A video of a presentation by Richard Conlin during the Community Resilience Stream of the 2016 People in Disasters Conference. The presentation is titled, "Resilience, Poverty, and Seismic Culture".The abstract for this presentation reads as follows: A strategy of resilience is built around the recognition that effective emergency response requires community involvement and mobilization. It further recognizes that many of the characteristics that equip communities to respond most effectively to short term emergencies are also characteristics that build strong communities over the long term. Building resilient communities means integrating our approaches to poverty, community engagement, economic development, and housing into a coherent strategy that empowers community members to engage with each other and with other communities. In this way, resilience becomes a complementary concept to sustainability. This requires an asset-based change strategy where external agencies meet communities where they are, in their own space, and use collective impact approaches to work in partnership. This also requires understanding and assessing poverty, including physical, financial, and social capital in their myriad manifestations. Poverty is not exclusively a matter of class. It is a complex subject, and different communities manifest multiple versions of poverty, which must be respected and understood through the asset-based lens. Resilience is a quality of a community and a system, and develops over time as a result of careful analysis of strengths and vulnerabilities and taking actions to increase competencies and reduce risk situations. Resilience requires maintenance and must be developed in a way that includes practicing continuous improvement and adaptation. The characteristics of a resilient community include both physical qualities and 'soft infrastructure', such as community knowledge, resourcefulness, and overall health. This presentation reviews the experience of some earlier disasters, outlines a working model of how emergency response, resilience, and poverty interact and can be addressed in concert, and concludes with a summary of what the 2010 Chilean earthquake tells us about how a 'seismic culture' can function effectively in communities even when government suffers from unexpected shortcomings.
A video of a presentation by Jane Morgan and Annabel Begg during the Social Recovery Stream of the 2016 People in Disasters Conference. The presentation is titled, "Monitoring Social Recovery in Greater Christchurch".The abstract for this presentation reads as follows: This presentation provides an overview of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority's Social Recovery Lessons and Legacy project. This project was commissioned in 2014 and completed in December 2015. It had three main aims: to capture Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority's role in social recovery after the Canterbury earthquakes, to identify lessons learned, and to disseminate these lessons to future recovery practitioners. The project scope spanned four Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority work programmes: The Residential Red Zone, the Social and Cultural Outcomes, the Housing Programme, and the Community Resilience Programme. Participants included both Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority employees, people from within a range of regional and national agencies, and community and public sector organisations who worked with Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority over time. The presentation will outline the origin and design of the project, and present some key findings.
A video of a presentation by Garry Williams during the fourth plenary of the 2016 People in Disasters Conference. Williams is the Programme Manager of the Ministry of Education's Greater Christchurch Education Renewal Programme. The presentation is titled, "Education Renewal: A section response to the February 2011 Christchurch earthquake".The abstract for this presentation reads as follows: The Canterbury earthquakes caused a disaster recovery situation unparalleled in New Zealand's history. In addition to widespread damage to residential dwellings and destruction of Christchurch's central business district, the earthquakes damaged more than 200 schools from Hurunui in the north, to the Mackenzie District in the east, and Timaru in the south. The impact on education provision was substantial, with the majority of early childhood centres, schools and tertiary providers experiencing damage or subsequent, with the majority of early childhood centres, schools and tertiary providers experiencing damage or subsequent operational issues caused by the ensuing migration of people. Following the February earthquake, over 12,000 students had left the school they had been attending and enrolled elsewhere - often at a school outside the region. Shortened school days and compression of teaching into short periods meant shift-sharing students engaged in the curriculum being delivered in more diverse ways. School principals and staff reported increased fatigue and stress and changes in student behaviours, often related to repeated exposure to and ongoing reminders of the trauma of the earthquakes. While there has been a shift from direct, trauma-related presentations to the indirect effects of psychological adversity and daily life stresses, international experiences tells us that psychological recovery generally lags behind the immediate physical recovery and rebuilding. The Ministries of Health and Education and the Canterbury District Health Board have developed and implemented a joint action plan to address specifically the emerging mental health issues for youth in Canterbury. However, the impact of vulnerable and stressed adults on children's behaviour contributes to the overall impact of ongoing wellbeing issues on the educational outcomes for the community. There is substantial evidence supporting the need to focus on adults' resilience so they can support children and youth. Much of the Ministry's work around supporting children under stress is through supporting the adults responsible for teaching them and leading their schools. The education renewal programme exists to assist education communities to rebuild and look toward renewal. The response to the earthquakes provides a significant opportunity to better meet the needs and aspirations of children and youth people. All the parents want to see their children eager to learn, achieving success, and gaining knowledge and skills that will, in time, enable them to become confident, adaptable, economically independent adults. But this is not always the case, hence our approach to education renewal seeks to address inequities and improve outcome, while prioritising actions that will have a positive impact on learners in greatest need of assistance.
A video of a presentation by Bridget Tehan and Sharon Tortonson during the Community and Social Recovery Stream of the 2016 People in Disasters Conference. The presentation is titled, "Community and Social Service Organisations in Emergencies and Disasters in Australia and New Zealand".The abstract for this presentation reads as follows: What happens when support services for issues such as mental health, foster care or homelessness are impacted by a disaster? What happens to their staff? What happens to their clients? The community sector is a unique, valuable and diverse component of Australasian economy and society. Through its significant numbers of employees and volunteers, its diversity, the range of service and advocacy programs it delivers, and the wide range of people it supports, it delivers value to communities and strengthens society. The community and social services sector builds resilience daily through services to aged care, child welfare and disability, domestic violence, housing and homelessness, and mental health care. The sector's role is particularly vital in assisting disadvantaged people and communities. For many, community sector organisations are their primary connection to the broader community and form the basis of their resilience to everyday adversity, as well as in times of crisis. However, community sector organisations are particularly vulnerable in a major emergency or disaster. Australian research shows that the most community sector organisations are highly vulnerable and unprepared for emergencies. This lack of preparedness can have impacts on service delivery, business continuity, and the wellbeing of clients. The consequences of major disruptions to the provision of social services to vulnerable people are serious and could be life-threatening in a disaster. This presentation will review the Victorian Council of Social Service (Australia) and Social Equity and Wellbeing Network (formerly the Christchurch Council of Social Services) records on the impacts of emergencies on community sector organisations, staff, and clients. From the discussion of records, recommendations will be presented that could improve the resilience of this crucial sector.
NUK KORAKO to the Minister of Finance: How does New Zealand’s growing economy and the Government’s commitment to responsible fiscal management mean New Zealand is well-placed to respond to the Kaikōura earthquake?
ANDREW LITTLE to the Prime Minister: Has he spoken to relevant Ministers about the lessons learned from the Canterbury earthquakes to ensure people affected by the recent earthquakes have an easier and faster recovery?
STUART SMITH to the Minister of Civil Defence: What update can he provide about the Government’s response to the Kaikōura earthquake?
RON MARK to the Prime Minister: Can he update the House on the situation in quake-affected areas in the South Island?
JAMES SHAW to the Prime Minister: Is he committed to all his Government’s policies?
Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement that following the Valentine’s Day earthquake this year in Canterbury, “it was timely to review whether any additional mental health and wellbeing support was needed”; if so, will he consider reviewing whether any additional support is needed for Canterbury and Nelson-Marlborough district health boards as a result of the recent earthquakes?
JACQUI DEAN to the Minister of Transport: What updates has he received on damage to transport infrastructure following the Kaikōura earthquake?
JAN LOGIE to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: What is his response to yesterday’s call from members of the Joint Working Group on Pay Equity Principles for the Government to “immediately right this historic wrong and implement the JWG principles”?
JACINDA ARDERN to the Minister for Economic Development: When is he likely to announce a recovery or support package for small businesses in earthquake-affected areas?
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI to the Minister of Police: What are New Zealand Police doing to support the Kaikōura community?
CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of Education: When did she first discuss the potential impact of Monday’s 7.5 earthquake on NCEA and Scholarship exams with the New Zealand Qualifications Authority?
IAN McKELVIE to the Minister for Primary Industries: What recent reports has he received on the impact of the recent earthquakes on the primary sector?
A video of a presentation by Dr Sarah Beaven during the Social Recovery Stream of the 2016 People in Disasters Conference. The presentation is titled, "Leading and Coordinating Social Recovery: Lessons from a central recovery agency".The abstract for this presentation reads as follows: This presentation provides an overview of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority's Social Recovery Lessons and Legacy project. This project was commissioned in 2014 and completed in December 2015. It had three main aims: to capture Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority's role in social recovery after the Canterbury earthquakes, to identify lessons learned, and to disseminate these lessons to future recovery practitioners. The project scope spanned four Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority work programmes: The Residential Red Zone, the Social and Cultural Outcomes, the Housing Programme, and the Community Resilience Programme. Participants included both Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority employees, people from within a range of regional and national agencies, and community and public sector organisations who worked with Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority over time. The presentation will outline the origin and design of the project, and present some key findings.
A video of a presentation by Ian Campbell, Executive General Manager of the Stronger Christchurch Rebuild Team (SCIRT), during the third plenary of the 2016 People in Disasters Conference. The presentation is titled, "Putting People at the Heart of the Rebuild".The abstract for this presentation reads: On the face of it, the Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuild Team (SCIRT) is an organisation created to engineer and carry out approximately $2B of repairs to physical infrastructure over a 5-year period. Our workforce consists primarily of engineers and constructors who came from far and wide after the earthquakes to 'help fix Christchurch'. But it was not the technical challenges that drew them all here. It was the desire and ambition expressed in the SCIRT 'what we are here for' statement: 'to create resilient infrastructure that gives people security and confidence in the future of Christchurch'. For the team at SCIRT, people are at the heart of our rebuild programme. This is recognised in the intentional approach SCIRT takes to all aspects of its work. The presentation will touch upon how SCIRT communicated with communities affected by our work and how we planned and coordinated the programme to minimise the impacts, while maximising the value for both the affected communities and the taxpayers of New Zealand and rate payers of Christchurch funding it. The presentation will outline SCIRT's very intentional approach to supporting, developing, connecting, and enabling our people to perform, individually, and collectively, in the service of providing the best outcome for the people of Christchurch and New Zealand.
A video of a presentation by Dr Scott Miles during the Community Resilience Stream of the 2016 People in Disasters Conference. The presentation is titled, "A Community Wellbeing Centric Approach to Disaster Resilience".The abstract for this presentation reads as follows: A higher bar for advancing community disaster resilience can be set by conducting research and developing capacity-building initiatives that are based on understanding and monitoring community wellbeing. This presentation jumps off from this view, arguing that wellbeing is the most important concept for improving the disaster resilience of communities. The presentation uses examples from the 2010 and 2011 Canterbury earthquakes to illustrate the need and effectiveness of a wellbeing-centric approach. While wellbeing has been integrated in the Canterbury recovery process, community wellbeing and resilience need to guide research and planning. The presentation unpacks wellbeing in order to synthesize it with other concepts that are relevant to community disaster resilience. Conceptualizing wellbeing as either the opportunity for or achievement of affiliation, autonomy, health, material needs, satisfaction, and security is common and relatively accepted across non-disaster fields. These six variables can be systematically linked to fundamental elements of resilience. The wellbeing variables are subject to potential loss, recovery, and adaptation based on the empirically established ties to community identity, such as sense of place. Variables of community identity are what translate the disruption, damage, restoration, reconstruction, and reconfiguration of a community's different critical services and capital resources to different states of wellbeing across a community that has been impacted by a hazard event. With reference to empirical research and the Canterbury case study, the presentation integrates these insights into a robust framework to facilitate meeting the challenge of raising the standard of community disaster resilience research and capacity building through development of wellbeing-centric approaches.
A video of a presentation by Dr Duncan Webb, Partner at Lane Neave, during the third plenary of the 2016 People in Disasters Conference. The presentation is titled, "Loss of Trust and other Earthquake Damage".The abstract for this presentation reads as follows: It was predictable that the earthquakes which hit the Canterbury region in 2010 and 2011 caused trauma. However, it was assumed that recovery would be significantly assisted by governmental agencies and private insurers. The expectation was that these organisations would relieve the financial pressures and associated anxiety caused by damage to property. Some initiatives did exactly that. However, there are many instances where difficulties with insurance and related issues have exacerbated the adverse effects of the earthquakes on people's wellness. In some cases, stresses around property issues have become and independent source of extreme anxiety and have had significant impacts on the quality of people's lives. Underlying this problem is a breakdown in trust between citizen and state, and insurer and insured. This has led to a pervading concern that entitlements are being denied. While such concerns are sometimes well founded, an approach which is premised on mistrust is frequently highly conflicted, costly, and often leads to worse outcomes. Professor Webb will discuss the nature and causes of these difficulties including: the complexity of insurance and repair issues, the organisational ethos of the relevant agencies, the hopes of homeowners and the practical gap which commonly arises between homeowner expectation and agency response. Observations will be offered on how the adverse effects of these issues can be overcome in dealing with claimants, and how such matters can be managed in a way which promotes the wellness of individuals.
A video of a presentation by Associate Professor John Vargo during the fifth plenary of the 2016 People in Disasters Conference. Vargo is a senior researcher and co-leader of the Resilient Organisations Research Programme at the University of Canterbury. The presentation is titled, "Organisational Resilience is more than just Business Continuity".The abstract for this presentation reads as follows: Business Continuity Management is well-established process in many larger organisations and a key element in their emergency planning. Research carried out by resilient organisations follow the 2010 and 2011 Canterbury Earthquakes show that most small organisations did not have a business continuity plan (BCP), yet many of these organisations did survive the massive disruptions following the earthquakes. They were resilient to these catastrophic events, but in the absence of a BCP. This research also found that many of the organisations with BCP's, struggled to use them effectively when facing real events that did not align with the BCP. Although the BCPs did a good job of preparing organisations to deal with technology and operational disruptions, there was virtually no coverage for the continuity of people. Issues surrounding staff welfare and engagement were amongst the most crucial issues faced by Canterbury organisations, yet impacts of societal and personal disruption did not feature in BCPs. Resilience is a systematic way of looking at how an organization can survive a crisis and thrive in an uncertain world. Business continuity is an important aspect for surviving the crisis, but it is only part of the bigger picture addressed by organisational resilience. This presentation will show how organizational experiences in the Canterbury earthquakes support the need to move to a 'Business Continuity' for the '21st Century', one that incorporates more aspects of resilience, especially the 'people' areas of leadership, culture, staff welfare, and engagement.
Recycling is often employed as part of a disaster waste management system. However, the feasibility, method and effectiveness of recycling varies between disaster events. This qualitative study is based on literature reviews, expert interviews and active participatory research of five international disaster events in developed countries (2009 Victorian Bushfires, Australia; 2009 L’Aquila earthquake, Italy; 2005 Hurricane Katrina, United States; 2010 and 2011 Canterbury earthquakes, New Zealand; 2011 Great East Japan earthquake) to answer three questions: What are the main factors that affect the feasibility of recycling post-disaster? When is on-site or off-site separation more effective? What management approaches improve recycling effectiveness? Seven disaster-specific factors need to be assessed to determine the feasibility of disaster waste recycling programmes: volume of waste; degree of mixing of waste; human and environmental health hazards; areal extent of the waste; community priorities; funding mechanisms; and existing and disaster-specific regulations. The appropriateness of on or off-site waste separation depends on four factors: time constraints; resource availability; degree of mixing of waste and human and public health hazards. Successful recycling programmes require good management including clear and well enforced policies (through good contracts or regulations) and pre-event planning. Further research into post-disaster recycling markets, funding mechanisms and recycling in developing countries is recommended.
A video of a presentation by Matthew Pratt during the Resilience and Response Stream of the 2016 People in Disasters Conference. The presentation is titled, "Investing in Connectedness: Building social capital to save lives and aid recovery".The abstract for this presentation reads as follows: Traditionally experts have developed plans to prepare communities for disasters. This presentation discusses the importance of relationship-building and social capital in building resilient communities that are both 'prepared' to respond to disaster events, and 'enabled' to lead their own recovery. As a member of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority's Community Resilience Team, I will present the work I undertook to catalyse community recovery. I will draw from case studies of initiatives that have built community connectedness, community capacity, and provided new opportunities for social cohesion and neighbourhood planning. I will compare three case studies that highlight how social capital can aid recovery. Investment in relationships is crucial to aid preparedness and recovery.
A video of a presentation by Jane Murray and Stephen Timms during the Social Recovery Stream of the 2016 People in Disasters Conference. The presentation is titled, "Land Use Recovery Plan: How an impact assessment process engaged communities in recovery planning".The abstract for this presentation reads as follows: In response to the Canterbury earthquakes, the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery directed Environment Canterbury (Canterbury's regional council) to prepare a Land Use Recovery Plan that would provide a spatial planning framework for Greater Christchurch and aid recovery from the Canterbury earthquakes. The Land Use Recovery Plan sets a policy and planning framework necessary to rebuild existing communities and develop new communities. As part of preparing the plan, an integrated assessment was undertaken to address wellbeing and sustainability concerns. This ensured that social impacts of the plan were likely to achieve better outcomes for communities. The process enabled a wide range of community and sector stakeholders to provide input at the very early stages of drafting the document. The integrated assessment considered the treatment of major land use issues in the plan, e.g. overall distribution of activities across the city, integrated transport routes, housing typography, social housing, employment and urban design, all of which have a key impact on health and wellbeing. Representatives from the Canterbury Health in All Policies Partnership were involved in designing a three-part assessment process that would provide a framework for the Land Use Recovery Plan writers to assess and improve the plan in terms of wellbeing and sustainability concerns. The detail of these assessment stages, and the influence that they had on the draft plan, will be outlined in the presentation. In summary, the three stages involved: developing key wellbeing and sustainability concerns that could form a set of criteria, analysing the preliminary draft of the Land Use Recovery Plan against the criteria in a broad sector workshop, and analysing the content and recommendations of the Draft Plan. This demonstrates the importance of integrated assessment influencing the Land Use Recovery Plan that in turn influences other key planning documents such as the District Plan. This process enabled a very complex document with wide-ranging implications to be broken down, enabling many groups, individuals and organisations to have their say in the recovery process. There is also a range of important lessons for recovery that can be applied to other projects and actions in a disaster recovery situation.
A video of a presentation by Dr Lesley Campbell during the Community and Social Recovery Stream of the 2016 People in Disasters Conference. The presentation is titled, "Canterbury Family Violence Collaboration: An innovative response to family violence following the Canterbury earthquakes - successes, challenges, and achievements".The abstract for this presentation reads as follows: Across a range of international jurisdictions there is growing evidence that shows a high prevalence of family violence, child abuse and sexual violence over a number of years following natural disasters (World Health Organisation, 2005). Such empirical findings were also reflected within the Canterbury region following the earthquake events in 2010 and 2011. For example, in the weekend following the September 2010 earthquake, Canterbury police reported a 53% increase in call-outs to family violence incidents. In 2012, Canterbury police investigated over 7,400 incidents involving family violence - approximately 19 incidents each day. Child, youth and family data also reflect an increase in family violence, with substantiated cases of abuse increasing markedly from 1,130 cases in 2009 to 1,650 cases in 2011. These numbers remain elevated. Challenging events like the Canterbury earthquakes highlight the importance of, and provide the catalyst for, strengthening connections with various communities of interest to explore new ways of responding to the complex issue of family violence. It was within this context that the Canterbury Family Violence Collaboration (Collaboration) emerged. Operating since 2012, the Collaboration now comprises 45 agencies from across governmental and non-governmental sectors. The Collaboration's value proposition is that it delivers system-wide responses to family violence that could not be achieved by any one agency. These responses are delivered within five strategic priority areas: housing, crisis response and intervention, prevention, youth, and staff learning and development. The purpose of this presentation is to describe the experiences of the collaborative effort and lessons learnt by the collaborative partners in the first three years after its establishment. It will explore the key successes and challenges of the collaborative effort, and outline the major results achieved - a unique contribution, in unique circumstances, to address family violence experienced by Canterbury people throughout the period of recovery and rebuild.
A video of a presentation by Dr Erin Smith during the Community Resilience Stream of the 2016 People in Disasters Conference. The presentation is titled, "A Qualitative Study of Paramedic Duty to Treat During Disaster Response".The abstract for this presentation reads as follows: Disasters place unprecedented demands on emergency medical services and test paramedic personal commitment to the health care profession. Despite this challenge, legal guidelines, professional codes of ethics and ambulance service management guidelines are largely silent on the issue of professional obligations during disasters. They provide little to no guidance on what is expected of paramedics or how they ought to approach their duty to treat in the face of risk. This research explores how paramedics view their duty to treat during disasters. Reasons that may limit or override such a duty are examined. Understanding these issues is important in enabling paramedics to make informed and defensible decisions during disasters. The authors employed qualitative methods to gather Australian paramedic perspectives. Participants' views were analysed and organised according to three emerging themes: the scope of individual paramedic obligations, the role and obligations of ambulance services, and the broader ethical context. Our findings suggest that paramedic decisions around duty to treat will largely depend on their individual perception of risk and competing obligations. A reciprocal obligation is expected of paramedic employers. Ambulance services need to provide their employees with the best current information about risks in order to assist paramedics in making defensible decisions in difficult circumstances. Education plays a key role in providing paramedics with an understanding and appreciation of fundamental professional obligations by focusing attention on both the medical and ethical challenges involved with disaster response. Finally, codes of ethics might be useful, but ultimately paramedic decisions around professional obligations will largely depend on their individual risk assessment, perception of risk, and personal value systems.
RON MARK to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements; if so, how?
ANDREW LITTLE to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “if you see house prices rising, you might say the Government needs to do more” and “we take responsibility, we need to do a better job of it”?
SARAH DOWIE to the Minister of Finance: What international reports has he received showing New Zealand’s economic growth remains robust?
Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: On what date was the Ministry of Health first made aware of data manipulation of the six-hour Emergency Department target by district health boards?
CHRIS BISHOP to the Minister for Economic Development: What recent announcements has the Government made regarding support for earthquake-affected businesses?
METIRIA TUREI to the Minister for Building and Housing: Ka tū a ia i runga i te mana o tana kōrero, “The proportion of New Zealanders living in rental homes is not changing dramatically and owner-occupiers will remain the dominant living arrangement for most Kiwi families into the future” i te mea, ā, e ai ki ngā tatauranga hou, nō mai anō i te tau Kotahi mano, iwa rau, rima tekau mā tahi, i taka ai te hunga whiwhi i tōna ake whare, ki raro rā nō? Translation: Does he stand by his statement that “The proportion of New Zealanders living in rental homes is not changing dramatically and owner-occupiers will remain the dominant living arrangement for most Kiwi families into the future” given that home ownership is at its lowest level since 1951, according to the latest census?
STUART SMITH to the Minister for Primary Industries: What recent announcements has he made regarding support for earthquake-affected primary sectors?
GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the Prime Minister’s statement that Treasury forecasts are “a load of nonsense, because they can’t get predications in 44 days right, let alone 44 years”?
ALFRED NGARO to the Minister for Building and Housing: What additional Auckland housing projects did he announce during last week’s recess, and what are the latest reports on the growth in construction across Auckland showing?
Dr MEGAN WOODS to the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission: Is he confident EQC will be employing the necessary resource to process and settle claims, from both the Canterbury earthquake sequence and the earthquake sequence of a fortnight ago, after 16 December; if so, why?
DAVID SEYMOUR to the Minister of Police: What reassurance can she give to Epsom residents concerned that their Community Policing Centre will cease to operate after 24 years?
IAN McKELVIE to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What announcements has he made recently that support the continued growth of the New Zealand wine export market?
ANDREW LITTLE to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement, "There's actually quite legitimate business in New Zealand for servicing foreign trusts"?
JAMES SHAW to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
ALASTAIR SCOTT to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he received on the state of the Crown accounts ahead of Budget 2016?
RON MARK to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
ALFRED NGARO to the Minister for Social Housing: What support will Budget 2016 provide for people in need of emergency housing?
Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: What is the total amount of efficiencies since 2011/12 made by the 20 district health boards and how much have they made for the February year to date?
JULIE ANNE GENTER to the Minister of Revenue: Does he stand by his statement, "these are the facts: there is no tax avoidance or evasion in New Zealand in respect of foreign trusts … There is no wealth hidden in New Zealand with these foreign trusts"?
MAUREEN PUGH to the Minister for Communications: What recent announcements has she made on progress of the Government's Ultra-Fast Broadband programme?
GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement made in Budget 2015 that "the unemployment rate is expected to fall below 5% in 2016"?
BARBARA KURIGER to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made on Communities of Learning?
Dr MEGAN WOODS to the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission: Has EQC's position that it will reinstate earthquake damage to a condition substantially the same as "when new" been applied to every home repaired in the Canterbury Home Repair Programme; if so, why does the EQC customer guide state that customers' homes will be returned to a "pre-earthquake state"?
MAHESH BINDRA to the Minister of Corrections: Does she have confidence in the Department of Corrections' ability to keep both staff and prisoners safe?
ANDREW LITTLE to the Prime Minister: What are the priorities for the Government in assisting communities affected by yesterday’s earthquake?
MATT DOOCEY to the Minister of Finance: What advice has he received about the economic impact of the Kaikōura earthquake?
EUGENIE SAGE to the Minister of Transport: What updates can he give on the transport sector’s response to earthquake damage to State Highway 1 and the rail line between Seddon and Cheviot?
GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Finance: What is his initial assessment of the fiscal impact of yesterday morning’s earthquake and what, if any, new or changed Budget allocations is he considering in response to the earthquake?
PAUL FOSTER-BELL to the Minister of Civil Defence: How is the Government supporting people affected by the Kaikōura earthquake?
RON MARK to the Minister of Civil Defence: Can the Government assure New Zealanders on our level of preparedness for all natural disasters?
SUE MORONEY to the Minister of Transport: What roads and public transport services are currently not operational following damage from the earthquake yesterday and when is it expected access and services will be restored?
BRETT HUDSON to the Minister of Transport: What action is the Government taking to repair damaged transport infrastructure following the Kaikōura earthquake?
GARETH HUGHES to the Minister of Broadcasting: Will she join with me to acknowledge the work of all media in New Zealand, which is so important in times of natural disaster and crisis; if so, will she consider increasing our public broadcaster Radio New Zealand’s funding in Budget 2017?
CLAYTON MITCHELL to the Minister of Civil Defence: What progress has been made, if any, on new civil defence legislation which focuses on large and significant events such as the Christchurch and Kaikōura earthquakes?
ALASTAIR SCOTT to the Minister of Health: What updates has he received on the Government’s health response to the Kaikōura earthquake?
CLARE CURRAN to the Minister of Civil Defence: What actions have been taken by Civil Defence to ensure those people in the areas worst hit by the earthquake have enough food, clothing, water, and shelter?
Sewerage systems convey sewage, or wastewater, from residential or commercial buildings through complex reticulation networks to treatment plants. During seismic events both transient ground motion and permanent ground deformation can induce physical damage to sewerage system components, limiting or impeding the operability of the whole system. The malfunction of municipal sewerage systems can result in the pollution of nearby waterways through discharge of untreated sewage, pose a public health threat by preventing the use of appropriate sanitation facilities, and cause serious inconvenience for rescuers and residents. Christchurch, the second largest city in New Zealand, was seriously affected by the Canterbury Earthquake Sequence (CES) in 2010-2011. The CES imposed widespread damage to the Christchurch sewerage system (CSS), causing a significant loss of functionality and serviceability to the system. The Christchurch City Council (CCC) relied heavily on temporary sewerage services for several months following the CES. The temporary services were supported by use of chemical and portable toilets to supplement the damaged wastewater system. The rebuild delivery agency -Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuild Team (SCIRT) was created to be responsible for repair of 85 % of the damaged horizontal infrastructure (i.e., water, wastewater, stormwater systems, and roads) in Christchurch. Numerous initiatives to create platforms/tools aiming to, on the one hand, support the understanding, management and mitigation of seismic risk for infrastructure prior to disasters, and on the other hand, to support the decision-making for post-disaster reconstruction and recovery, have been promoted worldwide. Despite this, the CES in New Zealand highlighted that none of the existing platforms/tools are either accessible and/or readable or usable by emergency managers and decision makers for restoring the CSS. Furthermore, the majority of existing tools have a sole focus on the engineering perspective, while the holistic process of formulating recovery decisions is based on system-wide approach, where a variety of factors in addition to technical considerations are involved. Lastly, there is a paucity of studies focused on the tools and frameworks for supporting decision-making specifically on sewerage system restoration after earthquakes. This thesis develops a decision support framework for sewerage pipe and system restoration after earthquakes, building on the experience and learning of the organisations involved in recovering the CSS following the CES in 2010-2011. The proposed decision support framework includes three modules: 1) Physical Damage Module (PDM); 2) Functional Impact Module (FIM); 3) Pipeline Restoration Module (PRM). The PDM provides seismic fragility matrices and functions for sewer gravity and pressure pipelines for predicting earthquake-induced physical damage, categorised by pipe materials and liquefaction zones. The FIM demonstrates a set of performance indicators that are categorised in five domains: structural, hydraulic, environmental, social and economic domains. These performance indicators are used to assess loss of wastewater system service and the induced functional impacts in three different phases: emergency response, short-term recovery and long-term restoration. Based on the knowledge of the physical and functional status-quo of the sewerage systems post-earthquake captured through the PDM and FIM, the PRM estimates restoration time of sewer networks by use of restoration models developed using a Random Forest technique and graphically represented in terms of restoration curves. The development of a decision support framework for sewer recovery after earthquakes enables decision makers to assess physical damage, evaluate functional impacts relating to hydraulic, environmental, structural, economic and social contexts, and to predict restoration time of sewerage systems. Furthermore, the decision support framework can be potentially employed to underpin system maintenance and upgrade by guiding system rehabilitation and to monitor system behaviours during business-as-usual time. In conjunction with expert judgement and best practices, this framework can be moreover applied to assist asset managers in targeting the inclusion of system resilience as part of asset maintenance programmes.
