Questions to Ministers 1. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Prime Minister: What recent reports has he received on the impact of rising prices on families in light of his statement that "no one is worse off"? 2. AARON GILMORE to the Minister of Finance: How is the Government supporting the earthquake recovery effort in Canterbury? 3. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that his plan to sell public assets would give "New Zealanders a fantastic opportunity to invest in this country's future"? 4. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI to the Minister of Corrections: What progress has been made in using technology to improve public safety and reduce costs in the criminal justice system? 5. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement "each of us can do something that could save someone's job, create a new job for another person or help someone else find a new job as soon as possible"? 6. LOUISE UPSTON to the Minister for Communications and Information Technology: What benefits will ultra-fast broadband services bring to education in New Zealand? 7. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Health: Is it correct that there is a $156 million gap between the amount the Ministry of Health has advised was necessary to meet population and demographic growth in Vote Health for 2011/12 and the amount of new spending allocated for Vote Health in the 2011 Budget? 8. KEVIN HAGUE to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement on Breakfast yesterday that "we're constantly changing aquaculture laws, or fishing laws, or whatever it might be. I mean in the case of Sky City, that particular licence is site specific"? 9. JACINDA ARDERN to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that "it is New Zealanders … that create new jobs and opportunities - not the Government"? 10. KATRINA SHANKS to the Minister of Housing: What recent announcement has he made about the Government's response to the Housing Shareholders' Advisory Group report? 11. DARIEN FENTON to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement on proposed labour law changes "we are not talking dramatic changes"? 12. JONATHAN YOUNG to the Acting Minister of Energy and Resources: What recent initiatives has the Government undertaken to help New Zealanders control the cost of their power bills?
DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he believe that Hon John Banks has behaved in a manner that “upholds, and is seen to uphold the highest ethical standards” as required by the Cabinet Manual? BARBARA STEWART to the Prime Minister: Did Mr Banks explain to the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff that he would use “obfuscation” in his dealings with the media over the “anonymous” donations from Kim Dotcom? MAGGIE BARRY to the Minister of Finance: How does the Government intend to strengthen the Public Finance Act 1989 in the Budget this month? Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: In the most recent World Economic Outlook published by the IMF in April 2012, which of the 34 advanced economies listed is forecast to have a worse current account deficit (as a percentage of GDP) than New Zealand in 2013? METIRIA TUREI to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all the answers he gave to Oral Question No 4 yesterday? KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI to the Minister for Economic Development: What action is the Government taking to improve co-ordination of the business growth agenda? Hon PHIL GOFF to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: What damage, if any, has been done to staff confidence and retention by the change proposals for his Ministry announced on 23 February 2012, and does he intend to announce on 10 May 2012 a reversal of many of the proposals? SIMON O'CONNOR to the Minister of Labour: What steps is the Government taking to improve workplace health and safety? GARETH HUGHES to the Minister of Conservation: Does her proposed extension of the Marine Mammal Sanctuary for Maui’s dolphins allow the use of set nets, drift nets, and trawl nets within the sanctuary? IAN McKELVIE to the Minister of Corrections: What reports has she received about trade training within prisons? Hon LIANNE DALZIEL to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Has he required that all his Ministers involved in the Canterbury earthquake recovery read the briefing paper dated 10 May 2011 prepared by Chief Science Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, into the psychosocial consequences of the Canterbury earthquakes; if not, why not? NIKKI KAYE to the Minister of Education: What evidence has she seen of excellent achievement in scholarship exams?
DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Is it still a fundamental purpose of his Government to narrow the wage gap between New Zealand and Australia, and to grow local wages in New Zealand? TODD McCLAY to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he received on the economy? Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: In dollar terms, what is the shortfall in the tax-take for the nine months to March revealed in yesterday’s Financial Statements compared to October’s pre-election update? Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Minister of Finance: How much has been raised to date by the Earthquake Kiwi Bonds and, at this rate, how many years will it take to cover the Government’s estimated $5.5 billion liability resulting from the Canterbury earthquakes? Hon TAU HENARE to the Minister for Social Development: How will Budget 2012 provide greater support for young people most at risk of long-term welfare dependency? Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: Does he stand by the Prime Minister’s statement regarding asset sales that “We are not going to do anything tricky there”? Dr JIAN YANG to the Associate Minister of Health: How is the Government expanding its programme to reduce rheumatic fever in vulnerable communities? Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Housing: Does he stand by all his comments regarding housing? JULIE ANNE GENTER to the Minister of Transport: What is the plan to pay for the Government’s transport expenditure given that the Ministry of Transport’s Briefing to the Incoming Minister warns of a funding shortfall of $4.9 billion if high oil prices and low GDP growth continue? MARK MITCHELL to the Minister for Economic Development: How is the Government improving value for money in its procurement of services for the public sector? DARIEN FENTON to the Minister of Labour: Does she stand by her statement that “I do not want to see unnecessary change for change’s sake. Rather I am looking to put in place pragmatic solutions as we implement our manifesto commitments and let employers, employees and business focus on what they do best.”? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he still have confidence in the Minister for Social Development and the Associate Ministers for Social Development; if so, why?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence that his Ministers are ethical and competent? DAVID BENNETT to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on building momentum in the New Zealand economy and how this is supporting jobs? METIRIA TUREI to the Prime Minister: Has he checked his files yet regarding whether Hon John Banks declared a potential conflict of interest in relation to the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill while still a Minister; if so, was any conflict declared? Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: Is he satisfied with the performance of Health Benefits Ltd; if so, why? NICKY WAGNER to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: What recent progress has been made on the anchor projects in the Christchurch Central recovery plan? ANDREW WILLIAMS to the Minister of Conservation: Has he received any reports on the environmental impact of seismic surveying in the New Zealand Exclusive Economic Zone? Hon MARYAN STREET to the Minister of State Services: Has he asked the State Services Commissioner for reports on recent failures of state sector agencies to carry out their functions according to the law; if not, why not? IAN McKELVIE to the Minister for Primary Industries: What progress can he report on boosting innovation in the primary sector through the Primary Growth Partnership? Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR to the Minister for Primary Industries: What reports, if any, has he received on the state of the New Zealand kiwifruit industry? PAUL FOSTER-BELL to the Minister of Police: What recent announcements has she made to support the victims of serious financial crime? Hon RUTH DYSON to the Minister of Conservation: Why did he tell the House on 24 September "the first I knew of the issue of the submission was just 5 days before" when as he stated on 17 October "The first full briefing on Tukituki was on 5 March and it confirmed the department's role in the process and mentioned nitrogen and phosphorous management"? Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Will he explain, given the latest projection of New Zealand's net greenhouse gas emissions is around 90 million tonnes in 2040, how the Government can conceivably reach its own emissions reduction target of 30 million tonnes by 2050?
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.
The Avon-Heathcote Estuary is of significant value to Christchurch due to its high productivity, biotic diversity, proximity to the city, and its cultural, recreational and aesthetic qualities. Nonetheless, it has been subjected to decades of degradation from sewage wastewater discharges and encroaching urban development. The result was a eutrophied estuary, high in nitrogen, affected by large blooms of nuisance macroalgae and covered by degraded sediments. In March 2010, treated wastewater was diverted from the estuary to a site 3 km offshore. This quickly reduced water nitrogen by 90% within the estuary and, within months, there was reduced production of macroalgae. However, a series of earthquakes beginning in September 2010 brought massive changes: tilting of the estuary, changes in channels and water flow, and a huge influx of liquefied sediments that covered up to 65% of the estuary floor. Water nitrogen increased due to damage to sewage infrastructure and the diversion pipeline being turned off. Together, these drastically altered the estuarine ecosystem. My study involves three laboratory and five in situ experiments that investigate the base of the food chain and responses of benthic microalgae to earthquake-driven sediment and nutrient changes. It was predicted that the new sediments would be coarser and less contaminated with organic matter and nutrients than the old sediments, would have decreased microalgal biomass, and would prevent invertebrate grazing and bioturbation activities. It was believed that microalgal biomass would become similar across new and old sediments types as the unstable new sediments were resuspended and distributed over the old sediments. Contact cores of the sediment were taken at three sites, across a eutrophication gradient, monthly from September 2011 to March 2012. Extracted chlorophyll a pigments showed that microalgal biomass was generally lower on new liquefied sediments compared to old sediments, although there was considerable site to site variation, with the highly eutrophic sites being the most affected by the emergence of the new sediments. Grazer experiments showed that invertebrates had both positive and negative site-specific effects on microalgal biomass depending on their identity. At one site, new sediments facilitated grazing by Amphibola crenata, whereas at another site, new sediments did not alter the direct and indirect effects of invertebrates (Nicon aestuariensis, Macropthalmus hirtipes, and A. crenata) on microalgae. From nutrient addition experiments it was clear that benthic microalgae were able to use nutrients from within both old and new sediments equally. This implied that microalgae were reducing legacy nutrients in both sediments, and that they are an important buffer against eutrophication. Therefore, in tandem with the wastewater diversion, they could underpin much of the recovery of the estuary. Overall, the new sediments were less favourable for benthic microalgal growth and recolonisation, but were less contaminated than old sediments at highly eutrophic sites. Because the new sediments were less contaminated than the old sediments, they could help return the estuary to a noneutrophic state. However, if the new sediments, which are less favourable for microalgal growth, disperse over the old sediments at highly eutrophic sites, they could become contaminated and interfere with estuarine recovery. Therefore, recovery of microalgal communities and the estuary was expected to be generally long, but variable and site-specific, with the least eutrophic sites recovering quickly, and the most eutrophic sites taking years to return to a pre-earthquake and non-eutrophied state. changes in channels and water flow, and a huge influx of liquefied sediments that covered up to 65% of the estuary floor. Water nitrogen increased due to damage to sewage infrastructure and the diversion pipeline being turned off. Together, these drastically altered the estuarine ecosystem. My study involves three laboratory and five in situ experiments that investigate the base of the food chain and responses of benthic microalgae to earthquake-driven sedimen tand nutrient changes. It was predicted that the new sediments would be coarser and less contaminated with organic matter and nutrients than the old sediments, would have decreased microalgal biomass, and would prevent invertebrate grazing and bioturbation activities. It was believed that microalgal biomass would become similar across new and old sediments types as the unstable new sediments were resuspended and distributed over the old sediments. Contact cores of the sediment were taken at three sites, across a eutrophication gradient, monthly from September 2011 to March 2012. Extracted chlorophyll a pigments showed that microalgal biomass was generally lower on new liquefied sediments compared to old sediments, although there was considerable site to site variation, with the highly eutrophic sites being the most affected by the emergence of the new sediments. Grazer experiments showed that invertebrates had both positive and negative site-specific effects on microalgal biomass depending on their identity. At one site, new sediments facilitated grazing by Amphibola crenata, whereas at another site, new sediments did not alter the direct and indirect effects of invertebrates (Nicon aestuariensis, Macropthalmus hirtipes, and A. crenata) on microalgae. From nutrient addition experiments it was clear that benthic microalgae were able to use nutrients from within both old and new sediments equally. This implied that microalgae were reducing legacy nutrients in both sediments, and that they are
In 2010 and 2011 Christchurch, New Zealand experienced a series of earthquakes that caused extensive damage across the city, but primarily to the Central Business District (CBD) and eastern suburbs. A major feature of the observed damage was extensive and severe soil liquefaction and associated ground damage, affecting buildings and infrastructure. The behaviour of soil during earthquake loading is a complex phenomena that can be most comprehensively analysed through advanced numerical simulations to aid engineers in the design of important buildings and critical facilities. These numerical simulations are highly dependent on the capabilities of the constitutive soil model to replicate the salient features of sand behaviour during cyclic loading, including liquefaction and cyclic mobility, such as the Stress-Density model. For robust analyses advanced soil models require extensive testing to derive engineering parameters under varying loading conditions for calibration. Prior to this research project little testing on Christchurch sands had been completed, and none from natural samples containing important features such as fabric and structure of the sand that may be influenced by the unique stress-history of the deposit. This research programme is focussed on the characterisation of Christchurch sands, as typically found in the CBD, to facilitate advanced soil modelling in both res earch and engineering practice - to simulate earthquake loading on proposed foundation design solutions including expensive ground improvement treatments. This has involved the use of a new Gel Push (GP) sampler to obtain undisturbed samples from below the ground-water table. Due to the variable nature of fluvial deposition, samples with a wide range of soil gradations, and accordingly soil index properties, were obtained from the sampling sites. The quality of the samples is comprehensively examined using available data from the ground investigation and laboratory testing. A meta-quality assessment was considered whereby a each method of evaluation contributed to the final quality index assigned to the specimen. The sampling sites were characterised with available geotechnical field-based test data, primarily the Cone Penetrometer Test (CPT), supported by borehole sampling and shear-wave velocity testing. This characterisation provides a geo- logical context to the sampling sites and samples obtained for element testing. It also facilitated the evaluation of sample quality. The sampling sites were evaluated for liquefaction hazard using the industry standard empirical procedures, and showed good correlation to observations made following the 22 February 2011 earthquake. However, the empirical method over-predicted liquefaction occurrence during the preceding 4 September 2010 event, and under-predicted for the subsequent 13 June 2011 event. The reasons for these discrepancies are discussed. The response of the GP samples to monotonic and cyclic loading was measured in the laboratory through triaxial testing at the University of Canterbury geomechanics laboratory. The undisturbed samples were compared to reconstituted specimens formed in the lab in an attempt to quantify the effect of fabric and structure in the Christchurch sands. Further testing of moist tamped re- constituted specimens (MT) was conducted to define important state parameters and state-dependent properties including the Critical State Line (CSL), and the stress-strain curve for varying state index. To account for the wide-ranging soil gradations, selected representative specimens were used to define four distinct CSL. The input parameters for the Stress-Density Model (S-D) were derived from a suite of tests performed on each representative soil, and with reference to available GP sample data. The results of testing were scrutinised by comparing the data against expected trends. The influence of fabric and structure of the GP samples was observed to result in similar cyclic strength curves at 5 % Double Amplitude (DA) strain criteria, however on close inspection of the test data, clear differences emerged. The natural samples exhibited higher compressibility during initial loading cycles, but thereafter typically exhibited steady growth of plastic strain and excess pore water pressure towards and beyond the strain criteria and initial liquefaction, and no flow was observed. By contrast the reconstituted specimens exhibited a stiffer response during initial loading cycles, but exponential growth in strains and associated excess pore water pressure beyond phase-transformation, and particularly after initial liquefaction where large strains were mobilised in subsequent cycles. These behavioural differences were not well characterised by the cyclic strength curve at 5 % DA strain level, which showed a similar strength for both GP samples and MT specimens. A preliminary calibration of the S-D model for a range of soil gradations is derived from the suite of laboratory test data. Issues encountered include the influence of natural structure on the peak-strength–state index relationship, resulting in much higher peak strengths than typically observed for sands in the literature. For the S-D model this resulted in excessive stiffness to be modelled during cyclic mobility, when the state index becomes large momentarily, causing strain development to halt. This behaviour prevented modelling the observed re- sponse of silty sands to large strains, synonymous with “liquefaction”. Efforts to reduce this effect within the current formulation are proposed as well as future research to address this issue.
Questions to Ministers 1. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: What was the combined increase in the value of the Crown's equity in Meridian, Mighty River Power, Solid Energy, Genesis and Air New Zealand for each of the last five years? 2. SIMON BRIDGES to the Minister of Finance: How did Budget 2011 continue the Government's programme to build faster growth, higher incomes and more jobs? 3. Hon MARYAN STREET to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Have all recent actions of New Zealand's diplomats been consistent with Government policy? 4. Hon TAU HENARE to the Minister of Health: What reports has he received about improved access to dialysis for patients in Auckland and Waitemata? 5. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Minister of Finance: Will the Government have to borrow further to pay for the latest Christchurch earthquakes? 6. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Health: Does he agree with the statement of the Auditor-General, "Despite the encouraging improvements made in the last 10 years, we do not yet have a system for scheduled services that can demonstrate national consistency and equitable treatment for all"? 7. AMY ADAMS to the Minister for the Environment: What steps has the Government taken to facilitate resource consents for work required at the Lyttelton Port to ensure it is able to recover quickly from earthquake damage? 8. JACINDA ARDERN to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by the statement made on his behalf that "this Government is focused on improvements within the economy in order to create the platform on which business and New Zealanders can invest and grow jobs"? 9. TE URUROA FLAVELL to the Minister of Health: Does he agree that under section 118 of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003, the Medical Council has a responsibility to ensure the cultural competence of doctors, and what support has the Government provided to the health sector to ensure cultural competence is achieved across the health sector? 10. DAVID SHEARER to the Minister of Science and Innovation: Does he agree with Professor Sir Paul Callaghan's statement on science and innovation "it's clear that the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister have not really seen this as a top priority"? 11. CHESTER BORROWS to the Minister of Justice: What progress is being made on preparations for the referendum on the electoral system to be held in conjunction with this year's general election? 12. Hon RICK BARKER to the Minister of Veterans' Affairs: When can veterans expect to have a full response from the Government in response to the Law Commission's report "A New Support Scheme for Veterans"?
Questions to Ministers 1. CHRIS AUCHINVOLE to the Minister of Finance: What steps has the Government taken to make better use of its balance sheet to boost growth and jobs? 2. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: In light of her answer on behalf of the Prime Minister yesterday, that there is child poverty in New Zealand, what is the estimated cost of child poverty per year? 3. KATRINA SHANKS to the Minister for Communications and Information Technology: What progress has the Government made on rolling out ultra-fast broadband in Wellington? 4. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Health: Have hospital admissions for children with respiratory diseases and infectious diseases increased over the last three years; if so, by how much? 5. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Minister of Agriculture: Will the Government adopt the OECD's 2011 recommendation that New Zealand implement water charging for agricultural uses? 6. SUE MORONEY to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by her commitment on The Nation on 20 August 2011, that low and middle income families would not pay more for 20 hours of early childhood education in the next three years if the Government is re-elected? 7. Hon TAU HENARE to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What reports has she received on the latest benefit figures? 8. PHIL TWYFORD to the Minister of Transport: Does he endorse the transport elements of the draft Auckland Plan; if not, why not? 9. NICKY WAGNER to the Minister of Health: What steps has the Government taken to improve outpatient and other health services to the people of Canterbury following the earthquakes? 10. STUART NASH to the Minister of Finance: Does the Government's privatisation plan include parameters which would cause it to cancel sales, such as low sale prices or high dividend yields; if so, what are the parameters? 11. NIKKI KAYE to the Minister of Internal Affairs: What announcements has he made regarding the igovt scheme, and increasing online access to government services? 12. Hon RICK BARKER to the Minister of Veterans' Affairs: When can veterans expect a full response from the Government in response to the Law Commission report titled A New Support Scheme for Veterans: A Report on the Review of the War Pensions Act 1954 that was presented to Parliament on 1 June 2010? Questions to Members 1. CLARE CURRAN to the Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee: Has he requested any written submissions on the petition of George Laird, signed by nearly 14,000 people, calling the Government to retain the Hillside and Woburn workshops?
Canterbury, New Zealand, was struck by two major earthquakes in 2010 and 2011. Using a dyadic and developmental perspective, the current thesis first aimed to determine how the experience of earthquake-related stressors (including loss of material resources, trauma exposure, and ongoing earthquake-related stressors) and stress (posttraumatic stress symptoms) impacted individuals’ intimate relationship quality (Part 1). Data were collected from a sample of 99 couples at four time points over a period of approximately 15 months, with Time 1 completed 14 months after the 2010 earthquake (eight months post the 2011 earthquake). Data were analysed using moderated growth curve modelling in an Actor-Partner Interdependence Model framework. In line with expectations, posttraumatic stress symptoms were the strongest predictors of relationship quality. More specifically, individuals’ (actor) posttraumatic stress symptoms and their partner’s posttraumatic stress symptoms had an adverse effect on their relationship quality at Time 1. Demonstrating the importance of taking a developmental perspective, the effect of partner posttraumatic stress symptoms changed over time. Although higher partner posttraumatic stress symptoms were associated with worse relationship quality in individuals (actors) at Time 1, this was no longer the case at Time 4. Differences were also found between men and women’s actor posttraumatic stress symptom slopes across time. Using the same data and analyses, Part 2 built on these findings by investigating the role of a possible posttrauma resource available within the relationship – support exchanges. Overall, results showed that individuals were protected from any adverse effects that posttraumatic stress symptoms had on relationship quality if they had more frequent support exchanges in the relationship, however, differences between men and women and slopes across time were found. Although not the case initially, individuals’ relationship quality was worse in the longer-term if their partner reported receiving lower support from them when they were experiencing high posttraumatic stress symptoms. Results also suggested that although women coped better (as evidenced through slightly better relationship quality) with higher symptoms and lower support than men initially, these efforts diminished over time. Furthermore, men appeared to be less able to cope (i.e., had worse relationship quality) with their partner’s stress when they were not receiving frequent support. Contrary to expectations, negative exchanges in the relationship did not exacerbate any adverse effects that posttraumatic stress symptoms (experienced by either individuals or their partner) had on an individuals’ relationship quality. The theoretical and practical implications and applications of these findings are discussed.
PAUL GOLDSMITH to the Minister of Finance: What steps is the Government taking to support new jobs and build a productive and competitive economy? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Minister responsible for the GCSB: Specifically, have there been staff issues associated with the Government Communications Security Bureau and Dotcom affair brought to his attention by the Government Communications Security Bureau or members of the New Zealand Police, in which such staff members no longer work in their previous capacity for the Government Communications Security Bureau or any government agency; if so, what were the circumstances? DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Further to his answers to the first supplementary question to Oral Question No 1 on 26 September and the first supplementary question to Oral Question No 1 yesterday, does he now know on what date the Government Communications Security Bureau was first told that its surveillance of Kim Dotcom was illegal? ALFRED NGARO to the Minister for Social Development: What recent announcements has she made regarding providing extra financial assistance to grandparents raising grandchildren and other kin-carers? Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: When he said yesterday that with a "relatively high" exchange rate, our exporters "have been sufficiently resilient to be able to grow export volumes and value" did he mean that all export sectors have been growing, and according to Statistics New Zealand, in 2008 dollars what is the percentage change in exports of simply and elaborately transformed manufactured goods from the 2008 to 2012 financial years? METIRIA TUREI to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement, in response to a question about whether he will support my Income Tax (Universalisation of In-work Tax Credit) Amendment Bill that "she wants to give the same millionaires yet more money to raise their kids"? SHANE ARDERN to the Minister for Primary Industries: What progress can he report on the Primary Growth Partnership Initiative? JACINDA ARDERN to the Minister for Social Development: What vulnerabilities were identified in the report prepared by Dimension Data on the security of the Work and Income kiosks? Dr JACKIE BLUE to the Minister of Health: What reports has he received on improving the quality and efficiency of health services? TE URUROA FLAVELL to the Minister of Broadcasting: How does he ensure that the legislative requirement for TVNZ to provide high-quality content that reflects Māori perspectives is reflected in the programming strategy for TV1 and TV2? CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of Education: Is she confident that the information she relied upon in deciding on proposals for school closures and mergers in Christchurch was robust and reliable; if so, why? CHRIS AUCHINVOLE to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: What reports has he received on the availability of insurance cover to support the rebuilding of Canterbury following the seismic events?
1. TODD McCLAY to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the economy? 2. KEVIN HAGUE to the Minister of Labour: Does she agree that the test of practicability in the Health and Safety in Employment (Mining-Underground) Regulations 1999 is likely to result in different mines having different safety standards, in contrast to the regulations in place until 1992? 3. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Prime Minister: In light of his comment that "New Zealand is to be congratulated because, at least in terms of the gender pay gap, ours is the third lowest in the OECD", does that mean he is satisfied with the 10.6 percent gap between men's and women's pay in our country? 4. LOUISE UPSTON to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What reports has she received on the latest benefit numbers? 5. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Does he consider the allocation of the value of the land within the rating valuation process to be robust, when it has produced such variable outcomes, leaving many in the red zone with insufficient funds to buy a section to take advantage of the replacement option in their insurance policy? 6. Dr CAM CALDER to the Minister for the Environment: What work is his Ministry doing to help New Zealand take up the opportunity from green growth following the OECD May 2011 report on the high expected global demand for such products and services? 7. Hon MARYAN STREET to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: How many human resources contracts, if any, were let by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade without tenders being invited in 2010/2011, and what criteria were used to assess non-tendered contractors? 8. PAUL QUINN to the Minister of Transport: What is the Government doing to improve Wellington's commuter rail network? 9. METIRIA TUREI to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement "there is no question in my mind - someone would be better off in paid employment than on welfare. If they were not, that is a real indictment on the welfare system"? 10. Hon TREVOR MALLARD to the Minister of Finance: When he said that "I did visit the Chinese Investment Corporation … They are very pleased with New Zealand's economic policy", was one of the policies he discussed with this foreign sovereign wealth fund his plan for privatising state assets? 11. JAMI-LEE ROSS to the Minister of Broadcasting: What recent announcements has the Government made on progress towards digital switchover? 12. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement to the Cabinet Expenditure Control Committee that "we may need to take some tough choices regarding the scope and range of services the public health system can provide to New Zealanders"?
Questions to Ministers 1. DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement in the House yesterday, in answer to Oral Question No 2, that his Government is selling assets because "New Zealanders want less debt, more productive assets, and an economy that is going to function, not a load more debt"? 2. PAUL GOLDSMITH to the Minister for Economic Development: What progress is the Government making in implementing its economic growth agenda? 3. PHIL TWYFORD to the Minister of Transport: Does the Government consider it important for its transport spending to be cost-effective and provide a good return on investment? 4. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: What, according to the Crown Ownership Monitoring Unit, was the average total shareholder return of Genesis, Meridian, Mighty River Power and Solid Energy over the last five years and how does that compare to the average cost of borrowing to the Government right now? 5. NICKY WAGNER to the Minister of Local Government: What reports has he received on how much rates increased nationally in the decade since the Local Government Act 2002 and how does this compare to the previous decade? 6. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister for the Environment: Does he stand by his statement made in the House yesterday in relation to the grounding of the Rena that "the statute sets down very clearly that I as Minister for the Environment should not be encouraging or discouraging a proper, independent decision by Environment Bay of Plenty as to whether they should or should not take a prosecution"? 7. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI to the Minister of Broadcasting: What recent announcements has the Government made on progress towards digital switchover? 8. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he still have confidence in all his Ministers? 9. Hon LIANNE DALZIEL to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: How many written comments were received on the draft Recovery Plan for the Christchurch CBD and is it his intention to consider them all before making a decision on the draft Recovery Plan for the CBD, in accordance with the process set out on the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority's website? 10. MELISSA LEE to the Minister of Internal Affairs: What recent steps have there been to promote New Zealand citizenship as a successful settlement pathway for migrants? 11. CLARE CURRAN to the Minister of Broadcasting: Does he stand by the Prime Minister's statement in relation to the appointment of the Prime Minister's electorate chairman Stephen McElrea to the NZ On Air board that "if you look at the vast array of appointments we make, I think the balance is about right"? 12. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY to the Minister of Education: Will she rule out implementing Treasury's advice to increase class sizes in schools?
ANDREW LITTLE to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in the Minister for Building and Housing given the falling rate of homeownership, especially among young people? RON MARK to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements? MATT DOOCEY to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that “There are more jobs, and people are being better paid”; if so, why? Dr MEGAN WOODS to the Minister supporting Greater Christchurch Regeneration: Does he agree with the Prime Minister, who said with regard to the Canterbury earthquakes, “on behalf of the Government, let me be clear that no one will be left to walk this journey alone”; if so, does he think all relevant information prepared by his Government has been made available to Cantabrians to assist them in navigating post-earthquake decisions? METIRIA TUREI to the Prime Minister: Ka tū a ia i runga i te mana o āna kaupapa here Kāwanatanga katoa, nē? Translation: Does he stand by all his Government’s policies? Dr JIAN YANG to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made about expanding 21st century learning options for parents and whanau? CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of Education: How will her Communities of Online Learning (CoOL) proposal differ from online charter schools in the United States, given a study partially funded by a private pro-charter foundation found students attending those schools lost an average of about 72 days of learning in reading, and 180 days of learning in maths during the course of a 180-day school year? CATHERINE DELAHUNTY to the Minister for the Environment: Will he commit to a regulatory regime that includes swimmable rivers in light of the comment from a Havelock North café owner who said that, “we’d trade all the compensation in the world if it would spur the Government into tidying up or cleaning up the waterways”? IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY to the Minister of Immigration: How many of the 209,000 work visas issued last year were for occupations on one of the Essential Skills in Demand lists? JONO NAYLOR to the Minister of Police: What is the Police doing to assist potential victims of family violence? STUART NASH to the Minister of Police: Does she believe that the Police have enough resources to implement their part of the Prime Minister’s 2009 promise to use the full force of the Government’s arsenal to “confront the P problem” given that P is cheaper, and as easy as it was to get in 2008? PAUL FOSTER-BELL to the Minister for Primary Industries: What recent reports has he received on growth in wine exports?
Questions to Ministers 1. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with 57 percent of New Zealanders who, according to a recent UMR poll, support the introduction of a temporary earthquake levy to pay for the rebuilding of Christchurch? 2. Hon PHIL GOFF to the Prime Minister: What, according to the 2010 Investment Statement of the Government of New Zealand, was the average total shareholder return over the last five years from State-owned Enterprises and the average bond rate, and is that consistent with his statement that "it is the Government's intention to use the proceeds of those initial public offerings to actually invest in other assets that the Government would have to fund through the Government bond rate"? 3. DAVID BENNETT to the Minister for Infrastructure: What progress has the Government made on its infrastructure programme? 4. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement "this Government is not prepared to turn its back on our most vulnerable citizens when they most need our help"? 5. Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN to the Acting Minister of Energy and Resources: Is it government policy for New Zealand to become a "highly attractive global destination" for oil exploration, with expansion of the oil and coal sectors leading to a "step change" in the country's economic growth as set out in the document Developing Our Energy Potential; if not, why not? 6. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Is the Government considering extending the business assistance package for employers and employees beyond the 14-week period currently signalled; if not, why not? 7. JACQUI DEAN to the Minister of Police: What reports has she received on the latest trends in the level of crime in New Zealand? 8. Hon TREVOR MALLARD to the Prime Minister: Did he tell a meeting in Timaru last week "The entire time I've been Prime Minister I've had Treasury in my office week after week, month after month, telling me South Canterbury Finance was going bankrupt"? 9. CHRIS AUCHINVOLE to the Minister for the Environment: What advice has he received on major resource consents being considered under the Government's new national consenting policy? 10. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Acting Minister of Energy and Resources: Does she agree that the joint scheme initiated by the Green Party and the Government, Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart, is the best initiative in the Draft New Zealand Energy Strategy because it is providing hundreds of thousands of New Zealand households with warm, dry, energy efficient homes, and creating thousands of clean green jobs? 11. Hon SHANE JONES to the Minister of Fisheries: Does he still have no major concerns about the way foreign boats were used by New Zealand companies as the Nelson Mail reports he said last year? 12. TIM MACINDOE to the Minister of Housing: What recent announcements has he made regarding the Government's Housing Innovation Fund?
TODD McCLAY to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he received on the Government’s financial position? Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “if you go and have a look at the tax cuts, they literally were neutral” and, if so, what is the projected net cost of the first four years of the 2010 tax package? DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers? Dr PAUL HUTCHISON to the Associate Minister of Health: How will young New Zealanders receive better mental health services under the new Government package announced by the Prime Minister today? Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister for Land Information: Has he or any other Minister this week sought further information on Shanghai Pengxin’s application for his approval to buy the Crafar farms, and if so, is it coincidence or purpose that this will further delay his decision on the application? NIKKI KAYE to the Minister of Education: What initiatives is she introducing to help schools tackle youth mental health? JULIE ANNE GENTER to the Minister of Transport: Has the Government reviewed its highway building programme in light of the warning in the briefing to the incoming Minister that there will be a $4.9 billion funding shortfall if oil prices remain high and economic growth remains low; if not, why not? CHARLES CHAUVEL to the Minister of Justice: Does she stand by all the answers she has given to questions asked of her to date? NICKY WAGNER to the Minister for Economic Development: What action has the Government taken to contribute to the recovery of high-tech businesses in Christchurch? Hon LIANNE DALZIEL to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: When will he approve a Recovery Plan for Christchurch’s CBD in light of the Christchurch City Council’s announcement that it will commence its Annual Plan processes next week? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in the Overseas Investment Office and his Ministers, Hon Jonathan Coleman and Hon Maurice Williamson over the issue of the latest Crafar farms deal; if so, why? CLARE CURRAN to the Prime Minister: What did he mean when he told the NZ Herald and other media last week that “We are comfortable with the current arrangements we have” with regards to Chinese telco Huawei’s involvement in our national broadband infrastructure, given that Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard also said last week that “We’ve taken a decision in the national interest” to ban Huawei from even tendering for its broadband network? Questions to Members Hon DAVID PARKER to the Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee: Is it his intention to call the Treasury to appear before the committee to comment on the Report from the Controller and Auditor-General on The Treasury: Implementing and managing the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme; if not, why not?
Rising disaster losses, growth in global migration, migrant labour trends, and increasingly diverse populations have serious implications for disaster resilience around the world. These issues are of particular concern in New Zealand, which is highly exposed to disaster risk and has the highest proportion of migrant workers to national population in the OECD. Since there has been no research conducted into this issue in New Zealand to date, greater understanding of the social capital used by migrant workers in specific New Zealand contexts is needed to inform more targeted and inclusive disaster risk management approaches. A New Zealand case study is used to investigate the extent and types of social capital and levels of disaster risk awareness reported by members of three Filipino migrant workers organisations catering to dairy farm, construction and aged care workers in different urban and rural Canterbury districts. Findings from (3) semi-structured interviews and (3) focus groups include consistently high reliance on bonding capital and low levels of bridging capital across all three organisations and industry sectors, and in both urban and rural contexts. The transitory, precarious residential status conveyed by temporary work visas, and the difficulty of building bridging capital with host communities has contributed to this heavy reliance on bonding capital. Social media was essential to connect workers with family and friends in other countries, while Filipino migrant workers organisations provided members with valuable access to industry and district-specific networks of other Filipino migrant workers. Linking capital varied between the three organisations, with members of the organisation set up to advocate for dairy farm workers reporting the highest levels of linking capital. Factors influencing the capacity of workers organisations to develop linking capital appeared to include motivation (establishment objectives), length of time since establishment, support from government and industry groups, urban-rural context, income levels and gender. Although aware of publicity around earthquake and tsunami risk in the Canterbury region, participants were less aware of flood risk, and expressed fatalistic attitudes to disaster risk. Workers organisations offer a valuable potential interface between CDEM Group activities and migrant worker communities, since organisation leaders were interested in accessing government support to participate (with and on behalf of members) in disaster risk planning at district and regional level. With the potential to increase disaster resilience among these vulnerable, hard to reach communities, such participation could also help to build capacity across workers organisations (within Canterbury and across the country) to develop linking capital at national, as well as regional level. However, these links will also depend on greater government and industry commitment to providing more targeted and appropriate support for migrant workers, including consideration of the cultural qualifications of staff tasked with liaising with this community.
Globally, the maximum elevations at which treelines are observed to occur coincide with a 6.4 °C soil isotherm. However, when observed at finer scales, treelines display a considerable degree of spatial complexity in their patterns across the landscape and are often found occurring at lower elevations than expected relative to the global-scale pattern. There is still a lack of understanding of how the abiotic environment imposes constraints on treeline patterns, the scales at which different effects are acting, and how these effects vary over large spatial extents. In this thesis, I examined abrupt Nothofagus treelines across seven degrees of latitude in New Zealand in order to investigate two broad questions: (1) What is the nature and extent of spatial variability in Nothofagus treelines across the country? (2) How is this variation associated with abiotic variation at different spatial scales? A range of GIS, statistical, and atmospheric modelling methods were applied to address these two questions. First, I characterised Nothofagus treeline patterns at a 15x15km scale across New Zealand using a set of seven, GIS-derived, quantitative metrics that describe different aspects of treeline position, shape, spatial configuration, and relationships with adjacent vegetation. Multivariate clustering of these metrics revealed distinct treeline types that showed strong spatial aggregation across the country. This suggests a strong spatial structuring of the abiotic environment which, in turn, drives treeline patterns. About half of the multivariate treeline metric variation was explained by patterns of climate, substrate, topographic and disturbance variability; on the whole, climatic and disturbance factors were most influential. Second, I developed a conceptual model that describes how treeline elevation may vary at different scales according to three categories of effects: thermal modifying effects, physiological stressors, and disturbance effects. I tested the relevance of this model for Nothofagus treelines by investigating treeline elevation variation at five nested scales (regional to local) using a hierarchical design based on nested river catchments. Hierarchical linear modelling revealed that the majority of the variation in treeline elevation resided at the broadest, regional scale, which was best explained by the thermal modifying effects of solar radiation, mountain mass, and differences in the potential for cold air ponding. Nonetheless, at finer scales, physiological and disturbance effects were important and acted to modify the regional trend at these scales. These results suggest that variation in abrupt treeline elevations are due to both broad-scale temperature-based growth limitation processes and finer-scale stress- and disturbance-related effects on seedling establishment. Third, I explored the applicability of a meso-scale atmospheric model, The Air Pollution Model (TAPM), for generating 200 m resolution, hourly topoclimatic data for temperature, incoming and outgoing radiation, relative humidity, and wind speeds. Initial assessments of TAPM outputs against data from two climate station locations over seven years showed that the model could generate predictions with a consistent level of accuracy for both sites, and which agreed with other evaluations in the literature. TAPM was then used to generate data at 28, 7x7 km Nothofagus treeline zones across New Zealand for January (summer) and July (winter) 2002. Using mixed-effects linear models, I determined that both site-level factors (mean growing season temperature, mountain mass, precipitation, earthquake intensity) and local-level landform (slope and convexity) and topoclimatic factors (solar radiation, photoinhibition index, frost index, desiccation index) were influential in explaining variation in treeline elevation within and among these sites. Treelines were generally closer to their site-level maxima in regions with higher mean growing season temperatures, larger mountains, and lower levels of precipitation. Within sites, higher treelines were associated with higher solar radiation, and lower photoinhibition and desiccation index values, in January, and lower desiccation index values in July. Higher treelines were also significantly associated with steeper, more convex landforms. Overall, this thesis shows that investigating treelines across extensive areas at multiple study scales enables the development of a more comprehensive understanding of treeline variability and underlying environmental constraints. These results can be used to formulate new hypotheses regarding the mechanisms driving treeline formation and to guide the optimal choice of field sites at which to test these hypotheses.
Deconstruction, at the end of the useful life of a building, produces a considerable amount of materials which must be disposed of, or be recycled / reused. At present, in New Zealand, most timber construction and demolition (C&D) material, particularly treated timber, is simply waste and is placed in landfills. For both technical and economic reasons (and despite the increasing cost of landfills), this position is unlikely to change in the next 10 – 15 years unless legislation dictates otherwise. Careful deconstruction, as opposed to demolition, can provide some timber materials which can be immediately re-used (eg. doors and windows), or further processed into other components (eg. beams or walls) or recycled (‘cascaded’) into other timber or composite products (e.g. fibre-board). This reusing / recycling of materials is being driven slowly in NZ by legislation, the ‘greening’ of the construction industry and public pressure. However, the recovery of useful material can be expensive and uneconomic (as opposed to land-filling). In NZ, there are few facilities which are able to sort and separate timber materials from other waste, although the soon-to-be commissioned Burwood Resource Recovery Park in Christchurch will attempt to deal with significant quantities of demolition waste from the recent earthquakes. The success (or otherwise) of this operation should provide good information as to how future C&D waste will be managed in NZ. In NZ, there are only a few, small scale facilities which are able to burn waste wood for energy recovery (e.g. timber mills), and none are known to be able to handle large quantities of treated timber. Such facilities, with constantly improving technology, are being commissioned in Europe (often with Government subsidies) and this indicates that similar bio-energy (co)generation will be established in NZ in the future. However, at present, the NZ Government provides little assistance to the bio-energy industry and the emergence worldwide of shale-gas reserves is likely to push the economic viability of bio-energy further into the future. The behaviour of timber materials placed in landfills is complex and poorly understood. Degrading timber in landfills has the potential to generate methane, a potent greenhouse gas, which can escape to the atmosphere and cancel out the significant benefits of carbon sequestration during tree growth. Improving security of landfills and more effective and efficient collection and utilisation of methane from landfills in NZ will significantly reduce the potential for leakage of methane to the atmosphere, acting as an offset to the continuing use of underground fossil fuels. Life cycle assessment (LCA), an increasingly important methodology for quantifying the environmental impacts of building materials (particularly energy, and global warming potential (GWP)), will soon be incorporated into the NZ Green Building Council Greenstar rating tools. Such LCA studies must provide a level playing field for all building materials and consider the whole life cycle. Whilst the end-of-life treatment of timber by LCA may establish a present-day base scenario, any analysis must also present a realistic end-of-life scenario for the future deconstruction of any 6 new building, as any building built today will be deconstructed many years in the future, when very different technologies will be available to deal with construction waste. At present, LCA practitioners in NZ and Australia place much value on a single research document on the degradation of timber in landfills (Ximenes et al., 2008). This leads to an end-of-life base scenario for timber which many in the industry consider to be an overestimation of the potential negative effects of methane generation. In Europe, the base scenario for wood disposal is cascading timber products and then burning for energy recovery, which normally significantly reduces any negative effects of the end-of-life for timber. LCA studies in NZ should always provide a sensitivity analysis for the end-of-life of timber and strongly and confidently argue that alternative future scenarios are realistic disposal options for buildings deconstructed in the future. Data-sets for environmental impacts (such as GWP) of building materials in NZ are limited and based on few research studies. The compilation of comprehensive data-sets with country-specific information for all building materials is considered a priority, preferably accounting for end-of-life options. The NZ timber industry should continue to ‘champion’ the environmental credentials of timber, over and above those of the other major building materials (concrete and steel). End-of-life should not be considered the ‘Achilles heel’ of the timber story.
As a global phenomenon, many cities are undergoing urban renewal to accommodate rapid growth in urban population. However, urban renewal can struggle to balance social, economic, and environmental outcomes, whereby economic outcomes are often primarily considered by developers. This has important implications for urban forests, which have previously been shown to be negatively affected by development activities. Urban forests serve the purpose of providing ecosystem services and thus are beneficial to human wellbeing. Better understanding the effect of urban renewal on city trees may help improve urban forest outcomes via effective management and policy strategies, thereby maximising ecosystem service provision and human wellbeing. Though the relationship between certain aspects of development and urban forests has received consideration in previous literature, little research has focused on how the complete property redevelopment cycle affects urban forest dynamics over time. This research provides an opportunity to gain a comprehensive understanding of the effect of residential property redevelopment on urban forest dynamics, at a range of spatial scales, in Christchurch, New Zealand following a series of major earthquakes which occurred in 2010 – 2011. One consequence of the earthquakes is the redevelopment of thousands of properties over a relatively short time-frame. The research quantifies changes in canopy cover city-wide, as well as, tree removal, retention, and planting on individual residential properties. Moreover, the research identifies the underlying reasons for these dynamics, by exploring the roles of socio-economic and demographic factors, the spatial relationships between trees and other infrastructure, and finally, the attitudes of residential property owners. To quantify the effect of property redevelopment on canopy cover change in Christchurch, this research delineated tree canopy cover city-wide in 2011 and again in 2015. An object-based image analysis (OBIA) technique was applied to aerial imagery and LiDAR data acquired at both time steps, in order to estimate city-wide canopy cover for 2011 and 2015. Changes in tree canopy cover between 2011 and 2015 were then spatially quantified. Tree canopy cover change was also calculated for all meshblocks (a relatively fine-scale geographic boundary) in Christchurch. The results show a relatively small magnitude of tree canopy cover loss, city-wide, from 10.8% to 10.3% between 2011 and 2015, but a statistically significant change in mean tree canopy cover across all the meshblocks. Tree canopy cover losses were more likely to occur in meshblocks containing properties that underwent a complete redevelopment cycle, but the loss was insensitive to the density of redevelopment within meshblocks. To explore property-scale individual tree dynamics, a mixed-methods approach was used, combining questionnaire data and remote sensing analysis. A mail-based questionnaire was delivered to residential properties to collect resident and household data; 450 residential properties (321 redeveloped, 129 non- redeveloped) returned valid questionnaires and were identified as analysis subjects. Subsequently, 2,422 tree removals and 4,544 tree retentions were identified within the 450 properties; this was done by manually delineating individual tree crowns, based on aerial imagery and LiDAR data, and visually comparing the presence or absence of these trees between 2011 and 2015. The tree removal rate on redeveloped properties (44.0%) was over three times greater than on non-redeveloped properties (13.5%) and the average canopy cover loss on redeveloped properties (52.2%) was significantly greater than on non-redeveloped properties (18.8%). A classification tree (CT) analysis was used to model individual tree dynamics (i.e. tree removal, tree retention) and candidate explanatory variables (i.e. resident and household, economic, land cover, and spatial variables). The results indicate that the model including land cover, spatial, and economic variables had the best predicting ability for individual tree dynamics (accuracy = 73.4%). Relatively small trees were more likely to be removed, while trees with large crowns were more likely to be retained. Trees were most likely to be removed from redeveloped properties with capital values lower than NZ$1,060,000 if they were within 1.4 m of the boundary of a redeveloped building. Conversely, trees were most likely to be retained if they were on a property that was not redeveloped. The analysis suggested that the resident and household factors included as potential explanatory variables did not influence tree removal or retention. To conduct a further exploration of the relationship between resident attitudes and actions towards trees on redeveloped versus non-redeveloped properties, this research also asked the landowners from the 450 properties that returned mail questionnaires to indicate their attitudes towards tree management (i.e. tree removal, tree retention, and tree planting) on their properties. The results show that residents from redeveloped properties were more likely to remove and/or plant trees, while residents from non- redeveloped properties were more likely to retain existing trees. A principal component analysis (PCA) was used to explore resident attitudes towards tree management. The results of the PCA show that residents identified ecosystem disservices (e.g. leaf litter, root damage to infrastructure) as common reasons for tree removal; however, they also noted ecosystem services as important reasons for both tree planting and tree retention on their properties. Moreover, the reasons for tree removal and tree planting varied based on whether residents’ property had been redeveloped. Most tree removal occurred on redeveloped properties because trees were in conflict with redevelopment, but occurred on non- redeveloped properties because of perceived poor tree health. Residents from redeveloped properties were more likely to plant trees due to being aesthetically pleasing or to replace trees removed during redevelopment. Overall, this research adds to, and complements, the existing literature on the effects of residential property redevelopment on urban forest dynamics. The findings of this research provide empirical support for developing specific legislation or policies about urban forest management during residential property redevelopment. The results also imply that urban foresters should enhance public education on the ecosystem services provided by urban forests and thus minimise the potential for tree removal when undertaking property redevelopment.