Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said he is going to make sure he is working with the Hawke's Bay community to assess its needs after Cyclone Gabrielle.
Video / NZ Herald
Opinion by John Tookey, Auckland University of Technology
The cyclone also revealed the flaws in the country’s planning and consenting processes. There is a history of developing new housing in flood-prone areas – particularly in Auckland. A year after Gabrielle, New Zealand needs to look to the future of climate risk, policy creation and infrastructural investment.
Both the previous and current governments have expressed concerns over future climate impacts. Yet climate risk and related infrastructure investment were comparatively minor themes in the election debates of 2023.
New Zealand now needs to ask some serious long-term questions:
How frequently will it be exposed to the costs and chaos of weather events?
How should it respond to those risks?
What are the infrastructural investment priorities?
How should it sequence its responses?
And how will we pay for these measures?
Political agreement in theory
Failing to ask – let alone answer – those questions means New Zealand can’t plan, can’t build and can’t budget.
Fundamentally, the commitment to addressing climate change is a point of agreement across the political spectrum.
Having ratified the Paris Accords, cuts to the country’s emissions are legally enforceable and time-bound. But New Zealand’s infrastructural planning, investments and commitments remain vague.
The Ardern government produced Adapt and Thrive: Building a climate-resilient Aotearoa New Zealand in August 2022. There was little coverage of this consultation document at the time or since, and the general public is largely unaware of it.
Adapt and Thrive advocates multiple strategies in response to climate change, including “avoid, protect, accommodate, retreat”. All elements of this plan have planning, legislative and resource implications.
But central to the report is the idea of “managed retreat” from flood-prone areas. The report indicates 300,000 dwellings will be directly affected by adverse weather events in the future. At least $100 billion worth of property has been flagged as directly at risk, affecting 72,000 New Zealanders.
It is fair to say the cost of new housing and infrastructure designed to protect at-risk communities, as well as service relocated ones, will be spectacularly expensive.
The devastation left behind at Linden Estate Winery by Cyclone Gabrielle.
Can NZ ‘adapt and thrive’?
It is now time for New Zealand to decide to what degree it wishes to ameliorate the effects of climate change.
If this is a national priority, then planning, budgeting and sequencing need to be committed to. Hundreds of billions of dollars will be needed over a multi-decade, integrated programme of planning, compulsory purchase and infrastructure construction.
With the change of government, however, will that plan be put into action? There are aspects of it that make this questionable.
The different treatment of stakeholder groups around compensation during “managed retreat” will be problematic for the new governing coalition.
For example, Adapt and Thrive proposes 50 per cent compensation for businesses and rental property owners, with zero compensation for bach or second home owners. Relocated communities’ resilience in terms of jobs, economic activity and housing will become contentious.
Adapt and Thrive also proposes limiting of rights of appeal for affected communities. The extensive planning and procurement processes involved make it hard to imagine the right to appeal being entirely quashed. Inevitably, the process of planning, financial commitments and appeals will be drawn out.
To say Adapt and Thrive will be challenging to put into effect is an understatement. If the policy is going to be reconsidered, so be it.
New Zealand has pressing infrastructural investment needs to facilitate growth and sustainability. The planning and procurement needed to implement such policy is time-consuming and costly. Irrespective of political orientation, there is an absolute need to prioritise it.
Given the huge financial consequences, and inevitable trade-offs in social programmes, education, defence and other budget priorities, a time frame for making big decisions is essential.
Failure to do so will inhibit future growth and housing provision, reduce cost-effectiveness, as well as threaten the sustainability of communities in vulnerable areas. Cyclone Gabrielle made it clear that kicking this particular can down the road is not acceptable.
