In response to the February 2011 earthquake, Parliament enacted the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act. This emergency legislation provided the executive with extreme powers that extended well beyond the initial emergency response and into the recovery phase. Although New Zealand has the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002, it was unable to cope with the scale and intensity of the Canterbury earthquake sequence. Considering the well-known geological risk facing the Wellington region, this paper will consider whether a standalone “Disaster Recovery Act” should be established to separate an emergency and its response from the recovery phase. Currently, Government policy is to respond reactively to a disaster rather than proactively. In a major event, this typically involves the executive being given the ability to make rules, regulations and policy without the delay or oversight of normal legislative process. In the first part of this paper, I will canvas what a “Disaster Recovery Act” could prescribe and why there is a need to separate recovery from emergency. Secondly, I will consider the shortfalls in the current civil defence recovery framework which necessitates this kind of heavy governmental response after a disaster. In the final section, I will examine how
The world experiences a number of disasters each year. Following a disaster, the affected area moves to a phase of recovery which involves multiple stakeholders. An important element of recovery is planning the rebuild of the affected environment guided by the legislative framework to which planning is bound to (March & Kornakova, 2017). Yet, there appears to be little research that has investigated the role of planners in a recovery setting and the implications of recovery legislative planning frameworks. This study was conducted to explore the role of the planner in the Canterbury earthquake recovery process in New Zealand and the impact of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 (CER Act) on planners’ roles and how they operated.
The methodology comprised a combination of document analysis of legislation and related recovery material and 21 semi-structured interviews with key planners, politicians and professionals involved in the recovery. The results suggest that the majority of planners interviewed were affected by the CER Act in their role and how they operated, although institutional context, especially political constraints, was a key factor in determining the degree of impact. It is argued that planners played a key role in recovery and were generally equipped in terms of skills needed in a recovery setting. In order to better utilise planners in post-disaster recovery or disaster risk management, two suggestions are proposed. Firstly, better promote planners and their capabilities to improve awareness of what planners can do. Secondly, educate and build an understanding between central government politicians and planners over each others role to produce better planning outcomes.
Silver Awar, presented to Erin Jackson (from Christchurch), she acted as the Big Top manager during student volunteer army operations. Pictured here with Vice-Chancellor Dr Rod Carr, Prime Minister John Key and Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Gerry Brownlee.
Silver Award presented to Erin Jackson (from Christchurch), she acted as the Big Top manager during student volunteer army operations. Pictured here with Vice-Chancellor Dr Rod Carr, Prime Minister John Key and Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Gerry Brownlee.
In this dissertation it is argued that the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority were both necessary and inevitable given the trends and traditions of civil defence emergency management (CDEM) in New Zealand. The trends and traditions of civil defence are such that principles come before practice, form before function, and change is primarily brought about through crisis and criticism. The guiding question of the research was why were a new governance system and law made after the Canterbury earthquakes in 2010 and 2011? Why did this outcome occur despite the establishment of a modern emergency management system in 2002 which included a recovery framework that had been praised by international scholars as leading edge and a model for other countries? The official reason was the unprecedented scale and demands of the recovery – but a disaster of such scale is the principle reason for having a national emergency management system. Another explanation is the lack of cooperation among local authorities – but that raises the question of whether the CDEM recovery framework would have been successful in another locality. Consequentially, the focus of this dissertation is on the CDEM recovery framework and how New Zealand came to find itself making disaster law during a disaster. Recommendations include a review of emergency powers for recovery, a review of the capabilities needed to fulfil the mandate of Recovery Managers, and the establishment of a National Recovery Office with a cadre of Recovery Managers that attend every recovery to observe, advise, or assume control as needed. CDEM Group Recovery Managers would be seconded to the National Recovery Office which would allow for experience in recovery management to be developed and institutionalised through regular practice.
Questions to Ministers
1. Hon PHIL GOFF to the Prime Minister: Is he satisfied that actions to address the Christchurch earthquake are an adequate response; if not, what are his areas of concern?
2. AMY ADAMS to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the economic impact of the earthquake in Christchurch on 22 February 2011?
3. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Is he satisfied with the level of support being offered to the people of Christchurch in the wake of the earthquake on 22 February 2011?
4. NICKY WAGNER to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What is the Government doing to support Canterbury businesses and employees through the earthquake recovery?
5. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Is she confident that the Ministry of Social Development has responded adequately to the Christchurch earthquake?
6. METIRIA TUREI to the Minister of Finance: Has he considered raising a temporary levy on income to help fund the rebuilding of Christchurch; if so, how much could it raise?
7. AARON GILMORE to the Minister for Tertiary Education: What work has been done to help the families of tertiary students and tertiary institutions affected by the 22 February 2011 earthquake in Christchurch?
8. Hon JIM ANDERTON to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Will he ensure that Christchurch homeowners and businesses are able to access insurance cover from existing policies or new cover they require since the 22 February 2011 earthquake?
9. Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN to the Attorney-General: Has he asked the Māori Party to agree to amendments to the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill that would make it explicitly clear that customary title holders would not be able to charge individuals for accessing a beach, and require any negotiated settlements to be referred back to Parliament for validation; if so, what response did he receive?
10. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Attorney-General: Does the Government intend to proceed this week with its legislation to replace the existing
Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004?
11. RAHUI KATENE to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Did he agree with his spokesman's response to the situation for residents in Christchurch East following the earthquake of 22 February 2011, that, "It is apparent, given the scale out there, that there just wasn't sufficient hardware out there, loos and the like", and what urgent actions have been taken to give priority to communities in the eastern suburbs?
12. COLIN KING to the Minister of Civil Defence: Why was a state of national emergency declared on 23 February 2011?
In this paper we outline the process and outcomes of a multi-agency, multi-sector research collaboration, led by the Canterbury Earthquake Research Authority (CERA). The CERA Wellbeing Survey (CWS) is a serial, cross-sectional survey that is to be repeated six-monthly (in April and September) until the end of the CERA Act, in April 2016. The survey gathers self-reported wellbeing data to supplement the monitoring of the social recovery undertaken through CERA's Canterbury Wellbeing Index. Thereby informing a range of relevant agency decision-making, the CWS was also intended to provide the community and other sectors with a broad indication of how the population is tracking in the recovery. The primary objective was to ensure that decision-making was appropriately informed, with the concurrent aim of compiling a robust dataset that is of value to future researchers, and to the wider, global hazard and disaster research endeavor. The paper begins with an outline of both the Canterbury earthquake sequence, and the research context informing this collaborative project, before reporting on the methodology and significant results to date. It concludes with a discussion of both the survey results, and the collaborative process through which it was developed.
Questions to Ministers
1. PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA to the Minister of Finance: What are some of the issues the Government will consider to meet the expected fiscal cost of the Christchurch earthquake?
2. Hon PHIL GOFF to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that, in Christchurch, "up to 10,000 houses will need to be demolished and over 100,000 more could be damaged?
3. Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN to the Attorney-General: What changes, if any, is he proposing to the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill, and why?
4. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Minister of Finance: How much of the cumulative $15 billion drop in GDP over the next 4 years, as identified in the Treasury's February Monthly Economic Indicators report, is a result of the "weaker [economic] outlook we were seeing prior to the February earthquake" in Christchurch?
5. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Is he satisfied that there is enough coordination between central government agencies, local council, and non-government organisations in the response to the earthquake?
6. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Attorney-General: Is it his intention to further progress the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill this week?
7. NICKY WAGNER to the Minister for the Environment: What changes has the Government made under the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Act to facilitate recovery and the processing of resource consents to enable Christchurch to rebuild as quickly as possible?
8. Hon JIM ANDERTON to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Does he stand by his comment in the House yesterday that "there is a period in which insurance companies will not provide cover", and if so, what will the Government do to assist people who have already signed purchase contracts and are seeking insurance cover?
9. JACQUI DEAN to the Minister of Police: What has been the response of the New Zealand Police and their counterparts in other countries to the Christchurch earthquake?
10. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Health: Is he satisfied with the cost of after-hours medical treatment?
11. TIM MACINDOE to the Minister of Housing: What assistance is available for people who require emergency housing following the earthquake on 22 February?
12. Hon TREVOR MALLARD to the Minister for Communications and Information Technology: Who made the decision to defer MediaWorks' payment of $43 million to the Crown?
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?
Refers to the government's earthquake response legislation and the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. 26 experts in constitutional law from all six of the country's law faculties have penned a letter condemning the Government's earthquake response legislation. No sooner was their work in the public eye than the similarly flawed Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill was reported back from a select committee, with a recommendation that it pass. It also goes far beyond what is required to get things done. In bypassing the normal consent process, the bill says the authority does not have to hold hearings on applications and that its decisions can be challenged in the High Court only on points of law. Effectively, the legislation asks New Zealanders to accept that the Rugby World Cup Minister knows best. It is he who knows how the event must be run. Precisely the same attitude pervades the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Act. This hands individual Government ministers the power to change almost every law, thereby handing Parliament's normal law-making role to the Executive. Their decisions cannot be challenged in any court'. (NZ Herald editorial - 1 October 2010)
Quantity: 1 digital cartoon(s).
Text reads 'If a secret microphone was smuggled into CERA's meetings?...' A group of CERA staff chat during tea at a meeting. They make unguarded comments about the state of affairs in earthquake-stricken Christchurch unaware that a microphone has been left in a sugarbowl. Context: the cartoon suggests that there seems to many Christchurch people to be a lack of real care on the part of officialdom as they struggle to recover from the earthquake damage. The microphone recalls that left 'accidentally' on a table at which Prime Minister John Key and the ACT candidate for the Epsom seat were having a highly publicised cup of tea. Then when it was discovered that a microphone had recorded their conversation John Key tried to get a court order to supress making it public.
Quantity: 1 digital cartoon(s).
Christchurch MPs - Labour's Lianne Dalziel and National's Amy Adams - say it's not fair for seat-of-the-pants post-quake red/yellow and green sticker assessments to be formally recorded forever. They say the assessments were hastily done and inconsistent. But the Christchurch City Council says its required to do so under the provisions of the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Act.
This study followed two similarly affected, but socio-economically disparate suburbs as residents responded to and attempted to recover from the devastating 6.3 magnitude earthquake that struck Christchurch, New Zealand, on February 22, 2011. More specifically, it focuses on the role of local churches, community-based organisations (CBOs) and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), here referred to broadly as civil society, in meeting the immediate needs of local residents and assisting with the longer-term recovery of each neighbourhood. Despite considerable socioeconomic differences between the two neighbourhoods, civil society in both suburbs has been vital in addressing the needs of locals in the short and long term following the earthquake. Institutions were able to utilise local knowledge of both residents and the extent of damage in the area to a) provide a swifter local response than government or civil defence and then help direct the relief these agencies provided locally; b) set up central points for distribution of supplies and information where locals would naturally gather; c) take action on what were perceived to be unmet needs; and d) act as a way of bridging locals to a variety of material, informational, and emotional resources. However the findings also support literature which indicates that other factors are also important in understanding neighbourhood recovery and the role of civil society, including: local leadership; a shared, place-based identity; the type and form of civil society organizations; social capital; and neighbourhood- and household-level indicators of relative vulnerability and inequality. The intertwining of these various factors seems to influence how these neighbourhoods have coped with and taken steps in recovering from this disaster. It is recommended that future research be directed at developing a better understanding of how this occurs. It is suggested that a model similar to Yasui’s (2007) Community Vulnerability and Capacity model be developed as a useful way to approach future research in this area.
During 2010 and 2011, major earthquakes caused widespread damage and the deaths of 185 people in the city of Christchurch. Damaged school buildings resulted in state intervention which required amendment of the Education Act of 1989, and the development of ‘site sharing agreements’ in undamaged schools to cater for the needs of students whose schools had closed. An effective plan was also developed for student assessment through establishing an earthquake impaired derived grade process. Previous research into traditional explanations of educational inequalities in the United Kingdom, the United States of America, and New Zealand were reviewed through various processes within three educational inputs: the student, the school and the state. Research into the impacts of urban natural disasters on education and education inequalities found literature on post disaster education systems but nothing could be found that included performance data. The impacts of the Canterbury earthquakes on educational inequalities and achievement were analysed over 2009-2012. The baseline year was 2009, the year before the first earthquake, while 2012 is seen as the recovery year as no schools closed due to seismic events and there was no state intervention into the education of the region. National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) results levels 1-3 from thirty-four secondary schools in the greater Christchurch region were graphed and analysed. Regression analysis indicates; in 2009, educational inequalities existed with a strong positive relationship between a school’s decile rating and NCEA achievement. When schools were grouped into decile rankings (1-10) and their 2010 NCEA levels 1-3 results were compared with the previous year, the percentage of change indicates an overall lower NCEA achievement in 2010 across all deciles, but particularly in lower decile schools. By contrast, when 2011 NCEA results were compared with those of 2009, as a percentage of change, lower decile schools fared better. Non site sharing schools also achieved higher results than site sharing schools. State interventions, had however contributed towards student’s achieving national examinations and entry to university in 2011. When NCEA results for 2012 were compared to 2009 educational inequalities still exist, however in 2012 the positive relationship between decile rating and achievement is marginally weaker than in 2009. Human ethics approval was required to survey one Christchurch secondary school community of students (aged between 12 and 18), teachers and staff, parents and caregivers during October 2011. Participation was voluntary and without incentives, 154 completed questionnaires were received. The Canterbury earthquakes and aftershocks changed the lives of the research participants. This school community was displaced to another school due to the Christchurch earthquake on 22 February 2011. Research results are grouped under four geographical perspectives; spatial impacts, socio-economic impacts, displacement, and health and wellbeing. Further research possibilities include researching the lag effects from the Canterbury earthquakes on school age children.
The Canterbury earthquakes of 2010 and 2011 have shone the spotlight on a number of tax issues. These issues, and in particular lessons learned from them, will be relevant for revenue authorities, policymakers and taxpayers alike in the broader context of natural disasters. Issues considered by this paper include the tax treatment of insurance monies. For example, building owners will receive pay-outs for destroyed assets and buildings which have been depreciated. Where the insurance payment is more than the adjusted tax value, there will be a taxable "gain on sale" (or depreciation recovery income). If the building owner uses those insurance proceeds to purchase a replacement asset, legislative amendments specifically enacted following the earthquakes provide that rollover relief of the depreciation recovery income is available. The tax treatment of expenditure to seismically strengthen a building is another significant issue faced by building owners. Case law has determined that this expenditure will usually be capital expenditure. In the past such costs could be capitalised to the building and depreciated accordingly. However, since the 2011-2012 income year owners have been prohibited from claiming depreciation on buildings and therefore currently no deduction is available for such strengthening expenditure (whether immediate or deferred). This has significant potential implications for landlords throughout New Zealand facing significant seismic retrofit costs. Incentives, or some form of financial support, whether delivered through the tax system or some other mechanism may be required. International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) require insurance proceeds, including reimbursement for expenditure of a capital nature, be reported as income while expenditure itself is not recorded as a current period expense. This has the effect of overstating current income and creating a larger variation between reported income for accounting and taxation purposes. Businesses have obligations to maintain certain business records for tax purposes. Reconstructing records destroyed by a natural disaster depends on how the information was originally stored. The earthquakes have demonstrated the benefits of ‘off-site’ (outside Canterbury) storage, in particular electronic storage. This paper considers these issues and the Inland Revenue Department (Inland Revenue) Standard Practice Statement which deals with inter alia retention of business records in electronic format and offshore record storage. Employer provided accommodation is treated as income to the benefitting employee. A recent amendment to the Income Tax Act 2007 retrospectively provides that certain employer provided accommodation is exempt from tax. The time aspect of these rules is extended where the employee is involved in the Canterbury rebuild and comes from outside the region.
Research on responses to trauma has historically focused on the negative repercussions of a struggle with adversity. However, more recently, researchers have begun to examine posttraumatic growth: the positive psychological change that emerges from the struggle with a potentially traumatic event. Associations have been found between posttraumatic growth and greater peritraumatic distress, greater objective severity of trauma exposure, greater perceived stressfulness of events, social support, female gender, cognitive and behavioural responses to trauma, and personality measures. Posttraumatic growth has been measured typically in individuals with varying levels of posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms and other psychological difficulties, such as depression and anxiety. Although some theory and research posits that higher resilience would prohibit posttraumatic growth, no studies have examined posttraumatic growth in a resilient sample. The Canterbury earthquake sequence of 2010 and 2011 involved potentially traumatic events that saw the community struggle with a variety of challenges. However, in the midst of earthquake destruction, some positive initiatives emerged, driven by locals. The Gap Filler project (using city spaces left empty from fallen buildings for art and interactive community projects) and the Student Volunteer Army (groups of volunteers coordinated to help others in need) are examples of this. In this context, it seemed likely that posttraumatic growth was occurring and might be seen in individuals who were coping well with challenges. Culture is theorised to influence the posttraumatic growth process (Calhoun, Cann, & Tedeschi, 2010), and the nature of the trauma undergone is also likely to influence the process of growth. The current thesis measures posttraumatic growth quantitatively and qualitatively in a New Zealand sample. It measures and describes posttraumatic growth in a resilient population after the earthquake sequence of 2010 and 2011 in Canterbury, New Zealand. Findings are used to test current models of posttraumatic growth for individuals coping well after trauma and to elaborate on mechanisms proposed by models such as the comprehensive model of posttraumatic growth (Calhoun et al., 2010) and the organismic valuing theory of growth through adversity (Joseph & Linley, 2005). Correlates of posttraumatic growth are examined and likely supporting factors of posttraumatic growth are identified for this population. Study 1 used quantitative analysis to explore correlates of posttraumatic growth and found that greater posttraumatic growth related to greater peritraumatic distress, greater perceived stressfulness of earthquake events, greater objective stressfulness of earthquake events, greater difficulty with stressful life events, less satisfaction with social support, and female gender. Findings from Study 1 give important detail about the nature of distress included in the comprehensive model of posttraumatic growth (Calhoun et al., 2010) for this population. Levels of posttraumatic growth were lower than those in North American studies but similar to those in a Chinese study. The current sample, however, showed lower endorsement of Relating to Others than the Chinese study, perhaps because of cultural differences. Study 2 used qualitative analysis to examine the experience of posttraumatic growth in the sample. The theme of ‘a greater sense of community’ was found and adds to the comprehensive model of posttraumatic growth, in that an expression of posttraumatic growth (a greater connection with others) can inform ongoing social processing in the posttraumatic growth process. Having a formal or informal role in earthquake recovery appeared to influence self-concept and reflection; this elaborates on the influence of role on reflection in Calhoun et al.’s model. Findings illustrate possible mechanisms of the organismic valuing process theorised by Joseph and Linley (2005). Implications include the importance of providing opportunities for individuals to take on a role after a crisis, encouraging them to act to respond to difficulties, and encouraging them to meet personal needs for relatedness, competence, and autonomy. Finding positive aspects to a difficult situation, as well as acknowledging adversity, can be supported in future to help individuals process their traumas. As a society, we can help individuals cope with adversity by providing ways they can meet their needs for relatedness, competence, and autonomy. Community groups likely provide opportunities for members to act in ways that meet such needs. This will allow them to effectively act to meet their needs in times of crisis.
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?
Questions to Ministers
1. JONATHAN YOUNG to the Minister of Finance: What advice has he received about factors that lie behind the current turmoil we are witnessing on world financial markets, and what are the implications for New Zealand?
2. KEVIN HAGUE to the Minister of Labour: Does she still agree, as she did on 13 July 2011, with the comment made by Rt Hon John Key on 22 November 2010 that "I have no reason to believe that New Zealand safety standards are any less than Australia's and in fact our safety record for the most part has been very good"?
3. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his answers to Oral Question No 1 yesterday when he said that the Leader of the Opposition is "just plain wrong" in relation to skills training?
4. KATRINA SHANKS to the Minister for the Environment: How have Government reforms to the Resource Management Act helped increase competition in the grocery business?
5. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE to the Attorney-General: Will he meet with earthquake victims' families to hear directly why they need independent legal representation; if not, why not?
6. Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that "I think the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research is referring to some longer-term issues around demographic change and healthcare costs, and we share the chief executive's concern"?
7. DARIEN FENTON to the Minister of Labour: What is the timeline of the ministerial inquiry into the treatment of foreign fishing crews in New Zealand waters?
8. CHRIS AUCHINVOLE to the Minister for Communications and Information Technology: What progress is being made on the Government's goal of delivering fast broadband to rural areas?
9. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Does he agree that an appropriate part of the "red zone" area along the Avon River through Christchurch should be transformed into a "green space" for memorial and recreational public purposes?
10. STUART NASH to the Minister of Finance: Does he believe the tax system is fair for all New Zealanders?
11. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What steps has the Government taken to manage gateways between benefits?
12. KELVIN DAVIS to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by all of her answers to Oral Question No 8 yesterday?
Questions to Ministers
1. GARETH HUGHES to the Minister for Primary Industries: Will he extend the Taranaki set net ban after the recent death of a Maui's dolphin in a fishing net?
2. DAVID BENNETT to the Minister for Economic Development: What actions is the Government taking to boost economic linkages with China?
3. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that his hour-long show on Radio Live on 30 September 2011 was an "election free zone"?
4. Dr PAUL HUTCHISON to the Minister of Health: What improvements, if any, have been made to the Government's national health targets?
5. Hon LIANNE DALZIEL to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Did he discuss with the Christchurch City Mayor reported claims that there had been overtures from within The Treasury that there was scope for the city's rates to be increased or for assets to be sold to pay for the quake recovery, and that this could be done under the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act before he called him a clown; if not, why not?
6. JACQUI DEAN to the Minister of Local Government: What reports has he received on increases in local government council debt since the Local Government Act 2002 was enacted?
7. DARIEN FENTON to the Minister of Labour: Does she stand by her statement that the new minimum wage announced yesterday "strikes the right balance between protecting low paid workers and ensuring that jobs are not lost."?
8. PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA to the Minister of Consumer Affairs: What recent announcements has the Government made on protecting consumers from loan sharks?
9. CLARE CURRAN to the Minister of Broadcasting: Is he aware that Stephen McElrea is part of a working group within NZ On Air, which includes a representative of MediaWorks, and which is determining details of a documentary about Whānau Ora?
10. TIM MACINDOE to the Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector: What recent announcement has she made in her portfolio that will benefit communities?
11. HOLLY WALKER to the Minister for Social Development: Does she consider low family incomes to be a major contributor to childhood vulnerability?
12. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he still have confidence in all his Ministers?
DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he believe that Hon John Banks has behaved in a manner that “upholds, and is seen to uphold the highest ethical standards” as required by the Cabinet Manual?
BARBARA STEWART to the Prime Minister: Did Mr Banks explain to the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff that he would use “obfuscation” in his dealings with the media over the “anonymous” donations from Kim Dotcom?
MAGGIE BARRY to the Minister of Finance: How does the Government intend to strengthen the Public Finance Act 1989 in the Budget this month?
Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: In the most recent World Economic Outlook published by the IMF in April 2012, which of the 34 advanced economies listed is forecast to have a worse current account deficit (as a percentage of GDP) than New Zealand in 2013?
METIRIA TUREI to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all the answers he gave to Oral Question No 4 yesterday?
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI to the Minister for Economic Development: What action is the Government taking to improve co-ordination of the business growth agenda?
Hon PHIL GOFF to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: What damage, if any, has been done to staff confidence and retention by the change proposals for his Ministry announced on 23 February 2012, and does he intend to announce on 10 May 2012 a reversal of many of the proposals?
SIMON O'CONNOR to the Minister of Labour: What steps is the Government taking to improve workplace health and safety?
GARETH HUGHES to the Minister of Conservation: Does her proposed extension of the Marine Mammal Sanctuary for Maui’s dolphins allow the use of set nets, drift nets, and trawl nets within the sanctuary?
IAN McKELVIE to the Minister of Corrections: What reports has she received about trade training within prisons?
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Has he required that all his Ministers involved in the Canterbury earthquake recovery read the briefing paper dated 10 May 2011 prepared by Chief Science Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, into the psychosocial consequences of the Canterbury earthquakes; if not, why not?
NIKKI KAYE to the Minister of Education: What evidence has she seen of excellent achievement in scholarship exams?
