Local Speeches

Below you will find key speeches Nick has made throughout Nelson and in Parliament. If you require more information, email Nick's office.

New Challenges for Earthquake Engineering Post-Christchurch 2011

Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering

Hotel Pullman, Auckland

15 April 2011

It is a real privilege to join you at this Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering at this pivotal time when the Government and New Zealand is so focused on the challenges arising from Christchurch’s recent quakes.

Can I acknowledge Peter Wood, President of the NZ Society, our international guests from Japan, United States, Europe and South America. I also acknowledge my engineering colleagues likes of John Birrell, Andrew Buchanan, Nigel Priestley, and Mick Pender.

I particularly wish to acknowledge my good friend Bruce Deam who continues to ask when I intend to get myself a real job.

I remember well when I first arrived at Parliament, PhD under belt, when I was confronted by former Prime Minister, Sir Robert Muldoon. He wanted to know simply whether I was one of those doctors who made you well or one of those who made you sick. I hope this evening I achieve the former.

This evening I want to give a Government perspective on the huge challenges that we face in rebuilding Christchurch. I want to share some opinions on how I believe our engineering, civil defence, and emergency systems shaped up in response to the devastating earthquakes, first at Darfield on 4 September and then in Christchurch on 22 February.

I want to give some perspective on what the Government’s objectives are in setting up the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the failures of the CTV, PGC and Forsyth Barr buildings.

I want to outline our Government’s plans and strategy for rebuilding Christchurch. I also want to raise some longer-term questions that in time Government will need to address around the adequacy of our RMA and subdivision framework for managing liquefaction risk, whether our EQC model needs refinement for the future, and obvious questions about the adequacy of our prudential supervision of insurance companies in the wake of the AMI collapse.

All these issues are important, but we must never lose sight as engineers of the very human dimension of our work. Every one of those 181 lives lost is a father, husband, brother, son; mother, wife, sister, or daughter. The scenes from this quake will be passed down through generations.

And our loss of life in Christchurch pales into insignificance when compared to the 20,000 plus who have perished in North-east Japan. In a tragic way, the events this year have brought New Zealand and Japan closer together. Tomorrow I leave for a Ministerial visit to Japan on a mix of environmental, climate change and earthquake-related business. Just as for engineers, it is important that Governments learn and share as much as possible on how we can better mitigate the risks and manage the aftermath of earthquakes.

It is important in this context that we also pay tribute to those that have gone before us.

I think particularly of the lives of Professors Park and Pauley. I shudder to think of the scale of the loss of life that would have occurred had these gentlemen, and their protégée not made the huge leaps forward in earthquake resistant design over the past half century.

The comparison I have made publicly is that if the fatality rate in Napier from 1931 had been translated to Christchurch in 2011 we would have more than 3500 fatalities. It is not too much to argue that the endeavours of two generations of earthquake researchers and engineers saved more than 3000 lives on February 2011.

But the challenge today is to do better again. We should never as a profession pretend we can eliminate all loss of life or all risk anymore than Ken Ring pretends he can predict the timing of quakes.

I recently gathered with a group of sceptics at the Sign of the Kiwi on the Port Hills to challenge the pseudo-scientific claims of some about earthquakes.

I do so not so much as to take the Mickey out of the Moon Man, but to stress in these difficult and trying times the importance rational science in managing risks like earthquakes.

I recall very vividly last November in the days immediately following the Pike River Mine tragedy the loud cries for Government to ignore the mining engineers and mine rescue leaders and send men into the mine. Talk back radio rallied with instant experts. The double explosions just days later were a stark reminder that cool heads and rational risk assessments must rule over populism in disaster management.

The first important point I wish to make in respect of the Christchurch Earthquake is that there is so much of which we can be proud of as a nation in the way our systems and people have responded.

Our emergency services did an outstanding job. There is so much that can go wrong in managing a disaster of this sort, when telecommunication systems go down, when power is lost, when roads are closed, and when minutes can make the difference between life and death.

Inevitably the first hours of a disaster are chaos. There will always be examples of where, in hindsight, better decisions could have been made. But overall our civil defence, police, ambulance and our hospital services can be proud of their response.

It has been entirely appropriate that much praise has been heaped on Urban Search and Rescue teams from New Zealand and abroad. I restate this countries sincere gratitude to our friends from Australia, UK, Japan, China, Taiwan, United States, and Singapore who helped out in our hour of need.

I particularly want to pay tribute to the dozens of engineers, many at this conference, who after both the 4 September and 22 February quakes worked tirelessly to make the hundreds of immediate assessments on building safety.

I don’t think the public appreciate the difficult of this work. There is enormous pressure to open up access to buildings and let people get on with their lives, yet the public will judge very harshly any injuries or loss of life if something goes wrong. I do not wish to pre-judge any of the specific issues before the Royal Commission, but to say that as a member of the profession, I am proud of the way engineers collectively responded.

The earthquake has also brought out a generosity of spirit throughout the country and around the world for Canterbury. Tens of millions has been voluntarily raised. Neighbour has helped neighbour. Strangers have opened their homes to victims. The disaster has brought out the very best in our national spirit.

The process of restoring infrastructure is progressing well.

It is a pretty impressive effort 7 weeks after the fateful quake that 99% of households have power restored, 100% water and 94% sewerage. This compares very favourably with similar scale earthquakes in Kobe, San Francisco, and recently in L'Aquila in Italy.

The next important step for Government is the recovery.

Parliament this week was in urgency to pass the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act.

It establishes a new agency, the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority, or CERA, to lead the rebuild. The scale of this job is way beyond a local authority in scale and difficulty. The experience from other disasters overseas is that a specifically-tasked, locally-based central Government agency is the best model for this work.

There are three delicate balances that the Government has had to grapple with in the design of the legislation.

The first is the tension between the speed of recovery and consultation. Major decisions on Christchurch's future need to be made quickly and if we waited for the long drawn out consultation and appeal process of the normal local government and resource management acts, confidence in Canterbury would collapse. However, some consultation is critical if we are to get the wide buy-in and community support for our recovery plans.

The second tension we need to manage is between public safety and heritage. The balance has moved significantly towards safety from the pre-earthquake public mood and the public will be seeking high levels of assurances that their new city is safe. We also must be mindful of Christchurch's rich heritage and iconic buildings of which we will need to make a significant investment in to retain. The balance between these competing values will require the wisdom of Solomon.

The third tension is between the idealism of those who want to build the perfect new city and economic reality that people cannot be forced to reinvest.

We do want to take the opportunity to rebuild Christchurch in a contemporary way. Big improvements can be made its urban design and sustainability.

We also need a good dose of realism. We need to be careful that new planning rules are economically viable. There are bad examples internationally post disaster where financially unrealistic designs have been adopted resulting in a flight of investment. We need to recognise that building owners receiving an insurance cheque can choose whether or not to re-invest in the city.

The special legislation is required to ensure we do not get locked into a Mexican stand-off, and to give CERA the powers to get on and do what is required.

A real priority for the Government is for as us to move quickly on any changes to the building code so the improved experience and knowledge from the earthquake is incorporated in the rebuild.

This work has begun with the Department of Building and Housing review and inquiry that will feed into the Royal Commission. I acknowledge Nigel Priestley's involvement in this initial work, and the two engineering experts to support Justice Mark Cooper, Sir Ron Carter and Associate Professor Richard Fenwick. I have had an input into ensuring solid engineering experts on the Royal Commission.

Its role is very important in two respects. The first is that the families of loved ones deserve an answer as to why those particular buildings failed. They need re-assurances that any lessons from this tragedy are addressed.

The second important dimension of their work is the adequacy of our building laws, codes and practice. This, of course, needs to be recognise the substantial improvements made since these buildings were designed.

A key part of the new legislation is provision for fast-track recovery plans that over-ride existing planning documents. This will enable CERA to quickly rebuild permanent infrastructure like power, water and sewage. Provision is made for greater consultation around the major decisions on Christchurch's __ CBD and the development of new suburbs on Christchurch's more stable western soils.

Another very challenging priority is regaining ___ excess to the CBD, that also requires some very thorny issues. Buildings need to be demolished quickly to enable access to adjacent areas but who takes liability for any damage done to sound adjacent buildings that may occur in this process.

I want to strongly encourage the valuable input from the Society of Earthquake Engineers both as a group and individually, into this important process.

There are important policy issues beyond these building failures arising from the Christchurch earthquake, particularly in respect of the widespread liquefaction that occurred in the Western suburbs and which will make up the bulk of the rebuild costs.

I am not satisfied as Minister in charge of the Resource Management Act that sufficient weight was given to the liquefaction risks in approving some of the Eastern Christchurch subdivisions.

I can forgive those older suburbs when the liquefaction risks were not well understood, but significant areas were built well after this.

I am currently considering the proper course of action to pursue these questions. The first step will be in building up an accurate record of the resource management processes for these developments.

There may also be wider questions that flow from these investigations. For instance, the RMA lists matters of national importance that must be considered in approving subdivisions covering such things as the protection of natural character, indigenous vegetation, amenity, heritage and even trout and salmon.

It does not, however, require considering of natural hazards, and I suspect the homeowner rates this as far more important. I suspect this is something us law makers may need to reconsider.

My very last point to this conference is regarding research. There is a mine of information to come out of Christchurch that your profession needs to gather, analyse, research and test so we might lift our knowledge of earthquakes to a new level.

I pay tribute to the work of John Berrill in establishing the network of seismographs whose data is going to be just so valuable in moving forward both in New Zealand and internationally.

I commit myself to working with you to help secure the resources to drive this next phase of earthquake design improvements.

Thank you again for all your work. Our community, like at no other time in our history, needs your talents to build a better future.

ENDS

Alcohol Reform Bill – First Reading

11 November 2010 Speech

Mr Speaker,

I want to commend Justice Minister Simon Power on the very considered way that he has brought this package of sensible alcohol reforms to this Parliament.

History is littered with ideological lurches on alcohol law here and abroad. We’ve had prohibition. We’ve had the six o’clock swill. We’ve had phases of liberalism such as with the current 1989 Sale of Liquor Act.

This reform is balanced, it’s pragmatic, it’s thorough. Far from gutting the Law Commission’s report as claimed by the Labour Opposition it picks up on 126 of their 153 recommendations. It will make a difference to reducing the harm from alcohol in our community without us becoming wowzers or penalising those who responsibly enjoy a wine or a beer.

My interest in this issue is both as the MP for Nelson and as Minister for ACC.

Nelson has had a surge of violence – most connected to the abuse of alcohol – over the past six months.

Nelson is no worse than many other communities but I can tell you that people have had enough. They want Government to not just tackle crime but also tackle the causes of crime.

As ACC Minister, I have become far more aware of the real fiscal cost to our country of alcohol abuse. Drink driving is just the tip of the iceberg. Nearly a quarter of all accidents – falls, assaults, drownings, etc – costing $650 million a year have alcohol as a contributing factor.

The parts I like about this Bill are firstly stricter licensing. The 1989 laissez-faire approach has not worked. We have too many booze outlets, particularly in some of our most vulnerable communities.

I also back the tough approach taken to RTDs. The academic may argue that the form alcohol is sold in doesn’t matter – the reality is that high alcohol RTDs are behind much of the worst abuse. The advantage of lower alcohol drinks is simply that the bladder starts to fail before the brain does.

I also back the measures around the drinking age. I voted for 18 in 1998 but I’m happy to put my hand up and say I got it wrong. The part I and I believe Parliament totally underestimated was the degree to which the age of 18 has enabled 17, 16, 15 and even 13 and 14 year olds to get access to alcohol. The strength of the approach in this Bill is making it an offence to supply under 18s, in putting some onus on host responsibility and in only allowing on-license sales for 18 and 19 year olds.

I also want to back the provision in this Bill that gives our Councils far greater discretion over local alcohol laws. There are some issues that should be regulated nationally – cell phone towers, vehicle standards, building standards – but alcohol has a distinctly local focus.

What’s best in the viaduct basin in Auckland, in Queenstown or in suburban Nelson is quite different. We need to empower communities to be able to make their own choices between tourism, hospitality and harm reduction, and recognise that different rules are quite appropriate for different neighbourhoods.

There are hundreds of changes in this Bill. It is not the last word. The community needs the opportunity to have their say on these proposals. It is a good starting point for this debate. This Government is committed to listening carefully during the Select Committee process.

There is no question we need to tighten our alcohol laws. We need to work hard to get the detail right so we better manage the harm caused by alcohol and build a more responsible culture in respect of alcohol.

Mr Speaker, I commend this Bill to the House.