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: 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?
PHIL TWYFORD to the Minister for Building and Construction: Does he agree with Mainfreight founder and Chairman Bruce Plested that housing is a “social disgrace”, that the market cannot sort out this problem, and that real leadership and intestinal fortitude is needed now?
JONATHAN YOUNG to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on real after-tax wages rising in New Zealand?
CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of Education: Will she apologise on behalf of the Government for the flawed handling of the Canterbury school mergers and closures after the 2011 earthquakes; if not, why not?
ANDREW BAYLY to the Minister for Building and Construction: What progress has the Government made in improving the tenancy laws and guidance for dealing with the problem of methamphetamine testing and contamination?
CARMEL SEPULONI to the Associate Minister for Social Housing: What motels has the Government purchased in response to the increased emergency housing demand, and how much has this cost?
RON MARK to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements on the Clutha-Southland electorate office issue even if facts known to him make doing so extraordinarily difficult?
MAUREEN PUGH to the Minister of Corrections: How is Budget 2017 investing in rehabilitation and reintegration outcomes for offenders?
Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Local Government: Does she agree with the Prime Minister’s answer yesterday that drinking-water contamination in Havelock North was “about local government performance and overseeing ratepayer-funded assets whose purpose is to deliver clean and healthy water to its local people. The extensive inquiry into that incident was warranted by widespread illness in the area ... it is about local body performance in overseeing their clean water system”?
BRETT HUDSON to the Minister of Local Government: What recent announcements has she made regarding Wellington’s resilience to natural hazards?
JULIE ANNE GENTER to the Minister of Transport: Will the Government start building rail to the airport sooner if Auckland hosts the next America’s Cup regatta or will Aucklanders still have to wait 30 years?
STUART NASH to the Minister of Police: Does she have any concerns about any of the results of the New Zealand Police Workplace Survey 2017; if so, what in particular?
ALASTAIR SCOTT to the Associate Minister of Education: What recent announcements has he made to improve school infrastructure in the Wairarapa?
Natural disasters are increasingly disruptive events that affect livelihoods, organisations, and economies worldwide. Research has identified the impacts and responses of organisations to different types of natural disasters, and have outlined factors, such as industry sector, that are important to organisational vulnerability and resilience. One of the most costly types of natural disasters in recent years has been earthquakes, and yet to date, the majority of studies have focussed on the effects of earthquakes in urban areas, while rural organisational impact studies have primarily focused on the effects of meteorological and climatic driven hazards. As a result, the likely impacts of an earthquake on rural organisations in a developed context is unconstrained in the literature. In countries like New Zealand, which have major earthquakes and agricultural sectors that are significant contributors to the economy, it is important to know what impacts an earthquake event would have on the rural industries, and how these impacts compare to that of a more commonly analysed, high-frequency event. In September of 2010, rural organisations in Canterbury experienced the 4 September 2010 Mw 7.1 `Darfield' earthquake and the associated aftershocks, which came to be known as the Canterbury earth- quake sequence. The earthquake sequence caused intense ground shaking, creating widespread critical service outages, structural and non-structural damage to built infrastructure, as well as ground surface damage from ooding, liquefaction and surface rupture. Concurrently on September 18 2010, rural organisations in Southland experienced an unseasonably late snowstorm and cold weather snap that brought prolonged sub-zero temperatures, high winds and freezing rain, damaging structures in the City of Invercargill and causing widespread livestock losses and production decreases across the region. This thesis documents the effects of the Canterbury earthquake sequence and Southland snowstorm on farming and rural non-farming organisations, utilizing comparable methodologies to analyse rural organisational impacts, responses and recovery strategies to natural disasters. From the results, a short- term impact assessment methodology is developed for multiple disasters. Additionally, a regional asset repair cost estimation model is proposed for farming organisations following a major earthquake event, and the use of social capital in rural organisational recovery strategies following natural disasters is analysed.
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"?
The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 finds that, despite progress in disaster risk reduction over the last decade “evidence indicates that exposure of persons and assets in all countries has increased faster than vulnerability has decreased, thus generating new risk and a steady rise in disaster losses” (p.4, UNISDR 2015). Fostering cooperation among relevant stakeholders and policy makers to “facilitate a science-policy interface for effective decisionmaking in disaster risk management” is required to achieve two priority areas for action, understanding disaster risk and enhancing disaster preparedness (p. 13, p. 23, UNISDR 2015). In other topic areas, the term science-policy interface is used interchangeably with the term boundary organisation. Both terms are usually used refer to systematic collaborative arrangements used to manage the intersection, or boundary, between science and policy domains, with the aim of facilitating the joint construction of knowledge to inform decision-making. Informed by complexity theory, and a constructivist focus on the functions and processes that minimize inevitable tensions between domains, this conceptual framework has become well established in fields where large complex issues have significant economic and political consequences, including environmental management, biodiversity, sustainable development, climate change and public health. To date, however, there has been little application of this framework in the disaster risk reduction field. In this doctoral project the boundary management framework informs an analysis of the research response to the 2010-2011 Canterbury Earthquake Sequence, focusing on the coordination role of New Zealand’s national Natural Hazards Research Platform. The project has two aims. It uses this framework to tell the nuanced story of the way this research coordination role evolved in response to both the complexity of the unfolding post-disaster environment, and to national policy and research developments. Lessons are drawn from this analysis for those planning and implementing arrangements across the science-policy boundary to manage research support for disaster risk reduction decision-making, particularly after disasters. The second aim is to use this case study to test the utility of the boundary management framework in the disaster risk reduction context. This requires that terminology and concepts are explained and translated in terms that make this analysis as accessible as possible across the disciplines, domains and sectors involved in disaster risk reduction. Key findings are that the focus on balance, both within organisations, and between organisations and domains, and the emphasis on systemic effects, patterns and trends, offer an effective and productive alternative to the more traditional focus on individual or organisational performance. Lessons are drawn concerning the application of this framework when planning and implementing boundary organisations in the hazard and disaster risk management context.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
PAUL GOLDSMITH to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on business and economic conditions in New Zealand?
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his answer to written question 07314 (2013) when he said: "The inquiry team, itself, did not seek permission from Peter Dunne before it obtained his email logs" and does he think it should have?
SIMON O'CONNOR to the Minister of Transport: How will the Government progress the delivery of the next generation of transport projects for Auckland?
Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: Are the proceeds from selling power companies and other assets being used to pay down debt, to build schools and hospitals, to fund irrigation projects, to rebuild Christchurch, or to fund Auckland transport projects?
IAN McKELVIE to the Minister of Police: What updates has she received on how Police are using technology to prevent crime?
JACINDA ARDERN to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with The Economist that "inequality is one of the biggest social, economic and political challenges of our time"; if so, what is his Government doing to address the fact that New Zealand now has the widest income gap since detailed records began?
PAUL FOSTER-BELL to the Minister of Justice: How is the Government improving its justice and other services to local communities?
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: When was he first made aware of the September IANZ report which warned the Christchurch City Council that "Continued accreditation beyond May 2013 will depend on a satisfactory outcome of that assessment" and was he advised by CERA or a Ministerial colleague?
JONATHAN YOUNG to the Minister of Broadcasting: What progress has been made on the regional rollout of the digital switchover for New Zealand television viewers?
GARETH HUGHES to the Minister of Conservation: Will he implement the recommendations to protect Maui's dolphins contained in the report of this year's meeting of the International Whaling Commission Scientific Committee; if not, why not
Questions to Members
JACINDA ARDERN to the Chairperson of the Social Services Committee: On which date and time, if any, did he receive the Minister for Social Development's written responses to the pre-hearing questions for the 2013/14 Estimates review for Vote Social Development?
JACINDA ARDERN to the Chairperson of the Social Services Committee: On what date did the Minister for Social Development appear before the Committee to answer questions regarding the 2013/14 Estimates review for Vote Social Development?
Dr MEGAN WOODS to the Chairperson of the Education and Science Committee: Did he consider inviting the Minister to appear again to answer questions around responses to questions on the 2013/14 Estimates for Vote Education, if so, did he receive any advice about the Minister's willingness to appear again?
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?
TRACEY MARTIN to the Minister responsible for Novopay: Does he stand by his statement of 11 February 2014, "education payroll is the most complex in New Zealand and more work remains to be done to simplify the business processes to ensure it runs as smoothly as possible each year"?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that "the true builders of that future are the millions of New Zealanders working in the homes, the businesses, the industries of our country"?
MAGGIE BARRY to the Minister of Finance: What progress is the Government making with its share offer programme, which is freeing up money for reinvestment in new public assets without having to increase Government debt?
ANDREW LITTLE to the Attorney-General: Will he release all correspondence between the Christchurch Crown Solicitor or any other solicitor acting for the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, and counsel for Peter Whittall on the decision not to proceed with the prosecution of Mr Whittall under the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 relating to conditions at the Pike River Mine that lead to the deaths of 29 miners; if not, why not?
KEVIN HAGUE to the Minister of Health: When were Ministry of Health officials first informed that the dispute between the Southern District Health Board and South Link Health involved allegations of the misuse of public funding, and when were they first informed that this alleged misuse was suspected to involve elements that could be fraud?
Dr CAM CALDER to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: What announcements has the Government made on the Tertiary Education Strategy for New Zealand?
Hon RUTH DYSON to the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission: Does he stand by his statement made yesterday in the House with regard to Canterbury Labour Members of Parliament that they "have made no more than five requests for assistance through the Earthquake Commission"; if not, when will he be correcting his statement and apologising?
MARK MITCHELL to the Minister for Communications and Information Technology: How is the Government's Information and Communication Technology programme improving New Zealanders' access to improved technology and better connectivity?
GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Justice: On what date did she receive an invitation to visit the Shanghai office of Oravida Ltd during her Ministerial visit to China in October 2013, and what actions did she take to ensure this visit met her obligations under the Cabinet Manual?
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY to the Associate Minister of Education: Did the communities in Christchurch, Auckland and Queenstown, where four schools are to be built using a public-private partnership (PPP) model, ask the Government for private sector management of their school buildings?
PAUL FOSTER-BELL to the Minister of Health: What investment is the Government making in improving nutrition and exercise for pre-schoolers?
JOANNE HAYES to the Minister of Corrections: What steps has the Government taken to improve access to alcohol and drug treatment for prisoners?
DAVID BENNETT to the Minister of Finance: How is the Government's economic programme helping to keep interest rates lower during this economic cycle, compared to the previous economic cycle in the mid-2000s?
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Minister of Energy and Resources: How much more is an average New Zealand household that uses 8,000kwh of power annually paying for electricity per year as of November 2013 compared to November 2008, according to the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment's latest Quarterly Survey of Domestic Electricity Prices?
Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: What will he do to "spread some of the benefits of growth" when hourly wage rates have only grown by 1.6 percent in the year to December 2013, which is close to 0 percent in real terms, when 45 percent of listed corporates have double-digit profit growth?
JACQUI DEAN to the Minister for the Environment: What recent announcements has the Government made on the classification for drilling for oil and gas in New Zealand's Exclusive Economic Zone?
GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Justice: When she told the House yesterday "I had previously told Oravida that it could not use my name or photograph to endorse or promote its business products or services" when was that and what specific circumstances did it relate to?
COLIN KING to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: How is the Youth Guarantee Scheme helping the Government achieve the Better Public Services target of 85 percent of all 18-year-olds achieving NCEA Level two or an equivalent qualification in 2017?
CAROL BEAUMONT to the Minister of Women's Affairs: Does she have confidence in the Ministry of Women's Affairs given their 2013 Annual Report shows that six out of seven policy outcomes have stayed the same or gone backwards in the last past year; if so, why?
SCOTT SIMPSON to the Minister for Courts: How is the Government improving the way the Disputes Tribunal works to make it easier for New Zealanders to resolve civil disputes?
Hon TREVOR MALLARD to the Minister of Internal Affairs: What action, if any, has he taken this year to show the Prime Minister that he has met the highest ethical standards required by Section 2.53 of the Cabinet Manual?
ALFRED NGARO to the Minister of Pacific Island Affairs: What steps is the Government taking to lift the skills of Pacific people in New Zealand?
DENIS O'ROURKE to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Does he accept the conclusion in the Human Rights Commission's report Monitoring Human Rights in the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery that "many people affected by the earthquakes continue to experience deteriorating standards of living and impacts on their quality of life that go beyond the immediate effects of the disaster"?
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Has he had any discussions with any Indian Government Ministers about selling Solid Energy assets?
Geographically isolated communities around the world are dependent upon the limited assets in local subsistence economies to generate livelihoods. Locally available resources shape and give identity to unique cultural activities that guarantee individual, family and community livelihood sustainability. The social structure provides community relationship networks, which ensure access to, and availability of, resources over long periods. Resources are utilised in ways that reduces vulnerability, stresses and shocks while ensuring long-term resilience. Preparedness and adaptation are embedded into cultural memory, enabling communities to survive in isolated, remote and harsh conditions. Communities’ cultural memories, storytelling, traditional knowledge, interdependence and unwritten cultural norms that build resilience to sustain cultures that have limited interactions with the outside world.
This thesis aims to investigate the consequences of transport infrastructure development, mainly of roads, on livelihood strategies of isolated communities in a tourism context in Gilgit-Baltistan, Pakistan. The thesis incorporates a review of literature of transport infrastructure development and livelihood security in reference to vulnerability, resilience and sustainability. Research gaps are identified in terms of transport infrastructure development and tourism, the Sustainable Livelihood Approach, resilience and sustainability. The fieldwork was undertaken using qualitative research methods. Ninety-eight participants were interviewed using open-ended semi-structured interview questions to get an in-depth understanding of livelihood systems, livelihood activities and transport infrastructure development within the tourism context.
Gilgit-Baltistan is a disputed mountainous territory in the Asia Subcontinent whose ancient trade routes (silk routes) were severed during the geopolitical upheaval of the partition of the Indian Subcontinent in 1947. An alliance between Pakistan and China resulted in transport infrastructure development of the Karakorum Highway between 1958 and 1978, providing the only road access to the regions isolated communities. Karakoram Highway connects China with Pakistan through Gilgit-Baltistan. Gilgit-Baltistan is going through immense transport infrastructure development, including the China Pakistan Economic Corridor. The road infrastructure is expected to link China and other South Asian and Central Asian countries to the world and provide a direct link for Chinese goods to reach the Persian Gulf. China Pakistan Economic Corridor is part of China’s Belt and Road Initiative project, which aims to improve connectivity and cooperation between 69 Eurasian countries by investing in infrastructure development. Such an immense infrastructural development is expected to enhance the mobility of people, goods and services.
In order to understand the impacts of transport infrastructure development, this thesis has analysed livelihood capital status at macro, and micro levels are examined over two time periods (pre-road and post-road). Results show that sustainable farming practices provided long-term resilience to these geographically isolated communities. Transport infrastructure development has been a significant factor to ensure access and has resulted in changes to social inclusion, socio-political structures and livelihood opportunities with a subsequent dependence upon tourism, imported consumer goods and a monetary economy as people divert valuable farmland to building developments and cash crop monocultures. Gilgit-Baltistan is vulnerable to frequent manmade and natural disasters, such as terrorism, earthquakes and landslides. Shocks impact upon the livelihoods of those affiliated with tourism who are forced to revert to subsistence farming practices and alternative livelihood choices. The dependency on external resources and subsequent loss of the cultural memory and farming techniques has created a vulnerability to the unpredictable shocks and disasters that frequently close the singular access road.
The thesis finally presents the ‘Livelihood Framework for Transport Infrastructure Development and Tourism (LF-TIDT)’ a guiding tool to understand the impacts of transport infrastructure development at micro and macro levels for tourism planning, policy formulation and implementation and management. Attention is drawn to the newly introduced ‘Location: a Meta Capital’ and its importance in terms of geographically isolated communities. The research also highlights that livelihood capitals are not equally essential to achieve sustainable and resilient livelihood outcomes.
The recent instances of seismic activity in Canterbury (2010/11) and Kaikōura (2016) in New Zealand have exposed an unexpected level of damage to non-structural components, such as buried pipelines and building envelope systems. The cost of broken buried infrastructure, such as pipeline systems, to the Christchurch Council was excessive, as was the cost of repairing building envelopes to building owners in both Christchurch and Wellington (due to the Kaikōura earthquake), which indicates there are problems with compliance pathways for both of these systems. Councils rely on product testing and robust engineering design practices to provide compliance certification on the suitability of product systems, while asset and building owners rely on the compliance as proof of an acceptable design. In addition, forensic engineers and lifeline analysts rely on the same product testing and design techniques to analyse earthquake-related failures or predict future outcomes pre-earthquake, respectively. The aim of this research was to record the actual field-observed damage from the Canterbury and Kaikōura earthquakes of seismic damage to buried pipeline and building envelope systems, develop suitable testing protocols to be able to test the systems’ seismic resilience, and produce prediction design tools that deliver results that reflect the collected field observations with better accuracy than the present tools used by forensic engineers and lifeline analysts. The main research chapters of this thesis comprise of four publications that describe the gathering of seismic damage to pipes (Publication 1 of 4) and building envelopes (Publication 2 of 4). Experimental testing and the development of prediction design tools for both systems are described in Publications 3 and 4. The field observation (discussed in Publication 1 of 4) revealed that segmented pipe joints, such as those used in thick-walled PVC pipes, were particularly unsatisfactory with respect to the joint’s seismic resilience capabilities. Once the joint was damaged, silt and other deleterious material were able to penetrate the pipeline, causing blockages and the shutdown of key infrastructure services. At present, the governing Standards for PVC pipes are AS/NZS 1477 (pressure systems) and AS/NZS 1260 (gravity systems), which do not include a protocol for evaluating the PVC pipes for joint seismic resilience. Testing methodologies were designed to test a PVC pipe joint under various different simultaneously applied axial and transverse loads (discussed in Publication 3 of 4). The goal of the laboratory experiment was to establish an easy to apply testing protocol that could fill the void in the mentioned standards and produce boundary data that could be used to develop a design tool that could predict the observed failures given site-specific conditions surrounding the pipe. A tremendous amount of building envelope glazing system damage was recorded in the CBDs of both Christchurch and Wellington, which included gasket dislodgement, cracked glazing, and dislodged glazing. The observational research (Publication 2 of 4) concluded that the glazing systems were a good indication of building envelope damage as the glazing had consistent breaking characteristics, like a ballistic fuse used in forensic blast analysis. The compliance testing protocol recognised in the New Zealand Building Code, Verification Method E2/VM1, relies on the testing method from the Standard AS/NZS 4284 and stipulates the inclusion of typical penetrations, such as glazing systems, to be included in the test specimen. Some of the building envelope systems that failed in the recent New Zealand earthquakes were assessed with glazing systems using either the AS/NZS 4284 or E2/VM1 methods and still failed unexpectedly, which suggests that improvements to the testing protocols are required. An experiment was designed to mimic the observed earthquake damage using bi-directional loading (discussed in Publication 4 of 4) and to identify improvements to the current testing protocol. In a similar way to pipes, the observational and test data was then used to develop a design prediction tool. For both pipes (Publication 3 of 4) and glazing systems (Publication 4 of 4), experimentation suggests that modifying the existing testing Standards would yield more realistic earthquake damage results. The research indicates that including a specific joint testing regime for pipes and positioning the glazing system in a specific location in the specimen would improve the relevant Standards with respect to seismic resilience of these systems. Improving seismic resilience in pipe joints and glazing systems would improve existing Council compliance pathways, which would potentially reduce the liability of damage claims against the government after an earthquake event. The developed design prediction tool, for both pipe and glazing systems, uses local data specific to the system being scrutinised, such as local geology, dimensional characteristics of the system, actual or predicted peak ground accelerations (both vertically and horizontally) and results of product-specific bi-directional testing. The design prediction tools would improve the accuracy of existing techniques used by forensic engineers examining the cause of failure after an earthquake and for lifeline analysts examining predictive earthquake damage scenarios.
This report provides an initial overview and gap analysis of the multi-hazards interactions that might affect fluvial and pluvial flooding (FPF) hazard in the Ōpāwaho Heathcote catchment. As per the terms of reference, this report focuses on a one-way analysis of the potential effects of multi-hazards on FPF hazard, as opposed to a more complex multi-way analysis of interactions between all hazards. We examined the relationship between FPF hazard and hazards associated with the phenomena of tsunamis; coastal erosion; coastal inundation; groundwater; earthquakes; and mass movements. Tsunamis: Modelling research indicates the worst-case tsunami scenarios potentially affecting the Ōpāwaho Heathcote catchment are far field. Under low probability, high impact tsunami scenarios waves could travel into Pegasus Bay and the Avon-Heathcote Estuary Ihutai, reaching the mouth and lower reaches of the Heathcote catchment and river, potentially inundating and eroding shorelines in sub-catchments 1 to 5, and temporarily blocking fluvial drainage more extensively. Any flooding infrastructure or management actions implemented in the area of tsunami inundation would ideally be resilient to tsunami-induced inundation and erosion. Model results currently available are a first estimate of potential tsunami inundation under contemporary sea and land level conditions. In terms of future large tsunami events, these models likely underestimate effects in riverside sub-catchments, as well as effects under future sea level, shoreline and other conditions. Also of significance when considering different FPF management structures, it is important to be mindful that certain types of flood structures can ‘trap’ inundating water coming from ocean directions, leading to longer flood durations and salinization issues. Coastal erosion: Model predictions indicate that sub-catchments 1 to 3 could potentially be affected by coastal erosion by the timescale of 2065, with sub-catchments 1-6 predicted to be potentially affected by coastal erosion by the time scale of 2115. In addition, the predicted open coast effects of this hazard should not be ignored since any significant changes in the New Brighton Spit open coast would affect erosion rates and exposure of the landward estuary margins, including the shorelines of the Ōpāwaho Heathcote catchment. Any FPF flooding infrastructure or management activities planned for the potentially affected sub-catchments needs to recognise the possibility of coastal erosion, and to have a planned response to the predicted potential shoreline translation. Coastal inundation: Model predictions indicate coastal inundation hazards could potentially affect sub-catchments 1 to 8 by 2065, with a greater area and depth of inundation possible for these same sub-catchments by 2115. Low-lying areas of the Ōpāwaho Heathcote catchment and river channel that discharge into the estuary are highly vulnerable to coastal inundation since elevated ocean and estuary water levels can block the drainage of inland systems, compounding FPF hazards. Coastal inundation can overwhelm stormwater and other drainage network components, and render river dredging options ineffective at best, flood enhancing at worst. A distinction can be made between coastal inundation and coastal erosion in terms of the potential impacts on affected land and assets, including flood infrastructure, and the implications for acceptance, adaptation, mitigation, and/or modification options. That is, responding to inundation could include structural and/or building elevation solutions, since unlike erosion, inundation does not necessarily mean the loss of land. Groundwater: Groundwater levels are of significant but variable concern when examining flooding hazards and management options in the Ōpāwaho Heathcote catchment due to variability in soils, topographies, elevations and proximities to riverine and estuarine surface waterbodies. Much of the Canterbury Plains part of the Ōpāwaho Heathcote catchment has a water table that is at a median depth of <1m from the surface (with actual depth below surface varying seasonally, inter-annually and during extreme meteorological events), though the water table depth rapidly shifts to >6m below the surface in the upper Plains part of the catchment (sub-catchments 13 to 15). Parts of Waltham/Linwood (sub-catchments 5 & 6) and Spreydon (sub-catchment 10) have extensive areas with a particularly high water table, as do sub-catchments 18, 19 and 20 south of the river. In all of the sub-catchments where groundwater depth below surface is shallow, it is necessary to be mindful of cascading effects on liquefaction hazard during earthquake events, including earthquake-induced drainage network and stormwater infrastructure damage. In turn, subsidence induced by liquefaction and other earthquake processes during the CES directly affected groundwater depth below surface across large parts of the central Ōpāwaho Heathcote catchment. The estuary margin of the catchment also faces increasing future challenges with sea level rise, which has the potential to elevate groundwater levels in these areas, compounding existing liquefaction and other earthquake associated multi-hazards. Any increases in subsurface runoff due to drainage system, development or climate changes are also of concern for the loess covered hill slopes due to the potential to enhance mass movement hazards. Earthquakes: Earthquake associated vertical ground displacement and liquefaction have historically affected, or are in future predicted to affect, all Ōpāwaho Heathcote sub-catchments. During the CES, these phenomena induced a significant cascades of changes in the city’s drainage systems, including: extensive vertical displacement and liquefaction induced damage to stormwater ‘greyware’, reducing functionality of the stormwater system; damage to the wastewater system which temporarily lowered groundwater levels and increased stormwater drainage via the wastewater network on the one hand, creating a pollution multi-hazard for FPF on the other hand; liquefaction and vertical displacement induced river channel changes affected drainage capacities; subsidence induced losses in soakage and infiltration capacities; changes occurred in topographic drainage conductivity; estuary subsidence (mainly around the Ōtākaro Avon rivermouth) increased both FPF and coastal inundation hazards; estuary bed uplift (severe around the Ōpāwaho Heathcote margins), reduced tidal prisms and increased bed friction, producing an overall reduction the waterbody’s capacity to efficiently flush catchment floodwaters to sea; and changes in estuarine and riverine ecosystems. All such possible effects need to be considered when evaluating present and future capacities of the Ōpāwaho Heathcote catchment FPF management systems. These phenomena are particularly of concern in the Ōpāwaho Heathcote catchment since stormwater networks must deal with constraints imposed by stream and river channels (past and present), estuarine shorelines and complex hill topography. Mass movements: Mass movements are primarily a risk in the Port Hills areas of the Ōpāwaho Heathcote catchment (sub-catchments 1, 2, 7, 9, 11, 16, 21), though there are one or two small but susceptible areas on the banks of the Ōpāwaho Heathcote River. Mass movements in the form of rockfalls and debris flows occurred on the Port Hills during the CES, resulting in building damage, fatalities and evacuations. Evidence has also been found of earthquake-triggered tunnel gully collapsesin all Port Hill Valleys. Follow-on effects of these mass movements are likely to occur in major future FPF and other hazard events. Of note, elevated groundwater levels, coastal inundation, earthquakes (including liquefaction and other effects), and mass movement exhibit the most extensive levels of multi-hazard interaction with FPF hazard. Further, all of the analysed multi-hazard interactions except earthquakes were found to consistently produce increases in the FPF hazard. The implications of these analyses are that multihazard interactions generally enhance the FPF hazard in the Ōpāwaho Heathcote catchment. Hence, management plans which exclude adjustments for multi-hazard interactions are likely to underestimate the FPF hazard in numerous different ways. In conclusion, although only a one-way analysis of the potential effects of selected multi-hazards on FPF hazard, this review highlights that the Ōpāwaho Heathcote catchment is an inherently multi- hazard prone environment. The implications of the interactions and process linkages revealed in this report are that several significant multi-hazard influences and process interactions must be taken into account in order to design a resilient FPF hazard management strategy.
