Questions to Ministers
1. RAHUI KATENE to the Associate Minister of Health: When was the Core Clinical Committee established in Kawerau and how are iwi involved in the membership and functions of this joint taskforce to tackle youth suicide?
2. DAVID BENNETT to the Minister for Infrastructure: What progress is the Government making on its infrastructure investment programme?
3. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Prime Minister: What advice did he rely on when commenting in Australia on the safety of the Pike River coal mine?
4. NICKY WAGNER to the Minister of Corrections: What support has the Corrections Department provided in Canterbury since the first earthquake struck in September last year?
5. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: Does he believe that in the current economic environment kiwi companies should be considered favourably with regards to big government contracts?
6. TIM MACINDOE to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What parenting support is being made available for first-time parents?
7. Hon TREVOR MALLARD to the Prime Minister: In light of the answer given on his behalf to Oral Question No 2 on 15 June, is it his opinion that real average after-tax wages do not go up when high-income earners get tax cuts and low-income workers lose their jobs?
8. PAUL QUINN to the Minister of Customs: What recent reports has he received on developments to technology at the border?
9. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Health: Has sufficient funding been allocated in Vote Health to meet the increasing costs facing organisations working in the health sector?
10. KEVIN HAGUE to the Minister of Labour: Was she satisfied before the first explosion in the Pike River coal mine, that her Government had done all it could to ensure the workplace safety of people working in underground coal mines; if so, why?
11. COLIN KING to the Minister of Fisheries: What recent announcement has he made about the recovery of the western hoki stock?
12. DARIEN FENTON to the Minister of Labour: Does she stand by all her answers to Oral Question No 10 yesterday?
There is a critical strand of literature suggesting that there are no ‘natural’ disasters (Abramovitz, 2001; Anderson and Woodrow, 1998; Clarke, 2008; Hinchliffe, 2004). There are only those that leave us – the people - more or less shaken and disturbed. There may be some substance to this; for example, how many readers recall the 7.8 magnitude earthquake centred in Fiordland in July 2009? Because it was so far away from a major centre and very few people suffered any consequences, the number is likely to be far fewer than those who remember (all too vividly) the relatively smaller 7.1 magnitude Canterbury quake of September 4th 2010 and the more recent 6.3 magnitude February 22nd 2011 event.
One implication of this construction of disasters is that seismic events, like those in Canterbury, are as much socio-political as they are geological. Yet, as this paper shows, the temptation in recovery is to tick boxes and rebuild rather than recover, and to focus on hard infrastructure rather than civic expertise and community involvement. In this paper I draw upon different models of community engagement and use Putnam’s (1995) notion of ‘social capital’ to frame the argument that ‘building bridges’ after a disaster is a complex blend of engineering, communication and collaboration. I then present the results of a qualitative research project undertaken after the September 4th earthquake. This research helps to illustrate the important connections between technical rebuilding, social capital, recovery processes and overall urban resilience.
Disasters can create the equivalent of 20 years of waste in only a few days. Disaster waste can have direct impacts on public health and safety, and on the environment. The management of such waste has a great direct cost to society in terms of labor, equipment, processing, transport and disposal. Disaster waste management also has indirect costs, in the sense that slow management can slow down a recovery, greatly affecting the ability of commerce and industry to re-start. In addition, a disaster can lead to the disruption of normal solid waste management systems, or result in inappropriate management that leads to expensive environmental remediation. Finally, there are social impacts implicit in disaster waste management decisions because of psychological impact we expect when waste is not cleared quickly or is cleared too quickly. The paper gives an overview of the challenge of disaster waste management, examining issues of waste quantity and composition; waste treatment; environmental, economic, and social impacts; health and safety matters; and planning. Christchurch, New Zealand, and the broader region of Canterbury were impacted during this research by a series of shallow earthquakes. This has led to the largest natural disaster emergency in New Zealand’s history, and the management of approximately 8 million tons of building and infrastructure debris has become a major issue. The paper provides an overview of the status of disaster waste management in Christchurch as a case study. A key conclusion is the vital role of planning in effective disaster waste management. In spite of the frequency of disasters, in most countries the ratio of time spent on planning for disaster waste management to the time spent on normal waste management is extremely low. Disaster waste management also requires improved education or training of those involved in response efforts. All solid waste professionals have a role to play to respond to the challenges of disaster waste management.
The New Zealand Kellogg Rural Leaders Programme develops emerging agribusiness leaders to help shape the future of New Zealand agribusiness and rural affairs. Lincoln University has been involved with this leaders programme since 1979 when it was launched with a grant from the Kellogg Foundation, USA.At 4.35am on 4th September 2010, Canterbury was hit by an earthquake measuring 7.1 on the
Richter scale. On 22nd February 2011 and 13th June 2011 a separate fault line approximately
35km from the first, ruptured to inflict two further earthquakes measuring 6.3 and 6.0
respectively. As a direct result of the February earthquake, 181 people lost their lives. Some
commentators have described this series of earthquakes as the most expensive global
insurance event of all time.
These earthquakes and the more than 7000 associated aftershocks have had a significant
physical impact on parts of Canterbury and virtually none on others. The economic, social and
emotional impacts of these quakes spread across Canterbury and beyond.
Waimakariri district, north of Christchurch, has reflected a similar pattern, with over 1400 houses
requiring rebuild or substantial repair, millions of dollars of damage to infrastructure, and
significant social issues as a result. The physical damage in Waimakiriri District was
predominately in parts of Kaiapoi, and two small beach settlements, The Pines and Kairaki
Beach with pockets elsewhere in the district. While the balance of the district is largely
physically untouched, the economic, social, and emotional shockwaves have spread across the
district. Waimakariri district consists of two main towns, Rangiora and Kaiapoi, a number of
smaller urban areas and a larger rural area. It is considered mid-size in the New Zealand local
government landscape.
This paper will explore the actions and plans of Waimakiriri District Council (WDC) in the
Emergency Management Recovery programme to provide context to allow a more detailed
examination of the planning processes prior to, and subsequent to the earthquakes. This study
looked at documentation produced by WDC, applicable legislation and New Zealand
Emergency Management resources and other sources. Key managers and elected
representatives in the WOC were interviewed, along with a selection of governmental and nongovernmental
agency representatives. The interview responses enable understanding of how
central Government and other local authorities can benefit from these lessons and apply them
to their own planning.
It is intended that this paper will assist local government organisations in New Zealand to
evaluate their planning processes in light of the events of 2010/11 in Canterbury and the
lessons from WDC.
Questions to Ministers
1. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with 57 percent of New Zealanders who, according to a recent UMR poll, support the introduction of a temporary earthquake levy to pay for the rebuilding of Christchurch?
2. Hon PHIL GOFF to the Prime Minister: What, according to the 2010 Investment Statement of the Government of New Zealand, was the average total shareholder return over the last five years from State-owned Enterprises and the average bond rate, and is that consistent with his statement that "it is the Government's intention to use the proceeds of those initial public offerings to actually invest in other assets that the Government would have to fund through the Government bond rate"?
3. DAVID BENNETT to the Minister for Infrastructure: What progress has the Government made on its infrastructure programme?
4. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement "this Government is not prepared to turn its back on our most vulnerable citizens when they most need our help"?
5. Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN to the Acting Minister of Energy and Resources: Is it government policy for New Zealand to become a "highly attractive global destination" for oil exploration, with expansion of the oil and coal sectors leading to a "step change" in the country's economic growth as set out in the document Developing Our Energy Potential; if not, why not?
6. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Is the Government considering extending the business assistance package for employers and employees beyond the 14-week period currently signalled; if not, why not?
7. JACQUI DEAN to the Minister of Police: What reports has she received on the latest trends in the level of crime in New Zealand?
8. Hon TREVOR MALLARD to the Prime Minister: Did he tell a meeting in Timaru last week "The entire time I've been Prime Minister I've had Treasury in my office week after week, month after month, telling me South Canterbury Finance was going bankrupt"?
9. CHRIS AUCHINVOLE to the Minister for the Environment: What advice has he received on major resource consents being considered under the Government's new national consenting policy?
10. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Acting Minister of Energy and Resources: Does she agree that the joint scheme initiated by the Green Party and the Government, Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart, is the best initiative in the Draft New Zealand Energy Strategy because it is providing hundreds of thousands of New Zealand households with warm, dry, energy efficient homes, and creating thousands of clean green jobs?
11. Hon SHANE JONES to the Minister of Fisheries: Does he still have no major concerns about the way foreign boats were used by New Zealand companies as the Nelson Mail reports he said last year?
12. TIM MACINDOE to the Minister of Housing: What recent announcements has he made regarding the Government's Housing Innovation Fund?
Questions to Ministers
1. AMY ADAMS to the Minister of Finance: What will be the focus of the Budget on 19 May?
2. Hon PHIL GOFF to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements on the sale of State-owned assets?
3. SHANE ARDERN to the Minister of Customs: What recent reports has he received regarding interceptions of methamphetamine by Customs officers at the border?
4. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that "we've done as good a job as we can in the conditions we've got to try and help low-income New Zealanders"?
5. KEITH LOCKE to the Minister of Defence: Has New Zealand's SAS detained anyone during its operations or joint operations with other forces, since being redeployed to Afghanistan in 2009?
6. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that "I have seen almost no criticism of the Government's plan to rebalance the economy" given the statement from the Chair of the 2025 Taskforce, Don Brash, that "There is certainly no evidence yet that current policies will deliver the kind of accelerated growth we need"?
7. NICKY WAGNER to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: What process will the Government use to rebuild and restore damaged infrastructure in Canterbury?
8. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Is he satisfied that the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 provides him with all the powers necessary to facilitate the recovery of Canterbury?
9. Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN to the Minister of Finance: By how much has Government expenditure increased as a percentage of GDP since he became Minister of Finance?
10. DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in his Minister of Foreign Affairs?
11. KATRINA SHANKS to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Why has the Government announced a Green Paper on how we value, nurture and protect children?
12. Hon TREVOR MALLARD to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers?
One of the great challenges facing human systems today is how to prepare for, manage, and adapt successfully to the profound and rapid changes wreaked by disasters. Wellington, New Zealand, is a capital city at significant risk of devastating earthquake and tsunami, potentially requiring mass evacuations with little or short notice. Subsequent hardship and suffering due to widespread property damage and infrastructure failure could cause large areas of the Wellington Region to become uninhabitable for weeks to months. Previous research has shown that positive health and well-being are associated with disaster-resilient outcomes. Preventing adverse outcomes before disaster strikes, through developing strengths-based skill sets in health-protective attitudes and behaviours, is increasingly advocated in disaster research, practise, and management. This study hypothesised that well-being constructs involving an affective heuristic play vital roles in pathways to resilience as proximal determinants of health-protective behaviours. Specifically, this study examined the importance of health-related quality of life and subjective well-being in motivating evacuation preparedness, measured in a community sample (n=695) drawn from the general adult population of Wellington’s isolated eastern suburbs. Using a quantitative epidemiological approach, the study measured the prevalence of key quality of life indicators (physical and mental health, emotional well-being or “Sense of Coherence”, spiritual well-being, social well-being, and life satisfaction) using validated psychometric scales; analysed the strengths of association between these indicators and the level of evacuation preparedness at categorical and continuous levels of measurement; and tested the predictive power of the model to explain the variance in evacuation preparedness activity. This is the first study known to examine multi-dimensional positive health and global well-being as resilient processes for engaging in evacuation preparedness behaviour. A cross-sectional study design and quantitative survey were used to collect self-report data on the study variables; a postal questionnaire was fielded between November 2008 and March 2009 to a sampling frame developed through multi-stage cluster randomisation. The survey response rate was 28.5%, yielding a margin of error of +/- 3.8% with 95% confidence and 80% statistical power to detect a true correlation coefficient of 0.11 or greater. In addition to the primary study variables, data were collected on demographic and ancillary variables relating to contextual factors in the physical environment (risk perception of physical and personal vulnerability to disaster) and the social environment (through the construct of self-determination), and other measures of disaster preparedness. These data are reserved for future analyses. Results of correlational and regression analyses for the primary study variables show that Wellingtonians are highly individualistic in how their well-being influences their preparedness, and a majority are taking inadequate action to build their resilience to future disaster from earthquake- or tsunami-triggered evacuation. At a population level, the conceptual multi-dimensional model of health-related quality of life and global well-being tested in this study shows a positive association with evacuation preparedness at statistically significant levels. However, it must be emphasised that the strength of this relationship is weak, accounting for only 5-7% of the variability in evacuation preparedness. No single dimension of health-related quality of life or well-being stands out as a strong predictor of preparedness. The strongest associations for preparedness are in a positive direction for spiritual well-being, emotional well-being, and life satisfaction; all involve a sense of existential meaningfulness. Spiritual well-being is the only quality of life variable making a statistically significant unique contribution to explaining the variance observed in the regression models. Physical health status is weakly associated with preparedness in a negative direction at a continuous level of measurement. No association was found at statistically significant levels for mental health status and social well-being. These findings indicate that engaging in evacuation preparedness is a very complex, holistic, yet individualised decision-making process, and likely involves highly subjective considerations for what is personally relevant. Gender is not a factor. Those 18-24 years of age are least likely to prepare and evacuation preparedness increases with age. Multidimensional health and global well-being are important constructs to consider in disaster resilience for both pre-event and post-event timeframes. This work indicates a need for promoting self-management of risk and building resilience by incorporating a sense of personal meaning and importance into preparedness actions, and for future research into further understanding preparedness motivations.
