government doing to address the fact that New Zealand now has the widest income gap since detailed records began? PAUL FOSTER-BELL to the Minister of Justice: How is the Government improving its justice and other services to local communities? Hon LIANNE DALZIEL to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: When was he first made aware of the September IANZ report which warned the Christchurch City Council that "Continued accreditation beyond May 2013 will depend on a satisfactory outcome of that assessment" and was he advised by CERA or a Ministerial colleague? JONATHAN YOUNG to the Minister of Broadcasting: What progress has been made on the regional rollout of the digital switchover for New Zealand television viewers? GARETH HUGHES to the Minister of Conservation: Will he implement the recommendations to protect Maui's dolphins contained in the report of this year's meeting of the International Whaling Commission Scientific Committee; if not, why not Questions to Members JACINDA ARDERN to the Chairperson of the Social Services Committee: On which date and time, if any, did he receive the Minister for Social Development's written responses to the pre-hearing questions for the 2013/14 Estimates review for Vote Social Development? JACINDA ARDERN to the Chairperson of the Social Services Committee: On what date did the Minister for Social Development appear before the Committee to answer questions regarding the 2013/14 Estimates review for Vote Social Development? Dr MEGAN WOODS to the Chairperson of the Education and Science Committee: Did he consider inviting the Minister to appear again to answer questions around responses to questions on the 2013/14 Estimates for Vote Education, if so, did he receive any advice about the Minister's willingness to appear again?
TODD McCLAY to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he received on the Government’s financial position? Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “if you go and have a look at the tax cuts, they literally were neutral” and, if so, what is the projected net cost of the first four years of the 2010 tax package? DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers? Dr PAUL HUTCHISON to the Associate Minister of Health: How will young New Zealanders receive better mental health services under the new Government package announced by the Prime Minister today? Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister for Land Information: Has he or any other Minister this week sought further information on Shanghai Pengxin’s application for his approval to buy the Crafar farms, and if so, is it coincidence or purpose that this will further delay his decision on the application? NIKKI KAYE to the Minister of Education: What initiatives is she introducing to help schools tackle youth mental health? JULIE ANNE GENTER to the Minister of Transport: Has the Government reviewed its highway building programme in light of the warning in the briefing to the incoming Minister that there will be a $4.9 billion funding shortfall if oil prices remain high and economic growth remains low; if not, why not? CHARLES CHAUVEL to the Minister of Justice: Does she stand by all the answers she has given to questions asked of her to date? NICKY WAGNER to the Minister for Economic Development: What action has the Government taken to contribute to the recovery of high-tech businesses in Christchurch? Hon LIANNE DALZIEL to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: When will he approve a Recovery Plan for Christchurch’s CBD in light of the Christchurch City Council’s announcement that it will commence its Annual Plan processes next week? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in the Overseas Investment Office and his Ministers, Hon Jonathan Coleman and Hon Maurice Williamson over the issue of the latest Crafar farms deal; if so, why? CLARE CURRAN to the Prime Minister: What did he mean when he told the NZ Herald and other media last week that “We are comfortable with the current arrangements we have” with regards to Chinese telco Huawei’s involvement in our national broadband infrastructure, given that Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard also said last week that “We’ve taken a decision in the national interest” to ban Huawei from even tendering for its broadband network? Questions to Members Hon DAVID PARKER to the Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee: Is it his intention to call the Treasury to appear before the committee to comment on the Report from the Controller and Auditor-General on The Treasury: Implementing and managing the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme; if not, why not?
Worldwide turbidity is a huge concern for the health of aquatic ecosystems. Human activities on the land such as construction, deforestation, agriculture, and mining all have impacts on the amount of particulate solids that enter the world’s waterways. These particulate solids can pose a number of risks to aquatic life, but primary among them is the turbidity that they create in the water column. The way suspended solids interact with light creates cloudiness in the water which interferes with the vision, and visually mediated behaviours of aquatic organisms, particularly fish. The Avon-Heathcote estuary of Christchurch, New Zealand, is one such body of water that is subject to tremendous variation in turbidity, no doubt exacerbated by the destruction of Christchurch in the 2010 and 2011 earthquakes, as well as the subsequent ongoing rebuild. The yellow eyed mullet, Aldrichetta Forsteri, is one species that is common with the estuary, and uses it as a habitat for breeding. Though very common throughout New Zealand, and even a part of the catch of commercial fisheries, the yellow eyed mullet is a largely unstudied organism, with virtually no published scientific enquiry based on the species. The present work assesses how several behaviours of the yellow eyed mullet are effected by acute turbidity at 10, 50, 90, 130 and 170 NTU, finding that: 1) The optomotor response of mullet to 2.5 mm stripes drops to insignificant levels between 10 and 50 NTU, 2) The swimming activity of the yellow eyed mullet is highest at 10 NTU and drops to a significantly lower level at higher turbidities, 3) The grouping behaviour of small groups of yellow eyed mullet are unchanged by increasing turbidity levels, 4) that yellow eyed mullet do not exhibit significantly different behavioural response to a simulated predator at any of the tested turbidities, and 5) that yellow eyed mullet to do significantly alter their oxygen consumption during exposure to the turbidities in an increasing series. The results presented in these studies indicate that turbidites above 50 NTU pose a significant risk to the lifestyle of the yellow eyed mullet, potentially impacting their ability to perceive their surroundings, feed, school, and avoid predation. Future work has a lot of ground to cover to more precisely determine the relationship between yellow eyed mullet behaviour and physiology, and the turbidity of their environment. In particular, future work should focus more closely on the turbidities between 10 and 50 NTU, as well as looking to field work to see what the predominant predators of the mullet are, and specifically whether turbidity increases or decreases the risk of mullet being subject to avian predation. There is also considerable scope for studies on the effects of chronic turbidity upon mullet, which will add understand to the predicament of escalating turbidity and its effects upon this common and yet mysterious native fish.
Questions to Ministers 1. Hon RODNEY HIDE to the Acting Minister of Energy and Resources: Does she accept her Ministry's advice that the value of New Zealand's onshore minerals excluding hydrocarbons is $194 billion overall with $80 billion estimated in Schedule 4 land; if so, what plans does the Government have to allow their development? 2. Hon PHIL GOFF to the Minister for the Rugby World Cup: What advice has the Prime Minister, the Government or Rugby New Zealand 2011 been given on Christchurch's ability to host Rugby World Cup matches later this year? 3. CHESTER BORROWS to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the economy's prospects after New Zealand meets the immediate challenges of the Christchurch earthquake? 4. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Minister for Communications and Information Technology: Would he indicate his agreement to a further extension, if it were required, to the report back date for the Telecommunications (TSO, Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill? 5. TE URUROA FLAVELL to the Minister of Agriculture: Is he concerned to learn that New Zealand's first majority Māori-owned dairy company, Miraka, has reportedly stated that there is a serious risk that Fonterra's proposed Trading Among Farmers exchange will be illiquid, volatile and unstable; if so, what assurances can he give Miraka and other dairy processors and industry groups, that anti-competitive behaviour will not be tolerated? 6. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Acting Minister for Economic Development: Has he been advised by the Prime Minister whether his appointment as Acting Minister for Economic Development is temporary or expected to carry on to the election? 7. JO GOODHEW to the Minister of Education: What progress has been made on re-opening Christchurch schools and early childhood education centres since the 22 February earthquake? 8. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Health: Does he favour the sale of any public hospitals in New Zealand; if so, which one or ones? 9. SIMON BRIDGES to the Minister for Building and Construction: What advice has he received from the Department of Building and Housing regarding last month's Christchurch earthquake? 10. DARIEN FENTON to the Minister of Labour: What factors did she consider in deciding to increase the minimum wage by 25 cents from 1 April in her latest review? 11. CHRIS TREMAIN to the Minister of Transport: What progress has been made on roading projects in the Hawke's Bay region? 12. GARETH HUGHES to the Minister of Finance: What steps, if any, is he taking to reduce New Zealand's economic vulnerability that stems from dependence on oil? Questions to Members 1. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee: How many submissions have been received so far on the Telecommunications (TSO, Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill? 2. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee: How many submitters on the Telecommunications (TSO, Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill have requested an oral hearing? 3. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee: Is he aware of any complaints about times allocated to submitters on the Telecommunications (TSO, Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill?
Picture this, you are relaxing at home enjoying the afternoon sun. It is another beautiful Christchurch day in late 2017. There is a knock at the door, you’ve been expecting it. It is a member of the Christchurch Health and Development Study, here to conduct your prearranged interview. The interview request did not come as a surprise of course, you have been participating in these interviews yourself sporadically throughout your adult life, and prior to that you attended many alongside your parents. In fact, you have been answering the studies interview your whole life. Transcripts of these interviews sit in the studies database alongside copies of school reports, health records and a wealth of other information. It has been this way since birth, since your mother was approached back in 1977, not long after you had arrived in this world, and asked if she would consent to participating in the study. She, along with many other Cantabrian new mothers from that year, agreed and the Christchurch Health and Development Study was born. Since then, these interviews have become a matter of routine for you. As life went on many things changed, but one thing that was constant was the sporadic visit from an interviewer of the study. The current interview is a little different from most of the others, however. Last time an interviewer visited in 2012, you were asked if you would like to conduct an earthquake-specific interview, you agreed. This time, the same question was asked. Why? Well because you were there that day of course. The day of the 22nd February 2011 when a major earthquake struck Canterbury. You were there in the centre of the city as buildings came crashing down and people ran for safety. You were there for the chaos. Your knee dully aches, it never did quite heal properly and strangely seems to flare up whenever you think back to that day. A lasting reminder. It is a difficult subject, but you agree to the second earthquake-specific interview. You understand the purpose of the study, and the value of the data collected. You take a sip of the cup of tea politely made upon the interviewer’s arrival, lean back into the comfort of your couch and cast your mind back to that fateful day. So, what does this study mean? Why still participate, all these years later? Over time it has become more apparent as to how valuable this information could be, considering all the experiences through the life course, and to think of the experiences that others in the cohort have had too. How differently have events affected people from all walks of life, who just so happened to be born within the same few months. We can use the data from this study to better understand situations when using life course characteristics which can hopefully influence decision making and population health within New Zealand.