An Earthquake Commission policy of covering over asbestos in quake-damaged Canterbury houses and not making that information publicly available, is being described as shortsighted and potentially harmful.
New Zealand's devastating Canterbury earthquakes provided an opportunity to examine the efficacy of existing regulations and policies relevant to seismic strengthening of vulnerable buildings. The mixed-methods approach adopted, comprising both qualitative and quantitative approaches, revealed that some of the provisions in these regulations pose as constraints to appropriate strengthening of earthquake-prone buildings. Those provisions include the current seismic design philosophy, lack of mandatory disclosure of seismic risks and ineffective timeframes for strengthening vulnerable buildings. Recommendations arising from these research findings and implications for pre-disaster mitigation for future earthquake and Canterbury's post-disaster reconstruction suggest: (1) a reappraisal of the requirements for earthquake engineering design and construction, (2) a review and realignment of all regulatory frameworks relevant to earthquake risk mitigation, and (3) the need to develop a national programme necessary to achieve consistent mitigation efforts across the country. These recommendations are important in order to present a robust framework where New Zealand communities such as Christchurch can gradually recover after a major earthquake disaster, while planning for pre-disaster mitigation against future earthquakes. AM - Accepted Manuscript
Group case study report prepared for lecturers Ton Buhrs and Roy Montgomery by students of ERST 635 at Lincoln University, 2013.The New Zealand Government’s decision to establish a unitary authority in the Auckland Region has provided much of the context and impetus for this review of current governance arrangements in the Canterbury region, to determine whether or not they are optimal for taking the communities of greater Christchurch into the future. A number of local governance academics, as well as several respected political pundits, have prophesised that the Auckland ‘Super City’ reforms of 2009 will have serious implications and ramifications for local governance arrangements in other major cities, particularly Wellington and Christchurch. Wellington councils have already responded to the possibility of change by undertaking a series of reports on local governance arrangements, as well as a major review led by Sir Geoffrey Palmer, to investigate options for governance reform. Alongside these developments, the Christchurch earthquakes beginning in September 2010 have raised a myriad of new and complex governance issues, which may or may not be able to be addressed under the status quo, while the replacement of Regional Councillors’ with centrally-appointed Commissioners is suggestive of government dissatisfaction with current arrangements. With these things in mind, the research group has considered local government in Canterbury and the greater Christchurch area in the wider governance context. It does not limit discussion to only the structure of local government in Canterbury but rather, as the brief (Appendix 1) indicates, considers more broadly the relationship between central, regional, and local tiers of government, as well as the relationship between local government and local communities.
GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: Does he stand by his statement that the Household Labour Force Survey is "the standard internationally recognised measure of employment and unemployment"? PAUL GOLDSMITH to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he received on the economy? Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Does he stand by the answer given by the Minister of Finance to the question "Does he accept that human-induced climate change is real?" that "It may well be…"? Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: Given that unemployment is rising, exports are down, and house price inflation in Auckland and Canterbury is in double-digits, does he agree that after 5 years as Finance Minister he has failed to rebalance and diversify the economy; if not, why not? JOHN HAYES to the Minister of Trade: What efforts is the Government making to deal with the market effects of the possible contamination of some Fonterra diary exports? Hon SHANE JONES to the Minister for Economic Development: What action has he taken to ensure high value jobs are retained in Otago, Waikato, Northland, East Coast and Manawatu? KEVIN HAGUE to the Minister of Health: Exactly how many of the 21 recommendations to the Minister in the 2010 Public Health Advisory Committee Report The Best Start in Life: Achieving effective action on child health and wellbeing has he implemented? JACQUI DEAN to the Minister for Food Safety: What update can she provide the public on the safety of infant formula? Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR to the Minister for Primary Industries: Does he stand by all his statements? NICKY WAGNER to the Minister for Building and Construction: What reports has he received following the Government's announcement of a new earthquake-prone building policy? RICHARD PROSSER to the Minister for Primary Industries: What reports, if any, has he received regarding the regeneration of fish stocks in the Snapper 1 fishery? Dr DAVID CLARK to the Minister for Economic Development: Does he agree with Dunedin Mayor Dave Cull that "Central government needs to understand we can't have a … two-speed economy where Christchurch and Auckland are ripping ahead and the rest of the regions are withering"; if not, why not?
Questions to Ministers Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that a publicly-owned insurer is a "dumb idea"? Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements regarding Government policy? Hon TAU HENARE to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the economy – and especially on further signs of improving economic momentum and increasing business and consumer confidence? Hon SHANE JONES to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in his Ministers? Hon PETER DUNNE to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: What advice has he received on the call from Amnesty International opposing the appointment of Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa as Chair of the Commonwealth for the next two years, and host of next week's Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting? Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE to the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission: Does he still believe that New Zealanders can have confidence in EQC? MARK MITCHELL to the Minister of Commerce: What steps is the Government taking to introduce more competition into the housing construction market? JAN LOGIE to the Minister of Justice: When she said, in response to whether the pre-trial and trial process precludes some sexual violence victims from complaining "quite clearly, it does not"; did she mean that few sexual violence victims are deterred from complaining by the process itself? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in the Minister for State Owned Enterprises? JACQUI DEAN to the Minister of Corrections: What recent announcements has she made on the redevelopment of prison facilities? PHIL TWYFORD to the Minister of Housing: Does he stand by his statement that the housing situation in Christchurch is "a challenge, not a crisis"? CHRIS AUCHINVOLE to the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage: How does the Government intend to mark the centenary of the First World War?
Whole document is available to authenticated members of The University of Auckland until Feb. 2014. The increasing scale of losses from earthquake disasters has reinforced the need for property owners to become proactive in seismic risk reduction programs. However, despite advancement in seismic design methods and legislative frameworks, building owners are often reluctant to adopt mitigation measures required to reduce earthquake losses. The magnitude of building collapses from the recent Christchurch earthquakes in New Zealand shows that owners of earthquake prone buildings (EPBs) are not adopting appropriate risk mitigation measures in their buildings. Owners of EPBs are found unwilling or lack motivation to adopt adequate mitigation measures that will reduce their vulnerability to seismic risks. This research investigates how to increase the likelihood of building owners undertaking appropriate mitigation actions that will reduce their vulnerability to earthquake disaster. A sequential two-phase mixed methods approach was adopted for the research investigation. Multiple case studies approach was adopted in the first qualitative phase, followed by the second quantitative research phase that includes the development and testing of a framework. The research findings reveal four categories of critical obstacles to building owners‘ decision to adopt earthquake loss prevention measures. These obstacles include perception, sociological, economic and institutional impediments. Intrinsic and extrinsic interventions are proposed as incentives for overcoming these barriers. The intrinsic motivators include using information communication networks such as mass media, policy entrepreneurs and community engagement in risk mitigation. Extrinsic motivators comprise the use of four groups of incentives namely; financial, regulatory, technological and property market incentives. These intrinsic and extrinsic interventions are essential for enhancing property owners‘ decisions to voluntarily adopt appropriate earthquake mitigation measures. The study concludes by providing specific recommendations that earthquake risk mitigation managers, city councils and stakeholders involved in risk mitigation in New Zealand and other seismic risk vulnerable countries could consider in earthquake risk management. Local authorities could adopt the framework developed in this study to demonstrate a combination of incentives and motivators that yield best-valued outcomes. Consequently, actions can be more specific and outcomes more effective. The implementation of these recommendations could offer greater reasons for the stakeholders and public to invest in building New Zealand‘s built environment resilience to earthquake disasters.