TE URUROA FLAVELL to the Minister of Justice: Is she satisfied with the Electoral Commission's engagement with whanau, hapū, iwi and marae around the 2013 Māori Electoral Option; if so, what advice has she received that would explain why halfway through the process there are only 5,000 new enrolments?
DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: On what date was he, his office or the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet first informed that David Henry would not meet his deadline of the end of May as set out in the terms of reference for reporting back and what reason did Mr Henry provide for the delay?
KATRINA SHANKS to the Minister of Finance: What do recent indicators show about the economy's performance this year and its outlook for the next three to four years?
DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Has he received any information that shows foreign intelligence agencies are routinely collecting emails, other communication or location data on New Zealand citizens and residents while they are in New Zealand; if so, has the resulting information been passed on to the Government Communications Security Bureau?
ALFRED NGARO to the Minister of Education: What recent announcement has she made about achievement against National Standards?
METIRIA TUREI to the Minister for Economic Development: Will the Government sign the legal contract between it and SkyCity for the SkyCity Convention Centre this week; if not, when will it sign this agreement?
JAMI-LEE ROSS to the Minister of Housing: What policy conclusions, if any, does the Government draw from Priced Out – How New Zealand Lost its Housing Affordability and how consistent are its findings with those of the 2012 Productivity Commission Report on housing affordability?
Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his statements on health; if not, why not?
NICKY WAGNER to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: How will the Government support the redevelopment and repopulation of the Christchurch Central Business District following the Canterbury earthquakes?
CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of Education: Is she confident that the National Standards data being released today gives an accurate picture of student progress; if not, why not?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Did he discuss with David Henry the requirement for Mr Henry to see the full unedited electronic record connected with the Kitteridge report leak; if not, why not?
JOHN HAYES to the Minister of Customs: What information has he received regarding the success of automated passenger processing systems at the border?
The Avon-Heathcote Estuary is of significant value to Christchurch due to its high productivity, biotic diversity, proximity to the city, and its cultural, recreational and aesthetic qualities. Nonetheless, it has been subjected to decades of degradation from sewage wastewater discharges and encroaching urban development. The result was a eutrophied estuary, high in nitrogen, affected by large blooms of nuisance macroalgae and covered by degraded sediments. In March 2010, treated wastewater was diverted from the estuary to a site 3 km offshore. This quickly reduced water nitrogen by 90% within the estuary and, within months, there was reduced production of macroalgae. However, a series of earthquakes beginning in September 2010 brought massive changes: tilting of the estuary, changes in channels and water flow, and a huge influx of liquefied sediments that covered up to 65% of the estuary floor. Water nitrogen increased due to damage to sewage infrastructure and the diversion pipeline being turned off. Together, these drastically altered the estuarine ecosystem. My study involves three laboratory and five in situ experiments that investigate the base of the food chain and responses of benthic microalgae to earthquake-driven sediment and nutrient changes. It was predicted that the new sediments would be coarser and less contaminated with organic matter and nutrients than the old sediments, would have decreased microalgal biomass, and would prevent invertebrate grazing and bioturbation activities. It was believed that microalgal biomass would become similar across new and old sediments types as the unstable new sediments were resuspended and distributed over the old sediments. Contact cores of the sediment were taken at three sites, across a eutrophication gradient, monthly from September 2011 to March 2012. Extracted chlorophyll a pigments showed that microalgal biomass was generally lower on new liquefied sediments compared to old sediments, although there was considerable site to site variation, with the highly eutrophic sites being the most affected by the emergence of the new sediments. Grazer experiments showed that invertebrates had both positive and negative site-specific effects on microalgal biomass depending on their identity. At one site, new sediments facilitated grazing by Amphibola crenata, whereas at another site, new sediments did not alter the direct and indirect effects of invertebrates (Nicon aestuariensis, Macropthalmus hirtipes, and A. crenata) on microalgae. From nutrient addition experiments it was clear that benthic microalgae were able to use nutrients from within both old and new sediments equally. This implied that microalgae were reducing legacy nutrients in both sediments, and that they are an important buffer against eutrophication. Therefore, in tandem with the wastewater diversion, they could underpin much of the recovery of the estuary. Overall, the new sediments were less favourable for benthic microalgal growth and recolonisation, but were less contaminated than old sediments at highly eutrophic sites. Because the new sediments were less contaminated than the old sediments, they could help return the estuary to a noneutrophic state. However, if the new sediments, which are less favourable for microalgal growth, disperse over the old sediments at highly eutrophic sites, they could become contaminated and interfere with estuarine recovery. Therefore, recovery of microalgal communities and the estuary was expected to be generally long, but variable and site-specific, with the least eutrophic sites recovering quickly, and the most eutrophic sites taking years to return to a pre-earthquake and non-eutrophied state. changes in channels and water flow, and a huge influx of liquefied sediments that covered up to 65% of the estuary floor. Water nitrogen increased due to damage to sewage infrastructure and the diversion pipeline being turned off. Together, these drastically altered the estuarine ecosystem. My study involves three laboratory and five in situ experiments that investigate the base of the food chain and responses of benthic microalgae to earthquake-driven sedimen tand nutrient changes. It was predicted that the new sediments would be coarser and less contaminated with organic matter and nutrients than the old sediments, would have decreased microalgal biomass, and would prevent invertebrate grazing and bioturbation activities. It was believed that microalgal biomass would become similar across new and old sediments types as the unstable new sediments were resuspended and distributed over the old sediments. Contact cores of the sediment were taken at three sites, across a eutrophication gradient, monthly from September 2011 to March 2012. Extracted chlorophyll a pigments showed that microalgal biomass was generally lower on new liquefied sediments compared to old sediments, although there was considerable site to site variation, with the highly eutrophic sites being the most affected by the emergence of the new sediments. Grazer experiments showed that invertebrates had both positive and negative site-specific effects on microalgal biomass depending on their identity. At one site, new sediments facilitated grazing by Amphibola crenata, whereas at another site, new sediments did not alter the direct and indirect effects of invertebrates (Nicon aestuariensis, Macropthalmus hirtipes, and A. crenata) on microalgae. From nutrient addition experiments it was clear that benthic microalgae were able to use nutrients from within both old and new sediments equally. This implied that microalgae were reducing legacy nutrients in both sediments, and that they are
