The new Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority - CERA
Audio, Radio New Zealand
Public and electoral law professor at Otago University, Andrew Geddis.
Public and electoral law professor at Otago University, Andrew Geddis.
Philip Joseph about to take a Public Law lecture at Otakaro, College of Education.
The 2010–2011 Canterbury earthquakes and their aftermath have been described by the Human Rights Commission as one of New Zealand's greatest contemporary human rights challenges. This article documents the shortcomings in the realisation of the right to housing in post-quake Canterbury for homeowners, tenants and the homeless. The article then considers what these shortcomings tell us about New Zealand's overall human rights framework, suggesting that the ongoing and seemingly intractable nature of these issues and the apparent inability to resolve them indicate an underlying fragility implicit in New Zealand's framework for dealing with the consequences of a large-scale natural disaster. The article concludes that there is a need for a comprehensive human rights-based approach to disaster preparedness, response and recovery in New Zealand.
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).
This paper presents the preliminary conclusions of the first stage of Wellington Case Study project (Regulating For Resilience in an Earthquake Vulnerable City) being undertaken by the Disaster Law Research Group at the University of Canterbury Law School. This research aims to map the current regulatory environment around improving the seismic resilience of the urban built environment. This work provides the basis for the second stage of the project which will map the regulatory tools onto the reality of the current building stock in Wellington. Using a socio-legal methodology, the current research examines the regulatory framework around seismic resilience for existing buildings in New Zealand, with a particularly focus on multi-storey in the Wellington CBD. The work focusses both on the operation and impact of the formal seismic regulatory tools open to public regulators (under the amended Building Act) as other non-seismic regulatory tools. As well as examining the formal regulatory frame, the work also provides an assessment of the interactions between other non-building acts (such as Health and Safety at Work Act 2015) on the requirements of seismic resilience. Other soft-law developments (particularly around informal building standards) are also examined. The final output of this work will presents this regulatory map in a clear and easily accessible manner and provide an assessment of the suitability of this at times confusing and patchy legal environment as Wellington moves towards becoming a resilient city. The final conclusion of this work will be used to specifically examine the ability of Wellington to make this transition under the current regulatory environment as phase two of the Wellington Case Study project.
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?
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
An exceedingly large 'Gerry' Brownlee, the Minister for Earthquake Recovery, rises from a chair, holding a briefcase labeled 'CERA' and calling for 'Bob' Parker, the mayor of Christchurch. The thin Parker was flattened against Brownlee's enormous rear, when Brownlee sat on the chair. Brownlee and Parker had a strained relationship, with the government taking an increasing amount of control in local decision making. After ongoing assurances by Parker that Christchurch City Council would meet all of International Accreditation New Zealand's requirements on issuing building consents, Brownlee announced in June 2013 without Parker's prior knowledge that the authority had withdrawn its accreditation. Quantity: 1 digital cartoon(s).
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?
ANDREW LITTLE to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “Nick Smith has dealt with some of the most complex problems of resource law and housing more successfully than any other politician here could have”; if so, in what ways, if any, does he think the housing situation for New Zealanders has improved under Hon Nick Smith? BRETT HUDSON to the Minister of Finance: What steps is the Government taking to improve productivity in the public service? MARAMA FOX to the Minister of Health: Does he agree with counsellor Andrew Hopgood, regarding P addicts, that “… a lack of detox and live-in rehabilitation centres limits options for addicts seeking help”; if so, what is he doing to address this shortage? JONATHAN YOUNG to the Minister for Economic Development: What update can he give on ways the Government is supporting economic development in the Gisborne region? CHRIS HIPKINS to the Associate Minister of Education: How many schools across the country are currently using libraries, halls, and other areas not intended for regular teaching as temporary classrooms? ANDREW BAYLY to the Minister of Justice: What recent announcements has she made regarding phase two of the anti-money laundering and counter-financing of terrorism regime? CATHERINE DELAHUNTY to the Minister for the Environment: Will he put a moratorium on bottled water exports, in response to a 15,000 strong petition and nationwide rallies on water issues taking place today? KELVIN DAVIS to the Minister for Māori Development: Does he have confidence that his leadership of Te Puni Kōkiri and its programmes are resulting in the best outcomes for Māori? MAUREEN PUGH to the Minister of Education: What announcements has she made about the Government’s education-related Better Public Services targets? Dr DAVID CLARK to the Minister of Health: How much did the Canterbury District Health Board receive from the Government for mental health and addiction services support in response to the Kaikōura earthquake, after paying off the debt of Kaikōura’s health centre? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Does he stand by all his statements; if so, why? Dr PARMJEET PARMAR to the Minister for Disability Issues: What recent announcements has she made regarding a nationwide transformation of the disability support system?
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?
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, “I am not going to do something silly with the Department of Conservation estate”? 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’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’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?
Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: Does he accept the BNZ statement that New Zealand’s increasing current account is “a very clear risk for New Zealand’s credit rating with Standard and Poor’s”? SHANE ARDERN to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the economy? KEVIN HAGUE to the Minister for ACC: Can she confirm that staff in ACC’s Recovery Independence Service teams receive more or less remuneration dependent on whether the proportion of people receiving weekly compensation is less or more than specified duration targets? Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Minister for Economic Development: Does he stand by all his recent statements? JAMI-LEE ROSS to the Minister of Police: What actions has the Government taken against illegal street racers? Hon MARYAN STREET to the Minister of Health: Has he received any reports or correspondence regarding the Community Pharmacy Services Agreement with District Health Boards and if he has, have they caused him any concern? TIM MACINDOE to the Minister of Justice: How is the Justice sector contributing to the Government’s better public services programme? GARETH HUGHES to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Does he agree with the statement made by the Minister for the Environment, Hon Amy Adams in Rio, that, “Money spent on fossil fuels is money that could be spent on other sustainable development priorities”, and will the Government re-allocate the $889 million for ETS credits in Budget 2012 towards sustainable projects and a green economy? MIKE SABIN to the Minister of Immigration: What reports has he received on the benefits to New Zealand of the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme? KRIS FAAFOI to the Minister of Police: Does she stand by all the statements she made to the Law and Order Committee yesterday? NICKY WAGNER to the Minister for Courts: What recent announcements has he made regarding court services for Christchurch? DENIS O'ROURKE to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Does he still believe that the best way to deal with the price increase in home rentals in Christchurch is to leave it to the market?
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 "I expect high standards from my Ministers … if they don't meet the standards I set then obviously I will take action if necessary"? 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 "assumptions" based on "incorrect facts" demonstrating some "misunderstanding of New Zealand law" 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?
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 "I expect high standards from my Ministers … if they don't meet the standards I set then obviously I will take action if necessary"? 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 "assumptions" based on "incorrect facts" demonstrating some "misunderstanding of New Zealand law" 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?
MARAMA DAVIDSON to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Will he commit to ensuring that the 800 tenancies terminated or otherwise affected by Housing New Zealand’s previous approach to meth testing receive compensation that genuinely reflects the level of harm done, and takes account of both direct costs and emotional distress? Hon JUDITH COLLINS to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Is it acceptable for Housing New Zealand tenants to smoke methamphetamine in Housing New Zealand houses? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all of the statements, actions, and policies of the Government in relation to the New Zealand economy? RINO TIRIKATENE to the Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti: What recent announcements has he made on the scope of his new portfolio? Hon Dr NICK SMITH to the Minister of State Services: What are the dates and contents of all work-related electronic communications between former Minister Hon Clare Curran and the Prime Minister since the decision in Cabinet last year “that the CTO be appointed by, and accountable to, the Prime Minister and the Ministers of Government Digital Services and Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media”? Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL to the Minister of Finance: What is his reaction to the Independent Tax Working Group’s interim report released today? Hon NIKKI KAYE to the Minister of Education: How many communications has she received from teachers or principals in the last three days regarding teacher shortages, relief teacher issues, and increases in class sizes, and is she confident there will be no more primary teacher strikes this year? Hon NATHAN GUY to the Minister for Biosecurity: How many inbound passengers arrived at Auckland International Airport yesterday between 2 a.m. and 5 a.m., and how many dog detector teams worked on the Green Lane at this time? TAMATI COFFEY to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: What steps is the Government taking to ensure Housing New Zealand is a compassionate landlord focused on tenant well-being? STUART SMITH to the Minister for Courts: Is he confident that the Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal will comply with all requirements of the rule of law? SIMEON BROWN to the Minister of Health: When did the Expert Advisory Committee on drugs give its advice that synthetic cannabinoids AMB-FUBINACA and 5F-ADB be scheduled as Class A controlled drugs, and what action has he taken on this advice? ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What measures has the Government announced to protect the public from unscrupulous wheel-clamping practices?
When disasters and crises, both man-made and natural, occur, resilient higher education institutions adapt in order to continue teaching and research. This may necessitate the closure of the whole institution, a building and/or other essential infrastructure. In disasters of large scale the impact can be felt for many years. There is an increasing recognition of the need for disaster planning to restructure educational institutions so that they become more resilient to challenges including natural disasters (Seville, Hawker, & Lyttle, 2012).The University of Canterbury (UC) was affected by seismic events that resulted in the closure of the University in September 2010 for 10 days and two weeks at the start of the 2011 academic year This case study research describes ways in which e-learning was deployed and developed by the University to continue and even to improve learning and teaching in the aftermath of a series of earthquakes in 2010 and 2011. A qualitative intrinsic embedded/nested single case study design was chosen for the study. The population was the management, support staff and educators at the University of Canterbury. Participants were recruited with purposive sampling using a snowball strategy where the early key participants were encouraged to recommend further participants. Four sources of data were identified: (1) documents such as policy, reports and guidelines; (2) emails from leaders of the colleges and academics; (3) communications from senior management team posted on the university website during and after the seismic activity of 2010 and 2011; and (4) semi-structured interviews of academics, support staff and members of senior management team. A series of inductive descriptive content analyses identified a number of themes in the data. The Technology Acceptance Model 2 (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000) and the Indicator of Resilience Model (Resilient Organisations, 2012) were used for additional analyses of each of the three cases. Within the University case, the cases of two contrasting Colleges were embedded to produce a total of three case studies describing e-learning from 2000 - 2014. One contrast was the extent of e-learning deployment at the colleges: The College of Education was a leader in the field, while the College of Business and Law had relatively little e-learning at the time of the first earthquake in September 2010. The following six themes emerged from the analyses: Communication about crises, IT infrastructure, Availability of e-learning technologies, Support in the use of e-learning technologies, Timing of crises in academic year and Strategic planning for e-learning. One of the findings confirmed earlier research that communication to members of an organisation and the general public about crises and the recovery from crises is important. The use of communication channels, which students were familiar with and already using, aided the dissemination of the information that UC would be using e-learning as one of the options to complete the academic year. It was also found that e-learning tools were invaluable during the crises and facilitated teaching and learning whilst freeing limited campus space for essential activities and that IT infrastructure was essential to e-learning. The range of e-learning tools and their deployment evolved over the years influenced by repeated crises and facilitated by the availability of centrally located support from the e-Learning support team for a limited set of tools, as well as more localised support and collaboration with colleagues. Furthermore, the reasons and/or rate of e-learning adoption in an educational institution during crises varied with the time of the academic year and the needs of the institution at the time. The duration of the crises also affected the adoption of e-learning. Finally, UC’s lack of an explicit e-learning strategy influenced the two colleges to develop college-specific e-learning plans and those College plans complemented the incorporation of e-learning for the first time in the University’s teaching and learning strategy in 2013. Twelve out of the 13 indicators of the Indicators of Resilience Model were found in the data collected for the study and could be explained using the model; it revealed that UC has become more resilient with e-learning in the aftermath of the seismic activities in 2010 and 2011. The interpretation of the results using TAM2 demonstrated that the adoption of technologies during crises aided in overcoming barriers to learning at the time of the crisis. The recommendations from this study are that in times of crises, educational institutions take advantage of Cloud computing to communicate with members of the institution and stakeholders. Also, that the architecture of a university’s IT infrastructure be made more resilient by increasing redundancy, backup and security, centralisation and Cloud computing. In addition, when under stress it is recommended that new tools are only introduced when they are essential.