As researchers who have spent decades working on natural hazards, we offer three key observations that should inform the next Government’s agenda.
A challenge beyond election cycles
A generation ago, the biggest challenge was understanding New Zealand’s natural hazards. Today, there is investment in hazard science and mapping, risk modelling and post-disaster inquiry.
We know more about the communities and infrastructure exposed. We also have increasingly sophisticated tools for understanding climate impacts, and advances in artificial intelligence (AI) will further improve modelling and forecasting.
But this is only the starting point. We need to understand how science translates into risks and consequences. And we will have to act to protect what we value.
This requires more than data. It demands stronger links between science, policy and practice, investment in capability and a willingness to make long-term decisions despite uncertainty.
Above all, natural hazard risk and resilience must be treated as an enduring national challenge separate from electoral cycles.
The reality is that New Zealand is a risky place to live and build, which demands ongoing investment. But science only delivers value when it translates into action: how we build and use land, invest in infrastructure, adapt and reduce risk or strengthen resilience.
Exposure and risk are increasing
Despite better information, New Zealand continues to place people, assets and infrastructure in hazard-prone locations.
Every decision about housing, transport, water infrastructure or urban expansion influences future risk. Some decisions reduce risk; others embed and increase it.
This reflects a fundamental tension in public policy: the short-term certainty of economic development versus the long-term uncertainty of costs.
Take the fast-tracked development in South Auckland, for example, which has proposed thousands of homes on flood-prone land. Despite concerns raised by Auckland Council and others, it passed the Government’s fast-track consenting process and is now the subject of a High Court appeal (at the time of writing, the court’s decision was pending).
Increasing consenting speed and reducing red tape can enable development. But it can also weaken safeguards that help ensure homes and infrastructure are built in places with lower exposure to natural hazards.
This is not just an issue for future ratepayers. Auckland Council and the Government have committed around $1.25b to buy more than 1100 properties where there is an intolerable risk to life. Reducing exposure is essential to prevent significant future costs.
The answer is not to stop growth, but rather to direct it to where people will not inherit avoidable risk. While we already seek to do this, stronger and clearer policy settings are needed to protect communities and ratepayers.
Acting on natural hazard information is also not solely a government responsibility, nor just about housing. Science must be able to support decisions across the private sector, infrastructure providers or iwi and mana whenua.
Invest now or pay later
Natural hazard resilience requires ongoing investment in science, infrastructure, policy, emergency management and community preparedness.
Infrastructure ages, protection requires maintenance, expertise is lost through underinvestment and community preparedness fades between emergencies. Financial pressures may defer investment until something breaks.
Political parties frequently emphasise financial prudence. Yet one of the clearest lessons from disasters is that failing to invest in resilience increases costs that are already being borne by communities, ratepayers and governments.
A commonly cited estimate suggests every dollar invested in resilience saves eight in avoided losses. To employ the old adage, that’s the difference between the fence at the top of the cliff and the ambulance at the bottom.
Yet resilience investment often struggles to attract sustained funding. As a recent report from the insurer IAG stated “natural hazard risk is rising faster than New Zealand’s ability to manage it”. Similarly, the Climate Change Commission has warned that adaptation progress is not keeping pace with risk.
This is not just about reducing harm; it is also sound financial management. Investment in people is equally important, from emergency management professionals to the critical role iwi and marae play during disasters.
The good news is that New Zealand has world-leading science and strong science-practice networks, growing awareness of risk, and many examples of communities and sectors responding effectively under pressure.
The challenge now is to harness what we know and make the best decisions about where we build or adapt, what we invest in, the risks we are willing to accept – and who bears them.
The next Government will not choose which hazards we face. But it will choose the levels of risk and liability we live with, how well prepared we are, and how effectively we recover.
While those issues haven’t dominated the current election campaign, the choices made may prove among the most consequential of the next decade.