Q & A with John Tookey

What can you tell us about the Wairau Valley/Wairau Park flooding problems?

Not normally in my stomping ground but as I understand the current issues - Wairau Park has experienced significant flooding, particularly during Cyclone Gabrielle 2023. The Wairau Stream channel was unable to handle the volume of water, leading to extensive damage to properties, including the Eventfinda Stadium. The reason for this is in large part two-fold – firstly the large amount of infill development has successively increased the volume of water being 'shed' into the stream from impermeable land coverage (i.e roads, concrete and housing etc). Secondly there was a huge amount of water dumped into the area as a result of the atypical weather event. The result was – no pun intended – the perfect storm. However, this is not a one off that can safely be ignored. My understanding is that there has been a history of similar but less extreme incidents in the past. Notwithstanding which our council saw fit to grant development consents in the area without spending too much time addressing the amelioration that may be necessary.

The effects of the damage to property, the implications for insurance and property valuations, as well as the death of its citizens has prompted Auckland Council to spring into action. Needless to say, with the speed of an asthmatic slug carrying heavy shopping. The 'closing of the stable door' is taking place in the form of Auckland Council working on flood resilience projects, including increasing stormwater storage and restoring streams. A key part of this is repurposing AF Thomas Park (formerly Takapuna Golf Course) to create a multi-use recreational flood storage wetland. They are talking great game at present with extensive policy available to review - https://ourauckland.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/news/2025/03/next-steps-to-improve-flood-resilience-for-the-wairau-community/. It remains to be seen whether the rate of investment in amelioration efforts can keep up with development in the area as well as the current policy (or non-policy) on flood plain development that is held by Council.

Do you think adaptation alone is the path NZ should be on rather than reducing emissions and pollution?

Our current contribution to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of the planet is minimal in the grand scheme of things. New Zealand contributes 0.17% to global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions - that having been said, it is roughly three times its share of the world's population (0.06%). While this percentage is relatively small on a global scale, New Zealand's per capita emissions are high compared to other developed countries. The reason for this is the farming sector primarily – the famous cow fart issue that I am sure you will be familiar with – along with the subsequent repeal of the associated legislation (https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2024/6/11/new-zealand-scraps-burp-tax-on-livestock-after-backlash-from-farmers). I guess the issue comes down to the fact that while we should do our bit, we also have to make a living and feed an awful lot of the world's population on the back of our agricultural productivity.

My own view is that while we are legally liable, and therefore must, do our part to help the efforts (notwithstanding the non-efforts of the US and China etc), our infrastructural investment requirements for mitigation are disproportionate to other countries. We are a tiny population spread over a country slightly larger than the size of the UK. Our logistics lifelines are long and tenuous and not sufficiently trafficked to make enhancements and improvements rapidly and cost effectively. Look at how hard it is to make the rail system viable or to enhance the long-distance road network.

Consequently, our infrastructure is disproportionately vulnerable to such a large-scale problem. So, while adaptation is not something we should do in isolation from GHG reductions etc, given the need to prioritise expenditures I would personally prioritise putting in place the necessary mitigation measures over the medium term. The truism of life is that the cheapest infrastructure you can put in place is the stuff that is being built now. Doesn't matter what the project is, next year it will cost more. The year after, more again etc. Mitigation efforts like sea walls and flood defences etc ought to be prioritised now. By contrast putting in place processes and systems is cheap. Most GHG emission projects are based on legislation (i.e. processes and systems) rather than big bits of infrastructure per se.

Why does it take so long to build infrastructure like the Waterview Tunnel?

Politics.

The 3-year electoral cycle practically encourages the politicians of a newly installed government to stride in to the centre of policy decisions to 'use their mandate' to 'reduce waste' and 'rethink budgets' in the name of 'new policy imperatives'. Waterview started in 2000 with initial consultations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterview_Tunnel), even when in 2008, bored tunnels were announced as Transit's preferred option they still went with the cheaper option of a pair of two-lane tunnels costing $1.89 billion, rather than a pair of three-lane tunnels costing $2.14 billion.

This was in spite of the NZTA's traffic modelling indicating that two-lane tunnels would reach capacity within 10 years of operation. Once again this was about getting the project 'over the line' in terms of political approvals and funding. Resilience assured? Future proofing delivered? I think not. Reading the sequence outlined in the Wikipedia link I have given here and that ultimately took place is instructive. It gives an idea as to the complexity of the undertaking. The 'flash' (initial consultation) to 'bang' (i.e. ground broken) time was around a decade. The actual build time was substantially less – planning 10 years, construction 7. However, during that period what else had happened that could not have been predicted? War in Afghanistan and Iraq. Oil price spikes. War in Libya. War in Syria. More cost spikes. Housing booms. Skills shortages. Global Financial crisis 2008 etc etc etc. Trying to predict overall costs and final completion time is an absolute bust. Same as the City Rail Link at the moment.

Long story short, it takes a hell of a long time in our society to get things moving – by which time the world and the markets have moved on. Result? Everything takes too long and costs too much, ending up with the feeling of a 'day late and a dollar short' all the time.

I have heard people say that borrowing to spend on infrastructure is an investment.

Borrowing to build infrastructure could be conceived an investment. The reason being that the expenditure is usually delimited to a set number of years. By contrast the received value to society (return on investment) is indefinite; also nett present value of the asset tends to linger for many years. You tend not to write off the value of a road ever whereas a car is written off in 5 years.