Search

found 195 results

Images for cost; more images...

Research papers, The University of Auckland Library

In September 2010 and February 2011 the Canterbury region of New Zealand was struck by two powerful earthquakes, registering magnitude 7.1 and 6.3 respectively on the Richter scale. The second earthquake was centred 10 kilometres south-east of the centre of Christchurch (the region’s capital and New Zealand’s third most populous urban area, with approximately 360,000 residents) at a depth of five kilometres. 185 people were killed, making it the second deadliest natural disaster in New Zealand’s history. (66 people were killed in the collapse of one building alone, the six-storey Canterbury Television building.) The earthquake occurred during the lunch hour, increasing the number of people killed on footpaths and in buses and cars by falling debris. In addition to the loss of life, the earthquake caused catastrophic damage to both land and buildings in Christchurch, particularly in the central business district. Many commercial and residential buildings collapsed in the tremors; others were damaged through soil liquefaction and surface flooding. Over 1,000 buildings in the central business district were eventually demolished because of safety concerns, and an estimated 70,000 people had to leave the city after the earthquakes because their homes were uninhabitable. The New Zealand Government declared a state of national emergency, which stayed in force for ten weeks. In 2014 the Government estimated that the rebuild process would cost NZ$40 billion (approximately US$27.3 billion, a cost equivalent to 17% of New Zealand’s annual GDP). Economists now estimate it could take the New Zealand economy between 50 and 100 years to recover. The earthquakes generated tens of thousands of insurance claims, both against private home insurance companies and against the New Zealand Earthquake Commission, a government-owned statutory body which provides primary natural disaster insurance to residential property owners in New Zealand. These ranged from claims for hundreds of millions of dollars concerning the local port and university to much smaller claims in respect of the thousands of residential homes damaged. Many of these insurance claims resulted in civil proceedings, caused by disputes about policy cover, the extent of the damage and the cost and/or methodology of repairs, as well as failures in communication and delays caused by the overwhelming number of claims. Disputes were complicated by the fact that the Earthquake Commission provides primary insurance cover up to a monetary cap, with any additional costs to be met by the property owner’s private insurer. Litigation funders and non-lawyer claims advocates who took a percentage of any insurance proceeds also soon became involved. These two factors increased the number of parties involved in any given claim and introduced further obstacles to resolution. Resolving these disputes both efficiently and fairly was (and remains) central to the rebuild process. This created an unprecedented challenge for the justice system in Christchurch (and New Zealand), exacerbated by the fact that the Christchurch High Court building was itself damaged in the earthquakes, with the Court having to relocate to temporary premises. (The High Court hears civil claims exceeding NZ$200,000 in value (approximately US$140,000) or those involving particularly complex issues. Most of the claims fell into this category.) This paper will examine the response of the Christchurch High Court to this extraordinary situation as a case study in innovative judging practices and from a jurisprudential perspective. In 2011, following the earthquakes, the High Court made a commitment that earthquake-related civil claims would be dealt with as swiftly as the Court's resources permitted. In May 2012, it commenced a special “Earthquake List” to manage these cases. The list (which is ongoing) seeks to streamline the trial process, resolve quickly claims with precedent value or involving acute personal hardship or large numbers of people, facilitate settlement and generally work proactively and innovatively with local lawyers, technical experts and other stakeholders. For example, the Court maintains a public list (in spreadsheet format, available online) with details of all active cases before the Court, listing the parties and their lawyers, summarising the facts and identifying the legal issues raised. It identifies cases in which issues of general importance have been or will be decided, with the expressed purpose being to assist earthquake litigants and those contemplating litigation and to facilitate communication among parties and lawyers. This paper will posit the Earthquake List as an attempt to implement innovative judging techniques to provide efficient yet just legal processes, and which can be examined from a variety of jurisprudential perspectives. One of these is as a case study in the well-established debate about the dialogic relationship between public decisions and private settlement in the rule of law. Drawing on the work of scholars such as Hazel Genn, Owen Fiss, David Luban, Carrie Menkel-Meadow and Judith Resnik, it will explore the tension between the need to develop the law through the doctrine of precedent and the need to resolve civil disputes fairly, affordably and expeditiously. It will also be informed by the presenter’s personal experience of the interplay between reported decisions and private settlement in post-earthquake Christchurch through her work mediating insurance disputes. From a methodological perspective, this research project itself gives rise to issues suitable for discussion at the Law and Society Annual Meeting. These include the challenges in empirical study of judges, working with data collected by the courts and statistical analysis of the legal process in reference to settlement. September 2015 marked the five-year anniversary of the first Christchurch earthquake. There remains widespread dissatisfaction amongst Christchurch residents with the ongoing delays in resolving claims, particularly insurers, and the rebuild process. There will continue to be challenges in Christchurch for years to come, both from as-yet unresolved claims but also because of the possibility of a new wave of claims arising from poor quality repairs. Thus, a final purpose of presenting this paper at the 2016 Meeting is to gain the benefit of other scholarly perspectives and experiences of innovative judging best practice, with a view to strengthening and improving the judicial processes in Christchurch. This Annual Meeting of the Law and Society Association in New Orleans is a particularly appropriate forum for this paper, given the recent ten year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina and the plenary session theme of “Natural and Unnatural Disasters – human crises and law’s response.” The presenter has a personal connection with this theme, as she was a Fulbright scholar from New Zealand at New York University in 2005/2006 and participated in the student volunteer cleanup effort in New Orleans following Katrina. http://www.lawandsociety.org/NewOrleans2016/docs/2016_Program.pdf

Audio, Radio New Zealand

Questions to Ministers 1. CRAIG FOSS to the Minister of Finance: What challenges does the Government face in putting together Budget 2011? 2. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his pre-Budget statement "The key sector which is not saving right now is the Government"; if so, what steps has he taken to increase government revenue? 3. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement "…we can use this time to transform the economy to make us stronger…"; if so, does this transformation involve an economy that uses fewer natural resources and produces less pollution? 4. Hon PHIL GOFF to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements on KiwiSaver? 5. NICKY WAGNER to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: What reports has he received on progress made to provide winter heating for residents affected by the Canterbury earthquakes? 6. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Prime Minister: What advice did he receive from the most recent food bank he visited about the current cost of living? 7. JACQUI DEAN to the Minister for the Environment: What practical initiatives is the Government taking in preparation for Rugby World Cup 2011 to protect the environment and New Zealand's important clean green brand? 8. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Minister of Finance: What was the annual rate of GDP growth for the year ended December 2010 projected in Budget 2010, and what was the actual rate of growth for that period according to Statistics New Zealand? 9. AARON GILMORE to the Minister of Education: What recent decisions have been made regarding schooling in Christchurch? 10. SUE MORONEY to the Minister of Education: When was construction completed on the new early childhood education centre at Weymouth Primary School and why is the centre empty? 11. COLIN KING to the Minister of Agriculture: What steps has the Government recently taken to support innovation in the Manuka honey industry? 12. CARMEL SEPULONI to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by his statement "This Government is committed to ensuring that everyone…has access to justice"?

Audio, Radio New Zealand

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Prime Minister: Is he still committed to "ensuring our schools are working for all students", and is he satisfied his Government has done enough to ensure that every child has equal access to a low-cost public education? CLAUDETTE HAUITI to the Minister of Finance: What steps has the Government taken to turn around the Treasury's forecast net Government debt? METIRIA TUREI to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements? Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with Infometrics that after the Canterbury rebuild peaks, the New Zealand economy will experience a "hangover" with slow income and GDP growth? SCOTT SIMPSON to the Minister of Justice: What justice initiatives has she announced to address family violence in New Zealand? DAVID SHEARER to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade: When did he first become aware of allegations that led to a Malaysian diplomat being charged with assault with the intent to commit rape and burglary, and what actions did he take? MARK MITCHELL to the Minister of Corrections: What recent announcements has she made on how technology can be used to better protect victims of domestic violence? JAN LOGIE to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Was he made aware of the wishes, if any, of the woman at the centre of the assault with intent to rape charges laid against a Malaysian diplomat, regarding his return to Malaysia; if so, when? JONATHAN YOUNG to the Minister of Health: What investments has the Government made in health services for Taranaki? CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of Education: Is she satisfied that schools receive sufficient funding to deliver the New Zealand curriculum? KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI to the Minister for Food Safety: What recent announcements has she made regarding food labelling? DENIS O'ROURKE to the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission: Is he satisfied with the progress of the Earthquake Commission in the settlement or disposition of all claims in respect of multi-unit dwellings, arising from the Canterbury earthquake; if so, why?

Research papers, The University of Auckland Library

It is well known that buildings constructed using unreinforced masonry (URM) are susceptible to damage from earthquake induced lateral forces that may result in partial or full building collapse. The 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquakes are the most recent New Zealand example of destructive earthquakes, which have drawn people's attention to the inherent seismic weaknesses of URM buildings and anchored masonry veneer systems in New Zealand. A brief review of the data collected following the 2010 Darfield earthquake and more comprehensive documentation of data that was collected following the 2011 Christchurch earthquake is presented, along with the findings from subsequent data interrogation. Large stocks of earthquake prone vintage URM buildings that remain in New Zealand and in other seismically active parts of the world result in the need for minimally invasive and cost effective seismic retrofit techniques. The principal objective of the doctoral research reported herein was to investigate the applicability of near surface mounted (NSM) carbon fibre reinforced polymer (CFRP) strips as a seismic improvement technique. A comprehensive experimental program consisting of 53 pull tests is presented and is used to assess the accuracy of existing FRP-to-masonry bond models, with a modified model being proposed. The strength characteristics of vintage clay brick URM wall panels from two existing URM buildings was established and used as a benchmark when manufacturing replica clay brick test assemblages. The applicability of using NSM CFRP strips as a retrofitting technique for improving the shear strength and the ductility capacity of multi-leaf URM walls constructed using solid clay brick masonry is investigated by varying CFRP reinforcement ratios. Lastly, an experimental program was undertaken to validate the proposed design methodology for improving the strength capacity of URM walls. The program involved testing full-scale walls in a laboratory setting and testing full-scale walls in-situ in existing vintage URM buildings. Experimental test results illustrated that the NSM CFRP technique is an effective method to seismically strengthen URM buildings.

Research papers, Victoria University of Wellington

<b>In the late 1960s the Wellington City Council surveyed all the commercial buildings in the city and marked nearly 200 as earthquake prone. The owners were given 15 years to either strengthen or demolish their buildings. The end result was mass demolition throughout the seventies and eighties.¹ Prompted by the Christchurch earthquakes, once again the council has published a list of over 630 earthquake prone buildings that need to be strengthened or demolished by 2030.²Of these earthquake prone buildings, the majority were built between 1880 and 1930, with 125 buildings appearing on the Wellington City Council Heritage Building List.³ This list accounts for a significant proportion of character buildings in the city. There is a danger that the aesthetic integrity of our city will be further damaged due to the urgent need to strengthen these buildings. Many of the building owners are resistant because of the high cost. By adapting these buildings to house co-workspaces, we can gain more than just the retention of the building’s heritage. The seismic upgrade provides the opportunity for the office space to be redesigned to suit changes in the ways we work. Through a design-based research approach this thesis proposes a framework that clarifies the process of adapting Wellington’s earthquake prone heritage buildings to accommodate co-working. This framework deals with the key concepts of program, structure and heritage. The framework is tested on one of Wellington’s earthquake prone heritage buildings, the Wellington Working Men’s Club, in order to demonstrate what can be gained from this strengthening process. ¹ Reid, J., “Hometown Boomtown,” in NZ On Screen (Wellington, 1983).</b> ² Wellington City Council, List of Earthquake Prone Buildings as at 06/03/2017. (Wellington: Absolutely Positively Wellington. 2017). ³ ibid. 

Research Papers, Lincoln University

Successful urban regeneration projects generate benefits that are realised over a much longer timeframe than normal market developments and benefits well beyond those that can be uplifted by a market developer. Consequently there is substantial evidence in the literature that successful place-making and urban regeneration projects are usually public-private partnerships and involve a funder, usually local or central government, willing to contribute ‘patient’ capital. Following the 2010 and 2011 earthquakes that devastated the centre of Christchurch, there was an urgent need to rebuild and revitalise the heart of the city, and increasing the number of people living in or near the city centre was seen as a key ingredient of that. In October 2010, an international competition was launched to design and build an Urban Village, a project intended to stimulate renewed residential development in the city. The competition attracted 58 entrants from around world, and in October 2013 the winning team was chosen from four finalists. However the team failed to secure sufficient finance, and in November 2015 the Government announced that the development would not proceed. The Government was unwilling or unable to recognise that an insistence on a pure market approach would not deliver the innovative sustainable village asked for in the competition brief, and failed to factor in the opportunity cost to government, local government, local businesses and the wider Christchurch community of delaying by many years the residential development of the eastern side of the city. As a result, the early vision of the vitality that a thriving residential neighbourhood would bring to the city has not yet been realised.

Research Papers, Lincoln University

Prior to the devastating 2010 and 2011 earthquakes, parts of the CBD of Christchurch, New Zealand were undergoing revitalisation incorporating aspects of adaptive reuse and gentrification. Such areas were often characterised by a variety of bars, restaurants, and retail outlets of an “alternative” or “bohemian” style. These early 20th century buildings also exhibited relatively low rents and a somewhat chaotic and loosely planned property development approach by small scale developers. Almost all of these buildings were demolished following the earthquakes and a cordon placed around the CBD for several years. A paper presented at the ERES conference in 2013 presented preliminary results, from observation of post-earthquake public meetings and interviews with displaced CBD retailers. This paper highlighted a strongly held fear that the rebuild of the central city, then about to begin, would result in a very different style and cost structure from that which previously existed. As a result, permanent exclusion from the CBD of the types of businesses that previously characterised the successfully revitalised areas would occur. Five years further on, new CBD retail and office buildings have been constructed, but large areas of land between them remain vacant and the new buildings completed are often having difficulty attracting tenants. This paper reports on the further development of this long-term Christchurch case study and examines if the earlier predictions of the displaced retailers are coming true, in that a new CBD that largely mimics a suburban mall in style and tenancy mix, inherently loses some of its competitive advantage?

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

Disasters can create the equivalent of 20 years of waste in only a few days. Disaster waste can have direct impacts on public health and safety, and on the environment. The management of such waste has a great direct cost to society in terms of labor, equipment, processing, transport and disposal. Disaster waste management also has indirect costs, in the sense that slow management can slow down a recovery, greatly affecting the ability of commerce and industry to re-start. In addition, a disaster can lead to the disruption of normal solid waste management systems, or result in inappropriate management that leads to expensive environmental remediation. Finally, there are social impacts implicit in disaster waste management decisions because of psychological impact we expect when waste is not cleared quickly or is cleared too quickly. The paper gives an overview of the challenge of disaster waste management, examining issues of waste quantity and composition; waste treatment; environmental, economic, and social impacts; health and safety matters; and planning. Christchurch, New Zealand, and the broader region of Canterbury were impacted during this research by a series of shallow earthquakes. This has led to the largest natural disaster emergency in New Zealand’s history, and the management of approximately 8 million tons of building and infrastructure debris has become a major issue. The paper provides an overview of the status of disaster waste management in Christchurch as a case study. A key conclusion is the vital role of planning in effective disaster waste management. In spite of the frequency of disasters, in most countries the ratio of time spent on planning for disaster waste management to the time spent on normal waste management is extremely low. Disaster waste management also requires improved education or training of those involved in response efforts. All solid waste professionals have a role to play to respond to the challenges of disaster waste management.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

During the past two decades, the focus has been on the need to provide communities with structures that undergo minimal damage after an earthquake event while still being cost competitive. This has led to the development of high performance seismic resisting systems, and advances in design methodologies, in order respect this demand efficiently. This paper presents the experimental response of four pre-cast, post-tensioned rocking wall systems tested on the shake-table at the University of Canterbury. The wall systems were designed as a retrofit solution for an existing frame building, but are equally applicable for use in new design. Design of the wall followed a performance-based retrofit strategy in which structural limit states appropriate to both the post-tensioned wall and the existing building were considered. Dissipation for each of the four post-tensioned walls was provided via externally mounted devices, located in parallel to post-tensioned tendons for re-centring. This allowed the dissipation devices to be easily replaced or inspected following a major earthquake. Each wall was installed with viscous fluid dampers, tension-compression yielding steel dampers, a combination of both or no devices at all – thus relying on contact damping alone. The effectiveness of both velocity and displacement dependant dissipation are investigated for protection against far-field and velocity-pulse ground motion characteristics. The experimental results validate the behaviour of ‘Advanced Flag-Shape’ rocking, dissipating solutions which have been recently proposed and numerically tested. Maximum displacements and material strains were well controlled and within acceptable bounds, and residual deformations were minimal due to the re-centring contribution from the post-tensioned tendons. Damage was confined to inelastic yielding (or fluid damping) of the external dampers.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

In most design codes, infill walls are considered as non-structural elements and thus are typically neglected in the design process. The observations made after major earthquakes (Duzce 1999, L’Aquila 2009, Christchurch 2011) have shown that even though infill walls are considered to be non-structural elements, they interact with the structural system during seismic actions. In the case of heavy infill walls (i.e. clay brick infill walls), the whole behaviour of the structure may be affected by this interaction (i.e. local or global structural failures such as soft storey mechanism). In the case of light infill walls (i.e. non-structural drywalls), this may cause significant economical losses. To consider the interaction of the structural system with the ‘non-structural ’infill walls at design stage may not be a practical approach due to the complexity of the infill wall behaviour. Therefore, the purpose of the reported research is to develop innovative technological solutions and design recommendations for low damage non-structural wall systems for seismic actions by making use of alternative approaches. Light (steel/timber framed drywalls) and heavy (unreinforced clay brick) non-structural infill wall systems were studied by following an experimental/numerical research programme. Quasi-static reverse cyclic tests were carried out by utilizing a specially designed full scale reinforced concrete frame, which can be used as a re-usable bare frame. In this frame, two RC beams and two RC columns were connected by two un-bonded post tensioning bars, emulating a jointed ductile frame system (PRESSS technology). Due to the rocking behaviour at the beam-column joint interfaces, this frame was typically a low damage structural solution, with the post-tensioning guaranteeing a linear elastic behaviour. Therefore, this frame could be repeatedly used in all of the tests carried out by changing only the infill walls within this frame. Due to the linear elastic behaviour of this structural bare frame, it was possible to extract the exact behaviour of the infill walls from the global results. In other words, the only parameter that affected the global results was given by the infill walls. For the test specimens, the existing practice of construction (as built) for both light and heavy non-structural walls was implemented. In the light of the observations taken during these tests, modified low damage construction practices were proposed and tested. In total, seven tests were carried out: 1) Bare frame , in order to confirm its linear elastic behaviour. 2) As built steel framed drywall specimen FIF1-STFD (Light) 3) As built timber framed drywall specimen FIF2-TBFD (Light) 4) As built unreinforced clay brick infill wall specimen FIF3-UCBI (Heavy) 5) Low damage steel framed drywall specimen MIF1-STFD (Light) 6) Low damage timber framed drywall specimen MIF2-TBFD (Light) 7) Low damage unreinforced clay brick infill wall specimen MIF5-UCBI (Heavy) The tests of the as built practices showed that both drywalls and unreinforced clay brick infill walls have a low serviceability inter-storey drift limit (0.2-0.3%). Based on the observations, simple modifications and details were proposed for the low damage specimens. The details proved to be working effectively in lowering the damage and increasing the serviceability drift limits. For drywalls, the proposed low damage solutions do not introduce additional cost, material or labour and they are easily applicable in real buildings. For unreinforced clay brick infill walls, a light steel sub-frame system was suggested that divides the infill panel zone into smaller individual panels, which requires additional labour and some cost. However, both systems can be engineered for seismic actions and their behaviour can be controlled by implementing the proposed details. The performance of the developed details were also confirmed by the numerical case study analyses carried out using Ruaumoko 2D on a reinforced concrete building model designed according to the NZ codes/standards. The results have confirmed that the implementation of the proposed low damage solutions is expected to significantly reduce the non-structural infill wall damage throughout a building.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

One of the most controversial issues highlighted by the 2010-2011 Christchurch earthquake series and more recently the 2016 Kaikoura earthquake, has been the evident difficulty and lack of knowledge and guidelines for: a) evaluation of the residual capacity damaged buildings to sustain future aftershocks; b) selection and implementation of a series of reliable repairing techniques to bring back the structure to a condition substantially the same as prior to the earthquake; and c) predicting the cost (or cost-effectiveness) of such repair intervention, when compared to fully replacement costs while accounting for potential aftershocks in the near future. As a result of such complexity and uncertainty (i.e., risk), in combination with the possibility (unique in New Zealand when compared to most of the seismic-prone countries) to rely on financial support from the insurance companies, many modern buildings, in a number exceeding typical expectations from past experiences at an international level, have ended up being demolished. This has resulted in additional time and indirect losses prior to the full reconstruction, as well as in an increase in uncertainty on the actual relocation of the investment. This research project provides the main end-users and stakeholders (practitioner engineers, owners, local and government authorities, insurers, and regulatory agencies) with comprehensive evidence-based information to assess the residual capacity of damage reinforced concrete buildings, and to evaluate the feasibility of repairing techniques, in order to support their delicate decision-making process of repair vs. demolition or replacement. Literature review on effectiveness of epoxy injection repairs, as well as experimental tests on full-scale beam-column joints shows that repaired specimens have a reduced initial stiffness compared with the undamaged specimen, with no apparent strength reduction, sometimes exhibiting higher displacement ductility capacities. Although the bond between the steel and concrete is only partially restored, it still allows the repaired specimen to dissipate at least the same amount of hysteretic energy. Experimental tests on buildings subjected to earthquake loading demonstrate that even for severe damage levels, the ability of the epoxy injection to restore the initial stiffness of the structure is significant. Literature review on damage assessment and repair guidelines suggests that there is consensus within the international community that concrete elements with cracks less than 0.2 mm wide only require cosmetic repairs; epoxy injection repairs of cracks less and 2.0 mm wide and concrete patching of spalled cover concrete (i.e., minor to moderate damage) is an appropiate repair strategy; and for severe damaged components (e.g., cracks greater than 2.0 mm wide, crushing of the concrete core, buckling of the longitudinal reinforcement) local replacement of steel and/or concrete in addition to epoxy crack injection is more appropriate. In terms of expected cracking patterns, non-linear finite element investigations on well-designed reinforced concrete beam-to-column joints, have shown that lower number of cracks but with wider openings are expected to occur for larger compressive concrete strength, f’c, and lower reinforcement content, ρs. It was also observed that the tensile concrete strength, ft, strongly affects the expected cracking pattern in the beam-column joints, the latter being more uniformly distributed for lower ft values. Strain rate effects do not seem to play an important role on the cracking pattern. However, small variations in the cracking pattern were observed for low reinforcement content as it approaches to the minimum required as per NZS 3101:2006. Simple equations are proposed in this research project to relate the maximum and residual crack widths with the steel strain at peak displacement, with or without axial load. A literature review on fracture of reinforcing steel due to low-cycle fatigue, including recent research using steel manufactured per New Zealand standards is also presented. Experimental results describing the influence of the cyclic effect on the ultimate strain capacity of the steel are also discussed, and preliminary equations to account for that effect are proposed. A literature review on the current practice to assess the seismic residual capacity of structures is also presented. The various factors affecting the residual fatigue life at a component level (i.e., plastic hinge) of well-designed reinforced concrete frames are discussed, and equations to quantify each of them are proposed, as well as a methodology to incorporate them into a full displacement-based procedure for pre-earthquake and post-earthquake seismic assessment.

Audio, Radio New Zealand

1. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Minister of Trade: Does he still consider that the United States will benefit from being part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership; if so, how? 2. Hon PHIL GOFF to the Prime Minister: Does he believe that all persons who have served as Ministers in his Government have met the requirement of the Cabinet Manual to behave in a way that upholds, and is seen to uphold, the highest ethical standards in their ministerial capacity, their political capacity and their personal capacity; if so, why? 3. CRAIG FOSS to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the Government's financial position? 4. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Tourism: How many full-time permanent jobs has his cycleway project created? 5. JONATHAN YOUNG to the Minister for Communications and Information Technology: What progress has been made on the Ultra-fast broadband initiative? 6. Hon TREVOR MALLARD to the Minister of Education: Which ministers, if any, did she personally consult with on the question of removing the requirement for police checks for employees of limited attendance early childhood centres before she introduced the Education Amendment Bill (No 2)? 7. AARON GILMORE to the Minister of Revenue: What examples can he give of families claiming social assistance for which they are not entitled and what has this Government done to stop this abuse? 8. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Minister of Finance: How much lower will the growth forecast be for the year to March 2011 in the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update compared with the Budget 2010 forecast? 9. SHANE ARDERN to the Minister of Agriculture: What recent actions has the Government taken to improve the welfare of pigs in New Zealand? 10. Hon RUTH DYSON to the Minister of Health: Will he act to prevent closure of health services in Taihape? 11. AMY ADAMS to the Minister for Land Information: What steps has Land Information New Zealand taken to help in the rebuilding of Canterbury following the 4 September earthquake? 12. Hon DARREN HUGHES to the Minister of Transport: Which project has the higher benefit cost ratio: the Auckland CBD rail loop or the Puhoi to Wellsford Road of National Significance?

Audio, Radio New Zealand

Questions to Ministers 1. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: How many working-age people are currently receiving a main benefit and how does this compare to July 2010? 2. AMY ADAMS to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the cost of damage from the Canterbury earthquake? 3. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Minister of Finance: Will he agree to a full public and independent Commission of Inquiry into the collapse of South Canterbury Finance? 4. METIRIA TUREI to the Attorney-General: Does he stand by his statement that the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill "treats all New Zealanders including Māori without discrimination"? 5. Hon DARREN HUGHES to the Minister of Transport: Does he stand by his statement that "the Government is totally committed to the SuperGold Card"? 6. TIM MACINDOE to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What is the Government doing to support the Canterbury community through the earthquake recovery? 7. Hon TREVOR MALLARD to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by all of her statements in answer to oral question No. 8 yesterday? 8. Dr PAUL HUTCHISON to the Minister of Health: What reports has he received on the Canterbury District Health Board's actions following the Canterbury earthquake? 9. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Attorney-General: Given his answer yesterday that he agreed with the Prime Minister's statement earlier this year, "in the end if we can't reach an agreement then the status quo will remain", what acknowledgement, if any, has he received from the Māori Party that the new legal framework for settling foreshore and seabed claims will be "durable"? 10. Dr JACKIE BLUE to the Minister of Transport: What updates has he received on transport in and around Canterbury following the earthquake and numerous aftershocks? 11. DARIEN FENTON to the Minister of Labour: Is she currently considering any changes to employment law that were not included in the changes announced at the National Party Conference; if so, what are they? 12. KATRINA SHANKS to the Minister of Housing: How is the Department of Building and Housing working to keep landlords and tenants informed of their rights and responsibilities following the Christchurch earthquake?

Audio, Radio New Zealand

SHANE ARDERN to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the economy? DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he expect all his Ministers to comply with the responsibilities set out in the Cabinet Manual? JONATHAN YOUNG to the Minister of Justice: What steps is the Government taking to improve public services in law and order? GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Local Government: Will he take the same approach to compliance with the Cabinet Manual as Minister for Local Government as he did as Minister for ACC? DENIS O'ROURKE to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Does he stand by all his recent statements? EUGENIE SAGE to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement, &ldquo;I am not going to do something silly with the Department of Conservation estate&rdquo;? Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Minister for Economic Development: What, if any, are the capital costs, write-downs and redundancy costs expected from the merger of the Ministry of Economic Development with the Ministry of Science and Innovation, Department of Labour and Department of Building and Housing? Dr PAUL HUTCHISON to the Minister of Health: What progress is being made in relation to the Government&rsquo;s key result of increasing infant immunisation rates and reducing the incidence of rheumatic fever? Hon MARYAN STREET to the Minister of Health: Does he support Pharmac&rsquo;s provisional decision to engage Auckland company, Pharmaco, to be the sole supplier of new diabetic meters? PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA to the Minister for Social Development: Has she received any reports on the Future Focus welfare changes in 2010? Hon PHIL GOFF to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Have New Zealand heads of mission overseas been recalled to a meeting in Wellington on 2 April, and if so what is the cost of holding this meeting? Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Is he concerned by a recent report of an international team of scientists that, even with a two degree celsius rise in average global temperature, future generations could face sea levels of up to 12 to 22 metres higher than at present? &nbsp;

Research Papers, Lincoln University

Lincoln University was commissioned by the Avon-Otakaro Network (AvON) to estimate the value of the benefits of a ‘recreation reserve’ or ‘river park’ in the Avon River Residential Red Zone (ARRRZ). This research has demonstrated significant public desire and support for the development of a recreation reserve in the Avon River Residential Red Zone. Support is strongest for a unique natural environment with native fauna and flora, healthy wetlands and rivers, and recreational opportunities that align with this vision, such as walking, cycling and water-based sporting and leisure activities. The research also showed support for a reserve that promotes and enables community interaction and wellbeing, and is evident in respondents’ desires for community gardens, regular festivals and markets, and the physical linking of the CBD with eastern suburbs through a green corridor. There is less support for children’s playgrounds, sports fields or open grassed areas, all of which could be considered as more typical of an urban park development. Benefits (willing to pay) to Christchurch residents (excluding tourists) of a recreation reserve could be as high as $35 million each year. Savings to public health costs could be as high as $50.3 million each year. The incorporation or restoration of various ecosystems services, including water quality improvements, flood mitigation and storm water management could yield a further $8.8 million ($19, 600) per hectare/year at 450 ha). Combined annual benefits of a recreational reserve in the ARRRZ are approximately $94.1 million per annum but this figure does not include potentially significant benefits from, for example, tourism, property equity gains in areas adjacent to the reserve, or the effects of economic rejuvenation in the East. Although we were not able to provide costing estimates for park attributes, this study does make available the value of benefits, which can be used as a guide to the scope of expenditure on development of each park attribute.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

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.

Audio, Radio New Zealand

1. Hon PHIL GOFF to the Prime Minister: Has the tax switch which he promised would leave no-one worse off fully compensated all New Zealanders for the rise in the cost of living over the last year; if not, which groups are worse off? 2. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree that due to inflation, no new spending in the upcoming Budget is the equivalent of a cut in real terms? 3. DAVID BENNETT to the Minister of Finance: What tax changes take effect on or around 1 April? 4. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Minister of Finance: Why did he announce on 17 March 2011 that the Government would carry all the costs of earthquake reconstruction on its balance sheet with no reduction in operating spending, when the Prime Minister said just three days later that new operating spending would be reduced to zero? 5. AARON GILMORE to the Minister of Education: What progress has been made re-opening schools and early childhood education centres in Christchurch following the 22 February earthquake? 6. CHARLES CHAUVEL to the Minister of Civil Defence: To date, how many buildings have been demolished in Canterbury without notifications to the building or business owners? 7. HONE HARAWIRA to the Attorney-General: Is he satisfied that he has the support required for the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill to pass into law? 8. DARIEN FENTON to the Minister of Labour: What impact, if any, will the Christchurch earthquake have on the Government's employment law changes due to be implemented on 1 April? 9. JONATHAN YOUNG to the Minister of Corrections: What progress has been made toward the implementation of the smoking ban in New Zealand prisons? 10. CLARE CURRAN to the Minister for Communications and Information Technology: By what date will the 75 percent of urban New Zealanders receive ultra-fast broadband under his current proposal? 11. METIRIA TUREI to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that the "Government will build the effectiveness of New Zealand's public transport networks" and "will be working closely with the Auckland Council as they develop their strategic vision for the City through the Auckland Spatial Plan"? 12. TODD McCLAY to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What counselling support is available for Cantabrians impacted by the earthquake?

Audio, Radio New Zealand

TODD McCLAY to the Minister of Finance: What progress has the Government made with its economic programme in 2012? Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his promise to New Zealanders that &quot;I expect high standards from my Ministers &hellip; if they don't meet the standards I set then obviously I will take action if necessary&quot;? DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements and have confidence in the statements of all his Ministers? NICKY WAGNER to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: How is the Government delivering a strong and effective recovery for greater Christchurch following the earthquakes? CHARLES CHAUVEL to the Minister of Justice: What are the specific &quot;assumptions&quot; based on &quot;incorrect facts&quot; demonstrating some &quot;misunderstanding of New Zealand law&quot; that she alleges are contained in the report of Justice Binnie concerning the application by Mr Bain for compensation for wrongful conviction and imprisonment? Dr PAUL HUTCHISON to the Minister of Health: What progress has the Government made on its national preventive health targets this year? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Why does he have confidence in the Minister for Whānau Ora? KRIS FAAFOI to the Minister of Police: Is she committed to all of her promises in regards to the New Zealand Police? TIM MACINDOE to the Minister of Justice: What progress has been made towards achieving Better Public Services across the justice sector? HONE HARAWIRA to the Minister of Education: Does she accept the finding of the Children's Commissioner's Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty that a government funded food programme in low-decile schools is a simple, do-able, and low-cost solution to help children in poverty learn and achieve at school, and the recommendation that Government design and implement such a programme; if not, why not? CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of Education: Does she believe that her consultation process around the possible closure of residential special schools provided all those affected with an opportunity to have a meaningful say and have that say properly considered; if so, why? MELISSA LEE to the Minister for Social Development: What progress has the Government made in 2012 to shift the focus of our welfare system to one that is active, work focused and delivers better outcomes for New Zealanders?

Audio, Radio New Zealand

TODD McCLAY to the Minister of Finance: What progress has the Government made with its economic programme in 2012? Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his promise to New Zealanders that &quot;I expect high standards from my Ministers &hellip; if they don't meet the standards I set then obviously I will take action if necessary&quot;? DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements and have confidence in the statements of all his Ministers? NICKY WAGNER to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: How is the Government delivering a strong and effective recovery for greater Christchurch following the earthquakes? CHARLES CHAUVEL to the Minister of Justice: What are the specific &quot;assumptions&quot; based on &quot;incorrect facts&quot; demonstrating some &quot;misunderstanding of New Zealand law&quot; that she alleges are contained in the report of Justice Binnie concerning the application by Mr Bain for compensation for wrongful conviction and imprisonment? Dr PAUL HUTCHISON to the Minister of Health: What progress has the Government made on its national preventive health targets this year? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Why does he have confidence in the Minister for Whānau Ora? KRIS FAAFOI to the Minister of Police: Is she committed to all of her promises in regards to the New Zealand Police? TIM MACINDOE to the Minister of Justice: What progress has been made towards achieving Better Public Services across the justice sector? HONE HARAWIRA to the Minister of Education: Does she accept the finding of the Children's Commissioner's Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty that a government funded food programme in low-decile schools is a simple, do-able, and low-cost solution to help children in poverty learn and achieve at school, and the recommendation that Government design and implement such a programme; if not, why not? CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of Education: Does she believe that her consultation process around the possible closure of residential special schools provided all those affected with an opportunity to have a meaningful say and have that say properly considered; if so, why? MELISSA LEE to the Minister for Social Development: What progress has the Government made in 2012 to shift the focus of our welfare system to one that is active, work focused and delivers better outcomes for New Zealanders? &nbsp;

Audio, Radio New Zealand

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?

Audio, Radio New Zealand

PHIL TWYFORD to the Minister for Building and Construction: Does he agree with Mainfreight founder and Chairman Bruce Plested that housing is a &ldquo;social disgrace&rdquo;, 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&rsquo;s answer yesterday that drinking-water contamination in Havelock North was &ldquo;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&rdquo;? BRETT HUDSON to the Minister of Local Government: What recent announcements has she made regarding Wellington&rsquo;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&rsquo;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?

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

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.

Research papers, The University of Auckland Library

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.

Audio, Radio New Zealand

Questions to Ministers 1. Hon PHIL GOFF to the Prime Minister: In stating that "this Government introduced a balanced package of tax cuts" was he saying that his tax changes and the tax system are fair to all New Zealanders? 2. LOUISE UPSTON to the Minister of Finance: What will be the main objectives of Budget 2011 tomorrow? 3. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Prime Minister: When he said "in most cases the tax switch more than compensated people for the increase in GST", in which cases hadn't people been fully compensated? 4. JOHN BOSCAWEN to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by the statement he made in his post-Cabinet press conference on Monday that "Everyone needs to understand that what Don Brash is talking about is hardcore"; if so why? 5. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Minister of Finance: What is the total impact on the operating balance, over the forecast period, of the fiscal impact of the tax changes in Budget 2010 according to page 70 of the 2010 Budget and Economic Fiscal Update, and how does he reconcile that with the Prime Minister's statement in the House yesterday that "National's tax plan 2010…was fiscally neutral"? 6. ALLAN PEACHEY to the Minister of Corrections: What reports has she received about the first year of container units being used in New Zealand prisons? 7. RAHUI KATENE to the Minister for Communications and Information Technology: What was the motivation behind the decision to remove regulatory forbearance from the Telecommunications (TSO, Broadband, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill? 8. JACINDA ARDERN to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Does he stand by the Prime Minister's statement in relation to Christchurch that "it looks like the residential rebuild alone will require up to 12,500 full-time workers", if not, how many full-time workers does he believe will now be needed? 9. Hon TAU HENARE to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What recent announcements has she made to support community social services? 10. CLARE CURRAN to the Minister for Communications and Information Technology: What is the best estimate of the additional cost to the Crown of the change he announced to the ultrafast broadband network this morning? 11. TIM MACINDOE to the Minister of Housing: What recent announcements has he made regarding the Government's Housing Innovation Fund? 12. GARETH HUGHES to the Acting Minister of Energy and Resources: What is her response to the statement of leading scientist and NASA director Dr James Hansen, currently touring New Zealand, that "coal is the single greatest threat to civilisation and all life on our planet" and we should leave it in the ground?

Audio, Radio New Zealand

Questions to Ministers 1. CHRIS AUCHINVOLE to the Minister of Finance: What steps has the Government taken to make better use of its balance sheet to boost growth and jobs? 2. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: In light of her answer on behalf of the Prime Minister yesterday, that there is child poverty in New Zealand, what is the estimated cost of child poverty per year? 3. KATRINA SHANKS to the Minister for Communications and Information Technology: What progress has the Government made on rolling out ultra-fast broadband in Wellington? 4. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Health: Have hospital admissions for children with respiratory diseases and infectious diseases increased over the last three years; if so, by how much? 5. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Minister of Agriculture: Will the Government adopt the OECD's 2011 recommendation that New Zealand implement water charging for agricultural uses? 6. SUE MORONEY to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by her commitment on The Nation on 20 August 2011, that low and middle income families would not pay more for 20 hours of early childhood education in the next three years if the Government is re-elected? 7. Hon TAU HENARE to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What reports has she received on the latest benefit figures? 8. PHIL TWYFORD to the Minister of Transport: Does he endorse the transport elements of the draft Auckland Plan; if not, why not? 9. NICKY WAGNER to the Minister of Health: What steps has the Government taken to improve outpatient and other health services to the people of Canterbury following the earthquakes? 10. STUART NASH to the Minister of Finance: Does the Government's privatisation plan include parameters which would cause it to cancel sales, such as low sale prices or high dividend yields; if so, what are the parameters? 11. NIKKI KAYE to the Minister of Internal Affairs: What announcements has he made regarding the igovt scheme, and increasing online access to government services? 12. Hon RICK BARKER to the Minister of Veterans' Affairs: When can veterans expect a full response from the Government in response to the Law Commission report titled A New Support Scheme for Veterans: A Report on the Review of the War Pensions Act 1954 that was presented to Parliament on 1 June 2010? Questions to Members 1. CLARE CURRAN to the Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee: Has he requested any written submissions on the petition of George Laird, signed by nearly 14,000 people, calling the Government to retain the Hillside and Woburn workshops?

Audio, Radio New Zealand

DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement: &ldquo;I&rsquo;m not going to go and relitigate every comment I&rsquo;ve made prior to this point because I don&rsquo;t think that would actually be helpful&rdquo;? TODD McCLAY to the Minister of Finance: How has the Government balanced the need for responsible fiscal management with its continued support for New Zealand families? METIRIA TUREI to the Prime Minister: Ka whakatau a ia i te kōrero i whakaputaina māna, arā, &ldquo;I do not accept the view that we are a deeply unequal country. I do not think the evidence suggests that, and people drawing that conclusion are wrong&rdquo;? Translation: Does he stand by the statement made on his behalf, &ldquo;I do not accept the view that we are a deeply unequal country. I do not think the evidence suggests that, and people drawing that conclusion are wrong&rdquo;? JACQUI DEAN to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: What recent announcements has the Government made around the rebuild of the Christchurch city centre? Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA to the Minister of Māori Affairs: Does he stand by all his statements? MAGGIE BARRY to the Minister of Health: Has any progress been made on the Zero Fees for Under Sixes scheme taking coverage over and above the 70 percent of children covered in 2008 achieved by the previous Government? Hon TREVOR MALLARD to the Associate Minister of Education: What progress has been made on the charter schools policy? ALFRED NGARO to the Minister for Social Development: What announcements has she made on the release of the White Paper for Vulnerable Children? CLARE CURRAN to the Minister of Transport: Does he stand by his statement in his press release of 24 May 2012 that &ldquo;KiwiRail has successfully undertaken a significant investment programme over the previous two years, including: New locomotives and wagons, and refurbishment of the current locomotive fleet&rdquo;? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by the statement made on his behalf that there are no plans to sell KiwiRail? MELISSA LEE to the Minister for Ethnic Affairs: What reports has she received about the Office of Ethnic Affairs working with the Red Cross? JULIE ANNE GENTER to the Minister of Transport: What alternatives did the Government investigate before committing itself to the Road of National Significance between Puhoi and Wellsford, which is now projected to cost $1.76 billion up from $1.69 billion two years ago?

Audio, Radio New Zealand

PAUL GOLDSMITH to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on progress in lifting New Zealand&rsquo;s household savings and reducing household debt? EUGENIE SAGE to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Did the advice he has received on Christchurch City Council assets contemplate a sell off or sell down of shares in companies supervised by Christchurch City Holdings Ltd or of other council assets; if so, which ones? Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his answer to yesterday&rsquo;s primary question &ldquo;as I understand it, there are no regional statistics that specifically isolate the number of people leaving any particular region to move overseas&rdquo; and has the Treasury reported to him the existence of official statistics on permanent and long-term migration compiled by local council area and region? SCOTT SIMPSON to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: What changes is the Government making to improve results from industry training? Hon LIANNE DALZIEL to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Which of the assets identified by CERA in response to his request has he ruled out asking Christchurch City Council to sell? KATRINA SHANKS to the Minister of Justice: What changes is she making to improve the Family Court? Le'aufa'amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR to the Minister for Whānau Ora: Does she stand by her statement that &ldquo;I don&rsquo;t object to any vulnerable family receiving Whānau Ora support, because that&rsquo;s what the money is for&rdquo;? Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Housing: Does he stand by all his comments on housing; if not, why not? Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: What is the total number and cost of uncontested contracts given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to external consultants in the last two financial years? MARK MITCHELL to the Minister for Communications and Information Technology: Has she received any reports on the progress of the Government&rsquo;s Ultra-Fast Broadband and Rural Broadband Initiatives? DARIEN FENTON to the Minister of Labour: Does she stand by her statement regarding foreign chartered fishing vessels &ldquo;If breaches of labour law occur &ndash; such as underpayment of wages or illegal deductions or breaches of the Code of Practice, the Department of Labour will be able to investigate them and take action&rdquo;? NICKY WAGNER to the Minister for the Environment: What recent announcements has she made in relation to the Waste Minimisation Fund?

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

Currently there is a worldwide renaissance in timber building design. At the University of Canterbury, new structural systems for commercial multistorey timber buildings have been under development since 2005. These systems incorporate large timber sections connected by high strength post-tensioning tendons, and timber-concrete composite floor systems, and aim to compete with existing structural systems in terms of cost, constructability, operational and seismic performance. The development of post-tensioned timber systems has created a need for improved lateral force design approaches for timber buildings. Current code provisions for seismic design are based on the strength of the structure, and do not adequately account for its deformation. Because timber buildings are often governed by deflection, rather than strength, this can lead to the exceedence of design displacement limitations imposed by New Zealand codes. Therefore, accurate modeling approaches which define both the strength and deformation of post-tensioned timber buildings are required. Furthermore, experimental testing is required to verify the accuracy of these models. This thesis focuses on the development and experimental verification of modeling approaches for the lateral force design of post-tensioned timber frame and wall buildings. The experimentation consisted of uni-direcitonal and bi-directional quasi-static earthquake simulation on a two-thirds scale, two-storey post-tensioned timber frame and wall building with timber-concrete composite floors. The building was subjected to lateral drifts of up to 3% and demonstrated excellent seismic performance, exhibiting little damage. The building was instrumented and analyzed, providing data for the calibration of analytical and numerical models. Analytical and numerical models were developed for frame, wall and floor systems that account for significant deformation components. The models predicted the strength of the structural systems for a given design performance level. The static responses predicted by the models were compared with both experimental data and finite element models to evaluate their accuracy. The frame, wall and floor models were then incorporated into an existing lateral force design procedure known as displacement-based design and used to design several frame and wall structural systems. Predictions of key engineering demand parameters, such as displacement, drift, interstorey shear, interstorey moment and floor accelerations, were compared with the results of dynamic time-history analysis. It was concluded that the numerical and analytical models, presented in this thesis, are a sound basis for determining the lateral response of post-tensioned timber buildings. However, future research is required to further verify and improve these prediction models.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

To reduce seismic vulnerability and the economic impact of seismic structural damage, it is important to protect structures using supplemental energy dissipation devices. Several types of supplemental damping systems can limit loads transferred to structures and absorb significant response energy without sacrificial structural damage. Lead extrusion dampers are one type of supplemental energy dissipation devices. A smaller volumetric size with high force capacities, called high force to volume (HF2V) devices, have been employed in a large series of scaled and full-scaled experiments, as well as in three new structures in Christchurch and San Francisco. HF2V devices have previously been designed using very simple models with limited precision. They are then manufactured, and tested to ensure force capacities match design goals, potentially necessitating reassembly or redesign if there is large error. In particular, devices with a force capacity well above or below a design range can require more testing and redesign, leading to increased economic and time cost. Thus, there is a major need for a modelling methodology to accurately estimate the range of possible device force capacity values in the design phase – upper and lower bounds. Upper and lower bound force capacity estimates are developed from equations in the metal extrusion literature. These equations consider both friction and extrusion forces between the lead and the bulged shaft in HF2V devices. The equations for the lower and upper bounds are strictly functions of device design parameters ensuring easy use in the design phase. Two different sets of estimates are created, leading to estimates for the lower and upper bounds denoted FLB,1, FUB,1, FUB,2, respectively. The models are validated by comparing the bounds with experimental force capacity data from 15 experimental HF2V device tests. All lower bound estimates are below or almost equal to the experimental device forces, and all upper bound estimates are above. Per the derivation, the (FLB,1, FUB,1) pair provide narrower bounds. The (FLB,1, FUB,1) pair also had a mean lower bound gap of -34%, meaning the lower bound was 74% of device force on average, while the mean upper bound gap for FUB,1 was +23%. These are relatively tight bounds, within ~±2 SE of device manufacture, and can be used as a guide to ensure device forces are in range for the actual design use when manufactured. Therefore, they provide a useful design tool.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

In the last century, seismic design has undergone significant advancements. Starting from the initial concept of designing structures to perform elastically during an earthquake, the modern seismic design philosophy allows structures to respond to ground excitations in an inelastic manner, thereby allowing damage in earthquakes that are significantly less intense than the largest possible ground motion at the site of the structure. Current performance-based multi-objective seismic design methods aim to ensure life-safety in large and rare earthquakes, and to limit structural damage in frequent and moderate earthquakes. As a result, not many recently built buildings have collapsed and very few people have been killed in 21st century buildings even in large earthquakes. Nevertheless, the financial losses to the community arising from damage and downtime in these earthquakes have been unacceptably high (for example; reported to be in excess of 40 billion dollars in the recent Canterbury earthquakes). In the aftermath of the huge financial losses incurred in recent earthquakes, public has unabashedly shown their dissatisfaction over the seismic performance of the built infrastructure. As the current capacity design based seismic design approach relies on inelastic response (i.e. ductility) in pre-identified plastic hinges, it encourages structures to damage (and inadvertently to incur loss in the form of repair and downtime). It has now been widely accepted that while designing ductile structural systems according to the modern seismic design concept can largely ensure life-safety during earthquakes, this also causes buildings to undergo substantial damage (and significant financial loss) in moderate earthquakes. In a quest to match the seismic design objectives with public expectations, researchers are exploring how financial loss can be brought into the decision making process of seismic design. This has facilitated conceptual development of loss optimisation seismic design (LOSD), which involves estimating likely financial losses in design level earthquakes and comparing against acceptable levels of loss to make design decisions (Dhakal 2010a). Adoption of loss based approach in seismic design standards will be a big paradigm shift in earthquake engineering, but it is still a long term dream as the quantification of the interrelationships between earthquake intensity, engineering demand parameters, damage measures, and different forms of losses for different types of buildings (and more importantly the simplification of the interrelationship into design friendly forms) will require a long time. Dissecting the cost of modern buildings suggests that the structural components constitute only a minor portion of the total building cost (Taghavi and Miranda 2003). Moreover, recent research on seismic loss assessment has shown that the damage to non-structural elements and building contents contribute dominantly to the total building loss (Bradley et. al. 2009). In an earthquake, buildings can incur losses of three different forms (damage, downtime, and death/injury commonly referred as 3Ds); but all three forms of seismic loss can be expressed in terms of dollars. It is also obvious that the latter two loss forms (i.e. downtime and death/injury) are related to the extent of damage; which, in a building, will not just be constrained to the load bearing (i.e. structural) elements. As observed in recent earthquakes, even the secondary building components (such as ceilings, partitions, facades, windows parapets, chimneys, canopies) and contents can undergo substantial damage, which can lead to all three forms of loss (Dhakal 2010b). Hence, if financial losses are to be minimised during earthquakes, not only the structural systems, but also the non-structural elements (such as partitions, ceilings, glazing, windows etc.) should be designed for earthquake resistance, and valuable contents should be protected against damage during earthquakes. Several innovative building technologies have been (and are being) developed to reduce building damage during earthquakes (Buchanan et. al. 2011). Most of these developments are aimed at reducing damage to the buildings’ structural systems without due attention to their effects on non-structural systems and building contents. For example, the PRESSS system or Damage Avoidance Design concept aims to enable a building’s structural system to meet the required displacement demand by rocking without the structural elements having to deform inelastically; thereby avoiding damage to these elements. However, as this concept does not necessarily reduce the interstory drift or floor acceleration demands, the damage to non-structural elements and contents can still be high. Similarly, the concept of externally bracing/damping building frames reduces the drift demand (and consequently reduces the structural damage and drift sensitive non-structural damage). Nevertheless, the acceleration sensitive non-structural elements and contents will still be very vulnerable to damage as the floor accelerations are not reduced (arguably increased). Therefore, these concepts may not be able to substantially reduce the total financial losses in all types of buildings. Among the emerging building technologies, base isolation looks very promising as it seems to reduce both inter-storey drifts and floor accelerations, thereby reducing the damage to the structural/non-structural components of a building and its contents. Undoubtedly, a base isolated building will incur substantially reduced loss of all three forms (dollars, downtime, death/injury), even during severe earthquakes. However, base isolating a building or applying any other beneficial technology may incur additional initial costs. In order to provide incentives for builders/owners to adopt these loss-minimising technologies, real-estate and insurance industries will have to acknowledge the reduced risk posed by (and enhanced resilience of) such buildings in setting their rental/sale prices and insurance premiums.