Christchurch City Council (Council) is undertaking the Land Drainage Recovery Programme in order to assess the effects of the earthquakes on flood risk to Christchurch. In the course of these investigations it has become better understood that floodplain management should be considered in a multi natural hazards context. Council have therefore engaged the Jacobs, Beca, University of Canterbury, and HR Wallingford project team to investigate the multihazards in eastern areas of Christchurch and develop flood management options which also consider other natural hazards in that context (i.e. how other hazards contribute to flooding both through temporal and spatial coincidence). The study has three stages: Stage 1 Gap Analysis – assessment of information known, identification of gaps and studies required to fill the gaps. Stage 2 Hazard Studies – a gap filling stage with the studies identified in Stage 1. Stage 3 Collating, Optioneering and Reporting – development of options to manage flood risk. This present report is to document findings of Stage 1 and recommends the studies that should be completed for Stage 2. It has also been important to consider how Stage 3 would be delivered and the gaps are prioritised to provide for this. The level of information available and hazards to consider is extensive; requiring this report to be made up of five parts each identifying individual gaps. A process of identifying information for individual hazards in Christchurch has been undertaken and documented (Part 1) followed by assessing the spatial co-location (Part 2) and probabilistic presence of multi hazards using available information. Part 3 considers multi hazard presence both as a temporal coincidence (e.g. an earthquake and flood occurring at one time) and as a cascade sequence (e.g. earthquake followed by a flood at some point in the future). Council have already undertaken a number of options studies for managing flood risk and these are documented in Part 4. Finally Part 5 provides the Gap Analysis Summary and Recommendations to Council. The key findings of Stage 1 gap analysis are: - The spatial analysis showed eastern Christchurch has a large number of hazards present with only 20% of the study area not being affected by any of the hazards mapped. Over 20% of the study area is exposed to four or more hazards at the frequencies and data available. - The majority of the Residential Red Zone is strongly exposed to multiple hazards, with 86% of the area being exposed to 4 or more hazards, and 24% being exposed to 6 or more hazards. - A wide number of gaps are present; however, prioritisation needs to consider the level of benefit and risks associated with not undertaking the studies. In light of this 10 studies ranging in scale are recommended to be done for the project team to complete the present scope of Stage 3. - Stage 3 will need to consider a number of engineering options to address hazards and compare with policy options; however, Council have not established a consistent policy on managed retreat that can be applied for equal comparison; without which substantial assumptions are required. We recommend Council undertake a study to define a managed retreat framework as an option for the city. - In undertaking Stage 1 with floodplain management as the focal point in a multi hazards context we have identified that Stage 3 requires consideration of options in the context of economics, implementation and residual risk. Presently the scope of work will provide a level of definition for floodplain options; however, this will not be at equal levels of detail for other hazard management options. Therefore, we recommend Council considers undertaking other studies with those key hazards (e.g. Coastal Hazards) as a focal point and identifies the engineering options to address such hazards. Doing so will provide equal levels of information for Council to make an informed and defendable decision on which options are progressed following Stage 3.
JAN TINETTI to the Minister of Education: What actions has the Government taken to increase the number of New Zealanders participating in vocational education? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH to the Minister of Finance: What measures, if any, does he have in place to ensure New Zealanders receive good value for money from the Government’s major spending initiatives? Hon JUDITH COLLINS to the Minister of Housing: Will there be any further delays to the conclusion of the KiwiBuild reset, including due to the resignation of the KiwiBuild head of delivery? Dr DUNCAN WEBB to the Minister for Courts: What recent reports has he seen regarding the Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal? Hon NIKKI KAYE to the Associate Minister of Education: Does she stand by her statement regarding learning support coordinator allocations, “I’m pleased, I’m really pleased. I know there are people complaining, and that’s OK. We seem to live in a world where somebody’s got to complain about everything”? Hon MARK MITCHELL to the Minister responsible for Pike River Re-entry: Does he stand by all his statements, policies, and actions on the Pike River Mine? ANGIE WARREN-CLARK to the Minister for the Environment: What action is the Government taking to enhance urban development and protect elite soils? TODD MULLER to the Minister of Agriculture: Does he have confidence in New Zealand’s agricultural sector? Hon DAVID BENNETT to the Minister of Corrections: Does he stand by his statement, “We have never had to manage a prisoner like this before”, in relation to the alleged Christchurch gunman? JENNY MARCROFT to the Minister for Infrastructure: What recent announcements has he made regarding the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission-Te Waihanga? BRETT HUDSON to the Minister of Transport: Can he rule out any further increases in transport taxes or charges under this Government? DENISE LEE to the Minister for Women: Why did she say yesterday that the equal pay legislation was in select committee when it was reported back on 13 May, and has been sitting on the Order Paper for three months?
Questions to Ministers 1. AMY ADAMS to the Minister of Finance: What will be the focus of the Budget on 19 May? 2. Hon PHIL GOFF to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements on the sale of State-owned assets? 3. SHANE ARDERN to the Minister of Customs: What recent reports has he received regarding interceptions of methamphetamine by Customs officers at the border? 4. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that "we've done as good a job as we can in the conditions we've got to try and help low-income New Zealanders"? 5. KEITH LOCKE to the Minister of Defence: Has New Zealand's SAS detained anyone during its operations or joint operations with other forces, since being redeployed to Afghanistan in 2009? 6. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that "I have seen almost no criticism of the Government's plan to rebalance the economy" given the statement from the Chair of the 2025 Taskforce, Don Brash, that "There is certainly no evidence yet that current policies will deliver the kind of accelerated growth we need"? 7. NICKY WAGNER to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: What process will the Government use to rebuild and restore damaged infrastructure in Canterbury? 8. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Is he satisfied that the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 provides him with all the powers necessary to facilitate the recovery of Canterbury? 9. Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN to the Minister of Finance: By how much has Government expenditure increased as a percentage of GDP since he became Minister of Finance? 10. DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in his Minister of Foreign Affairs? 11. KATRINA SHANKS to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Why has the Government announced a Green Paper on how we value, nurture and protect children? 12. Hon TREVOR MALLARD to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government’s statements and actions? HELEN WHITE to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by all his statements and policies on education? GINNY ANDERSEN to the Minister of Housing: What recent announcements has she made about the Government’s transitional housing programme? NICOLA WILLIS to the Minister of Housing: Has the Government kept the commitment made in the 2017 Speech from the Throne to develop a ‘Rent to Own’ scheme; if so, how many families has the scheme helped into houses since then? ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What support has the Ministry of Social Development provided to people and families affected by recent COVID-19 restrictions? NICOLE McKEE to the Minister of Police: Will Government actions reduce gang crime and gang numbers this year? IBRAHIM OMER to the Lead Coordination Minister for the Government's Response to the Royal Commission's Report into the Terrorist Attack on the Christchurch Mosques: What recent engagement has there been with the Muslim and other ethnic communities on the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the terrorist attack on Christchurch masjidain? SIMEON BROWN to the Minister of Police: Does she stand by her commitment to achieve the Striving Towards 1800 New Police initiative; if so, when will she achieve this initiative? TEANAU TUIONO to the Minister for Economic and Regional Development: What advice, if any, has he received about the upcoming launch in New Zealand of a satellite that includes the “Gunsmoke-J” payload from the United States Army’s Space and Missile Defense Command? MARJA LUBECK to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: What recent announcements has he made about improving the Holidays Act 2003? TIM VAN DE MOLEN to the Minister for Building and Construction: How many applications has the Residential Earthquake-Prone Building Financial Assistance Scheme had since its inception in September last year, and how much has been appropriated for the scheme?
When the devastating 6.3 magnitude earthquake hit Christchurch, Aotearoa New Zealand, at 12.51pm on 22nd February 2011, the psychological and physical landscape was irrevocably changed. In the days and weeks following the disaster communities were isolated due to failed infrastructure, continuing aftershocks and the extensive search and rescue effort which focussed resources on the central business district. In such moments the resilience of a community is truly tested. This research discusses the role of grassroots community groups in facilitating community resilience during the Christchurch 2010/11 earthquakes and the role of place in doing so. I argue that place specific strategies for urban resilience need to be enacted from a grassroots level while being supported by broader policies and agencies. Using a case study of Project Lyttelton – a group aspiring towards a resilient sustainable future who were caught at the epicentre of the February earthquake – I demonstrate the role of a community group in creating resilience through self-organised place specific action during a disaster. The group provided emotional care, basic facilities and rebuilding assistance to the residents of Lyttelton, proving to be an invaluable asset. These actions are closely linked to the characteristics of social support and social learning that have been identified as important to socio-ecological resilience. In addition this research will seek to understand and explore the nuances of place and identity and its role in shaping resilience to such dis-placing events. Drawing on community narratives of the displacement of place identity, the potential for a progressive sense of place as instigated by local groups will be investigated as an avenue for adaptation by communities at risk of disaster and place destabilisation.
Hon SIMON BRIDGES to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government’s policies and actions? KIRITAPU ALLAN to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he seen on the need for innovation in the New Zealand economy? Hon AMY ADAMS to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the Prime Minister’s comment, “I absolutely believe that our agenda will grow the economy, will make sure businesses are in a position to grow and prosper, because I need that economic growth to be able to lift the well-being of all New Zealanders”? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH to the Minister for Economic Development: Does he still think the ANZ survey of business confidence is junk? Dr DUNCAN WEBB to the Minister of Justice: What recent announcements has he made about the Family Court? Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE to the Minister of Immigration: Does he stand by all of his statements and actions? JONATHAN YOUNG to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What advice, if any, did she receive in respect of the obligation to act in accordance with the Minerals Programme for Petroleum regarding the Government’s decision to offer no new offshore permits? ANDREW BAYLY to the Minister for Building and Construction: What procedures, if any, will she put into place to ensure Government agencies adhere to MBIE’s Government procurement guidelines for construction projects? Hon Dr NICK SMITH to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by all of his statements on the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill and the potential chilling effect it will have on the expression of dissenting views? CHRIS BISHOP to the Minister of Internal Affairs: Does she stand by all her statements around the Government inquiry into the appointment of the Deputy Commissioner of Police? Dr LIZ CRAIG to the Minister of Health: What confidence can the public take from the review of the National Bowel Screening Programme that was released this morning? STUART SMITH to the Minister of Justice: What advice, if any, has he received on the need for the Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE to the Minister of Finance: Can he confirm he plans to increase net core Crown debt from $59.5 billion as at 30 June 2017 to $67.6 billion by 2022; and can he confirm debt will not increase by any more than that? MARAMA DAVIDSON to the Minister of Conservation: What has been the Department of Conservation’s biggest recent success in predator control to better protect our native plants and wildlife? Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN to the Minister of Health: What measurable outcomes, if any, will his policies deliver? SIMON O'CONNOR to the Minister of Corrections: Does he stand by his Government’s intention to reduce the prison population by 30 percent over the next 15 years; if so, how? KIERAN McANULTY to the Minister of Transport: Has he received any reports commissioned under the previous Government that show the value of investment in rail? Hon JACQUI DEAN to the Minister of Tourism: Does he stand by all his statements? Hon GERRY BROWNLEE to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her statements? Dr DUNCAN WEBB to the Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration: What was the expected date, prior to the General Election, that the Residential Advisory Service would cease operations, and what steps has she taken since becoming Minister to ensure the service continues for people affected by the Canterbury and Kaikōura earthquakes? BRETT HUDSON to the Associate Minister of State Services (Open Government): Does she stand by her statement in Parliament yesterday that this will be “the most open, most transparent Government that New Zealand has ever had”; if so, how? Hon LOUISE UPSTON to the Minister for Children: Is she committed to implementing the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in full? TAMATI COFFEY to the Associate Minister of Finance: How is the Government preserving the right of New Zealanders to own land in New Zealand? JAMI-LEE ROSS to the Minister of Local Government: What steps will she take to support the local government sector to achieve greater efficiency and control spending?
Hon PAULA BENNETT to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her statements? Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL to the Minister of Finance: What does the Treasury’s 2018 Investment Statement show about the state of the Government’s balance sheet? Hon AMY ADAMS to the Minister of Finance: How much capital expenditure is this Government forecast to spend in the period 2018-2022 compared to the previous Government over these same years, and how much of the difference is funded by an increase in debt? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH to the Minister for Economic Development: Does this Government have a broad economic development strategy; if so, what is it? Dr DUNCAN WEBB to the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission: What announcements has the Government made about changes to how the Earthquake Commission operates? Hon DAVID BENNETT to the Minister of Corrections: Does he stand by his statement on the Marae programme that “the problem right now is that corrections doesn’t have any flexibility…we’re in a real bind”? Hon SCOTT SIMPSON to the Associate Minister for the Environment: Does she agree with the statements in the Annual Report of the Environmental Protection Authority, “we have our share of science deniers, who oppose fluoride, 1080, vaccinations, glyphosate, genetic modification, and much more” and “our Chief Scientist is prominent in emphasising the evidence, data, and science that underpins EPA decision making”; if so, why? JENNY MARCROFT to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: What recent announcements has he made pertaining to the Provincial Growth Fund? SIMEON BROWN to the Minister of Justice: Should maximum legislated sentences reflect the seriousness of the crime committed? Hon NICKY WAGNER to the Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration: Does she stand by all her answers to written questions? ANGIE WARREN-CLARK to the Minister for the Environment: What does he think New Zealanders have to celebrate on World Water Day? MELISSA LEE to the Minister of Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media: Does she stand by all her Government’s policies and actions in the Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media portfolio?
Questions to Ministers Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that a publicly-owned insurer is a "dumb idea"? Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements regarding Government policy? Hon TAU HENARE to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the economy – and especially on further signs of improving economic momentum and increasing business and consumer confidence? Hon SHANE JONES to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in his Ministers? Hon PETER DUNNE to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: What advice has he received on the call from Amnesty International opposing the appointment of Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa as Chair of the Commonwealth for the next two years, and host of next week's Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting? Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE to the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission: Does he still believe that New Zealanders can have confidence in EQC? MARK MITCHELL to the Minister of Commerce: What steps is the Government taking to introduce more competition into the housing construction market? JAN LOGIE to the Minister of Justice: When she said, in response to whether the pre-trial and trial process precludes some sexual violence victims from complaining "quite clearly, it does not"; did she mean that few sexual violence victims are deterred from complaining by the process itself? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in the Minister for State Owned Enterprises? JACQUI DEAN to the Minister of Corrections: What recent announcements has she made on the redevelopment of prison facilities? PHIL TWYFORD to the Minister of Housing: Does he stand by his statement that the housing situation in Christchurch is "a challenge, not a crisis"? CHRIS AUCHINVOLE to the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage: How does the Government intend to mark the centenary of the First World War?
The Canterbury region of New Zealand experienced four earthquakes greater than MW 6.0 between September 2010 and December 2011. This study employs system dynamics as well as hazard, recovery and organisational literature and brings together data collected via surveys, case studies and interviews with organisations affected by the earthquakes. This is to show how systemic interactions and interdependencies within and between industry and geographic sectors affect their recovery post-disaster. The industry sectors in the study are: construction for its role in the rebuild, information and communication technology which is a regional high-growth industry, trucking for logistics, critical infrastructure, fast moving consumer goods (e.g. supermarkets) and hospitality to track recovery through non-discretionary and discretionary spend respectively. Also in the study are three urban centres including the region’s largest Central Business District, which has been inaccessible since the earthquake of 22 February 2011 to the time of writing in February 2013. This work also highlights how earthquake effects propagated between sectors and how sectors collaborated to mitigate difficulties such as product demand instability. Other interacting factors are identified that influence the recovery trajectories of the different industry sectors. These are resource availability, insurance payments, aid from central government, and timely and quality recovery information. This work demonstrates that in recovering from disaster it is crucial for organisations to identify what interacting factors could affect their operations. Also of importance are efforts to reduce the organisation’s vulnerability and increase their resilience to future crises and in day-to-day operations. Lastly, the multi-disciplinary approach to understanding the recovery and resilience of organisations and industry sectors after disaster, leads to a better understanding of effects as well as more effective recovery policy.
On November 14 2016 a magnitude 7.8 earthquake struck the south island of New Zealand. The earthquake lasted for just two minutes with severe seismic shaking and damage in the Hurunui and Kaikōura districts. Although these are predominantly rural areas, with scattered small towns and mountainous topography, they also contain road and rail routes that are essential parts of the national transport infrastructure. This earthquake and the subsequent recovery are of particular significance as they represent a disaster following in close proximity to another similar disaster, with the Canterbury earthquakes occurring in a neighboring district five years earlier. The research used an inductive qualitative case study to explore the nature of the Kaikōura recovery. That recovery process involved a complex interplay between the three parties; (a) the existing local government in the district, (b) central government agencies funding the recovery of the local residents and the national transport infrastructure, and (c) recovery leaders arriving with recent expertise from the earlier Canterbury disaster. It was evident that three groups: locals, government, and experts represented a multi-party governance debate in which the control of the Kaikōura earthquake recovery was shared amongst them. Each party had their own expertise, adgenda and networks that they brought to the Kaikōura recovery, but this created tensions between external expertise and local, community leadership. Recent earthquake research suggests that New Zealand is currently in the midst of an earthquake cluster, with further seismic disasters likely to occur in relatively close succession. This is likely to be compounded by the increasing frequency of other natural disasters with the effects of climate change. The present study investigates a phenomenon that may become increasingly common, with the transfer of disaster expertise from one event to another, and the interface between those experts with local and national government in directing recoveries. The findings of this study have implications for practitioners and policy makers in NZ and other countries where disasters are experienced in close spatial and temporal proximity.
This thesis examines the closing of Aranui High School in 2016, a low socio-economic secondary school in eastern Christchurch, New Zealand, and reflects on its history through the major themes of innovation and the impact of central government intervention. The history is explored through the leadership of the school principals, and the necessity for constant adaptation by staff to new ways of teaching and learning, driven by the need to accommodate a more varied student population – academically, behaviourally and culturally – than most other schools in wider Christchurch. Several extreme changes, following a neoliberal approach to education policies at a national government level, impacted severely on the school’s ability to thrive and even survive over the 57 years of its existence, with the final impact of the 2010 and 2011 Canterbury earthquakes leading indirectly to Aranui High’s closure. The earthquakes provided the National government with the impetus to advocate for change to education in Christchurch; changes which impacted negatively on many schools in Christchurch, including Aranui High School. The announcement of the closure of Aranui High shocked many staff and students, who were devastated that the school would no longer exist. Aranui High School, Aranui Primary School, Wainoni Primary School and Avondale Primary School were all closed to make way for Haeata Community Campus, a year 1 to 13 school, which was built on the Aranui High site. Aranui High School served the communities of eastern Christchurch for 57 years from 1960 and deserves acknowledgment and remembrance, and my hope is that this thesis will provide a fair representation of the school’s story, including its successes and challenges, while also explaining the reasons behind the eventual closure. This thesis contributes to New Zealand public history and uses mixed research methods to examine Aranui High School’s role as a secondary school in eastern Christchurch. I argue that the closure of Aranui High School in 2016 was an unjustified act by the Ministry of Education.
Interagency Emergency Response Teams (IERTs) play acrucial role in times of disasters. Therefore it is crucial to understand more thoroughly the communication roles and responsibilities of interagency team members and to examine how individual members communicate within a complex, evolving, and unstable environment. It is also important to understand how different organisational identities and their spatial geographies contribute to the interactional dynamics. Earthquakes hit the Canterbury region on September, 2010 and then on February 2011 a more devastating shallow earthquake struck resulting in severe damage to the Aged Residential Care (ARC) sector. Over 600 ARC beds were lost and 500 elderly and disabled people were displaced. Canterbury District Health Board (CDHB) set up an interagency emergency response team to address the issues of vulnerable people with significant health and disability needs who were unable to access their normal supports due to the effects of the earthquake. The purpose of this qualitative interpretive study is to focus on the case study of the response and evacuation of vulnerable people by interagencies responding to the event. Staff within these agencies were interviewed with a focus on the critical incidents that either stabilised or negatively influenced the outcome of the response. The findings included the complexity of navigating multiple agencies communication channels; understanding the different hierarchies and communication methods within each agency; data communication challenges when infrastructures were severely damaged; the importance of having the right skills, personal attributes and understanding of the organisations in the response; and the significance of having a liaison in situ representing and communicating through to agencies geographically dispersed from Canterbury. It is hoped that this research will assist in determining a future framework for interagency communication best practice and policy.
The Canterbury earthquakes that happened in 2010 and 2011 have attracted many migrant workers to the region to assist with the rebuilding effort. However, research on the impact of influx of migrants on the labour market outcomes of a local industry post-disaster is limited internationally and locally. The main objective of this study is to examine the impact of the Canterbury earthquakes on the changes in demographic composition and occupational structure for the local and foreign workers in the Greater Christchurch construction industry. Replicating the discrete dependent variable regression methods used in the study by Sisk and Bankston III (2014), this study also aimed to compare their findings on the impact of the influx of migrants on the New Orleans construction industry with outcomes in Greater Christchurch. Customised data from New Zealand Censuses 2006 and 2013 were used to represent the pre- and post-earthquake periods. This study found that the rebuild has provided opportunities for migrant workers to enter the Greater Christchurch construction industry. The increased presence of migrant construction workers did not displace the locals. In fact, the likelihoods for both locals’ and migrants’ participation in the industry improved post-earthquakes. The earthquakes also increased overall workers’ participation at the lowest end of the occupational structure. However, the earthquakes created few significant changes to the distribution of local and migrant workers at the various occupational levels in the industry. Local workers still dominated all occupational levels post-earthquakes. The aggregated education levels of the construction workers were higher post-earthquakes, particularly among the migrant workers. Overall, migrant workers in the Greater Christchurch construction industry were more diverse, more educated and participated in higher occupational levels than migrants assisting in the New Orleans rebuild, due possibly to differences in immigration policies between New Zealand and the United States of America.
Recognising that informal (also termed family, whānau, aiga or unpaid) caregivers/carers are a vital part of Aotearoa New Zealand’s health system, providing care and support for loved ones, whānau, friends and neighbours, this study aimed to explore the experiences of older informal caregivers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Priority research questions were: how did informal caregivers experience caregiving during the pandemic, and how might we support them during another pandemic, disaster, or national emergency? To our knowledge, this is the first exploration of such experiences in Aotearoa New Zealand. We wanted to understand the unprecedented challenges and barriers informal caregivers faced during the pandemic and highlight the resilience and mana (power, strength) of informal caregivers in overcoming them. To explore the lived experiences of informal caregiving during the pandemic, the research team travelled across New Zealand between May 2023 and February 2024 to conduct 81 in-depth interviews, with 73 completed face-to-face, four via Zoom and four by phone. A total of 34 male and 47 female informal caregivers were interviewed, including 35 Māori and 46 non-Māori. The mean age of participants was 66 years old. Thirty-nine rural and 42 urban-dwelling informal caregivers were interviewed, and the study covered both the North and South Islands. A Kaupapa Māori researcher and a Māori adviser oversaw appropriate tikanga (processes), kōrero (discussion) and manaakitanga (care and support) for all the Māori participants interviewed. The COVID-19 pandemic placed significant strain on older informal caregivers in Aotearoa New Zealand, exacerbating existing challenges and exposing critical gaps in support systems. Many participants experienced heightened emotional and psychological distress due to increased caregiving demands, social isolation, and the disruption of formal and informal support networks. The closure of essential services meant that informal caregivers in this study had to navigate complex healthcare systems with little guidance, often facing bureaucratic hurdles and limited access to respite care. Financial strain further compounded these difficulties, with some participants struggling to meet the rising costs associated with informal caregiving while experiencing reduced income or employment instability. For Māori participants, the inability to engage in kanohi ki te kanohi (face-to-face) interactions with whānau and communities disrupted cultural traditions such as whanaungatanga, tangihanga (funeral practices), and communal caregiving, intensifying feelings of isolation and distress. Despite these challenges, participants demonstrated remarkable resilience and adaptability, drawing on their life experiences (or "resilience in older people") and existing support systems to navigate the pandemic. Many participants relied on self-sufficiency, using strategies learned from past crises and disasters such as the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquakes and the 1940s/1950s polio epidemics to manage caregiving responsibilities and everyday challenges with limited external assistance. Strengthened relationships with care recipients and an increased sense of community support were positive outcomes for some participants, who found solace in tighter family bonds and mutual aid from neighbours and local groups. Māori participants, in particular, emphasised the importance of cultural and community-based networks, with iwi and extended whānau playing crucial roles in providing informal support. These findings underscore the need for policies that recognise and support the diverse needs of informal caregivers, including tailored caregiving assistance, clearer communication about available services, and culturally responsive caregiving frameworks that strengthen resilience in future health crises. Findings from this study highlight the need for: 1) tailored, context-specific support systems: Formal support services must be more flexible to accommodate the diverse needs of informal caregivers, particularly those in rural and Māori communities; 2) Improved access to information and services: Many participants were unaware of available support, pointing to the need for clearer, caregiver-specific communication and helplines; 3) Enhancing emotional and social support mechanisms: Regular check-ins from healthcare providers and community groups could alleviate the emotional burden of caregiving; and 4) Resilience-based and bicultural approaches to caregiving support: Policies should integrate Māori perspectives on informal caregiving and strengthen social capital among informal caregivers. It is clear from this research that no one-size-fits-all approach is appropriate for supporting informal caregivers. This research provides a critical evidence base for improving the support structures available to informal caregivers, ensuring they are better prepared for future pandemics, disasters, and national emergencies.
Questions to Ministers 1. Hon PHIL GOFF to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements on the privatisation of New Zealand State-owned power companies? 2. MICHAEL WOODHOUSE to the Minister of Finance: What progress has the Government made in making the tax system fairer? 3. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Prime Minister: At recent meetings he has had with Grey Power, have they raised with him their concerns about the sell-off of state assets? 4. Dr CAM CALDER to the Minister of Corrections: Has she received any reports on the rate of escape from New Zealand prisons? 5. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Minister of Finance: Why doesn't his Budget's net debt track take into account lost dividends from SOEs and sales costs arising from his policy of privatising state assets? 6. KEVIN HAGUE to the Minister of Labour: Is underground mining safe in New Zealand? 7. COLIN KING to the Minister of Transport: What progress has been made on the Christchurch Southern Motorway Road of National Significance following the earthquakes in the city? 8. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: How many of the 5,100 properties in the red zone have been deemed to be uneconomic to repair by the insurer and how many of those, approximately, had unimproved land valuations of less than $150,000? 9. JOHN BOSCAWEN to the Minister of Māori Affairs: Does he stand by all of his recent statements? 10. Hon TREVOR MALLARD to the Prime Minister: Further to his answers to Oral Question No 1 yesterday on the purchase of state assets by foreigners, what percentage of Contact shares are currently held by foreigners or corporations? 11. RAHUI KATENE to the Minister for the Environment: Does he agree with the statement in Ko Aotearoa Tēnei, that "direct infusion of indigenous values into mainstream environmental regulation may well be unique in the world"; if so, how will he advance the opportunities for Māori to take more positive and proactive roles in environmental decision-making? 12. NICKY WAGNER to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What reports has she seen on the Canterbury unemployment figures?
DAVID SHEARER to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: Has the Government met the five criteria the Prime Minister laid out for proceeding with asset sales? Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Minister of Finance: Will New Zealanders have money taken from their bank accounts to fund a bank bailout under his proposed Open Bank Resolution scheme? TODD McCLAY to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on New Zealand's balance of payments? Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his statements regarding "Better, Sooner, More Convenient" health care; if not, why not? MARK MITCHELL to the Minister of Police: What reports has she received from Police on the success of pre-charge warnings? PHIL TWYFORD to the Minister of Housing: Why did he tell the House that, even if the Auckland plan took effect in September, new subdivisions would not be available until 2016-17, when the advice he tabled from Roger Blakely of Auckland Council shows that if the unitary plan takes effect in September new land would be available two years earlier? ALFRED NGARO to the Minister for Social Development: How will the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill back people off welfare and into work? GRANT ROBERTSON to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements on the actions and involvement of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Government Communications and Security Bureau in Operation Debut? SCOTT SIMPSON to the Minister of Health: What is the Government doing to extend access to free flu vaccines? METIRIA TUREI to the Minister for Social Development: Does she have an obligation, as Social Development Minister, to ensure all policy she is responsible for will be good for children and their families? Hon KATE WILKINSON to the Minister for Primary Industries: What announcement has he made on the drought in New Zealand? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Have allegations of fraud and corruption involving Canterbury earthquake recovery and rebuild contracts been raised with him as Minister; if so, what specific steps has he taken to address them?
Questions to Ministers 1. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Finance: When he said recently "where the Government does have some influence, we are working hard to keep prices low", which prices was he referring to? 2. DAVID BENNETT to the Minister of Finance: What are some of the likely impacts on the Government's finances of the Christchurch earthquake? 3. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Acting Minister for Economic Development: Does he stand by all his statements on economic development? 4. Dr JACKIE BLUE to the Minister for ACC: How many claims has ACC received since the tragic earthquake on 22 February and what steps has the Government taken to facilitate prompt compensation for those seriously injured? 5. Hon MARYAN STREET to the Minister of Civil Defence: What is the basis for according priority to entry of the red zone in the Christchurch central business district? 6. NIKKI KAYE to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What support is the Government giving to non-government organisations in Christchurch affected by the earthquake? 7. Hon TREVOR MALLARD to the Prime Minister: What role did he or his department play in the decision to shift the Rugby World Cup quarter finals, from AMI Stadium to Eden Park? 8. JACQUI DEAN to the Minister of Corrections: What progress has been made toward the Government's commitment to encourage private sector investment in the New Zealand corrections system? 9. Hon DARREN HUGHES to the Minister for Tertiary Education: What specific policy changes has the Government made to increase the number of apprenticeships and other building-skills training programmes since the September Canterbury earthquake? 10. SUE KEDGLEY to the Minister of Commerce: Will he use his powers under Part 4 of the Commerce Act 1986 to call for an investigation into the dairy wholesale and retail milk market, following the release of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry's review of the domestic milk market in New Zealand; if not, why not? 11. CAROL BEAUMONT to the Minister of Women's Affairs: Does she support the retention of the stand-alone and independent Ministry of Women's Affairs? 12. JOHN HAYES to the Minister of Agriculture: What steps has the Government recently made to progress agricultural greenhouse gas research?
Questions to Ministers 1. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with Reserve Bank Governor Alan Bollard's assessment that the economic recovery is proving to be "slow and fragile"? 2. CRAIG FOSS to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the economy? 3. Hon TREVOR MALLARD to the Minister for Economic Development: What specific actions has he taken since becoming Minister of Economic Development to secure the New Zealand film industry? 4. KATRINA SHANKS to the Minister of Housing: What reports has he received about the stakeholder engagement carried out by the Housing Shareholders' Advisory Group? 5. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Will he support my recommendation to set up an advocacy support service to provide earthquake-affected residents with help in dealing with their private insurers to prevent them being shunted between these insurers and the Earthquake Commission? 6. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Minister of Conservation: What steps, if any, is she taking to protect the unique, rare and threatened Nevis "Gollum galaxiid", a native fish species found only in the Nevis River in Central Otago? 7. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister for Tertiary Education: How does removing $55 million from industry training help the growth of the productive economy? 8. CHRIS AUCHINVOLE to the Minister for the Environment: What progress is the Government making in improving New Zealand's freshwater management? 9. SUE MORONEY to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by all her statements about subsidies and fee controls in early childhood education? 10. Hon RODNEY HIDE to the Attorney-General: Is it Government policy to exempt the holders of customary marine title from the application of the Resource Management Act 1991 and provide the holders with the sole right to give, or deny, a Resource Management Act permission right with no right of appeal or objection against the decision, as described in Bell Gully's Newsletter Update October 2010 on the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill? 11. Hon NANAIA MAHUTA to the Minister responsible for Whānau Ora: Is she satisfied with the process to shortlist Whānau Ora providers? 12. PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Why is the Government funding the Energy Spot advertising campaign?
NUK KORAKO to the Minister of Finance: How does New Zealand’s growing economy and the Government’s commitment to responsible fiscal management mean New Zealand is well-placed to respond to the Kaikōura earthquake? ANDREW LITTLE to the Prime Minister: Has he spoken to relevant Ministers about the lessons learned from the Canterbury earthquakes to ensure people affected by the recent earthquakes have an easier and faster recovery? STUART SMITH to the Minister of Civil Defence: What update can he provide about the Government’s response to the Kaikōura earthquake? RON MARK to the Prime Minister: Can he update the House on the situation in quake-affected areas in the South Island? JAMES SHAW to the Prime Minister: Is he committed to all his Government’s policies? Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement that following the Valentine’s Day earthquake this year in Canterbury, “it was timely to review whether any additional mental health and wellbeing support was needed”; if so, will he consider reviewing whether any additional support is needed for Canterbury and Nelson-Marlborough district health boards as a result of the recent earthquakes? JACQUI DEAN to the Minister of Transport: What updates has he received on damage to transport infrastructure following the Kaikōura earthquake? JAN LOGIE to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: What is his response to yesterday’s call from members of the Joint Working Group on Pay Equity Principles for the Government to “immediately right this historic wrong and implement the JWG principles”? JACINDA ARDERN to the Minister for Economic Development: When is he likely to announce a recovery or support package for small businesses in earthquake-affected areas? KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI to the Minister of Police: What are New Zealand Police doing to support the Kaikōura community? CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of Education: When did she first discuss the potential impact of Monday’s 7.5 earthquake on NCEA and Scholarship exams with the New Zealand Qualifications Authority? IAN McKELVIE to the Minister for Primary Industries: What recent reports has he received on the impact of the recent earthquakes on the primary sector?
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 the performance of the public service? Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement about asset sales that it was the Governments intention that “every New Zealander who wants shares gets them”? SIMON O'CONNOR to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: What progress has been made in expanding the Youth Guarantee Scheme to provide more 16 and 17 year-olds with fees-free tertiary training this year? Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Minister for Economic Development: Does he stand by his statement that “the global financial crisis and the Canterbury earthquakes were not projected in any of those forecasts”? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Minister of Local Government: Has he been in communication with the Auckland Council over financial management issues, and if so, on what occasions this year? MIKE SABIN to the Minister for Social Development: How will the Government’s recently announced changes target young people not in education, employment or training? DENISE ROCHE to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his comment that the Government has a “sinking lid policy” for pokie machines? Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by the statement made on his behalf in answer to Oral Question No 1 on 1 March 2012, that “I do know what is in the coalition agreement” and, if so, does he agree that the United Future-National confidence and supply agreement does not require United Future to vote for the Government’s asset sales legislation? TODD McCLAY to the Associate Minister of Conservation: What benefits will the Game Animal Council Bill bring for recreational hunters? Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Housing: What response has he received to the “Smarter. Faster. Fairer” tenancy service which provides an 0800 phone customer service centre response to people with housing needs? JAMI-LEE ROSS to the Minister for ACC: What initiatives are underway to help raise awareness about falls in the home?
DENIS O'ROURKE to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Is he satisfied with progress on all aspects of the Canterbury earthquake recovery? JACINDA ARDERN to the Minister of Police: Does she have confidence in the Police investigation of alleged sexual violation against young women and underage girls in West Auckland? PAUL GOLDSMITH to the Minister of Finance: What progress has the National-led Government made in building a more productive and competitive economy capable of supporting more jobs and higher incomes for New Zealanders? METIRIA TUREI to the Minister of Police: When was she first advised that Police had received a complaint from a girl who alleged she had been raped by members of a group calling themselves the Roast Busters? Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister for Communications and Information Technology: Will the Government enforce its broadband contract with Chorus? CLAUDETTE HAUITI to the Minister for the Environment: What announcements has the Government made in relation to the national policy statement for freshwater? PHIL TWYFORD to the Minister of Housing: What reports has he received on the effect of loan-to-value restrictions on the housing market? Hon PHIL HEATLEY to the Minister for Social Development: What reports has she received about the number of people receiving benefits? CAROL BEAUMONT to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: How does women's participation rate of 1 percent in building and construction industry training assist with the Christchurch rebuild? Dr CAM CALDER to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made to strengthen the status of the teaching profession? EUGENIE SAGE to the Associate Minister of Health: Does she agree with the Canterbury Medical Officer of Health that increasing nitrate levels in Canterbury groundwater are a health risk, particularly for pregnant women and babies; if not, why not? HONE HARAWIRA to the Minister of Finance: What is his budget plan, if any, to immediately address growing poverty in New Zealand, which has got so bad that charitable organisations have today said they are expecting an influx of more than 40,000 struggling families for Christmas dinner because they can't afford to put food on the table?
Six months after the 4 September 2010 Mw 7.1 Darfield (Canterbury) earthquake, a Mw 6.2 Christchurch (Lyttelton) aftershock struck Christchurch on the 22 February 2011. This earthquake was centred approximately 10km south-east of the Christchurch CBD at a shallow depth of 5km, resulting in intense seismic shaking within the Christchurch central business district (CBD). Unlike the 4 Sept earthquake when limited-to-moderate damage was observed in engineered reinforced concrete (RC) buildings [35], in the 22 February event a high number of RC Buildings in the Christchurch CBD (16.2 % out of 833) were severely damaged. There were 182 fatalities, 135 of which were the unfortunate consequences of the complete collapse of two mid-rise RC buildings. This paper describes immediate observations of damage to RC buildings in the 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquake. Some preliminary lessons are highlighted and discussed in light of the observed performance of the RC building stock. Damage statistics and typical damage patterns are presented for various configurations and lateral resisting systems. Data was collated predominantly from first-hand post-earthquake reconnaissance observations by the authors, complemented with detailed assessment of the structural drawings of critical buildings and the observed behaviour. Overall, the 22 February 2011 Mw 6.2 Christchurch earthquake was a particularly severe test for both modern seismically-designed and existing non-ductile RC buildings. The sequence of earthquakes since the 4 Sept 2010, particularly the 22 Feb event has confirmed old lessons and brought to life new critical ones, highlighting some urgent action required to remedy structural deficiencies in both existing and “modern” buildings. Given the major social and economic impact of the earthquakes to a country with strong seismic engineering tradition, no doubt some aspects of the seismic design will be improved based on the lessons from Christchurch. The bar needs to and can be raised, starting with a strong endorsement of new damage-resisting, whilst cost-efficient, technologies as well as the strict enforcement, including financial incentives, of active policies for the seismic retrofit of existing buildings at a national scale.
Research in the governance of urban tourist spaces is characterized by a lack of argumentative inquiry and scant use of critical theory. This is evident, particularly, in the study of tourism and post-disaster urban recovery, with very few contributions assessing the phenomenon from a social theory perspective. This thesis examines the complex phenomenon of planning and governance for urban tourism spaces in contexts facing physical recovery from natural disasters. It does so by looking at the governance dynamics and the mechanism of decision- making put in place before and after triggering events like earthquakes and tsunamis. This thesis provides evidence from Christchurch, New Zealand, by focusing on the policies and strategies for the regeneration of the city centre put in place before and after the disruptive earthquakes of 2010 and 2011. The thesis looks at power relations, structures and ideologies through a Lukesian appraisal of pre-and-post disaster governance from two relevant urban tourist spaces located in the Christchurch central city area: the Arts Centre of Christchurch and the Town Hall and Performing Arts Precinct. The research strategy adopted for the study combined archival research, interviews with key stakeholders and fieldwork notes over a period of two years. The research deployed a comparative case study methodology that focuses on projects taking place within a spatially defined area of the city centre where special legislation was enacted as result of the earthquakes. The findings from the interviews and their triangulation with documents retrieved from national and local authorities suggest that the earthquakes affected the engagement among stakeholders and the mechanisms of decision-making. Also, the findings show patterns of disaster capitalism in post-earthquake governance for urban tourist spaces in the Christchurch CBD, with episodes of exclusion, lobbying and amendment of rules and legislation that directly benefited the interests of a narrow group of privileged stakeholders. Overall, the study shows that the earthquakes of 2010 and 2011 accelerated neoliberal practices of site development in Christchurch, with the seismic events used as a pretext to implement market-oriented site projects in the CBD area.
The Canterbury earthquake sequence (2010-2011) was the most devastating catastrophe in New Zealand‘s modern history. Fortunately, in 2011 New Zealand had a high insurance penetration ratio, with more than 95% of residences being insured for these earthquakes. This dissertation sheds light on the functions of disaster insurance schemes and their role in economic recovery post-earthquakes. The first chapter describes the demand and supply for earthquake insurance and provides insights about different public-private partnership earthquake insurance schemes around the world. In the second chapter, we concentrate on three public earthquake insurance schemes in California, Japan, and New Zealand. The chapter examines what would have been the outcome had the system of insurance in Christchurch been different in the aftermath of the Canterbury earthquake sequence (CES). We focus on the California Earthquake Authority insurance program, and the Japanese Earthquake Reinsurance scheme. Overall, the aggregate cost of the earthquake to the New Zealand public insurer (the Earthquake Commission) was USD 6.2 billion. If a similar-sized disaster event had occurred in Japan and California, homeowners would have received only around USD 1.6 billion and USD 0.7 billion from the Japanese and Californian schemes, respectively. We further describe the spatial and distributive aspects of these scenarios and discuss some of the policy questions that emerge from this comparison. The third chapter measures the longer-term effect of the CES on the local economy, using night-time light intensity measured from space, and focus on the role of insurance payments for damaged residential property during the local recovery process. Uniquely for this event, more than 95% of residential housing units were covered by insurance and almost all incurred some damage. However, insurance payments were staggered over 5 years, enabling us to identify their local impact. We find that night-time luminosity can capture the process of recovery; and that insurance payments contributed significantly to the process of local economic recovery after the earthquake. Yet, delayed payments were less affective in assisting recovery and cash settlement of claims were more effective than insurance-managed repairs. After the Christchurch earthquakes, the government declared about 8000 houses as Red Zoned, prohibiting further developments in these properties, and offering the owners to buy them out. The government provided two options for owners: the first was full payment for both land and dwelling at the 2007 property evaluation, the second was payment for land, and the rest to be paid by the owner‘s insurance. Most people chose the second option. Using data from LINZ combined with data from Stats NZ, the fourth chapter empirically investigates what led people to choose this second option, and how peer effect influenced the homeowners‘ choices. Due to climate change, public disclosure of coastal hazard information through maps and property reports have been used more frequently by local government. This is expected to raise awareness about disaster risks in local community and help potential property owners to make informed locational decision. However, media outlets and business sector argue that public hazard disclosure will cause a negative effect on property value. Despite this opposition, some district councils in New Zealand have attempted to implement improved disclosure. Kapiti Coast district in the Wellington region serves as a case study for this research. In the fifth chapter, we utilize the residential property sale data and coastal hazard maps from the local district council. This study employs a difference-in-difference hedonic property price approach to examine the effect of hazard disclosure on coastal property values. We also apply spatial hedonic regression methods, controlling for coastal amenities, as our robustness check. Our findings suggest that hazard designation has a statistically and economically insignificant impact on property values. Overall, the risk perception about coastal hazards should be more emphasized in communities.
In September 2010 and February 2011, the Canterbury region experienced devastating earthquakes with an estimated economic cost of over NZ$40 billion (Parker and Steenkamp, 2012; Timar et al., 2014; Potter et al., 2015). The insurance market played an important role in rebuilding the Canterbury region after the earthquakes. Homeowners, insurance and reinsurance markets and New Zealand government agencies faced a difficult task to manage the rebuild process. From an empirical and theoretic research viewpoint, the Christchurch disaster calls for an assessment of how the insurance market deals with such disasters in the future. Previous studies have investigated market responses to losses in global catastrophes by focusing on the insurance supply-side. This study investigates both demand-side and supply-side insurance market responses to the Christchurch earthquakes. Despite the fact that New Zealand is prone to seismic activities, there are scant previous studies in the area of earthquake insurance. This study does offer a unique opportunity to examine and document the New Zealand insurance market response to catastrophe risk, providing results critical for understanding market responses after major loss events in general. A review of previous studies shows higher premiums suppress demand, but how higher premiums and a higher probability of risk affect demand is still largely unknown. According to previous studies, the supply of disaster coverage is curtailed unless the market is subsidised, however, there is still unsettled discussion on why demand decreases with time from the previous disaster even when the supply of coverage is subsidised by the government. Natural disaster risks pose a set of challenges for insurance market players because of substantial ambiguity associated with the probability of such events occurring and high spatial correlation of catastrophe losses. Private insurance market inefficiencies due to high premiums and spatially concentrated risks calls for government intervention in the provision of natural disaster insurance to avert situations of noninsurance and underinsurance. Political economy considerations make it more likely for government support to be called for if many people are uninsured than if few people are uninsured. However, emergency assistance for property owners after catastrophe events can encourage most property owners to not buy insurance against natural disaster and develop adverse selection behaviour, generating larger future risks for homeowners and governments. On the demand-side, this study has developed an intertemporal model to examine how demand for insurance changes post-catastrophe, and how to model it theoretically. In this intertemporal model, insurance can be sought in two sequential periods of time, and at the second period, it is known whether or not a loss event happened in period one. The results show that period one demand for insurance increases relative to the standard single period model when the second period is taken into consideration, period two insurance demand is higher post-loss, higher than both the period one demand and the period two demand without a period one loss. To investigate policyholders experience from the demand-side perspective, a total of 1600 survey questionnaires were administered, and responses from 254 participants received representing a 16 percent response rate. Survey data was gathered from four institutions in Canterbury and is probably not representative of the entire population. The results of the survey show that the change from full replacement value policy to nominated replacement value policy is a key determinant of the direction of change in the level of insurance coverage after the earthquakes. The earthquakes also highlighted the plight of those who were underinsured, prompting policyholders to update their insurance coverage to reflect the estimated cost of re-building their property. The survey has added further evidence to the existing literature, such as those who have had a recent experience with disaster loss report increased risk perception if a similar event happens in future with females reporting a higher risk perception than males. Of the demographic variables, only gender has a relationship with changes in household cover. On the supply-side, this study has built a risk-based pricing model suitable to generate a competitive premium rate for natural disaster insurance cover. Using illustrative data from the Christchurch Red-zone suburbs, the model generates competitive premium rates for catastrophe risk. When the proposed model incorporates the new RMS high-definition New Zealand Earthquake Model, for example, insurers can find the model useful to identify losses at a granular level so as to calculate the competitive premium. This study observes that the key to the success of the New Zealand dual insurance system despite the high prevalence of catastrophe losses are; firstly the EQC’s flat-rate pricing structure keeps private insurance premiums affordable and very high nationwide homeowner take-up rates of natural disaster insurance. Secondly, private insurers and the EQC have an elaborate reinsurance arrangement in place. By efficiently transferring risk to the reinsurer, the cost of writing primary insurance is considerably reduced ultimately expanding primary insurance capacity and supply of insurance coverage.
GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: Does he stand by his statement that the Household Labour Force Survey is "the standard internationally recognised measure of employment and unemployment"? PAUL GOLDSMITH to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he received on the economy? Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Does he stand by the answer given by the Minister of Finance to the question "Does he accept that human-induced climate change is real?" that "It may well be…"? Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: Given that unemployment is rising, exports are down, and house price inflation in Auckland and Canterbury is in double-digits, does he agree that after 5 years as Finance Minister he has failed to rebalance and diversify the economy; if not, why not? JOHN HAYES to the Minister of Trade: What efforts is the Government making to deal with the market effects of the possible contamination of some Fonterra diary exports? Hon SHANE JONES to the Minister for Economic Development: What action has he taken to ensure high value jobs are retained in Otago, Waikato, Northland, East Coast and Manawatu? KEVIN HAGUE to the Minister of Health: Exactly how many of the 21 recommendations to the Minister in the 2010 Public Health Advisory Committee Report The Best Start in Life: Achieving effective action on child health and wellbeing has he implemented? JACQUI DEAN to the Minister for Food Safety: What update can she provide the public on the safety of infant formula? Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR to the Minister for Primary Industries: Does he stand by all his statements? NICKY WAGNER to the Minister for Building and Construction: What reports has he received following the Government's announcement of a new earthquake-prone building policy? RICHARD PROSSER to the Minister for Primary Industries: What reports, if any, has he received regarding the regeneration of fish stocks in the Snapper 1 fishery? Dr DAVID CLARK to the Minister for Economic Development: Does he agree with Dunedin Mayor Dave Cull that "Central government needs to understand we can't have a … two-speed economy where Christchurch and Auckland are ripping ahead and the rest of the regions are withering"; if not, why not?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that "the Government has actively supported the filming of the Hobbit movies in New Zealand because of the enormous economic benefits they are bringing to the country, including the creation of around 3,000 jobs"? DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all the statements made in his prime ministerial speeches and in his Address in Reply speeches? TODD McCLAY to the Minister of Finance: What will be the focus of the Government's economic programme in 2013? METIRIA TUREI to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that "I am keen to see New Zealanders be able to afford to buy a home", given that the home ownership rate has continued to decline under his watch and home buying is becoming less affordable? Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: Is he aware that anticipated Core Crown Revenue for the period 2012-2016 decreased by $13.2 billion between the October 2011 PREFU and the December 2012 HYEFU; if so, why has the Government lost $13.2 billion in projected revenue in little over a year? COLIN KING to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: What recent announcements has the Government made about boosting the number of people being trained in apprenticeships? JACINDA ARDERN to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement "I am deeply concerned about every child in New Zealand who is in poverty"? Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Prime Minister: Why didn't he mention climate change yesterday when he outlined his Government's priorities for the year in his statement to Parliament? Hon ANNETTE KING to the Prime Minister: Following his decision to appoint a new Minister of Housing, what new policies, if any, does he expect his new Minister to implement to address the growing housing affordability issues in New Zealand? NICKY WAGNER to the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission: What progress has been made in the repair of homes in Canterbury by the EQR Repair Programme? CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of State Services: What were the factors that contributed to the strained relations that resulted in the resignation of Lesley Longstone as Secretary of Education? JACQUI DEAN to the Minister of Corrections: What steps is the Government taking to improve prisoner employment training in New Zealand prisons?
DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement “My expectations are that this will be a busy, hard three years’ work and we will need to deliver results for New Zealanders”? Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “we don’t favour one group over another”? PAUL GOLDSMITH to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on housing affordability? GRANT ROBERTSON to the Prime Minister: When his office had a “quick look at the matters involved” with regard to the funding of the Mackenzie Sustainable Futures Trust, whom did they speak to and what documents did they look at to arrive at their conclusion that “we did not find anything that raised concerns to us”? MELISSA LEE to the Minister for Social Development: What initiatives has the Government put in place to better protect children? ANDREW WILLIAMS to the Minister of Finance: Does the Government still intend to achieve a budget surplus by 2014/15; if so, how? GARETH HUGHES to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Does he stand by his statement on the Campbell Live 9 February programme on fracking that, “In Taranaki, it’s actually been done very, very well. There’s been no effect on the environment whatsoever”? Dr JIAN YANG to the Minister of Health: What progress has been made in providing improved child health services? Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement regarding migration to Australia “What’s the point of standing in the airport crying about it?”; if so, how many of the 158,167 people that have migrated to Australia since November 2008, as reported by Statistics NZ, are from 18 to 30 years of age in number and percentage terms? COLIN KING to the Minister of Science and Innovation: How will the Advanced Technology Institute boost business-led research and development? Hon LIANNE DALZIEL to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Why did he use section 27 of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 to amend the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement instead of using the Order in Council provisions of the Act or developing the recovery strategy or a recovery plan? SHANE ARDERN to the Minister for Primary Industries: What recent announcements has he made to further improve New Zealand’s biosecurity system?
Whole document is available to authenticated members of The University of Auckland until Feb. 2014. The increasing scale of losses from earthquake disasters has reinforced the need for property owners to become proactive in seismic risk reduction programs. However, despite advancement in seismic design methods and legislative frameworks, building owners are often reluctant to adopt mitigation measures required to reduce earthquake losses. The magnitude of building collapses from the recent Christchurch earthquakes in New Zealand shows that owners of earthquake prone buildings (EPBs) are not adopting appropriate risk mitigation measures in their buildings. Owners of EPBs are found unwilling or lack motivation to adopt adequate mitigation measures that will reduce their vulnerability to seismic risks. This research investigates how to increase the likelihood of building owners undertaking appropriate mitigation actions that will reduce their vulnerability to earthquake disaster. A sequential two-phase mixed methods approach was adopted for the research investigation. Multiple case studies approach was adopted in the first qualitative phase, followed by the second quantitative research phase that includes the development and testing of a framework. The research findings reveal four categories of critical obstacles to building owners‘ decision to adopt earthquake loss prevention measures. These obstacles include perception, sociological, economic and institutional impediments. Intrinsic and extrinsic interventions are proposed as incentives for overcoming these barriers. The intrinsic motivators include using information communication networks such as mass media, policy entrepreneurs and community engagement in risk mitigation. Extrinsic motivators comprise the use of four groups of incentives namely; financial, regulatory, technological and property market incentives. These intrinsic and extrinsic interventions are essential for enhancing property owners‘ decisions to voluntarily adopt appropriate earthquake mitigation measures. The study concludes by providing specific recommendations that earthquake risk mitigation managers, city councils and stakeholders involved in risk mitigation in New Zealand and other seismic risk vulnerable countries could consider in earthquake risk management. Local authorities could adopt the framework developed in this study to demonstrate a combination of incentives and motivators that yield best-valued outcomes. Consequently, actions can be more specific and outcomes more effective. The implementation of these recommendations could offer greater reasons for the stakeholders and public to invest in building New Zealand‘s built environment resilience to earthquake disasters.