A video of a presentation by David Meates, Chief Executive of the Christchurch District Health Board and the West Coast District Health Board, during the first plenary of the 2016 People in Disasters Conference. The presentation is titled, "Local System Perspective".The abstract for this presentation reads as follows: The devastating Canterbury earthquakes of 2010 and 2011 have resulted in challenges for the people of Canterbury and have altered the population's health needs. In the wake of New Zealand's largest natural disaster, the health system needed to respond rapidly to changing needs and damaged infrastructure in the short-term in the context of developing sustainable long-term solutions. Canterbury was undergoing system transformation prior to the quakes, however the horizon of transformation was brought forward post-quake: 'Vision 2020' became the vision for now. Innovation was enabled as people working across the system addressed new constraints such as the loss of 106 acute hospital beds, 635 aged residential care beds, the loss of general practices and pharmacies as well as damaged non-government organisation sector. A number of new integration initiatives (e.g. a shared electronic health record system, community rehabilitation for older people, community falls prevention) and expansion of existing programs (e.g. acute demand management) were focused on supporting people to stay well in their homes and communities. The system working together in an integrated way has resulted in significant reductions in acute health service utilisation in Canterbury. Acute admission rates have not increased and remain significantly below national rates and the number of acute and rehabilitation bed days have fallen since the quakes, with these trends most evident among older people. However, health needs frequently reported in post-disaster literature have created greater pressures on the system. In particular, an escalating number of people facing mental health problems and coping with acute needs of the migrant rebuild population provide new challenges for a workforce also affected by the quakes. The recovery journey for Canterbury is not over.
A video of a presentation by Toni Gutschlag, General Manager of Mental Health Services at the CDHB, at the 2016 Seismics in the City Conference. The presentation is titled, "Shaping Young Minds: Mental health issues and solutions".
As a result of the Canterbury earthquakes, over 60% of the concrete buildings in the Christchurch Central Business District have been demolished. This experience has highlighted the need to provide guidance on the residual capacity and repairability of earthquake-damaged concrete buildings. Experience from 2010 Chile indicates that it is possible to repair severely damaged concrete elements (see photo at right), although limited testing has been performed on such repaired components. The first phase of this project is focused on the performance of two lightly-reinforced concrete walls that are being repaired and re-tested after damage sustained during previous testing.
A video of a presentation by Garry Williams during the fourth plenary of the 2016 People in Disasters Conference. Williams is the Programme Manager of the Ministry of Education's Greater Christchurch Education Renewal Programme. The presentation is titled, "Education Renewal: A section response to the February 2011 Christchurch earthquake".The abstract for this presentation reads as follows: The Canterbury earthquakes caused a disaster recovery situation unparalleled in New Zealand's history. In addition to widespread damage to residential dwellings and destruction of Christchurch's central business district, the earthquakes damaged more than 200 schools from Hurunui in the north, to the Mackenzie District in the east, and Timaru in the south. The impact on education provision was substantial, with the majority of early childhood centres, schools and tertiary providers experiencing damage or subsequent, with the majority of early childhood centres, schools and tertiary providers experiencing damage or subsequent operational issues caused by the ensuing migration of people. Following the February earthquake, over 12,000 students had left the school they had been attending and enrolled elsewhere - often at a school outside the region. Shortened school days and compression of teaching into short periods meant shift-sharing students engaged in the curriculum being delivered in more diverse ways. School principals and staff reported increased fatigue and stress and changes in student behaviours, often related to repeated exposure to and ongoing reminders of the trauma of the earthquakes. While there has been a shift from direct, trauma-related presentations to the indirect effects of psychological adversity and daily life stresses, international experiences tells us that psychological recovery generally lags behind the immediate physical recovery and rebuilding. The Ministries of Health and Education and the Canterbury District Health Board have developed and implemented a joint action plan to address specifically the emerging mental health issues for youth in Canterbury. However, the impact of vulnerable and stressed adults on children's behaviour contributes to the overall impact of ongoing wellbeing issues on the educational outcomes for the community. There is substantial evidence supporting the need to focus on adults' resilience so they can support children and youth. Much of the Ministry's work around supporting children under stress is through supporting the adults responsible for teaching them and leading their schools. The education renewal programme exists to assist education communities to rebuild and look toward renewal. The response to the earthquakes provides a significant opportunity to better meet the needs and aspirations of children and youth people. All the parents want to see their children eager to learn, achieving success, and gaining knowledge and skills that will, in time, enable them to become confident, adaptable, economically independent adults. But this is not always the case, hence our approach to education renewal seeks to address inequities and improve outcome, while prioritising actions that will have a positive impact on learners in greatest need of assistance.
Predictive modelling provides an efficient means to analyse the coastal environment and generate knowledge for long term urban planning. In this study, the numerical models SWAN and XBeach were incorporated into the ESRI ArcGIS interface by means of the BeachMMtool. This was applied to the Greater Christchurch coastal environment to simulate geomorphological evolution through hydrodynamic forcing. Simulations were performed using the recent sea level rise predictions by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2013) to determine whether the statutory requirements outlined in the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 are consistent with central, regional and district designations. Our results indicate that current land use zoning in Greater Christchurch is not consistent with these predictions. This is because coastal hazard risk has not been thoroughly quantified during the process of installing the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority residential red zone. However, the Christchurch City Council’s flood management area does provide an extent to which managed coastal retreat is a real option. The results of this research suggest that progradation will continue to occur along the Christchurch foreshore due to the net sediment flux retaining an onshore direction and the current hydrodynamic activity not being strong enough to move sediment offshore. However, inundation during periods of storm surge poses a risk to human habitation on low lying areas around the Avon-Heathcote Estuary and the Brooklands lagoon.
A dramatic consequence of the Christchurch, New Zealand, earthquakes of 2010 and 2011 was the widespread liquefaction in the city. Part of the central business district (CBD) was badly affected by liquefaction but elsewhere large volumes of ejecta were not evident for those parts of the CBD where the upper layers in the soil profile are sandy gravel and gravelly sand. The purpose of the paper is to investigate the effect of the gravel permeability on the rise and dissipation of excess pore water pressure during cyclic loading of a soil profile idealised from Christchurch data. The Cyclic1D software, which performs one-dimensional non-linear effective stress site response analysis, was used. Permeability values associated with gravel were found to suppress the cyclic accumulation of excess pore water pressure in gravel layers. Given that there has not been any systematic measurement of the in situ permeability of the gravels in Christchurch, the modelling in the paper suggests that likely values for the bulk permeability of the gravel layers are within the range suggested in the geotechnical literature. However, the work reported is of wider application than Christchurch and emphasises the controlling influence of permeability on the accumulation and dissipation of cyclic pore pressures. VoR - Version of Record
ANDREW LITTLE to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement, "There's actually quite legitimate business in New Zealand for servicing foreign trusts"?
JAMES SHAW to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
ALASTAIR SCOTT to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he received on the state of the Crown accounts ahead of Budget 2016?
RON MARK to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
ALFRED NGARO to the Minister for Social Housing: What support will Budget 2016 provide for people in need of emergency housing?
Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: What is the total amount of efficiencies since 2011/12 made by the 20 district health boards and how much have they made for the February year to date?
JULIE ANNE GENTER to the Minister of Revenue: Does he stand by his statement, "these are the facts: there is no tax avoidance or evasion in New Zealand in respect of foreign trusts … There is no wealth hidden in New Zealand with these foreign trusts"?
MAUREEN PUGH to the Minister for Communications: What recent announcements has she made on progress of the Government's Ultra-Fast Broadband programme?
GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement made in Budget 2015 that "the unemployment rate is expected to fall below 5% in 2016"?
BARBARA KURIGER to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made on Communities of Learning?
Dr MEGAN WOODS to the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission: Has EQC's position that it will reinstate earthquake damage to a condition substantially the same as "when new" been applied to every home repaired in the Canterbury Home Repair Programme; if so, why does the EQC customer guide state that customers' homes will be returned to a "pre-earthquake state"?
MAHESH BINDRA to the Minister of Corrections: Does she have confidence in the Department of Corrections' ability to keep both staff and prisoners safe?
Interagency Emergency Response Teams (IERTs) play acrucial role in times of disasters. Therefore it is crucial to understand more thoroughly the communication roles and responsibilities of interagency team members and to examine how individual members communicate within a complex, evolving, and unstable environment. It is also important to understand how different organisational identities and their spatial geographies contribute to the interactional dynamics. Earthquakes hit the Canterbury region on September, 2010 and then on February 2011 a more devastating shallow earthquake struck resulting in severe damage to the Aged Residential Care (ARC) sector. Over 600 ARC beds were lost and 500 elderly and disabled people were displaced. Canterbury District Health Board (CDHB) set up an interagency emergency response team to address the issues of vulnerable people with significant health and disability needs who were unable to access their normal supports due to the effects of the earthquake. The purpose of this qualitative interpretive study is to focus on the case study of the response and evacuation of vulnerable people by interagencies responding to the event. Staff within these agencies were interviewed with a focus on the critical incidents that either stabilised or negatively influenced the outcome of the response. The findings included the complexity of navigating multiple agencies communication channels; understanding the different hierarchies and communication methods within each agency; data communication challenges when infrastructures were severely damaged; the importance of having the right skills, personal attributes and understanding of the organisations in the response; and the significance of having a liaison in situ representing and communicating through to agencies geographically dispersed from Canterbury. It is hoped that this research will assist in determining a future framework for interagency communication best practice and policy.
NUK KORAKO to the Minister of Finance: How does New Zealand’s growing economy and the Government’s commitment to responsible fiscal management mean New Zealand is well-placed to respond to the Kaikōura earthquake?
ANDREW LITTLE to the Prime Minister: Has he spoken to relevant Ministers about the lessons learned from the Canterbury earthquakes to ensure people affected by the recent earthquakes have an easier and faster recovery?
STUART SMITH to the Minister of Civil Defence: What update can he provide about the Government’s response to the Kaikōura earthquake?
RON MARK to the Prime Minister: Can he update the House on the situation in quake-affected areas in the South Island?
JAMES SHAW to the Prime Minister: Is he committed to all his Government’s policies?
Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement that following the Valentine’s Day earthquake this year in Canterbury, “it was timely to review whether any additional mental health and wellbeing support was needed”; if so, will he consider reviewing whether any additional support is needed for Canterbury and Nelson-Marlborough district health boards as a result of the recent earthquakes?
JACQUI DEAN to the Minister of Transport: What updates has he received on damage to transport infrastructure following the Kaikōura earthquake?
JAN LOGIE to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: What is his response to yesterday’s call from members of the Joint Working Group on Pay Equity Principles for the Government to “immediately right this historic wrong and implement the JWG principles”?
JACINDA ARDERN to the Minister for Economic Development: When is he likely to announce a recovery or support package for small businesses in earthquake-affected areas?
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI to the Minister of Police: What are New Zealand Police doing to support the Kaikōura community?
CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of Education: When did she first discuss the potential impact of Monday’s 7.5 earthquake on NCEA and Scholarship exams with the New Zealand Qualifications Authority?
IAN McKELVIE to the Minister for Primary Industries: What recent reports has he received on the impact of the recent earthquakes on the primary sector?
A video of a presentation by Jane Murray and Stephen Timms during the Social Recovery Stream of the 2016 People in Disasters Conference. The presentation is titled, "Land Use Recovery Plan: How an impact assessment process engaged communities in recovery planning".The abstract for this presentation reads as follows: In response to the Canterbury earthquakes, the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery directed Environment Canterbury (Canterbury's regional council) to prepare a Land Use Recovery Plan that would provide a spatial planning framework for Greater Christchurch and aid recovery from the Canterbury earthquakes. The Land Use Recovery Plan sets a policy and planning framework necessary to rebuild existing communities and develop new communities. As part of preparing the plan, an integrated assessment was undertaken to address wellbeing and sustainability concerns. This ensured that social impacts of the plan were likely to achieve better outcomes for communities. The process enabled a wide range of community and sector stakeholders to provide input at the very early stages of drafting the document. The integrated assessment considered the treatment of major land use issues in the plan, e.g. overall distribution of activities across the city, integrated transport routes, housing typography, social housing, employment and urban design, all of which have a key impact on health and wellbeing. Representatives from the Canterbury Health in All Policies Partnership were involved in designing a three-part assessment process that would provide a framework for the Land Use Recovery Plan writers to assess and improve the plan in terms of wellbeing and sustainability concerns. The detail of these assessment stages, and the influence that they had on the draft plan, will be outlined in the presentation. In summary, the three stages involved: developing key wellbeing and sustainability concerns that could form a set of criteria, analysing the preliminary draft of the Land Use Recovery Plan against the criteria in a broad sector workshop, and analysing the content and recommendations of the Draft Plan. This demonstrates the importance of integrated assessment influencing the Land Use Recovery Plan that in turn influences other key planning documents such as the District Plan. This process enabled a very complex document with wide-ranging implications to be broken down, enabling many groups, individuals and organisations to have their say in the recovery process. There is also a range of important lessons for recovery that can be applied to other projects and actions in a disaster recovery situation.
The Canterbury earthquakes in 2010 and 2011 had a significant impact on landlords and tenants of commercial buildings in the city of Christchurch. The devastation wrought on the city was so severe that in an unprecedented response to this disaster a cordon was erected around the central business district for nearly two and half years while demolition, repairs and rebuilding took place. Despite the destruction, not all buildings were damaged. Many could have been occupied and used immediately if they had not been within the cordoned area. Others had only minor damage but repairs to them could not be commenced, let alone completed, owing to restrictions on access caused by the cordon. Tenants were faced with a major problem in that they could not access their buildings and it was likely to be a long time before they would be allowed access again. The other problem was uncertainty about the legal position as neither the standard form leases in use, nor any statute, provided for issues arising from an inaccessible building. The parties were therefore uncertain about their legal rights and obligations in this situation. Landlords and tenants were unsure whether tenants were required to pay rent for a building that could not be accessed or whether they could terminate their leases on the basis that the building was inaccessible. This thesis looks at whether the common law doctrine of frustration could apply to leases in these circumstances, where the lease had made no provision. It analyses the history of the doctrine and how it applies to a lease, the standard form leases in use at the time of the earthquakes and the unexpected and extraordinary nature of the earthquakes. It then reports on the findings of the qualitative empirical research undertaken to look at the experiences of landlords and tenants after the earthquakes. It is argued that the circumstances of landlords and tenants met the test for the doctrine of frustration. Therefore, the doctrine could have applied to leases to enable the parties to terminate them. It concludes with a suggestion for reform in the form of a new Act to govern the special relationship between commercial landlords and tenants, similar to legislation already in place covering other types of relationships like those in residential tenancies and employment. Such legislation could provide dispute resolution services to enable landlords and tenants to have access to justice to determine their legal rights at all times, and in particular, in times of crisis.
RON MARK to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements; if so, how?
ANDREW LITTLE to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “if you see house prices rising, you might say the Government needs to do more” and “we take responsibility, we need to do a better job of it”?
SARAH DOWIE to the Minister of Finance: What international reports has he received showing New Zealand’s economic growth remains robust?
Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: On what date was the Ministry of Health first made aware of data manipulation of the six-hour Emergency Department target by district health boards?
CHRIS BISHOP to the Minister for Economic Development: What recent announcements has the Government made regarding support for earthquake-affected businesses?
METIRIA TUREI to the Minister for Building and Housing: Ka tū a ia i runga i te mana o tana kōrero, “The proportion of New Zealanders living in rental homes is not changing dramatically and owner-occupiers will remain the dominant living arrangement for most Kiwi families into the future” i te mea, ā, e ai ki ngā tatauranga hou, nō mai anō i te tau Kotahi mano, iwa rau, rima tekau mā tahi, i taka ai te hunga whiwhi i tōna ake whare, ki raro rā nō? Translation: Does he stand by his statement that “The proportion of New Zealanders living in rental homes is not changing dramatically and owner-occupiers will remain the dominant living arrangement for most Kiwi families into the future” given that home ownership is at its lowest level since 1951, according to the latest census?
STUART SMITH to the Minister for Primary Industries: What recent announcements has he made regarding support for earthquake-affected primary sectors?
GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the Prime Minister’s statement that Treasury forecasts are “a load of nonsense, because they can’t get predications in 44 days right, let alone 44 years”?
ALFRED NGARO to the Minister for Building and Housing: What additional Auckland housing projects did he announce during last week’s recess, and what are the latest reports on the growth in construction across Auckland showing?
Dr MEGAN WOODS to the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission: Is he confident EQC will be employing the necessary resource to process and settle claims, from both the Canterbury earthquake sequence and the earthquake sequence of a fortnight ago, after 16 December; if so, why?
DAVID SEYMOUR to the Minister of Police: What reassurance can she give to Epsom residents concerned that their Community Policing Centre will cease to operate after 24 years?
IAN McKELVIE to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What announcements has he made recently that support the continued growth of the New Zealand wine export market?
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
