KIRITAPU ALLAN to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy? Hon PAULA BENNETT to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government’s statements, policies, and actions? Hon AMY ADAMS to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all of the Government’s decisions, statements, and actions in relation to his portfolio? Hon RUTH DYSON to the Minister for Courts: What recent announcements has he made about settling long-standing insurance disputes following the Canterbury earthquakes? Hon JUDITH COLLINS to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Is the KiwiBuild programme delivering good value for money for New Zealand taxpayers? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH to the Minister of Transport: Does he stand by all his statements, policies, and actions? GINNY ANDERSEN to the Minister of Police: What recent announcements has he made about the firearms buy-back scheme? Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE to the Minister of Health: How is the wellbeing of cancer patients in New Zealand affected by the Government’s policies and actions in health? TAMATI COFFEY to the Minister for Whānau Ora: What recent announcements has he made about Whānau Ora? MARK PATTERSON to the Minister of Internal Affairs: What recent announcement has she made regarding recognition of Fire and Emergency New Zealand volunteers? Hon NIKKI KAYE to the Associate Minister of Education: How many of the 600 learning support coordinators she promised does she estimate will be working in schools by the beginning of term 1 of the 2020 school year? ANDREW BAYLY to the Minister of Revenue: What concerns, if any, does he have regarding the operation of the latest phased rollout of the IRD Business Transformation Programme, especially in relation to KiwiSaver PIE tax arrangements?
The Earthquake Commission has settled with a Christchurch homeowner, just days before their test case was due to be heard at the High Court. Jamie Gibling used his KiwiSaver to buy his first family home in New Brighton after the quakes, believing it had been properly repaired. He later learned the repairs were botched and would cost $300,000 to fix. His "onsold" test case was supposed to be heard on Monday to clarify who was liable. But today EQC announced it had reached a settlement with the family and that agreement would provide a framework for the 54 other claimants also with Shine Lawyers. Finance and EQC Minister Grant Robertson last week announced an "onsold" settlement kitty of $300 million for the next 12 months but legal experts working with claimants have told Checkpoint it could cost taxpayers much much more. EQC's Deputy Chief Executive is Renee Walker. On Thursday she came into the studio and Lisa Owen asked her if the Giblings got what they asked for and if the 54 others who signed up to the class action would get the same.
Hon PAULA BENNETT to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government’s statements, policies, and actions? Hon JAMES SHAW to the Minister of Finance: Does he think that an independent Parliamentary Budget Office will improve the standard of democratic debate? Hon MARK MITCHELL to the Minister of Immigration: Does he stand by all his statements and actions in relation to Karel Sroubek? Hon DAVID BENNETT to the Minister of Corrections: Does he stand by his statement “We have never had to manage a prisoner like this before”, in relation to the alleged Christchurch gunman? Dr DUNCAN WEBB to the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission: What recent announcement has he made regarding quake-damaged homes in Canterbury? Hon Dr NICK SMITH to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by all his statements, policies, and actions on electoral law and referenda? Dr SHANE RETI to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his statements, policies, and actions around vaccination? RINO TIRIKATENE to the Minister of Health: What progress, if any, has been made in modernising New Zealand’s fleet of air ambulances? Hon PAULA BENNETT to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government’s statements, policies, and actions? Dr SHANE RETI to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by all his statements, policies, and actions around the Reform of Vocational Education? GINNY ANDERSEN to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What reports has he seen about responses to the draft report of the Commerce Commission on the New Zealand fuel market? BRETT HUDSON to the Associate Minister of Transport: What is the petrol price exclusive of taxes and carbon charges assumed in the reference scenario in the preliminary cost-benefit analysis of the Clean Car Discount for August 2019, and how does this compare to the actual present petrol price exclusive of taxes and carbon charges?
The supply of water following disasters has always been of significant concern to communities. Failure of water systems not only causes difficulties for residents and critical users but may also affect other hard and soft infrastructure and services. The dependency of communities and other infrastructure on the availability of safe and reliable water places even more emphasis on the resilience of water supply systems. This thesis makes two major contributions. First, it proposes a framework for measuring the multifaceted resilience of water systems, focusing on the significance of the characteristics of different communities for the resilience of water supply systems. The proposed framework, known as the CARE framework, consists of eight principal activities: (1) developing a conceptual framework; (2) selecting appropriate indicators; (3) refining the indicators based on data availability; (4) correlation analysis; (5) scaling the indicators; (6) weighting the variables; (7) measuring the indicators; and (8) aggregating the indicators. This framework allows researchers to develop appropriate indicators in each dimension of resilience (i.e., technical, organisational, social, and economic), and enables decision makers to more easily participate in the process and follow the procedure for composite indicator development. Second, it identifies the significant technical, social, organisational and economic factors, and the relevant indicators for measuring these factors. The factors and indicators were gathered through a comprehensive literature review. They were then verified and ranked through a series of interviews with water supply and resilience specialists, social scientists and economists. Vulnerability, redundancy and criticality were identified as the most significant technical factors affecting water supply system robustness, and consequently resilience. These factors were tested for a scenario earthquake of Mw 7.6 in Pukerua Bay in New Zealand. Four social factors and seven indicators were identified in this study. The social factors are individual demands and capacities, individual involvement in the community, violence level in the community, and trust. The indicators are the Giving Index, homicide rate, assault rate, inverse trust in army, inverse trust in police, mean years of school, and perception of crime. These indicators were tested in Chile and New Zealand, which experienced earthquakes in 2010 and 2011 respectively. The social factors were also tested in Vanuatu following TC Pam, which hit the country in March 2015. Interestingly, the organisational dimension contributed the largest number of factors and indicators for measuring water supply resilience to disasters. The study identified six organisational factors and 17 indicators that can affect water supply resilience to disasters. The factors are: disaster precaution; predisaster planning; data availability, data accessibility and information sharing; staff, parts, and equipment availability; pre-disaster maintenance; and governance. The identified factors and their indicators were tested for the case of Christchurch, New Zealand, to understand how organisational capacity affected water supply resilience following the earthquake in February 2011. Governance and availability of critical staff following the earthquake were the strongest organisational factors for the Christchurch City Council, while the lack of early warning systems and emergency response planning were identified as areas that needed to be addressed. Economic capacity and quick access to finance were found to be the main economic factors influencing the resilience of water systems. Quick access to finance is most important in the early stages following a disaster for response and restoration, but its importance declines over time. In contrast, the economic capacity of the disaster struck area and the water sector play a vital role in the subsequent reconstruction phase rather than in the response and restoration period. Indicators for these factors were tested for the case of the February 2011 earthquake in Christchurch, New Zealand. Finally, a new approach to measuring water supply resilience is proposed. This approach measures the resilience of the water supply system based on actual water demand following an earthquake. The demand-based method calculates resilience based on the difference between water demand and system capacity by measuring actual water shortage (i.e., the difference between water availability and demand) following an earthquake.
JAN TINETTI to the Minister of Education: What actions has the Government taken to increase the number of New Zealanders participating in vocational education? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH to the Minister of Finance: What measures, if any, does he have in place to ensure New Zealanders receive good value for money from the Government’s major spending initiatives? Hon JUDITH COLLINS to the Minister of Housing: Will there be any further delays to the conclusion of the KiwiBuild reset, including due to the resignation of the KiwiBuild head of delivery? Dr DUNCAN WEBB to the Minister for Courts: What recent reports has he seen regarding the Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal? Hon NIKKI KAYE to the Associate Minister of Education: Does she stand by her statement regarding learning support coordinator allocations, “I’m pleased, I’m really pleased. I know there are people complaining, and that’s OK. We seem to live in a world where somebody’s got to complain about everything”? Hon MARK MITCHELL to the Minister responsible for Pike River Re-entry: Does he stand by all his statements, policies, and actions on the Pike River Mine? ANGIE WARREN-CLARK to the Minister for the Environment: What action is the Government taking to enhance urban development and protect elite soils? TODD MULLER to the Minister of Agriculture: Does he have confidence in New Zealand’s agricultural sector? Hon DAVID BENNETT to the Minister of Corrections: Does he stand by his statement, “We have never had to manage a prisoner like this before”, in relation to the alleged Christchurch gunman? JENNY MARCROFT to the Minister for Infrastructure: What recent announcements has he made regarding the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission-Te Waihanga? BRETT HUDSON to the Minister of Transport: Can he rule out any further increases in transport taxes or charges under this Government? DENISE LEE to the Minister for Women: Why did she say yesterday that the equal pay legislation was in select committee when it was reported back on 13 May, and has been sitting on the Order Paper for three months?
Hon RUTH DYSON to the Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration: What progress has been made on the Crown’s Global Settlement with the Christchurch City Council for costs flowing from the Canterbury earthquake sequence? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all of his policies, statements, and actions? Hon JUDITH COLLINS to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Does he stand by his statement in response to a question on if he would meet his commitment to be a keynote speaker at the KiwiBuild summit on 24 June, “No, because I have two papers at Cabinet”, and did he take two papers to Cabinet on 24 June? GARETH HUGHES to the Minister of State Services: Does he support measuring and improving the energy efficiency of Government buildings, both leased and owned? Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement yesterday that “Yes, that will mean that we will have deficits that we wouldn’t want to see. That member and his Government under-invested in health for nine long years, and we will be investing ourselves for quite a period to set that right”; if so, when will he “set that right”? Dr DUNCAN WEBB to the Minister of Justice: What recent announcements has he made regarding community law centres? CHRIS BISHOP to the Minister of Transport: What will the percentage increase in the fuel excise duty and accompanying road-user charges be on Monday, 1 July, and what will be the total revenue raised from this increase? Hon TIM MACINDOE to the Minister for ACC: Does he stand by all of his answers during the Vote Labour Market Estimates hearing at the Education and Workforce Committee meeting on 12 June? Dr LIZ CRAIG to the Minister of Health: What, if anything, is the Government doing to better support the wellbeing of parents with mental health and addiction needs? Hon LOUISE UPSTON to the Minister for Women: How can she be responsible for eliminating the gender pay gap when the Ministry for Women’s gender pay gap has gone from 5.6 percent in favour of women to 6 percent in favour of men? JONATHAN YOUNG to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Does she stand by all her statements, policies, and actions? ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI to the Minister for Pacific Peoples: How does Budget 2019 support Pacific peoples in Aotearoa New Zealand?
The Canterbury earthquake sequence (2010-2011) was the most devastating catastrophe in New Zealand‘s modern history. Fortunately, in 2011 New Zealand had a high insurance penetration ratio, with more than 95% of residences being insured for these earthquakes. This dissertation sheds light on the functions of disaster insurance schemes and their role in economic recovery post-earthquakes. The first chapter describes the demand and supply for earthquake insurance and provides insights about different public-private partnership earthquake insurance schemes around the world. In the second chapter, we concentrate on three public earthquake insurance schemes in California, Japan, and New Zealand. The chapter examines what would have been the outcome had the system of insurance in Christchurch been different in the aftermath of the Canterbury earthquake sequence (CES). We focus on the California Earthquake Authority insurance program, and the Japanese Earthquake Reinsurance scheme. Overall, the aggregate cost of the earthquake to the New Zealand public insurer (the Earthquake Commission) was USD 6.2 billion. If a similar-sized disaster event had occurred in Japan and California, homeowners would have received only around USD 1.6 billion and USD 0.7 billion from the Japanese and Californian schemes, respectively. We further describe the spatial and distributive aspects of these scenarios and discuss some of the policy questions that emerge from this comparison. The third chapter measures the longer-term effect of the CES on the local economy, using night-time light intensity measured from space, and focus on the role of insurance payments for damaged residential property during the local recovery process. Uniquely for this event, more than 95% of residential housing units were covered by insurance and almost all incurred some damage. However, insurance payments were staggered over 5 years, enabling us to identify their local impact. We find that night-time luminosity can capture the process of recovery; and that insurance payments contributed significantly to the process of local economic recovery after the earthquake. Yet, delayed payments were less affective in assisting recovery and cash settlement of claims were more effective than insurance-managed repairs. After the Christchurch earthquakes, the government declared about 8000 houses as Red Zoned, prohibiting further developments in these properties, and offering the owners to buy them out. The government provided two options for owners: the first was full payment for both land and dwelling at the 2007 property evaluation, the second was payment for land, and the rest to be paid by the owner‘s insurance. Most people chose the second option. Using data from LINZ combined with data from Stats NZ, the fourth chapter empirically investigates what led people to choose this second option, and how peer effect influenced the homeowners‘ choices. Due to climate change, public disclosure of coastal hazard information through maps and property reports have been used more frequently by local government. This is expected to raise awareness about disaster risks in local community and help potential property owners to make informed locational decision. However, media outlets and business sector argue that public hazard disclosure will cause a negative effect on property value. Despite this opposition, some district councils in New Zealand have attempted to implement improved disclosure. Kapiti Coast district in the Wellington region serves as a case study for this research. In the fifth chapter, we utilize the residential property sale data and coastal hazard maps from the local district council. This study employs a difference-in-difference hedonic property price approach to examine the effect of hazard disclosure on coastal property values. We also apply spatial hedonic regression methods, controlling for coastal amenities, as our robustness check. Our findings suggest that hazard designation has a statistically and economically insignificant impact on property values. Overall, the risk perception about coastal hazards should be more emphasized in communities.
