Table of Contents
In brief
- OIA responses indicate NIWA conducted no historical storm research on Hawke’s Bay as Cyclone Gabrielle approached, despite past floods that may have helped inform warnings.
- Ian Wishart argues that later inquiries linked missing historical data to flawed risk assessment and nine deaths in Hawke’s Bay.
- He also questions the reassurance to the media and public after ESNZ later said there were no records of any such ministerial discussions.
Three climate scientists recently put their case for increased funding for research into extreme weather events, just as the country waved haera rā to the tail of Cyclone Vaianu and Wellington dried out after thunderstorms.
It seems like a good idea on the face of it, since, as I have now repeatedly proven since 2023, Earth Sciences NZ (ESNZ/NIWA) has had 34 years to properly research NZ’s climate extremes, and it has chosen not to.
The Coroner investigating Cyclone Gabrielle deaths heard this past month from Ella Collins, mother of the youngest victim, two-year-old Ivy. This extract from Stuff:
If the warnings that were issued before Cyclone Vaianu on the weekend had been issued before Cyclone Gabrielle in 2023, Ivy Collins would be 5-years-old now.
Asked what they would have done differently that night had they’d known what was coming, Ella replied: “We wouldn’t have been there.”
“We would never have put our babies to bed that night if we had any understanding of what was coming. We would have left if we had received any warning or any evacuation recommendation, even. We simply would have left.”
In an Official Information Act response that required the Ombudsman’s involvement, ESNZ has revealed for the first time that at no point during Cyclone Gabrielle’s approach in February 2023 did anyone in ESNZ do any research on previous big storm events in Hawke’s Bay.
I asked for: Any documents (but not news media summaries), emails, Teams transcripts, internal messages dated or created between 1 February 2023 and 16 February 2023 that mention the words “cyclone” and/or “Gabrielle”, AND which also mention storms or flooding events in Hawkes Bay in any of the following years: 1893, 1897, 1924, 1936, 1938, 1941, 1953.
I also asked for any research done after Gabrielle struck: Any documents (but not news media summaries), emails, Teams transcripts, internal messages dated or created between 17 February 2023 and 28 February 2023 that mention any of these previous historic storms or flooding events in the Hawke’s Bay region: 1893, 1897, 1924, 1936, 1938, 1941, 1953.
NIWA (as it was then named) was first asked a version of these questions in 2024. It seems to be fighting to the bitter end to avoid answering them.
We now know why. The official answer from ESNZ to those questions is:
“There was no discussion, so there are no records,” stated ESNZ bluntly.
Let that sink in for a moment. As Cyclone Gabrielle bore down on the country, NZ’s primary climate research agency seems to have given no thought to investigating the history of storms and floods in Gabrielle’s projected firing line. Armed with that information, ESNZ may well have been able to provide a heads-up of flood-prone areas in advance of cyclone landfall.
According to the OIA, not one climate scientist even discussed doing this. Not one administrator, from the Chief Executive down, raised the issue of ordering a storm-trajectory historical-precedence report. And if it wasn’t done for Hawke’s Bay, it probably wasn’t done for anywhere in the firing line.
That shortcoming was brutally laid bare in the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council’s official Gabrielle Flood Inquiry, which found that NIWA and the council were unaware of many devastating historic floods in the region, and that this lack of knowledge had been a factor in the deaths of nine local flood victims.
Civil Defence, reported the inquiry, relied on flawed data, which meant they did not appreciate the full threat they were facing, and lives were lost.
ESNZ testified to the inquiry that the Gabrielle flooding was on the order of a 1/1000-year event. The Inquiry found that if all the missing data had been included, it would have been categorised closer to a 1/50 year event: something within the Council’s responsibility to plan for.
The level of cover-up (in my view) to protect NIWA/ESNZ was incredible.
Minister Judith Collins was asked to comment on a story revealing NIWA had misled Parliament, published on 12 July 2024. Note that she confirms she instructed her office to ask questions of NIWA:
“Hi Ian
“Here’s a response from Minister Collins.
- “As the Minister of Science, Innovation, and Technology, I take your suggestion that NIWA has misled Parliament very seriously. I have had my officials engage with NIWA to ascertain the facts. My officials inform me, based on the explanations provided by NIWA, that they do not believe Parliament has been misled. This is on the basis that:
- “No historical climate records have been lost.
- “Your questions would appear to relate to NIWA’s Historic Weather Events catalogue, which is collated as time allows from newspaper articles and reports and does not comprise scientifically verified measurements and is not used in climate and weather forecasting. This is quite different to the New Zealand National Climate Database, which is a database of calibrated instrumental observations, and the record on which climate scientists nationally and internationally base their climate analyses. NIWA climate scientists, and other climate scientists nationally and internationally, use the New Zealand National Climate Database to identify and analyse weather events or trends in climate, including the frequency or severity of weather events. They do not use NIWA’s Historic Weather Events catalogue.
- “I accept these explanations. Accordingly, I confirm that I continue to have confidence in NIWA and its board.”
I then asked, back in 2024, for communications between NIWA and its minister that led to her statement where she’d said, “I have had my officials engage with NIWA to ascertain the facts. My officials inform me, based on the explanations provided by NIWA, that they do not believe Parliament has been misled.”
My questions formed parts 3 and 4 of the OIA request:
“3. Any documents (but not news media summaries), emails, Teams transcripts, internal messages dated or created between 8 July 2024 and 1 August 2024 as a consequence of my emails to NIWA, NIWA’s directors, MBIE and the Minister’s office on 8/7/24, 9/7/24, 10/7/24, 11/7/24, 15/7/24, 24/7/24 and 25/7/24. For the avoidance of confusion, I am specifically seeking communications to and from NIWA, and within NIWA and/or its Board, generated to discuss, brief, draft or consider drafting responses to the matters raised by me in my emails or the stories published on 12 July and 26 July on the Centrist website.
“4. Any documents (but not news media summaries), emails, Teams transcripts, internal messages dated or created between 1 June 2024 and 1 August 2024 that discuss the findings of the HBRC independent review into cyclone Gabrielle flooding released 24 July 2024.
Under pressure from the Ombudsman, Earth Sciences NZ gave its final response to those questions in 2026:
“There was no discussion, so there are no records for points 3 and 4.”
The implications of this are extremely serious in my view. ESNZ has now admitted it did “zero” research on historic extreme events in Hawke’s Bay despite knowing that Cyclone Gabrielle was tracking to hit that area. The official inquiry then found NIWA’s missing data was a factor in 9 deaths. The Minister issued a statement claiming she sought clarification from ESNZ and claims she was told no data was missing. And now ESNZ is denying under the OIA that any ministerial questions were ever asked.
Now it remains entirely plausible that ESNZ/NIWA was not being truthful about the Minister not asking questions, as she claimed. Centrist investigations have already proven the climate agency has form for that. But no one in authority is asking the hard questions.
This should be front-page news, especially in a country with climate disasters like the recent Mt Maunganui slip.
What then are we to make of three climate scientists seeking more funding for research into extreme weather?
My OIA inquiries also established that NIWA and the taxpayer-supported Endeavour Fund have pumped millions of dollars into computer modelling projects, which excluded the above-noted historical storm events in Hawke’s Bay.
NIWA could have used its Historical Weather Events database, and did in fact do so – AFTER they were ordered to prepare data for the Gabrielle Flood Inquiry. Ironically, “hwe.niwa.co.nz” was the only NIWA database quoted in NIWA’s inquiry submission.
I say “ironically” because, to add insult to injury, Science Minister Collins – allegedly at NIWA’s behest – said in her statement that HWE didn’t need to contain full records because it was never used for scientific purposes. The statement was untrue. No fewer than 82 studies on Google Scholar cite the “hwe.niwa” database, including studies by the Ministry for the Environment and NIWA itself.
Collins, at the end of the day, can only draw on the information that ESNZ/NIWA tells her. It’s very hard to believe that she dreamed up NIWA’s talking points on her own.
In an apparent backlash against Centrist’s coverage of HWE, Earth Sciences last year took the site down – leaving those 82 climate studies as dead links.
If climate scientists are serious about researching historic weather events, they should be putting pressure on ESNZ to restore HWE and fill in the blanks from historical news reports.
