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?
DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement: “I’m not going to go and relitigate every comment I’ve made prior to this point because I don’t think that would actually be helpful”? TODD McCLAY to the Minister of Finance: How has the Government balanced the need for responsible fiscal management with its continued support for New Zealand families? METIRIA TUREI to the Prime Minister: Ka whakatau a ia i te kōrero i whakaputaina māna, arā, “I do not accept the view that we are a deeply unequal country. I do not think the evidence suggests that, and people drawing that conclusion are wrong”? Translation: Does he stand by the statement made on his behalf, “I do not accept the view that we are a deeply unequal country. I do not think the evidence suggests that, and people drawing that conclusion are wrong”? JACQUI DEAN to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: What recent announcements has the Government made around the rebuild of the Christchurch city centre? Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA to the Minister of Māori Affairs: Does he stand by all his statements? MAGGIE BARRY to the Minister of Health: Has any progress been made on the Zero Fees for Under Sixes scheme taking coverage over and above the 70 percent of children covered in 2008 achieved by the previous Government? Hon TREVOR MALLARD to the Associate Minister of Education: What progress has been made on the charter schools policy? ALFRED NGARO to the Minister for Social Development: What announcements has she made on the release of the White Paper for Vulnerable Children? CLARE CURRAN to the Minister of Transport: Does he stand by his statement in his press release of 24 May 2012 that “KiwiRail has successfully undertaken a significant investment programme over the previous two years, including: New locomotives and wagons, and refurbishment of the current locomotive fleet”? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by the statement made on his behalf that there are no plans to sell KiwiRail? MELISSA LEE to the Minister for Ethnic Affairs: What reports has she received about the Office of Ethnic Affairs working with the Red Cross? JULIE ANNE GENTER to the Minister of Transport: What alternatives did the Government investigate before committing itself to the Road of National Significance between Puhoi and Wellsford, which is now projected to cost $1.76 billion up from $1.69 billion two years ago?
MARAMA DAVIDSON to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Will he commit to ensuring that the 800 tenancies terminated or otherwise affected by Housing New Zealand’s previous approach to meth testing receive compensation that genuinely reflects the level of harm done, and takes account of both direct costs and emotional distress? Hon JUDITH COLLINS to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Is it acceptable for Housing New Zealand tenants to smoke methamphetamine in Housing New Zealand houses? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all of the statements, actions, and policies of the Government in relation to the New Zealand economy? RINO TIRIKATENE to the Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti: What recent announcements has he made on the scope of his new portfolio? Hon Dr NICK SMITH to the Minister of State Services: What are the dates and contents of all work-related electronic communications between former Minister Hon Clare Curran and the Prime Minister since the decision in Cabinet last year “that the CTO be appointed by, and accountable to, the Prime Minister and the Ministers of Government Digital Services and Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media”? Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL to the Minister of Finance: What is his reaction to the Independent Tax Working Group’s interim report released today? Hon NIKKI KAYE to the Minister of Education: How many communications has she received from teachers or principals in the last three days regarding teacher shortages, relief teacher issues, and increases in class sizes, and is she confident there will be no more primary teacher strikes this year? Hon NATHAN GUY to the Minister for Biosecurity: How many inbound passengers arrived at Auckland International Airport yesterday between 2 a.m. and 5 a.m., and how many dog detector teams worked on the Green Lane at this time? TAMATI COFFEY to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: What steps is the Government taking to ensure Housing New Zealand is a compassionate landlord focused on tenant well-being? STUART SMITH to the Minister for Courts: Is he confident that the Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal will comply with all requirements of the rule of law? SIMEON BROWN to the Minister of Health: When did the Expert Advisory Committee on drugs give its advice that synthetic cannabinoids AMB-FUBINACA and 5F-ADB be scheduled as Class A controlled drugs, and what action has he taken on this advice? ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What measures has the Government announced to protect the public from unscrupulous wheel-clamping practices?
DAVID SHEARER to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: Has the Government met the five criteria the Prime Minister laid out for proceeding with asset sales? Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Minister of Finance: Will New Zealanders have money taken from their bank accounts to fund a bank bailout under his proposed Open Bank Resolution scheme? TODD McCLAY to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on New Zealand's balance of payments? Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his statements regarding "Better, Sooner, More Convenient" health care; if not, why not? MARK MITCHELL to the Minister of Police: What reports has she received from Police on the success of pre-charge warnings? PHIL TWYFORD to the Minister of Housing: Why did he tell the House that, even if the Auckland plan took effect in September, new subdivisions would not be available until 2016-17, when the advice he tabled from Roger Blakely of Auckland Council shows that if the unitary plan takes effect in September new land would be available two years earlier? ALFRED NGARO to the Minister for Social Development: How will the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill back people off welfare and into work? GRANT ROBERTSON to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements on the actions and involvement of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Government Communications and Security Bureau in Operation Debut? SCOTT SIMPSON to the Minister of Health: What is the Government doing to extend access to free flu vaccines? METIRIA TUREI to the Minister for Social Development: Does she have an obligation, as Social Development Minister, to ensure all policy she is responsible for will be good for children and their families? Hon KATE WILKINSON to the Minister for Primary Industries: What announcement has he made on the drought in New Zealand? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Have allegations of fraud and corruption involving Canterbury earthquake recovery and rebuild contracts been raised with him as Minister; if so, what specific steps has he taken to address them?
Questions to Ministers 1. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with Reserve Bank Governor Alan Bollard's assessment that the economic recovery is proving to be "slow and fragile"? 2. CRAIG FOSS to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the economy? 3. Hon TREVOR MALLARD to the Minister for Economic Development: What specific actions has he taken since becoming Minister of Economic Development to secure the New Zealand film industry? 4. KATRINA SHANKS to the Minister of Housing: What reports has he received about the stakeholder engagement carried out by the Housing Shareholders' Advisory Group? 5. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Will he support my recommendation to set up an advocacy support service to provide earthquake-affected residents with help in dealing with their private insurers to prevent them being shunted between these insurers and the Earthquake Commission? 6. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Minister of Conservation: What steps, if any, is she taking to protect the unique, rare and threatened Nevis "Gollum galaxiid", a native fish species found only in the Nevis River in Central Otago? 7. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister for Tertiary Education: How does removing $55 million from industry training help the growth of the productive economy? 8. CHRIS AUCHINVOLE to the Minister for the Environment: What progress is the Government making in improving New Zealand's freshwater management? 9. SUE MORONEY to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by all her statements about subsidies and fee controls in early childhood education? 10. Hon RODNEY HIDE to the Attorney-General: Is it Government policy to exempt the holders of customary marine title from the application of the Resource Management Act 1991 and provide the holders with the sole right to give, or deny, a Resource Management Act permission right with no right of appeal or objection against the decision, as described in Bell Gully's Newsletter Update October 2010 on the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill? 11. Hon NANAIA MAHUTA to the Minister responsible for Whānau Ora: Is she satisfied with the process to shortlist Whānau Ora providers? 12. PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Why is the Government funding the Energy Spot advertising campaign?
DENIS O'ROURKE to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Is he satisfied with progress on all aspects of the Canterbury earthquake recovery? JACINDA ARDERN to the Minister of Police: Does she have confidence in the Police investigation of alleged sexual violation against young women and underage girls in West Auckland? PAUL GOLDSMITH to the Minister of Finance: What progress has the National-led Government made in building a more productive and competitive economy capable of supporting more jobs and higher incomes for New Zealanders? METIRIA TUREI to the Minister of Police: When was she first advised that Police had received a complaint from a girl who alleged she had been raped by members of a group calling themselves the Roast Busters? Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister for Communications and Information Technology: Will the Government enforce its broadband contract with Chorus? CLAUDETTE HAUITI to the Minister for the Environment: What announcements has the Government made in relation to the national policy statement for freshwater? PHIL TWYFORD to the Minister of Housing: What reports has he received on the effect of loan-to-value restrictions on the housing market? Hon PHIL HEATLEY to the Minister for Social Development: What reports has she received about the number of people receiving benefits? CAROL BEAUMONT to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: How does women's participation rate of 1 percent in building and construction industry training assist with the Christchurch rebuild? Dr CAM CALDER to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made to strengthen the status of the teaching profession? EUGENIE SAGE to the Associate Minister of Health: Does she agree with the Canterbury Medical Officer of Health that increasing nitrate levels in Canterbury groundwater are a health risk, particularly for pregnant women and babies; if not, why not? HONE HARAWIRA to the Minister of Finance: What is his budget plan, if any, to immediately address growing poverty in New Zealand, which has got so bad that charitable organisations have today said they are expecting an influx of more than 40,000 struggling families for Christmas dinner because they can't afford to put food on the table?
A ship named 'NZ Ship of State' lies high and dry on rocks; the great jagged holes in her represent 'the recession', 'Pike River', 'Chch 1' and 'Chch 2'. A man standing nearby asks 'How will we refloat her?' and a second man answers '...by cutting Working for Families & interest-free student loans' Someone outside the frame says 'Where's the No. 8 wire?' Context - The New Zealand economy was stagnating before the impact of the Christchurch earthquakes of 4 September 2010 and 22 February 2011 and the Pike River Mine disaster before that. The government was already considering cutting Working for Families & interest-free student loans before the earthquakes struck and it seems that now they are trying to push through these policy changes using the earthquakes as an excuse. Quantity: 1 digital cartoon(s).
The 2010–2011 Canterbury earthquakes, which involved widespread damage during the February 2011 event and ongoing aftershocks near the Christchurch Central Business District, left this community with more than $NZD 40 billion in losses (~20 % GDP), demolition of approximately 60 % of multi-storey concrete buildings (3 storeys and up), and closure of the core business district for over 2 years. The aftermath of the earthquake sequence has revealed unique issues and complexities for the owners of commercial and multi-storey residential buildings in relation to unexpected technical, legal, and financial challenges when making decisions regarding the future of their buildings impacted by the earthquakes. The paper presents a framework to understand the factors influencing post-earthquake decisions (repair or demolish) on multi-storey concrete buildings in Christchurch. The study, conducted in 2014, includes in-depth investigations on 15 case-study buildings using 27 semi-structured interviews with various property owners, property managers, insurers, engineers, and government authorities in New Zealand. The interviews revealed insights regarding the multitude of factors influencing post-earthquake decisions and losses. As expected, the level of damage and repairability (cost to repair) generally dictated the course of action. There is strong evidence, however, that other variables have significantly influenced the decision on a number of buildings, such as insurance, business strategies, perception of risks, building regulations (and compliance costs), and government decisions. The decision-making process for each building is complex and unique, not solely driven by structural damage. Furthermore, the findings have put the spotlight on insurance policy wordings and the paradoxical effect of insurance on the recovery of Christchurch, leading to other challenges and issues going forward.
The housing and mortgage market in Christchurch experienced significant changes since the 2011 earthquake, especially after the reconstruction of the city. The increasing speed of Christchurch average house price exceed the average house price of the whole country, as well as the number of new dwellings. By this regard, this study surveyed the households in Christchurch to analyze the effect of the earthquake on housing and mortgage market. This includes factors such as housing price, interest rate, government policy and socioeconomic factors in terms of age, gender, educational attainment, income, marital status and family life cycle. Logistic regression model is used to analyze the data. The study provides an overview of the housing market and mortgage market in Christchurch. The logistic regression, results show changes on sensitivity between the socio-economic factors and house purchase, as well as mortgage borrowing pre- and post-earthquake. The result indicates that the earthquake in Christchurch has affected households’ decision on house purchase and mortgage borrowing.
GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: Does he stand by his statement that the Household Labour Force Survey is "the standard internationally recognised measure of employment and unemployment"? PAUL GOLDSMITH to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he received on the economy? Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Does he stand by the answer given by the Minister of Finance to the question "Does he accept that human-induced climate change is real?" that "It may well be…"? Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: Given that unemployment is rising, exports are down, and house price inflation in Auckland and Canterbury is in double-digits, does he agree that after 5 years as Finance Minister he has failed to rebalance and diversify the economy; if not, why not? JOHN HAYES to the Minister of Trade: What efforts is the Government making to deal with the market effects of the possible contamination of some Fonterra diary exports? Hon SHANE JONES to the Minister for Economic Development: What action has he taken to ensure high value jobs are retained in Otago, Waikato, Northland, East Coast and Manawatu? KEVIN HAGUE to the Minister of Health: Exactly how many of the 21 recommendations to the Minister in the 2010 Public Health Advisory Committee Report The Best Start in Life: Achieving effective action on child health and wellbeing has he implemented? JACQUI DEAN to the Minister for Food Safety: What update can she provide the public on the safety of infant formula? Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR to the Minister for Primary Industries: Does he stand by all his statements? NICKY WAGNER to the Minister for Building and Construction: What reports has he received following the Government's announcement of a new earthquake-prone building policy? RICHARD PROSSER to the Minister for Primary Industries: What reports, if any, has he received regarding the regeneration of fish stocks in the Snapper 1 fishery? Dr DAVID CLARK to the Minister for Economic Development: Does he agree with Dunedin Mayor Dave Cull that "Central government needs to understand we can't have a … two-speed economy where Christchurch and Auckland are ripping ahead and the rest of the regions are withering"; if not, why not?
METIRIA TUREI to the Minister for the Environment: Ki Te Minita mō Te Taiao: Ka tukua e ngā paerewa e whakaarohia akehia nei mō te pai ake o te wai i roto i te pūhera Wai Mā, te kaha kē atu, te iti kē iho rānei o te uru atu o te tūkinotanga ki roto i ō tātou awa wai, e ngā mea whakakapi? Translation: Do the proposed standards for water quality in the Clean Water package allow more pollution or less to enter our waterways than the ones they will replace? BRETT HUDSON to the Minister of Finance: How much is the Government committing to spend on infrastructure over the next 4 years? ANDREW LITTLE to the Prime Minister: Given his predecessor told the Pike River families, “I’m here to give you absolute reassurance we’re committed to getting the boys out, and nothing’s going to change that”, when, if ever, will he be announcing the re-entry of the drift? STUART SMITH to the Minister of Transport: What announcements has he made recently regarding the Government’s commitment to reinstate key transport links following the Kaikōura earthquake? JACINDA ARDERN to the Minister for Children: When was she first notified that the Ministry for Vulnerable Children Oranga Tamariki, or its predecessor CYF, were placing children and younger persons in a hotel or motel for short-term care without a supervisor, and what was her first action, if any? MELISSA LEE to the Minister of Health: Can he confirm that 55,000 care and support workers will share in the $2 billion pay equity settlement announced on 18 April 2017? GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the Dominion Post editorial that his Government has “singularly failed to answer the pressures of Auckland”; if not, why does he think they would write this? ANDREW BAYLY to the Minister for Building and Construction: How do the latest reports on the level of building activity in Auckland and nationwide for the month, quarter, and year compare with 2016? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements; if so, how? PHIL TWYFORD to the Minister of Transport: Why has the completion of the $2.4 billion Western Ring Route been delayed, and when can Aucklanders expect the new motorway to be open? EUGENIE SAGE to the Minister of Conservation: Is it Government policy to increase the logging of native forests on West Coast conservation land? Dr MEGAN WOODS to the Minister supporting Greater Christchurch Regeneration: Does she agree that the first homes in the East Frame will be completed 5 months ahead of schedule? Questions to Members CLARE CURRAN to the Chairperson of the Commerce Committee: Does she intend to call for further submissions on the petition of Dame Fiona Kidman before it is reported back to the House, in light of the recently released footage shot inside the drift of the Pike River mine?
In September 2010 and February 2011, the Canterbury region experienced devastating earthquakes with an estimated economic cost of over NZ$40 billion (Parker and Steenkamp, 2012; Timar et al., 2014; Potter et al., 2015). The insurance market played an important role in rebuilding the Canterbury region after the earthquakes. Homeowners, insurance and reinsurance markets and New Zealand government agencies faced a difficult task to manage the rebuild process. From an empirical and theoretic research viewpoint, the Christchurch disaster calls for an assessment of how the insurance market deals with such disasters in the future. Previous studies have investigated market responses to losses in global catastrophes by focusing on the insurance supply-side. This study investigates both demand-side and supply-side insurance market responses to the Christchurch earthquakes. Despite the fact that New Zealand is prone to seismic activities, there are scant previous studies in the area of earthquake insurance. This study does offer a unique opportunity to examine and document the New Zealand insurance market response to catastrophe risk, providing results critical for understanding market responses after major loss events in general. A review of previous studies shows higher premiums suppress demand, but how higher premiums and a higher probability of risk affect demand is still largely unknown. According to previous studies, the supply of disaster coverage is curtailed unless the market is subsidised, however, there is still unsettled discussion on why demand decreases with time from the previous disaster even when the supply of coverage is subsidised by the government. Natural disaster risks pose a set of challenges for insurance market players because of substantial ambiguity associated with the probability of such events occurring and high spatial correlation of catastrophe losses. Private insurance market inefficiencies due to high premiums and spatially concentrated risks calls for government intervention in the provision of natural disaster insurance to avert situations of noninsurance and underinsurance. Political economy considerations make it more likely for government support to be called for if many people are uninsured than if few people are uninsured. However, emergency assistance for property owners after catastrophe events can encourage most property owners to not buy insurance against natural disaster and develop adverse selection behaviour, generating larger future risks for homeowners and governments. On the demand-side, this study has developed an intertemporal model to examine how demand for insurance changes post-catastrophe, and how to model it theoretically. In this intertemporal model, insurance can be sought in two sequential periods of time, and at the second period, it is known whether or not a loss event happened in period one. The results show that period one demand for insurance increases relative to the standard single period model when the second period is taken into consideration, period two insurance demand is higher post-loss, higher than both the period one demand and the period two demand without a period one loss. To investigate policyholders experience from the demand-side perspective, a total of 1600 survey questionnaires were administered, and responses from 254 participants received representing a 16 percent response rate. Survey data was gathered from four institutions in Canterbury and is probably not representative of the entire population. The results of the survey show that the change from full replacement value policy to nominated replacement value policy is a key determinant of the direction of change in the level of insurance coverage after the earthquakes. The earthquakes also highlighted the plight of those who were underinsured, prompting policyholders to update their insurance coverage to reflect the estimated cost of re-building their property. The survey has added further evidence to the existing literature, such as those who have had a recent experience with disaster loss report increased risk perception if a similar event happens in future with females reporting a higher risk perception than males. Of the demographic variables, only gender has a relationship with changes in household cover. On the supply-side, this study has built a risk-based pricing model suitable to generate a competitive premium rate for natural disaster insurance cover. Using illustrative data from the Christchurch Red-zone suburbs, the model generates competitive premium rates for catastrophe risk. When the proposed model incorporates the new RMS high-definition New Zealand Earthquake Model, for example, insurers can find the model useful to identify losses at a granular level so as to calculate the competitive premium. This study observes that the key to the success of the New Zealand dual insurance system despite the high prevalence of catastrophe losses are; firstly the EQC’s flat-rate pricing structure keeps private insurance premiums affordable and very high nationwide homeowner take-up rates of natural disaster insurance. Secondly, private insurers and the EQC have an elaborate reinsurance arrangement in place. By efficiently transferring risk to the reinsurer, the cost of writing primary insurance is considerably reduced ultimately expanding primary insurance capacity and supply of insurance coverage.
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.
The Canterbury region of New Zealand was shaken by major earthquakes on the 4th September 2010 and 22nd February 2011. The quakes caused 185 fatalities and extensive land, infrastructure and building damage, particularly in the Eastern suburbs of Christchurch city. Almost 450 ha of residential and public land was designated as a ‘Red Zone’ unsuitable for residential redevelopment because land damage was so significant, engineering solutions were uncertain, and repairs would be protracted. Subsequent demolition of all housing and infrastructure in the area has left a blank canvas of land stretching along the Avon River corridor from the CBD to the sea. Initially the Government’s official – but enormously controversial – position was that this land would be cleared and lie fallow until engineering solutions could be found that enabled residential redevelopment. This paper presents an application of a choice experiment (CE) that identified and assessed Christchurch residents’ preferences for different land use options of this Red Zone. Results demonstrated strong public support for the development of a recreational reserve comprising a unique natural environment with native fauna and flora, healthy wetlands and rivers, and recreational opportunities that align with this vision. By highlighting the value of a range of alternatives, the CE provided a platform for public participation and expanded the conversational terrain upon which redevelopment policy took place. We conclude the method has value for land use decision-making beyond the disaster recovery context.
The question of whether forced relocation is beneficial or detrimental to the displaced households is a controversial and important policy question. After the 2011 earthquake in Christchurch, the government designated some of the worst affected areas as Residential Red Zones. Around 20,000 people were forced to move out of these Residential Red Zone areas, and were compensated for that. The objective of this paper is twofold. First, we aim to estimate the impact of relocation on the displaced households in terms of their income, employment, and their mental and physical health. Second, we evaluate whether the impact of relocation varies by the timing of to move, the destination (remaining within the Canterbury region or moving out of it) and demographic factors (gender, age, ethnicity). StatisticsNZ’s Integrated Data Infrastructure (IDI) from 2008 to 2017, which includes data on all households in Canterbury, and a difference-in-difference (DID) technique is used to answer these questions. We find that relocation has a negative impact on the income of the displaced household group. This adverse impact is more severe for later movers. Compared to the control group (that was not relocated), the income of relocated households was reduced by 3% for people who moved immediately after the earthquake in 2011, and 14% for people who moved much later in 2015.
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?
This thesis explores how social entrepreneurship develops following a crisis. A review of literature finds that despite more than 15 years of academic attention, a common definition of social entrepreneurship remains elusive, with the field lacking the unified framework to set it apart as a specialised field of study. There are a variety of different conceptualisations of how social entrepreneurship works, and what it aims to achieve. The New Zealand context for social entrepreneurship is explored, finding that it receives little attention from the government and education sectors, despite its enormous potential. A lack of readily available information on social entrepreneurship leads most studies to investigate it as a phenomenon, and given the unique context of this research, it follows suit. Following from several authors’ recommendations that social entrepreneurship be subjected to further exploration, this is an exploratory, inductive study. A multiple case study is used to explore how social entrepreneurship develops following a natural disaster, using the example of the February 2011 earthquake in Christchurch, New Zealand. With little existing theory in this research area, this method is used to provide interesting examples of how the natural disaster, recognised as a crisis, can lead to business formation. Findings revealed the crisis initially triggered an altruistic response from social entrepreneurs, leading them to develop newly highlighted opportunities that were related to fields in which they had existing skills and expertise. In the process of developing these opportunities, initial altruistic motivations faded, with a new focus on the pursuit of a social mission and aims for survival and growth. The social missions addressed broad issues, and while they did address the crisis to differing extents, they were not confined to addressing its consequences. A framework is presented to explain how social entrepreneurship functions, once triggered in response to crisis. This framework supports existing literature that depicts social entrepreneurship as a continuous process, and illustrates the effects of a crisis as the catalyst for social business formation. In the aftermath of a crisis, when resources are likely to be scarce, social entrepreneurs play a significant role in the recovery process and their contributions should be highly valued both by government and relevant disaster response bodies. Policies that support social entrepreneurs and their ventures should be considered in the same way as commercial ventures.
A video of the keynote presentation by Sir John Holmes, during the first plenary of the 2016 People in Disasters Conference. Holmes is the former United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, the current Director of Ditchley Foundation, and the chair of the Board of the International Rescue Committee in the UK. The presentation is titled, "The Politics of Humanity: Reflections on international aid in disasters".The abstract for this presentation reads as follows: As United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinate from 2007-2010, Sir John Holmes was heavily involved in the coordination of air provision to countries struck by natural and man-made disasters, raising the necessary funds, and the elaboration of humanitarian policy. The international humanitarian system is fragmented and struggling to cope with rising demands from both conflicts such as that in Syria, and the growing effects of climate change. Sir John will talk about what humanitarian aid can and cannot achieve, the frustrations of getting aid through when access may be difficult or denied, and the need to ensure that assistance encompasses protection of civilians and efforts to get them back on their feet, as well as the delivery of essential short term items such as food, water, medical care and shelter. He will discuss the challenges involved in trying to make the different agencies - UN United Nations, non-government organisations and the International Red Cross/Crescent movement - work together effectively. He will reveal some of the problems in dealing with donor and recipient governments who often have their own political and security agendas, and may be little interested in the necessary neutrality and independence of humanitarian aid. He will illustrate these points by practical examples of political and other dilemmas from aid provision in natural disasters such as Cyclone Nargis in Myanmar in 2009, and the Haiti earthquake of 2010, and in conflict situations such as Darfur, Afghanistan and Sri Lanka in the past, and Syria today. He will also draw conclusions and make recommendations about how humanitarian aid might work better, and why politicians and others need to understand more clearly the impartial space required by humanitarian agencies to operate properly.
Questions to Ministers 1. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Minister of Justice: Is it his view that the justice system should provide rehabilitation and give people the chance to change? 2. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Is he satisfied with progress on the recovery from the Canterbury earthquake so far? 3. DAVID BENNETT to the Minister of Broadcasting: What recent announcements have been made regarding digital switchover? 4. SUE MORONEY to the Minister of Education: What policy initiatives has she developed for early childhood education? 5. AARON GILMORE to the Minister of Civil Defence: What is the update on the Canterbury Civil Defence states of emergency? 6. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Minister of Finance: Did the Treasury evaluate the net effect on South Canterbury Finance's position of the February 2010 acquisition of Helicopters (NZ) Ltd and Scales Corporation shares, including the effect of the transaction on the recoverability or impairment of South Canterbury Finance's $75 million loan to its parent company, Southbury Group Ltd? 7. LOUISE UPSTON to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Will Cantabrians whose chimneys have been significantly damaged by the recent earthquake be covered by the Earthquake Commission to replace their old log burners or open fires with new efficient heaters? 8. Hon TREVOR MALLARD to the Minister of Education: What support will be available in 2011 to schools that have very poor numeracy national standards results in 2010? 9. SANDRA GOUDIE to the Minister of Corrections: What support is the Corrections Department offering to Canterbury community groups and individuals to help with earthquake recovery? 10. DARIEN FENTON to the Minister of Labour: Does she stand by her statement to the House on 14 September 2010 that the 90-day trial provisions "do not take away rights"? 11. CHESTER BORROWS to the Minister of Housing: What is the Government doing to assist people whose homes are not habitable following the Canterbury earthquake? 12. PHIL TWYFORD to the Minister of Local Government: When he said in the House yesterday that the Auckland Transition Agency "ran a tender to deliver an enterprise resource planning system" was he referring to merely the $14.3 million contract for the implementation of the Enterprise Resource Planning system or was he referring to the full contract of $53.8 million to deliver the Enterprise Resource Planning system? Questions to Members 1. DARIEN FENTON to the Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee: How many submissions have been received on the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2)?
Questions to Ministers 1. Hon PHIL GOFF to the Prime Minister: Is he satisfied that actions to address the Christchurch earthquake are an adequate response; if not, what are his areas of concern? 2. AMY ADAMS to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the economic impact of the earthquake in Christchurch on 22 February 2011? 3. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Is he satisfied with the level of support being offered to the people of Christchurch in the wake of the earthquake on 22 February 2011? 4. NICKY WAGNER to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What is the Government doing to support Canterbury businesses and employees through the earthquake recovery? 5. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Is she confident that the Ministry of Social Development has responded adequately to the Christchurch earthquake? 6. METIRIA TUREI to the Minister of Finance: Has he considered raising a temporary levy on income to help fund the rebuilding of Christchurch; if so, how much could it raise? 7. AARON GILMORE to the Minister for Tertiary Education: What work has been done to help the families of tertiary students and tertiary institutions affected by the 22 February 2011 earthquake in Christchurch? 8. Hon JIM ANDERTON to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Will he ensure that Christchurch homeowners and businesses are able to access insurance cover from existing policies or new cover they require since the 22 February 2011 earthquake? 9. Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN to the Attorney-General: Has he asked the Māori Party to agree to amendments to the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill that would make it explicitly clear that customary title holders would not be able to charge individuals for accessing a beach, and require any negotiated settlements to be referred back to Parliament for validation; if so, what response did he receive? 10. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Attorney-General: Does the Government intend to proceed this week with its legislation to replace the existing Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004? 11. RAHUI KATENE to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Did he agree with his spokesman's response to the situation for residents in Christchurch East following the earthquake of 22 February 2011, that, "It is apparent, given the scale out there, that there just wasn't sufficient hardware out there, loos and the like", and what urgent actions have been taken to give priority to communities in the eastern suburbs? 12. COLIN KING to the Minister of Civil Defence: Why was a state of national emergency declared on 23 February 2011?
Cartoons about political and social issues in New Zealand and overseas. The cartoon has the words 'Tsunami Warning cancelled' in the centre. Above are the words 'The end is nigh... insurance running out! No more cover!' Below the word 'cancelled' are the words 'We have reinsurance!' Context - Civil Defence has cancelled a tsunami warning after a 7.8 magnitude earthquake struck off the Kermadec Islands this morning (7 July 2011) The tsunami image is used to illustrate the problems that could arise from lack of insurance in Christchurch. When their policies run out on 30 June Earthquake-hit Christchurch and Waimakariri councils are in danger of having no property insurance because as the CEO of Civic Assurance, which insures most councils, says, 'the company cannot buy reinsurance'. There was also a potential problem for home-owners when AMI Insurance, the largest insurer of homes in Christchurch, was threatening insolvency. However, AMI has announced that it has re-insurance cover for earthquakes and other natural disasters from tomorrow (1 July 2011) for the next year. The Government feared AMI Insurance's directors would wind up the company affecting a huge section of New Zealand's insurance market and derail the reconstruction of Christchurch, official documents confirm. AMI said it had doubled its cover for the year to June 2012 after three large quakes in the year to June 2011. (Stuff 30 June 2011) Quantity: 1 digital cartoon(s).
The title is 'Main faultline to be probed'. The cartoon shows an image of Maori Party MP Hone Harawira with two small firemen on his shoulder squirting water into one ear so that it explodes out of the other. One of the firemen says 'I tell ya now the next quake will be an eight point four!' Context - The problem of criticism of his own party by maverick Maori Party MP Hone Harawira. Harawira says that many Maori believe the party has not been able to be an independent voice because of its government partnership and so Mr Harawira is calling for his party to consider its options at the next election. Mr Harawira said that the problem was exacerbated because when the Maori Party was going into coalition with National, the whole world was going into recession and when this happens their choice (National) is to help the rich guy, help the big business, on the basis that they will stay here and keep their business here and everybody will get a job He said the Maori Party needed to get back to supporting basic social policies to help the poor. There is a reference to the Christchurch earthquake of 4 September 2010 and the many strange ways of trying to predict the earthquakes and aftershocks that Christchurch has been experiencing.. (Stuff 18 January 2011) Quantity: 1 digital cartoon(s).
Livelihood holds the key to a rapid recovery following a large-scale devastating disaster, building its resilience is of paramount importance. While much attention has been given to how to help people who are displaced from their jobs to regain employment, little research on livelihood resilience has been undertaken for those relocated communities following a disaster event. By studying five re-located villages post-2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami in Banda Aceh and Aceh Besar, Indonesia, this research has identified the indicators of livelihood resilience and the critical factors driving it for post-disaster relocated communities. A mixed approach, combining questionnaire surveys, semistructured interviews, and field observations, was used for the collection of data. Housing entitlement, the physical and mental health of residents, access to external livelihood support and the provision of infrastructure and basic services were identified as amongst the most critical indicators that represent the level of livelihood resilience. Early recovery income support, physical and mental health, availability and timeliness of livelihood support, together with cultural sensitivity and governance structure, are amongst the most important factors. Given the nature of resettlement, access to infrastructure, location of relocated sites, the safety of the neighbourhood and the ability to transfer to other jobs/skills also play an important role in establishing sustained employment for relocated communities in Indonesia. Those indicators and factors were synthesised into a framework which was further tested in the recovery of Christchurch, and Kaikoura, New Zealand during their recovery from devastating earthquakes. It is suggested that the framework can be used by government agencies and aid organisations to assess the livelihood resilience of post-disaster relocated communities. This will help better them plan support policies and/or prioritise resilience investment strategies to ensure that the recovery needs of those relocated are best met.
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.
The Canterbury region of New Zealand experienced four earthquakes greater than MW 6.0 between September 2010 and December 2011. This study employs system dynamics as well as hazard, recovery and organisational literature and brings together data collected via surveys, case studies and interviews with organisations affected by the earthquakes. This is to show how systemic interactions and interdependencies within and between industry and geographic sectors affect their recovery post-disaster. The industry sectors in the study are: construction for its role in the rebuild, information and communication technology which is a regional high-growth industry, trucking for logistics, critical infrastructure, fast moving consumer goods (e.g. supermarkets) and hospitality to track recovery through non-discretionary and discretionary spend respectively. Also in the study are three urban centres including the region’s largest Central Business District, which has been inaccessible since the earthquake of 22 February 2011 to the time of writing in February 2013. This work also highlights how earthquake effects propagated between sectors and how sectors collaborated to mitigate difficulties such as product demand instability. Other interacting factors are identified that influence the recovery trajectories of the different industry sectors. These are resource availability, insurance payments, aid from central government, and timely and quality recovery information. This work demonstrates that in recovering from disaster it is crucial for organisations to identify what interacting factors could affect their operations. Also of importance are efforts to reduce the organisation’s vulnerability and increase their resilience to future crises and in day-to-day operations. Lastly, the multi-disciplinary approach to understanding the recovery and resilience of organisations and industry sectors after disaster, leads to a better understanding of effects as well as more effective recovery policy.
Questions to Ministers 1. Hon PHIL GOFF to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements on the privatisation of New Zealand State-owned power companies? 2. MICHAEL WOODHOUSE to the Minister of Finance: What progress has the Government made in making the tax system fairer? 3. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Prime Minister: At recent meetings he has had with Grey Power, have they raised with him their concerns about the sell-off of state assets? 4. Dr CAM CALDER to the Minister of Corrections: Has she received any reports on the rate of escape from New Zealand prisons? 5. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Minister of Finance: Why doesn't his Budget's net debt track take into account lost dividends from SOEs and sales costs arising from his policy of privatising state assets? 6. KEVIN HAGUE to the Minister of Labour: Is underground mining safe in New Zealand? 7. COLIN KING to the Minister of Transport: What progress has been made on the Christchurch Southern Motorway Road of National Significance following the earthquakes in the city? 8. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: How many of the 5,100 properties in the red zone have been deemed to be uneconomic to repair by the insurer and how many of those, approximately, had unimproved land valuations of less than $150,000? 9. JOHN BOSCAWEN to the Minister of Māori Affairs: Does he stand by all of his recent statements? 10. Hon TREVOR MALLARD to the Prime Minister: Further to his answers to Oral Question No 1 yesterday on the purchase of state assets by foreigners, what percentage of Contact shares are currently held by foreigners or corporations? 11. RAHUI KATENE to the Minister for the Environment: Does he agree with the statement in Ko Aotearoa Tēnei, that "direct infusion of indigenous values into mainstream environmental regulation may well be unique in the world"; if so, how will he advance the opportunities for Māori to take more positive and proactive roles in environmental decision-making? 12. NICKY WAGNER to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What reports has she seen on the Canterbury unemployment figures?
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