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.
DAVID SHEARER to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: Has the Government met the five criteria the Prime Minister laid out for proceeding with asset sales?
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Minister of Finance: Will New Zealanders have money taken from their bank accounts to fund a bank bailout under his proposed Open Bank Resolution scheme?
TODD McCLAY to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on New Zealand's balance of payments?
Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his statements regarding "Better, Sooner, More Convenient" health care; if not, why not?
MARK MITCHELL to the Minister of Police: What reports has she received from Police on the success of pre-charge warnings?
PHIL TWYFORD to the Minister of Housing: Why did he tell the House that, even if the Auckland plan took effect in September, new subdivisions would not be available until 2016-17, when the advice he tabled from Roger Blakely of Auckland Council shows that if the unitary plan takes effect in September new land would be available two years earlier?
ALFRED NGARO to the Minister for Social Development: How will the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill back people off welfare and into work?
GRANT ROBERTSON to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements on the actions and involvement of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Government Communications and Security Bureau in Operation Debut?
SCOTT SIMPSON to the Minister of Health: What is the Government doing to extend access to free flu vaccines?
METIRIA TUREI to the Minister for Social Development: Does she have an obligation, as Social Development Minister, to ensure all policy she is responsible for will be good for children and their families?
Hon KATE WILKINSON to the Minister for Primary Industries: What announcement has he made on the drought in New Zealand?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Have allegations of fraud and corruption involving Canterbury earthquake recovery and rebuild contracts been raised with him as Minister; if so, what specific steps has he taken to address them?
The city of Ōtautahi/Christchurch experienced a series of earthquakes that began on September 4th, 2010. The most damaging event occurred on February 22nd, 2011 but significant earthquakes also occurred on June 13th and December 23rd with aftershocks still occurring well into 2012. The resulting disaster is the second deadliest natural disaster in New Zealand’s history with 185 deaths. During 2011 the Canterbury earthquakes were one of the costliest disasters worldwide with an expected cost of up to $NZ30 billion.
Hundreds of commercial buildings and thousands of houses have been destroyed or are to be demolished and extensive repairs are needed for infrastructure to over 100,000 homes. As many as 8,900 people simply abandoned their homes and left the city in the first few months after the February event (Newell, 2012), and as many as 50,000 may leave during 2012. In particular, young whānau and single young women comprised a disproportionate number of these migrants, with evidence of a general movement to the North Island.
Te Puni Kōkiri sought a mix of quantitative and qualitative research to examine the social and economic impacts of the Christchurch earthquakes on Māori and their whānau. The result of this work will be a collection of evidence to inform policy to support and assist Māori and their whānau during the recovery/rebuild phases. To that end, this report triangulates available statistical and geographical information with qualitative data gathered over 2010 and 2011 by a series of interviews conducted with Māori who experienced the dramatic events associated with the earthquakes.
A Māori research team at Lincoln University was commissioned to undertake the research as they were already engaged in transdisciplinary research (began in the May 2010), that focused on quickly gathering data from a range of Māori who experienced the disaster, including relevant economic, environmental, social and cultural factors in the response and recovery of Māori to these events.
Participants for the qualitative research were drawn from Māori whānau who both stayed and left the city. Further data was available from ongoing projects and networks that the Lincoln research team was already involved in, including interviews with Māori first responders and managers operating in the CBD on the day of the February event. Some limited data is also available from younger members of affected whānau.
Māori in Ōtautahi/Christchurch City have exhibited their own culturally-attuned collective responses to the disaster. However, it is difficult to ascertain Māori demographic changes due to a lack of robust statistical frameworks but Māori outward migration from the city is estimated to range between 560 and 1,100 people.
The mobility displayed by Māori demonstrates an important but unquantified response by whānau to this disaster, with emigration to Australia presenting an attractive option for young Māori, an entrenched phenomenon that correlates to cyclical downturns and the long-term decline of the New Zealand economy. It is estimated that at least 315 Māori have emigrated from the Canterbury region to Australia post-quake, although the disaster itself may be only one of a series of events that has prompted such a decision.
Māori children made up more than one in four of the net loss of children aged 6 to 15 years enrolled in schools in Greater Christchurch over the year to June 2011. Research literature identifies depression affecting a small but significant number of children one to two years post-disaster and points to increasing clinical and organisational demands for Māori and other residents of the city.
For those residents in the eastern or coastal suburbs – home to many of the city’s Māori population - severe damage to housing, schools, shops, infrastructure, and streets has meant disruption to their lives, children’s schooling, employment, and community functioning. Ongoing abandonment of homes by many has meant a growing sense of unease and loss of security, exacerbated by arson, burglaries, increased drinking, a stalled local and national economy, and general confusion about the city’s future.
Māori cultural resilience has enabled a considerable network of people, institutions, and resources being available to Māori , most noticeably through marae and their integral roles of housing, as a coordinating hub, and their arguing for the wider affected communities of Christchurch.
Relevant disaster responses need to be discussed within whānau, kōhanga, kura, businesses, communities, and wider neighbourhoods. Comprehensive disaster management plans need to be drafted for all iwi in collaboration with central government, regional, and city or town councils.
Overall, Māori are remarkably philosophical about the effects of the disaster, with many proudly relishing their roles in what is clearly a historic event of great significance to the city and country. Most believe that ‘being Māori’ has helped cope with the disaster, although for some this draws on a collective history of poverty and marginalisation, features that contribute to the vulnerability of Māori to such events.
While the recovery and rebuild phases offer considerable options for Māori and iwi, with Ngāi Tahu set to play an important stakeholder in infrastructural, residential, and commercial developments, some risk and considerable unknowns are evident. Considerable numbers of Māori may migrate into the Canterbury region for employment in the rebuild, and trades training strategies have already been established.
With many iwi now increasingly investing in property, the risks from significant earthquakes are now more transparent, not least to insurers and the reinsurance sector. Iwi authorities need to be appraised of insurance issues and ensure sufficient coverage exists and investments and developments are undertaken with a clear understanding of the risks from natural hazards and exposure to future disasters.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
PAUL GOLDSMITH to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on business and economic conditions in New Zealand?
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his answer to written question 07314 (2013) when he said: "The inquiry team, itself, did not seek permission from Peter Dunne before it obtained his email logs" and does he think it should have?
SIMON O'CONNOR to the Minister of Transport: How will the Government progress the delivery of the next generation of transport projects for Auckland?
Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: Are the proceeds from selling power companies and other assets being used to pay down debt, to build schools and hospitals, to fund irrigation projects, to rebuild Christchurch, or to fund Auckland transport projects?
IAN McKELVIE to the Minister of Police: What updates has she received on how Police are using technology to prevent crime?
JACINDA ARDERN to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with The Economist that "inequality is one of the biggest social, economic and political challenges of our time"; if so, what is his Government doing to address the fact that New Zealand now has the widest income gap since detailed records began?
PAUL FOSTER-BELL to the Minister of Justice: How is the Government improving its justice and other services to local communities?
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: When was he first made aware of the September IANZ report which warned the Christchurch City Council that "Continued accreditation beyond May 2013 will depend on a satisfactory outcome of that assessment" and was he advised by CERA or a Ministerial colleague?
JONATHAN YOUNG to the Minister of Broadcasting: What progress has been made on the regional rollout of the digital switchover for New Zealand television viewers?
GARETH HUGHES to the Minister of Conservation: Will he implement the recommendations to protect Maui's dolphins contained in the report of this year's meeting of the International Whaling Commission Scientific Committee; if not, why not
Questions to Members
JACINDA ARDERN to the Chairperson of the Social Services Committee: On which date and time, if any, did he receive the Minister for Social Development's written responses to the pre-hearing questions for the 2013/14 Estimates review for Vote Social Development?
JACINDA ARDERN to the Chairperson of the Social Services Committee: On what date did the Minister for Social Development appear before the Committee to answer questions regarding the 2013/14 Estimates review for Vote Social Development?
Dr MEGAN WOODS to the Chairperson of the Education and Science Committee: Did he consider inviting the Minister to appear again to answer questions around responses to questions on the 2013/14 Estimates for Vote Education, if so, did he receive any advice about the Minister's willingness to appear again?
TODD McCLAY to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the Government's financial position?
DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
METIRIA TUREI to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his reported statement that "anyone expecting details of a 'cosy sort of little deal' would be disappointed" by the Deputy Auditor-General's report into the SkyCity Convention Centre negotiations.
DENIS O'ROURKE to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: What criteria did he use in deciding that owners of vacant sections in the red zone of Christchurch should only be compensated at half of the sections' most recent rateable value?
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI to the Minister for Economic Development: What economic opportunities will a new convention centre bring for Auckland?
Hon DAVID PARKER to the Prime Minister: Did he or his office receive the 12 November 2009 report from Ministry officials to the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, summarising the process with SkyCity for the building of a convention centre; if so, did he read it?
MIKE SABIN to the Associate Minister for Social Development: What steps is the Government taking to reduce welfare fraud?
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: What contingency plans, if any, does the Government have in place regarding its asset sale programme should the Tiwai Point aluminium smelter reduce production?
KEVIN HAGUE to the Minister of Trade: Will New Zealand support Australia's objection to signing up to investor-state dispute provisions in the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement; if not, why not?
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Why is he offering only 50 percent of rating valuation for commercial or bare land in the residential red zone where the land could not be insured?
MARK MITCHELL to the Minister of Corrections: What announcements has she made on improving prisoner employment training in New Zealand prisons?
CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by all her decisions in relation to schools in Christchurch?
Questions to Ministers 1. TODD McCLAY to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the Government's financial position? 2. DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements? 3. METIRIA TUREI to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his reported statement that "anyone expecting details of a 'cosy sort of little deal' would be disappointed" by the Deputy Auditor-General's report into the SkyCity Convention Centre negotiations. 4. DENIS O'ROURKE to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: What criteria did he use in deciding that owners of vacant sections in the red zone of Christchurch should only be compensated at half of the sections' most recent rateable value? 5. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI to the Minister for Economic Development: What economic opportunities will a new convention centre bring for Auckland? 6. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Prime Minister: Did he or his office receive the 12 November 2009 report from Ministry officials to the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, summarising the process with SkyCity for the building of a convention centre; if so, did he read it? 7. MIKE SABIN to the Associate Minister for Social Development: What steps is the Government taking to reduce welfare fraud? 8. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: What contingency plans, if any, does the Government have in place regarding its asset sale programme should the Tiwai Point aluminium smelter reduce production? 9. KEVIN HAGUE to the Minister of Trade: Will New Zealand support Australia's objection to signing up to investor-state dispute provisions in the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement; if not, why not? 10. Hon LIANNE DALZIEL to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Why is he offering only 50 percent of rating valuation for commercial or bare land in the residential red zone where the land could not be insured? 11. MARK MITCHELL to the Minister of Corrections: What announcements has she made on improving prisoner employment training in New Zealand prisons? 12. CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by all her decisions in relation to schools in Christchurch?
Questions to Ministers 1. TODD McCLAY to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the Government's financial position? 2. DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements? 3. METIRIA TUREI to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his reported statement that "anyone expecting details of a 'cosy sort of little deal' would be disappointed" by the Deputy Auditor-General's report into the SkyCity Convention Centre negotiations. 4. DENIS O'ROURKE to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: What criteria did he use in deciding that owners of vacant sections in the red zone of Christchurch should only be compensated at half of the sections' most recent rateable value? 5. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI to the Minister for Economic Development: What economic opportunities will a new convention centre bring for Auckland? 6. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Prime Minister: Did he or his office receive the 12 November 2009 report from Ministry officials to the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, summarising the process with SkyCity for the building of a convention centre; if so, did he read it? 7. MIKE SABIN to the Associate Minister for Social Development: What steps is the Government taking to reduce welfare fraud? 8. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: What contingency plans, if any, does the Government have in place regarding its asset sale programme should the Tiwai Point aluminium smelter reduce production? 9. KEVIN HAGUE to the Minister of Trade: Will New Zealand support Australia's objection to signing up to investor-state dispute provisions in the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement; if not, why not? 10. Hon LIANNE DALZIEL to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Why is he offering only 50 percent of rating valuation for commercial or bare land in the residential red zone where the land could not be insured? 11. MARK MITCHELL to the Minister of Corrections: What announcements has she made on improving prisoner employment training in New Zealand prisons? 12. CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by all her decisions in relation to schools in Christchurch?
DENIS O'ROURKE to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Is he satisfied with progress on all aspects of the Canterbury earthquake recovery?
JACINDA ARDERN to the Minister of Police: Does she have confidence in the Police investigation of alleged sexual violation against young women and underage girls in West Auckland?
PAUL GOLDSMITH to the Minister of Finance: What progress has the National-led Government made in building a more productive and competitive economy capable of supporting more jobs and higher incomes for New Zealanders?
METIRIA TUREI to the Minister of Police: When was she first advised that Police had received a complaint from a girl who alleged she had been raped by members of a group calling themselves the Roast Busters?
Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister for Communications and Information Technology: Will the Government enforce its broadband contract with Chorus?
CLAUDETTE HAUITI to the Minister for the Environment: What announcements has the Government made in relation to the national policy statement for freshwater?
PHIL TWYFORD to the Minister of Housing: What reports has he received on the effect of loan-to-value restrictions on the housing market?
Hon PHIL HEATLEY to the Minister for Social Development: What reports has she received about the number of people receiving benefits?
CAROL BEAUMONT to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: How does women's participation rate of 1 percent in building and construction industry training assist with the Christchurch rebuild?
Dr CAM CALDER to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made to strengthen the status of the teaching profession?
EUGENIE SAGE to the Associate Minister of Health: Does she agree with the Canterbury Medical Officer of Health that increasing nitrate levels in Canterbury groundwater are a health risk, particularly for pregnant women and babies; if not, why not?
HONE HARAWIRA to the Minister of Finance: What is his budget plan, if any, to immediately address growing poverty in New Zealand, which has got so bad that charitable organisations have today said they are expecting an influx of more than 40,000 struggling families for Christmas dinner because they can't afford to put food on the table?
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.
Fine grained sediment deposition in urban environments during natural hazard events can impact critical infrastructure and properties (urban terrain) leading to reduced social and economic function and potentially adverse public health effects. Therefore, clean-up of the sediments is required to minimise impacts and restore social and economic functionality as soon as possible. The strategies employed to manage and coordinate the clean-up significantly influence the speed, cost and quality of the clean-up operation. Additionally, the physical properties of the fine grained sediment affects the clean-up, transport, storage and future usage of the sediment. The goals of the research are to assess the resources, time and cost required for fine grained sediment clean-up in an urban environment following a disaster and to determine how the geotechnical properties of sediment will affect urban clean-up strategies. The thesis focuses on the impact of fine grained sediment (<1 mm) deposition from three liquefaction events during the Canterbury earthquake sequence (2010-2011) on residential suburbs and transport networks in Christchurch. It also presents how geotechnical properties of the material may affect clean-up strategies and methods by presenting geotechnical analysis of tephra material from the North Island of New Zealand. Finally, lessons for disaster response planning and decision making for clean-up of sediment in urban environments are presented. A series of semi-structured interviews of key stakeholders supported by relevant academic literature and media reports were used to record the clean-up operation coordination and management and to make a preliminary qualification of the Christchurch liquefaction ejecta clean-up (costs breakdown, time, volume, resources, coordination, planning and priorities). Further analysis of the costs and resources involved for better accuracy was required and so the analysis of Christchurch City Council road management database (RAMM) was done. In order to make a transition from general fine sediment clean-up to specific types of fine disaster sediment clean-up, adequate information about the material properties is required as they will define how the material will be handled, transported and stored. Laboratory analysis of young volcanic tephra from the New Zealand’s North Island was performed to identify their geotechnical properties (density, granulometry, plasticity, composition and angle of repose). The major findings of this research were that emergency planning and the use of the coordinated incident management system (CIMS) system during the emergency were important to facilitate rapid clean-up tasking, management of resources and ultimately recovery from widespread and voluminous liquefaction ejecta deposition in eastern Christchurch. A total estimated cost of approximately $NZ 40 million was calculated for the Christchurch City clean-up following the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence with a partial cost of $NZ 12 million for the Southern part of the city, where up to 33% (418 km) of the road network was impacted by liquefaction ejecta and required clearing of the material following the 22 February 2011 earthquake. Over 500,000 tonnes of ejecta has been stockpiled at Burwood landfill for all three liquefaction inducing earthquake events. The average cost per kilometre for the event clean-up was $NZ 5,500/km (4 September 2010), $NZ 11,650/km (22 February 2011) and $NZ 11,185/km (13 June 2011). The duration of clean-up time of residential properties and the road network was approximately two to three months for each of the three liquefaction ejecta events; despite events volumes and spatial distribution of ejecta. Interviews and quantitative analysis of RAMM data revealed that the experience and knowledge gained from the Darfield earthquake (4 September 2010) clean-up increased the efficiency of the following Christchurch earthquake induced liquefaction ejecta clean-up events. Density, particle size, particle shape, clay content and moisture content, are the important geotechnical properties that need to be considered when planning for a clean-up method that incorporates collection, transport and disposal or storage. The geotechnical properties for the tephra samples were analysed to increase preparedness and reaction response of potentially affected North Island cities from possible product from the active volcanoes in their region. The geotechnical results from this study show that volcanic tephra could be used in road or construction material but the properties would have to be further investigated for a New Zealand context. Using fresh volcanic material in road, building or flood control construction requires good understanding of the material properties and precaution during design and construction to extra care, but if well planned, it can be economically beneficial.
