Observations made in past earthquakes, in New Zealand and around the world, have highlighted the vulnerability of non-structural elements such as facades, ceilings, partitions and services. Damage to these elements can be life-threatening or jeopardise egress routes but typically, the main concern is the cost and time associated with repair works. The Insurance Council of New Zealand highlighted the substantial economic losses in recent earthquakes due to poor performance of non-structural elements. Previous inspections and research have attributed the damage to non-structural elements principally to poor coordination, inadequate or lack of seismic restraints and insufficient clearances to cater for seismic actions. Secondary issues of design responsibility, procurement and the need for better alignment of the various Standards have been identified. In addition to the compliance issues, researchers have also demonstrated that current code provisions for non-structural elements, both in New Zealand and abroad, may be inadequate. This paper first reviews the damage observed against the requirements of relevant Standards and the New Zealand Building Code, and it appears that, had the installations been compliant, the cost of repair and business interruption would have been substantially less. The second part of the paper highlights some of the apparent shortcomings with the current design process for non-structural elements, points towards possible alternative strategies and identifies areas where more research is deemed necessary. The challenge of improving the seismic performance of non-structural elements is a complex one across a diverse construction industry. Indications are that the New Zealand construction industry needs to completely rethink the delivery approach to ensure an integrated design, construction and certification process. The industry, QuakeCentre, QuakeCoRE and the University of Canterbury are presently working together to progress solutions. Indications are that if new processes can be initiated, better performance during earthquakes will be achieved while delivering enhanced building and business resilience.
The integrity of the entire public service is under scrutiny after revelations about the close relationship between a private security firm Thompson and Clark and the SIS and the Ministry for Primary Industries. In March, the State Services Commissioner Peter Hughes ordered an investigation after it was revealed the firm spied on Canterbury earthquake claimants for Southern Response. That was was further widened to include the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment which has been accused by Greenpeace of using the company to spy on them. On Tuesday as a result of RNZ inquiries, Mr Hughes widened the investigation even further to cover all government department and scores of other public sector agencies such as District Health Boards. State Services Minister Chris Hipkins is demanding answers. The SIS emails show a staff member and one of the Thompson and Clark directors were old friends who met regularly. Also an OIA request from RNZ News has triggered the uncovering of what the Ministry for Primary Industries describes as potentially serious misconduct by several former staff members. Joining us to explain the details are the reporters who have been doing this digging, Checkpoint's Zac Fleming and Conan Young. Thompson and Clark's Gavin Clark declined to come on Morning Report but in an email said Thompson and Clark is willing to cooperate fully with the SSC and will await the investigation to take its natural course.
MARAMA DAVIDSON to the Prime Minister: Ka tū a ia i runga i tana kōrero mō te iti rawa o te mahi haumi i roto ratonga tūmataiti, ā, nā runga i tērā, “we didn't know it would be this bad” ā, mēnā kua pēnei rawa, ka pēhea te nui o te iti rawa o te mahi haumi nei?
Translation: Does she stand by her statement on underinvestment in public services that “we didn't know it would be this bad”, and if so, how significant is this underinvestment?
Hon SIMON BRIDGES to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government’s policies and actions?
Hon AMY ADAMS to the Minister of Finance: Is he committed to reducing core Crown net debt to 20 percent of GDP by 30 June 2022?
Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the state of the New Zealand economy?
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?
JAMI-LEE ROSS to the Minister of Transport: What is the total increased level of funding for the Public Transport activity class for the next 10 years if the mid-point level of funding proposed in the draft Government Policy Statement in the 2018/19 year continues at that level for 10 years without increase; and can he confirm that when that increased funding is added together with mid-point level funding for the new Rapid Transit and Transitional Rail activity classes over 10 years, the total new and increased funding for these three activity classes is $5.398 billion?
Dr DUNCAN WEBB to the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission: What reports has she seen about the financial impact of remedial repairs in Canterbury by EQC?
Hon NATHAN GUY to the Minister of Agriculture: Does he stand by all his Government’s actions in the agricultural sector?
Hon PAULA BENNETT to the Minister of Employment: Does he stand by all his policies, statements, and actions?
JAN TINETTI to the Minister of Education: What funding challenges does the early child education sector face?
BRETT HUDSON to the Minister for Government Digital Services: Does she agree with the comment made by ICT veteran and expert in the industry, Ian Apperley, who said “when you read the Government’s Chief Technology Officer job description it occurs to me that making the role effective is provably impossible. It is largely waffly which means the Government may not know what it wants”; if not, why not?
Dr LIZ CRAIG to the Minister of Health: What advice has he received about DHB deficit levels?
